Do some research it becomes clear quickly what the real story is. Hillary and her bunch
stink to high heaven and have or YEARS. Started with her and husband. They sold this country
o or personal gain.Just search a little and make sure to use factual information. It is there
for anyone to find.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Agent Smith, you testified that the Russians hacked the DNC computers, is that correct?
FBI AGENT JOHN SMITH: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Upon what information did you base your testimony?
AGENT: Information found in reports analyzing the breach of the computers.
DEF ATT: So, the FBI prepared these reports?
AGENT: (cough) . (shift in seat) No, a cyber security contractor with the FBI.
DEF ATT: Pardon me, why would a contractor be preparing these reports? Do these contractors run the FBI laboratories where
the server was examined?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: No? No what? These contractors don't run the FBI Laboratories?
AGENT: No. The laboratories are staffed by FBI personnel.
DEF ATT: Well I don't understand. Why would contractors be writing reports about computers that are forensically examined in
FBI laboratories?
AGENT: Well, the servers were not examined in the FBI laboratory.
(silence)
DEF ATT: Oh, so the FBI examined the servers on site to determine who had hacked them and what was taken?
AGENT: Uh .. no.
DEF ATT: They didn't examine them on site?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, where did they examine them?
AGENT: Well, uh .. the FBI did not examine them.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: The FBI did not directly examine the servers.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, the FBI has presented to the Grand Jury and to this court and SWORN AS FACT that the Russians hacked
the DNC computers. You are basing your SWORN testimony on a report given to you by a contractor, while the FBI has NEVER actually
examined the computer hardware?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, who prepared the analysis reports that the FBI relied on to give this sworn testimony?
AGENT: Crowdstrike, Inc.
DEF ATT: So, which Crowdstrike employee gave you the report?
AGENT: We didn't receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: What?
AGENT: We did not receive the report directly from Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Well, where did you find this report?
AGENT: It was given to us by the people who hired Crowdstrike to examine and secure their computer network and hardware.
DEF ATT: Oh, so the report was given to you by the technical employees for the company that hired Crowdstrike to examine their
servers?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Well, who gave you the report?
AGENT: Legal counsel for the company that hired Crowdstrike.
DEF ATT: Why would legal counsel be the ones giving you the report?
AGENT: I don't know.
DEF ATT: Well, what company hired Crowdstrike?
AGENT: The Democratic National Committee.
DEF ATT: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You are giving SWORN testimony to this court that Russia hacked the servers
of the Democratic National Committee. And you are basing that testimony on a report given to you by the LAWYERS for the Democratic
National Committee. And you, the FBI, never actually saw or examined the computer servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Well, can you provide a copy of the technical report produced by Crowdstrike for the Democratic National Committee?
AGENT: No, I cannot.
DEF ATT: Well, can you go back to your office and get a copy of the report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why? Are you locked out of your office?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: I don't understand. Why can you not provide a copy of this report?
AGENT: Because I do not have a copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Did you lose it?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why do you not have a copy of the report?
AGENT: Because we were never given a final copy of the report.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, if you didn't get a copy of the report, upon what information are you basing your testimony?
AGENT: On a draft copy of the report.
DEF ATT: A draft copy?
AGENT: Yes.
DEF ATT: Was a final report ever delivered to the FBI?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, did you get to read the entire report?
AGENT: No.
DEF ATT: Why not?
AGENT: Because large portions were redacted.
DEF ATT: Agent Smith, let me get this straight. The FBI is claiming that the Russians hacked the DNC servers. But the FBI never
actually saw the computer hardware, nor examined it? Is that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And the FBI never actually examined the log files or computer email or any aspect of the data from the servers? Is
that correct?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: And you are basing your testimony on the word of Counsel for the Democratic National Committee, the people who provided
you with a REDACTED copy of a DRAFT report, not on the actual technical personnel who supposedly examined the servers?
AGENT: That is correct.
DEF ATT: Your honor, I have a few motions I would like to make at this time.
PRESIDING JUDGE: I'm sure you do, Counselor. (as he turns toward the prosecutors) And I feel like I am in a mood to grant them.
Brilliant! that sums it up nicely. of course, if the servers were not hacked and were instead "thumbnailed" that leads to a
whole pile of other questions (including asking wiileaks for their source and about the murder of seth rich).
I know Keynes said "In the long run we are all dead"
It might be not that long. The empire and war go together. And now this means the nuclear
war, which will be decided on much lower level that we suspect. Ukraine is a real flashpoint
as Russia is incensed with the USA stage coup d'état (aka the "Revolution of Dignity",
aka Nulandgate ) and feels greatly endangered by it. As Daniel Ellsberg puts it in his 2018
talk at Google ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7cJG9j0NdY
):
But in terms of American traditions, we thought of ourselves as -- we didn't think -- of
having run the first war of national liberation. But it could have been called that, the
first war of separation for an empire. And we thought of ourselves as anti-imperial. And we
still think of ourselves that way, as not an empire like the others. That's false.
That's very clear from the Pentagon Papers where we're deciding who should run Vietnam
this year or next year or how they should stay in power, what criminal acts they're
entitled to take, how much we need to support them. And so it's very obviously the
documents of an empire. In fact, that's what I said to my wife, when she said, at one
point, before they came out, does it really matter to get this history out? And I said,
well, among other things, it's the first real history of imperial operations since the
Nuremberg documents were discovered, covered after the Second World War. And before that,
it probably goes back to Punic times, to the Syrian empire, to Sumerian empire, and so
probably all the same, but we don't have the documents for it.
And here they are. And yet, even so, I managed to think of it as an aberration. We had
somehow gotten ourselves into acting like an empire. Let me say just very briefly
now– I could spend the whole time on this. But I'll just say, I've come recently to
see what we are as a covert empire. And covert refers to plausibly denial covert
operations.
Covert operations, I should say, are defined as operations that are not just secret,
that you're not just keeping it safe, but that you lie about plausibly. And to make it
plausible, you provide in advance evidence, false evidence, misleading evidence as to
what's really going on and who's running it and why it's happening and who did it and so
forth, a false flag in some cases, whatever.
But you provide several layers of cover for what's being done to protect the president
from the notion that he is murdering, overthrowing governments, installing coup governments
in democracies and so forth, as so often in the third world then and now, up until now.
Well, you don't want the US to be associated with that. It's happening over there.
And if somehow a US hand surfaces, he or she wasn't working for any agency. And if you
find the agency, it wasn't the CIA. And if it was the CIA, it wasn't the president. So you
have layer after layer of cover stories with documents. I didn't know this. It didn't come
to my attention. This so-and-so did it and so forth. The Vietnam War was run from beginning
to end like that. That's how we run our empire.
We deny that we are an empire. And what is an empire? A country that determines the
regime of other countries, decides who the police chief was, who shall live and who shall
die, what the basic foreign policies are. We do that throughout Central America and always
have, often many other parts of the world as far apart as Indonesia, now the Middle East.
In general, we decide: Who do we want? Is this guy OK? We don't decide every detail but any
more than you decide every detail of a military commander's operations.
But generally, they work. If they don't do what we want, we replace them with somebody
else. We deny that we're an empire. We're against empire. When other people do the same
sort of thing, they're empires. They're acting imperially. First level of denial on the
American part. And then second, how do they get in power? Who has to be killed? What
paramilitary forces have to be paid and go in, as into Nicaragua, for example, and other
places? So the efforts are also plausibly denied OK, I could spend time. And I don't know
if people have it in mind.
The author makes clear that the accidental nuclear war scenarios laid out in Dr
Strangelove, Fail-Safe, The Bedford Incident et al are, in real life, very much more
probable than the authorities would have us believe.
The probability of one or other of these being triggered unofficially is terrifyingly
high.
"We have no concept of a preemptive strike," Putin told a forum of international experts
in the southern city of Sochi in response to a question from the audience.
"In such a situation, we expect to be struck by nuclear weapons, but we will not use
them" first, he said.
"The aggressor will have to understand that retaliation is inevitable, that it will be
destroyed and that we, as victims of aggression, as martyrs, will go to heaven.
"They will simply die because they won't even have time to repent,"
"... If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal fakery. What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS. ..."
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
Thanks sleeply,
But underlying your comment is an assumption of *logic* in this world. If it ever existed it
certainly does not
apply any longer. Look how much mileage the MSM and the anti-Democracy Party got out of the
nothingburger Russiagate.
The MSM doesn't even need to smell real blood, they will run with anything to continue the
coup.
Anything negative that involves Edward Gallagher between now and election day could be
magnified 1 million-fold and
repeated 1000 million times by the MSM and dropped in Trump's lap.
If the CIA/MI6/FBI did attempt to create a sting it need not be as dramatic as the Skripal
fakery.
What would you dream up if you were tasked by the CIA to propose something? KISS.
In the time-honored tradition of Machiavellian statecraft, all of the charges being leveled against Donald Trump to remove him
from office – namely, 'abuse of power' and 'obstruction of congress' –are essentially the same things the Democratic Party has been
guilty of for nearly half a decade : abusing their powers in a non-stop attack on the executive branch. Is the reason because they
desperately need a 'get out of jail free' card?
Due to the non-stop action in Washington of late, few believe that the present state of affairs between the Democrats and Donald
Trump are exclusively due to a telephone call between the US leader and the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That is only
scratching the surface of a story that is practically boundless.
Back in April 2016, before Trump had become the Republican presidential nominee, talk of impeachment was already in the air.
"Donald Trump isn't even the Republican nominee yet,"
wrote Darren Samuelsohn in Politico.
Yet impeachment, he noted, is "already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few
members of Congress."
The timing of Samuelsohn's article is not a little astonishing given what the Department of Justice (DOJ) had discovered just
one month earlier.
In March 2016, the DOJ found that "the FBI had been employing outside contractors who had access to raw Section 702 Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) data, and retained that access after their work for the FBI was completed," as Jeff Carlson
reported in The Epoch Times.
That sort of foreign access to sensitive data is highly improper and was the result of "deliberate decision-making," according
to the findings of an April 2017 FISA court ruling (
footnote
69 ).
On April 18, 2016, then-National Security Agency (NSA) Director Adm. Mike Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to terminate
all FBI outside-contractor access. Later, on Oct. 21, 2016, the FBI and the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), and despite they
were aware of Rogers's actions, moved ahead anyways with a request for a FISA warrant to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page. The request was approved by the FISA court, which, apparently, was still in the dark about the violations.
On Oct. 26, following approval of the warrant against Page, Rogers went to the FISA court to inform them of the FBI's non-compliance
with the rules. Was it just a coincidence that at exactly this time, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton B. Carter were suddenly
calling for Roger's removal? The request was eventually rejected. The next month, in mid-November 2016 Rogers, without first
notifying his superiors, flew to New York where he had a private meeting with Trump at Trump Towers.
According to the New York Times,
the meeting – the details of which were never publicly divulged, but may be guessed at – "caused consternation at senior levels
of the administration."
Democratic obstruction of justice?
Then CIA Director John Brennan, dismayed about a few meetings Trump officials had with the Russians, helped to kick-start the
FBI investigation over 'Russian collusion.' Notably, these Trump-Russia meetings occurred in December 2016, as the incoming administration
was in the difficult transition period to enter the White House. The Democrats made sure they made that transition as ugly as possible.
Although it is perfectly normal for an incoming government to meet with foreign heads of state at this critical juncture, a meeting
at Trump Tower between Michael Flynn, Trump's incoming national security adviser and former Russian Ambassador to the US, Sergey
Kislyak, was portrayed as some kind of cloak and dagger scene borrowed from a John le Carré thriller.
Brennan questioning the motives behind high-level meetings between the Trump team and some Russians is strange given that the
lame duck Obama administration was in the process of redialing US-Russia relations back to the Cold War days, all based on the debunked
claim that Moscow handed Trump the White House on a silver platter.
In late December 2016, after Trump had already won the election, Obama slapped Russia with punitive sanctions,
expelled
35 Russian diplomats and closed down two Russian facilities. Since part of Trump's campaign platform was to mend relations with
Moscow, would it not seem logical that the incoming administration would be in damage-control, doing whatever necessary to prevent
relations between the world's premier nuclear powers from degrading even more?
So if it wasn't 'Russian collusion' that motivated the Democrats into action, what was it?
From Benghazi to Seth Rich
Here we must pause and remind ourselves about the unenviable situation regarding Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, who
was being grilled daily over her use of a private computer to
communicate
sensitive documents via email. In all likelihood, the incident would have dropped from the radar had it not been for the deadly
2012 Benghazi attacks on a US compound.
In the course of a House Select Committee investigation into the circumstances surrounding the attacks, which resulted in the
death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other US personnel, Clinton handed over some 30,000 emails, while reportedly deleting
32,000 deemed to be of a "personal nature". Those emails remain unaccounted for to this day.
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
By March 2015, even the traditionally tepid media was baring its baby fangs, relentlessly
pursuing Clinton over the email question. Since Clinton never made a secret of her presidential ambitions, even political allies
were piling on. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), for example,
said it's time for Clinton "to step up" and explain herself, adding that "silence is going to hurt her."
On July 24, 2015, The New York Times
published a front-page story with the headline "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Clinton's Use of Email." Later, Jennifer Rubin of
the Washington Post candidly
summed up Clinton's rapidly deteriorating status with elections fast approaching: "Democrats still show no sign they are willing
to abandon Clinton. Instead, they seem to be heading into the 2016 election with a deeply flawed candidate schlepping around plenty
of baggage -- the details of which are not yet known."
Moving into 2016, things began to look increasingly complicated for the Democratic front-runner. On March 16, 2016, WikiLeaks
launched a searchable archive for over 30 thousand emails and attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server
while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547-page treasure trove spans the dates from June 30, 2010 to August 12, 2014.
In May, about one month after Clinton had officially announced her candidacy for the US presidency, the State Department's inspector
general released an 83-page report that was highly critical of Clinton's email practices, concluding that Clinton failed to seek
legal approval for her use of a private server.
"At a minimum," the report determined, "Secretary Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not comply with the Department's policies that were implemented
in accordance with the Federal Records Act."
The following month brought more bad news for Clinton and her presidential hopes after it was
reported that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had a 30-minute tęte-ŕ-tęte with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch,
whose department was leading the Clinton investigations, on the tarmac at Phoenix International Airport. Lynch said Clinton decided
to pay her an impromptu visit where the two discussed "his grandchildren and his travels and things like that." Republicans, however,
certainly weren't buying the story as the encounter came as the FBI was preparing to file its recommendation to the Justice Department.
The summer of 2016, however, was just heating up.
I take @LorettaLynch &
@billclinton at their word that their convo
in Phoenix didn't touch on probe. But foolish to create such optics.
On the early morning of July 10, Seth Rich, the director of voter expansion for the Democratic National Committee (DNC), was gunned
down on the street in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Rich's murder, said to be the result of a botched robbery,
bucked the homicide trend in the area for that particular period; murders rates
for the first six months of 2016 were down about 50 percent from the same period in the previous year.
In any case, the story gets much stranger. Just five days earlier, on July 5th, the computers at the DNC were compromised, purportedly
by an online persona with the moniker "Guccifer 2.0" at the behest of Russian intelligence. This is where the story of "Russian hacking"
first gained popularity. Not everyone, however, was buying the explanation.
In July 2017, a group of former U.S. intelligence officers, including NSA specialists, who call themselves Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) sent a memo to President Trump that challenged a January intelligence assessment that expressed "high
confidence" that the Russians had organized an "influence campaign" to harm Hillary Clinton's "electability," as if she wasn't capable
of that without Kremlin support.
"Forensic studies of 'Russian hacking' into Democratic National Committee computers last year reveal that on July 5, 2016, data
was leaked (not hacked) by a person with physical access to DNC computer," the memo states (The memo's conclusions were based on
analyses of metadata provided by the online persona Guccifer 2.0, who took credit for the alleged hack). "Key among the findings
of the independent forensic investigations is the conclusion that the DNC data was copied onto a storage device at a speed that far
exceeds an Internet capability for a remote hack."
In other words, according to VIPS, the compromise of the DNC computers was the result of an internal leak, not an external hack.
At this point, however, it needs mentioned that the VIPS memo has sparked dissenting views among its members. Several analysts
within the group have spoken out against its findings, and that internal debate can be read
here . Thus, it would
seem there is no 'smoking gun,' as of yet, to prove that the DNC was not hacked by an external entity. At the same time, the murder
of Seth Rich continues to remain an unsolved "botched robbery," according to investigators. Meanwhile, the one person who may hold
the key to the mystery, Julian Assange, is said to be withering away Belmarsh Prison, a high-security London jail, where he is awaiting
a February court hearing that will decide whether he will be extradited to the United States where he 18 charges.
Here is a question to ponder: If you were Julian Assange, and you knew you were going to be extradited to the United States, who
would you rather be the sitting president in charge of your fate, Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Think twice before answering.
"Because you'd be in jail"
On October 9, 2016, in the second televised presidential debates between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Trump
accused his Democratic opponent of deleting 33,000 emails,
while adding that he would get a "special prosecutor and we're going to look into it " To this, Clinton said "it's just awfully good
that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country," to which Trump deadpanned, without
missing a beat, "because you'd be in jail."
Now if that remark didn't get the attention of high-ranking Democratic officials, perhaps Trump's comments at a Virginia rally
days later, when he promised to "drain the swamp," made folks sit up and take notice.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/slLCjLcgqbc
At this point the leaks, hacks and everything in between were already coming fast and furious. On October 7, John Podesta, Clinton's
presidential campaign manager, had his personal Gmail account hacked, thereby releasing a torrent of inside secrets, including how
Donna Brazile, then a CNN commentator, had fed Clinton debate questions. But of course the crimes did not matter to the mendacious
media, only the identity of the alleged messenger, which of course was 'Russia.'
By now, the only thing more incredible than the dirt being produced on Clinton was the fact that she was still in the presidential
race, and even slated to win by a wide margin. But perhaps her biggest setback came when authorities, investigating
Anthony Weiner's abused laptop into illicit text messages he sent to a 15-year-old girl, stumbled upon thousands of email messages
from Hillary Clinton.
Now Comey had to backpedal on his conclusion in July that although Clinton was "extremely careless" in her use of her electronic
devices, no criminal charges would be forthcoming. He announced an 11th hour investigation, just days before the election. Although
Clinton was also cleared in this case, observers never forgave Comey for his actions,
arguing they cost Clinton the White House.
Now James Comey is back in the spotlight as one of the main characters in the Barr-Durham investigation, which is examining largely
out of the spotlight the origins of the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory that dogged the White House for four long years.
In early December, Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz,
released the 400-page IG report
that revealed a long list of omissions, mistakes and inconsistencies in the FBI's applications for FISA warrants to conduct surveillance
on Carter Page. Although the report was damning, both Barr and Durham noted it did not go far enough because Horowitz did not have
the access that Durham has to intelligence agency sources, as well as overseas contacts that Barr provided to him.
With AG report due for release in early spring, needless to say some Democrats are very nervous as to its finding. So nervous,
in fact, that they might just be willing to go to the extreme of removing a sitting president to avoid its conclusions.
Whatever the verdict, 2020 promises to be one very interesting year.
"... Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral. ..."
Twitter blamed a computer glitch after President Trump's retweet of a post containing the name alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
mysteriously disappeared from his timeline. After 'fixing' the issue and restoring the retweet, the user was simply banned from the
platform so that nobody could see the tweet, which quickly went viral.
" Rep. Ratliffe suggested Monday that the "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella committed perjury by making false statements in his
written forms filed with the ICIG and that Adam Schiff is hiding evidence of Ciaramella's crimes to protect him from criminal investigations,"
read the tweet made by by now-banned @surfermom77, which describes herself as living in California and a "100% Trump supporter."
Ciaramella has been outed in several outlets as the 'anonymous' CIA official whose whistleblower complaint over a July 25 phone call
between Trump and with his Ukrainian counterpart is at the heart of Congressional impeachment proceedings.
Trump retweeted the post around midnight Friday. By Saturday morning, it was no longer visible in his Twitter feed.
When contacted by The Guardian 's Lois Beckett for explanation, Twitter blamed an "outage with one of our systems."
Some people reported earlier today that someone had deleted the alleged-whistleblower's name-retweet from Trump's timeline.
Others of us still see *that tweet* on Trump's timeline. When asked for clarification, Twitter said this:
https://t.co/Rftkg3nbus https://t.co/XREAvvxjhf
By Sunday morning, the tweet had been restored to Trump's timeline - however hours later the user, @Surfermom77, was banned from
the platform .
Running cover for Twitter is the Washington Post , which claims " The account shows some indications of automation , including
an unusually high amount of activity and profile pictures featuring stock images from the internet."
Surfermom77 has displayed some hallmarks of a Twitter bot, an automated account. A recent profile picture on the account, for
instance, is a stock photo of a woman in business attire that is available for use online.
Surfermom77 has also tweeted far more than typical users, more than 170,000 times since the account was activated in 2013.
Surfermom77 has posted, on average, 72 tweets a day, according to Nir Hauser, chief technology officer at VineSight, a technology
firm that tracks online misinformation. -
WaPo
Meanwhile, Trump retweeted another Ciaramella reference on Thursday, after the @TrumpWarRoom responded to whistleblower attorney
Mark Zaid's tweet calling for the resignation of Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) from the Senate Whistleblower Caucus after she made
"hostile" comments - after she tweeted in November that "Vindictive Vindman is the "whistleblower's" handler (a reference to impeachment
witness Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.
"The watchdog group requested conversations between Ciaramella and special counsel Robert Mueller, former FBI agent Peter Strzok,
former FBI Director Andrew McCabe, and former FBI attorney Lisa Page."
"... ...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
"... Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen ." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely stifling a yawn over the Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis built for cable news. ..."
"... Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
Despite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
Looks like Page was Strzok handler within FBI and was intimately involved in suppressing
Hillary email investigation. clinton email investigation has signed of CIA pressure on FBI --
that;s why DNS servers were not investigated by FBI directly -- most probably there was nothing
to investigate as malware was implanted by CrowdStrike which also create fake Gussifer 2.0
personality.
She was probably No.3 person in both email investigation and Russiagate -- "eyes and earths"
of McCabe like she admitted herself.
Looks also that she has a central position in unleashing Russiagate witch hunt and in
scapegoating General Flynn. Whether she deliberately changed documents or not to implicate him is
sill not completely clear.
Interview crates a picture of her as a dangerous ruthless operative. More so then Strzok
deposition. The fact that counter intelligence can be used for the purposes of political witch
hunt is deeply disturbing. Of course, MadCow did not ask this female James Bond why they did not
brief Trump campaign. And the fact that they did not brief Trump campaign suggest that they all
were crooks.
Notable quotes:
"... She had significant roles in the Boston marathon case and in the Edward Snowden case ..."
"... So, I was special counsel to the deputy director. He, of course, runs the FBI. He`s like the COO. And so, with respect to both the Clinton investigation but also the other responsibilities of running the bureau, I tried to serve as his sort of good counsel, his eyes and ears. ..."
"... I was definitely part of the group of people who Director Comey was consulting in terms of what to do, and ultimately, I largely supported his decision. ..."
"... The two investigations couldn`t be less similar. In the Clinton investigation, you`re talking about historical events three years prior, her use of a private e-mail server that was public investigation everybody knew about. With respect to the Russia investigation, we`re talking about trying to investigate what an incredibly hostile foreign government may be doing to interfere in our election. We didn`t know what the answer was, and it would have been deeply prejudicial and incredibly unfair to candidate Trump for us to have said anything before we knew what had had happened. ..."
"... MADDOW: What about the text messages that – in which you and Strzok were talking about, your sort of fear that Trump would be elected and he said, no, we won`t let it happen? ..."
"... PAGE: I mean, by we, he`s talking about the collective we, like-minded, thoughtful, sensible people who were not going to vote this person into office. You know, obviously in retrospect, do I wish he hadn`t sent it? Yes. It`s been mutilated to death and it`s been used to bludgeon an institution I love. And it`s meant that I disappointed countless people. ..."
"... And in terms of the litigation of this issue, the question about whether or not this, as the president and his supporters claimed, reflected some inherent political bias by you and Mr. Strzok and that you had key roles to play in these investigations and therefore the investigations are biased. ..."
One person on that list was Peter Strzok who I`m told not long ago was the top
counterintelligence agent at the FBI. Peter Strzok had a sterling career at the FBI, including
key roles in breaking up high profile Russianintelligence operations inside the United States.
He was the leadcounterintelligence agent in the FBI, and he worked on the 2016
Russiainvestigation.
He was fired in 2018 over text messages he had sent which reflected his personal political
views about President Trump, critical of PresidentTrump, and frankly critical of other people
in politics, too. Now, the president hounds him by name as the FBI`s sick loser,
Peter
Strzok, leader of the rigged witch hunt. Investigating this president, specifically
investigating the central question of his campaign`s potential involvement with the Russian
interference in our 2016 election to try to get him into the White House – I mean, that
national security imperative described in passionate terms today in federal court by the judge
who was overseeing more of the criminal trials that have derived from that investigation than
any other. The people who have actually done that work,the people how have actually talked
about it or supported it or criticized it, but actually done the work, they`ve all been lined
up at the proverbial firing line by this president, as he and his supporters, both in Congress
and in the conservative media, have just tried to pick them up off, destroy them one by one,
ending their careers one after the other, deriding them, attacking them.
But the president has reserved particularly and particularly sustained ire for one former
FBI lawyer named Lisa Page. Lisa Page had been a federal prosecutor. She`d worked in the
criminal division and in the national security division at the justice department. She worked
at the FBI. She had significant roles in the Boston marathon case and in the Edward Snowden
case . Early in 2016, Lisa Page was working a special counsel to Deputy FBI
Director
Andrew McCabe. She worked on the Clinton e-mail investigation. That same year, later in 2016,
she would also play a smaller role in the Russia investigation. And when that became the
Mueller investigation, she briefly worked on that team as well.
... ... ...
She said, quote: The sum total of findings by I.G. Horowitz that my personal opinions had
any bearing on the course of either the Clinton or Russia investigations, zero and zero. And
then she concludes, cool, cool. Lisa Page is now suing the FBI and the Justice Department for
what she calls a breach of privacy with them distributing her personal text messages to
reporters in the middle of an open investigation. She`s also suing them for the suffering that
has followed.
... ... ...
MADDOW: First, I want to talk to you about a million different things, butlet me just ask
you if I got anything wrong in terms of sketching what Iunderstand is the broad outlines of
your career there?
PAGE: No, not particularly. I wasn`t – I wouldn`t want to take credit for Boston or
Snowden. I – it`s really how I met Andy McCabe through the Boston bombing and then
through the work post-Snowden and assisting the White House in the post-intelligence reforms.
But I can`t say that I played an investigative role in any one of those.
MADDOW: So you were involved in the response in those instances (ph) –
PAGE: Exactly right.
... ... ...
PAGE: You know, it`s kind of like all good news stories. It`s part good hard work and part
serendipity. Post-Snowden, there were so many reforms coming out of the Obama White House that
I became the point person for that effort for the FBI. Andy at the time was head of the
national security program, so anything that the White House would be proposing would be
different in term of the authorities and how we conducted our business would have affected his
work. And so, we started working very closely together. He found me trustworthy and reliable
and hopefully smart, and so he asked me to join his staff.
MADDOW: By 2016, by the early months of 2016 in that role in the FBI, you found yourself
working on the Clinton e-mail investigation. Can you talk us through what your role was on that
and what that work is like?
PAGER: Sure. So, I was special counsel to the deputy director. He, of course, runs the
FBI. He`s like the COO. And so, with respect to both the Clinton investigation but also the
other responsibilities of running the bureau, I tried to serve as his sort of good counsel, his
eyes and ears. So I tried to keep both a macro view of all the various things that were
happening at the FBI, but also keep my earto the ground with respect to various investigative
steps and what wascoming next.
MADDOW: One of the things that you described in the interview you did this month with "The
Daily Beast" was that you were aware in the context of that investigation that everything
everybody did that had anything to do with that investigation was going to be very closely
scrutinized and was going to be something that was going to be obviously inherently
controversial. When it came to the decision to make public disclosures about the status of that
investigation, Director Comey criticizing Secretary Clinton even as he was announcing there
weren`t going to be prosecutions, did you have any role in that or did you have strong feelings
about that at the time?
PAGE: I did. I did. I was definitely part of the group of people who Director Comey was
consulting in terms of what to do, and ultimately, I largely supported his decision. This
was not a typical investigation. This was not an investigation where the subject was secret and
nobody knew this investigation was underway. Everyone knew that she was under investigation.
Candidate Trump was ceaselessly, you know, asking to lock her up at his rallies. So, the notion
we would say nothing with respect to choosing not to charge her, even though every person on
the team uniformly agreed that there was no prosecutable case, that was true at the Justice
Department, that was true at the FBI. So, we all agreed that we needed to say something. There
may have been varying differences into how much, and how much detail to get into, but there
wasn`t largely disagreement with respect to whether to say something at all.
MADDOW: And you ultimately ended up working on the Russia investigation deeper into 2016.
Obviously, you were one of the people who was involved in the Justice Department and the FBI in
such a way that you knew a lot about both of those cases.
Did you and the other people involved in those two cases struggle at all with this
discontinuity that the Clinton investigation, for the reasons that you just described, was very
public and various steps of that investigation were disclosed to the public, had a huge
political impact, whereas there was a live, very provocative, very disturbing investigation
into President Trump and his campaign as well and that was kept from the public? Did you
struggle with that discontinuity or the fact that therewasn`t a parallel there?
PAGE: Not at all. Not at all. The two investigations couldn`t be less similar. In the
Clinton investigation, you`re talking about historical events three years prior, her use of a
private e-mail server that was public investigation everybody knew about. With respect to the
Russia investigation, we`re talking about trying to investigate what an incredibly hostile
foreign government may be doing to interfere in our election. We didn`t know what the answer
was, and it would have been deeply prejudicial and incredibly unfair to candidate Trump for us
to have said anything before we knew what had had happened.
MADDOW: In terms of the way this played out ultimately, you become a poster child, along
with several of your colleagues, for these claims from the president, and now increasingly from
the current attorney general that the Trump-Russia investigation was cooked up on the basis of
false allegations or even some conspiracy specifically to hurt his chances of getting elected.
Now, of course, the problem there is no one in the country knew about that investigation before
people had the chance to vote on him. And I just – I mean, as an observer, I find that
flabbergasting. How does that strike you and how does that comport with your understanding of
that process given what you just described?
PAGE: There is no one on this set of facts who has any experience in counterintelligence who
would not have made the exact same decision. This is a question about whether Russia is working
with a United States person to interfere in our election. We were obligated to figure out
whether that was true or not, and to figure out who might be in a position to provide that
assistance.
MADDOW: In terms of the critique that I just implicitly made that if there had been some
sort of conspiracy against candidate Trump, that could have just easily been leaked to the
public so people would know about that when they went to the polls, is that a fair
critique?
PAGE: It is a fair critique, but we were extraordinarily careful not to do anything that
would allow this information to get out before we knew what we had.
... ...
MADDOW: In terms of the text messages and allegations that have been made against you,
you`ve sort of explained yourself in putting those text messages in greater context in terms of
what they meant and the way they were used against you. Can you explain to us tonight what was
meant by, for example, the insurance policy text message? So, this is you and Peter Strzok
texting about theprospect that President Trump is going to be elected, the unlikely
process.
PAGE: Right. I mean, it`s an analogy. First of all, it`s not my text, so I`m sort of
interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago. But we`re using an analogy. We`re
talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the
likelihood that he`sgoing to be president or not, right?
You have to keep in mind, if President Trump doesn`t become president, the national security
risks if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia plummets. You`re not so
worried about what Russia`s doing vis-a-vis a member of his campaign if he`s not president
because you`re not going to have access to classified information, you`re not going to have
access to sources and methods in our national security apparatus.
So, the insurance policy was an analogy. It`s like an insurance policy when you`re 40. You
don`t expect to die when you`re 40, yet you still have an insurance policy.
MADDOW: So don`t just hope that he`s not going be elected and therefore not press forward
with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case he
does get in there.
PAGE: Exactly.
MADDOW: What about the text messages that – in which you and Strzok were talking
about, your sort of fear that Trump would be elected and he said, no, we won`t let it
happen?
PAGE: I mean, by we, he`s talking about the collective we, like-minded, thoughtful,
sensible people who were not going to vote this person into office. You know, obviously in
retrospect, do I wish he hadn`t sent it? Yes. It`s been mutilated to death and it`s been used
to bludgeon an institution I love. And it`s meant that I disappointed countless people.
But this is – this is a snapshot in time carrying on a conversation that had happened
earlier in the day that reflected a broad sense of he`s notgoing to be president. We, the
democratic people of this country, are notgoing to let it happen.
MADDOW: And in terms of the litigation of this issue, the question about whether or not
this, as the president and his supporters claimed, reflected some inherent political bias by
you and Mr. Strzok and that you had key roles to play in these investigations and therefore the
investigations are biased. I mean, the inspector general has looked at that, been critical
of these expressions of strong political views, but also said that there was no indication that
political bias affected any decisions in either these investigations, full stop.
You responded to that on Twitter by saying: cool, cool. Like basically good to know but it
won`t make a difference?
PAGE: It won`t make a difference and it`s two years too late, right? It`s been three
straight years of investigation by the inspector general. Dozens of lawyers and investigators
poring over every investigative step that I took, every text and every email, and I realized
what I`ve known from the beginning which is that my personal views had no impact on the course
of either investigation. But to my "cool, cool" point, two days later, you see Lindsey Graham
in the Senate spend 40 minutes reading text messages again. These are three years old. They`re
– they`ve been described as immaterial ultimately by the inspector general and yet we`re
still talking about them.
"... ...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a forgettable non-issue." ..."
...Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
by Scott | Dec 27, 2019
| Interviews Lyle J.
Goldstein talks about the need for Russia and Ukraine to get along better, and in general for
Europe to handle more of its military and foreign affairs without the involvement of the U.S.
Much has been made in certain American circles of supposed Russian aggression in Crimea and
Syria, two major pillars of the narrative that Russia is a dangerous enemy that must be met
with strength. But these claims present a very slanted narrative, and are mostly used by those
who want to keep the U.S. military involved in policing the entire world.
That makes default identity politics a "double or nothing" bet. If it's political
successful, it's dragged further and further towards entrenched minority rule by members of the
dominant racial or religous group, and typically towards some form of personal dictatorship. If
it's unsuccessful, the divisions it creates risks a reversal of the previous order. Instead of
being accepted as one element of a diverse community, the formerly dominant group becomes the
object of hostility and derision. The signs of that are certainly evident, particularly in
relation to the culture wars around religion.
Alex SL 12.27.19 at 10:32 am
I am not really sure where a formerly dominant group has
ever become the object of hostility and derision, except maybe when colonial powers were
expulsed? It seems the formerly dominant religions and the "real XYZians" are still treated
with instinctive deference everywhere, even in societies that are now officially secular or
multi-cultural, and regardless of how terrible their dominance was before it was broken.
...It is true that there is now orientation away from tolerance because tolerance depends on
dominance.
Another way to look at this is that the more heated battles in identity politics (broadly
defined) are occurring now because the dominant group is having difficulty with the shift
from noblesse oblige 'granting' of equality to others to the insistence by these others on
complete and total equality.
To oversimplify, when people in whatever oppressed identity group come to ask themselves
'why can't I be on a completely equal footing with those who do well/benefit from, etc. the
current system?' they tend to lose patience with noblesse oblige, and are unwilling to behave
with deference. Deference might seem too much like internalizing one's inferiority or the
rightness of someone else's dominance.. This means that the groups are more likely to demand
things from others rather than wait to receive them.
These things are necessary for full social equality but there will be a lot of hostility
among some within dominant groups, and you're now seeing people commit to whatever version of
social hierarchy they think works best for them. They ignore or are blind to whatever
versions they'd be screwed by. They tend to make common cause on the naturalness of that
social hierarchy, and the importance of social hierarchy generally.
This is one reason why affinities between oppressed identity groups aren't merely
strategic. Having recognized the legitimacy of this type of demand for full equality for
themselves, people with certain identities are probably more likely to recognize it for
others. Certain subcultures within oppressed group develop a set of standard moral
responses–and these types of demands for full equality for others will seem par for the
course. They'll commit themselves to meeting them even for groups whose political interests
aren't clearly aligned with their own. Often though, the political interests are broadly
aligned but this process does create moral affinities, and general commitments to
egalitarianism that the far right ridicules but which follow logically from a broad
commitment for social equality.
Even so, there are fights among groups struggling for different types of social equality.
Sometimes they are actually in one another's way or are viewed as competition for
resources. Sometimes the concern seems more symbolic and maybe motivated by worries that
there isn't enough equality to go around.
The interesting consequence is maybe the only power some people making claims for equality
have is the power of moral suasion. They are depending on the broader acceptance of social
equality, and the logical extension to themselves. So naturally a backlash tries to undermine
their moral standing.
Peter Dorman 12.27.19 at 6:57 pm (no link)
The dynamic JQ describes does occur often, but it is not the whole story. I think two
distinctions can help in separating where it works from where it doesn't.
The first is between symbolic and concrete relative positioning. JQ is describing a realm
in which hierarchies are matters of symbolic exchange: do I relate to you as my inferior,
equal or superior? A lot of social interaction is like this. But there are also concrete
hierarchies in which people exercise power over others or gain relative advantage
irrespective of how their actions are displayed symbolically. In its pure form, for instance,
institutional racism is a hierarchy that is not visible at the individual level but shows up
through the structural dynamics of the institutions people are embedded in. I think of the
interaction between racial segregation in housing, unequal access to credit and the financing
of public schools through local property taxes as an example of this. No single individual
has to be racist in outlook or intent for the system as a whole to reproduce generation after
generation of extreme injustice.
The second is between zero-sum and positive-sum redistributions. Some inequalities are
largely zero-sum, in the sense that the benefits to those on the top are due to the
deprivations of those on the bottom. An example is the gender division of labor in housework,
where more chores for you means more freedom from them for me and vice versa. The Marxist
view of profit works that way too (but not necessarily other views). And then there are
inequalities in which the benefits of the better off group don't depend on the deprivation of
others, such as the risk of being arbitrarily abused or killed by the police. I'm white and
less likely to experience this abuse than someone who isn't, but ending this abuse for them
doesn't put me at any greater risk.
I think identity politics has been excessively divisive (more precise: has engendered
surplus divisiveness) because of the blurring of these two distinctions. Contests over
symbolic status, as JQ points out, have an inherent zero sum aspect, especially as we move to
the meta level of who should have the right to award respect in the first place. To some
extent, these contests are an unavoidable part of social change, and we just have to roll
with them. Unfortunately though, symbolic disputes have tended to crowd out concrete ones,
where it is often possible to find (ahem) Pareto improvements.
Meanwhile, there is very little awareness of the difference between zero and positive sum
situations, as shown by the tendency to call all relative advantages "privilege". A privilege
is an unjust, unearned benefit, typically based on the exclusion of others. (Membership has
its privileges because nonmembers don't get them.) Private equity billionaires who profit
from exorbitant surprise medical bills that bankrupt ordinary people drip with privilege. But
heterosexual couples who benefit from marriage laws did not gain at the expense of non-hetero
couples that were excluded, and changing the laws to benefit the latter does not harm the
former (except perhaps in the world of symbolic hierarchies).
We are awash in sloppy thinking about difference and hierarchy. (There's a lot more than
what I've brought up here.) Why we're in this mess is an interesting question.
I'm not sure that identity politics works this way.
This is the way identity politics would work if it was really a sort of philosophical
argument about the merits of this or that identity.
But what I see is more a sort of tribalism, where for example here in Italy many conservative
parties (especially the Lega) are big on how Italy is a Christian (catholic) country and
Muslim immigrants are going to destroy our culture, but then when the Pope says we should
welcome immigrants they say he should mind his own business, that is not what you would
expect from a firebrand catholic.
the idea of tolerance implies the existence of a dominant group that does the
tolerating
I'm not certain this is true; the history of religious tolerance seems to feature many
cases where no group was a majority, and "we'll argue but not fight, and the government won't
take sides" was designed to be the best available system when everyone was a minority. I'd
say a very key feature of US politics since the 1960's is that the elite have been
increasingly unwilling to tolerate, or provide equal protection of the law to, those who
disagree with them–so principles like "free speech doesn't include malicious
falsehoods" or "the government doesn't take sides between conceptions of the good" only last
until they would protect a previously-normative group that the elite has turned on.
I also think you are missing a key point in the discussion of deference: a normative
identity creates both a Schelling point and some incentive to assimilate, and so builds its
own majority; think of "white" identity in the US.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been
important to politics. But neoliberalism's radical individualism has increasingly raised
two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into identity
groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic
identity.
You quote from this guy, and others have written the same thing (e.g. Mark [spit] Lilla).
Their argument, simply put, is that "identity politics" is a fracturing of society into
smaller groups who don't/won't unite.
Having/continually constructing/renewing identities is an inescapable part of being human.
The issue is: what is to constitute the most salient identity? What bundle of markers are to
make up being "American" or "British" or "European"? These things are always contested, but
the pace of change is usually slow. We live in a time when the question is unusually
prominent, so more heavily contested. If, as Chetan says, lots of groups just want to be
"American", then by that want they change "American-ness". If they can't agree on some new
definition, then the US fractures.
CNN blasted Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on Friday over contradictory stances regarding the
role of Senators during an impeachment.
In a
recent floor speech , Schumer blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) for
describing himself as "not an impartial juror" when it comes to Trump's upcoming impeachment
trial.
"Let the American people hear it loud and clear, the Republican leader said, proudly, 'I'm
not an impartial juror. I'm not impartial about this at all.' That is an astonishing admission
of partisanship," said Schumer.
Yet, as CNN
's Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck note, Schumer said during Bill Clinton's 1998 - 1999
impeachment saga that the Senate was "not like a jury box," and that senators, who are not
impartial, had previously formed their opinions heading into the trial .
Schumer had attacked his Senate opponent Al D'Mato for not taking a position on
impeachment during their 1998 debate. D'Mato said he would not take a position until "the
proof is presented" at the Senate trial – calling it "inappropriate." https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V
pic.twitter.com/tYAc6hkwzd
In fact, as "KFile" notes, Schumer was elected to the Senate in 1998 on the promise that a
vote for him would be a vote not to impeach Clinton .
We have a new story looking at past Chuck Schumer's comments on impeachment. Including
repeatedly arguing the Senate was not a jury in 1999 and him campaigning that he would not
support impeachment or convicting Clinton in 1998. https://t.co/nPMyvjZE6V https://t.co/LPr1BlfD4O
pic.twitter.com/87q7hxKLks
Speaking on CNN's "Larry King Live" in January 1999, Schumer said the trial in the Senate
was not like a jury box.
" We have a pre-opinion ," Schumer said, citing himself and two newly-elected Republican
senators who had voted on impeachment in 1998 as members of the House of Representatives who
said they would vote in the Senate. " This is not a criminal trial, but this is something
that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of
politics ."
" So therefore, anybody taking an oath tomorrow can have a pre-opinion; it's not a jury
box ," King asked Schumer.
"Many do," Schumer responded. "And then they change. In fact, it's also not like a jury
box in the sense that people will call us and lobby us. You don't have jurors called and
lobbied and things like that. I mean, it's quite different than a jury. And we're also the
judge."
A day later, the Republican National Committee attacked Schumer in a press release for
previous comments in the House saying there was no basis for impeachment. - CNN
Then-RNC chairman Jim Nicholson said of Schumer "No self-respecting jury would allow
somebody who's already formed an opinion on the guilt or innocence of the accused," adding "but
Chuck Schumer has loudly proclaimed that he's pre-judged the case. He's already announced that
he's decided the President shouldn't be impeached , much less removed from office."
Schumer responded days later, telling NBC 's "Meet the Press": "The Founding Fathers --
whose wisdom just knocks my socks off every day, it really does -- set this process up to be in
the Senate, not at the Supreme Court, not in some judicial body ."
"Every day, for instance, hundreds of people call us up and lobby us on one side and the
other. You can't do that with a juror," he added. "The standard is different. It's supposed to
be a little bit judicial and a little bit legislative-political. That's how it's been.
Meanwhile, Schumer said in a 1998 Op-Ed that he would be voting to acquit Clinton , and that
he'd made up his mind that September.
"My decision will not come as a surprise," Schumer
wrote . "I will be voting to acquit the president on both counts. I had to make my decision
in September as a member of the Judiciary Committee in the House, and while I was in the middle
of the campaign."
Responding to CNN 's recent report (yet failing to explain the 'impartial juror' hypocrisy),
Schumer's office said that his statements came after the conclusion of the Starr investigation,
"which included testimony from key witnesses including President Clinton, had concluded and
been made public for months and as Sen. Schumer was in the anomalous position of having already
voted on impeachment in both the House Judiciary Committee and on the House floor."
"As is reflected in these quotes, Schumer believed then and still believes now that all of
the facts must be allowed to come out and then a decision can be made -- in stark contrast to
the Republicans today in both the House and Senate who have worked to prevent all the facts and
evidence from coming out." 43 minutes ago (Edited) CNN is a CIA / Ziocon loudspeaker. I think
they are furiously backpedaling and trying to undo the Anti-Trump necromancy of the past few
years. Why? because they realize that Orange Donald is really Zion Don, and that MAGA is being
served up as a watery bone broth, meanwhile MIGA is prime rib and is being served up on a daily
basis from the White House.
"... Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power. ..."
"... This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids. ..."
"... Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets. ..."
"... Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do whatever the f*ck you want. ..."
"... Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to influence us. ..."
"... If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists – now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information reaching the press. ..."
"... Instead of these pieces concentrating on the whistleblower how about putting a little heat on the 50 lying bastards who initiated the coverup? ..."
"... The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more likely to be destroyed faster. No offense. ..."
"... And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis, hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying Christians. How interesting, why such zeal. ..."
"... According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence," Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job knowing that I couldn't report something like this." ..."
"... New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and excluded. ..."
Wikileaks has released their fourth set of leaks from the OPCW's Douma investigation,
revealing new details about the alleged deletion of important information regarding the
fact-finding mission.
RELEASE: OPCW-Douma Docs 4. Four leaked documents from the OPCW reveal that toxicologists
ruled out deaths from chlorine exposure and a senior official ordered the deletion of the
dissenting engineering report from OPCW's internal repository of documents. https://t.co/ndK4sRikNk
"One of the documents is an e-mail exchange dated 27 and 28 February between members of the
fact finding mission (FFM) deployed to Douma and the senior officials of the OPCW. It includes
an e-mail from Sebastien Braha, Chief of Cabinet at the OPCW , where he instructs that an
engineering report from Ian Henderson should be removed from the secure registry of the
organisation," WikiLeaks writes. Included in the email is the following directive:
" Please get this document out of DRA [Documents Registry Archive] And please remove all
traces, if any, of its delivery/storage/whatever in DRA.'"
According to Wikileaks, the main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma, was
that two of the cylinders were most likely manually placed at the site, rather than
dropped.
"The main finding of Henderson, who inspected the sites in Douma and two cylinders that were
found on the site of the alleged attack, was that they were more likely manually placed there
than dropped from a plane or helicopter from considerable heights. His findings were omitted
from the official final OPCW report on the Douma incident," the Wikileaks report said.
It must be remembered that the U.S. launched an attack on Damascus, Syria on April 14, 2018
over alleged chemical weapons usage by pro-Assad forces at Douma.
Another document released Friday is minutes from a meeting on 6 June 2018 where four staff
members of the OPCW had discussions with "three Toxicologists/Clinical pharmacologists, one
bioanalytical and toxicological chemist" (all specialists in chemical weapons, according to the
minutes).
Minutes from an OPCW meeting with toxicologists specialized in chemical weapons: "the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was
no correlation between symptoms and chlorine exposure". https://t.co/j5Jgjiz8UY pic.twitter.com/vgPaTtsdQN
The purpose of this meeting was two-fold. The first objective was "to solicit expert advice
on the value of exhuming suspected victims of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April
2018". According to the minutes, the OPCW team was advised by the experts that there would be
little use in conducting exhumations. The second point was "To elicit expert opinions from the
forensic toxicologists regarding the observed and reported symptoms of the alleged
victims."
More specifically, " whether the symptoms observed in victims were consistent with exposure
to chlorine or other reactive chlorine gas."
According to the minutes leaked Friday: "With respect to the consistency of the observed and
reported symptoms of the alleged victims with possible exposure to chlorine gas or similar, the
experts were conclusive in their statements that there was no correlation between symptoms and
chlorine exposure ."
The OPCW team members wrote that the key "take-away message" from the meeting was "that the
symptoms observed were inconsistent with exposure to chlorine and no other obvious candidate
chemical causing the symptoms could be identified".
The isisrahell have such long hand to pull the plug any stories implicating their crime in
progress otherwise they can put out some bs spins as bombshell reporting about US lies in
Afghanistan war on their wapo for public for those who read it was nothing important revealed
except being a misdirected na
If you want to pay off that student loan you're going to print what they tell you to
print. You're going to inject kids with what they tell you to inject them with. You're going
to think what they tell you to think or you're going to spend your days in a Prole bar
drinking Blatz.
yes, an attack was launched, 50 missiles I believe, after loud warnings that it was
coming, and none of them actually hit anything significant ... this is the way the game is
played .... the good news is that the missiles cost $50 million, and now they will have to be
replaced, by the Pentagon, first borrowing the money through the US Treasury offerings, and
then paying for them from new money printed by the Federal Reserve. capische?
That`s the way it`s always been, it`s the eternal war of good against evil.
And when one evil enemy is defeated, it`s necessary to create a new evil enemy, how else
can the Establishment Elite make money from war, death and destruction.
It's really very awkward & telling how ***** these bunch of western nations are
looking tough on taking out poor defenceless country like Syria on ******** & at the
satried to ease real kickass Russian as you described when they launch the attacks
I kind wish the US & their Zionist clown launch such huge attacks on Iran based on
false flag
I really wanted these evil aggressive powers to taste what it is like to get bombed back
even one they used to throw on multiple weaker nations freely with nothing to fear as
retribution etc
This organisations are all set up in Europe and US run by the filthiest filth on earth who
still think they have God given right to imperial rule over the world.
Your military-industrial-intelligence complex at work, creating justification for more
funding, like always - and who cares if people die as a result? Like Soros said, if they
didn't do it, someone else would. (do I need /sarc?).
They don't like to be shown to be in charge, just to be in charge. And if you think this
is a function of the current admin, you've been slow in the head and deaf and blind for quite
some time.
I've watched since Eisenhower, and "it's always something". Doesn't matter what color the
clown in chief's tie is.
Imagine millions of government employees paid for by America's tax payer class, involved
in covert operations undermining nation states for the benefit of war mongering shadow
overlords counting on more never ending chaos feeding their hunger for power.
This isn't Orwell's 1984, this Team America on opioids.
Senior OPCW official had orders from US/ the Donald. Remember that the Donald bombed Syria based on this fake report , after a false flag done
by Al Qaeda's artistic branch, the White Helmets.
Pray, do tell where are the consequences for these literal demons that engaged in war
crimes? It is quite clear: as long as you are a member of the establishment, you can do
whatever the f*ck you want. Why do we even follow the law, then? Given the precedent that is
being set, we might as well not have any.
Well, they are looking forward to using all those Israeli weapons, er, uh, products, that
local law enforcement has purchased...so watch out for Co-Intel Pro elicitation going
forward....?
Everybody knows the Golem (USA) does Isn'treal's bidding in Syria and elsewhere in the
Near East. Hopefully they keep hammering in the fact that this "gas attack" was an obvious
set-up to use as a pretext (flimsy itself on the face of it) to brutalize Assad and Syria on
behalf of Isn'treal.
The whole thing is built on ******* lies. Worst part about it is, nothing will happen.
Only official news is to believed. You see it and it is a lie. they tell you to believe
it. A lot of people casually believe whatever is spoken on TV. They become teachers and are
taught in college what is right and wrong. We only have a few years before all the brain dead
are in charge and robotically following the message like zombies with no brain
Third rate script, third rate actors and crooked investigators. TPTB seem to have a plan worked out. Their problem now is that we, the hoi-polloi, have
seen it all before, many times, and we can now recognise ******** when it's used to try to
influence us.
It is difficult to underestimate the seriousness of this manipulative act by the OPCW.
In a response to the conservative author Peter Hitchens, who also writes for the Mail on
Sunday – he is of course the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens – the
OPCW admits that its so-called technical secretariat "is conducting an internal
investigation about the unauthorised [sic] release of the document".
Then it adds: "At this time, there is no further public information on this matter and
the OPCW is unable to accommodate [sic] requests for interviews". It's a tactic that until
now seems to have worked: not a single news media which reported the OPCW's official
conclusions has followed up the story of the report which the OPCW suppressed.
And you bet the OPCW is not going to "accommodate" interviews. For here is an
institution investigating a war crime in a conflict which has cost hundreds of thousands of
lives – yet its only response to an enquiry about the engineers' "secret" assessment
is to concentrate on its own witch-hunt for the source of the document it wished to keep
secret from the world.
If this is not lamentable enough, the OPCW – whose final report came to more than
a hundred pages and which even issued an easy-to-read precis version for journalists
– now slams shut its steel doors in the hope of preventing even more information
reaching the press.
The destruction of the countries of the Middle East for the sake of a dwarf with giant
ambitions is the most stupid thing the United States has done over the past 30 years in its
foreign policy. And yes, all the wars in the Middle East were grounded in lies. And the
Americans paid for it all from start to finish. When Americans realize that they need to
defend their national interests, and not other people's national interests, maybe something
in the Middle East will change for the better. True, I am afraid that with the hight level of
stupidity and shortsightedness that is common among Americans, the United States is more
likely to be destroyed faster. No offense.
And I propose to remember the Syrian Christians who were destroyed by the Saudi Wahhabis,
hired by the CIA with the money of American taxpayers and at the request of Israel. Until the
Americans begin to investigate the activities of the CIA (and this activity causes the United
States only harm), the responsibility for this genocide (you heard right) will be on the
American nation. It turns out that in the Middle East you are primarily destroying
Christians. How interesting, why such zeal.
According to whistleblower testimony and leaked documents, OPCW officials raised alarm
about the suppression of critical findings that undermine the allegation that the Syrian
government committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. Haddad's
editors at Newsweek rejected his attempts to cover the story. "If I don't find another
position in journalism because of this, I'm perfectly happy to accept that consequence,"
Haddad says. "It's not desirable. But there is no way I could have continued in that job
knowing that I couldn't report something like this."
New leaks continue to expose a cover-up by the OPCW – the world's top chemical
weapons watchdog – over a critical event in Syria. Documents, emails, and testimony
from OPCW officials have raised major doubts about the allegation that the Syrian government
committed a chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma in April 2018. The leaked OPCW
information has been released in pieces by Wikileaks. The latest documents contain a number
of significant revelations – including that that about 20 OPCW officials
voiced concerns that their scientific findings and on-the-ground evidence was suppressed and
excluded.
This is, without a doubt, a major global scandal: the OPCW, under reported US pressure,
suppressing vital evidence about allegations of chemical weapons. But that very fact exposes
another global scandal: with the exception of small outlets like The Grayzone, the mass media
has widely ignored or whitewashed this story. And this widespread censorship of the OPCW
scandal has just led one journalist to resign. Up until recently, Tareq Haddad was a reporter
at Newsweek. But in early December, Tareq announced that he had quit his position after
Newsweek refused to publish his story about the OPCW cover up over Syria.
"... Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization " big bang ." ..."
"... The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government into power. ..."
"... Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in the US State Department ..."
Rarely does the world get a true look inside the corrupt world of Western oligarchs and
the brazen manipulations they use to enhance their fortunes at the expense of the public
good.
The following comes from correspondence of the Hungarian-born billionaire, now naturalized
American speculator, George Soros. The hacker group CyberBerkut has published online letters
allegedly written by Soros that reveal him not only as puppet master of the US-backed Ukraine
regime .
They also reveal his machinations with the US Government and the officials of the European
Union in a scheme where, if he succeeds, he could win billions in the plunder of Ukraine
assets. All, of course, would be at the expense of Ukrainian citizens and of EU
taxpayers.
What the three hacked documents reveal is a degree of behind-the-scene manipulation of the
most minute details of the Kiev regime by the New York billionaire.
In the longest memo, dated March 15, 2015 and marked "Confidential" Soros outlines a
detailed map of actions for the Ukraine regime. Titled, "A short and medium term comprehensive
strategy for the new Ukraine," the memo from Soros calls for steps to "restore the fighting
capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement." To do the restoring, Soros blithely
notes that "General Wesley Clark, Polish General Skrzypczak and a few specialists under the
auspices of the Atlantic Council [emphasis added -- f.w.e.] will advise President Poroshenko
how to restore the fighting capacity of Ukraine without violating the Minsk agreement
."
Soros also calls for supplying lethal arms to Ukraine and secretly training Ukrainian army
personnel in Romania to avoid direct NATO presence in Ukraine . The
Atlantic Council is a leading Washington pro-NATO think tank .
Notably, Wesley Clark is also a business associate of Soros in BNK Petroleum which does
business in Poland.
Clark, some might recall, was the mentally-unstable NATO General in charge of the 1999
bombing of Serbia who ordered NATO soldiers to fire on Russian soldiers guarding the Pristina
International Airport. The Russians were there as a part of an agreed joint NATO–Russia
peacekeeping operation supposed to police Kosovo. The British Commander, General Mike Jackson
refused Clark, retorting, "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you ." Now Clark apparently decided to
come out of retirement for the chance to go at Russia directly.
Naked asset grab
In his March 2015 memo Soros further writes that Ukrainian President Poroshenko's "first
priority must be to regain control of financial markets," which he assures Poroshenko that
Soros would be ready to assist in: "I am ready to call Jack Lew of the US Treasury to sound him
out about the swap agreement."
He also calls on the EU to give Ukraine an annual aid sum of €11 billion via a special
EU borrowing facility. Soros proposes in effect using the EU's "AAA" top credit rating to
provide a risk insurance for investment into Ukraine.
Whose risk would the EU insure?
Soros details, "I am prepared to invest up to €1 billion in Ukrainian businesses.
This is likely to attract the interest of the investment community. As stated above, Ukraine
must become an attractive investment destination."
Not to leave any doubt, Soros continues, "The investments will be for-profit but I will
pledge to contribute the profits to my foundations. This should allay suspicions that I am
advocating policies in search of personal gain. "
For anyone familiar with the history of the Soros Open Society Foundations in Eastern Europe
and around the world since the late 1980's, will know that his supposedly philanthropic
"democracy-building" projects in Poland, Russia, or Ukraine in the 1990's allowed Soros the
businessman to literally plunder the former communist countries using Harvard University's
"shock therapy" messiah, and Soros associate, Jeffrey Sachs, to convince the post-Soviet
governments to privatize and open to a "free market" at once, rather than gradually.
The example of Soros in Liberia is instructive for understanding the seemingly seamless
interplay between Soros the shrewd businessman and Soros the philanthropist. In West Africa
George Soros backed a former Open Society employee of his, Liberian President Ellen Johnson
Sirleaf, giving her international publicity and through his influence, even arranging a Nobel
Peace Prize for her in 2011, insuring her election as president. Before her presidency she had
been well-indoctrinated into the Western free market game, studying economics at Harvard and
working for the US-controlled World Bank in Washington and the Rockefeller Citibank in Nairobi.
Before becoming Liberia's President, she worked for Soros directly as chair of his Open Society
Initiative for West Africa ( OSIWA
).
Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first acts
as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia whose
purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and Rothschild
mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human rights ."
Naftogaz the target
The Soros memo makes clear he has his eyes on the Ukrainian state gas and energy monopoly,
Naftogaz. He writes, "The centerpiece of economic reforms will be the reorganization of
Naftogaz and the introduction of market pricing for all forms of energy, replacing hidden
subsidies
"
In an earlier letter Soros wrote in December 2014 to both President Poroshenko and Prime
Minister Yatsenyuk, Soros openly called for his Shock Therapy:
"I want to appeal to you to unite behind the reformers in your government and give your
wholehearted support to a radical, 'big bang' type of approach. That is to say,
administrative controls would be removed and the economy would move to market prices rapidly
rather than gradually Naftogaz needs to be reorganized with a big bang replacing the hidden
subsidies
"
Splitting Naftogaz into separate companies could allow Soros to take control of one of
the new branches and essentially privatize its profits. He already suggested that he indirectly
brought in US consulting company, McKinsey, to advise Naftogaz on the privatization "
big bang
."
The Puppet-Master?
The totality of what is revealed in the three hacked documents show that Soros is
effectively the puppet-master pulling most of the strings in Kiev. Soros Foundation's Ukraine
branch, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) has been involved in Ukraine since 1989. His
IRF doled out more than $100 million to Ukrainian NGOs two years before the fall of the Soviet
Union, creating the preconditions for Ukraine's independence from Russia in 1991. Soros also
admitted to financing the 2013-2014 Maidan Square protests that brought the current government
into power.
Soros' foundations were also deeply involved in the 2004 Orange Revolution that brought
the corrupt but pro-NATO Viktor Yushchenko into power with his American wife who had been in
the US State Department . In 2004 just weeks after Soros' International Renaissance
Foundation had succeeded in getting Viktor Yushchenko as President of Ukraine, Michael McFaul
wrote an OpEd for the Washington Post. McFaul, a specialist in organizing color revolutions,
who later became US Ambassador to Russia, revealed:
Did Americans meddle in the internal affairs of Ukraine? Yes. The American agents of
influence would prefer different language to describe their activities -- democratic
assistance, democracy promotion, civil society support, etc. -- but their work, however
labeled, seeks to influence political change in Ukraine. The U.S. Agency for International
Development, the National Endowment for Democracy and a few other foundations sponsored certain
U.S. organizations, including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute, the
National Democratic Institute, the Solidarity Center, the Eurasia Foundation, Internews and
several others to provide small grants and technical assistance to Ukrainian civil society. The
European Union, individual European countries and the Soros-funded International Renaissance
Foundation did the same .
Soros
shapes 'New Ukraine'
Today the CyberBerkut hacked papers show that Soros' IRF money is behind creation of a
National Reform Council, a body organized by presidential decree from Poroshenko which allows
the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's legislature. Soros writes,
"The framework for bringing the various branches of government together has also emerged.
The National Reform Council (NRC) brings together the presidential administration, the
cabinet of ministers, the Rada and its committees and civil society. The International
Renaissance Foundation which is the Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundations was the sole
financial supporter of the NRC until now "
Soros' NRC in effect is the vehicle to allow the President to override parliamentary debate
to push through "reforms," with the declared first priority being privatization of Naftogaz and
raising gas prices drastically to Ukrainian industry and households, something the bankrupt
country can hardly afford .
In his letter to Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk, Soros hints that he played a key role in
selection of three key non-Ukrainian ministers -- Natalia Jaresko, an American ex- State
Department official as Finance Minister; Aivras Abromavicius of Lithuania as Economics
Minister, and a health minister from Georgia. Soros in his December 2014 letter, referring to
his proposal for a "big bank" privatization of Naftogaz and price rise, states,
"You are fortunate to have appointed three 'new Ukrainian' ministers and several natives
(sic) who are committed to this approach
."
Elsewhere Soros speaks about de facto creating the impression within the EU that the current
government of Yatsenyuk is finally cleaning out the notorious corruption that has dominated
every Kiev regime since 1991. Creating that temporary reform illusion, he remarks, will
convince the EU to cough up the €11 billion annual investment insurance fund. His March
2015 paper says that, "It is essential for the government to produce a visible demonstration
(sic) during the next three months in order to change the widely prevailing image of Ukraine as
an utterly corrupt country." That he states will open the EU to make the €11 billion
insurance guarantee investment fund .
While saying that it is important to show Ukraine as a country that is not corrupt, Soros
reveals he has little concern when transparency and proper procedures block his agenda. Talking
about his proposals to reform Ukraine's constitution to enable privatizations and other
Soros-friendly moves, he complains,
"The process has been slowed down by the insistence of the newly elected Rada on proper
procedures and total transparency
."
Soros suggests that he intends to create this "visible demonstration" through his
initiatives, such as using the Soros-funded National Reform Council, a body organized by
presidential decree which allows the Ukrainian president to push bills through Ukraine's
legislature.
George Soros is also using his new European Council on Foreign Relations think-tank to lobby
his Ukraine strategy, with his council members such as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff or Joschka
Fischer or Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, not to mention former ECB head, Jean-Claude Trichet no
doubt laying a subtle role.
George Soros, now 84, was born in Hungary as a Jew, George Sorosz. Soros once boasted in a
TV interview that he posed during the war as a gentile with forged papers, assisting the Horthy
government to seize property of other Hungarian Jews who were being shipped to the Nazi death
camps. Soros told the TV moderator, "There was no sense that I shouldn't be there, because that
was–well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets–that if I weren't
there–of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would."
This is the same morality apparently behind Soros' activities in Ukraine today. It seems
again to matter not to him that the Ukrainian government he helped bring to power in February
2014 US coup d'etat is riddled with explicit anti-semites and self-proclaimed neo-Nazis from
the Svoboda Party and Pravy Sektor. George Soros is clearly a devotee of
"public-private-partnership." Only here the public gets fleeced to enrich private investors
like Mr. Soros and friends. Cynically, Soros signs his Ukraine strategy memo, "George
Soros–A self-appointed advocate of the new Ukraine, March 12, 2015."
And now we learn that our own State Department was filling Soros coffers with our taxpayer
money to use against us and destroy our republic.
Whenever Democrats scream about cuts in foreign aid, know that they are squealing because
their "cut" of the laundered funds is in jeopardy and they have to answer to Soros for the
rest.
He's contributed a lot of money to the Dem Party to be so insulated from not only
prosecution but from criticism. If and when he gets criticized in a publication or article,
he screams "Anti-Semitism!" He's become good at making everything a win-win for himself.
Preaches socialism out of one side of his mouth to "virtue signal" to the world and then
loots the objects thereof out of the other side of his mouth for the benefit of his alleged
foundations. Why we can't prosecute him for interfering in our elections with his stolen
money is something hard to understand.
Ukraine is *** infested. I would like to know Soros ties to Igor Kolomoisky.
"Once in office, President Sirleaf opened the doors for Soros to take over major Liberian
gold and base metals assets along with his partner, Nathaniel Rothschild. One of her first
acts as President was to also invite the Pentagon's new Africa Command, AFRICOM, into Liberia
whose purpose as a Liberian investigation revealed, was to "protect George Soros and
Rothschild mining operations in West Africa rather than champion stability and human
rights ."
Wherever there are wealthy *** Zionist fascist oligarch sociopaths there is trouble...
I'm finding it hard to think of examples where the formerly norm-giving group becomes
derided or humiliated.
You can probably try to look at the situation in (now independent) republics of the former
USSR. Simplifying previously oppressed group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for
dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant group. This
is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism.
And not only it (look at Mutual Help and The State in Shantytowns.) In them ethnic
comminutes often own protection markets, offer services that hire people and replace the state,
pay off gang leaders. they also provide some community support for particular ethnic group,
enforce the rules of trade within themselves, etc. In GB the abuse of children by ethnic gangs
was sickening ( https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/abuse-children-asian-communities
)
In many cases of ethnic/cultural nationalism this looks more like a competition for
resources with the smoke screen of noble intentions/human rights/past oppression/
humiliations/etc
Or you can look at the language policy in the USA and the actual situation in some
areas/institutions of Florida and California and how English speakers feel in those
areas/institutions. Or in some areas of Quebec in Canada.
That actually suggests another meaning of famous Randolph Bourne quote " War is the health
of the state " (said in the midst of the First World War.) It bring the unity unachievable in
peace time or by any other methods, albeit temporarily (from Ch 14. Howard Zinn book A People's
History of the United States ):
the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men
died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of
trenches.
In the United States, not yet in the war, there was worry about the health of the state.
Socialism was growing. The IWW seemed to be everywhere. Class conflict was intense. In the
summer of 1916, during a Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco, a bomb exploded, killing
nine people; two local radicals, Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, were arrested and would
spend twenty years in prison. Shortly after that Senator James Wadsworth of New York
suggested compulsory military training for all males to avert the danger that "these people
of ours shall be divided into classes." Rather: "We must let our young men know that they owe
some responsibility to this country."
The supreme fulfillment of that responsibility was taking place in Europe. Ten million
were to die on the battlefield; 20 million were to die of hunger and disease related to the
war. And no one since that day has been able to show that the war brought any gain for
humanity that would be worth one human life. The rhetoric of the socialists, that it was an
"imperialist war," now seems moderate and hardly arguable. The advanced capitalist countries
of Europe were fighting over boundaries, colonies, spheres of influence; they were competing
for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East.
Neo-McCarthyism now serves a somewhat similar purpose in the USA. Among other thing (like
absolving Hillary from her fiasco to "deux ex machine" trick instead of real reason -- the
crisis and rejection of neoliberalism by the sizable strata of the USA population) it is an
attempt to unify the nation after 2016.
This is like the debate about the fundamental question "How many angels can dance on the head
of a pin?"
Notable quotes:
"... has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted? ..."
Speaker Pelosi's unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of
impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question:
has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization
or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are
transmitted? This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my
former Harvard Law School colleagues -- Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman -- both
liberal Democrats who support President Trump's impeachment.
Tribe believes that Trump has been impeached and that it would be perfectly proper to
leave it at that : by declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Democrats get a
win-win. President Trump remains impeached but he gets no opportunity to be tried and
acquitted by the Senate. This cynical, partisan ploy is acceptable to Tribe because it brings
about the partisan result he prefers: Trump bears forever the stigma of impeachment without
having the opportunity to challenge that stigma by a Senate acquittal. Under the Tribe
scenario, the House Democrats get to "obstruct" the Senate and "abuse" their power (to borrow
terms from the articles of impeachment).
Feldman disagrees with Tribe, arguing -- quite correctly -- that impeachment and a removal
trial go together. If a president is impeached, he must be tried. Impeachment, in his view,
is not merely a vote; it is the first step in a constitutionally mandated two-step process.
He goes so far as to say that if the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate
for trial, there has been no valid impeachment.
Trump can be impeached as a war criminal just for his false flag Douma attack (along with
members of his administration). But Neoliberal Dems and frst of all Pelosi are war criminals too,
with Pelosi aiding and abetting war criminal Bush.
So this is a variation of the theme of Lavrentiy Beria most famous quote: "Show me a
man and I will find you a crime"
I think tose neolib Dems who supported impeachment disqualified themselves from the running.
That includes Warren, who proved to be a very weak, easily swayed politician. It is quote
probably that they increased (may be considerably) chances of Trump reelection, but pushing
independents who were ready to abandon him, back into Trump camp. Now Trump is able to present
himself as a victim of neoliberal Dems/neocons witch hunt.
The only real check left is impeachment. It is rarely invoked and (until very recently) has
atrophied as a credible threat. But that doesn't make it any less
indispensable.
The problem was exacerbated by the Clinton impeachment fiasco, which history has proved
foolhardy. (I supported it at the time, but I was a government lawyer then, not a public
commentator.) Republicans were sufficiently spooked by the experience that they seemed to
regard impeachment as obsolete. Faithless Execution countered that this was the wrong
lesson to take from the affair. Clinton's impeachment was a mistake because (a) his conduct,
though disgraceful and indicative of unfitness, did not implicate the core responsibilities of
the presidency; and more significantly, (b) the public, though appalled by the behavior,
strongly opposed Clinton's removal. The right lesson was that impeachment must be reserved for
grave misconduct that involves the president's essential Article II duties; and that because
impeachment is so deeply divisive, it should never be launched in the absence of a public
consensus that transcends partisan lines.
This is why, unlike many opponents of President Trump's impeachment, I have never questioned
the legitimacy of the Democratic-controlled House's investigations of misconduct allegations
against the president. I believe the House must act as a body (investigations should not be
partisan attacks under the guise of House inquiries), and it must respect the lawful and
essential privileges of the executive branch; but within those parameters, Congress has the
authority and responsibility to expose executive misconduct.
Moreover, while egregious misconduct will usually be easy to spot and grasp, that will not
always be the case. When members of Congress claim to see it, they should have a fair
opportunity to expose and explain it. To my mind, President Obama was the kind of chief
executive that the Framers feared, but this was not obvious because he was not committing
felonies. Instead, he was consciously undermining our constitutional order. He usurped the
right to dictate law rather than execute it. His extravagant theory of executive discretion to
"waive" the enforcement of laws he opposed flouted his basic constitutional duty to execute the
laws faithfully. He and his underlings willfully and serially deceived Congress and the public
on such major matters as Obamacare and the Benghazi massacre. They misled Congress on, and
obstructed its investigation of, the outrageous Fast and Furious "gun-walking" operation, in
connection with which a border patrol agent was murdered. With his Iran deal, the president
flouted the Constitution's treaty process and colluded with a hostile foreign power to withhold
information from Congress, in an arrangement that empowered (and paid cash ransom to) the
world's leading sponsor of anti-American terrorism.
My critics fairly noted that I opposed Obama politically, and therefore contended that I was
masquerading as a constitutional objection what was really a series of policy disputes. I don't
think that is right, though, for two reasons.
First, my impeachment argument was not that Obama was pursuing policies I deeply opposed. I
was very clear that elections have consequences, and the president had every right to press his
agenda. My objection was that he was imposing his agenda lawlessly, breaking the limitations
within which the Framers cabined executive power, precisely to prevent presidents from becoming
tyrants. If allowed to stand, Obama precedents would permanently alter our governing framework.
Impeachment is there to protect our governing framework.
Second, I argued that, my objections notwithstanding, Obama should not be impeached in the
absence of a public consensus for his removal. Yes, Republicans should try to build that case,
try to edify the public about why the president's actions threatened the Constitution and its
separation of powers. But they should not seek to file articles of impeachment simply because
they could -- i.e., because control of the House theoretically gave them the numbers to do it.
The House is not obliged to file impeachment articles just because there may be impeachable
conduct. Because impeachment is so divisive, the Framers feared that it could be triggered on
partisan rather than serious grounds. The two-thirds supermajority requirement for Senate
conviction guards against that: The House should not impeach unless there is a reasonable
possibility that the Senate would remove -- which, in Obama's case, there was not.
I also tried to focus on incentives. If impeachment were a credible threat, and Congress
began investigating and publicly exposing abuses, a sensible president would desist in the
misconduct, making it unnecessary to proceed with impeachment. On the other hand, a failed
impeachment effort would likely embolden a rogue president to continue abusing power. If your
real concern is executive lawlessness, then impeaching heedlessly and against public opinion
would be counterproductive.
I've taken the same tack with President Trump.
The objections to Trump are very different from those to Obama. He is breaking not laws but
norms of presidential behavior and decorum. For the most part, I object to this. There are lots
of things about our government that need disruption, but even disruptive presidents should be
mindful that they hold the office of Washington and Lincoln and aspire to their dignity, even
if their greatness is out of reach.
That said, impeachment is about serious abuse of the presidency's core powers, not behavior
that is intemperate or gauche. Critics must be mindful that the People, not the pundits, are
sovereign, and they elected Donald Trump well aware of his flaws. That he turns out to be as
president exactly what he appeared to be as a candidate is not a rationale for impeaching
him.
The president's misconduct on Ukraine is small potatoes. Democrats were right to expose it,
and we would be dealing with a more serious situation if the defense aid appropriated by
Congress had actually been denied, rather than inconsequentially delayed. If Democrats had
wanted to make a point about discouraging foreign interference in American politics
(notwithstanding their long record of encouraging it), that would have been fine. They could
have called for the president's censure, which would have put Republicans on the defensive.
Ukraine could have been incorporated as part of their 2020 campaign that Trump should be
defeated, despite a surging economy and relative peace.
Conducting an impeachment inquiry is one thing, but for the House to take the drastic step
of impeaching the president is abusive on this record. Yes, it was foolish of Trump to mention
the Bidens to President Zelensky and to seek Ukraine's help in investigating the Bidens. There
may well be corruption worth probing, but the president ought to leave that to researchers in
his campaign. If there is something that a government should be looking into, leave that to the
Justice Department, which can (and routinely does) seek foreign assistance when necessary. The
president, however, should have stayed out of it. Still, it is absurd to posit, as Democrats
do, that, by not staying out of it, the president threatened election integrity and U.S.
national security. Such outlandish arguments may make Ukraine more of a black eye for Democrats
than for the president.
But whoever ultimately bears the brunt of the impeachment push, I have to ask myself a hard
question: Is this the world I was asking for when I wrote a book contending that, for our
system to work as designed, impeachment has to be a credible threat? I don't think so . . . but
I do worry about it.
Back to the Clinton impeachment. I tried to make the point that that impeachment effort --
against public opinion, and based on misconduct that, while dreadful, was not central to the
presidency -- has contributed significantly to the poisonous politics we have today. Democrats
have been looking for payback ever since, and now they have it -- in a way that is very likely
to make impeachment more routine in the future.
I don't see how our constitutional system can work without a viable impeachment remedy. But
I may have been wrong to believe that we could be trusted to invoke the remedy responsibly. I
used to poke fun at pols who would rather hide under their desks than utter the dreaded I-word.
Turns out they knew something I didn't.
...& overwhelming," but this Scam Impeachment was neither. Also, very unfair with no
Due Process, proper representation, or witnesses. Now Pelosi is demanding everything the
Republicans weren't allowed to have in the House. Dems want to run majority Republican
Senate. Hypocrites!
Donald J. Trump 7:12 PM - 25 Dec 2019
Why should Crazy Nancy Pelosi, just because she has a slight majority in the House, be
allowed to Impeach the President of the United States? Got ZERO Republican votes, there was
no crime, the call with Ukraine was perfect, with "no pressure." She said it must be
"bipartisan...
The #Dems ' war on democracy ratcheting up as they refuse to send the articles of
impeachment to the Senate for a proper trial. GOP Congressman @RepMarkGreen says ' #NancyPelosi is a
tyrannical person OUT OF CONTROL!' #TrishRegan
O nce in a blue moon an indispensable book comes out making a clear case for sanity in what
is now a post-MAD world. That's the responsibility carried by " The (Real)
Revolution in Military Affairs ," by Andrei Martyanov (Clarity Press), arguably the most
important book of 2019.
Martyanov is the total package -- and he comes with extra special attributes as a top-flight
Russian military analyst, born in Baku in those Back in the U.S.S.R. days, living and working
in the U.S., and writing and blogging in English.
Right from the start, Martyanov wastes no time destroying not only Fukuyama's and
Huntington's ravings but especially Graham Allison's childish and meaningless Thucydides Trap
argument -- as if the power equation between the U.S. and China in the 21stcentury could be
easily interpreted in parallel to Athens and Sparta slouching towards the Peloponnesian War
over 2,400 years ago. What next? Xi Jinping as the new Genghis Khan?
(By the way, the best current essay on Thucydides is in Italian, by Luciano Canfora ("
Tucidide: La Menzogna, La Colpa, L'Esilio" ). No Trap. Martyanov visibly relishes defining the
Trap as a "figment of the imagination" of people who "have a very vague understanding of real
warfare in the 21st century." No wonder Xi explicitly said the Trap does not exist.)
Martyanov had already detailed in his splendid, previous book, "Losing Military Supremacy:
The Myopia of American Strategic Planning," how "American lack of historic experience with
continental warfare" ended up "planting the seeds of the ultimate destruction of the American
military mythology of the 20thand 21stcenturies which is foundational to the American decline,
due to hubris and detachment of reality." Throughout the book, he unceasingly provides solid
evidence about the kind of lethality waiting for U.S. forces in a possible, future war against
real armies (not the Taliban or Saddam Hussein's), air forces, air defenses and naval
power.
Do the Math
One of the key takeaways is the failure of U.S. mathematical models: and readers of the book
do need to digest quite a few mathematical equations. The key point is that this failure led
the U.S. "on a continuous downward spiral of diminishing military capabilities against the
nation [Russia] she thought she defeated in the Cold War."
In the U.S., Revolution in Military
Affairs (RMA) was introduced by the late Andrew Marshall, a.k.a. Yoda, the former head of
Net Assessment at the Pentagon and the de facto inventor of the "pivot to Asia" concept. Yet
Martyanov tells us that RMA actually started as MTR (Military-Technological Revolution),
introduced by Soviet military theoreticians back in the 1970s.
One of the staples of RMA concerns nations capable of producing land-attack cruise missiles,
a.k.a. TLAMs. As it stands, only the U.S., Russia, China and France can do it. And there are
only two global systems providing satellite guidance to cruise missiles: the American GPS and
the Russian GLONASS. Neither China's BeiDou nor the European Galileo qualify – yet
– as global GPS systems.
Then there's Net-Centric Warfare (NCW). The term itself was coined by the late Admiral
Arthur Cebrowski in 1998 in an
article he co-wrote with John Garstka's titled, "Network-Centric Warfare – Its Origin and
Future."
Deploying his mathematical equations, Martyanov soon tells us that "the era of subsonic
anti-shipping missiles is over." NATO, that brain-dead organism (copyright Emmanuel Macron)
now has to face the supersonic Russian P-800 Onyx and the Kalibr-class M54 in a "highly hostile
Electronic Warfare environment." Every developed modern military today applies Net-Centric Warfare
(NCW), developed by the Pentagon in the 1990s.
Rendering of a future combat systems network. (soldiersmediacenter/Flickr, CC BY 2.0,
Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov
mentions in his new book something that I learned on my visit to Donbass in March 2015: how
NCW principles, "based on Russia's C4ISR capabilities made available by the Russian military to
numerically inferior armed forces of the Donbass Republics (LDNR), were used to devastating
effect both at the battles of Ilovaisk and Debaltsevo, when attacking the cumbersome Soviet-era
Ukrainian Armed Forces military."
No Escape From the Kinzhal
Martyanov provides ample information on Russia's latest missile – the hypersonic
Mach-10 aero-ballistic Kinzhal, recently tested in the Arctic.
Crucially, as he explains, "no existing anti-missile defense in the U.S. Navy is capable of
shooting [it] down even in the case of the detection of this missile." Kinzhal has a range of
2,000 km, which leaves its carriers, MiG-31K and TU-22M3M, "invulnerable to the only defense a
U.S. Carrier Battle Group, a main pillar of U.S. naval power, can mount – carrier fighter
aircraft." These fighters simply don't have the range.
The Kinzhal was one of the weapons announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin's
game-changing March
1, 2018 speech at the Federal Assembly. That's the day, Martyanov stresses, when the real
RMA arrived, and "changed completely the face of peer-peer warfare, competition and global
power balance dramatically."
Top Pentagon officials such as General
John Hyten, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, have admitted on the record there are "no
existing countermeasures" against, for instance, the hypersonic, Mach 27 glide vehicle Avangard
(which renders anti-ballistic missile systems useless), telling the U.S. Senate Armed Services
Committee the only way out would be "a nuclear deterrent." There are also no existing
counter-measures against anti-shipping missiles such as the Zircon and Kinzhal.
Any military analyst knows very well how the Kinzhal destroyed a land target the size of a
Toyota Corolla in Syria after being launched 1,000 km away in adverse weather conditions. The
corollary is the stuff of NATO nightmares: NATO's command and control installations in Europe
are de facto indefensible.
Martyanov gets straight to the point: "The introduction of hypersonic weapons surely pours
some serious cold water on the American obsession with securing the North American continent
from retaliatory strikes."
Kh-47M2 Kinzhal; 2018 Moscow Victory Day Parade. (Kremilin via Wikimedia Commons)
Martyanov is thus unforgiving on U.S. policymakers who "lack the necessary tool-kit for
grasping the unfolding geostrategic reality in which the real revolution in military affairs
had dramatically downgraded the always inflated American military capabilities and continues to
redefine U.S. geopolitical status away from its self-declared hegemony."
And it gets worse: "Such weapons ensure a guaranteed retaliation [Martyanov's italics] on
the U.S. proper." Even the existing Russian nuclear deterrents – and to a lesser degree
Chinese, as paraded recently -- "are capable of overcoming the existing U.S. anti-ballistic
systems and destroying the United States," no matter what crude propaganda the Pentagon is
peddling.
In February 2019, Moscow announced the completion of tests of a nuclear-powered engine for
the Petrel cruise missile. This is a subsonic cruise missile with nuclear propulsion that can
remain in air for quite a long time, covering intercontinental distances, and able to attack
from the most unexpected directions. Martyanov mischievously characterizes the Petrel as "a
vengeance weapon in case some among American decision-makers who may help precipitate a new
world war might try to hide from the effects of what they have unleashed in the relative safety
of the Southern Hemisphere."
Hybrid War Gone Berserk
A section of the book expands on China's military progress, and the fruits of the
Russia-China strategic partnership, such as Beijing buying $3 billion-worth of S-400 Triumph
anti-aircraft missiles -- "ideally suited to deal with the exact type of strike assets the
United States would use in case of a conventional conflict with China."
Beijing parade celebrating the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic, October 2019.
(YouTube screenshot)
Because of the timing, the analysis does not even take into consideration the arsenal
presented in early October at the Beijing parade celebrating the 70thanniversary of the
People's Republic.
That includes, among other things, the "carrier-killer" DF-21D, designed to hit warships at
sea at a range of up to 1,500 km; the intermediate range "Guam Killer" DF-26; the DF-17
hypersonic missile; and the long-range submarine-launched and ship-launched YJ-18A anti-ship
cruise missiles. Not to mention the DF-41 ICBM – the backbone of China's nuclear
deterrent, capable of reaching the U.S. mainland carrying multiple warheads.
Martyanov could not escape addressing the RAND Corporation, whose reason to exist is to
relentlessly push for more money for the Pentagon – blaming Russia for "hybrid war" (an
American invention) even as it moans about the U.S.'s incapacity of defeating Russia in each
and every war game. RAND's war games pitting the U.S. and allies against Russia and China
invariably ended in a "catastrophe" for the "finest fighting force in the world."
Martyanov also addresses the S-500s, capable of reaching AWACS planes and possibly even
capable of intercepting hypersonic non-ballistic targets. The S-500 and its latest middle-range
state of the art air-defense system S-350 Vityaz will be operational in 2020.
His key takeway: "There is no parity between Russia and the United States in such fields as
air-defense, hypersonic weapons and, in general, missile development, to name just a few fields
– the United States lags behind in these fields, not just in years but in generations
[italics mine]."
All across the Global South, scores of nations are very much aware that the U.S. economic
"order" – rather disorder – is on the brink of collapse. In contrast, a
cooperative, connected, rule-based, foreign relations between sovereign nations model is being
advanced in Eurasia – symbolized by the merging of the New Silk Roads, or Belt and Road
Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO), the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the NDB (the BRICS bank).
The key guarantors of the new model are Russia and China. And Beijing and Moscow harbor no
illusion whatsoever about the toxic dynamics in Washington. My recent conversations with top
analysts in Kazakhstan last month and in Moscow last week once again stressed the futility of
negotiating with people described – with overlapping shades of sarcasm – as
exceptionalist fanatics. Russia, China and many corners of Eurasia have figured out there are
no possible, meaningful deals with a nation bent on breaking every deal.
Indispensable?
No: Vulnerable
Martyanov cannot but evoke Putin's speech to the Federal Assembly in February 2019, after
the unilateral Washington abandonment of the INF treaty, clearing the way for U.S. deployment
of intermediate and close range missiles stationed in Europe and pointed at Russia:
"Russia will be forced to create and deploy those types of weapons against those regions
from where we will face a direct threat, but also against those regions hosting the centers
where decisions are taken on using those missile systems threatening us."
Translation: American Invulnerability is over – for good.
In the short term, things can always get worse. At his traditional, year-end presser in
Moscow, lasting almost four and a half hours, Putin stated that Russia is more than ready to
"simply renew the existing New START agreement", which is bound to expire in early 2021: "They
[the U.S.] can send us the agreement tomorrow, or we can sign and send it to Washington." And
yet, "so far our proposals have been left unanswered. If the New START ceases to exist, nothing
in the world will hold back an arms race. I believe this is bad."
"Bad" is quite the euphemism. Martyanov prefers to stress how "most of the American elites,
at least for now, still reside in a state of Orwellian cognitive dissonance" even as the real
RMA "blew the myth of American conventional invincibility out of the water."
Martyanov is one of the very few analysts – always from different parts of Eurasia --
who have warned about the danger of the U.S. "accidentally stumbling" into a war against
Russia, China, or both which is impossible to be won conventionally, "let alone through the
nightmare of a global nuclear catastrophe."
Is that enough to instill at least a modicum of sense into those who lord over that massive
cash cow, the industrial-military-security complex? Don't count on it.
* * *
Pepe Escobar, a veteran Brazilian journalist, is the correspondent-at-large for Hong
Kong-based Asia Times . His latest book is
"
2030 ." Follow him on Facebook .
This is like the debate about the fundamental question "How many angels can dance on the head
of a pin?"
Notable quotes:
"... has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are transmitted? ..."
Speaker Pelosi's unconstitutional decision to delay transmission of the articles of
impeachment to the Senate in order to gain partisan advantage raises the following question:
has President Trump been impeached, or did the House vote merely represent an authorization
or intention to impeach -- which becomes an actual impeachment only when the articles are
transmitted? This highly technical constitutional issue is being debated by two of my
former Harvard Law School colleagues -- Professors Laurence Tribe and Noah Feldman -- both
liberal Democrats who support President Trump's impeachment.
Tribe believes that Trump has been impeached and that it would be perfectly proper to
leave it at that : by declining to transmit the articles of impeachment, the Democrats get a
win-win. President Trump remains impeached but he gets no opportunity to be tried and
acquitted by the Senate. This cynical, partisan ploy is acceptable to Tribe because it brings
about the partisan result he prefers: Trump bears forever the stigma of impeachment without
having the opportunity to challenge that stigma by a Senate acquittal. Under the Tribe
scenario, the House Democrats get to "obstruct" the Senate and "abuse" their power (to borrow
terms from the articles of impeachment).
Feldman disagrees with Tribe, arguing -- quite correctly -- that impeachment and a removal
trial go together. If a president is impeached, he must be tried. Impeachment, in his view,
is not merely a vote; it is the first step in a constitutionally mandated two-step process.
He goes so far as to say that if the articles of impeachment are not forwarded to the Senate
for trial, there has been no valid impeachment.
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being
justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a
restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount
geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented
in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine.
This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government.
Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for "Renovation of
School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it is
purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed extensive
photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other US-made products, that
the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some American corporation, yet to be
determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at that time was a Ukrainian Government
property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why were US taxpayers supposed to fund this
'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Eric Zuesse
December 23, 2019 |
History
The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway
Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as
being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance
as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful
is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the
links here) documented in this article.
Though international law is generally an unenforced
mess that is interpretable far more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles,
the US Government does quite blatantly violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and
invasions against countries that never invaded nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is that Crimea's breaking away from
Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will be documented here, by
exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored
in arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of
Russia. Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the
Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea
about this handover of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the
foreign-language-speaking and largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to
their north, so that as soon as the Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans
would tolerate any continuation of their formal association with Ukraine was by being declared
Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one) in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean
independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via coup) by the US regime, in order to be
handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU would accept Ukraine, to NATO,
which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine until the American
conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs, who were eager
to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider deals
with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the
time of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations,
and
on the day of the coup,
February 20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but
the eight buses carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing
Crimeans were killed
. Many of the surviving ones were
permanently injured
. Crimeans were
terrified and some of them
wrote to
friends in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored
by the proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the
basic human rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed
forces; and, so, any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake.
But, still, legal arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so,
here is a quick intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the
relevant international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because
in the US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by
billionares who are allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two
breakaway-movements (Kurds and Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to
the US-and-allied lies about Russia. Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing
mother state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or
where the mother state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has
remained constant throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two
United Nations' declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed
the issue of self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a
matter of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right
to self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial
governments did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the
importance of the principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing
states only in extreme instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother
state.[9] This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court
opinion regarding the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all
peoples are entitled to various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some
peoples, such as those subjected to conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire
the right to external self-determination through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be
concluded that international law bestows on all peoples the right to self-determination, but
that the right to external self-determination, exercised through remedial secession, only
applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not
contain a right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates
secession in instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed
(like in the case of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if
the secessionist entity is attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of
international law, such as the prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern
Cyprus).[12] In other instances of attempted secession, where the relevant people is not
oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland, international law is neutral on secession -- it does not
support a right to secession nor does it prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute
is left to the realm of domestic law and to political negotiations between the mother state and
the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway
was and is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine
from the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to
self-determination or an alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for
the separation of the Crimean Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation
seem to have argued.
The article explains that beyond the context of decolonization,
the right to self-determination does not encompass a general right to unilateral secession and
demonstrates that contemporary international law does not acknowledge a right to remedial
secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that even when assuming that such a
right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the absence of a legal
entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's unilateral
secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it.
Nonetheless, there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to
be illegal in view of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that
is relevant in the case of Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious
injustices suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced
remedial arguments in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first
in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea
and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally,
we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests
of Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue
is one of defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human
right -- the right to life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under
contemporary international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the
allegations that Putin asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even
once in this article is anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of
Yanukovych
-- the overthrow that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia.
Instead the article simply assumes that there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution
of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant
effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly
was a coup
. Furthermore: even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the
Euromaidan movement in the capital of Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities
in attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas
Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality
in general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e.
its capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress
and crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.]
Even where the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the
concept of a "failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must
be continued based on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force
[the writers mean "use of force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given
nation's government in order to suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for
territorial integrity, and other fundamental international legal principles; other states are
not released from the obligations with respect to this state [in other words: foreign nations
must never side with nor support a secession movement within a country. Blatantly false
allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania.]
In June 2013 (well before the 'democratic revolution' in Ukraine started), NAVFAC, the US
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, published on its website, a "Project Description" for
"Renovation of School#5, Sevastopol, Ukraine," under the euphemistic title
"EUCOM Humanitarian Assistance Program"
. EUCOM is the US European Command -- it
is purely military, not "humanitarian," at all. The 124-page request for proposals (RFP) showed
extensive photos of the existing school, and also of the toilets, floor-boards, and other
US-made products, that the US regime was requiring to be used in the renovation (by some
American corporation, yet to be determined) of that then-Ukrainian school in Crimea, which at
that time was a Ukrainian Government property, not at all American-owned or operated. So: why
were US taxpayers supposed to fund this 'humanitarian' operation, by the U.S. military?
Though international law is generally an unenforced mess that is interpretable far
more by partisanship than by any clearly applicable principles, the US Government does quite blatantly
violate it on a routine basis, by means of coups and invasions against countries that never invaded
nor threatened to invade the US; but, if
anything
at all is clear in international law, it is
that Crimea's breaking away from Ukraine and rejoining Russia in 2014 was entirely legitimate, as will
be documented here, by exposing the lies that are adduced on the US side, in order to allege that it's
not
legitimate.
First, however, will be a bit of essential historical background, which is commonly ignored in
arguments by the pro-US-regime liars on this matter: From 1783 to 1954, Crimea was part of Russia.
Crimea was arbitrarily transferred from Russia to Ukraine in 1954 by the dictator of the Soviet Union,
Nikita Khruschev, who was a Ukrainian and didn't consult the residents of Crimea about this handover
of them to Ukraine. Crimeans were so opposed to being ruled from the foreign-language-speaking and
largely pro-Nazi (and anti-Semitic and anti-Russian) Ukrainians to their north, so that as soon as the
Soviet Union broke up in 1991, the only way that Crimeans would tolerate any continuation of their
formal association with Ukraine was by being declared Ukraine's "autonomous republic" (the only one)
in Ukraine. This situation of partial Crimean independence continued until Ukraine was conquered (via
coup) by the US regime, in order to be handed over first to the European Union, and then, after the EU
would accept Ukraine, to NATO, which military alliance with the US was extremely unpopular in Ukraine
until the American conquest and the immediately subsequent takeover of Ukraine by pro-US oligarchs,
who were eager to buy more privatized and formerly Soviet state-owned properties, in basically insider
deals with the now US-controlled Ukrainian Government. Those oligarchs' 'news'-media successfully
propagandized most Ukrainians to switch from being anti-NATO to pro-NATO. However, right at the time
of the coup, Crimeans demonstrated in Kiev against the CIA-organized Maidan demostrations, and
on the day of the coup, February
20th, those Crimeans in Kiev were forced by the US-supported nazis to flee there, but the eight buses
carrrying them were blocked en-route, and an unknown number of the fleeing Crimeans were killed
.
Many of the surviving ones were
permanently
injured
. Crimeans were terrified and some of them
wrote to friends
in the West regarding the terror and their fears
. All of this information is ignored by the
proponents of the illegality of Crimea's separation from Ukraine, because, clearly, the basic human
rights of Crimeans were then under very palpable and severe threat by the US-imposed forces; and, so,
any 'legal' argument for forcing Crimeans to remain Ukrainians was and is fake. But, still, legal
arguments for forcing Crimeans to be Ukrainians again are presented; and, so, here is a quick
intoroduction to those frauds.
The least politicized of the pro-Western (i.e., pro-US-regime) articles regarding the relevant
international laws on this topic concern the cases of Kurdistan and Catalonia, because in the
US-and-allied international dictatorship (that is, the countries that are ruled by billionares who are
allied with US billionaires), no unanimity exists regarding those two breakaway-movements (Kurds and
Catalonians); so, the legal principles aren't such a threat to the US-and-allied lies about Russia.
Here are highlights from this article, and I
boldface
what I consider key statements
there:
ASIL
[American Society of International Law]
Insights
, v. 22, issue 1
Milena Sterio, 5 January 2018
The theory of self-determination, as justifying the secession of a people from its existing mother
state as a matter of last resort only, in situations where the people is oppressed or where the mother
state's government does not legitimately represent the people's interests, has remained constant
throughout the 20th century development of international law.
Two United Nations'
declarations, in addition to the United Nations Charter itself, have addressed the issue of
self-determination.
Both declarations
envisioned self-determination leading to secession as a matter
of last resort only within the decolonization paradigm: here, both conditions for a right to
self-determination were met insofar as colonized peoples were oppressed and their colonial governments
did not adequately represent their interests. Both declarations also confirmed the importance of the
principle of territorial integrity of existing states, [8] and thus
embraced the idea that
self-determination could lead to the territorial disruption of existing states only in extreme
instances of oppression or colonization
.
Peoples who are oppressed or colonized
, however,
have the right to
external self-determination, which they may exercise through secession from their mother state.[9]
This view of self-determination was confirmed in 1998, in the Canadian Supreme Court opinion regarding
the proposed secession of Quebec from Canada, where the Court held that all peoples are entitled to
various modes of internal self-determination, but that only some peoples, such as those subjected to
conquest, colonization, and perhaps oppression, may acquire the right to external self-determination
through remedial secession.[10] Today, it may be concluded that international law bestows on all
peoples the right to self-determination, but that the right to external self-determination, exercised
through remedial secession, only applies in extreme circumstances, to colonized and severely
persecuted peoples.
While international law embraces the principle of self-determination, it does not contain a
right of secession.[11] It may be argued that international law merely tolerates secession in
instances of external self-determination, where a people is colonized or oppressed (like in the case
of Kosovo). In addition, secession is prohibited under international law if the secessionist entity is
attempting to separate by violating another fundamental norm of international law, such as the
prohibition on the use of force (like in the case of Northern Cyprus).[12] In other instances of
attempted secession, where the relevant people is not oppressed, as in Quebec or Scotland,
international law is neutral on secession -- it does not support a right to secession nor does it
prohibit secession. Instead, the secessionist dispute is left to the realm of domestic law and to
political negotiations between the mother state and the secessionist entity.[13]
--
Following are two influential articles reaffirming the US regime's view, that the breakaway was and
is illegitimate. In
the first
, the lie is simply presumed true that the overthrow of the democratically elected
President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, during 20-26 February 2014, was a domestic democratic
revolution, instead of a foreign-imposed coup. In
the second
, international law, as was just summarized above here, is simply ignored.
Simone F. van den Driest [whose 404-page 2013 Ph.D dissertation, at Netherlands' Tilburg
University, was
"Remedial Secession"
], First Online: 30 November 2015
16k Downloads
Abstract
This article considers the (il)legality of Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine from
the perspective of public international law. It examines whether the right to self-determination or an
alleged right to (remedial) secession could serve as a legal basis for the separation of the Crimean
Peninsula, as the Crimean authorities and the Russian Federation seem to have argued.
The
article explains that beyond the context of decolonization, the right to self-determination does not
encompass a general right to unilateral secession and demonstrates that contemporary international law
does not acknowledge a right to remedial secession. With respect to the case of Crimea, it argues that
even when assuming that such a right does exist, the threshold in this regard is not met. In the
absence of a legal entitlement, the article subsequently turns to the question whether Crimea's
unilateral secession was prohibited under international law. It contends that while the principle of
territorial integrity discourages unilateral secession, it does not actually prohibit it. Nonetheless,
there are situations in which an attempt at unilateral secession is considered to be illegal in view
of the circumstances. It is argued that it is precisely this exception that is relevant in the case of
Crimea.
[Text now:]
The Russian Federation (implicitly) relied on the doctrine of remedial
secession, which is seen to encompass a right to unilateral secession in case of serious injustices
suffered by a people. [which were unquestionably present] President Putin advanced remedial arguments
in his speech of 18 March, contending that
those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in
line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and
Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives [ ]. [N]aturally, we could
not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress
.7
To the same effect, the Russian Federation claimed in the Security Council that there had been
'threats of violence by ultranationalists against the security, lives and legitimate interests of
Russians and all Russian-speaking peoples' in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and that 'the issue is one of
defending our citizens and compatriots, as well as the most import[ant] human right -- the right to
life'.8
The accuracy of these views presented, however, is highly questionable under contemporary
international law [and all the rest of the article discusses none of the allegations that Putin
asserted there
, but only internnational law.
Not even once in this article is
anything like the word "coup" used in relation to the overthrow of Yanukovych
-- the overthrow
that had sparked Crimeans to demand restoration to Russia. Instead the article simply assumes that
there was no coup whatsoever: "The Ukrainian Revolution of 2014, which was initiated by the Euromaidan
movement in the capital of Kiev, had significant effects in Crimea." That's all. However, that
statement was
false:
It was
no
"revolution," and it
clearly was a coup
. Furthermore:
even if it had been a "revolution," it was not "initiated by the Euromaidan movement in the capital of
Kiev --
it was initiated by the Barack Obama Administration in the summer of 2011, and started to be
implemented inside the US Embassy in Kiev on 1 March 2013
. The Euromaidan movement
started on 21 November 2013
.
So, this author is merely assuming that "the Euromaidan movement" wasn't part of a
coup-operation by the US regime.]
CONCLUSION
All in all, it should be concluded that the arguments involving an alleged right to
self-determination and (remedial) secession as advanced by the Crimean and Russian authorities in
attempting to justify the events on the Crimean Peninsula cannot be upheld. On the contrary:
Crimea's unilateral secession from Ukraine clearly was illegal under international law.
Lithuanian Annual Strategic Review
, 2015-2016, v. 14 [published by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania]
Erika Leonaitė & Dainius Žalimas, both of Vilnius University
it is essential to point out that
a coup d'etat and the issues of constitutionality in
general are matters of national rather than international law. In terms of international law,
importance falls not on the constitutionality of the government, but on its effectiveness, i.e. its
capability to efficiently control the territory of the state and to ensure compliance with
international commitments.
[In other words: any national government that can suppress and
crush a secession movement is adhering to international law, according to these writers.] Even where
the government is unable to carry out effective control (in political science, the concept of a
"failed state" is used to refer to these cases), relations with such a state must be continued based
on the principles of sovereign equality, the prohibition of the use of force [the writers mean "use of
force" by any foreign govertnment, not "use of force" by the given nation's government in order to
suppress and crush any secession movement], respect for territorial integrity, and other fundamental
international legal principles; other states are not released from the obligations with respect to
this state [in other words: foreign nations must never side with nor support a secession movement
within a country. Blatantly false allegations like that are publishable by General Jonas Žemaitis
Military Academy of Lithuania.]
It would be impossible for Trump to re-energize his base in any other way. Pelosi acts as
covert agent for Trump re-election? Peloci calculation that she can repar "Mueller effect" of
2018 with this impeachment proved to be gross miscalculation.
Warren who stupidly and enthusiastically jumped into this bandwagon will be hurt. She is such
a weak politician that now it looks like she does not belong to the club. Still in comparison
with Trump she might well be an improvement as she has Trump-like economic program, which Trump
betrayed and neutered. And her foreign policy can't be worse then Trump foreign policy. It is
just impossible.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the point
to the strategy that is so ineffective?
Notable quotes:
"... The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water, by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump. ..."
"... fake impeachment procedure ..."
"... For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be what makes for a successful impeachment. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they deserve whatever they believe'. ..."
"... little else can explain the reasoning behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.". ..."
"... "We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy, angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes president. ..."
"... He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy – the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins." ..."
"... We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of the stigma of impeachment. ..."
And so it came to pass, that in the deep state's frenzy of
electoral desperation, the 'impeachment' card was played. The hammer has fallen. Nearly the
entirety of the legacy media news cycle has been dedicated to the details, and not really
pertinent details, but the sorts of details which presume the validity of the charges against
Trump in the first place. Yes, they all beg the question. What's forgotten here is that the use
of this process along clearly partisan lines, and more – towards clearly partisan aims
– is a very serious symptom of the larger undoing of any semblance of stability in the US
government.
The fact that the impeachment is dead in the water,
by Pelosi's own admission , is evident in Trump's being adamant that indeed it must be sent
to the Senate – where he knows he'll be exonerated. But even if it doesn't go to the
Senate, what we're left with still appears as a loss for Democrats. Both places are his briar
patch. This makes all of this a win-win for team Trump.
Only in a country that produces so much fake news at the official level, could there be a
fake impeachment procedure made purely for media consumption, with no real or tangible
possible victory in sight.
For in a constitutional republic like the United States, what makes an impeachment
possible is when the representatives and the voters are in communion over the matter. This
would normally be reflected in a mid-term election, like say for example the mid-term
Senatorial race in 2018 where Democrats failed to take control. Control of the Senate would
reflect a change of sentiment in the republic, which in turn and not coincidentally, would be
what makes for a successful impeachment.
Don't forget, this impeachment is fake
Nancy Pelosi is evidently extraordinarily cynical. Her politics appears to be 'they
deserve whatever they believe'. And her aim appears to be the one who makes them believe
things so that they deserve what she gives them. For little else can explain the reasoning
behind her claim that she will 'send the impeachment to the Senate' as soon as she 'has
assurances and knows how the Senate will conduct the impeachment', except that it came from the
same person who told the public regarding Obamacare that we have to 'We have to pass the bill
so that you can find out what is in it.".
In both cases, reality is turned on its head – for rather we will know how the Senate
intends to conduct its procedure as soon as it has the details, which substantively includes
the impeachment documents themselves, in front of them, and likewise, legislators ought to know
what's in a major piece of legislation before they vote either way on it. Pelosi's assault on
reason, however, isn't without an ever growing tide of resentment from within the progressive
base of the party itself.
We have quickly entered into a new era which increasingly resembles the broken political
processes which have struck many a country, but none in living memory a country like the US.
Now elected officials push judges to prosecute their political opponents, constitutional crises
are manufactured to pursue personal or political vendettas, death threats and rumors of coups
coming from media and celebrities being fed talking points by big and important players from
powerful institutions.
This 'impeachment' show really takes the cake, does it not? We will recall shortly after
Trump was elected, narrator for hire Morgan Freeman made a shocking public service
announcement. It was for all intents and purposes, a PSA notifying the public that a military
coup to remove Trump would be legitimate and in order. Speaking about this PSA, and recounting
what was said, would in any event read as an exaggeration, or some allegorical paraphrasing
made to prove a point. Jogging our memories then, Freeman spoke to tens of millions of viewers
on television and YouTube
saying :
"We have been attacked. We are at war. Imagine this movie script: A former KGB spy,
angry at the collapse of his motherland, plots a course for revenge – taking advantage of
the chaos, he works his way up through the ranks of a post-soviet Russia and becomes
president.
He establishes an authoritarian regime, then he sets his sights on his sworn enemy
– the United States. And like the KGB spy that he is, he secretly uses cyber warfare to
attack democracies around the world. Using social media to spread propaganda and false
information, he convinces people in democratic societies to distrust their media, their
political processes, even their neighbors. And he wins."
This really set the tone for the coming years, which have culminated in this manufactured
'impeachment' crisis, really befitting a banana republic.
It would be the height of dishonesty to approach this abuse of the impeachment procedure as
if until this moment, the US's own political culture and processes were in good shape. Now
isn't the time for the laundry list of eroded constitutional provisions, which go in a thousand
and one unique directions. The US political system is surely broken, but as is the case with
such large institutions several hundreds of years old, its meltdown appears to happen in slow
motion to us mere mortals. And so what we are seeing today is the next phase of this
break-down, and really ought to be understood as monumental in this sense. Once again revealed
is the poor judgment of the Democratic Party and their agents, tools, warlords, and
strategists, the same gang who sunk Hillary Clinton's campaign on the rocks of hubris.
Nancy Pelosi also has poor judgment, and these short-sighted and self-interested moves on
her part stand a strong chance of backfiring. Her role in this charade is duly noted. This
isn't said because of any disagreement over her aims, but rather that in purely objective terms
it just so happens that her aims and her actions are out of synch – that is unless she
wants to see Trump re-elected. Her aims are her aims, our intention is to connect these to
their probable results, without moral judgments.
The real problem for the Democrats, the DNC, and any hopes for the White House in 2020, is
that this all has the odor of a massive backfire, and something that Trump has been counting on
happening. When one's opponent knows what is probable, and when they have a track record for
preparing very well for such, it is only a question of what Trump's strategy is and
how this falls into it, not whether there is one.
Imagine being a fly on the wall of the meeting with Pelosi where it was decided to go
forward with impeachment in the House of Representatives, despite not having either sufficient
traction in the Senate or any way to control the process that the Senate uses.
It probably went like this: ' We'll say we impeached him, because we did, and we'll say
he was impeached. We'll declare victory, and go home. This will make him unelectable because of
the stigma of impeachment. '
Informed citizens are aware that whatever their views towards Trump, nothing he has done
reaches beyond the established precedent set by past presidents. Confused citizens on the other
hand, are believing the manufactured talking points thrown their way, and the idea that a US
president loosely reference a quid pro quo in trying to sort a corruption scandal in dealings
with the president of a foreign country, is some crazy, new, never-before-done and
highly-illegal thing. It is none of those things though.
Unfortunately, not needless to say, the entirety of the direct, physical evidence against
Trump solely consists of the now infamous transcript of the phone call which he had with
Ukrainian president Zelensky. The rest is hearsay, a conspiracy narrative, and entirely
circumstantial. As this author has noted in numerous pieces, Biden's entire candidacy rests
precisely upon his need to be a candidate so that any normal investigation into the wrongdoings
of himself or his son in Ukraine, suddenly become the targeted persecution of a political
opponent of Trump.
Other than this, it is evident that Biden stands little chance – the same polling
institutions which give him a double-digit lead were those which foretold a Clinton electoral
victory. Neither their methods nor those paying and publishing them, have substantively
changed. Biden's candidacy, like the impeachment, is essentially fake. The real contenders for
the party's base are Sanders and Gabbard.
The Democratic Party Activist Base Despises Pelosi as much as Clinton
The Democratic Party has two bases, one controlled by the DNC and the Clintons, and one
which consists of its energized rank-and-file activists who are clearer in their populism,
anti-establishment and ant-corporate agenda. Candidates like Gabbard and Sanders are closest to
them politically, though far from perfect fits. Their renegade status is confirmed by the
difficulties they have with visibility – they are the new silent majority of the party.
The DNC base, on the other hand, relies on Rachel Maddow, Wolf Blitzer, and the likes for their
default talking points, where they have free and pervasive access to legacy media. In the
context of increased censorship online, this is not insignificant.
Among the important reasons this 'impeachment' strategy will lose is that it will not
energize the second and larger base. Even though this more progressive and populist base is
also more motivated, they have faced – as has the so-called alt-light – an
extraordinarily high degree of censorship on social media. Despite all the censorship, the
Democrats' silent majority are rather well-informed people, highly motivated, and tend to be
vocal in their communities and places of work. Their ideas move organically and virally among
the populace.
This silent majority has a very good memory, and they know very well who Nancy Pelosi is,
and who she isn't.
The silent majority remembers that after years of the public backlash against Bush's war
crimes, crimes against humanity, destruction of remaining civil liberties with the Patriot Act,
torture, warrantless search – and the list goes on and on – Democrats managed to
retake the lower house in 2006. If there was a legitimate reason for an impeachment, it would
have been championed by Pelosi against Bush for going to war using false, falsified,
manufactured evidence about WMD in Iraq. At the time, Pelosi squashed the hopes of her own
electorate, reasoning that such moves would be divisive, that they would distract from the
Democrats' momentum to take the White House in '08, that Bush had recently (?) won his last
election, and so on. Of course these were real crimes, and the reasons not to prosecute may
have as much to do with Pelosi's own role in the war industry. Pelosi couldn't really push
against Bush over torture, etc. because she had been on an elite congressional committee
– the House Intelligence Committee – during the Bush years in office which starting in
2003 was dedicated to making sure that torture could and would become normalized and
entirely legal.
It seems Pelosi can't even go anywhere with this impeachment on Trump today, and therefore
doesn't even really plan to submit it to the Senate for the next stage .
The political stunt was pulled, a fireworks show consisting of one lonely rocket that sort of
fizzled off out of sight.
Trump emerges unscathed, and more to the point, we are closer to the election and his base
is even more energized. Pelosi spent the better part of three years inoculating the public
against any significance being attached to any impeachment procedure. Pelosi cried wolf so many
times, and Trump has made good on the opportunities handed to him to get his talking points in
order and to condition his base to receive and process the scandals in such and such way. This
wouldn't have been possible without Pelosi's help. Thanks in part to Pelosi and the DNC, Trump
appears primed for re-election.
Trump energizes his base, and the DNC suppresses and disappoints theirs. That's where the
election will be won or lost.
This may be a good time to pull on my yellow waters, and take a look at Trump's letter to
Pelosi, since his letter is simultaneously a parting shot as the House votes impeachement, and
--
assuming impeachment doesn't die in the House -- the opening gun not only for his trial in
the Senate but for election 2020.
Here is the letter ; if you have time, it's worth reading it to form your own opinions.
One tip to make reading Trump more tolerable is to hear him as a borscht belt comedian like
Rodney Dangerfield or Henny Youngman.
Clifford A. Rieders , who grew up with enduring memories of the borscht belt, commented in
2016:
The humorists spanned the spectrum from Yiddish-speaking Brooklynites to Midwestern
Protestants. Each comedian had a shtick. What exactly is a shtick? A "shtick" was an
approach, an act, a way of relating to people that could be funny, serious, entertaining or
crass, but always memorable in some way. Donald Trump is surging in the polls because he has
a shtick. He is very much like a borscht belt entertainer, memorable because of how he speaks
and the way he presents himself, rather than his content. The experts will have to parse the
substance of Trump's message, if any, but his entertainment value should not be
underestimated. He is making people sit up and take notice, whether he is hated, loved, or
whether he just makes people shrug their shoulders and giggle.
... ... ...
Even more amazingly, the Times leaves this passage, which occurs immediately before the
passage they corrected, uncorrected:
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and
regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the
Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other.
One must assume that the Times does not correct what it believes to be true. Therefore,
RussiaGate -- which the Times assiduously propagated, to its great profit -- is "a grave,
malicious, and slanderous lie"? Alrighty then.
Similarly:
What the Times is looking at is a blueprint for Trump's case to the voters in 2020. And yet
the Times can find only two corrections to make? If I were a liberal Democrat, I would be very,
very worried about 2020.
I'm not going to make an armchair diagnosis of Trump's mental state, or shoot fish in a
barrel with factchecking. Rather, I'm going to look at Trump's letter through the lens of his
schtick , or, using the seventy five-cent word, his rhetoric. (I will be the first to
say that Trump is not a superb technician; for an analysis of an orator who is, see NC
here on Julia Gillard .) First, I will show that Trump's letter falls naturally into two
parts: His defense against the indictment, and his 2020 case against the fitness of Democrats
to govern). Given that the text has such a structure, it's simply not tenable to call it an "
unhinged rant ," which disposes of the first mainstream response. Nor it is especially
useful to fact-check it, especially when the facts are so disputed[1], which disposes of the
second. Unfortunately, I cannot annotate the entire six-page letter, but I will comment on the
rhetoric used in each part. Now let's look at the two parts.
Here is the division point between the two parts. Using direct address (" inter se pugnantia "),
Trump writes:
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing
Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
There are two reasons this paragraph marks a division. First, it's the first and only joke (
irony ). Second, it's
the first use of one of Trump's favorite figures: paralipsis , here saying something while pretending that one
does not wish to say it ("unfortunately," my sweet Aunt Fanny).
So, let us turn to the first part, Trump's defense. After some hyperbole about the
Constitution , Trump addresses each claim in the House indictment in turn. On (1) "Abuse of
Power," Trump responds that (A) "I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of
Ukraine," (B) "You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an
impeachable offense", (C) "you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what
Joe Biden has admitted he actually did," and (D) "President Zelensky has repeatedly declared
that I did nothing wrong." On (2), "Obstruction of Congress," Trump responds, (A) "if you make
a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power," (B) "you
have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and
nullify their votes," (C) "Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the
present day", and (D) "You and your party are desperate to distract," followed by the
accomplishedments listed in the second Times "correction" above." I've lettered and numbered
the responses because the structure is perfectly clear to those who are willing to look for it.
(There is a minor Twitter controversy over whether Trump wrote the letter himself, but I would
say he, like any President, has people for that. I think that Trump, for whatever reason, had a
lot more input into part two, for reasons I will show.)
A second feature of the first part is that it's virtually devoid of rhetorical devices:
Tricolon and
anaphora are the
only ones used frequently ("[1] no crimes, [2] no misdemeanors, and [3]
no offenses"; "[1] you are violating your oaths of office, [2] you
are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and [3] you are declaring
open war on American Democracy"; "[1]misquoted, [2]mischaracterized, and [3]fraudulently
misrepresented").
Now let's turn to the second part. Unlike the first part, it can't be represented with an
outline structure. Indeed, it might be considered to be grist for Trump's improvisations and
A/B testing on the trail. From
my post describing Trump's visit to Bangor :
I want to focus on how [Trump] made [his] points: He didn't just emit them in
bulleted-list form. Rather, he treated them as waypoints. He'd state the point, clearly and
loudly, and then begin to move away from it in ever-widening circles, riffing jazzily on
anecdotes, making jokes, introducing other talking points ("We're gonna build the wall"),
introducing additional anecdotes, until finally popping the topical stack and circling back
to the next waypoint, which he would then state, clearly and loudly; rinse, repeat. The
political class considers or at least claims Trump's speeches are random and disorganized,
but they aren't; any speech and debate person who's done improvisation knows what's going
on.
You can just see Trump cutting up bits of part two, revising some, discarding others,
re-arranging them, and so on.
The primary rhetorical device in the second part is tu quoque , colloquially "The pot calling the
kettle black." Here it is combined with anaphora (and a dash of tricolon and alliteration ):
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the
ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice.
You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish
[1] p ersonal, [2] p olitical, and [3]p p artisan gain.
And here Trump combines tu quoque with straight up [A] ad hominem plus [B] mesarchia , [C] tricolon, [D] hyperbole , and [E]
ad populum .
(I have to change the notating system for this one because the devices are so numerous and
interlocked.)
Perhaps most insulting of all is [A]your false display of solemnity. You apparently have
so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that [B] you
are approaching this impeachment [C]somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. [D]No
intelligent person believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the
Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There is no reticence. This is not a
somber affair. [B] You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are
scarcely concealing [C]your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of
patriotic Americans. [E]The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this
[C]empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
Now, tu quoque is indeed a logical fallacy with respect to claims . But is it
a fallacy with respect to the right to govern, which is one way for Trump to structure the 2020
campaign?[1]
...A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox. Trump has form. His schtick has worked, and may well work
again.
It will come as a great shock to the dem establishment, a shock i tell you, that the
reporting they ignored coming from aaron mate and the other tinny (to their ears) voices to
their left was the
revealed truth
and could be wielded like a mighty club against them by trump
only not in the people's interest, because of course not, he's a republican
but anyway, who could have known? /s
as to Trump's charge of Do Nothing Democrats, the Democratic House has passed an entire
agenda of good things that the Senate has not acted upon. Also, is there ANY evidence to
suggest that African American unemployment is at an all time low? A favorite Trump technique
is to issue an obviously false statement as if it were true.
Overall rate, and rates by ethnicity have been declining since 2011, so record or near
record lows are recorded during the Trump years. YMMV as to how much Trump economic policies
have contributed to and/or not impeded the trend.
They have passed a few interesting bills. But how much time have they spent talking about
those bills, and other issues on which they want to move ahead for the people? Compared to
the media time sucked up by TrumpRussia, Impeachment, and the rest of the sh*tshow. I don't
watch any TV news, but to judge from headlines and other coverage I'll guess very little.
Thanks for the analysis. I'm not sure that the bit about the false display of solemnity is
an ad hominem. It seems to me that it would count as a fallacy if he were arguing that the
case against him is flawed for the reason that those making that case are bad people (people
who feign solemnity). But that's not how I read it.
I read it as an attempt to work up anger against his accusers. At one point in the
Rhetoric, Aristotle claims that people become angry with someone when they think they have
been slighted by that person. One way of slighting people is to take them for fools. This is
an insult. If Trump were right and Democrats really were feigning solemnity while gleefully
engaged in a narrowly self-interested effort to overturn an election, then Democrats would be
taking voters for fools. Many voters would find this insulting. Also, Aristotle thought that
angry people are moved to take revenge. This amounts to a desire to bring the insulting party
low. Bringing low, in this case, would surely involve voting against Democrats, punishing
them by keeping them out or throwing them out of high office.
I suppose, then, that this particular passage looks to me like good rhetoric as opposed to
fallacious argument. Or at least partly good. He seems to know what he's doing where pathos
is concerned.
Lambert describes President Trump's style as schtick but another way is to consider it as
a wrestling character named "President Trump." Remember President Trump was involved with the
WWE and had the owners wife Linda McMahon in his cabinet and she is now running a pro-Trump
super PAC.
Having grown up watching professional wrestling President Trump's campaign rallies are
exactly like a wrestling show. He is playing a character and has to be quick thinking and
able to ad-lib to manipulate the crowd's emotions. The crowd also has to become part of the
show as well and overreact to signal to the performer (in this case who happens to be the
President) they are engaged with the show. The baby face (Trump) is cheered loudly and the
heels (Democrats/media) are booed in an exaggerated manner.
This character development and ad-libbing/a b testing is then always in use when dealing
with the media and when tweeting. Since the President is a caricature his followers aren't
bothered by his incorrect statements and when the Democrats/media point out his
mis-statements it doesn't register because everyone knows wrestling is fake.
A rhetorical analysis of Trump's letter shows that he will be a formidable opponent in
2020, and that he's crazy like a fox.
Make America Great Again. Trump trademarked that saying 1 week after the 2012 election. He
isn't crazy he's sly like a fox.
I've been around for a while and my attitude is that all of these "prexies", with the
exception maybe of Ike, have been lying sacks of shit. Now while they all facilitated mass
thievery by their friends and associates (as the mob would say), they could have at least had
the good form to be funny. But no! They were all so earnest and sanctimonious. Kind of like
my parish priest handing out the wafers.
I probably spent way too many hours warming various bar-stools next to a variety of
knuckleheads, so I'm going to give Trump his due, OK? The guy has given me more chuckles,
laughs, guffaws and all around hilarity than six decades worth of well dressed socio-paths.
And as a bonus, a big bonus, he has greatly discomforted all of the smartest grifters in the
room. Whenever I see the guy, Im in the Catskills.
I am convinced that the Dems are not actually interested or focused on defeating Trump, or
they would adopt an effective strategy. The question I keep wrestling with is, what is the
point to the strategy that is so ineffective?
They are perhaps infiltrated by malicious actors, or positioning for something bigger? The
clarity of the critique mentioned above by Aaron Mate to me isn't mysterious or difficult to
find.
How about this:they are preparing for election 2024? I'm not joking.
Rodney Dangerfield? Don Rickles? Our political culture has truly been debased by popular
culture into a stand-up competition. Trump's base knows that he's channeling New Wave/Punk
comedians Sam Kinison and Bobcat Goldthwait.
Whose schtick eventually erased Kinison and the Bobcat's out-of-control nihilism from the
popular culture? The laid-back Jerry Seinfeld as written by Larry David -- yet another reason
to support Bernie Sanders over the other wooden Dem contenders. Did you see the "debate" on
SNL last weekend? Get them on a stage together and Bernie's schtick will slay Trump's
In May 2016, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, famously proclaimed that, "If
we [Republicans] nominate Trump, we will get destroyed and we will deserve it." Since then,
Graham has become one of President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders, making Graham the
target of critics who paint him as a hypocrite for repeatedly contradicting his previously
expressed stances.
In 2015, for example, Graham called Donald Trump a
"race-baiting xenophobic bigot," but by 2018 he was claiming that he had "never heard [Trump]
make a single racist statement." And in 1999, during impeachment proceedings against
President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), Graham asserted that an
impeachable offense "doesn't even have to be a crime," but then in 2019 Graham
challenged those calling for the impeachment of Trump to "show me something that is a
crime"
"... Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. ..."
"... The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case. When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion. ..."
"... But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration. ..."
"... Obama told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules, China will " ..."
"... Obama takes as a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack. ..."
Currently the United States is assisting Ukraine against Russia by providing some non-lethal military equipment as well as
limited training for Kiev's army. It has balked at getting more involved in the conflict, rightly so. With that in mind,
I had a meeting with a delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians and government officials a couple of weeks ago. I tried to explain
to them why many Americans are wary of helping them by providing lethal, potentially game changing military assistance in what Kiev
sees as a struggle to regain control of Crimea and other parts of their country from militias that are clearly linked to Moscow.
I argued that while Washington should be sympathetic to Ukraine's aspirations it has no actual horse in the race, that the imperative
for bilateral relations with Russia, which is the only nation on earth that can attack and destroy the United States, is that they
be stable and that all channels for communication remain open.
I also observed that the negative perception of Washington-driven
democracy promotion around the world has been in part shaped by the actual record on interventions since 2001, which has not been
positive. Each exercise of the military option has wound up creating new problems, like the mistaken policies in Libya, Iraq and
Syria, all of which have produced instability and a surge in terrorism. I noted that the U.S. does not need to bring about a new
Cold War by trying to impose democratic norms in Eastern Europe but should instead be doing all in its power to encourage a reasonable
rapprochement between Moscow and Kiev. Providing weapons or other military support to Ukraine would only cause the situation to escalate,
leading to a new war by proxies in Eastern Europe that could rapidly spread to other regions.
The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now. They inevitably produced
the Hitler analogy, citing the example of 1938 and Munich as well as the subsequent partition of Poland in 1939 to make their case.
When I asked what the United States would gain by intervening they responded that in return for military assistance, Washington will
have a good and democratic friend in Ukraine which will serve as a bulwark against further Russian expansion.
I explained that Russia does not have the economic or military resources to dominate Eastern Europe and its ambitions appear to
be limited to establishing a sphere of influence that includes "protection" for some adjacent areas that are traditionally Russian
and inhabited by ethnic Russians. Crimea is, unfortunately, one such region that was actually directly governed by Moscow between
1783 and 1954 and it is also militarily vitally important to Moscow as it is the home of the Black Sea Fleet. I did not point that
out to excuse Russian behavior but only to suggest that Moscow does have an argument to make, particularly as the United States has
been meddling in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine where it has "invested" $5 billion, since the Clinton Administration.
I argued that if resurgent Russian nationalism actually endangered the United States there would be a case to be made for constricting
Moscow by creating an alliance of neighbors that would be able to help contain any expansion, but even the hawks in the U.S. Congress
are neither prepared nor able to demonstrate a genuine threat. Fear of the expansionistic Soviet Union after 1945 was indeed the
original motivation for creating NATO. But the reality is that Russia is only dangerous if the U.S. succeeds in backing it into a
corner where it will begin to consider the kind of disruption that was the norm during the Cold War or even some kind of nuclear
response or demonstration. If one is focused on U.S. interests globally Russia has actually been a responsible player, helping in
the Middle East and also against international terrorism.
So there was little to agree on apart from the fact that the Ukrainians have a right to have a government they choose for themselves
and also to defend themselves. And we Americans have in the Ukrainians yet another potential client state that wants our help. In
return we would have yet another dependency whose concerns have to be regarded when formulating our foreign policy. One can sympathize
with the plight of the Ukrainians but it is not up to Washington to fix the world or to go around promoting democracy as a potential
solution to pervasive regional political instability.
Obviously a discussion based on what are essentially conflicting interests will ultimately go nowhere and so it did in this case,
but it did raise the issue of why Washington's relationship with Moscow is so troubled, particularly as it need not be so. Regarding
Ukraine and associated issues, Washington's approach has been stick-and-carrot with the emphasis on the stick through the imposition
of painful sanctions and meaningless though demeaning travel bans. I would think that reversing that formulation to emphasize rewards
would actually work better as today's Russia is actually a relatively new nation in terms of its institutions and suffers from insecurity
about its place in the world and the respect that it believes it is entitled to receive.
Russia
recently celebrated the 70 th anniversary of the end of World War Two in Europe. The celebration was boycotted by
the United States and by many Western European nations in protest over Russian interference in Ukraine. I don't know to what extent
Obama has any knowledge of recent history, but the Russians were the ones who were most instrumental in the defeat of Nazi Germany,
losing 27 million citizens in the process. It would have been respectful for President Obama or Secretary of State John Kerry to
travel to Moscow for the commemoration and it would likely have produced a positive result both for Ukraine and also to mitigate
the concern that a new Cold War might be developing. But Obama chose to stay home as punishment for Putin, which I think was
a bad choice suggesting that he is being strongly influenced by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the other neocons
who seem to have retained considerable power in his administration.
And I also would note a couple of other bad choices made during the past several weeks. The Trans-Pacific multilateral trade agreement
that is currently working its way through Congress and is being aggressively promoted by the White House might be great for business
though it may or may not be good for the American worker, which, based on previous agreements, is a reasonable concern. But what
really disturbs me is the Obama explanation of why the pact is important. Obama
told a crowd gathered outside the Nike footwear company in Oregon that the deal is necessary because "if we don't write the rules,
China will "
Fear of the Yellow Peril might indeed be legitimate but it would be difficult to make the case that an internally troubled China
is seeking to dominate the Pacific. If it attempts to do so, it would face strong resistance from the Japanese, Vietnamese, Filipinos
and Koreans among others. But what is bothersome to me and probably also to many in the Asian audience is that Obama takes as
a given that he will be able to "write the rules." This is American hubris writ large and I am certain that many who are thereby
designated to follow Washington's lead are as offended by it as I am. Bad move Barack.
And finally there is Iran as an alleged state sponsor of terrorism. President Obama claims that he is working hard to achieve
a peaceful settlement of the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. But if that is so why does he throw obstacles irrelevant
to an agreement out to make the Iranian government more uncomfortable and therefore unwilling or unable to compromise? In an
interview with Arabic
newspaper Asharq al-Awsat Obama called Tehran a terrorism supporter, stating that "it [Iran] props up the Assad regime in
Syria. It supports Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. It aids the Houthi rebels in Yemen so countries in the region
are rights to be deeply concerned " I understand that the interview was designed to reassure America's friends in the Gulf that the
United States shares their concerns and will continue to support them but the timing would appear to be particularly unfortunate.
The handling of Russia, China and Iran all exemplify the essential dysfunction in American foreign policy. The United States should
have a mutually respectful relationship with Russia, ought to accept that China is an adversary but not necessarily an enemy unless
we make it so and it should also finally realize that an agreement with Iran is within its grasp as long as Washington does not overreach.
It is not clear that any of that is well understood and one has to wonder precisely what kind of advice Obama is receiving when fails
to understand the importance of Russia, insists on "writing the rules" for Asia, and persists in throwing around the terrorist label.
If the past fifteen years have taught us anything it is that the "Washington as the international arbiter model" is not working.
Obama should wake up to that reality before Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush arrives on the scene to make everything worse.
Tom Welsh, May 19, 2015 at 7:02 am GMT • 100 Words
All of this misses the point, IMHO. There is really no need to explain that Russia has no plans to conquer Europe, China has
no plans to take over the Pacific, etc. Anyone with a little historical knowledge and some common sense can see that plainly.
What is happening is that the USA has overweening aspirations to control (and then suck dry) the entire world – and Europe, Russia
and China are next on its hit list.
So it naturally accuses those nations of aspiring to what it plans to do. Standard operating procedure.
The Priss Factor, May 19, 2015 at 7:19 am GMT • 100 Words
"The Ukrainians were not buying any of that. Their point of view is that Russia is seeking to revive the Soviet Union and will
inevitably turn on the Baltic States and Poland, so it is necessary to stop evil dictator Vladimir Putin now."
I can understand Ukrainian animus against Russia due to history and ethnic tensions.
But that is ridiculous. They can't possibly believe it. I think they're repeating Neocon talking points to persuade American
that the fate of the world is at stake.
It's really just a local affair.
And Crimea would still belong to Ukraine if the crazies in Ukraine hadn't conspired with Neocons like Nuland to subvert and
overthrow the regime.
Adam Schiff Has 'No Sympathy' For FBI Victim Carter Page; Page Responds by Tyler Durden Sun, 12/22/2019 -
13:00 0 SHARES
Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) says it's hard to feel sympathetic for former Trump campaign aide
Carter Page, despite the fact that he was spied on by the FBI after the agency fabricated
evidence to obtain a surveillance warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
court.
After the FISA court denied their request, FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith fabricated evidence
to exclude the fact that Page was a CIA source, with "positive assessment," despite the fact
that the CIA informed Clinesmith of Page's prior work for the agency.
Schiff, however, has no love for Page despite DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz finding
16 significant 'errors' in the FBI's FISA applications used to surveil Page.
"I have to say, you know, Carter Page came before our Committee and for hours of his
testimony, denied things that we knew were true, later had to admit them during his testimony
," Schiff told PBS News ' Margaret Hoover. " It's hard to be sympathetic to someone
who isn't honest with you when he comes and testifies under oath . It's also hard to be
sympathetic when you have someone who has admitted to being an adviser to the Kremlin ."
Hoover countered, noting "But then was also informing the CIA," to which Schiff replies
"Yes, yes."
"Which we didn't know about," replied Hoover.
" Who was both targeted by the KGB but also talking to the United States and its agencies
and that should have been included , made clear, and it wasn't, according to the inspector
general," Schiff responded.
. @RepAdamSchiff is unsympathetic
to Carter Page, telling @FiringLineShow that Page
"denied things that we knew were true" in testimony, admitted to being an advisor to the
Kremlin & "was apparently both targeted by the KGB, but also talking to the United States
and its agencies." pic.twitter.com/GkjdGQZWLV
-- Firing Line with Margaret
Hoover (@FiringLineShow) December
20, 2019
After Schiff's comments were published, Page responded on Twitter: "There have been various
allegations of dishonesty regarding FBI lawyer Clinesmith. On information, belief and firsthand
experience since 2017, I have actually found @RepAdamSchiff to be even more untrustworthy and
dangerous with his misuse of @DNC lies. "
There have been various allegations of dishonesty regarding FBI lawyer Clinesmith. On
information, belief and firsthand experience since 2017, I have actually found @RepAdamSchiff to
be even more untrustworthy and dangerous with his misuse of @DNC lies: https://t.co/kMkRYFceGs
If you don't feel sympathy for someone who was wrongly smeared for years as being a
traitor, and who was spied on by his own government due to FBI lying & subterfuge, then
you're not only unqualified to wield power but probably also a sociopath.
In May 2016, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, famously proclaimed that, "If
we [Republicans] nominate Trump, we will get destroyed and we will deserve it." Since then,
Graham has become one of President Donald Trump's staunchest defenders, making Graham the
target of critics who paint him as a hypocrite for repeatedly contradicting his previously
expressed stances.
In 2015, for example, Graham called Donald Trump a
"race-baiting xenophobic bigot," but by 2018 he was claiming that he had "never heard [Trump]
make a single racist statement." And in 1999, during impeachment proceedings against
President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), Graham asserted that an
impeachable offense "doesn't even have to be a crime," but then in 2019 Graham
challenged those calling for the impeachment of Trump to "show me something that is a
crime"
President Trump also had words for Pelosi on Monday after the Speaker called for "fairness"
in a Senate trial.
"Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so," Trump tweeted,
adding "She lost Congress once, she will do it again!"
Pelosi gives us the most unfair trial in the history of the U.S. Congress, and now she is
crying for fairness in the Senate, and breaking all rules while doing so. She lost Congress
once, she will do it again!
Pelosi says she will only transmit the impeachment articles to the Senate after Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announces the process they will use for Trump's
trial.
The U.S. Senate trial for the Democratic Party's impeachment of President Donald Trump is in
limbo.
It's because House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, pressing the Senate to comply with her demands, has
withheld the articles voted on by House Democrats.
Advertisement - story continues below
Some scholars, including a witness for the Democrats, believe the unprecedented move is
unconstitutional.
After all, that Constitution states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall
be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
The Founders inserted no clause giving the House speaker authority to make such demands.
It's why Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell believes Pelosi eventually will give up her
power play.
Advertisement - story continues below
Fox News reported McConnell believes Pelosi "seems to think she can dictate the rules of a
Senate impeachment trial."
McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky, said on "Fox & Friends," "She apparently
believes she can tell us how to run the trial."
But that is "absurd," he said, saying she'll back down "sooner or later."
"We can't do anything until the speaker sends the papers over, so everybody enjoy the
holidays," McConnell said.
The Fox report explained Pelosi was trying "to pressure the Senate to agree to certain terms
for a trial."
Advertisement - story continues below
"She indicated the House would eventually send the articles over to the upper chamber but
insisted it is up to the Senate to determine how the process develops going forward," the
report said.
She doubled down on Monday, Fox News reported.
"The House cannot choose our impeachment managers until we know what sort of trial the
Senate will conduct," Pelosi said. "President Trump blocked his own witnesses and documents
from the House, and from the American people, on phony complaints about the House process. What
is his excuse now?"
Pelosi was referring to the contempt of Congress article of impeachment. The White House
argues it has the right to dispute any subpoenas for witnesses or documents and that such
disputes should be resolved in court.
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell has argued for following the precedent of the Clinton impeachment.
"You listen to the opening arguments, you have a written question period, and at that point,
in the Clinton trial, we had a decision about which witnesses to call and, as you can imagine,
that was a pretty partisan exercise, but we didn't let the partisan part of it keep us from
getting started so all I'm doing is saying what was good for President Clinton is good for
President Trump," McConnell said.
President Trump has been mocking Pelosi's delay in presenting the articles of impeachment to
the Senate. He said the Senate can invalidate the articles if they're not delivered by a
certain date.
The president said on Twitter: "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she
is afraid to present it to the Senate, which can set a date and put this whole SCAM into
default if they refuse to show up! The Do Nothings are so bad for our Country!"
Advertisement - story continues below
McConnell previously dismissed claims by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who has been
lobbying for impeachment for months, that the senators overseeing the trial should be
"impartial."
"Do you think Chuck Schumer is impartial? Do you think Elizabeth Warren is impartial? Bernie
Sanders is impartial?" McConnell said.
"So let's quit the charade. This is a political exercise. All I'm asking of Schumer is that
we treat Trump the same way we treated Clinton."
Schumer, contradicting himself, has claimed he could be an impartial juror in the Senate
even though he's already claimed Trump is guilty.
"Bruce Fein, a former senior official in the Department of Justice and a constitutional
scholar, has identified 12 impeachable offenses committed by Donald Trump. But, as he notes,
many of these constitutional violations are not unique to the Trump administration. They have
been normalized by Democratic and Republican administrations."
Impeachment blues: Can you believe the empire cant even manage a decent impeachment. There is
a broad debate going on in the crazed land of U$A and it turns on this
contradiction .
THIS empire is a lethal threat to our planet and they cock up all they touch. Can you
believe they held an impeachment hearing in the House of Representatives and didn't have the
accused present? They relied on a whistleblower that was prohibited to attend because he may
be revealed yet everyone knew Ciaramella was the leaker (whistleblower) relying on hearsay
evidence. There are no rules of natural justice in the U$A empire. Mendacity uber
alles.
John H. Durham, the United States attorney leading the investigation, has requested Mr.
Brennan's emails, call logs and other documents from the C.I.A., according to a person briefed
on his inquiry. He wants to learn what Mr. Brennan told other officials, including the former
F.B.I. director James B. Comey, about his and the C.I.A.'s views of a notorious dossier of
assertions about Russia and Trump associates.
... ... ...
Mr. Durham is also examining whether Mr. Brennan privately contradicted his public comments,
including May
2017 testimony to Congress , about both the dossier and about any debate among the
intelligence agencies over their conclusions on Russia's interference, the people said.
... ... ..
"The president bore the burden of probably one of the greatest conspiracy theories --
baseless conspiracy theories -- in American political history," Mr. Barr told Fox News. He has
long expressed skepticism that the F.B.I. had enough information to begin its inquiry in 2016,
publicly criticizing an inspector general report released last week that affirmed that the
bureau did.
Mr. Barr has long been
interested in the conclusion about Mr. Putin ordering intervention on Mr. Trump's behalf,
perhaps the intelligence report's most explosive assertion. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. reported
high confidence in the conclusion, while the N.S.A., which conducts electronic surveillance,
had a moderate degree of confidence.
... ... ...
Critics of the intelligence assessment, like Representative Chris Stewart, Republican of
Utah, said the C.I.A.'s sourcing failed to justify the high level of confidence about Moscow's
intervention on behalf of Mr. Trump.
"I don't agree with the conclusion, particularly that it's such a high level of confidence,"
Mr. Stewart said, citing raw intelligence that he said he reviewed.
"I just think there should've been allowances made for some of the ambiguity in that and
especially for those who didn't also share in the conclusion that it was a high degree of
confidence," he added.
Mr. Durham's investigators also want to know more about the discussions that prompted
intelligence community leaders to include Mr. Steele's allegations in the
appendix of their assessment.
Mr. Brennan has repeatedly said, including in his 2017 congressional testimony, that the
C.I.A. did not rely on the dossier when it helped develop the assessment, and the former
director of national intelligence, James Clapper, has also testified before lawmakers that the
same was true for the intelligence agencies more broadly. But Mr. Trump's allies have long
asked pointed questions about the dossier, including how it was used in the intelligence
agency's assessment.
Some C.I.A. analysts and officials insisted that the dossier be left out of the assessment,
while some F.B.I. leaders wanted to include it and bristled at its relegation to the appendix.
Their disagreements were captured in the highly anticipated report released last week
by Michael E. Horowitz, the Justice Department inspector general, examining aspects of the
F.B.I.'s Russia investigation.
Mr. Steele's information "was a topic of significant discussion within the F.B.I. and with
the other agencies participating in drafting" the declassified intelligence assessment about
Russia interference, Mr. Horowitz wrote. The F.B.I. shared Mr. Steele's information with the
team of officials from multiple agencies drafting the assessment.
Mr. Comey also briefed Mr. Brennan and other top Obama administration intelligence officials
including the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, and Mr. Clapper
about the bureau's efforts to assess the information in the dossier, Mr. Comey told the
inspector general. He said that analysts had found it to be "credible on its face."
... ... ...
Andrew G. McCabe, then the deputy director of the F.B.I., pushed back, according to the
inspector general report, accusing the intelligence chiefs of trying to minimize Mr. Steele's
information.
Ultimately the two sides compromised by placing Mr. Steele's material in the appendix. After
BuzzFeed News published the dossier in January 2017, days after the intelligence assessment
about Russia's election sabotage was released, Mr. Comey complained to Mr. Clapper about his
decision to publicly state that the intelligence community "has not made any judgment" about
the document's reliability.
Mr. Comey said that the F.B.I. had concluded that Mr. Steele was reliable, according to the
inspector general report. Mr. Clapper ignored Mr. Comey, the report said.
"... Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump will be the "trial of the century." ..."
"... Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary. ..."
"... "I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program. Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. " ..."
"... "... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. " ..."
Having blasted the liberal elites earlier in the week for
"not giving a f**k" about the average joe in America:
"Look, this is what drives me nuts about the left. All immigration is to flood the zone
with cheap labour, and the reason is because the elites don't give a fuck about African
Americans and the Hispanic working class . They don't care about the white working class
either. You're just a commodity" .
Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon pulled no punches in an interview with
Fox Business Network's Trish Regan saying that the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald
Trump will be the "trial of the century."
" I think this trial is going to be the trial of the century, a nd the mainstream media is
going to be all over it," Bannon said.
"That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for his presidency and
his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's got to have the
whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world. They're going
to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of this . And I
think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an exoneration of
President Trump."
Bannon said Republicans ought to "turn the tables" on Democrats and demand a full trial
that will force it to go into the Democratic presidential primary.
"I think you ought to demand a full trial, where to get witnesses -- and, hey, if it
takes too long, it's the Democrats to force this constitutional crisis over the Christmas
holidays. If this trial goes on for a month or two into the Democratic primary, that's a
tough break for them. They're the ones that forced this. One of the reasons they forced it is
their field is so weak going in there. Nobody cares. Like I said, witness protection program.
Nobody cares about their debate. They're the ones that force this. "
Bannon went on to reiterate his belief that Hillary Clinton will "inevitably" be the
Democratic Presidential nominee... but will lose... again:
" Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that she feels that she can step in to save the
Democratic Party and try to convince people that a rematch with President Trump is the best
way that they have to try to defeat President Trump," Bannon said.
"They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that
can beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight.
Nobody cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles."
Finally, the former strategist raged against "the Washington Consensus":
"... this is the managed decline of the United States. This is about the Washington
consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week. Two trillion
dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the inter-agency
consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our countries. With
Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has stood up. The
reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in Afghanistan.
It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. "
And that, Bannon exclaimed, is why we need a trial in the Senate to expose the swamp.
"And they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a
real trial and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in
court. "
Trish Regan: I do believe the president heard that she wants to run again from this show,
from none other than Mr. Stephen Bannon here on set with me, who talked about Hillary Clinton
getting back in potentially again. And also, you called Bloomberg as well. So, Bloomberg's in,
is Hillary going to join?
Steve Bannon: I think it's inevitable. They had a poll out today that showed Biden at like
28, Bernie 21, Elizabeth Warren in the high teens. It looks like something that's going to get
to a -- particularly with Super Tuesday, when Biden drops the nuclear weapon of his money on
these in these big states. It's going to lead to a brokered convention. Hillary Clinton, I
think, is going to come in when it's evident that none of the radical left of the Democratic
Party can beat the President Trump --
[cross talk]
Steve Bannon: -- A brokered convention. I think Hillary Clinton comes in at the moment that
she feels that she can step in to save the Democratic Party and try to convince people that a
rematch with President Trump is the best way that they have to try to defeat President Trump.
They won't beat him. Right now, there's nobody, including Hillary Clinton out there, that can
beat Donald Trump. But they're going to get desperate here because look at tonight. Nobody
cares about this debate, this debate's in Los Angeles.
Trish Regan : They should be watching you.
Steve Bannon: Well, I'm talking about on MSNBC and CNN and their networks. They're not
they're not running around saying, this thing is great. They understand these people, not just
are boring, it's not just about their star quality, it's what they're talking about is so off
the mainstream, it's not connecting with people. And they're going to start getting desperate.
Remember, their number one thing is that Donald Trump is an existential threat to the
Democratic Party, to the established order and to the mainstream media, and they will do
anything to take him down and destroy him. In particular, you saw last night what he's talking
about to the people; hey, they're trying to come after you, they're trying to come after me to
get to you. We are in this together. And he saw people respond to that. That response of that
audience last night for two hours, that stood out for hours in, what, 15- or 17-degree cold is
quite remarkable.
Trish Regan: What I find remarkable and, you know, we can say this is a couple Irishmen --
or Irishman and an Irishwoman. You think about traditional Democrats, right? And I think about
my family and how my dad's family was, historically, big Irish Catholic family and you were a
Democrat like you're Catholic. Like, it was part of your religion, right? And, you know, my --
and if you were lucky enough, you got a job in the union. And so, there was a feeling that you
always voted blue, and that has changed.
Steve Bannon: Last night you saw that. He's connected with working class -- listen to this.
It's the reason he won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa. States they never thought
we'd win again. And altogether because he went and he got, you know, Democrats, blue collar
Democrats to vote for it and they believe in it. And they're seeing -- here's the thing they're
seeing, the manifestation of his actions are making their lives better. You know, the Zogby
poll today said that 53 percent of Democrats think that their party is spending too much time
on impeachment instead of getting things done legislatively. It is so --
Trish Regan: And they got that right. And it's not just, you know, we talk about Irish
Americans. I mean, I look at the African American population right now and you look at some of
the poll numbers there. And he's doing extremely well in a way that you wouldn't really think
he would with that particular population, given the media.
Steve Bannon: Well that's what the immigration policy -- remember everything was to make
sure that wasn't more labor pressure on African Americans and Hispanics. That's why you seen
the approval rate -- I think it's 34 percent of African Americans approve now by Pew, and 36
percent of Hispanics. Because you're seeing wages starting to rise. People -- unemployment's at
historic lows, wages starting to rise. That's why I think it's so important, since they've
smeared him in this process. He didn't get to call any witnesses in this trial. And I think
this trial will be -- it's going to be the trial of the century, and the mainstream media is
going to be all over it. That's why I think it's so important not just for his legacy, but for
his presidency and his second term. He's got to engage in this. He's got to take them on. He's
got to have the whistleblower; we have to have the Bidens in front of the nation and the world.
They're going to have to stand and deliver under oath. And we're going to get to the bottom of
this. And I think that's going to lead to an exoneration, not just an acquittal, but an
exoneration of President Trump.
Trish Regan: The trial of the century. Wow. You know, a lot of people are worried, well, you
get John Bolton. What is he going to do? What is John Bolton going to say? And what is this one
going to say? What is that one going to say? What do you say to those concerns?
Steve Bannon: The president -- the call was perfect. He looked at everything that led up to
it. This is why the American people heard him. And you just saw the bureaucrats that were in it
that were testified. This is because that is the managed decline of the United States. This is
about the Washington consensus. The Washington Post published the Afghanistan papers last week.
Two trillion dollars. 2,400 dead. Tens of thousands wounded. What's that? That's the
inter-agency consensus in 18 years that betrayed our country. That's what betrayed our
countries. With Brennan, that's what betrayed our country, not Donald Trump. Donald Trump has
stood up. The reasons people cheer for him, it's their sons and daughters that have died in
Afghanistan. It's their lives, their kids' lives being thrown away, and their tax dollars. And
they understand that Donald Trump is fighting that. That's why we need a trial, a real trial
and Senate with witnesses. So, before the world, Donald Trump could get his day in court.
Trish Regan: And you call them all. Disruption, right? It is the decade of disruption, and
you're one of the main disruptors there, according to The Wall Street Journal. In fact, one of
the most powerful people here in Washington, the power players. Can we see that? So, you're in
some pretty significant company, there Mr. Bannon.
Steve Bannon: Well, I got the disrupt look on President Trump. As President Trump says, I'm
his top student and that's where the top student got for being the top student. I got my
slot.
Trish Regan: Well, listen, we appreciate you being here tonight for that.
Steve Bannon: Thank you for having me, Trish.
Trish Regan: Very interesting insight, as always, Steve Bannon. I do want to point out to
everyone they can listen to you every day. You can tune into a syndicated radio show and
podcast on iTunes, War Room: Impeachment. Well, that's aptly named. It airs seven days a week.
Forgive me, I was thinking weekdays. Seven days a week, you're on the case.
Steve Bannon: Got to do it. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaking of Steve Bannon, here's what he had to say about Trump and conspiracy theories he
(Bannon) cooked up to distract the rubes and yahoos. From a review of Michael Wolff's book,
Siege: Trump Under Fire:
" . . . Wolff’s guide, the major-domo of Trump’s 2016 campaign who became a
White House adviser until he wasn’t, enjoys tweaking his former boss. Bannon volunteers
that he helped concoct the story that the Mueller investigation was the demon spawn of the
“deep state”, and says there was never much substance to it.
As Wolff tells it, “among the nimblest conspiracy provocateurs of the Trump age,
Bannon spelled out the … narrative in powerful detail”. But then Bannon’s
voice pierces his own self-generated din: “You do realize … that none of this is
true.” Allow that one to sink in.
Wolff also has Bannon calling the Trump Organization a criminal enterprise and
predicting its downfall : “This is where it isn’t a witch-hunt – even
for the hardcore, this is where he turns into just a crooked business guy … Not the
billionaire he said he was, just another scumbag.” Allow that to sink in, too.
Expect Bannon to be quoted by Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the
eventual Democratic candidate. Also look for the Democratic National Committee to send
chocolates to Bannon, once head of Breitbart and a partner in Cambridge Analytica, next
Easter."
Bannon is trying to save the now compromised and degenerated system throughout the West by
reversing the trend line, the social basis for determining a self-reform is there but the
opposing forces are those that manage real power.
"... It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees. ..."
"... Nor is any Republican Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, which thus is not really our "ally." ..."
"... The sole retort from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So there! ..."
"... Senate Demaggotic Leader Chuck Schumer gave the game away when he demanded that the World Greatest Deliberative Body receive testimony from cashiered National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but not from the man at the center of the whole Ukraine "drug deal" (as Bolton described it): Rudy Giuliani. ..."
For a century and a half American political life has been the exclusive preserve of the
duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, also known as
the Evil Party and the Stupid Party . (If something is both Evil and Stupid, we call that
"Bipartisan.") But the familiar Evil-Stupid dichotomy doesn't even begin to describe the
descent into national dysfunction and galloping irrationality that characterizes the Trump
impeachment hysteria.
Media chatter now centers on the nuts-and-bolts questions of "what's next?" Will House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? (Yes. Even one of the
legal "scholars" enrolled in the impeachment lynch mob avers that
Trump isn't actually impeached until the Senate receives the articles .) Who will be the
trial managers? (Who cares.) Will there be a "real trial," with witnesses? (It hardly matters.)
Will Trump be removed? (Unlikely unless some bolt from the blue flips 20 GOP Senators.) Will
impeachment be the Democrats' albatross going into November 2020? (Most polls show independents
are turned off, but there's still almost a year to go.)
None of these questions, which are meaningful only in a mental universe of the Evils and the
Stupids shadowboxing over a partisan allocation of political spoils, touch upon the grim
– and occasionally sardonic – symptoms of America's seemingly unstoppable terminal
slide.
With Trump's impeachment it's time to say goodbye to yesteryear's Team Evil and Team Stupid.
Say hello in 2020 to Team Maggot and Team Corpse!
In short, Democrats hate Trump not so much for what he's done (which, contrary to what his
passionate supporters think based on his Tweets, isn't much) but as an expression of an
amorphous dread that by some mysterious populist alchemy he might still breathe life back into
the Corpse Party's deplorable base.
With that in mind, here are a few things to note as we cruise on into Bizarro World
:
As the impeachment spectacle unfolded in the House, one could not fail to be touched by the
hushed, heartfelt reverence with which Democrat after Democrat cited the sage words of the
Founding Fathers: Madison especially, but also Jefferson and Washington. No doubt they can
hardly wait for this spectacle to be over so they can go back to denouncing the Founders as
dead, racist, Christian, patriarchal, " Anglo
," and (presumably) heterosexual slaveholders
in wigs and knee-breeches whose memory should be expunged from the historical record . It's
instructive to glance at the members of
the House Judiciary Committee who – solemnly, reluctantly, and prayerfully, they
assure us! – voted out articles of impeachment in the name of "the American people." But
which "people" might that be? Of the 23 Democrats who voted, only four even arguably fit the
heritage American, male profile of the Founding Fathers. The " gender
balance " (as it's ungrammatically called nowadays) on the voting majority side of the
Committee is 12-11. That's not quite up to
Barack Obama's exhortation that "every nation on earth" should be "run by women ," but it's
progress in that direction! (Just imagine how much more serene the world would be if all
countries were ruled by peaceniks like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michèle Flournoy, Evelyn Farkas, etc., plus
a
bevy of Deep State Democrats now installed in Congress .) By contrast, the 17 Republicans
on the Committee have approximately the same demographic composition they'd have had in 1950
– and aside from the inclusion of two women, that of the First Congress seated in
1789.
In short, in the Congressional Maggot Caucus the approaching
Dictatorship of Victims defined by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language,
religion, migratory status, etc., is already becoming a reality, and they voted to get rid of
Trump. Members of the Corpse Caucus defending him still belong demographically and morally to
the declining legacy America, though they'd never, ever admit it. Impeachment is thus more than
just the latest iteration of the years-long anti-constitutional coup to overturn a presidential
election,
though it is that too . Even more fundamentally, it's a coup against the people whose
identity, traditions, and values the Constitution was intended to ensure for themselves and
their posterity.
Foreign interference in our deMOCKracy.
Even more absurd than Democrats' presumption in lip-synching the venerable principles of an
American constitutional tradition they despise almost as much as they loathe the ethnos that
ordained and established it is their feigned horror – horror! – that Trump's phone
chat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky realized the Founders' worst fears of foreign influence
over American domestic politics. Leaving aside the fact that Ukraine under Zelensky's
predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, did try to queer the 2016 election in favor of Hillary, and that
Hunter and Joe Biden are crooks, the Maggoteers' ability to maintain a straight face of shocked
indignation smack in the middle of a souk, a flea market, a bazaar where both domestic and
foreign interests buy, sell, and trade favors like vintage baseball cards is nothing less than
heroic.
Argentina Caucus, Armenian Issues Caucus, Azerbaijan Caucus, Bangladesh Caucus, Bosnia
Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Cambodia Caucus, Central America Caucus, Colombia Caucus,
Congressional Caucus on Bulgaria, Croatian Caucus, Czech Caucus, Ethiopian-American Caucus,
Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka, EU Caucus, Friends of Australia Caucus, Friends of
Denmark Caucus, Friends of Egypt Caucus, Friends of Finland Caucus, Friends of Ireland
Caucus, Friends of Liechtenstein Caucus, Friends of New Zealand Caucus, Friends of Norway
Caucus, Friends of Scotland Caucus, Friends of Spain Caucus, Friends of Sweden Caucus,
Friends of the Dominican Republic Caucus, Friends of Wales Caucus, Georgia Caucus, Hellenic
Caucus, Hellenic Israel Alliance Caucus, House Baltic Caucus, Hungarian Caucus, India and
Indian Americans Caucus, Iraq Caucus, Israel Allies Caucus, Israel Victory Caucus, Kingdom of
Netherlands Caucus, Korea Caucus, Kyrgyzstan Caucus, Macedonia and Macedonian-American
Caucus, Moldova Caucus, Mongolia Caucus, Montenegro Caucus, Morocco Caucus, Nigeria Caucus,
Pakistan Caucus, Peru Caucus, Poland Caucus, Portuguese Caucus, Qatari-American Strategic
Relationships Caucus, Republican Israel Caucus, Romania Caucus, Serbian Caucus, Slovak
Caucus, Sri Lanka Caucus, Taiwan Caucus, UK Caucus, Ukraine Caucus, U.S.-Bermuda Friendship
Caucus, U.S.-China Working Group, U.S.-Japan Caucus, U.S.-Kazakhstan Caucus, U.S.-Lebanon
Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish
American, Uzbekistan Caucus, Venezuela Democracy Caucus
Recalling
Your Working Boy 's years at the State Department – where there still exists no
"American Interests Section" – the reader can search the above in vain for anything that
looks remotely like "Friends of the United States of America."
In fact, the Democrats' core impeachment narrative – Russia bad, Ukraine good –
is itself an example to which American policy is in the grip of foreign antipathies and
attachments against which the
Father of Our Country warned us in his 1796 farewell address :
"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in
place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which
indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest."
"[W]e should care about our allies. We should care about Ukraine. We should care about a
country struggling to be free and a Democracy. We used to care about Democracy. We used to
care about our allies. We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. We used to. I know the party
of Ronald Reagan used to. 'Why should we care about Ukraine?' But of course it's about more
than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about our national security. Their fight is our fight.
Their defense is our defense. When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since
World War II by dint of military force [ JGJ : Well, there was Kosovo, but never mind ] and
Ukraine fights back, it is our fight too."
Indeed, one wonders how hysterical Democrats missed accusing Trump outright of treason ,
which actually is specified as grounds for impeachment in
Article II, Section 4 . After all, as described by Schiff, didn't Trump's actions
constitute (under Article
III, Section 3 ) "adhering" to our evil enemies the Russians, and "giving them aid and
comfort"? It's an open and shut case of a capital crime – and the
House Majority Whip is ready to get the rope ! (Really, how did the Democrats miss this?
Maybe GOP stupidity has migrated to the other side of the aisle )
It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's
framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees.
Nor is any Republican
Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine,
which thus is not really our "ally." Partisanship is the variable; Russophobia is the constant.
The sole retort
from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the
Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So
there!
Thus, even with Trump's almost (at this point) certain survival of a Senate impeachment
trial, the relevant foreign inveterate antipathies and passionate attachments will remain
entrenched. (Not just in the case of Ukraine/Russia but with respect to the rest of the world
our habitual hatreds and fondnesses remain firmly in place and are unlikely to change for the
balance of Trump's presidency, if ever. Trump's
Korea initiative is on life support. Israel/Iran is a flashpoint that could explode at any
time : "Israel, even less than the US, cannot take casualties. A couple of bull's eyes, a
lot of Israelis go back to Brooklyn. The 82 million people in Iran have no place else to
go.")
Here's a key point - on June 12, Assange announces that Wikileaks will soon be releasing
info pertinent to Hillary. HE DOES NOT SAY THAT HE WILL BE RELEASING DNC EMAILS.
And yet, on June 14, Crowdstrike reports a Russian hack of the DNC servers - and a day later, Guccifer
2.0 emerges and proclaims himself to be the hacker, takes credit for the upcoming Wikileaks
DNC releases, publishes the Trump oppo research which Crowdstrike claimed he had taken, and
intentionally adds "Russian footprints" to his metadata.
So how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 know
that DNC EMAILS would be released?
Because, as Larry postulates, the US intelligence
community had intercepted communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks in which Seth had
offered the DNC emails (consistent with the report of Sy Hersh's source within the FBI).
So
US intelligence tipped off the DNC that their emails were about to be leaked to Wikileaks.
That's when the stratagem of attributing the impending Wikileaks release to a Russian hack
was born - distracting from the incriminating content of the emails, while vilifying the Deep
State's favorite enemies, Assange and Russia, all in one neat scam.
Re: Ukraine games and the Democrats. There is much in this article I have not heard before.
Many very specific and therefore potentially testable allegations.
Isikoff is a part of conspiracy to depose Trump. and it shows.
OK. Let's assume that will drag the trial all the
January. Then what ?
If we believe polls it is amazing how brainwashed US public is: to assume that
marionette government has any say in what to do is the upper level of naivety: " Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not."
Notable quotes:
"... Michael Isikoff was involved with Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ..."
A House Democrat who played a key role in the impeachment of President Trump says the House
should not "roll over" and quickly present the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a
trial that would amount to a "farce."
"We're not going to participate in a process that makes a mockery out of the Constitution,"
said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, who presented the
panel's case for impeachment to the House Rules Committee. Raskin has been widely mentioned as
a candidate to be one of the House managers to prosecute the case in an impeachment trial in
the Senate. "We are not gonna roll over and say, yeah, you can give us some drive-through
justice with one afternoon where everything is dealt with on a motion to dismiss and no
evidence is heard.
"My position is that, so long as they do not make the most minimal provisions for a fair
trial, then we should not participate in a farce."
Although Raskin emphasized he was speaking for himself, his comments on the Yahoo News
"Skullduggery" podcast illustrate the competing pressures House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is under
from her own caucus in the aftermath of the historic vote to impeach the president, which was
supported by virtually all House Democrats -- and not a single Republican. Public opinion among
registered voters shows a narrow (50-45)
plurality favoring impeachment , according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll.
After the passage of the two articles of impeachment on Wednesday evening -- one for abuse
of power, the other for obstruction of Congress -- Pelosi has held off presenting them to the
Senate, citing doubts that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will permit a "fair" trial.
McConnell has said he will coordinate his efforts with the White House and has made up his mind
not to vote for conviction. Removal of the president requires a two-thirds majority in the
Senate, which Republicans control by a 53-47 margin.
Pelosi's move -- as the House adjourned for a two-week holiday break on Thursday -- has
created a new layer of uncertainty over when, or even if, the Senate will actually try the
president. Republicans have already jumped over Pelosi's tactics, accusing her of political
gamesmanship that undermines the solemnity with which Democrats presented the case against the
president.
But Raskin, one of the House's more progressive members, says it is McConnell's own comments
-- vowing to work with White House lawyers to ensure the acquittal of the president -- that
have made a mockery of impeachment.
"To say that you're not going to look at the evidence or the facts would get you
disqualified from every jury pool in the United States of America," Raskin said. "If you were
in a voir dire and the judge said to you, 'Will you pay attention to the facts? Will you pay
attention to the evidence? Will you pay attention to the law?' and you say, 'No. I've already
made up my mind,' you would be dismissed immediately."
Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo were blocked from appearing before the House during its
impeachment hearings by a White House claim that any conversations they had with the president
were shielded by executive privilege. Trump's defenders say the House could have tried to
compel their testimony by subpoena. But the certainty that White House lawyers would have
fought those subpoenas all the way up to the Supreme Court would have put off action until well
into next year, Raskin said.
"It just takes a very long time."
Raskin acknowledged that impeachment by its nature is both a judicial and political process
-- and that Pelosi's maneuvering is intended at least in part to put public heat on McConnell
to accede to the demand for witnesses.
"We want the country to put serious pressure on the Senate to conduct the trial with
seriousness," Raskin said. "And the polls show, for example, on the question of witnesses, that
even though I think only 51 percent or 52 percent of the people are declaring themselves right
now in favor of impeachment and removal, like 70 percent of the people are saying, 'Yes, the
president should make all witnesses available.'"
Removing Trump from office (a step beyond impeachment) had the support of just under half
(49 percent) of registered voters
in the Yahoo News/YouGov poll . On the factual basis for the two articles of impeachment,
53 percent of registered voters said Trump abused his power in demanding help from Ukraine;
only 40 percent said he did not. Fifty-one percent said the president obstructed Congress;
again, only 40 percent said he did not.
How effective Pelosi's strategy will be is far from clear. While President Trump is seeking
a quick Senate trial in January so he can proclaim vindication as he runs for reelection,
McConnell has suggested he is happy to forget the whole thing. "Do you think this is leverage,
to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he said to reporters this week. And with those
words, noted New York Times reporter Carl Hulse, the Senate majority leader " cracked a
broad smile outside the Senate chamber in a departure from his usual dour expression."
yesterday
Michael Isikoff was involved with
Clinton and the Russian Dossier. ThisSkullduggeryGroup is
another TokyoRoseYellowJournalistic attempt at presenting
propagandist commentaries as news articles.
Isekoff has replaced Marrissa Mayer
at Yawho News that's all.
There are many fake posters on the
message boards. They are not really fellow U.S.Citizens
and can easily be recognized by their one line insults
that have nothing to do with debate and only to do with
creating a hostile environment between so called liberals
and so called conservatives who I prefer to call
U.S.Citizens. Our differences are not that far apart but
there are Globalist, Anarchist, and other forces in this
country and outside of this country that would love to
see our country collapse and that we also discard our
Constitution and our freedoms protected under that
document.
Cass Sunstein
ObolaCzar proposed government
'infiltrate' social network sitesCassSunstein wants
agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards.
Published: 01/12/2012 at 10:56 PM
Just prior to his appointment as
President Obama's so-called regulatory czar,CassSunstein
wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government
should "infiltrate" social network websites, chat rooms
and message boards.Such "cognitive infiltration,"Sunstein
argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban
on "conspiracy theorizing."
Major Obama donor and former Google
executive Marissa Mayer will take the helm at Yahoo! as the
company's new CEO Tuesday In May, Neilsen listed
theYahooABC NewsNetwork as the leading news site on the
Web in the U.S., makingMayer the head of the
largest news site on the Web.
She
is also a major donor to both PresidentBarackObama and
the DemocraticParty.According to the Center for
ResponsivePolitics; in April 2011Mayer donated two
separate amounts of $2,500 dollars to Obama, and one
large sum of $30,800 to the Democratic National
committee.
Data from political data firm Aristotle, as
reported by the HuffingtonPost, reveals that, in the
second quarter of 2011,Mayer also contributed $35,800 to
Obama Victory Fund 2012.
Asked whether Mayer's political
leanings would not affect the editorial direction ofYahoo!, Yahoo nor Mayer returned The DC's request for
comment by the time of publication. [Full
Disclosure:TheDCandYahoo! have an editorial partnership.]
Well, maybe if Nancy used her
position to actually help the American economy instead of
using her political position to line the pockets of
herself, her husband and their cronies, she might have
remained Speaker.
Why do I say that ? Since Nancy has been "serving" the
nation in D.C., she has increased her personal wealth by
$100 MILLION. Not a typo. How did she do that ? According
to various bios, "good investing". What that really means
is insider trading. You, I and Martha Stewart go to jail
if we get caught doing that, but it was perfectly okay
for members of congress until exposed and the passing of
S.T.O.C.K ( Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge ) Act
in April 2012. The Act prohibited the use of non-public
information for private profit, including insider trading
by members of Congress and other government employees.
But, thanks to Nancy's piggish greed and abuse of her
position, she bought stocks in at least 8 Initial Public
Offerings (IPOs), with insider knowledge. If you have any
friends in the securities industry, ask them how
difficult it is to get in on even one IPO, let alone
eight. Pelosi’s husband’s purchase of shares in the 2008
initial public offering by Visa Inc as Congress was
considering new credit card regulations. Within two days
of the Visa offering, the 5,000 shares purchased by Paul
Pelosi had risen $20 each.
Nancy's greed led to the addition of the "Pelosi
Provision" to the S.T.O.C.K. Act.
The Pelosi provision prohibits members of Congress,
executive branch officials and their staffs from
receiving special access to initial public offerings
because of their position.
So, Nancy "led" a House that was in power during 10%
Unemployment. Lost control of the House while a Democrat
was in the White House and Democrat majority in the
Senate.
Meanwhile, Nancy was looking out for #1, big time.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on
the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term
"Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning
conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine.
..."
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
Where is AOC in all this? She was the prime mover on impeachment, specifically impeachment
over a phone call rather than concentration camps and genocide.
And now with impeachment she gave Pelosi cover to sell the country out again.
I was wondering why many libreral centrists were expreasing admiration for her, a
socialist. Maybe they recognized something?
"Prime mover"? What planet are you from? They were Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi. Did you
miss that Russiagate was in motion while AOC was still tending bar? AOC isn't even on any of
the key committees (Judiciary and Intel).
I shouldn't have said THE prime mover, but ONE OF the prime movers in the House in
actually pushing it over the line against Pelosi's opposition. It seems like the House Dem
consensus ever since Russiagate was just to tease their base with it and milk the suspense
for all it was worth, until AOC, among others, rallied the base.
There were other reps who pushed for impeachment, but AOC has one of the biggest platforms
and crucially, expanded popular support for impeachment outside the MSNBC crowd. So yes, a
key figure in the political/PR effort to move from conspiracy theories to actual
impeachment.
"AOC is one of the highest-profile members of Congress and she blasted Pelosi for
resisting impeachment since May."
Liz Warren is the one who made it a part of her campaign before anyone else. Rashida
Tlaib was the one who made t-shirt with her "impeach the mf'er" quote on it. A lot of them
were "blasting" Pelosi for dithering. AOC also "blasted" her for giving ICE more money and a
lot of their things .
Your central focus on AOC for the impeachment fiasco while ignoring her active role in
spotlighting so many other issues of importance which no one else speaks about is
interesting. Did you catch any of her speaking at the Sanders rally in LA today? Any other
"high profile" Dems pushing such important issues and campaigns?
Thanks for this comment. I don't trust *any of them* except Sanders, but AOC has been
making more good noises than bad, and to claim that it was she who's been driving Pelosi to
impeachment is quite a stretch. Poor, helpless/hapless Rep. Pelosi sure.
Pelosi has repeatedly stared down the progressives in the House. The overwhelming majority
of the freshmen reps are what used to be called Blue Dogs, as in corporate Dems. AOC making
noise on this issue would not move Pelosi any more than it has on other issues.
IMHO Pelosi didn't try to tamp down Russiagate, and that created expectations that
Something Big would happen. Plus she lives in the California/blue cities bubble.
What Dem donors think matters to her way more than what AOC tweets about. If anything,
Pelosi (secondarily, I sincerely doubt this would be a big issue in her calculus) would view
impeachment as a way to reduce the attention recently given to progressive issues like single
payer and student debt forgiveness.
The Washington Post has, after more than two years of investigation,
revealed that senior foreign policy officials in the White House, State and Defense
departments have known for some time that the U.S. intervention in Afghanistan was failing
.
In other words, government officials have been
lying .
Few people are shocked. That's a stark contrast to 1971, when the Pentagon Papers , a classified study of
decision-making about Vietnam, were leaked and published. The explosive Pentagon Papers showed
that the U.S. government had systematically lied about the reality that the U.S. was losing the
Vietnam War.
The failure of the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan has been known for years. Virtually
none of the U.S. goals have been met . These goals included a strong, democratic, uncorrupt
central government; the defeat of the Taliban; eliminating the poppy fields that contribute to
the world's heroin problem; an effective military and police and creating a healthy,
diversified economy.
The Inspector General has repeatedly documented the reality in its widely available (and
widely reported)
audits .
Despite this public record of failure, officials continued to trumpet political
and military gains on the ground, even that the U.S. could prevail.
Privately, they have been wringing their hands.
Shades of Vietnam.
Public confidence in government was shaken by the publication of the Pentagon Papers in
1971.
AP/Jim Wells
Sad history of Vietnam
The Pentagon
Papers revealed that senior officials asserted in the 1960s that the Viet Cong were dying
in record numbers, enemy leadership was decapitated and there was "light at
the end of the tunnel ." Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and his commanders, who knew the
reality, continuously called for even more force from 1961 to 1969.
H.R. McMaster, in his classic study of
Vietnam decision-making , excoriated the military for not bringing the truth to President
Lyndon Johnson, for presenting Johnson with the "lies that led to Vietnam."
Now we learn, courtesy of The Washington Post, that, when interviewed in 2015 as part of
Special Inspector General's " Lessons Learned " project,
Lute said , "We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan we didn't have
the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking."
While Afghanistan is clearly not Vietnam, Washington is still
Washington.
The U.S. secretly plotted and carried out the overthrow of the democratically elected leader
of Iran, Mohammad Mossadeq, in 1953. Here, an Iranian protests U.S. involvement in the coup.
Pahlavi Dynasty, public domain
But
Vietnam was the big lie , permanently exposing the gap between myth – the government
knows everything better – and reality – that policy is failing.
Since Vietnam, the media and congressional, think-tank and scholarly investigators have
suspected something with every intervention.
To the public , the truth about Afghanistan has been clear; public opinion has been way
ahead of what The Washington Post revealed.
Good reasons for lies
Lies are an integral part of national security operations. They seek credibility for
government policy. They mislead adversaries, cover up mistakes and failures.
Above all, they are intended to secure public support for policy and defeat opposition at
home. Political scientist John Mearsheimer has noted
that governments don't often lie to their allies and adversaries, "but instead seem more
inclined to lie to their own people."
In particular, secrecy and deception convey power. As philosopher Sissela Bok says ,
"Deception can be coercive. When it succeeds, it can give power to the deceiver."
Secrecy allows policies to be tweaked outside public view . Insiders gain influence
arguing for new approaches to the same goals. Even the goals can shift as interventions
deteriorate. The political consequences of failure may be avoided.
It is rare for an official to acknowledge failure and reverse policy; personal, political
and national credibility may be at stake. President Johnson insisted that he was not going to
be the "first
president to lose a war." Bush, Obama and even Trump did not want to "lose"
Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, lying about military interventions carries a serious risk.
The Pentagon Papers eroded public faith in the credibility of our democratic government.
That erosion was later reinforced by the Watergate scandal. As
Bok, the philosopher, wrote , "deception of this kind strikes at the very essence of
democratic government."
British leader Winston Churchill said , "In
war-time truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
Deception aimed at the public and the Axis was an essential part of Churchill's war
strategy.
The Afghanistan papers reveal yet again that statesmen still believe the truth should be
concealed. But the credibility of statecraft and leadership itself were seriously eroded by the
Vietnam lies, weakening the fabric of democracy.
The mild reaction to lying in plain sight about Afghanistan suggests the U.S. may be well
down the road to unravelling government's credibility and our democracy altogether.
"... It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees. ..."
"... Nor is any Republican Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine, which thus is not really our "ally." ..."
"... The sole retort from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So there! ..."
"... Senate Demaggotic Leader Chuck Schumer gave the game away when he demanded that the World Greatest Deliberative Body receive testimony from cashiered National Security Adviser John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney but not from the man at the center of the whole Ukraine "drug deal" (as Bolton described it): Rudy Giuliani. ..."
For a century and a half American political life has been the exclusive preserve of the
duopoly of Democrats and Republicans, also known as
the Evil Party and the Stupid Party . (If something is both Evil and Stupid, we call that
"Bipartisan.") But the familiar Evil-Stupid dichotomy doesn't even begin to describe the
descent into national dysfunction and galloping irrationality that characterizes the Trump
impeachment hysteria.
Media chatter now centers on the nuts-and-bolts questions of "what's next?" Will House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate? (Yes. Even one of the
legal "scholars" enrolled in the impeachment lynch mob avers that
Trump isn't actually impeached until the Senate receives the articles .) Who will be the
trial managers? (Who cares.) Will there be a "real trial," with witnesses? (It hardly matters.)
Will Trump be removed? (Unlikely unless some bolt from the blue flips 20 GOP Senators.) Will
impeachment be the Democrats' albatross going into November 2020? (Most polls show independents
are turned off, but there's still almost a year to go.)
None of these questions, which are meaningful only in a mental universe of the Evils and the
Stupids shadowboxing over a partisan allocation of political spoils, touch upon the grim
– and occasionally sardonic – symptoms of America's seemingly unstoppable terminal
slide.
With Trump's impeachment it's time to say goodbye to yesteryear's Team Evil and Team Stupid.
Say hello in 2020 to Team Maggot and Team Corpse!
In short, Democrats hate Trump not so much for what he's done (which, contrary to what his
passionate supporters think based on his Tweets, isn't much) but as an expression of an
amorphous dread that by some mysterious populist alchemy he might still breathe life back into
the Corpse Party's deplorable base.
With that in mind, here are a few things to note as we cruise on into Bizarro World
:
As the impeachment spectacle unfolded in the House, one could not fail to be touched by the
hushed, heartfelt reverence with which Democrat after Democrat cited the sage words of the
Founding Fathers: Madison especially, but also Jefferson and Washington. No doubt they can
hardly wait for this spectacle to be over so they can go back to denouncing the Founders as
dead, racist, Christian, patriarchal, " Anglo
," and (presumably) heterosexual slaveholders
in wigs and knee-breeches whose memory should be expunged from the historical record . It's
instructive to glance at the members of
the House Judiciary Committee who – solemnly, reluctantly, and prayerfully, they
assure us! – voted out articles of impeachment in the name of "the American people." But
which "people" might that be? Of the 23 Democrats who voted, only four even arguably fit the
heritage American, male profile of the Founding Fathers. The " gender
balance " (as it's ungrammatically called nowadays) on the voting majority side of the
Committee is 12-11. That's not quite up to
Barack Obama's exhortation that "every nation on earth" should be "run by women ," but it's
progress in that direction! (Just imagine how much more serene the world would be if all
countries were ruled by peaceniks like Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Condi Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Michèle Flournoy, Evelyn Farkas, etc., plus
a
bevy of Deep State Democrats now installed in Congress .) By contrast, the 17 Republicans
on the Committee have approximately the same demographic composition they'd have had in 1950
– and aside from the inclusion of two women, that of the First Congress seated in
1789.
In short, in the Congressional Maggot Caucus the approaching
Dictatorship of Victims defined by race, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, language,
religion, migratory status, etc., is already becoming a reality, and they voted to get rid of
Trump. Members of the Corpse Caucus defending him still belong demographically and morally to
the declining legacy America, though they'd never, ever admit it. Impeachment is thus more than
just the latest iteration of the years-long anti-constitutional coup to overturn a presidential
election,
though it is that too . Even more fundamentally, it's a coup against the people whose
identity, traditions, and values the Constitution was intended to ensure for themselves and
their posterity.
Foreign interference in our deMOCKracy.
Even more absurd than Democrats' presumption in lip-synching the venerable principles of an
American constitutional tradition they despise almost as much as they loathe the ethnos that
ordained and established it is their feigned horror – horror! – that Trump's phone
chat with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky realized the Founders' worst fears of foreign influence
over American domestic politics. Leaving aside the fact that Ukraine under Zelensky's
predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, did try to queer the 2016 election in favor of Hillary, and that
Hunter and Joe Biden are crooks, the Maggoteers' ability to maintain a straight face of shocked
indignation smack in the middle of a souk, a flea market, a bazaar where both domestic and
foreign interests buy, sell, and trade favors like vintage baseball cards is nothing less than
heroic.
Argentina Caucus, Armenian Issues Caucus, Azerbaijan Caucus, Bangladesh Caucus, Bosnia
Caucus, Brazil Caucus, Cambodia Caucus, Central America Caucus, Colombia Caucus,
Congressional Caucus on Bulgaria, Croatian Caucus, Czech Caucus, Ethiopian-American Caucus,
Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka, EU Caucus, Friends of Australia Caucus, Friends of
Denmark Caucus, Friends of Egypt Caucus, Friends of Finland Caucus, Friends of Ireland
Caucus, Friends of Liechtenstein Caucus, Friends of New Zealand Caucus, Friends of Norway
Caucus, Friends of Scotland Caucus, Friends of Spain Caucus, Friends of Sweden Caucus,
Friends of the Dominican Republic Caucus, Friends of Wales Caucus, Georgia Caucus, Hellenic
Caucus, Hellenic Israel Alliance Caucus, House Baltic Caucus, Hungarian Caucus, India and
Indian Americans Caucus, Iraq Caucus, Israel Allies Caucus, Israel Victory Caucus, Kingdom of
Netherlands Caucus, Korea Caucus, Kyrgyzstan Caucus, Macedonia and Macedonian-American
Caucus, Moldova Caucus, Mongolia Caucus, Montenegro Caucus, Morocco Caucus, Nigeria Caucus,
Pakistan Caucus, Peru Caucus, Poland Caucus, Portuguese Caucus, Qatari-American Strategic
Relationships Caucus, Republican Israel Caucus, Romania Caucus, Serbian Caucus, Slovak
Caucus, Sri Lanka Caucus, Taiwan Caucus, UK Caucus, Ukraine Caucus, U.S.-Bermuda Friendship
Caucus, U.S.-China Working Group, U.S.-Japan Caucus, U.S.-Kazakhstan Caucus, U.S.-Lebanon
Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Philippines Friendship Caucus, U.S.-Turkey Relations and Turkish
American, Uzbekistan Caucus, Venezuela Democracy Caucus
Recalling
Your Working Boy 's years at the State Department – where there still exists no
"American Interests Section" – the reader can search the above in vain for anything that
looks remotely like "Friends of the United States of America."
In fact, the Democrats' core impeachment narrative – Russia bad, Ukraine good –
is itself an example to which American policy is in the grip of foreign antipathies and
attachments against which the
Father of Our Country warned us in his 1796 farewell address :
"[N]othing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against
particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in
place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which
indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave.
It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it
astray from its duty and its interest."
"[W]e should care about our allies. We should care about Ukraine. We should care about a
country struggling to be free and a Democracy. We used to care about Democracy. We used to
care about our allies. We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. We used to. I know the party
of Ronald Reagan used to. 'Why should we care about Ukraine?' But of course it's about more
than Ukraine. It's about us. It's about our national security. Their fight is our fight.
Their defense is our defense. When Russia remakes the map of Europe for the first time since
World War II by dint of military force [ JGJ : Well, there was Kosovo, but never mind ] and
Ukraine fights back, it is our fight too."
Indeed, one wonders how hysterical Democrats missed accusing Trump outright of treason ,
which actually is specified as grounds for impeachment in
Article II, Section 4 . After all, as described by Schiff, didn't Trump's actions
constitute (under Article
III, Section 3 ) "adhering" to our evil enemies the Russians, and "giving them aid and
comfort"? It's an open and shut case of a capital crime – and the
House Majority Whip is ready to get the rope ! (Really, how did the Democrats miss this?
Maybe GOP stupidity has migrated to the other side of the aisle )
It is noteworthy that not a single House Republican dared or even cared to question Schiff's
framing of the issue, which was bolstered by witnesses from the permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic establishment, including Trump's appointees.
Nor is any Republican
Senator likely to point out the inconvenient truth that we have no defense treaty with Ukraine,
which thus is not really our "ally." Partisanship is the variable; Russophobia is the constant.
The sole retort
from Trump's establishment defenders : He released the aid to Ukraine, including the
Javelin missiles Obama denied them! He's every bit the warmonger you want him to be! So
there!
Thus, even with Trump's almost (at this point) certain survival of a Senate impeachment
trial, the relevant foreign inveterate antipathies and passionate attachments will remain
entrenched. (Not just in the case of Ukraine/Russia but with respect to the rest of the world
our habitual hatreds and fondnesses remain firmly in place and are unlikely to change for the
balance of Trump's presidency, if ever. Trump's
Korea initiative is on life support. Israel/Iran is a flashpoint that could explode at any
time : "Israel, even less than the US, cannot take casualties. A couple of bull's eyes, a
lot of Israelis go back to Brooklyn. The 82 million people in Iran have no place else to
go.")
If there was anyone who should have been impeached, it was George Bush, Dick Cheney, Colin
Powell and George Tenet, who was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom, for assisting
Cheney in the Iraq WMD lies.
But...what did Nancy say then?
Nancy Pelosi: I Knew Bush Jr Was Lying About WMD To Start War, But Didn't See It As
Impeachable
But there are multiple reasons not to delay a Senate trial past that window. The most common
argument in favor of this tactic is that it would give Democrats some sort of leverage as the
process moves beyond their control. "As a tactical matter, it could strengthen Senate Minority
Leader Charles E. Schumer's (D-N.Y.) hand in bargaining over trial rules with McConnell because
of McConnell's and Trump's urgent desire to get this whole business behind them," Tribe argued
earlier this week. House Democratic leaders have made similar suggestions in recent
days.
The last three years suggest that the majority leader would be more than happy to keep
running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory and a legislative graveyard.
This is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, it assumes that McConnell actually wants the
Senate to hold an impeachment trial for Trump. The last three years suggest that the majority
leader would be more than happy to keep running the Senate as a judicial-confirmation factory
and a legislative graveyard. It's doubtful that any other Republican senators are thrilled
about the prospect of acting as the president's jurors, either. Given the choice between
holding a trial that could force vulnerable members of his caucus to make uncomfortable votes
and not holding a trial at all, it seems more likely that McConnell would choose the
latter. Second, it assumes that Trump also wants to, in Tribe's words, "get this whole
business behind [him]." There's a certain logic to the proposition that Trump is eager to tell
his supporters that he was acquitted in a Senate trial. But I doubt that eagerness outweighs
his desire not to undermine his own case in said trial. After all, if Mulvaney or Bolton could
give testimony that would exculpate Trump in the Ukraine scandal, the president would have
frog-marched them to the House Intelligence Committee himself last month. (The idea that Trump
truly cares about the separation of powers, as his lawyers argued when blocking those witnesses
from testifying, is contradicted by the rest of his presidency.)
The other half of Tribe's argument is also unconvincing. In making the case for withholding
the articles, he argues that it would vindicate higher civic and democratic ideals. "On a
substantive level, [the House] would be justified to withhold going forward with a Senate
trial," Tribe wrote. "Under the current circumstances, such a proceeding would fail to render a
meaningful verdict of acquittal. It would also fail to inform the public, which has the right
to know the truth about the conduct of its president."
"... My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden. ..."
"... Amfortas the hippie , December 21, 2019 at 5:40 pm ..."
"... that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday, again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides. ..."
"... "let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from whats really important " ..."
"... Hepativore , December 21, 2019 at 6:49 pm ..."
"... Happy winter Solstice, everyone! ..."
"... Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure to stop Sanders at all costs. ..."
Please bone up on US procedure. It's not good to have you confuse readers.
The Senate can't do anything until the House passes a motion referring the impeachment to
the Senate. The House ALSO needs to designate managers as part of that process.
Michael
Tracey argued that it's only Senate rules that require that the House formally transmit
the impeachment verdict. The Constitution says that the Senate has to try an impeached
president, and the Constitution trumps the Senate's rules. Logically, then, the Senate could
just modify its rules to try the president.
But the whole delay is weird and impeachment has only been done twice before, so not a lot
of precedent.
My paranoid fear is that Pelosi or McConnell might try to time the proceedings so as
to take Bernie and Warren off the campaign trail at a crucial moment, helping Biden.
that, and sucking the air out of the room for the primaries. When's super tuesday,
again? surely they can engineer it so that their "high drama" coincides.
"let's talk about universal material benefits" " ok, Vlad trying to distract us from
whats really important "
Anyway, the funny thing is, that Biden himself has said that he only wants to be a
one-term president. It makes me wonder if he knows that he has neither the energy or presence
of mind to hold the office, and that he is merely doing so because of establishment pressure
to stop Sanders at all costs. Plus, if the Democrats get the brokered convention they
are after, he can bow out, satisfied that he helped the DNC protect the donor class from the
Sanders threat.
The impeachment, what it means, panic in the establishment, as justice continues to creep
ever closer, biting at their heels. They can feel the heat of the reformation is closing in
on them, real justice, real trials and real convictions. They have good reason to fear and
panic, the deep state is apparently quite shallow at the end of the day, those seeking
justice for outweighing the corrupt political appointees and their falsely promoted minions
and they will pursue the shadow government for the chaos, loss of life, loss of wealth and
for the coming collapse as a result of shallow pathetic insatiable greed.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin there are going to be three things in life that are certain.
Death, taxes and the impeachment of a US President when the House is held by a different
party. American politics is going to get a whole lot nastier now than what it has been.
This Punch and Judy show has achieved nothing. The House impeached him and the Senate
won't convict him. Trump now will be playing the victim card. Come November the key thing
that will matter is the economy. If it as successful as it is now then he will get a second
term. If it is in a recession then advantage Democratic candidate.
And Ms. Pelosi believes that Mr. Trump is so eager for the public vindication of a Senate
acquittal that he will put pressure on the majority leader to make it happen even if it means
offering some concessions to Mr. Schumer.
For now, however, Mr. McConnell -- and many other Senate Republicans -- seem unmoved by the
House posture. He spent much of Thursday gleefully ridiculing Democrats' negotiating
tactics.
"Do you think this is leverage, to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he asked
reporters this week as he cracked a broad smile outside the Senate chamber, in a departure from
his usual dour expression.
"... "growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House against Trump may actually be helping him politically." ..."
"... "open war on American Democracy." ..."
"... the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record." ..."
"... It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media. ..."
"... So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think. ..."
...If the plan was to sabotage Trump's second-term campaign, it seems to have backfired spectacularly. With every
hearing before the Intelligence or Judiciary Committee, the public support for impeachment actually decreased. Even
CNN
was forced to admit the existence of
"growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House
against Trump may actually be helping him politically."
Indeed, what better way for Trump to solidify his bona
fides as the populist outsider than to be impeached by the coastal elites and the Washington Swamp, in what amounted to
a nakedly partisan process?
Definition of Impeachment (modern): A process by which the party out of power shows the
world how they got that way. Happens most commonly right before a landslide reelection.
...Trump never gets tired of pointing out the accomplishments of his administration: jobs, stock market growth, trade
deals, etc. He did so again, in a scathing letter to Pelosi on Impeachment Eve, contrasting that to her party's
"open war on American Democracy."
However,
the end of his six-page letter shows that he is fully aware of the
Democrats' gambit, bringing it out in the open: he wrote it not because he expected them to see reason but "for the
purpose of history" and to create a "permanent and indelible record."
It is said that history is written by the winners. That's almost true. It is made by the winners, but written by
the loud. Trump is a real-estate developer and reality TV star who talked his way into the White House against two major
political dynasties – Clinton and Bush – and both the Republican and Democrat establishments; through a gauntlet of US
intelligence agencies, as it turns out; and in the face of near-unanimous opposition from the media.
So his impeachment is indeed a historic moment – just not in the way his enemies think.
"... While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and liberation". ..."
"... Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia? Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining ground btw. Ask yourself why ? ..."
"... Sphere of influence, the same reason why Cuba and Venezuela will pay for their insolence against the hegemon. The world is never a fair place. ..."
While I admire America's democratic society, I hate how America brought wars and chaos to the world in guise of "freedom and
liberation".
I hate how America exploit the weak. president moon should offer an olive branch to fatty Kim by sending back the
thaad to America and pulling out American base and troops. he should convince fatty Kim that should he really like to proliferate
his nuclear missile development as deterrence, aim it only to America and America only. there is no need for Koreans to kill fellow
Koreans.
Very good idea, after having pushed Ukraine and Georgia to a war lost in advance, lets hope US will abandon South Korea and
Japan because they were helpless in demilitarizing one of the poorest countries in the world....
Was it necessary to bomb civilians of Ossetia for Georgia to get rid of Russia?
Was it necessary to provoke a coup d'état against fully legitimate and democratically elected government in Ukraine? Life
isn't fair indeed : not only they will never enter in NATO (even less EU) and no one will protect them, but they can say
farewell to the land they lost. People in Georgia and Ukraine are less and less gullible and Pro Russians sentiment is gaining
ground btw. Ask yourself why ?
In this person's opinion, the article raises a good point with regards to US defense subsidies. However, its examples are dissimilar.
Japan spends approximately 1% of its GDP on defense; South Korea spends roughly 2.5% of its GDP defense.
In fact, it seems to this person that a better example of US Defense Welfare would be direct subsidies granted to the state
of Israel.
"... The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya. ..."
"... Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course, his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed. ..."
"... Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. ..."
"... We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact. ..."
The start of current decade revealed the most ruthless face of a global neo-colonialism. From Syria and Libya to Europe and Latin
America, the old colonial powers of the West tried to rebound against an oncoming rival bloc led by Russia and China, which starts
to threaten their global domination.
Inside a multi-polar, complex terrain of geopolitical games, the big players start to abandon the old-fashioned, inefficient direct
wars. They use today other, various methods like
brutal proxy
wars , economic wars, financial and constitutional coups, provocative operations, 'color revolutions', etc. In this highly
complex and unstable situation, when even traditional allies turn against each other as the global balances change rapidly, the forces
unleashed are absolutely destructive. Inevitably, the results are more than evident.
Proxy Wars - Syria/Libya
After the US invasion in Iraq, the gates of hell had opened in the Middle East. Obama continued the Bush legacy of US endless
interventions, but he had to change tactics because a direct war would be inefficient, costly and extremely unpopular to the American
people and the rest of the world.
The result, however, appeared to be equally (if not more) devastating with the failed US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US
had lost total control of the armed groups directly linked with the ISIS terrorists, failed to topple Assad, and, moreover, instead
of eliminating the Russian and Iranian influence in the region, actually managed to increase it. As a result, the US and its allies
failed to secure their geopolitical interests around the various pipeline games.
In addition, the US sees Turkey, one of its most important ally, changing direction dangerously, away from the Western bloc. Probably
the strongest indication for this, is that Turkey, Iran and Russia decided very recently to proceed in an agreement on Syria without
the presence of the US.
Yet, the list of US failures does not end here. The destruction of Syria and Libya created massive refugee flows which have
proved that the European Union was totally unprepared to deal with such a major issue. On top of that, the latest years, we have
witnessed a rapid rise of various terrorist attacks in Western soil, also as a result of the devastating wars in Syria and Libya.
Evidence from
WikiLeaks has shown that the old colonial powers have started a new round of ruthless competition on Libya's resources.
The usual story propagated by the Western media, about another tyrant who had to be removed, has now completely collapsed. They don't
care neither to topple an 'authoritarian' regime, nor to spread Democracy. All they care about is to secure each country's resources
for their big companies.
The Gaddafi case is quite interesting because it shows that
the Western
hypocrites were using him according to their interests .
Whenever they wanted to blame someone for some serious terrorist attacks, they had a scapegoat ready for them, even if they
had evidence that Libya was not behind these attacks. When Gaddafi falsely admitted that he had weapons of mass destruction in order
to gain some relief from the Western sanctions, they presented him as a responsible leader who, was ready to cooperate. Of course,
his last role was to play again the 'bad guy' who had to be removed.
Economic Wars, Financial Coups – Greece/Eurozone
It would be unthinkable for the neo-colonialists to conduct proxy wars inside European soil, especially against countries which
belong to Western institutions like NATO, EU, eurozone, etc. The wave of the US-made major economic crisis hit Greece and Europe
at the start of the decade, almost simultaneously with the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutionary wave and the subsequent disaster
in Middle East and Libya.
Greece was the easy victim for the global neoliberal dictatorship to impose catastrophic measures in favor of the plutocracy.
The Greek experiment enters its seventh year and the plan is to be used as a model for the whole eurozone. Greece has become also
the model for the looting of public property, as happened in the past with the East Germany and the
Treuhand Operation
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
While Greece was the major victim of an economic war, Germany used its economic power and control of the European Central Bank
to impose unprecedented austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction through silent financial coups in
Ireland ,
Italy and
Cyprus . The Greek political establishment collapsed with the rise of SYRIZA in power, and the ECB was forced to proceed
in an open financial coup against
Greece when the current PM, Alexis Tsipras, decided to conduct a referendum on the catastrophic measures imposed by the ECB, IMF
and the European Commission, through which the Greek people clearly rejected these measures, despite the propaganda of terror inside
and outside Greece. Due to the direct threat from Mario Draghi and the ECB, who actually threatened to cut liquidity sinking Greece
into a financial chaos, Tsipras finally forced to retreat, signing another catastrophic memorandum.
Through similar financial and political pressure, the Brussels bureaufascists and the German sado-monetarists along with the IMF
economic hitmen, imposed neoliberal disaster to other eurozone countries like Portugal, Spain etc. It is remarkable that even the
second eurozone economy, France,
rushed to
impose anti-labor measures midst terrorist attacks, succumbing to a - pre-designed by the elites - neo-Feudalism, under
the 'Socialist' François Hollande, despite the intense protests in many French cities.
Germany would never let the United States to lead the neo-colonization in Europe, as it tries (again) to become a major power
with its own sphere of influence, expanding throughout eurozone and beyond. As the situation in Europe becomes more and more critical
with the ongoing economic and refugee crisis and the rise of the Far-Right and the nationalists, the economic war mostly between
the US and the German big capital, creates an even more complicated situation.
The decline of the US-German relations has been exposed initially with the
NSA interceptions
scandal , yet, progressively, the big picture came on surface, revealing a
transatlantic
economic war between banking and corporate giants. In times of huge multilevel crises, the big capital always intensifies
its efforts to eliminate competitors too. As a consequence, the US has seen another key ally, Germany, trying to gain a certain degree
of independence in order to form its own agenda, separate from the US interests.
Note that, both Germany and Turkey are medium powers that, historically, always trying to expand and create their own spheres
of influence, seeking independence from the traditional big powers.
A wave of neoliberal onslaught shakes currently Latin America. While in Argentina, Mauricio Macri allegedly took the power normally,
the constitutional
coup against Dilma Rousseff in Brazil, as well as, the
usual actions
of the Right opposition in Venezuela against Nicolás Maduro with the help of the US finger, are far more obvious.
The special weight of these three countries in Latin America is extremely important for the US imperialism to regain ground in the
global geopolitical arena. Especially the last ten to fifteen years, each of them developed increasingly autonomous policies away
from the US close custody, under Leftist governments, and this was something that alarmed the US imperialism components.
Brazil appears to be the most important among the three, not only due to its size, but also as a member of the BRICS, the team
of fast growing economies who threaten the US and generally the Western global dominance. The constitutional coup against Rousseff
was rather a sloppy action and reveals the anxiety of the US establishment to regain control through puppet regimes. This is a well-known
situation from the past through which the establishment attempts to secure absolute dominance in the US backyard.
The importance of Venezuela due to its oil reserves is also significant. When Maduro tried to approach Russia in order to strengthen
the economic cooperation between the two countries, he must had set the alarm for the neocons in the US. Venezuela could find an
alternative in Russia and BRICS, in order to breathe from the multiple economic war that was set off by the US. It is characteristic
that the economic war against Russia by the US and the Saudis, by keeping the oil prices in historically low levels, had significant
impact on the Venezuelan economy too. It is also known that the US organizations are funding the opposition since Chávez era, in
order to proceed in provocative operations that could overthrow the Leftist governments.
The case of Venezuela is really interesting. The US imperialists were fiercely trying to overthrow the Leftist governments since
Chávez administration. They found now a weaker president, Nicolás Maduro - who certainly does not have the strength and personality
of Hugo Chávez - to achieve their goal.
The Western media mouthpieces are doing their job, which is propaganda as usual. The recipe is known. You present the half truth,
with a big overdose of exaggeration.
The establishment
parrots are demonizing Socialism , but they won't ever tell you about the money that the US is spending, feeding the
Right-Wing groups and opposition to proceed in provocative operations, in order to create instability. They won't tell you about
the financial war conducted through the oil prices, manipulated by the Saudis, the close US ally.
Regarding Argentina, former president, Cristina Kirchner, had also made some important moves towards the stronger cooperation
with Russia, which was something unacceptable for Washington's hawks. Not only for geopolitical reasons, but also because Argentina
could escape from the vulture funds that sucking its blood since its default. This would give the country an alternative to the neoliberal
monopoly of destruction. The US big banks and corporations would never accept such a perspective because the debt-enslaved Argentina
is a golden opportunity for a new round of huge profits. It's
happening right
now in eurozone's debt colony, Greece.
'Color Revolutions' - Ukraine
The events in Ukraine have shown that, the big capital has no hesitation to ally even with the neo-nazis, in order to impose the
new world order. This is not something new of course. The connection of Hitler with the German economic oligarchs, but also with
other major Western companies, before and during the WWII, is well known.
The most terrifying of all however, is not that the West has silenced in front of the decrees of the new Ukrainian leadership,
through which is targeting the minorities, but the fact that the West allied with the neo-nazis, while according to some information
has also funded their actions as well as other extreme nationalist groups during the riots in Kiev.
Plenty of indications show that US organizations have 'put their finger' on Ukraine. A
video , for
example, concerning the situation in Ukraine has been directed by Ben Moses (creator of the movie "Good Morning, Vietnam"), who is
connected with American government executives and organizations like National Endowment for Democracy, funded by the US Congress.
This video shows a beautiful young female Ukrainian who characterizes the government of the country as "dictatorship" and praise
some protesters with the neo-nazi symbols of the fascist Ukranian party Svoboda on them.
The same organizations are behind 'color revolutions' elsewhere, as well as, provocative operations against Leftist governments
in Venezuela and other countries.
Ukraine is the perfect place to provoke Putin and tight the noose around Russia. Of course the huge hypocrisy of the West can
also be identified in the case of Crimea. While in other cases, the Western officials were 'screaming' for the right of self-determination
(like Kosovo, for example), after they destroyed Yugoslavia in a bloodbath, they can't recognize the will of the majority of Crimeans
to join Russia.
The war will become wilder
The Western neo-colonial powers are trying to counterattack against the geopolitical upgrade of Russia and the Chinese economic
expansionism.
Despite the rise of Donald Trump in power, the neoliberal forces will push further for the expansion of the neoliberal doctrine
in the rival field of the Sino-Russian alliance. Besides, Trump has already shown his hostile feelings against China, despite
his friendly approach to Russia and Putin.
We see, however, that the Western alliances are entering a period of severe crisis. The US has failed to control the situation
in Middle East and Libya. The ruthless neo-colonialists will not hesitate to confront Russia and China directly, if they see that
they continue to lose control in the global geopolitical arena. The accumulation of military presence of NATO next to the Russian
borders, as well as, the accumulation of military presence of the US in Asia-Pacific, show that this is an undeniable fact.
"... If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate? ..."
There are lots of dismal reasons why Trump will be elected, but the Democrats just gave
him the greatest gift of all: the only thing he does well in the morbid circus that his
administration/political life is campaign. He's useless at everything else. And he campaigns
best when he's railing against something, and better still when he is campaigning as the
victim of some perceived injustice, which he as a remarkable knack of convincing the audience
is an injustice vested on them, too.
It feels like nothing because it is nothing.
Democrats have been talking impeachment since the election. They have now accomplished
that, in a strict Party line vote. (The previous two impeachments were not party-line
votes.)
So, what will be the result?
In my opinion, this puts Trump in a better position running up to the Election. In the
Spring, we will see the Republican party-line rejection of conviction in the Senate. And,
they get the opportunity to call witnesses. Any one think they will not drag Biden up to the
Hill to question?
Trump gets to claim martyrdom (the Right loves to be martyrs, just as the Left loves to be
victims.) He gets to point at all this, and just as with the Mueller Report, crow that all
the investigations turned up nothing illegal.
But, IMO, the big story is that Democrats just emptied their cannon. They have nothing
left. And they wasted the shot.
There is no way that Donald Trump, a New York City real estate developer, has not broken
multiple laws. I am a bit offended by the laziness of the Democrats, in that they did not do
any work to investigate and accuse Trump of actual codified crimes. They impeached him over
rather minor and confusing matters of opinion. And now Trump can claim that all those
investigations yielded no actual law breaking.
Its a farce. A purely political, poorly directed farce. And, I am now almost certain that
they have guaranteed us another 4 years of Donald Effing Trump.
Its a bad mistake. Impeachment will be used exactly in the same way as Brexit was used as a
means to gametheory Johnson back into 10 Downing St. You will be regarded as friend or foe,
as the nation is utterly divided down the middle. Expect Trump and the Republicans to
steamroller the next Presidential Election as the Democrats will be painted as dangerous,
undemocratic , totally Anti American. What a truly depressing world we live in.
If the impeachment in the House of Representatives was such a brilliant piece of work, why is
Nancy Pelosi now reluctant to forward the articles of impeachment to the Senate?
It appears
that she has little confidence in the work and despite claiming that it was urgent that the
process proceed as rapidly as possible, she is now dragging her feet. The American public was
expressing reduced enthusiasm for impeachment as it progressed and now the Democrats won't
even send the articles to the Senate. The will be hell to pay for this malfeasance at the
voting booth in less than a year.
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
I was against the impeachment of Bill Clinton. At that time democrat supporters made
pantomime protests by dressing as puritans and Mrs Clinton referred to the "Vast Right Wing
Conspiracy". The case for Trump impeachment is even weaker and unlike with Clinton there has
been a lack of due process and no bipartisan support. Impeachment has now become the pursuit
of politics by other means which is a bad precedent for the future.
But if you want to re-energise Trump's base, this is a good move.
In the U.S. Schiff is seen as dishonest, a parody make-up trickster, a liar, etc. Pelosi is
seen as intellectually feeble and somewhat ditzy. She was pushed onto the impeachment path by
the hard Left of the Democratic party. An example of that is the words used by Democrat
Rashida Tlaib to refer to Trump--a very vulgar "Impeach the mfer[abbreviation".
'a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, before the House vote, which shows two
things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up
a formal impeachment inquiry in October:
1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%
2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.'
Tulsi Gabbard on Twitter a few minutes ago, explaining her refusal to vote:
"A house divided cannot stand. And today we are divided. Fragmentation and polarity are
ripping our country apart. Today, I come before you to make a stand for the center, to appeal
to all of you to bridge our differences and stand up for the American people.
#StandWithTulsi"
According to the latest polls her support is about 2% nationally but higher in Iowa and
New Hampshire. Will her supporters stick with her? If not, where do they go? Sanders?
It feels anti-climatic because it was purely political. Democrats have set a terrible
precedent here. With no votes from the opposition party and cheers afterwards from the
majority party, they proved the impeachment was just a laborious exercise in bold faced
politics.
Now impeachment can be used whenever the roles are reversed and one party simply hates the
president from the other party.
So it's ok to have half of the court made up of people who have stated from before he was
elected they would impeach him, but wrong for him to have people in the court who are
prepared to defend him?
You want a show trial in which only the prosecutors get to make their case?
This impeachment is at best a symbolic act of defiance with no consequences.
At worst, it's a cynical ploy by establishment Dems to keeps Sanders and Warren tied up in
pointless Senate hearings, making it difficult for them to campaign for the election, and
giving Grandpa Joe an easy ride. Might Sound a bit tinfoil-hatty, but they'll do just about
anything to prevent meaningful change.
That being said, I also don't believe in the strange notion that this has somehow handed
Trump reelection. Why? The only people enraged by this are his cult, and they'll show up
anyway.
Nahh... We Brazilians have additional reasons to celebrate Trump's Fake Impeachment because
Dilma Rousseff was the victim of a Fake Impeachment sponsored by US Embassy in Brazil.
The self-destruction of the American political system sounds like music in my ears, as the
motherfucker Americans helped a handful of bandits tear my vote. Fuck US very much.
And now the poor Jair Bolsonaro is crying for his ass. Each politician mourns the loss of
his protector through his hole that it misses him, as we all say in Brazil.
This will likely backfire. Regardless of the rights and wrongs.
It will entrench most of his supporters and it will turn some waverers agains the Democrats.
That's a different debate. And one in which everything is viewed trough a short term
opportunistic myoptic lens. In some occasions that might be -accidentally - successful. But
mostly short term opportunistic behaviour is strategically (long term) stupid.
I agree that it was not very smart for Trump and later republicans to focus on the
Biden/Ukraine episode :-). I remember this cartoon with the one person covered in lots and
lots of spots pointing at another person who had just the one small spot while crying out:
'look: you have a spot'. Whatever you think about rich offspring getting into high end
schools and getting board positions (not a fan): the problem is a lot bigger on the
republican side.
Two days ago, the President sent a fuck-you letter to Pelosi. And she deserved it. Dems have nothing to offer to electorate so they engages in those witch hunts. They derailed
Tulsi, now they might face another four years of Trump.
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people
and nobody was impeached for that.
Torquemada's subjects never endured such inhumane treatment as Trump in the hands of Pelosi ;-) But we should not forget that
Pelosi sponsored war of terror "completely democratized" more more then a million people and nobody was impeached for that.
This Kabuki theater became more interesting: On 10th December 2019, Senator Mich McConnell (Republican Kentucky)
publicly declared, &"I'm not impartial about this at all. I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not
anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."
America is a write-off. It was a terrible idea from the beginning. An empire? Now? Really?
Not learning anything from the history books, eh? Ye need an American Union, asap, before
ye destroy us all.
Mark Galli, its current editor (who is leaving the publication in two weeks)
takes on Trump directly -- a courageous move on his part, as his magazine has largely been
apolitical. "The facts in this instance are unambiguous: the president of the United States
attempted to use his political power to coerce a foreign leader to harass and discredit one of
the president's political opponents," Galli writes. He draws the obvious conclusion for
Christians: "That is not only a violation of the Constitution; more importantly, it is
profoundly immoral." Galli goes further, digging into the behavior of the man in the Oval
Office, noting that Trump "has dumbed down the idea of morality in his administration." He gets
specific: "He has hired and fired a number of people who are now convicted criminals." As if
that wasn't enough, Galli adds, "He himself has admitted to immoral actions in business and his
relationship with women, about which he remains proud. His Twitter feed alone -- with its
habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders -- is a near perfect example of a
human being who is morally lost and confused." Galli's warning to Christians is clear. "To the
many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we
might say this: remember who you are and whom you serve," Galli writes. "Consider how your
justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an
unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior
in the cause of political expediency. If we don't reverse course now, will anyone take anything
we say about justice and righteousness with any seriousness for decades to come?" Galli also
acknowledged Friday in an interview on CNN's "New Day" that his stand is unlikely to shake
loose Trump's strong hold on this voter segment, a crucial portion of his political base.
Galli's move is even more admirable when you consider that he published his editorial even
knowing that, as he said in his interview, he's not optimistic that his editorial will alter
Trump's support among white evangelicals. It's not a stretch to say that white evangelicals put
Trump into office in 2016. About
80% of them voted for him. They did so because of the abortion issue, mostly. They wanted
pro-life judges throughout the justice system. But this was a devil's bargain, at best.
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">Faith
could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45,
have been slowly but steadily
moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key
topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always
been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color)
has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys
that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from
Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the
imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth
that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate,"
Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told
Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young
Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral
behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton,
there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for
myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always
forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Humility lies at the heart of
Christian behavior. As does honesty. In these, Trump has set a terrible example, and he's now
been taken down for this by an important Christian voice. If only another 10 percent of
evangelicals take this seriously, and I suspect they will, Donald J. Trump's presidency is
destined for the ash heap of history.
Delaying the Senate trial erodes the Democrats' argument that impeachment was so urgent that
they could not wait for the courts to act on Trump's aggressive claims of privilege.
Seven Democratic presidential candidates who gathered on a debate stage in Los Angeles on
Thursday represent another argument for moving beyond impeachment.
... ... ...
Washington is fixated on the daily turns of the impeachment saga, but polls indicate that
most Americans are not. Business executive Andrew Yang pointed out that, even when the current
president is gone, the struggles of many people will remain, particularly in parts of the
country that helped elect Trump in 2016.
"We blasted away 4 million manufacturing jobs that were primarily based in Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri. I just left Iowa -- we blasted 40,000 manufacturing jobs
there," Yang said. "The more we act like Donald Trump is the cause of all our problems, the
more Americans lose trust that we can actually see what's going on in our communities and solve
those problems."
That is what voters are waiting to hear, and the sooner the better for Democrats.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin there are going to be three things in life that are certain.
Death, taxes and the impeachment of a US President when the House is held by a different
party. American politics is going to get a whole lot nastier now than what it has been.
This Punch and Judy show has achieved nothing. The House impeached him and the Senate
won't convict him. Trump now will be playing the victim card. Come November the key thing
that will matter is the economy. If it as successful as it is now then he will get a second
term. If it is in a recession then advantage Democratic candidate.
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for the Senate to subpoena four new witnesses that
the House never heard. Nancy Pelosi signaled Wednesday night that she might not send over to
the Senate the articles of impeachment the House had just approved.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor both Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
To have the Senate, which is judge and jury of the impeachment charges, start calling witnesses
whom House prosecutors failed to pursue "could set a nightmarish precedent."
Said McConnell, Schumer "would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats' homework
for them."
Schumer's plea for new witnesses is an admission that the House's case for impeaching Trump
is inadequate and deficient and could prove wholly noncredible to the American people. After
all, if you need more witnesses, you probably do not have the smoking gun.
The message sent by Pelosi's call for more time before the trial, and Schumer's call for
more witnesses, is one of fear that not only could the House's case for impeachment fail, it
could be laughed out of the Senate. And the American people might be fine with that.
The Democratic Party has bet the ranch on the impeachment and removal of Trump for
imperiling our "national security." But are Schumer and Pelosi behaving as though the republic
is in mortal peril?
Schumer's call for new witnesses also underscores the thinness of Article I of the
impeachment, Trump's alleged "Abuse of Power."
Beneath Article I, there is not a single crime listed -- no treason, no bribery, no
extortion, no high crimes.
What kind of impeachment is this, with not one crime from the list the Founding Fathers
designated as impeachable acts?
Why did the Democratic House not impeach Trump for conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016
election? Answer: Congress could no more prove this charge than could Robert Mueller after two
years.
Other events are breaking Trump's way.
The James Comey-FBI investigation Mueller inherited has begun to take on the aspect of a
"deep state" conspiracy.
According to the Justice Department's IG Michael Horowitz, the FISA court warrants used to
justify FBI spying were the products not only of incompetence but also of mendacity and
possible criminality.
The "essential" evidence used by the FBI to get the FISA judge to approve warrants for
surveillance was the Steele dossier.
An ex-British spy, Christopher Steele was working in mid-2016 for a dirt-diving operation
commissioned by the DNC and Clinton campaign to go after Trump. His altarpiece, the dossier, we
learn from Horowitz, was a farrago of fabrications, rumors, and lies fed to Steele by a Russian
"sub-source."
In the four FBI submissions to the FISA courts for warrants to spy on Carter Page, there
were "at least 17 significant errors or omissions."
And all 17 went against Team Trump.
Moreover, the discrediting of the Comey investigation has just begun. U.S. Attorney John
Durham will report this spring or summer on his deeper and wider investigation into its
roots.
As IG of Justice, Horowitz's investigation was confined to his department and the FBI. But
Durham is looking into the involvement of U.S. and foreign intelligence in the first days of
the FBI investigation.
Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham have both said that they do not share Horowitz's view
that there was no political bias at the beginning of the investigation of the Trump campaign.
Durham's writ is far wider than Horowitz's and he has the power to impanel grand juries and
bring criminal indictments.
Among the fields Durham is plowing are reports that agents and assets of the FBI and CIA may
have "set up" Trump foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos. Possible purpose: to feed him
intel about Russia having dirt on Hillary Clinton, and then entrap him, put him in legal
jeopardy, and turn him into an investigative instrument to be used against Trump.
With the Horowitz report confirming what the Trumpers have been reporting and saying about
Comey's investigation for years, and the newly proven manipulation of the FISA courts, the
media hooting about "right-wing conspiracy theories" seems to have been toned down.
Carter Page, once considered a dupe of the Russians, is now seen as a patriot who assisted
his country's intelligence services only to be made a victim of injustice who saw his civil
rights trampled upon by his own government.
The cards appear to be falling Trump's way.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan
and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at
www.creators.com.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump showed that it is not only through the spoken word or his Twitter
account that he is able to raise eyebrows, when he sent an angry and frequently bizarre letter
to House speaker Nancy Pelosi .
The six-page missive was remarkable for a number of reasons, not least for Trump's claim he
has been subjected to worse treatment than that endured by people accused of witchcraft in the
17th century.
Here are five highlights, or otherwise, from Trump's dispatch. 1) 'More due process was
afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.'
Fourteen women and five men were hanged in colonial Massachusetts the late 1690s, for
supposedly engaging in witchcraft. "Spectral evidence" was admissible in the trials –
evidence where a witness had a dream, or apparition, which featured the alleged witch engaged
in dark deeds. Spectral evidence is yet to feature in Trump's impeachment hearings.
2)
'You [Nancy Pelosi] are offending Americans of faith by continually saying: "I pray for the
president," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.
It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!'
Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said she prays for Donald Trump. In October, the House speaker
said
she was praying for his "health", after Trump had what she described as a "meltdown" during a
meeting with Democratic leaders.
It's not the first time she has claimed to be appealing to a higher power on Trump's
behalf. It seems Trump doesn't like it. Or believe it.
3) 'There are not many people who
could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for
the success of America and its citizens.'
Trump's claims that he alone could withstand such rough treatment from his opponents
rather fall down here – located as they are in a six-page ode to
self-pity.
4) 'You view democracy as your enemy!'
This exclamation comes midway through the letter, after Trump claims the Democrats have
developed "Trump Derangement Syndrome". Trump is not confident of the odds Democrats will
recover from the malady: "You will never get over it!" he writes.
5) 'I write this letter
to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
100 years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and
learn from it, so that it can never happen to another president again.'
There's a slightly self-satisfied air to the final paragraph of the letter, as if Trump
feels he has delivered a piece of soaring oratory which will be pored over by scholars in years
to come. At least here, in a sense, Trump is correct. People are unlikely to forget "this
affair" – his presidency – for a long, long time and historians of the future will
certainly examine this letter: just perhaps not in the way Trump would want them to.
Muellergate and biased MSM overcame weak minded Americans and apparently caused Pu$$y
hatted evangelicals not to vote conservative in the 2018 Midterms. (If you believe there was
no ballot, voting machine or illegal voter fraud.).....
On to 2019, where the impeachment in name only in suspended animation will be used as the
Same Mullergate style main stream narrative to sway weak minded Americans and Voter fraud to
get Trump in 2020.
You had better hope Trump wins, because all your republican gun registered names are on
Google Databases. What do you think Hillary who invited NATO in during Bill's dalliance as
President was for, A Tea Party ?
But it was totally partisan based what constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley called
"non-crimes". Trump would wear such as badge of honour--in the sense he was attacked non-stop
by what he calls "The Deep State" and survived.
He would also claim that the elitist bureaucracy in Washington tried to destroy a
President who was for "We the People"--whom the elitist classes call "deplorables" and whom
can even be smelt at Walmart.
Like it or not, impeaching a President is a very significant moment. It only happened twice
before, and came close a third. It IS an imporant occasion. And the principle is NO ONE IS
ABOVE THE LAW. This is why the Founding Fathers put it in the Constitution. And the occasion
impinged on one thing that the Founding Fathers dreaded most: a foreign nation involving
itself in our electoral process. IT IS THAT SERIOUS
Removing a president is a very significant moment, which isn't going to happen.
Impeaching a president is just another TV show, which will be forgotten by the general public
in a couple of years or so. Bubba's situation is only remembered in America and abroad due to
Monica's salacious role. Ask the first person on the street what the actual accusations
against Bubba were. Most won't even coherently explain what Donnie's current situation is
about. And in neither case it will be their fault, because it is politicians who are to be
fully blamed - Democrats are as inarticulate now as Republicans were then.
Regarding foreign ivolvements - you're a "little" bit too late to become concerned about
that. Saudi and Israeli interests have already attained a permanent residency within
America's political system, elections included.
But back in 2007, when Fein was working on impeaching President George W. Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney, Pelosi said that impeachment was off the table completely.
So "long as they think their party has a chance to get the White House back they're eager to
take Trump's usurpations and imitate them with executive orders of their own," Fein said.
Ultimately, according to Fein, both parties in Congress "have no concept of the separation
of powers. It's all about loyalty to party. None of the Democrats did anything about Obama
going to war illegally, the Snowden revelations, DACA. Democrats didn't complain at all about
that. Republicans are exactly the same. There's no longer any loyalty to the oath of office.
That's why the country's institutions are collapsing."
Nancy Pelosi is worried that impeachment will cost the Democrats their 2016 purple gains,
and with it, her speaker's gavel.
Yet in the end, her political calculation may prove shortsighted. After all, her limp and
rushed use of the House impeachment inquiry has unified Trump supporters, calcified executive
overreach, and played directly into Trump's hands.
Hence why impeachment is so rare. If evidence isn't so obvious that you have to rely on the
President's own supporters to get at it, you probably shouldn't be trying to impeach in the
first place. That's a political choice you have to make carefully.
I tend to think this is going to be a disaster for Democrats. The GOP-controlled Senate
will spend all of its time asking questions about Biden and his son and then fully acquit,
GOP voters will come out in force and rally around the President, and Democratic voters
will be disillusioned and stay home.
I'd be happy to see Trump impeached for leaving our troops in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq
and the rest. But then I would have impeached Bush and Obama for the same.
The Trump Campaign Promises Monitor has posted a month-by-month timeline of the impeachment
inquiry, from the day Congress approved Ukrainian military aid to yesterday's impeachment
vote. See Promise #50: Drain the Swamp/Topic #14 - Impeachment Inquiry @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
With the House set to vote on two impeachment articles Wednesday, President Trump has
broken his 2016 campaign promise to "drain the swamp." For a list of the 15 different ways
President Trump has, in fact, failed to drain the swamp, see Promise #50 at the Trump
Campaign Promises Monitor @
http://trumpcampaignpromise...
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
Russia has also been kicking out US NGO's from the country too.
Putin is not doing this for control but to keep the Russian people safe should our ***
oligarchs decide to shut down global internet and to shut out foreign interference.
How dare anyone question official findings, details, and situations. Official means
official and that is official. Furthermore, no representatives should be challenged on their
representativiality or leadershipiality. When it is stated and found that various unnamed
letter organizations are working diligently on behalf of the people, that is fact and the
summation of de factos and prima facia that exists, period FULL STOP. Thank you and have a
great day!
It seems particular representatives of government and specific corporate interests are
responsible for the wars, while the intelligence agencies are involved with the terrorist
activities and the drugs/gun trade. I do not understand how souls can be so evil with
intentionally murdering and harming innocent civilians for political agendas, control, and
profits.
Most of the people are moral and wish for a peaceful, happy life with their family and
friends, so we need a society where virtue conquers the demons.
Get to the point. And "Secret Armies" to fight a Soviet invasion?...as opposed to all the
Non Secret Armies all over Europe and the US to fight a Soviet invasion?
Operation Gladio first came to light in Italy in 1990, after over 40 years of
clandestine operations. Members of the project revealed that similar projects existed in
most if not all countries of Western Europe. These stay-behind networks were... involved in
anti-communist activities including anti-democratic agitation and false flag terrorism. [It
was called "stay behind" because their alibi was they were preparing to wage a guerrilla
war in case of Communist invasion.]
In his 2004 book NATO's Secret Armies, arguably the most shocking book ever to be
ignored by the corporate media, Daniele Ganzer [documented] terrorism directed against the
people by secret armies funded and organized by NATO and answerable to deep state elements
within NATO, MI6 and the CIA rather than the respective governments.... And yet the claims
have been substantiated by juridical inquiries in Italy, Switzerland and Belgium and have
been debated (and condemned) in the European Parliament.
The scandal originally came to light in Italy in 1984 when an Italian judge Felice
Casson reopened the case of a terrorist car bomb in Peteano in 1972 and uncovered a series
of anomalies in the original investigation. The atrocity which had originally been blamed
on the communist Red Brigades turned out to be, in fact, the work of a right wing
organization called Ordine Nuovo . Following the discovery of an arms cache near
Trieste in 1972 containing C4 explosives identical to that used in the Peteano attack,
Casson's investigation revealed that the bombing in Peteano was the work of the military
secret service SID (Servizio Informazioni Difesa) in conjunction with Ordine Nuovo. The
intention had been to blame the bombing on the extreme left wing militant outfit, the Red
Brigades. The right wing terrorist, Vincenzo Vinciguerra was arrested and charged and
confessed to planting the bomb.
Judge Casson's investigation also revealed that the Peteano bombing was the continuation
of a series of bombings begun at Christmas 1969, the most well-known of which, on the
Piazza Fontane in Milan, killed 16 and injured 80. The bombing campaign culminated on 2
August 1980 with a massive bomb in the waiting room of Bologna railway station which killed
85 and injured 200. It was one of the largest terrorist outrages on mainland Europe in
modern times.
During his trial, Vincenzo Vinciguerra revealed that, in addition to discrediting left
wing political groups, there had been a second, even darker aim behind the bombings, namely
to inculcate a climate of fear among the general populace. This was known as the 'strategy
of tension' which was intended to generate a pervasive sense of fear which would encourage
the population to appeal to the state for protection.
Vincenzo Vinciguerra claimed during his trial: 'You had to attack civilians, the people,
women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The
reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public to
turn to the State to ask for greater security.'
You create fear with lies. And the state then suppresses dissent. The state media define
Communists as the enemy. Anything is justified to crush them. Communism and terrorists and
Islamic fundamentalists and today 'immigrants.'
One of these is not like the others. "Immigrants" (illegal) in their millions are a real
problem in the US and a worse one in Europe.
Create fear with lies? He forgot to mention "Climate Change" and the much hyped Turdburn
phenomenon.
"Gladio" Hoax ? Just like Op Mockingbird, Franklin child prostitution ring? Wake Up!
Operation Gladio is "a secret anti-Communist organization formed during the cold war
years," as
quoted in the New York Times . Kept secret for 45 years, operatives of
government-sponsored Operation Gladio in various European countries staged false flag events
which were blamed not just on Communists, but on leftists and other progressive organizations
to damage their credibility.
Also in case you think false flags are imaginary... "False flag terrorism" occurs when
elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be
a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people. The attack is then falsely
blamed on the enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy.
Hey fukkup! "Franklin" was real... and yeah... the Repulsivan administrations of 42 and 43
REALLY were ... in the bizness of paying their jobbers to kidnap and program innocent kids
for their bent sexual pleasures. How you wanna work that into the "Gladio" thing asshat?
Maybe a lil 'Pope a dope' with the choirboys?
I got all the time in the world for punters who wish to challenge my premise on grounds of
factual and reasoned argument.
I got no time at all for your ******** straw man attempts to work around your own absence
of an argument by going "Franklin"
"Also in case you" don't know... your clown team don't allow quotes from anti-agent Orange
rags like the "NYT." Capiche?
Back up your butt and start churning the butt butter a lil better this time button
bouy!
Get a grip Guiseppe! Talmudists hate n despise all their lil enablers. Pooties no
different from Frimpf in that regard. Their puppet princes are the first ones under the
bus... when their usefulness expires.
Gladio has morphed over the years and presently active with all the FF mass shooting
"DRILLS" (sic).......
See the news about Va. for the pending ending results of how it got there.
Another test run for the election rigging from Sore-azz and company.
BOLO for MSM projecting upon the GOP and then the more free **** and 'evil guns' meme to pick
up.
So far it's all about Blooming-idiot and Tom Steyer hawking their snake oil in
Texas......gonna be a loooooog friggn year listening to these scum shovel bovine
excrement.....60 seconds at a time....like digital water boarding for the farm
animals....
Disinformers try to explain away the nefarious acts of a rogue CIA as "conspiracy" a term
coined by William Casey, CIA Director as a disinformation tool... These same disinformers
deny the Craigslist cattle call for crisis actors as well as call "coincidence" for FEMA or
Homeland Security drills the day before. They also deny postmortems conducted on video
footage of the attack to PROVE the fallasies of the event. These disinformers will go to
their grave asserting Building 7 collapsed due to the heat of an imaginary fire.
Meanwhile, at this same time the Russians had very nearly raped every human vagina in
Berlin when they rolled into town. They brutally put down revolts in Poland, Hungary, and
Czechoslovakia each with its own special brand of tortures and purges for decades after.
Mao was literally starving 40 million of its own people. Then he decided to wipe
China clean of any cultural "residue" at all. Who knows how many people got killed in that
storm.
Pol Pot thought he should finally create a true communist state and killed 2 million
out of 5 million of his own people trying to establish it.
As a monument to utter stupidity, Gaither Stewart ignores these facts and shits the bed
about Operation Gladio. And to kick it off, he face-plants about the need for Aristotelian
moderation!
I know, I know, don't let facts get in the way. Junk away, ignorant and angry
tapeworms.
It was an ugly era....let's not forget Eisenhower starving millions of innocent Germans,
in POW camps, and exposure to the elements to their slow agonizing deaths.
Patton defied the order and fed them.
Clearly a human trait the OSS scum and cabal did not like. So Patton was off'd.
The Russian soldiers who perped those rapes/murders were not Christian white Russians.
They were the Far East peoples (Chechnyans, Uzbeks, Mongols, et al) who were conscripts and
turned loose to perpetrate that mayhem against the German people and at the behest of Soviet
jews who wanted vengeance against Germany.
Mussolini defeated the mafia.
The communist partisans defeated Mussolini.
The CIA re-imported the mafia to defeat the communists
And armed the remaining fascists for Operation Gladio.
"... Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious. It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest of the wealthy. ..."
"... America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla. ..."
"... Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators; it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending your kids to die. Never. ..."
Idealistic Realist , Apr 27, 2019 1:24:45 PM |
link
Best analysis by a candidate for POTUS ever:
American foreign policy is not a failure. To comfort themselves, observers often say that our leaders -- presidents, advisors,
generals -- don't know what they're doing. They do know. Their agenda just isn't what we like to imagine it is.
To quote Michael Parenti: "US policy is not filled with contradictions and inconsistencies. It has performed brilliantly
and steadily in the service of those who own most of the world and who want to own all of it."
The vision of our leaders as bunglers, while more accurate than the image of them as valiant public servants, is less accurate
and more rose-tinted than the closest approximation of the truth, which is that they are servants of their class interest.
That is why we go to war.
Those who buy the elite class's foreign policy BS, about the Emmanuel Goldsteins they conjure up every three years, are
fools. Obviously Hussein and Milošević were bad; but "government bad" does not mean we must invade. Wars occur for economic,
not humanitarian, reasons.
Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the president of Equatorial Guinea, is a kleptocrat, murderer, and alleged cannibal. This is
him and his wife with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, was said to have boiled political prisoners to death, massacred hundreds
of prisoners, and made torture an institution. This is him with John Kerry.
Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda, has been involved in the assassination of political opponents, perpetrated obvious
election fraud, and had his term extended until 2034. This is him with Barack and Michelle Obama.
Why have we supported Nguema, Karimov, and Kagame but not the ones who are thorns in our sides? The reasons are obvious.
It's not the lives of their citizens - it's power for the elite class. We intervene abroad because we want to further the interest
of the wealthy.
America will always pick and choose the leaders it props up and tears down. It never was and never will be for humanitarian
reasons -- that is a clever veil. We denounce ethnic cleansing and then fund it. We call for free elections and then support
Pinochet, Stroessner, and Videla.
Opposing war is a noble and courageous act, and there will always be smears. Opposing war isn't supporting dictators;
it's opposing death and destruction in the service of the wealthy. Never believe what they tell you about why they're sending
your kids to die. Never.
"... It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. ..."
"JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon has two big pronouncements as the Trump administration starts reshaping
the government: "The United States of America is truly an exceptional country," and "it is clear that something is wrong."
Dimon, leader of world's most valuable bank and a counselor to the new president, used his 45-page annual letter to shareholders
on Tuesday to list ways America is stronger than ever -- before jumping into a much longer list of self-inflicted problems that
he said was "upsetting" to write.
Here's the start: Since the turn of the century, the U.S. has dumped trillions of dollars into wars, piled huge debt onto students,
forced legions of foreigners to leave after getting advanced degrees, driven millions of Americans out of the workplace with felonies
for sometimes minor offenses and hobbled the housing market with hastily crafted layers of rules.
Dimon, who sits on Donald Trump's business forum aimed at boosting job growth, is renowned for his optimism and has been voicing
support this year for parts of the president's business agenda. In February, Dimon predicted the U.S. would have a bright economic
future if the new administration carries out plans to overhaul taxes, rein in rules and boost infrastructure investment. In an
interview last month, he credited Trump with boosting consumer and business confidence in growth, and reawakening "animal spirits."
But on Tuesday, reasons for concern kept coming. Labor market participation is low, Dimon wrote. Inner-city schools are failing
poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure planning and spending
is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous it's driving capital
and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive.
" It is understandable why so many are angry at the leaders of America's institutions, including businesses, schools and
governments," Dimon, 61, summarized. "This can understandably lead to disenchantment with trade, globalization and even our free
enterprise system, which for so many people seems not to have worked. "...
"Inner-city schools are failing poor kids. High schools and vocational schools aren't providing skills to get decent jobs. Infrastructure
planning and spending is so anemic that the U.S. hasn't built a major airport in more than 20 years. Corporate taxes are so onerous
it's driving capital and brains overseas. Regulation is excessive."
Let's unpack his list. The 4th (last) sentence is his hope that his bank can back to the unregulated regime that brought us
the Great Recession. His 3rd sentence is a call for more tax cuts for the rich.
We may like his first 2 sentences here but who is going to pay for this? Not Jamie Dimon. See sentence #3.
And Ms. Pelosi believes that Mr. Trump is so eager for the public vindication of a Senate
acquittal that he will put pressure on the majority leader to make it happen even if it means
offering some concessions to Mr. Schumer.
For now, however, Mr. McConnell -- and many other Senate Republicans -- seem unmoved by the
House posture. He spent much of Thursday gleefully ridiculing Democrats' negotiating
tactics.
"Do you think this is leverage, to not send us something we'd rather not do?" he asked
reporters this week as he cracked a broad smile outside the Senate chamber, in a departure from
his usual dour expression.
"... Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no audits. The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century. Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor. Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the Bidens are at the trough. ..."
"... So the documents were released three weeks ago? Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY? So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter? ..."
"... So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama? Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of Russiagate? And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the U.S.
Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which had been founded in March
2017 by liberals (really by some of the
main billionaires who fund the Democratic Party
) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (by
Republican billionaires
).
The now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made it as difficult as possible to report the contents of this
dump; Most especially by providing only a photographic image of each page, making it impossible to search on most
systems; and also impossible to Copy/Paste any quotations.
Consequently, on November 23rd, I made a pdf copy of that document to the Web Archive (the first of probably many
that will become posted there), in order to be able to link here to something that will come onscreen less sluggishly
for any interested reader who will want to see the document.
I am herewith pasting below what I consider to be the most important extended passage in the document, so as to
make that passage especially available online. I have manually transcribed the photos, in order that any portion of
this important passage (pages 61-66) can now be easily found and cited by other reporters.
This way, at least that passage might become more widely disseminated to the public -- which it should be, because
the information there contradicts many of the 'news'-reports about Ukrainegate, or the impeachment case against
Trump. (Some excerpts from this extended passage were reported on
November 25th
by the great non-mainstream news-site Zero Hedge, and that was entirely accurate.)
In this passage, President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on January 23, 25, and 26, of 2019, took a deposition
from Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced to be fired on 29 March 2016 as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also
a deposition from Yuriy Lutsenko, who replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a
one-billion-dollar donation ('loan guarantees' to the then-and-now bankrupt Government of Ukraine) from America's
taxpayers, to fund the then just-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian Government
of Ukraine, for it to stay afloat just a while longer.
Shokin – January 23, 2019, 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General Prosecutor of Ukraine was
conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani, Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George
Boyle.
The conversation was conducted through the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev
Parnas in New York. The sum and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine from 2015 until April
of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice President of the United States. Mr. Shokin
was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola
Zlochevsky the former Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
The case was opened as a result of Mr. Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in
Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr.
Shokin stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is listed, with
the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following complaints are in the criminal
case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings and gave those
companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect himself. Mr.
Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above-mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr. Shokin attempted to
continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him
that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing.
On or about September 2015, Mr. Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated
correctly and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three million dollars were
frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents were prepared and the money was released
so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office. That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above
cases again.
Mr. Shokin stated that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April [actually
29 March
] of 2016 Mr. Shokin was dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine [and
both the U.S. and its stooge the EU celebrated his firing
-- the EU aquiesced in the
U.S. regime's Ukrainian coup
]. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by the current Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of multiple people in
Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which nothing was received. It is believed that
Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not in the interest
of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office and told that the investigation
into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one
billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told him he had to be
fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden told Mr. Poroshenko that he had
evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired. Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the
U.S. aid was delivered within one and one half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied his visa to
travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr. Shokin also stated that there were leaks
by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated
that there is possible deceit in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
*
Yuriy Lutsenko January 25, 2019, 445 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10022:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was present at 445 Park Av e,
New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz
Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the Minister of Interior
from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two and one half years as a political
prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two thousand six hundred
thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to explain that there is a unit called
Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau
Ukraine (NABU) which investigates corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that
the current U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU.
He feels they are good organizations but have terrible leadership. His office has absolutely no control over
SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at (mentioned above)
and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation from Burisma. He produced a document
from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were distributed out of Burisma's account.
The record showed two (2) companies and four (4) individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in
disbursements, as follows [the breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor Generals' Office. Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was present at 445 Park
ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one specific mention which was not vague and
which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A "system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine,
have it laundered, and then collect the laundered money.
These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell companies. He further
stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located offshore, and that two of them had approximately seven
billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of
the beneficiaries were pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre-coup
Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold
to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor
Kolomoysky. And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering a few billions from his bankrupt PrivatBank,
Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma
(which probably isn't much, now that
no established fracking company has found it
to be worth developing).
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose
it and to go after both Obama and Kolomoysky, and to abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does
decide to go after the principals in the case, then he'll have to expose whom were the actual principals, and whom
were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been only on actual agents, no principals. Given the way
in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been particularly eager to get
the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has
likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
Dec. 9, 2015
: Hunter Biden and business partner Devon Archer meet at State
Department regarding Burisma Holdings prosecution. [But no online record is provided, no documentation here, of
what was said.]
Feb. 11, 16, 19, 2016
: VP Biden holds series of phone calls with President Poroshenko to check
on status of pending items from their December 2015 meeting. Removal of general prosecutor raised again. [But,
again, no online record is provided. No evidence is provided of any mention of replacing the prosecutor.]
March 15, 2016:
Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland demands
Ukraine "appoint and confirm a new, clean Prosecutor
General, who is committed to rebuilding the integrity of the PGO, and investigate, indict and successfully
prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases -- including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself." She
offers no proof that special prosecutor's [General Prosecutor's] office is corrupt.
March 22, 2016:
VP Joe Biden engages in a phone call from Washington DC with Ukrainian
President Poroshenko about U.S. loan guarantees [there is actually no indication in the official readout regarding
any "loan guarantees"].
It is believed in this call that Biden renews his demands that the president fire Prosecutor General Shokin,
but this time Biden warns Ukraine risk[s] losing the next $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees [and, yet again,
Pompeo's State Department falsifies, because
the official readout
says nothing of the sort].
[The only useful information that's provided there is that seven days before Shokin was fired, Biden did phone
Poroshenko, and that Pompeo's State Department isn't to be trusted in anything it asserts, because it
misrepresents here what that readout says. Therefore, the "Dec. 9, 2015" entry also isn't to be trusted, since no
accompanying documentation is provided for its allegation.]
I thought that the Republicans and Democrats decided to, essentially, kill the impeachment (hoax) in
order to protect the entire political class. I mean, Really, the contest between Republicans is phony so
that development is not surprising. Also, according to Alexander Mercouris (who wants to see Trump
re-elected!), both Shokin and Lutsenko (who doesn't have a lawyer background) were doing dirty work on
behalf of their respective oligarch patrons. That's Ukraine now and peviously.
It does seem that
there's a lot of dislike for Trump by the Dems and many Repubs but there's an even stronger dislike by
those enemies of Trum, together with the rest of the political class, of democracy. And there's a culture
of criminalit and impunity which members of the American political share or the exposure of Russiagate
would have seen a chastening of the Democratic Party et al instead of a doubling down on whatever lies
might help remove Trump. Neither is Trump chastened by his brush with the tainting of his crown as he
signs laws that codify the lie that peaceful protest and honest criticism of Israel is antisemitism.
Antonym
,
Imagine the confidence the Democrats
still have today
that with
"Ukrainegate" they can criminalize sitting president Trump instead of their own much more guilty
opposition leaders: US deep state is almost 50 rooted with many appointees in all power branches.
ttshasta
,
Three billion dollars of USAID money sent to Ukraine over 3 years is not accounted for, no documents, no
audits.
The Clinton Foundation has received $10 million in donations of $500K and up from Ukraine this century.
Igor Pasternak had a fundraiser in Washington for Adam Schiff; $1000/plate- guest, $2500/plate-sponsor.
Ukranians and US taxpayers should like to know where did our dollars go, and who else in addition to the
Bidens are at the trough.
Ukraine is not quite the most corrupt country on the planet, but it gives Afghanistan and Somalia some
pretty stiff competition.
Many tens of billions have been poured into the country by the US and EU
taxpayer, via the IMF, CIA, NED, and similar organisations. It has promptly vanished into thin air. There
is nothing to show for it. Ukraine is a Big Black Hole. It is now just a CIA/ NATO playground in the
grand scheme of things to install an openly Fascist Regime in Kiev to encircle and destabilise Russia.
The main players in Ukraine are Levantine oligarchs like Kolomoisky and his ilk, who have stolen
everything that wasn't nailed down in Ukraine since independence. And everything that was nailed down.
Just like Russia in the 1990s. They were joined by a whole host of all the usual suspects, dual/ triple
national Jews with a visceral hatred of Russia. The Nulands, the Vindmans, the Ioanovitches and all the
rest. Ukraine has been a happy hunting ground for these people. There has been a virtually unlimited
bonanza of western taxpayers' money to divvy up between them. Together with a few goy stooges like the
Bidens, who were also allowed to wet their beaks. There was enough to go around, after all.
No wonder they hate Trump so much for spoiling the party. Over to Schiff, Nadler, Cohen, Cohen and
Cohen. Reacting with all the fury of a dog that has had its bone taken away.
Dungroanin
,
So the documents were released three weeks ago?
Giuliani had the evidence in JANUARY?
So the Quid Pro Quo kerfuffle was manufactured thereafter?
So the QPQ is actually by Dems' trying to stop prosecution of Biden and above? Clinton and Obama?
Which is why the impeachment bs? Or is it to stop the prosecution of the chiefs of the 3 letter agencies in their manufacturing of
Russiagate?
And their 5+1 eyed cohorts? In a conspiracy against the potus? Now just fit in Syria, White Helmets and Skripals and all the dots join up.
It can lead to the immediate collapse of the new bozo house of cards and clear the swamp in one
Herculean flushing! You may even be able to save Assange from martyrdom in the British dungeon.
What's it to be Me Zuesse?
George Cornell
,
Thanks for this. It is surely complex and after all why shouldn't Miss Vicki decide who should lead the
Ukraine. And why should anyone begrudge the right of an exemplar sovereign state to deep six a prosecutor
who went after criminal corruption? But even the incognoscenti can appreciate that Hunter Biden, the
cokeheaded nitwit who was shoehorned into the Navy, by his fathers' friends, was unable to forgo the coke
till his urine got tested. His length of service could be measured in hours or days (how long does it
take to get the urine test results) as he was immediately dishonourably discharged. Further, that he
could not possibly provide service to Burisma that was not corrupt, simply because he had no demonstrable
expertise in their affairs. Unless Biden Jr's expertise in marital infidelity, fathering children out of
wedlock with strippers, and spending his marital income on lap dancers and drugs (according to his
ex-wife) dovetailed with Burisma's undeclared interests.
It was reported in the NYT that Bidens presence on the Burisma board gave it respectability. Of course
it must have, although presumably by error, Burisma was left out of any of the lists of most admired
companies. Perhaps these were compiled before Jr. was taken on board, so to speak. Ukrainians can hold
their heads high, such an incredible coup it was to have Biden Jr. grace their country. And he picked the
Ukraine over the horde of other countries which must relentlessly vie for his services, whatever they
might be. Just his accepting their cheques is surely enough.
It is not difficult to appreciate how the Democratic Party leapt at the chance to show the American
public how those big meanie Republicans have wagged their tongues so uncharitably against the upstanding
and virtuous seed of the loins of their leading 77 yr. old presidential candidate. After all, boys will
be boys. Say what you like about the Dems but you can't deny their canny shrewdness and ability to sniff
out talent.
Gossufer2.0 and CrowdStrike are the weakest links in this sordid story. CrowdStrike was nothing but FBI/CIA contractor.
So the hypothesis that CrowdStrike employees implanted malware to implicate Russians and created fake Gussifer 2.0 personality
is pretty logical.
Notable quotes:
"... Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of then CIA Director John Brennan ..."
"... In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust. ..."
"... We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the Vault 7 documents : ..."
"... Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович" is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.) ..."
"... Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA. ..."
"... The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich. Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign, would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia. ..."
"... The only source for the claim that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. ..."
"... Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch, but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June. That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction. ..."
"... The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU. ..."
"... LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA, not the GRU." ..."
"... ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments? ..."
"... With the Russians not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet), would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report insists that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks were created by Russia's military intelligence organization,
the GRU, as part of a Russian plot to meddle in the U.S. 2016 Presidential Election. But this is a lie. Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were created by Brennan's CIA and this action by the CIA should be a target of U.S. Attorney John Durham's investigation. Let me
explain why.
Let us start with the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment aka ICA. Only three agencies of the 17 in the U.S. intelligence
community contributed to and coordinated on the ICA--the FBI, the CIA and NSA. In the preamble to the ICA, you can read the following
explanation about methodology:
When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as "we assess" or "we judge," they are conveying an analytic assessment or
judgment
To be clear, the phrase,"We assess", is intel community jargon for "opinion". If there was actual evidence or source material
for a judgment the writer of the assessment would state, "According to a reliable source" or "knowledgeable source" or "documentary
evidence."
Pay close attention to what the analysts writing the ICA stated about the GRU and Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks:
We assess with high confidence that the GRU used the Guccifer 2.0 persona, DCLeaks.com, and WikiLeaks to release US victim data
obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets.
Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims
about his likely Russian identity throughout the election. Press reporting suggests more than one person claiming to be Guccifer
2.0 interacted with journalists.
Content that we assess was taken from e-mail accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.com starting
in June.
We assess with high confidence that the GRU relayed material it acquired from the DNC and senior Democratic officials to WikiLeaks.
Moscow most likely chose WikiLeaks because of its self-proclaimed reputation for authenticity. Disclosures through WikiLeaks did
not contain any evident forgeries.
Not one piece of corroborating intelligence. It is all based on opinion and strong belief. There was no human source report or
electronic intercept pointing to a relationship between the GRU and the two alleged creations of the GRU--Guccifer 2.0 persona and
DCLeaks.com. Now consider the spin that Robert Mueller put on this opinion in his report on possible collusion between the Trump
campaign and the Russians. Mueller bluffs the unsuspecting reader into believing that it is a proven fact that Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks
were Russian assets. But he is relying on a mere opinion from a handpicked group of intel analysts working under the direction of
then CIA Director John Brennan.
Here's Mueller's take (I apologize for the lengthy quote but it is important that you read how the Mueller team presents this):
DCLeaks
"The GRU began planning the releases at least as early as April 19, 2016, when Unit 26165 registered the domain dcleaks.com
through a service that anonymized the registrant.137 Unit 26165 paid for the registration using a pool of bitcoin that it had
mined.138 The dcleaks.com landing page pointed to different tranches of stolen documents, arranged by victim or subject matter.
Other dcleaks.com pages contained indexes of the stolen emails that were being released (bearing the sender, recipient, and date
of the email). To control access and the timing of releases, pages were sometimes password-protected for a period of time and
later made unrestricted to the public.
Starting in June 2016, the GRU posted stolen documents onto the website dcleaks.com, including documents stolen from a number
of individuals associated with the Clinton Campaign. These documents appeared to have originated from personal email accounts
(in particular, Google and Microsoft accounts), rather than the DNC and DCCC computer networks. DCLeaks victims included an advisor
to the Clinton Campaign, a former DNC employee and Clinton Campaign employee, and four other campaign volunteers.139 The GRU released
through dcleaks.com thousands of documents, including personal identifying and financial information, internal correspondence
related to the"Clinton Campaign and prior political jobs, and fundraising files and information.140
GRU officers operated a Facebook page under the DCLeaks moniker, which they primarily used to promote releases of materials.141
The Facebook page was administered through a small number of preexisting GRU-controlled Facebook accounts.142
GRU officers also used the DCLeaks Facebook account, the Twitter account @dcleaks__, and the email account [email protected]
to communicate privately with reporters and other U.S. persons. GRU officers using the DCLeaks persona gave certain reporters
early access to archives of leaked files by sending them links and passwords to pages on the dcleaks.com website that had not
yet become public. For example, on July 14, 2016, GRU officers operating under the DCLeaks persona sent a link and password for
a non-public DCLeaks webpage to a U.S. reporter via the Facebook account.143 Similarly, on September 14, 2016, GRU officers sent
reporters Twitter direct messages from @dcleaks_, with a password to another non-public part of the dcleaks.com website.144
The dcleaks.com website remained operational and public until March 2017."
Guccifer 2.0
On June 14, 2016, the DNC and its cyber-response team announced the breach of the DNC network and suspected theft of DNC documents.
In the statements, the cyber-response team alleged that Russian state-sponsored actors (which they referred to as "Fancy Bear")
were responsible for the breach.145 Apparently in response to that announcement, on June 15, 2016, GRU officers using the persona
Guccifer 2.0 created a WordPress blog. In the hours leading up to the launch of that WordPress blog, GRU officers logged into
a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455 and searched for a number of specific words and phrases in English, including
"some hundred sheets," "illuminati," and "worldwide known." Approximately two hours after the last of those searches, Guccifer
2.0 published its first post, attributing the DNC server hack to a lone Romanian hacker and using several of the unique English
words and phrases that the GRU officers had searched for that day.146
That same day, June 15, 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 WordPress blog to begin releasing to the public documents
stolen from the DNC and DCCC computer networks.
The Guccifer 2.0 persona ultimately released thousands of documents stolen from the DNC and DCCC in a series of blog posts
between June 15, 2016 and October 18, 2016.147 Released documents included opposition research performed by the DNC (including
a memorandum analyzing potential criticisms of candidate Trump), internal policy documents (such as recommendations on how to
address politically sensitive issues), analyses of specific congressional races, and fundraising documents. Releases were organized
around thematic issues, such as specific states (e.g., Florida and Pennsylvania) that were perceived as competitive in the 2016
U.S. presidential election.
Beginning in late June 2016, the GRU also used the Guccifer 2.0 persona to release documents directly to reporters and other
interested individuals. Specifically, on June 27, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to the news outlet The Smoking Gun offering
to provide "exclusive access to some leaked emails linked [to] Hillary Clinton's staff."148 The GRU later sent the reporter a
password and link to a locked portion of the dcleaks.com website that contained an archive of emails stolen by Unit 26165 from
a Clinton Campaign volunteer in March 2016.149 "That the Guccifer 2.0 persona provided reporters access to a restricted portion
of the DCLeaks website tends to indicate that both personas were operated by the same or a closely-related group of people.150
The GRU continued its release efforts through Guccifer 2.0 into August 2016. For example, on August 15, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona sent a candidate for the U.S. Congress documents related to the candidate's opponent.151 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer
2.0 persona transferred approximately 2.5 gigabytes of Florida-related data stolen from the DCCC to a U.S. blogger covering Florida
politics.152 On August 22, 2016, the Guccifer 2.0 persona sent a U.S. reporter documents stolen from the DCCC pertaining to the
Black Lives Matter movement.153"
Wow. Sounds pretty convincing. The documents referencing communications by DCLeaks or Guccifer 2.0 with Wikileaks are real. What
is not true is that these entities were GRU assets.
In October 2015 John Brennan reorganized the CIA . As part of that reorganization he created a new directorate--DIRECTORATE
OF DIGITAL INNOVATION. Its mission was to "manipulate digital footprints." In other words, this was the Directorate that did the
work of creating Guccifer 2.0 and DCLeaks. One of their specialties, creating Digital Dust.
We also know, thanks to Wikileaks, that the CIA was using software specifically designed to mask CIA activity and make it
appear like it was done by a foreign entity. Wikipedia describes the
Vault 7 documents :
Vault 7 is a series of documents that WikiLeaks began to publish on 7 March 2017, that detail activities and capabilities of the
United States' Central Intelligence Agency to perform electronic surveillance and cyber warfare. The files, dated from 2013–2016,
include details on the agency's software capabilities, such as the ability to compromise cars, smart TVs,[1] web browsers (including
Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, and Opera Software ASA),[2][3][4] and the operating systems of most smartphones (including
Apple's iOS and Google's Android), as well as other operating systems such as Microsoft Windows, macOS, and Linux[5][6
One of the tools in Vault 7 carries the innocuous name, MARBLE.
Hackernews explains the purpose and function
of MARBLE:
Dubbed "Marble," the part 3 of CIA files contains 676 source code files of a secret anti-forensic Marble Framework, which is basically
an obfuscator or a packer used to hide the true source of CIA malware.
The CIA's Marble Framework tool includes a variety of different algorithm with foreign language text intentionally inserted into
the malware source code to fool security analysts and falsely attribute attacks to the wrong nation.
Marble is used to hamper[ing] forensic investigators and anti-virus companies from attributing viruses, trojans and hacking attacks
to the CIA," says the whistleblowing site.
"...for example by pretending that the spoken language of the malware creator was not American English, but Chinese, but then
showing attempts to conceal the use of Chinese, drawing forensic investigators even more strongly to the wrong conclusion," WikiLeaks
explains.
So guess what
gullible techies "discovered" in mid-June 2016? The meta data in the Guccifer 2.0 communications had "Russian fingerprints."
We still don't know who he is or whether he works for the Russian government, but one thing is for sure: Guccifer 2.0 -- the nom
de guerre of the person claiming he hacked the Democratic National Committee and published hundreds of pages that appeared to prove
it -- left behind fingerprints implicating a Russian-speaking person with a nostalgia for the country's lost Soviet era.
Exhibit A in the case is this document created and later edited in the ubiquitous Microsoft Word format. Metadata left inside
the file shows it was last edited by someone using the computer name "Феликс Эдмундович." That means the computer was configured
to use the Russian language and that it was connected to a Russian-language keyboard. More intriguing still, "Феликс Эдмундович"
is the colloquial name that translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, the 20th Century Russian statesman who is best known for founding the
Soviet secret police. (The metadata also shows that the purported DNC strategy memo was originally created by someone named Warren
Flood, which happens to be the name of a LinkedIn user claiming to provide strategy and data analytics services to Democratic candidates.)
Just use your common sense. If the Russians were really trying to carry out a covert cyberattack, do you really think they
are so sloppy and incompetent to insert the name of the creator of the Soviet secret police in the metadata? No. The Russians are
not clowns. This was a clumsy attempt to frame the Russians.
Why would the CIA do this? The CIA knew that Podesta's emails had been hacked and were circulating on the internet. But they
had no evidence about the identity of the culprit. If they had such evidence, they would have cited it in the 2017 ICA.
The U.S. intelligence community became aware around May 26, 2016 that someone with access to the DNC network was offering
those emails to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Julian Assange and people who spoke to him indicate that the person was Seth Rich.
Whether or not it was Seth, the Trump Task Force at CIA was aware that the emails, which would be embarrassing to the Clinton campaign,
would be released at some time in the future. Hence the motive to create Guccifer 2.0 and pin the blame on Russia.
It is essential to recall the timeline of the alleged Russian intrusion into the DNC network. The only source for the claim
that Russia hacked the DNC is a private cyber security firm, CrowdStrike. Here is the timeline for the DNC "hack."
Here are the facts on the public record. They are at odds with the claims of the Intelligence Community:
It was
29 April 2016 , when the DNC claims it became aware its servers had been penetrated. No claim yet about who was responsible.
And no claim that there had been a prior warning by the FBI of a penetration of the DNC by Russian military intelligence.
According to CrowdStrike founder , Dimitri Alperovitch, his company first supposedly detected the Russians mucking around
inside the DNC server on 6 May 2016. A CrowdStrike intelligence analyst reportedly told Alperovitch that:
Falcon had identified not one but two Russian intruders: Cozy Bear, a group CrowdStrike's experts believed was affiliated
with the FSB, Russia's answer to the CIA; and Fancy Bear, which they had linked to the GRU, Russian military intelligence.
The Wikileaks data shows that the last message copied from the DNC network is dated Wed, 25 May 2016 08:48:35.
10 June 2016 --CrowdStrike waited until 10 June 2016 to take concrete steps to clean up the DNC network. Alperovitch told
Esquire's Vicky Ward that: 'Ultimately, the teams decided it was necessary to replace the software on every computer at the DNC.
Until the network was clean, secrecy was vital. On the afternoon of Friday, June 10, all DNC employees were instructed to leave
their laptops in the office."
On June 14, 2016 , Ellen Nakamura, a Washington Post reporter who had been briefed by computer security company hired by the
DNC -- Crowdstrike--, wrote:
Russian government hackers penetrated the computer network of the Democratic National Committee and gained access to the
entire database of opposition research on GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, according to committee officials and security
experts who responded to the breach.
The intruders so thoroughly compromised the DNC's system that they also were able to read all email and chat traffic, said
DNC officials and the security experts.
The intrusion into the DNC was one of several targeting American political organizations. The networks of presidential
candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were also targeted by Russian spies, as were the computers of some Republican political
action committees, U.S. officials said. But details on those cases were not available.
15 June, 2016 , an internet "personality" self-described as Guccifer 2.0 surfaces and claims to be responsible for the hacks
but denies being Russian. The people/entity behind Guccifer 2.0:
Used a Russian VPN service provider to conceal their identity.
Created an email account with AOL.fr (a service that exposes the sender's IP address) and contacted the press (exposing his
VPN IP address in the process).
Contacted various media outlets through this set up and claimed credit for hacking the DNC, sharing copies of files purportedly
from the hack (one of which had Russian error messages embedded in them) with reporters from Gawker, The Smoking Gun and other
outlets.
Carried out searches for terms that were mostly in English, several of which would appear in Guccifer 2.0's first blog post.
They chose to do this via a server based in Moscow. (this is from the indictment,
"On or about June 15, 2016, the Conspirators logged into a Moscow-based server used and managed by Unit 74455")
Created a blog and made an initial blog post claiming to have hacked the DNC, providing links to various documents as proof.
Carelessly dropped a "Russian Smiley" into his first blog post.
Managed to add the name "Феликс Эдмундович" (which translates to Felix Dzerzhinsky, also known as "Iron Felix") to the metadata
of several documents. (Several sources went beyond what the evidence shows and made claims about Guccifer 2.0 using a Russian
keyboard, however, these claims are just assumptions made in response to the presence of cyrillic characters.)
The only thing that the Guccifer 2.0 character did not do to declare its Russian heritage was to take out full page ads in the
New York Times and Washington Post. But the "forensic" fingerprints that Guccifer 2.0 was leaving behind is not the only inexplicable
event.
Time for the common sense standard again. Crowdstrike detected the Russians on the 6th of May, according to CEO Dimitri Alperovitch,
but took no steps to shutdown the network, eliminate the malware and clean the computers until 34 days later, i.e., the 10th of June.
That is 34 days of inexcusable inaction.
It is only AFTER Julian Assange announces on 12 June 2016 that WikiLeaks has emails relating to Hillary Clinton that DCLeaks or
Guccifer 2.0 try to contact Assange.
The actions attributed to DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 should be priority investigative targets for U.S. Attorney John Durham's
team of investigators. This potential use of a known CIA tool, developed under Brennan with the sole purpose to obfuscate the source
of intrusions, pointing to another nation, as a false flag operation, is one of the actions and issues that U.S. Attorney John Durham
should be looking into as a potential act of "Seditious conspiracy. It needs to be done. To quote the CIA, I strongly assess that
the only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential election was the CIA,
not the GRU.
LJ bottom line: "The only intelligence agency that evidence indicates was meddling via cyber attacks in the 2016 Presidential
election was the CIA, not the GRU."
Larry, thanks -- vital clarifications and reminders. In your earlier presentation of this material did you not also distinguish
between the way actually interagency assessments are titled, and ICA which seemed to have been framed to allow journalists or
the unwary to link the ICA with more rigorous standards used by more authentic assessments?
Thank you Larry. You have discovered one more vital key to the conspiracy. We now need the evidence of Julian Assange. He is kept
incommunicado and He is being tortured by the British in jail and will be murdered by the American judicial system if he lasts
long enough to be extradited.
You can be sure he will be "Epsteined" before he appears in open court because he knows the source of what Wikileaks published.
Once he is gone, mother Clinton is in the clear.
I can understand the GRU or SVR hacking the DNC and other e-mail servers because as intelligence services that is their job, but
can anyone think of any examples of Russia (or the Soviet Union) using such information to take overt action?
With the Russians
not having the advantages that the NSA does (back doors in all US-designed network hardware/software and taps all over the internet),
would Russia reveal anything unless it involved an immediate major national security threat. I doubt that would cover Trump.
So, if the President wanted to, he could be impeached by the house over and over again
without that helping the Senate to find any illegal, and therefore convictable behavior for the
President?
May be if the house impeach him three times and never send the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the dear President would faint. May be then the doctors would finally decide that he is
incapable of fulling his duties in the White House and declare him officially so sicko that he
gets forced to stay in bed. /sad snark attempt.
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that -- "hell freezes over" -- as they say.
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
"... You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power. ..."
"... You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did. ..."
"... This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth. You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution. ..."
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats
in the House of Representatives. This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers,
unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.
The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional
theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever. You have cheapened
the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!
By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution,
and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification
scheme -- yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America's founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy
that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build. Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans
of faith by continually saying "I pray for the President," when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative
sense. It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!
Your first claim, "Abuse of Power," is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination. You know
that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine. I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted,
mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented. Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from
the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect. I said to President Zelensky: "I
would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it." I said do
us a favor, not me , and our country , not a campaign. I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.
Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America's interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.
You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense -- it is no more legitimate
than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.
You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing
the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars. You know this because Biden bragged about it
on video. Biden openly stated: "I said, 'I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars' I looked at them and said: 'I'm
leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." Even Joe
Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it "looked bad." Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing
me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.
President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure. He further emphasized that
it was a "good phone call," that "I don't feel pressure," and explicitly stressed that "nobody pushed me." The Ukrainian Foreign
Minister stated very clearly: "I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance." He also said there
was "No Pressure." Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said:
"At no time during this meeting was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything
in return for the military aid." Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country. Never once did
Ukraine complain about pressure being applied -- not once! Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: "No quid pro quo. I want
nothing. I want nothing. I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on."
The second claim, so-called "Obstruction of Congress," is preposterous and dangerous. House Democrats are trying to impeach the
duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan
basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation's history. Under that standard, every American president
would have been impeached many times over. As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats:
"I can't emphasize this enough if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it
is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the President for doing."
Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening. Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College
landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat. You have developed a full-fledged case of what
many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it! You are unwilling and unable to accept the
verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016. So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn
the will of the American people and nullify their votes. You view democracy as your enemy!
Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for "two
and a half years," long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office,
the Washington Post published a story headlined, "The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun." Less than three months
after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, "I'm going to fight every day until he's impeached." House Democrats
introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our
country's best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports) -- who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest
cops our Nation has ever seen. A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office,
"We're gonna go in there and we're gonna impeach the motherf****r." Representative Al Green said in May, "I'm concerned that if we
don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected." Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before
you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine. As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to
do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president. It only has to do with your attempt to undo
the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!
Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out
of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said
by me. His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.
You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market,
soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever
unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice
and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation
cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch
of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a
defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world's number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous
NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade
deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate
Accord; becoming the world's top energy producer; recognition of Israel's capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and
recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release,
and the building of the Southern Border Wall -- and that is just the beginning, there is so much more. You cannot defend your extreme
policies -- open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term
taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan
obstruction of both common sense and common good.
There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats. Unfortunately, I don't know
that you will ever give me a chance to do so.
After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire
force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING! Few people in high
position could have endured or passed this test. You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon
wonderful and loving members of my family. You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United
States, and you are doing it yet again.
There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the
success of America and its citizens. But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further.
You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along,
the phone call with Ukraine -- even though it was a perfect call. And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many
people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.
You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing
Justice. You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies
claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians -- a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other. You forced
our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton
and the DNC in order to assault our democracy. Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into
dust, you did not apologize. You did not recant. You did not ask to be forgiven. You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection.
Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade -- you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person.
All of this was motivated by personal political calculation. Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged
and radical representatives of the far left. Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger -- this is
what is driving impeachment. Look at Congressman Nadler's challenger. Look at yourself and others. Do not take our country down with
your party.
If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing
the full truth concerning the FBI's horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election -- including the use of
spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order
to frame the innocent. The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt. I would think that you would
personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment
effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that "all roads lead to Putin," when you know that is
an abject lie. I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.
Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment -- against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle
-- is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. Our Founders feared the
tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.
Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until
the present. I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence,
to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who
started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.
Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be
presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud,
and they were no longer going to be made available to us. In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew
up, but that didn't stop you from continuing.
More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.
You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan -- it is not. You said it was very divisive --
it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible -- and it will only get worse!
This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.
You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party. But because of this colossal injustice, our party
is more united than it has ever been before. History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade. Your legacy
will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.
Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity. You apparently have so little respect for the American People
that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly. No intelligent person
believes what you are saying. Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever. There
is no reticence. This is not a somber affair. You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred
of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans. The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through
this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.
I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election. They will
not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.
There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens. It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats
in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People. While I have no expectation
that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.
One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it
can never happen to another President again.
Sincerely yours,
DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America
cc: United States Senate
United States House of Representatives
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats antithetical to the very principles
that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the Dems claim to support. Someone please
tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of history itself. Our Founding Fathers
would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you
sir.
ext-content expanded"> I've never heard a more brilliant or eloquent summary and analysis of the Impeachment case. Sloppy,
hurried, careless without regard for due process, the Democrats in 12 weeks have committed an abuse of their constitutional authority
and to the spirit of historical precedent regarding impeachment as a weapon to use just because you don't like the President.
This group of democrats have done serious damage to our government.
espite fond youthful memories of Bill Clinton/Kenneth Starr/Monica Lewinsky jokes on
late-night television, my interest in the current impeachment saga can pretty much be summed up
as follows: "Get back to me when they launch an impeachment inquiry over Yemen
." Watching the House vote along party lines to impeach President Donald Trump while barely
stifling a yawn over the
Afghanistan Papers does little to alter my skepticism about this constitutional crisis
built for cable news.
Progressive commentator Michael Tracey offered this apt summary of Washington's bizarre
priorities: "This last week teaches us that temporarily freezing and then unfreezing future
military aid to one of our many far-flung client states is [a] huge national emergency but the
government systematically lying about every aspect of the longest war in U.S. history is a
forgettable non-issue."
Nobody will be impeached for lying about Afghanistan. There will be no intelligence
community whistleblower setting in motion an impeachment inquiry over weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq. In fact, the same Nancy Pelosi who ultimately caved to the Resistance shut
down antiwar Democrats who wanted such hearings into George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. But here
John Bolton, an advocate
of preventive presidential war during this very administration, may finally get his wish of
being
greeted as a liberator .
Even as Representative Adam Schiff led the drive to impeach Trump, the California Democrat
voted for a defense bill that lavishes the executive branch with money without restraining
presidential war powers. But this seeming inconsistency is practically the point -- the entire
impeachment inquiry was wrapped in hawkish assumptions and rhetoric as liberal Democrats
unthinkingly stumbled into a Cold War 2.0 mindset that few of them this side of Hillary Clinton
would have willingly embraced absent
frequently overhyped Trump-Russia headlines dating back to the 2016 campaign.
No, Trump isn't Jesus Christ being handed
over by Pontius Pilate. His phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky wasn't "
perfect
" and neither side of this partisan morality tale has exactly covered itself in glory. Rudy
Giuliani's escapades seem particularly likely to end badly. One need not even necessarily
defend Trump's conduct to oppose an impeachment inquiry largely predicated on threat inflation.
Arm Ukraine, Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan testified, so they can "fight the Russians
there and we don't have to fight them here." She could have been starring in a Democratic
reboot of Red Dawn decades after the Soviet Union disintegrated.
There's no question Trump to some extent dangled a White House visit and congressionally
authorized aid to Ukraine before Kyiv in pursuit of the talking point that Joe Biden was under
investigation. The only matters in dispute are how determined the effort was, whether Trump's
motives were at least partially publicly spirited, the degree of the Bidens' shadiness, and why
the aid was ultimately disbursed (Byron York
makes the case that it wasn't necessarily because of the whistleblower).
House Democrats began with a presumption of corrupt intent on all counts and a definition of
foreign election interference elastic enough to include Trump utterances about WikiLeaks and
Hillary's deleted emails but not Ukraine's (smaller, less systematic and arguably less
effective than Russia's) 2016 influence
campaign . And while not all investigations are created equal -- if Hunter Biden's business
dealings are to be probed, it should not be as a favor to any president -- the impeachment
inquiry itself is an investigation of a political rival, who was also investigated during his
previous campaign .
If shortcuts were taken in the beginning of the Trump-Russia investigation, the origins of
Trump-Ukraine resemble a template for undermining any seriously antiwar or civil libertarian
president. Trump is not that president himself, of course -- his acquiescence to the Beltway
blob on lethal military aid is precisely what increased his leverage over Ukraine -- but some
plausible and even the
occasional Republican could be. Trump's mild rhetorical dissents on foreign policy are
clearly a factor in why he has reason to be suspicious of his own subordinates (it's also why
it is disingenuous to suggest that replacing Trump with Mike Pence is no different than
replacing Bill Clinton with ideologically identical Al Gore or that people who have worked for
Bush, Cheney or John McCain
would have no reason to oppose Trump).
Many Democrats sincerely believed they were impeaching Trump for the least of his crimes,
like Al Capone and tax evasion, and that Robert Mueller let him escape last time. They are also
making a case against Trump's ability to separate personal and national interests in a way that
speaks to his fitness for the office, with Ukraine merely being their specific example. But in
doing so, they are also ratifying a bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has failed the
American people, and that's bigger than any one president.
W. James Antle III is the editor of The American Conservative.
Giving military aid to foreign countries and spreading our military power across the globe
is a threat to our national security. Our military spending is obscene. Its how all empires
crumble, when they just can't give up control of the entire world. Time to retreat from the
world-wide power projection insanity and restructure our strategy to provide true national
defense.
James isn't it possible that the Dems concern for Ukraine is perceived to be phony, in the
same way people saw Republican's concern about Clinton's sex perjury as cynical. It could
make voters more aware of our involvement in foreign conflict. Clinton was impeached for
being awful to women, and now Trump, for whom PG does not mean parental guidance, is
cruising toward reelection. Trump's been impeached for being a Dove, who knows we might get
a Rand Paul isolationist within the next decade. Just a thought.
The Democrats declared war this week. Not on Donald Trump but on the United States and the
Constitution.
What started as a coup to overturn the 2016 election has now morphed into a Civil War as
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Fran-feces) presided over the passage of a bill which creates a
clear Constitutional Crisis.
And that means we have multiple factions vying for control of our government, the definition
of a Civil War.
In passing these articles of impeachment against President Trump Congress has arrogated to
itself powers it does not have.
The first article asserts a motive to Trump's actions to invalidate his role as chief law
enforcement officer for the country. It doesn't matter if you like him or any President having
this power, he does have it.
Read that first article and then apply it to a country other than Ukraine where Trump
didn't have 'probable cause' for investigation into corruption and malfeasance there.
That could be Abuse of Power.
But this happened in Ukraine where Trump clearly has probable cause.
The following is the scenario the first impeachment article is asserting as the basis for
abuse of power, through ascribing political motives to the President:
One day President Trump wakes up and says, "Shit! Joe Biden's leading me in the polls. I
need to do something about this."
So, Trump twirls his orange comb-over and calls up the Prime Minister of Armenia, a
Russian ally, to whom we've pledged aid. Since it's a Russian ally and Trump may have
colluded with the Russians, they would be a good candidate to help him.
But Joe Biden has no history of diplomacy or oversight in Armenia as Vice-President.
There's no record of any contact of any kind with Biden in Armenia, for argument's sake.
Trump then, during the phone call, shakes down the Armenian PM for that aid, explicitly
saying he must create dirt on Joe Biden or he would withhold appropriated aid funds to the
country.
Then, after getting caught, Trump tries to hide the record of the phone call by hiding
behind Executive Privilege.
That would be Abuse of Power and an impeachable offense. It would be regrettable but
indefensible that the odious jackals in Congress were right to impeach him. They would,
actually, be defending the Constitution and fully within their rights.
But, that's not what happened.
Biden was put in charge of Ukraine by President Obama. He had full discretion on policy
towards Ukraine and was caught on tape bragging about doing exactly what the impeachment
article is accusing Trump of doing. Shaking Ukraine down for favors in order to get $1 billion
in aid.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KCF9My1vBP4
Since the prosecutor who Biden had fired was investigating corruption into his son Hunter's
involvement with Ukrainian gas company Burisma, this admission is pretty damning, showing clear
personal motive to use his office to stop investigation into his family.
This is Abuse of Power. This is subjecting U.S. foreign policy to the whims of an elected
official, squelching an investigation into his personal family, using the office for personal
gain.
So, when viewed through this lens the first impeachment article is a complete lie. Trump
didn't do the things asserted. The transcript of the phone call with Ukrainian President
Zelensky proves that.
Trump made the phone call public immediately.
The phone call and Trump's order to review the foreign aid were contemporaneous but not
conditional. If you have a non-charitable view of the President it may raise some questions,
but there was probable cause here.
Your opinions on Trump do not add up to High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The implications of this impeachment article are, however, staggering.
It says explicitly that the U.S. president cannot discharge his duties as a law enforcement
official if the person of interest is someone of the opposite party or a potential electoral
opponent.
It says that probable cause is not a standard for investigation only political
considerations.
That's a clear violation of Congress' role. Congress writes laws. The President executes
them. If the Congress wants to assume law enforcement powers it should work to amend the
Constitution.
This is a clear example of why impeachment is a political process not a legal one. But, if
they are going to act this politically, at least they should put the veneer of legality on it.
Even the equally odious Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton did that.
But in asserting this as an offence Congress seeks to place the Legislative Branch as
superior to the Executive in matters of law enforcement and implementation.
That's a clear violation of the separation of powers. It may suck that the guy holding the
Office of the Presidency is someone you don't like or not willing to turn a blind eye to
corruption, but doing his job is not a 'high crime or misdemeanor.'
The second article is even worse. Because asserts the power to subpoena members of the
Executive branch under the impeachment inquiry into the first article. And since Congress has
sole authority over impeachment, no judicial review of its subpoena power can be made.
This is fully unconstitutional since it subverts the power of the Judicial branch to settle
disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches as established by the Constitution.
Pelosi and company are broadening the definition of 'the sole power of impeachment' to say
that whatever Congress deems as worthy of an impeachment inquiry is therefore law and the other
branches have no say in the matter.
This is patent nonsense and wholly tyrannical.
Rod Rosenstein and Andrew Weismann tried to use an equally broad interpretation of
'obstruction of justice' to include future harm to continue the special council's investigation
into Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
Moreover it renders the concept of judicial review as laid down in Marbury vs. Madison null and void.
Congress cannot just make up laws and crimes out of whole cloth and then unilaterally declare
them constitutional under the rubric of impeachment.
The Supreme Court has the right to strike down bills Congress passes as
unconstitutional.
This drives a massive wedge through the separation of powers in a blatant power grab by
Pelosi and the Democratic House majority to protect themselves from Trump's investigations into
their crimes surrounding events in Ukraine.
When viewed dispassionately, Obstruction of Congress is not a crime but rather a function of
each of the other two branches of government. It's no better when the President hides behind
Executive Orders to legislate unconstitutionally.
And it's even worse when the Supreme Court makes up laws from the bench rather than kick the
ball back to Congress and start the process all over again.
That's what the whole three co-equal branches of government is supposed to mean.
Now, in practice I don't believe the three branches are equal, as the Judicial branch
routinely oversteps its authority. But in this case if it does not step in immediately and
defend itself from this Congress then the basic fabric of our government unravels
overnight.
That the second impeachment article is directly dependent on the flawed (or non-existent)
logic of the first impeachment article renders the whole thing simply laughable on the face of
it.
I'm no legal scholar so when I can see how ridiculous these articles are then you know this
has nothing to do with the law but everything to do with power.
And the reality is, as
I discussed in my latest podcast , what this impeachment is really about is distracting and
covering up the multiple layers of corruption in U.S. foreign and domestic policy stretching
back decades. Many of the tendrils emanating from the events surrounding the FISA warrants
improperly granted connect directly to the Clintons, Jeffrey Epstein, William Browder and the
rape of Russia in the post-Soviet 90's.
We're talking an entire generation or more of U.S. officials and politicians implicated in
some of the worst crimes of the past thirty years.
The stakes for these people are existential. This is why they are willing to risk a
full-blown constitutional crisis and civil war to remove Trump from office.
They know he's angry at them now. This is personal as well as philosophical. Trump is a
patriot, a narcissist and a gangster. That's a powerful combination of traits.
The polls are shifting his way on this as the average person knows this impeachment is
pathetic. They are tired of the Democrats' games the same way British voters are over the
arguments against Brexit.
So the old adage about killing the king come to mind. If Pelosi et.al. miss here, the
retribution from Trump will be biblical.
The damage to the society is too great to argue irrelevancies. No one outside of the Beltway
Bubble and the Crazies of the Resistance cares about what Trump did here. It's too arcane and
most people are against giving a shithole like Ukraine taxpayer money in the first place.
The whole thing is a giant pile of loser turds steaming up the room and impeding getting any
work done.
In the end We'll know if Trump has his ducks in a row in how Senate Majority Leader Mitch
McConnell plays his cards versus Pelosi. If McConnell pussy-foots around and gives Pelosi
anything on how the trial in the Senate is conducted then the fix is in and Trump is done.
But, if McConnell shuts this down then what comes next will be a righteous smackdown of
Trump's political opponents that will make the phone call with Zelensky look like a routine
call to Dominos' for a double pepperoni.
Either way, this coup attempt by Pelosi is now open warfare. There will be casualties.
* * *
Join My Patreon if you
want help navigating what's the next stop on the short bus to Crazytown. Install the Brave Browser to suck the money away from
Google and protect your privacy.
The inescapable truth is that Trump has 1) not delivered on his 2016 promises, and 2) has
surrounded himself with some of the vilest NeoCon scum on the planet. If he was a true
patriot, as he claimed during the 2016 election campaign, why would he not honor his promises
and surround himself with certifiable gangsters? It raises an important question. Is trump
controlled opposition who was installed as president to undermine and neutralize true
conservatives and patriots? His actions and deeds since becoming president would support this
interpretation.
If true, then the Democratic Party impeachment is little more than kabuki theater that
provides cover for Trump while ensuring his election in 2020 when all hell breaks loose as
the bubble or fake economy built on debt and counterfeit money crashes.
Patriotic and true conservative Americans according to this scenario are being setup up as
the fall guys to take the blame for the Greater Depression instead of the real culprits which
are the Fed and banksters on Wall Street.
Trump appears to be playing the role of Hoover who during the 1930s Great Depression paved
the way for Roosevelt and the Marxist New Deal which was imposed on an unsuspecting American
people struggling to survive during a depression created for them by the Fed. The words of
Franklin Roosevelt speak for themselves.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that
way."
He won't be removed from office but the brainwashed Trumpeteers and satanic "Christian"
Zionists will be riled enough to elect him in 2020...all part of the grand plan.
Trump's
executive order -- deceptively called "An Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism" --
issued this past week, will empower the federal Department of Education to withhold funding
to college campuses that do not squash anti-Israel rhetoric. In other words, it is now
official government policy to deny college students and faculty members their Natural and
constitutional right to criticize -- especially and primarily if they criticize any and all
things Israel. This will also doubtless include speech that supports Palestinian rights.
Trump also declared that the religion of Judaism is a nationality or ethnicity and is
beyond criticism. Can you imagine the outcry if he had declared Christianity to be a
nationality?
Plus, by issuing this Executive Order, Donald Trump has made every Christian and non-***
in the United States a second-class citizen. But don't expect Robert Jeffress and his gaggle
of Christian Zionists to figure that out.
I have said repeatedly that Donald Trump is America's first Zionist president. And Trump's
actions continue to prove that statement true.
As I wrote in another article this impeachment circus may very well be a Zionist ploy to
keep people thinking Trump is anti deep state, like the QAnon psyop.
He may be anti globalist but not deep state. Well in any case if the Dems don't send the
impeachment to the Senate then this is just a mock trial for appearances sake only. And the
fact Pelosi balked yesterday strengthens that possibility!
The Constitution is itself a farce and a mask for the exercise of power. How does one
interpret "general welfare"? To whom do you petition for the transgressions of "rights"? Is
it not a branch of the same government? We are not in the same situation as the colonists of
the 13 colonies. The enemy is not separated by an ocean. The political decline and conflict
questioned in this article is a result of the economic decline worldwide. Prepare for what
comes after the USA and don't dwell on legal trivialities within.
There are very few Christians, in truth. Professing to be Christian means nothing if you
don't believe every word from the mouth of Yahweh. The judeo-christian churches are the great
apostasy.
"I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump
is guilty of wrongdoing," she said. "I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment
because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process,
fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country."
A censure would "send a strong message to this president and future presidents that their
abuses of power will not go unchecked, while leaving the question of removing Trump from
office to the voters to decide," Gabbard said.
I suspected that Deep State has at least two opposing factions. The Realistists want him to
break up the empire, turn back into a republic; the Delusionals want to extend the empire,
continue to exploit and destroy the world. If so, the contradictions, reversals, incoherence
make sense. IMO as I said.
Gary Weglarz ,
I predict that all Western MSM will begin to accurately and vocally cover Mr. Binney's
findings about this odious and treasonous U.S. government psyop at just about the exact time
that -- "hell freezes over" -- as they say.
Jen ,
They don't need to, they have Tony Blair's fellow Brit psycho Boris Johnson to go on
autopilot and blame the Russians the moment something happens and just before London Met
start their investigations.
So, if the President wanted to, he could be impeached by the house over and over again
without that helping the Senate to find any illegal, and therefore convictable behavior for the
President?
May be if the house impeach him three times and never send the impeachment articles to the
Senate, the dear President would faint. May be then the doctors would finally decide that he is
incapable of fulling his duties in the White House and declare him officially so sicko that he
gets forced to stay in bed. /sad snark attempt.
"The CIA was the central protagonist in Russiagate. The origins of the New Cold War are found
in Bill Clinton's first term, when administration neo-cons looted, plundered and moved NATO
against a prostrate Russia in
contradiction to explicit guarantees not to do so made by the George H.W. Bush
administration. Vladimir Putin's apparent crime was to oust the Clintonites from Russia and
restore Russian sovereignty." CounterPunch.org
"Russiagate was a declaration of war by the 'intelligence community' against a duly elected
President. As argued below, the CIA's motive is to move its own foreign policy agenda forward
without even the illusion of democratic consent." CounterPunch.org
Notable quotes:
"... Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the problem, never part of the solution. ..."
Actions in the Washington cesspool never surprise -- by members of both right wing of the US
war party. They represent the greatest threat to world peace and ordinary people everywhere at home and
abroad. Pro-war, pro-business, pro-Wall Street, anti-progressive Speaker Pelosi is part of the
problem, never part of the solution.
Her long disturbing congressional record shows she exclusively serves wealth and power
interests at the expense of the vast majority of Americans she disdains, proving it time and
again.
Her deplorable voting record speaks for itself, backing:
the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act repeal of Glass-Steagall, permitting some of the most
egregious financial abuses in the modern era;
the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), permitting endless
wars of aggression in multiple theaters, raging endlessly;
annual National Defense Authorization Acts and US wars of aggression;
Obama's neoliberal harshness, continuing under Trump, along with tax cuts for the rich,
benefitting her and her husband enormously, without admitting it;
increasingly unaffordable marketplace medicine, ripping off consumers for profit, leaving
millions uninsured, most Americans way underinsured;
the USA Patriot Act, Anti-Terrorism Act and other police state law;
the 9/11 whitewash Commission Recommendation Act;
the FISA Amendments Act -- permitting warrantless spying post-9/11, Big Brother watching
everyone;
NAFTA and other anti-consumer/corporate coup d'etat trade bills;
the repressive US gulag prison system, the world's largest by far; incarcerating
millions by federal, state, and local authorities, it includes global torture prisons;
unapologetic support for Israeli apartheid viciousness;
fierce opposition to Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, and other
nonbelligerent sovereign states threatening no one;
the Russiagate witch hunt and Ukrainegate scams.
Calling exploitive/predatory "free market (capitalism) our greatest asset" shows her
contempt for equity and justice.
Her support for the military, industrial, security, media complex is all about backing
endless wars of aggression against invented enemies. No real ones exist.
Pelosi represents what belligerent, plutocratic, oligarchic, increasingly totalitarian rule
is all about, notably contemptuous of nations on the US target list for regime change --
Russia, China and Iran topping the list.
On Friday, she falsely accused Russia of involvement in Ukrainegate, a failed Russiagate
scam spinoff with no legitimacy, supported by undemocratic Dems and their echo-chamber
media.
Repeating the long ago debunked Russian US election meddling Big Lie that won't die, she
falsely accused Moscow of "ha(ving) a hand in this."
Referring to the Ukrainegate scam, she offered no evidence backing her accusation because
none exists.
During a Friday press conference on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York,
Sergey Lavrov slammed Pelosi's Big Lie, saying:
"Russia's been accused of all the deadly sins, and then some. It's paranoia, and I think
it's obvious to everyone."
It's unacceptable anti-Russia hate-mongering, what goes on endlessly, Cold War 2.0
raging.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said the following on her facebook
page:
"Speaker of the lower house of Congress Nancy Pelosi believes that Russia is involved in the
scandal over July telephone conversation between us and Ukraine Presidents Donald Trump and
Vladimir Zelensky."
"This (baseless) assumption was made on Friday Pelosi (not) explaining what it means, and
without providing evidence of her words."
"Considering that it was Nancy Pelosi who caused the 'Scandal around the telephone
conversation between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine,' then, according to the
speaker's logic, Russia attached the hand to her."
What's going on is continuation of the most shameful political chapter in US history,
ongoing since Trump took office, along with railroading Richard Nixon.
Both episodes represent McCarthyism on steroids – supported by establishment media,
furious about Trump's triumph over Hillary, targeting him largely for the wrong reasons,
ignoring plenty of right ones.
Mueller's probe ended with a whimper, not the bang Dems wanted, Ukrainegate their second
bite of the apple to try discrediting Trump for political advantage ahead of November 2020
elections.
That's what Russiagate and Ukrainegate are all about.
These actions by undemocratic Dems and their media press agents are further clear proof that
Washington's deeply corrupted political system to its rotten core is far too debauched to
fix.
While Nancy Pelosi
threatens to withhold articles of impeachment passed Wednesday night by the House, Harvard
Law Professor Noah Feldman says that President Trump isn't technically impeached until the
House actually transmits the articles to the Senate. Feldman, who testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings earlier this month, argues in a
Bloomberg Op-Ed that the framers' definition of impeachment "assumed that impeachment was a
process, not just a House vote," and that " Strictly speaking, "impeachment" occurred –
and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at
that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial ."
If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn't actually
impeached the president . If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say
that he wasn't truly impeached at all.
That's because "impeachment" under the Constitution means the House sending its approved
articles of to the Senate, with House managers standing up in the Senate and saying the
president is impeached.
As for the headlines we saw after the House vote saying, "TRUMP IMPEACHED," those are a
media shorthand, not a technically correct legal statement . So far, the House has voted to
impeach (future tense) Trump. He isn't impeached (past tense) until the articles go to the
Senate and the House members deliver the message . -Noah Feldman
Pelosi, meanwhile, won't transmit the articles until the Senate holds what she considers a
"fair" trial.
Roughly modeled after England's impeachment procedures, the framers in Article I of the
constitution gave the House "the sole power of impeachment," while giving the Senate "the sole
power to try all impeachments."
Article II outlines says the president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
There's more:
But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the
fairness of its own trial – that's what the "sole power to try all impeachments"
means.
If the House votes to "impeach" but doesn't send the articles to the Senate or send
impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn't directly violated the text of the
Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution's
description of impeachment.
A president who has been genuinely impeached must constitutionally have the opportunity to
defend himself before the Senate . That's built into the constitutional logic of impeachment,
which demands a trial before removal.
To be sure, if the House just never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate, there
can be no trial there . That's what the "sole power to impeach" means.
In closing, Feldman says " if the House never sends the articles, then Trump could say with
strong justification that he was never actually impeached ," adding "And that's probably not
the message Congressional Democrats are hoping to send."
In times past the Senate would have guarded its power against the House. I'm guessing the
Democrat Senators thinks party is more important than all that.
This pansy has no standing about anything related to impeachment.
He has not made any academic studies on the topic nor did he even take the time to prepare
for his biased and totally ridiculous testimony in the "impeachment."
It is all part of our lesson from this event.
Schiff is a graduate of Harvard. And this pansy teaches at Harvard.
The lesson to take away from all this is never ever hire anyone from Harvard nor to
believe anything from them because they are not educated they are indoctrinated.
Think about it people CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, all in lock step with the Democratic
Party no objective reporting at all anymore. These national media outlets and the Democratic
Party continue to publish and propagate false and fake new stories and never retract them or
admit it was all pure fiction.
Why, we have to ask why? Because they deem the American public not smart enough to think
for themselves. If the truth does not fit the pre-determined narrative it is buried or
covered-up by the national media. Their position is you will think do and say as we tell you,
since you're just not smart enough to think for yourself or decide for yourself on how you
want to live your own lives. We know what's best for you. The self-appointed Elite and the
Dems on both Coasts deem all of us in the flyover states not smart enough to vote for a
President, You're just not smart enough to raise your children and teach your kids as you
deem fit, you should not be allowed to worship as you desire or own guns, you're just not
smart enough to control and manage your retirement savings. They desire to eliminate the
Electoral College so your vote is eliminated. Trump scares the hell out of them because they
see their money pot being taken away from them and their ill-conceived control over our
Country slipping away. They have looted and pillaged this country for decades and built a
lavish lifestyle using your hard earned tax dollars. The area around Washington DC is not the
richest area in America by accident.
What have the Democrat party done for the citizens of the US the last 3 years or the last
20 years for that matter. Do you think their impeachment push and the attacks for the last 3
years are because they have the American people's best interest at heart? Think again. They
care absolutely nothing about the American people and have one goal and one goal only and
that is to control every single aspect of your life. They will try and seize every bit of
your retirement savings through taxes and fees for their own enrichment. They will sell out
America at every turn only to enrich themselves. If they ever regain power they will unleash
unimaginable carnage on America and you are all regardless of your political party Fodder for
their fire.
A vote for any Democrat is a vote for your own and our Country's demise.
DemoRats became the second War party. Which means two parties merged on this issue forming
Uniparty, like in the USSR.
Feeding and care MIC is No.1 task for both. Ordinary Americans well being does matter much
for either party. New generation of Americans is punished with crushing debt and low paying jobs.
They do not care that people over 50 who lost their jobs are essentially thrown out like a
garbage.
Counting dollars they got from MIC and Wall Street they are oblivious to the growing danger
of converting the USA and Russia territories into radioactive desert. That does not bather them
one bit. They have shelters, You don't. Vote accordingly. .
But all of these fundamental democratic issues have been excluded from the
Democrats' impeachment drive, which is centered on claims that Trump has been insufficiently
aggressive in fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine.
"In the end, this impeachment is the first over a question of whether the president is
selling out American national security," writes David Sanger in the New York Times.
"While Ukraine is the proximate event, how the president has dealt with Mr. Putin is the
overarching theme."
Sanger concludes, "the argument about Ukraine, the ostensible reason for the president's
impeachment, was not really about Ukraine at all. It was about Russia."
But it was House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff -- the pivotal figure in the
impeachment drive -- who left no question about the central demand of the Democratic Party for
an escalation of the US conflict with Russia.
"Ukraine is fighting our fight against the Russians, against their expansionism. That's our
fight, too." Schiff said. "We used to stand up to Putin and Russia. I know the party of Ronald
Reagan used to."
"That's why we support Ukraine with the military aid that we have," Schiff continued. "The
President may not care about it, but we do. We care about our defense, we care about the
defense of our allies, and we darn well care about our constitution."
Nowhere has anyone explained why Ukraine's war with Russia should be "our fight, too," or
why the failure to fight this war to the Democrats' satisfaction constitutes an impeachable
offense.
The Democrats' attempt to remove Trump aims to legitimize an intense escalation of the US
conflict with Russia, a policy for which there exists no support among the mass of the
population.
The Democratic Party is aware of the broad popular hatred of the Trump administration. But
what this party of the rich and affluent fears far more than Trump's reelection is a mass
mobilization to remove him, which would inevitably challenge their own wealth and the
capitalist system.
In the terms defined by the Democrats, the impeachment has no democratic or legitimate
content. The complete remoteness from and indifference to any popular sentiment or demands
gives it the character of a palace coup. The innumerable claims by various Democrats that their
impeachment constitutes a defense of democracy are both unconvincing and untrue.
Even as they have moved ahead with their impeachment drive, the Democrats have worked with
Trump to expand the military, gut congressional restrictions on the use of military force, and
expand his immigration crackdown. On Tuesday, they approved the largest military budget in US
history, and on Thursday, the day after the impeachment, they plan to pass USMCA (United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), a trade war measure targeting China.
As the impeachment votes were being cast, Trump was in Battle Creek, Michigan, making a
violent, demagogic and fascistic appeal to his supporters. Trump echoed the letter he had
earlier sent to the House of Representatives in which he accused the Speaker of the House of
"declaring open war on American Democracy."
But in excluding all democratic issues that would succeed in mobilizing the population
against Trump, the Democrats have actually played into the hands of the President, who has
sought to mobilize his fascistic base on the grounds that he is a victim of a "deep state"
plot.
The central lie peddled by Trump is to equate the Democrats' efforts to remove him --
together with those of the intelligence agencies and media -- with socialism. This is his label
for any form of popular opposition to his administration. In the traditions of fascism, Trump
falsely presents himself as the victim of a conspiracy between the "elites," socialists and
communists.
Whatever the outcome of the impeachment crisis, it will see a dangerous further movement of
American politics to the right. If the Democrats fail to remove Trump -- as seems likely -- it
will strengthen him. If they somehow succeed in orchestrating Trump's removal, it would be seen
as illegitimate by broad sections of the population, and would virtually guarantee an
escalation of military conflict with Russia.
Whatever its outcome, the impeachment must be seen in context of the greatest crisis of
American capitalism since the Civil War. In their own way, both parties represent the twin
imperatives of American imperialism under conditions of social crisis and the loss of its
global hegemony.
The Democrats embody the drive to war; the Republicans, in the form of Trump, embody the
move toward fascistic and authoritarian forms of rule.
The fight against Trump can only unfold on the basis of a social and political struggle
rooted in the working class. The essential prerequisite for the emergence of such a movement is
a total and unequivocal break with the Democratic and Republican parties. The attitude of the
working class to this impeachment must be, amending Shakespeare, "A plague on both political
parties."
Historic speech from McConnell. He nailed exactly what makes the ideology of the Democrats
antithetical to the very principles that founded this nation.
"...[to] insure domestic tranquility..." THIS is in the preamble to the Constitution the
Dems claim to support. Someone please tell us all how they are supporting this. I'll
wait.
Senator McConnell's FINEST HOUR. A great speech that will live forever in the annals of
history itself. Our Founding Fathers would be so proud of you. Thank you for stepping up to
the plate and protecting our Republic Senator McConnell. God Bless you sir.
The House impeachment is driven by several factors:
After Russiagate, when Trump began to investigate its fraudulent origins, the Dems feared the exposure of Obama-era
corruption if not high crimes. Hence Ukrainegate is preemptive political tactics.
The investigation into Russiagate led right to Ukraine, and thus to Biden. In the context of Sanders' campaign,
Ukrainegate became an imperative for the factions of the capitalist class that dominates the DNC. If Biden falls on Ukraine
issues, then Sanders is inevitable; an anathema to Wall Street and Big Tech DNC donors.
3. While 1 and 2 dominate DNC machinations, foreign policy is also a factor. The foreign policy establishment is absolutely
against any hesitation with respect to confronting Russia as part of a regional and global strategy for primacy. Trump's limited
prevarications on Russia might threaten the long established strategy to expand Nato to Ukraine and thereby to encircle Russia
and maintain US dominance over Europe. So, even though Trump names great power rivalry as the name of the game today, his inclination
for making nice with Putin threatens to weaken the US hold over Europe, which Trump wants to label as an economic competitor.
It is with these points that the strategic differences become apparent: Trump is raising a realist, neo-mercantalist strategy
against ALL potential competitors; the DNC and the deep state hold a strategy of liberal hegemony: globalization and US primacy
through dominating regional alliances, and impregnating US hegemony INSIDE the vassal States of the empire.
All of this, however, is bound to fail for the DNC, and down the road for Trump himself.
The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's
time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It
is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco.
The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate
the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton
Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According
to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's
activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the
Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal
proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that
should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also
help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the
money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at
Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.
According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first
drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the
Clinton Foundation.
"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to
Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357
million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was
given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's
Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk
Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's]
Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800
million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a
future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
"... Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest of the world. ..."
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides
its more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
hey b... i like your title - "How The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party" ... could change
it to" How the Deep State Sunk the USA" could work just as well...
Seven of the 11 security state representatives who had joined the Democrats in 2018 gave
the impulse for impeachment.
is this intentional?? it sort of looks like it...
good quote from @ 26 lk - "The contradictions of US empire and global capitalism cannot be
mitigated by either more liberal strategies or realist ones."
@babyl-on 35
yes that is about right. The top power networks are all a tight mix of names from govt, MIC,
and private equity (incl. top 2-3 investment banks). With the latter group naturally paying
the salaries of the whole policy making ecosystem, and holding the positions that select
future generations who will eventually take their place.
They want the security of knowing noone in the world will mess with them. This
necessitates that noone in the world *can* mess with them. Pretty straightforward from
there.
If anyone was watching The Horowitz hearing in the senate today it would be hard to conclude
that RussiaGate and Ukrainegate will not have serious consequences going forward.
The whole sordid, nasty conspiracy seems on the verge of being exposed, maybe as high as
Obama himself, although he is just a puppet himself, and indictments are sure to follow. I
don't see how anyone could think that this will not be catastrophic for the democratic
party.
All pretense of our country being a representative democracy@snoopydawg
is gone. Our two party uniparty government has completely turned its back on serving
the needs of the vast majority of the people of this country, and of the wider world. Profit
sits at the head of our government. The monikers "Fascist" and "Totalitarian" are apt
descriptors of the direction of our current trajectory. A dystopian future surely awaits us on
this beautiful, fragile and life sustaining planet that we are trashing with such abandon.
Other than that, things are going quite nicely. Nancy is wearing her power pants and fools
are applauding.
It still amazes me... that people actually think impeachment accomplishes anything other
than diverting attention from the Dems giving Trump everything he wants.
Kayfabe.
Impeachment without conviction means next to nothing.
The Senate will not convict. Trumps chances of being re-elected are continuing to improve as
Democratic Party insiders work overtime to see to it that Bernie Sanders has to fight the
Republican Party, a MSM that either dismisses or ignores his candidacy, AND the Democratic
Party which has, once again, stacked the deck against him.
... Never-Trump conservative Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin released a scorching
assessment ... "Even Trump knows he will be lumped in with the 'losers' in the presidential
history rankings such as Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson," wrote Rubin. "Impeachment will
define his presidency, dwarfing any other foreign or domestic action. No wonder he rages
against a speaker he is powerless to stop. His worst nightmare is to be humiliated, and if
not now, history certainly will regard him as a pitiful, damaged man utterly unfit for the
role he won through a series of improbable events ... Just as Watergate figures ... were
lionized as defenders of the Constitution, so too will Pelosi and House Democrats ... be
among those admired for their lucidity, intellect and character. ... For every clownish,
contemptible, screeching and dishonest House Republican, there is a sober, admirable,
restrained and honest Democrat.
"No letter, no tweet, no Fox News spin can repair the reputations of Trump enablers," Rubin
wrote. The right-wing media that cheered them on will, like outlets that rooted for Jim Crow
and demonized Freedom Riders, be shunned by decent, freedom-loving people who reaffirm
objective reality. The Republican Party will be known not as the Party of Lincoln but the
Party of Trump, a quisling party that lost its bearings and its soul to defend an unhinged
narcissist.
The Trump Card was and is a masterstroke of scripting live, non-stop, divisive, politically
paralytic distraction while the US oligarchy goes all-tard-in for private power.
Since the whole impeachment farce already has been a political loser for the idiot Democrats,
they'd have to be doubly stupid to double down on political stupidity by obstructing the
transmission to the Senate, when most Americans just want this crap to be over with.
Meanwhile the Senate Republicans, once they get the charges, would be stupid to do
anything but vote them down immediately. Otherwise they'll become complicit in the odious
circus and rightly incur their share of the political blame.
So from now on the party which hold the House can start impeachment process on false premises
the day the President from other party was elected. As simple as that.
That open a huge can to worms for future Presidents,
Notable quotes:
"... Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and that isn't good for the future ..."
I don't know anything about politics but i know that impeaching a president with radical
fans might not be the smartest move for a country that's all ready divided , just my
opinion.
The claim its a danger to our constitution when they have no pronlem with infringing our
2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment and pledge to do away with the elctorial college...
Hypocrisy
Let me explain something. This will set a precedent for house of reps to come. When we
have a liberal president and a republican house we will do the same and impeach him for
nothing because this just shows that if you own the house you can impeach him for nothing and
that isn't good for the future
Trump is doing a great job,and doing every thing he promises. The only high crime was
defying Dems authority.He has become a clear and present danger to their chances of ever
winning another election.
"... Zlochevsky is actually the decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February 2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky. ..."
"... Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance that might still be entailed in Burisma. ..."
"... Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case. ..."
On November 22nd, a 100-page Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) data-dump was made by the
U.S. Department of State, to the Democratic-Party-aligned nonprofit "American Oversight," which
had been founded in March 2017 by liberals (really by the main billionaires who fund the
Democratic Party) after the 2016 Democratic electoral defeat (to Republican billionaires). The
now Republican-headed U.S. State Department made as difficult as possible for news-media to
pick up on and report about the contents of this dump; they did this by providing only a
photographic image of each page, impossible on most systems to do any "Edit" "Find"; and also
impossible to perform any "Edit" "Copy" "Paste" of any quotation from the document.
Consequently, I made the first copy of that document to the Web Archive, in order to expedite
its coming onscreen, and I am herewith pasting below an extended passage in the document, which
I then manually transcribed from it, where President Trump's lawyer Rudolphe Giuliani, on
January 23, 25, and 26, took depositions from both Viktor Shokin, whom Joe Biden had forced in
April 2016 to be fired as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, and also from Yuriy Lutsenko, who
replaced Shokin and thereby freed-up from the Obama Administration in 2016 a one-billion-dollar
donation from America's taxpayers to the then-recently-installed-by-Obama anti-Russian
Government of Ukraine.
Shokin/Lutsenko Notes
U.S. Department of State
January 23, 2019
445 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Shokin:
On January 23, 2019, a telephone interview with Mr. Viktor Shokin the former General
Prosecutor of Ukraine was conducted. Present in the New York location were: Rudolph Giuliani,
Mr. Igor Fruman, Mr. Lev Parnas and Mr. George Boyle. The conversation was conducted through
the use of two (2) interpreters one (1) in Ukraine and one (1) Lev Parnas in New York. The sum
and substance of the conversation are as follows:
Mr. Shokin stated that he was appointed to the position of General Prosecutor of Ukraine
from 2015 until April of 2016 when he was removed at the request of Mr. Joseph Biden the Vice
President of the United States. Mr. Shokin was a Deputy Prosecutor prior to becoming the
General Prosecutor. He became involved in a case against Mr. Mykola Zlochevsky the former
Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine. The case was opened as a result of Mr.
Zlochevsky giving himself/company permits to drill for gas and oil in Ukraine. Mr. Zlochevsky
is also the owner of Burisma Holdings, which is a corporation registered in Cyprus. Mr. Shokin
stated that there are documents that list five (5) criminal cases in which Mr. Zlochevsky is
listed, with the main case being for issuing illegal gas exploration permits. The following
complaints are in the criminal case.
Mr. Zlochevsky was laundering money
Obtained assets by corrupt acts bribery
Mr. Zlochevsky removed approximately twenty three million U.S. dollars out of Ukraine
without permission
While seated as the Minister he approved two addition[al] entities to receive permits for
gas exploration
Mr. Zlochevsky was the owner of two secret companies that were part of Burisma Holdings
and gave those companies permits which made it possible for him to profit while he was the
sitting Minister
The above cases were closed after Mr. Zlochevsky was dismissed from the Ministry.
Mr. Shokin further stated that there were several Burisma board appointees [that] were made
in 2014 as follows:
Hunter Biden son of Vice President Joseph Biden
Joseph Blade former CIA employee assigned to Anti-Terrorist Unit
Aleksander Kwasnieski former President of Poland
Devon Archer roommate to Christopher Heinz the step-son of Mr. John Kerry United States
Secretary of State
Mr. Shokin stated that these appointments were made by Mr. Zlochevsky in order to protect
himself.
Mr. Zlochevsky left Ukraine while the above mentioned cases were open.
Mr. Shokin stated that the investigations stopped out of fear of the United States. Mr.
Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015 the U.S.
Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white
gloves, which, according to Mr. Shokin, implied to do nothing. On or about September 2015, Mr.
Pyatt gave a speech in Odessa where he stated that the cases were not investigated correctly
and that Mr. Shokin may be corrupt.
Mr. Shokin stated that in 2014 Mr. Zlochevsky was in the UK and that the twenty three
million dollars were frozen in the UK in the BNP Bank. Mr. Shokin stated that false documents
were prepared and the money was released so Mr. S[sp]lochevski before Mr. Shokin took office.
That release of the money made Mr. Shokin look into the above cases again. Mr. Shokin stated
that there were several articles written about bribes being taken during the investigation of
the cases. The bribes were an effort to have the cases closed. On April of 2016 Mr. Shokin was
dismissed as the General Prosecutor of Ukraine. In November of 2016 the cases were closed by
the current Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko.
Mr. Shokin further stated that on February of 2016 warrants were placed on the accounts of
multiple people in Ukraine. There were requests for information on Hunter Biden to which
nothing was received. It is believed that Hunter Biden receives a salary, commission, plus one
million dollars. Mr. Shokin stated he was warned to stop by Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt.
President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko told Mr. Shokin not to investigate Burisma as it was not
in the interest of Joe and/or Hunter Biden. Mr. Shokin was called into Mr. Poroshenko's office
and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter Biden is on
the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to Ukraine.
Mr. Shokin stated that on or around April of 2016 Mr. Petro Poroshenko called him and told
him he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was being withheld by Joe Biden. Mr. Biden
told Mr. Poroshenko that he had evidence that Mr. Shokin was corrupt and needed to be fired.
Mr. Shokin was dismissed in April of 2016 and the U.S. aid was delivered within one and one
half months.
On a different point, Mr. Shokin believes the current [U.S.] Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch
denied his visa to travel to the U.S. Mr. Shokin stated that she is close to Mr. Biden. Mr.
Shokin also stated that there were leaks by a person named Reshenko of the Ukrainian State
Secret Service about the Manafort Black Book. Mr. Shokin stated that there is possible deceit
in the Manafort Black Book.
End of interview.
–
January 25, 2019 445 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022
Yuriy Lutsenko:
On January 25, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine was
present at 445 Park Av e, New York, NY. He was present to speak about corruption in Ukraine. He
was accomapnied by Glib Zagoriy, Gyunduz Mamedov, Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman. Also present were
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and George Boyle.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that he is currently the Prosecutor General for Ukraine. He was the
Minister of Interior from 2007 to 2010. He further stated that he was placed in jail for two
and one half years as a political prisoner.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has the following units under his purview:
1 Police Department
Fiscals
Secret Service
Investigative Department
Mr. Lutsenko stated that his office has recovered several billion dollars and has had two
thousand six hundred thirty-seven [2,637] verdicts of corruption. Mr. Lutsenko went on to
explain that there is a unit called Specialized Anticorruption Prosecutors Office (SAP) which
has under its purview National Anticorruption Bureau Ukraine (NABU) which investigates
corruption cases that involve public figures from Mayors upward. He stated that the current
U.S. Ambassador protects SAP and NABU. He feels they are good organizations but have terrible
leadership. His office has absolutely no control over SAP or NABU and can't even ask what they
are working on, however they fall under his 'control'.
He further state[s] that he believes Mr. Viktor Shokin, the former Prosecutor General, is
honest.
Mr. Lutsenko went on to say that he began looking at the same case Mr. Shokin was looking at
(mentioned above) and he believes Hunter Biden receives millions of dollars in compensation
from Burisma. He produced a document from Latvia that showed several million dollars that were
distributed out of Burisma's account. The record showed two (2) companies and four (4)
individuals receiving approximately sixteen million dollars in disbursements, as follows [the
breakdown is shown].
Mr. Lutsenko feels that the total disbursements can be as high as $100,000,000.
Ambassador Pyatt gave a speech on September 25, 2015 in Odessa against the Prosecutor
Generals' Office.
Yuriy Lutsenko Continued:
On January 26, 2019, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, the current Prosecutor General of Ukraine, was
present at 445 Park ave., New York, NY. [His second day of testimony contained only one
specific mention which was not vague and which had not been indicated previously by Shokin: A
"system was set up in order to remove money from the Ukraine, have it laundered, and then
collect the laundered money. These companies were all headed by one Chief Financial Officer.
Mr. Lutsenko stated that about twenty (20) to forty (40) of these companies were shell
companies. He further stated that there were twenty-three (23) companies located off shore, and
that two of them had approximately seven billion dollars that were placed in the Templeton
Fund. The system ran similar to a 'pyramid' scheme and all of the beneficiaries were
pro-Russian [which was undefined but presumably meant associated with the pre- coup Ukrainian Government].
Zlochevsky is actually the
decoy, but the real person who has majority-ownership of Burisma, after Zlochevsky sold to him
most of his shares in 2011, is the key Ukrainian billionaire who had backed Obama's February
2014 coup, Ihor Kolomoysky.
And Kolomoysky is now far more interested in recovering his
bankrupt PrivatBank, Ukraine's largest bank, than in trying to extract the relative pittance
that might still be entailed in Burisma.
Apparently, Trump hasn't yet decided whether to
continue the Obama-installed regime in Ukraine or else to expose it and to go after both Obama
and Kolomoysky, and abandon the cover-story of Biden and Zlochevsky. If he does decide to go
after the principlals in the case, then he'll have to expose who were the actual principals,
and who were merely their agents.
Thus far, in the American press, all of the attention has
been on the agents. Given the way in which Trump's State Department buried the release of that
data-dump, Trump has not been eager to get the real story out there. Nor, of course, are the
Democratic Party billionaires whose "American Oversight" has likewise done nothing to
facilitate the exposure of the actual historical narrative in this case.
On the Republican side, Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee,
was the first Republican to respond, accusing the Dems of running an unfair and deeply partisan
impeachment inquiry...
"This is an impeachment based on presumption," Mr. Collins said. "This is a poll-tested
impeachment about what actually sells to the American people. Today is going to be a lot of
things. What it is not is fair. What it is not is about the truth."
...While failing to prove their case against Trump.
...fully one half of Americans believe the president is innocent, and that the impeachment
push is merely a politically calculated smear job.
Trump started to play victim and this is really dangerous situation fro neoliberal democrats,
as he is a master in this genre. The President Doth Protest Too Much. While the Schiff
impeachment trial was neocon clowns show, he did committed crimes while in office (Douma false
flag, Oil grab in syria, Yeamen, etc) . But both Republicans and DemoRats are ob board for those,
and are afraid to talk about the real issues, converting impeachment into a second rate Kabuki
theatre
Pelosi now probably has the second thought about impeachment. There is a profound belief
among neoliberal Dems that politically things for them are much worse than they really are. but
while neoliberal is dead people still are voting for those jerks became the other party is even
worse.
Looks like neoliberal Democrats (aka DemoRats) made a political mistake
Notable quotes:
"... "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history." ..."
"... Maybe we should rename the Trump impeachment and call it what it really is... ..."
The following are ten of the key highlights from that letter
#1 "This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by
Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative
history."
#2 "By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office,
you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on
American Democracy."
#3 "Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith
by continually saying you pray for the President when you know this statement is not true,
unless it is meant in a negative sense."
#4 "You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of
US aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company
paying his son millions of dollars."
#5 "Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has
admitted he actually did."
#6 "You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump
Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it!"
#7 "You view democracy as your enemy!"
#8 "You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting
America's Democracy."
#9 "More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials."
#10 "Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment against every shred of
truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle, is showing how deeply they revile the voters and
how truly they detest America's Constitutional order."
If you would like to read the entire letter for yourself, you can find it
right here . It only takes a few minutes to read, and I think that most of you will find it
very enjoyable.
... ... ...
Following Trump's letter, Pelosi sent out one of her own to her Democratic colleagues asking
them to join her on the House floor
on Wednesday morning
... ... ...
Pelosi and her minions intended to destroy Donald Trump, but they may have just guaranteed
him four more years in the White House. And for Trump, that would be the sweetest revenge of all.
"Trump definitely understands that the primary reason why they are trying to impeach
him is because they deeply hate him..."
"Hate" may be a useful shorthand here, but it really has nothing to do with what's going
on. "Drain the swamp" is useful shorthand, too, that means Trump is shutting off the flow of
billions of dollars in corrupt money to corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, and threatening
to properly prosecute them for their crimes. The impeachment is really another crime waiting
to be prosecuted, where the legislative branch has been hijacked to commit obstruction of
justice on behalf of themselves.
When a Chief Justice Reminded Senators in an Impeachment Trial That They Were not Jurors
December 18, 2019
•
4
Comments
Save
With an eye on Trump's impeachment trial, Steven Lubet points out that senators at such
a trial are not the equivalent of a jury and are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., fields questions from reporters about an impeachment trial in the Senate,
Dec. 10, 2019. (
AP/J.
Scott Applewhite
)
S
enate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell created a predictable
stir
when he told
Fox News host Sean Hannity that he would structure the impending impeachment trial of
President Donald Trump in "total coordination with the White House counsel's office." He added, "There will be no
difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."
This outright rejection of
neutrality drew immediate protests from Democrats. Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.),
who may well be one of the House impeachment managers
in the Senate trial, called for McConnell's recusal,
saying
"No court in the country would allow a member of the jury to
also serve as the accused's defense attorney."
House Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) likewise
slammed
"the foreman of the jury" for saying he would "work hand and glove with the defense attorney."
Demings and Nadler made a
valid point, but they used the wrong analogy. Senators at an impeachment trial are not the equivalent of a jury and
they are not held to a juror's standard of neutrality.
Tasked with delivering an
opening statement for the House Managers – who present the House's case to the Senate –
Rep. Robert Barr (R-Ga.) reminded the senators
of Clinton's tendency to "nitpick" over details or "parse a
specific word or phrase of testimony." To Barr, the conclusion was obvious: "We urge you, the distinguished jurors in
this case, not to be fooled."
"
Mr.
Chief Justice
,"
he said, addressing William Rehnquist, who was presiding over the trial,
"
I
object to the use
and the continued use of the word 'jurors' when referring to the Senate."
Sen.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, raised a crucial point about senators' roles in the impeachment trial of President Clinton in
1999. (
AP/Joe
Marquette)
He explained that
"the framers of the Constitution meant us, the Senate, to be something other than a
jury."
Instead, Harkin continued,
"What we do here today does not just decide the fate of one man. Future generations will look back on this trial
not just to find out what happened, but to try to decide what principles governed our actions."
"The Senate is not simply a
jury," he ruled. "It is a court in this case."
Rehnquist thus admonished
the House Managers "to refrain from referring to the Senators as jurors." For the balance of the trial, they were
called "triers of law and fact."
Rehnquist and Harkin got it
right.
Article III of the
Constitution
provides that "Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury," and
for good reasons.
Chief
Justice William H. Rehnquist, shown in this video image, presides in the impeachment trial of President Clinton on
the Senate floor, Feb. 8, 1999, in Washington.
(
AP
Photo/APTN)
Recognizing the Senate's
all-encompassing responsibility, and his own limited role, Chief Justice Rehnquist referred to himself throughout the
proceeding only as
"
the
Chair
."
As the U.S. Supreme Court
has
put
it
, impeachment presents a "political question," in which all of the "authority is reposed in the Senate
and nowhere else."
Oath or Affirmation
Required
McConnell, the Senate's
leader, has more leeway and far more power than any juror or even a jury foreperson.
The Constitution's only
procedural limitation is the requirement in
Article I
that
the senators be placed under "oath or affirmation."
Although the Constitution
does not specify any particular wording (unlike
the
presidential oath
, which is included word-for-word), the Senate
adopted
rules for impeachment trials in 1986
requiring each senator to affirm or swear to do "impartial justice
according to the Constitution and laws."
"Impartial justice" does
not demand the enforced naiveté of jury service, which would be impossible in an impeachment trial. For example, the
senators all have prior knowledge of at least some of the facts, and several of them are currently vying to run
against Trump in 2020, while others are backing his reelection campaign.
But the Senate's oath of
impartiality clearly calls for at least some commitment to objectivity. Thus, the problem with McConnell's
announcement was not that he failed to behave like a juror.
Rather, he has declared an
intention to disregard the Senate's prescribed oath, which was fixed long ago by the very body that elected him its
leader.
When Tom Harkin disclaimed
a juror's role at the Clinton trial, his purpose was not to affect the outcome of the case, but rather to underscore
the full scope of the Senate's decision-making responsibility. In contrast, Mitch McConnell appears to have boldly
renounced open-mindedness itself on the impeachment court, whether as juror, judge or "trier of law and fact."
When they got Clinton, it felt like a big deal. Now, it's just another episode in the Kabuki
threat of Washington, DC
"Anyway, when the hammer came down on Bill Clinton (21 years ago tomorrow, in fact), it felt
right. Justice had been served. Two months later, the GOP-run Senate would acquit Clinton of the
charges. He served out the rest of his term, and went on to become very rich, a globalist grifter
of great renown. One day, he will die peacefully in bed. His bed, one hopes. Life went on."
"I hate that we have such a lowlife as the American president. But do you know what else I
hate? That the Democratic Party went crazy over the last 20 years. That it's for open borders.
That the Democratic Party is for writing into federal civil rights law the destruction of one of
the most fundamental building blocks of human civilization: the gender binary. I hate that the
Democrats are so drunk on identity politics that a Democratic-run government would create a legal
and policy framework in which my own sons would be considered public enemies because of the color
of their skin, their sex, and depending on the context, their religion."
TRUMP WILL WIN THIS IN THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AND IN THE SENATE, WHERE IT WILL BE
CODIFIED.
Trump and Mitch are actually doing the democrats a favor by throwing this crap out in the
Senate after a very short debate. Otherwise, if by the tiniest of margins some of the repubs
turn on Trump because they too are guilty of crimes against humanity which many will be found
to be, the resultant pitch-fork mobs would rip them apart...
Democrats just sent a strong message to people. Don't investigate crooks named Biden. Just
don't touch this. Biden must walk free and any person who dares to challenge crooks,
Democratic party crooks, or any other crooks is now to face Democrats.
Good guy named Trump dared to ask a foreign country to investigate corrupted crooks. Bad
idea.
It is no longer democratic thing to defend the law, preserve and promote honesty, not to
mention integrity and ethics. Nah. Vote for Democrats, because they support mafia, sell guns
to criminals, vigorously defend crooks in power and make no mistake - they laugh at Americans
every day.
Trump is no saint, but for gods sake impeach because of Bidens? My God.
Some House Democrats push Pelosi to withhold impeachment articles, delaying Senate
trial
"WASHINGTON -- A group of House Democrats is pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other
leaders to withhold the articles of impeachment against President Trump that emerged from the
House on Wednesday, potentially delaying a Senate trial for months.
The notion of impeaching Trump but holding the articles in the House has gained traction
among some of the political left as a way to potentially force Senate majority leader Mitch
McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, to conduct a trial on more favorable terms for Democrats.
And if no agreement is reached, some have argued, the trial could be delayed indefinitely,
denying Trump an expected acquittal.
The gambit has gained some traction inside the left wing of the House Democratic Caucus
this week. Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said Wednesday, as his
colleagues debated the impeachment articles on the House floor, that he has spoken to three
dozen Democratic lawmakers who expressed some level of enthusiasm for the idea of ''rounding
out the record and spending the time to do this right.''
''At a minimum, there ought to be an agreement about access to witnesses, rules of the
game, timing,'' Blumenauer said of a Senate trial.
Another Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal
deliberations, said there is ''serious concern about whether there will be a fair trial on
the Senate side'' and acknowledged active talks about withholding the articles.
After the impeachment vote Wednesday, Pelosi would not rule out the idea of withholding
the articles.
The notion has been most prominently advocated by Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School
professor who has advised the House Judiciary Committee on the impeachment process. In a
recent Washington Post op-ed, he wrote that ''the public has a right to observe a meaningful
trial rather than simply learn that the result is a verdict of not guilty.''..."
The Dems have given Trump's insane military budget more than he asked for, they got no
bargains in renewing the NDAA (both of which betray the lie they think Trump is compromised),
and finalized a huge new trade deal with him.
The impeachment farce and most of the battle
with Trump is kabuki for the rubes. Business as usual continues in DC, except the swamp
realizes more and more that their grip on power is slipping. They are far more frightened of
Bernie Sanders. These are dangerous times.
"The Democrats did the "right" thing - considering their options.
Option A: Counter Trump with real policy issues; policies that the majority of Americans
support: ending unending wars, healthcare, environmental protection, income equality, etc..
But that would cost them money from their BIG DONORS, and as such all privileges of the Dem
bosses. Not a good option
Option B: Follow the Russiagate/Ukrainegate/Impeachment path and thereby avoid having to
oppose Trump on policy. Their BIG DONORS are happy (because there is no policy change). Even
if the Dems lose 2020 election, the party bosses still retain their privileges.
Disclaimer: The Dims and the Repugs are the same party - just two different brands of it.
Anyone doubting this assertion should check out who finance them .... big oligarchy, even if
there may be slight differences in composition.
Posted by: Nathan Mulcahy | Dec 18 2019 23:07 utc | 31
This IMO is the best synopsis posted to date. Salient, and to the point. Thanks NM!!
"... But as we know it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown makeup and join the circus. ..."
"... But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any and all who resist their attempt to rule the world. ..."
"... Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring their power to bear on domestic policy as well. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard did the smart thing and abstained in the vote from the circus. But as we know
it has become politically incorrect on the left to do anything but to put on your clown
makeup and join the circus.
But Tulsi Gabbard as usual doesn't play their game. And because of that, like Trump she is
also a target of the deep state and not just the deep state of America--it is the deep state
of the entire 5-Eyes security apparatus who together work overtime to overthrow Trump and any
and all who resist their attempt to rule the world.
Historically the ability of unelected, unaccountable, secretive bureaucracies (aka the "Deep
State") to exercise their own policy without regard for the public or elected officials,
often in defiance of these, has always been the hallmark of the destruction of democracy and
incipient tyranny.
Today's Deep State most resembles the colonial administrations during the heyday of
European imperialism. These too worked to run their own secret foreign policy, and to bring
their power to bear on domestic policy as well.
Although both halves of the One-Party really want the effective tyranny of state and
corporate bureaucracies, it's not surprising that it's the Democrats (along with the MSM)
taking the lead in openly defending the tyrannical proposition that the CIA should be
running its own foreign (and implicitly domestic) policy, and that the president should be
just a figurehead which follows orders. That goes with the Democrats' more avowedly
technocratic style, and it goes with the ratchet effect whereby it's usually Democrats which
push the policy envelope toward ever greater inequality, ecocide and tyranny.
Now is a time of rising irredentism and the decline of all the ideas of
globalization and technocracy, though the reality is likely to hang on for awhile. The whole
Deep State-Zionist-Russia-Deranged-Trump-Deranged-MSM-social media censorship campaign is
globalization trying to maintain its monopoly of ideas by force, since it knows it can never
win in a free clash of ideas.
Impeachment, and the pro-bureaucracy anti-democracy campaign related to it, besides its
more petty purposes (distraction from real social problems; forestalling Sanders), is the
culmination of technocracy's attempted coup against a president who, even though he agrees
with this cabal on all policy matters, is considered too unreliable, too undisciplined, too
damn honest about the evil of the US empire. If they can take him down, they think
they can restore the full business-as-usual status quo including the compliance of the rest
of the world.
Since impeachment's going to fail, we can expect the system to try other ways.
But also may I compliment Kali@18 and Russ@19 for their terrific comments. I have just
finished reading the link provided by Kali, which is an outstanding essay by Pam Ho- a
paradigm shifter if ever there was one! I have been making a determined effort to liberate my
thinking from ideological partisanship and reading this essay was like pressing a refresh
button in my brain.
Despite the ra ra b. s.,Trump's letter will become an historical document, as it does
encapsulate all the manufactured tribulations that have been foisted on his presidency,
though I would have liked b to include all those words which were CAPITALIZED. He's quite a
personality, your president The best summation of the man is, curiosly enough, provided by
Syria's president Assad. There is an honesty about him even when he's uttering a bald-faced
lie!
Tulsi has been newsworthy for a number of years now and right from the getgo I said to
myself "she's my kind of gal"
Here is a woman of courage and presence. She's young and principled, even if she's a
member of a very corrupted party.
@ Posted by: Australian lady | Dec 19 2019 3:26 utc | 71 who ended her comment expressing
support for Tulsi Gabbard
When the impeachment vote was taken today, there were two Dems that voted against and
Tulsi voted Present
She will be ostracized for her non vote but I give her credit for distancing herself from
the impeachment circus. Given that she has stated that she won't run again for Congress, I
speculate that she may jump to the Green Party if given the chance to run ahead of or with
Jill Stein.....any barflies know how the Greens are shaping up for this coming election?
I read in a couple of places today that the strategy of the Dems is to not forward the
impeachment to the Senate for an indeterminate amount of time......let the stew, the Senate
and Trump simmer a bit.....more kabuki for the masses while the public continues to be
screwed economically.
That can increase Trump popularity further, as it portrays DemRats as unprincipled, dirty political Schemers, Washington pond scam,
so to speak. Two gangs fighting for dominance while nation became poorer and poorer.
They failed (or more correctly were too afraid as it implicates them too) to discuss real issues on which Trump could be impeached
and not Pelosi gambit backfired.
Notable quotes:
"... "How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?" ..."
"We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we will send over the articles of impeachment,"
Pelosi told reporters Wednesday.
" We cannot name [impeachment] managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side."
She added that "so far, we haven't seen anything that looks fair to us" in the Senate.
Nancy Pelosi:
"We have legislation approved...that will enable to decide how we send over the articles of impeachment."
The
Conservative Treehouse blog describes this as a "cunning Lawfare ploy" that was a "pre-planned procedural process by design."
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
"The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House
to the Senate. Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate
captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President. "
This additional evidence could include Mueller grand jury material, a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn and
less Trump's financial and tax records.
Knowing that the Senate will never vote to impeach Trump, Democrats plan to use the House impeachment vote as yet another tool
with which to undo the results of the 2016 election, keeping Trump under a permanent cloud of suspicion right through 2020.
However, as Byron York noted rather pointedly, this is entirely disingenuous considering the Democrats pre-impeachment utterances:
"How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses
an immediate threat to our elections? Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?"
And remember, the public is now against impeachment broadly...
Mitch doesn't need Nanzi to "send" anything over to the Senate. The U.S. Constitution states that " The Senate shall have
the sole Power to try all Impeachments. " Art. I, Sec. 3. That power is not dependent on the House "sending" anything to the
Senate. Moreover, the Articles of Impeachment have been published, and the House vote has been published, so the Senate can print
those off and start the trial today . Get on with it, Mitch, and dismiss this charade.
This is just more unconstitutional behavior and yet another attempt by house Dems to usurp power the constitution does not
grant to them:
"The Senate shall the time and place of the trial"
If turtle doesn't get the show on the road, Trump will have to force the issue. However the turtle acknowledged that the Senate
must act in a way which throughly rebukes the Dems for this attempt to lower the bar and prevent it from moving forward.
If she doesn't send the impeachment articles to the Senate then that is something the founding fathers didn't anticipate. If
not resolved the Supreme Court could get involved to define the gray into black and white. I could see Trump taking it to the
courts.
On another note it is pretty funny to see Pelosi griping about the unfairness of McConnell coordinating with the white house
while at the same time coordinating with Schumer.
"Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment
case sits in limbo."
What the hell is going on? What new evidence are they gathering? The House voted and they impeached. There is no ongoing investigation
any longer. They cannot reconvene.
The Republican Senate, must do its duty and move forward to the conclusion on this, as quickly as possible.
Pelosi is clearly overreaching by trying to control the Senate. McConnell should remind her that she is not a Senator, and
should stick to controlling her own chamber.
McConnell should also have the Senate pass a resolution that any measures passed by the House must be turned over to the Senate
within 30 days, or the Senate will dismiss such measures as void and invalid.
The Democrats and Republicans are well aware of what is coming. They hope these acts of desperation will somehow delay the
inevitable. Most Americans aren't prepared for the level of corruption, deceit and debauchery that will be exposed. It's almost
time to pay the piper. It is going to shock the world.
Criminally manufactured treasonous conspiracy with fraud perpetrated by DNI/IG Atkins, Ciaramella and Brennan, Schiff, Pelosi,
Nadler, and Obama cohorts and holdovers.
This gets described and prosecuted in their conspiratorial sedition if it goes to Full senate.
They don't dare send it, because they will be arrested, and may be subject to grand jury even before then on FISA related findings.
All the Democrats have is Impeachment. Without it they have nothing to do until November. So, they plan to Impeach President
Trump again, and maybe another time after that to run out the clock.
If House Dems refuse to send Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for trial it would be a breathtaking violation of the Constitution,
an act of political cowardice, and fundamentally unfair to President
@realdonaldTrump .
Going to have to have an amendment to the Constitution. No open ended impeachment motions. Time limitation on when the
House sends impeachment motion to the Senate, after Congress passes motion for impeachment.
I would hope this goes to the supreme court and they rule that this denies the right to a speedy trial. Because the senate
vote is actually considered a trial.
Pelosi risk to turn the case into personal vendetta and DemoRats will be burned as the
result. McConnell just need to wait a couple on months as time works for him.
This pressure from Pelosi actually helps Trump opening interesting lines of the attack:
"McConnell said on the Senate floor that Pelosi and House Democrats "may be too afraid to even
transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate." Trump tweeted as Pelosi spoke Thursday
morning, saying that "Pelosi feels her phony impeachment HOAX is so pathetic she is afraid to
present it to the Senate".
The Deep State Sunk The Democratic Party
Notable quotes:
"... she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial. ..."
41 Million people in the US suffer from hunger and lack of food security"--US Dept. of
Agriculture. That number of people constituted a crisis for FDR when he delivered his One-Third
of a Nation speech for his 2nd Inaugural. About four years later, FDR expanded on that issue in
his Four Freedoms speech: 1.Freedom of speech; 2.Freedom of worship; 3.Freedom from want;
4.Freedom from fear.
Faced with a similar situation, Trump advances plans to cut more people from the food stamp
program thus increasing immiseration. One might say Trump's out of step with traditional
American values; but were Obama, Bush, or Clinton any better?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday extended her standoff with Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell over starting President Donald Trump 's impeachment trial,
insisting she's waiting to see whether Republicans will agree to a "fair" process.
Pelosi surprised many House Democrats Wednesday night after the House impeached Trump when
she said she would delay naming impeachment managers -- who would argue the House case in
the Senate -- until the Senate lays out its procedures for the trial.
"When we see what they have, we'll know who and how many we will send over," she said at a
news conference Thursday. Pelosi cast it as a procedural matter and cited the Senate's
ability to come up with a bipartisan trial plan after President Bill Clinton was
impeached.
... ... ...
McConnell and other GOP senators have been indicating they want a quick
trial, with arguments presented by the House managers and Trump's counsel without witnesses.
McConnell was giving no ground.
"It's beyond me how the speaker and Democratic leader in the Senate think withholding the
articles of impeachment and not sending them over gives them leverage," he told reporters at
the Capitol. "Frankly, I'm not anxious to have the trial."
... ... ...
McConnell called the House impeachment process rushed and shoddy.
"If the speaker ever gets her house in order, that mess will be dumped in the Senate's
lap," he said on the Senate floor. "If the nation accepts this, presidential impeachments may
cease being a once-in-a-generation event."
World News is reporting that
the US House of (Non) Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump on two
counts, "Abuse of Power" and "Impeding Congress".
(Never mind that the US Congress itself is the source of almost all the impeding Congress
faces!)
Please feel free to add any and all new details in the Essay's Comments.
regarding the failure of the house to move the articles of impeachment to the Senate I recommend reading:
theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18 article entitled:
cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/
The article breaks down the legal strategy behind Pelosi's move, the strategy is quite clever, evil actually and the article
tracks how it was done, what it means and what it will allow the Dems to do; well worth a read.
I agree that this is the likely outcome. Surer than Hillary winning the 2016 election. It would mean that Pelosi, Schiff, et.
al. are really politically stupid.
Which makes me wonder. The obviousness of this losing hand, and the fact that the most politically-seasoned, can't-be-that-stupid
Democrats seem determined to play it out, has my paranoid political Spidey senses all atingle. What are the cards they're not
showing? What lies beneath the thin ice of these Articles of Impeachment? If the apparent agenda makes no sense, look for the
hidden. Something that better explains why Pelosi, et. al. find it so urgent to replace Trump before the election and why they
think they can succeed in doing that.
There is one thing that I can think of that drives such frantic urgency: War. That would also explain why Trump's "national
security" problem -- embedded in the focus on Ukraine arms shipments, Russian aggression, etc. -- is the real issue, the whistle
to Republican war dogs. But if so, the Ukro-Russian motif is itself a screen for another "national security"/war issue that cannot
be stated explicitly. There's no urgency about aggression towards Russia. There is for Iran.
So here's my entirely speculative tea-leaf reading: If there's a hidden agenda behind the urgency to remove Trump, one
that might actually garner the votes of Republican Senators, it is to replace him with a president who will be a more reliable
and effective leader for a military attack on Iran that Israel wants to initiate before next November. Spring is the cruelest
season for launching wars.
From my article: Impeachment:
What Lies Beneath?
Trump's chances of being convicted in the Senate are essentially zero (though we're sure
Mitch McConnell will enjoy the leverage that presiding over such a trial will inevitably
bring). And on Wednesday night, as the Dems voted to impeach, Trump told supporters in Battle
Creek exactly what they wanted to hear. That the Dems were the real lawbreakers, having abused
the Constitutional process to persecute a president against whom they harbor an almost
pathological antipathy.
"This lawless, partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democratic
party," Trump told supporters in Battle Creek, Michigan, a Republican stronghold that helped
him win the traditionally Democratic state in 2016.
Across the battleground states of the midwest, polls and anecdotal evidence suggest Trump
will have the upper hand in 2020. Some 52% of registered Wisconsin voters oppose Trump's
impeachment and removal from office, according to a recent Marquette University Law School
poll. The amount who support impeachment is just 40%.
Independent voters across the state sing Trump's praises.
Trump also enjoys a receptive audience across swaths of Wisconsin. Dawn Anderson, 60, said
that she and her husband are independents who voted for Trump in 2016 and can't wait to do it
again next year.
"I'm mad," she said in an interview outside a Woodman's Markets grocery store in Kenosha.
"He shouldn't have to defend himself the way he is."
Trump won Wisconsin by some 22,000 votes in 2016, a margin of less than 1%. It was the first
time a Republican won the state since 1984.
When discussing the impact of impeachment on Trump's share of the vote in Wisconsin, one
Republican Party official in the state compared the impact of impeachment to the impact of the
recall vote on Gov. Scott Walker, which also galvanized the state's conservatives to take a
stand against Democrats who were believed to be unfairly persecuting another. People who never
voted before registered and supported Walker because they were so annoyed at the Democrats.
Trump's letter notes that talk about impeachment started as soon as he stepped into
office:
IMO the Deep State wanted to initiate a new McCarthyism.
Russiagate was the means to do so and that means that Impeachment was always a possibility
(though likely a red-herring, as I explain below).
IMO After the Mueller investigation progressives pressed for Impeachment but establishment
Democratics (led by Pelosi and Hillary) wouldn't allow it. People were (rightfully) asking
why establishment Democrats were protecting Trump.
With this in mind, Ukrainegate is a convenient diversion from Russiagate while providing
the Impeachment satisfaction that progressives had clamored for.
It's difficult NOT to notice that ...
... America First Trump actually furthered Russiagate when he hired Manafort
(who was known to have worked for pro-Russian Parties in Ukraine and had NO recent
experience in US elections) and called upon Russia to publish Hillary's emails (which were
KNOWN to contain top-secret information - making any publication a crime under US law);
... and America First Trump furthered Ukrainegate by the mentioning the
name of an announced political opponent when talking about investigating corruption on a
call with Zelensky.
One might excuse this in many ways: Trump's ego; his unfamiliarity with politics
and statecraft; or just bad luck. But one can also see these actions, in a larger context, as
disturbing part of the effort to initiate the new McCarthyism.
No this contradict Occam razor: the scheme is too complex to implement and which requires
perfect coordination of the actors. This is really two oligarchic gangs struggling for
power.
I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a target
for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who want real
change get sunk
"I'm starting to think the whole trump presidency is a con by making him look like a
target for the deep state and anti establishment, he continues the empire while people who
want real change get sunk."
Pretty much his only domestic policy achievements have been to deliver what Wall Street,
real estate and the oil and gas sector wants. The benefits of the tax cuts and gutting of
enforcement activity by the regulatory agencies (including the IRS) are weighted towards
those industries.
Also, on the foreign policy front, keeping oil prices artificially high by
keeping Iranian and Venezuelan crude off the markets is a boon to the E&P sector.
"... Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's cyber-security. ..."
It would seem that the Democrats need this impeachment circus over and done with before the
end of 2019 so they can concentrate on cleaning up Joe Biden as their Presidential candidate
and pretend he had no history before April 2019 when Volodymyr Zelensky became President of
Ukraine. That must explain their strange and shaky choice of issue on which to try to impeach
Donald Trump: so that during the campaign season,
Biden's past and his son having been on the
Board of Directors of a shady energy company (with a licence to explore and drill for oil in
an area of eastern Ukraine not far from where a Malaysia Airlines passenger jet was shot down
in 2014) can be kept off-limits to the MSM and anyone who dares to challenge Biden on his
record. If the President of the United States can be punished for pursuing the Bidens on
their record of corruption, then that alone should (in theory) stop anyone else from pursuing
them.
There are so many other issues on which to impeach Trump but the issue of Joe Biden's
conflict of interest regarding his son's involvement in Burisma Holdings and eastern Ukraine
generally is the weakest and the oddest.
Surely the only reason for doing this is to obscure
and hide the Democratic Party's involvement with (and meddling in) Ukrainian politics and
Ukrainian political issues through people like Alexandra Chalupa and her sisters Andrea and
Irena, and Dmitri Alperovich and his company Crowdstrike that looked after the DNC's
cyber-security.
"... The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill. Tragic. ..."
Thanks b, it sure looks like distraction politics from the avoid doing anything for
people party. I am astounded at how pathetically weak their case is. But most astonishing
is the failure to have the LEAKER not whistleblower attend any public hearing to give
evidence.
We are now well aware of Ciaramella's role in this absurd theatre. But he gives no
evidence, fails to submit to a cross examination. He is a real Star Chamber performer.
The absurd race between the Repugnants and Democrazies to smash each other appears to have
only one unfortunate outcome at this point and the Democrazies are not the winner. They are
certainly going to lose Biden or lose because of Biden. That's how much they care for their
electoral base. Meanwhile the Trump oligarch private finance capital team march up the hill.
Tragic.
BREAKING BIG: John Durham Is Investigating Former CIA Director John Brennan's Role in 2016
Election Interference and His LIES TO CONGRESS! (Video)
The New York Times reported tonight that federal prosecutor John Durham is
investigating former CIA Director John Brennan's role in the 2016 election. Durham has called
for Brennan's emails, call logs and other documents.
"With impeachment imminent, Kushner has pushed out his enemies, installed allies, and
taken control of the campaign and large swaths of policy -- only Kellyanne Conway is still
pushing back.
Inside the West Wing, Kushner has both eliminated opponents and installed acquiescent
officials. "Jared was very frustrated with [Reince] Priebus and John Kelly," a Republican
close to the White House, said. Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney "was Jared's pick," the
source said, and has allowed Kushner to function as de facto chief of staff. "Mick has
decided not to be in control," a former West Wing official said. "Jared treats Mick like the
help. There's no pushback," a prominent Republican said. John Bolton, who recently mocked
Kushner in a private speech, has been replaced by Robert O'Brien, a Kushner ally. Sources say
that Vice President Mike Pence and his advisers don't challenge Kushner after a string of
leaks that Kushner wanted to replace Pence on the ticket with Nikki Haley. "Pence people look
at Jared apprehensively. Pence treats Jared as a peer," said former Trump aide Sam Nunberg.
(The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)"
Jared the Jew Prince is the number one reason not to reelect Trump.
Neocons lie should properly be called "threat inflation"
The underlying critical
point-at-issue is credibility as I noted in my comment on b's 2017 article. I've since
linked to tweets and other items by that trio; the one major change seems to have been the
epiphany by them that they needed to go to where the action is and report it from there to
regain their credibility.
The fact remains that used car salespeople have a stereotypical reputation for lacking
credibility sans a confession as to why they feel the need to lie to sell cars.
Their actions belie the guilt they feel for their choices, but a confession works much
better at assuaging the soul while helping convince the audience that the change in heart's
genuine. And that's the point as b notes--genuineness, whose first predicate is
credibility.
"... "The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said in his Dec. 16 opinion ( pdf ). ..."
"... In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it late. ..."
"... Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation. ..."
"... Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something it could allege was false. ..."
"... Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers, Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview." ..."
"... Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI investigation of election meddling. ..."
"... Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what his first team of "counselors" advised. ..."
"... Flynn is as deep state as it gets. He would throw the book at any one of you. Make no mistake. Being a general is a political appointment. ..."
"... Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore. ..."
"... "Michael Flynn reportedly filed paperwork on Tuesday for the $530,000 worth of work he did last year that "could be construed to have principally benefited the Republic of Turkey." https://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/08/michael-flynn-admits-turkey-lobbying ..."
"... NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet. ..."
"... They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing. Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile. ..."
"... Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses. ..."
"... Oh how soon you forget that Flynn commited war crimes in Grenada. ..."
"... Then bring him up on those charges. In court those kinds of leaps are inaddmissable. ..."
"... Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year ..."
"... Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is sentencing him is PISSED. ..."
"... Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say you weren't warned. ..."
"... They threatened his son if he did not plead guilty. Of course, to you Dems the means justifies the end. He will be pardoned, and deservedly so. ..."
"... I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other criminals. ..."
A federal judge has denied requests by Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn to prompt the government to
give him information he deems exculpatory and to dismiss the case against him .
District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with the government in arguing that Flynn was
already given all the information to which he was entitled. The judge also dismissed Flynn's
allegations of government misconduct, noting that Flynn already pleaded guilty to his crime and
failed to raise his objections earlier when some of the issues he now complains about were
brought to his attention.
"The sworn statements of Mr. Flynn and his former counsel belie his new claims of
innocence and his new assertions that he was pressured into pleading guilty," Sullivan said
in his Dec. 16 opinion (
pdf ).
Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, pleaded guilty on Nov. 30, 2017, to
one count of lying to the FBI. He's been expected to receive a light sentence, including no
prison time, after extensively cooperating with the government on multiple investigations.
In June, he fired his lawyers and hired former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell , who has since accused the
government of misconduct, particularly of withholding exculpatory information or providing it
late.
Powell has argued that Flynn's previous lawyers had a conflict of interest because they
testified in a related case against Flynn's former business partner. Flynn had previously told
the court he would keep the lawyers despite the conflict, but Powell said prosecutors should
have asked the judge to dismiss the lawyers anyway. Sullivan disagreed, saying Flynn failed to
show a precedent that the prosecutors had that obligation.
Powell also said the government had no proper reason to investigate Flynn in the first place
and that it had set up an "ambush interview" with the intention of making Flynn say something
it could allege was false.
Sullivan disagreed again and said that previously, with the advice of his former lawyers,
Flynn never "challenged the conditions of his FBI interview."
Flynn was interviewed by two FBI agents, Joe Pientka and Peter Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, two
days after he was sworn in as President Donald Trump's national security adviser.
The prosecutors argued that the FBI had a "sufficient and appropriate basis" for the
interview because Flynn days earlier told members of the Trump campaign, including soon-to-be
Vice President Mike Pence, that he didn't discuss with the Russian ambassador the expulsion of
Russian diplomats in late December 2016 by then-President Barack Obama.
Flynn later admitted in his statement of offense that he asked, via Russian Ambassador to
the U.S. Sergei Kislyak, for Russia to only respond to the sanctions in a reciprocal manner and
not escalate the situation.
The FBI was at the time investigating whether Trump campaign aides coordinated with Russian
2016 election meddling. No such coordination was established by the probe, which concluded more
than two years later under then-special counsel Robert Mueller.
Powell argued that whatever Flynn told Pence and others in the transition team was none of
the FBI's business.
"The Executive Branch has different reasons for saying different things publicly and
privately, and not everyone is told the details of every conversation,"
she said in a previous court filing .
"If the FBI is charged with investigating discrepancies in statements made by government
officials to the public, the entirety of its resources would be consumed in a week."
Powell said Flynn's answers to the agents weren't "material," meaning relevant to the FBI
investigation of election meddling.
Sullivan, however, thought otherwise, using a broader description of the investigation. The bureau, he said, probed the "nature of any links between individuals associated with the
[Trump] Campaign and Russia" and what Flynn said was material to it. The description Sullivan used appears to omit the context of the probe, which focused
specifically on the Russian election meddling.
Powell was dealt a bad hand by Flynn's previous corrupt and incompetent attorneys. The
judge has an obligation to honor the new views of new counsel. He can't assume that Flynn had
been well advised by former counsel. There's no evidence or history of that. They sold him
out.
Sounds like Flynn got bad advice from his previous lawyers, and the judge is requiring
Flynn to live with the consequences. In other words, it is as if the judge is prohibiting
Flynn from changing legal representation because Flynn cannot do anything different than what
his first team of "counselors" advised.
He's so Deep State that Brennen and Clapper went to Soetoro to get him fired after the
election. Flynn was going to rat them out on the treasonous Iran deal. When Obama said no
because it was too close to the end of his presidency they then criminally framed Flynn.
Flynn was lied to. Flynn was a 30 year veteran and General. Flynn couldn't imagine his
country turning against him like this. None of us could. But with the cabal running our
country, it could and did happen. Now we have to stamp out the cockroaches before it's too
late.
Flynn was also a ******* lobbyist for foreign governments, including Turkey,...without
disclosing his advise was paid for. He sold himself out like a whore.
NATO Alliance member Turkey? How about a list of Israel friends with benefits. MIC grifters and aipac. Bloated orange imbecile can not fight only tweet.
This ***** judge will give him a mouse sentence to protect his own *** . We don't know the half of it . How close is the judge to Obama ? I think we are going to find out .
President Trump should step in now and Pardon Gen.Flynn and Roger Stone both trial were
fixed unethical and not based on fact and law. In Stones case a radical jury of Demon
Rat-Brains were assembled to hand down a guilty verdict.
They say Dems and other psychos always accuse others of what they themselves are doing.
Ever heard of the Clinton Foundation? Operating expenses: 95%.Benevolent aid: 5%. Suck on that for awhile.
Flynn did nothing wrong. Was framed setup and then blackmailed to plead. Who will pay a price. Brennan Comey Strzok? Those who stood with Trump were ruined under false pretenses.
Those who violated the constitution and rule of law are media pundants and
undisturbed.
Orange dotard please divert some of your swamp creatures from destroying Iran, Venezuela
and Bolivia.
America needs the secret police smashed and held accountable for sedition and treason.
Hahahaha Grenada. Reagan's signature military victory. Flynn should be a super hero. Grenada and Panama are the only victories the Pentagon clowns have managed. What should we expect they only get $1,000,000,000,000.00 a year
The minute they let Flynn off he talks and they sure as hell don't want that. They want to drag this out as long as possible and hope for a miracle (Trump gets beat
) or at least time enough for them to bugger off. FISA has known for years they were lied to by the FBI and now it has been confirmed . So why didn't they do anything then or now ? Were they in on it ? How do you draw any
other conclusion ?
Remember that Michael Flynn waived his right to appeal this judge's decision when he plead
guilty. This won't be going to a higher court. He's going down and the judge who is
sentencing him is PISSED.
Flynn is going to prison. Hillary is not. The sooner you jackoffs accept that, the sooner
you'll be able to move on with your lives instead of living out your pitiful existence in
bitterness and regret. And no, you won't be doing any civil war. You'll just be angry, your anger will turn
inward, and you'll poison yourselves with resentment, living out your days alone. Don't say
you weren't warned.
I don't expect Clinton to go to jail ... committing crimes or not she is untouchable. People may wish it but it will never ever happen she has too much on all the other
criminals.
Flynn can ask to withdraw plea, but he's turned down that opportunity three times, so
judge might not allow it. Then everything Powell has been doing becomes relevant. Up to this point it's just a bunch
of noise, unfortunately.
So let me just be sure I understand this: he is being denied evidence that could prove
innocence on a trial related to a guilty plea, which was largely the result of persecution by
the FBI and we ALLOW this to happen in America? What has happened to this country?
"... an inquiry by cabinet secretary Lord Hunt in 1996 concluded that "a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5" had "spread damaging malicious stories". ..."
"... Well, if a cabinet secretary says that it must be true. MI5, not MI6 - I think MI5's the heavy mob - but I just wondered if our spooks had passed these tricks on to the lads who put the Steele dossier about. ..."
Massive win, Colonel, that as far as I know nobody predicted. Not the polls, not the political blogs. But I didn't follow it that
closely so that's just a general impression.
My man, Nigel Farage, got squeezed mercilessly. I was looking around the BBC site to find out how mercilessly when I came across
a picture of the bete noir of my father's time, Harold Wilson. Wilson was convinced that MI something was out to get him - bugged
his office, spread smear stories about him around the press, even a possible coup.
The odd rumour of all this had spread to my corner of the English provinces and I'd always wondered if there was anything in it.
So I clicked on the BBC article -
" .. A 1987 inquiry concluded the allegations of a security service plot against Wilson were untrue. However, an inquiry
by cabinet secretary Lord Hunt in 1996 concluded that "a few, a very few, malcontents in MI5" had "spread damaging malicious stories".
Well, if a cabinet secretary says that it must be true. MI5, not MI6 - I think MI5's the heavy mob - but I just wondered if
our spooks had passed these tricks on to the lads who put the Steele dossier about.
On another security matter I note with concern above - "Those are Jacobite tribesmen at the top. Some of my ancestors were
such as they." I thought so. '15 and '45 caused us a lot of trouble and just in case the tradition remained in your family I'm
opening a file. We're very happy with our present Queen, thank you, and we don't want you replacing her with some Stuart relic you
might happen to have dug up.
Though I suppose it would only be poetic justice. We've just had a go at toppling your President so why shouldn't you return the
compliment and topple Her Majesty.
"... After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014, it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority. ..."
"... Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that has been raging for five years. Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead, the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support. ..."
At a time of one of the greatest political upheavals in American history that could spill
over into foreign affairs, especially U.S.-Russian relations with unpredictable and devastating
results, I thought Christmas might offer a chance for all
of us to take a pause and search for an exit from the megacrisis.
Many people believe miracles do happen at Christmastime. However, it looks like we need
President Trump , Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to perform
at least three of them.
Those who wonder why Mr. Zelensky is on this list
should recall that the Trump impeachment process started
because of his phone call with this guy whose country the Democrats and their pathetic
witnesses deem no less than vital to America's national security.
Let us start with Mr. Putin because someone has to take the first difficult step and he is
the only one in a clear position to do it.
Dear Mr. Putin, please make a public statement that Russia pledges not to interfere in the
next and future American elections. It would be good if the two chambers of the Russian
parliament, the Duma and Federation Council, ratify this pledge as well. Please do it
unilaterally without asking Mr. Trump and the U.S. Congress to
respond in kind.
Dear Mr. Trump , please return to your
earlier thinking about NATO as an obsolete organization that lost its purpose in 1991 after the
collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw military bloc. Since then, it has been searching
desperately for new missions and enemies to justify its existence.
Recall that NATO's continuous expansion drive is the major factor that squandered the
exceptional opportunity for U.S.-Russian rapprochement that all Russian leaders, starting with
Mikhail Gorbachev, kept proposing. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, and 18
other senators voted against President Clinton's first round of NATO expansion. "We'll be back
on a hair-trigger. We're talking about nuclear war," they said.
At the same time, NATO has failed to counter international terrorism -- the real threat to
European and American security. It is NATO that boosted the jihadi peril by overthrowing
Libya's government, allowing that prosperous country to morph into a terrorist playground and
staging point for millions of unvetted migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.
Is NATO making America and our allies more secure? During the Cold War, when NATO allowed
the West to stand firm against Soviet communist designs on Europe, the answer was an easy yes,
but today, with NATO's reckless poking of the Russian bear, the answer is a resounding no.
A rebuilt NATO or a new organization, IATO -- International Anti-Terrorist Organization --
specifically targeting global jihad, would have a future with new partners including Russia,
for which terrorism represents a major security threat. Georgia and Ukraine could join IATO as
well, thus taking the first step toward reconciliation with Russia that NATO's insatiable
expansion drive helped destroy.
French President Emmanuel Macron is the first Western leader who agrees with this point of view
and is not afraid to say that "NATO's brain is dead." However, the U.S. president must take the
lead to move past legacy NATO.
Dear Mr. Zelensky , I believe that you
sincerely want to end the war in your country. It is not an easy job since you face a strong
and vocal radical nationalistic opposition with strong neo-Nazi overtones that declares that
any compromise on your side will be met with the violent resistance and another "Maidan
revolution" that may lead to your overthrow. The leader of this opposition is former President
Petro Poroshenko, whom Washington supported all these years and who was given a rare privilege
to speak at a joint session of Congress, where members greeted him with numerous standing
ovations. At the same time, Ukrainian people hated him so much that they decided to replace him
with a Jewish comic actor with no political experience.
Mr. Zelensky , I wonder if you
have read the book "Shooting Stars" by Austrian novelist Stefan Zweig, which describes some
important episodes in which fate gave an individual a chance at a historical turning point.
Zweig says fate usually chooses for this purpose a strong personality, but sometimes it falls
to mediocrities who fail miserably.
You are in a position to decide which you will be, and the pass to historical Olympus is
obvious.
After a Western-backed coup overthrew the legitimate Ukrainian president in February 2014,
it brought to power a government largely picked by Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland. People in the Donbass region did not accept the new government and made two conditions
for remaining a part of Ukraine: special autonomy status and two state languages. This is
exactly what Canada provides for its large French-speaking minority.
Those with even rudimentary knowledge of Ukrainian history and its huge ethnic Russian
population would agree that these demands are not unreasonable, but the post-coup government
called the separatist forces terrorists, sent aviation and tanks, and started a civil war that
has been raging for five years.
Washington, which was in total control of the Ukrainian political class, could have resolved
this crisis easily by telling the new government to accept these modest conditions. Instead,
the U.S. supported Kyiv with money, weapons, military training and political support.
Mr. Zelensky , nowadays you and
your country are used as pawns in the attempts to impeach Mr. Trump , but your prime
responsibility is before Ukrainian people who dismissed the party of war and placed the fate of
your country and its people in your hands. They expect you to make the right decision by
choosing the road to peace.
While waiting for these miracles to materialize, I wish all a merry Christmas , happy Hanukkah and peace on
earth in 2020.
Edward Lozansky is president of American University in Moscow.
"... House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment. ..."
"... The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first. ..."
The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed
toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment
that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.
That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional
subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power
to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized,
both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives
will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.
President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas
requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has
argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches.
Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides
support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.
The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of
impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as
part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part
of any ongoing congressional investigations.
But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that
the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional
subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.
It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order
before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles
of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely
what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the "greatest danger" of an impeachment.
House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness,
this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include
obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end
up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at
least one of the articles of impeachment.
It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart
and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact
which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced
recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an
aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.
The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second
article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative
and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats
to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first.
"... But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was thinking. ..."
President Trump explicitly stated in a private conversation with one of the Democrats'
witnesses that he wanted "no quid pro quo." But the mind-reading Democrats know
Trump meant the opposite ; Trump did want a quid pro quo.
Though Ukrainian experts say a holdup of U.S. aid would not have impacted their ability to
fight the Russians, since they manufacture their own lethal weapons (and sell a lot to other
countries), the Democrats can read minds: They say people
died because of the delay.
Each of the Democrats' witnesses also drew conclusions about President Trump, his supposedly
corrupt motivations and thought processes, that would require them to read minds. (Most of them
said they'd neither met nor spoken to Trump.)
Lastly, Democrats can read Joe Biden's mind, too. They know that when Biden insisted on the
firing of the prosecutor investigating his son's company, that his son didn't factor into the
decision.
Democrats could be correct on all counts.
But I think that from a practical standpoint, it's difficult to prosecute a serious case
based almost solely on the idea that you claim to know what the other guy was
thinking.
"... Nothing could have better prepared me to understand how the global economy works! I had all the statistics, I had the help of the government people explaining to me how the CIA worked with drug dealing and other criminals and kidnappers to raise the money so it would be off the balance sheet funding and Congress didn't have to approve it when they would kill people and sponsor revolutions. ..."
In the the linked interview that you provided Michael Hudson describes the inception of
the modern day criminal US State:-
In the last few months that I worked for Chase Manhattan in 1967, I was going up to my
office on the ninth floor and a man got on the elevator and said, "I was just coming to your
office, Michael. Here is a report. I'm from the State Department (I assumed that this meant
CIA).
"We want to calculate how much money the US could get if we set up bank branches and
became the bank for all the criminal capital in the world."
He said, "We figured out we can finance, (and he said this in an elevator), we can
finance the Vietnam War with all the drug money coming into America, all of the criminal
money. Can you make a calculation of how much that might be?"
So I spent three months figuring out how much money goes to Switzerland, from drug
dealings, what's the dollar volume of drug dealings.
They helped me with all sorts of statistics on that, and said, "We can become the
criminal capital of the world and it'll finance the dollar and this will enable us to afford
the spending to defeat communism in Vietnam and elsewhere. If we don't do that, the bomb
throwers will come to New York."
So I became a specialist in money laundering!
Nothing could have better prepared me to understand how the global economy works! I had
all the statistics, I had the help of the government people explaining to me how the CIA
worked with drug dealing and other criminals and kidnappers to raise the money so it would be
off the balance sheet funding and Congress didn't have to approve it when they would kill
people and sponsor revolutions.
They were completely open with me about this.
I realized they'd never done a security check on me.
"As part of your rehabilitation, it's crucial that you admit you have a problem - you are
hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up
intelligence agency abuses ." -Devin Nunes to Adam Schiff
So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were
subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a
Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very
lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau is a U.S. creation. It is therefore not astonishing to
find that it is corrupt.
@kooleksiy 16:29 UTC
· Dec 13, 2019
Director of Ukraine's National Anti-corruption Bureau Sytnyk will pay a ~$140 fine for
"violation of restrictions on accepting gifts" [valued at ~$1 thousand in his case] - his
lawyer stated today after Appellate Court ruling @dw_ukrainian reports
www.dw.com/uk/
"... Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies. ..."
"... The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power to print money to these corporate fascists? ..."
Andrew O'Hehir personifies the sore loser. The EU is fascism. In their attempt to
overthrow Ukraine, the EU armed and trained Nazis. The EU helped start both the Libya and
Syria wars. Obama was only their errand boy, trying to give them back two colonies.
The EU destroyed Greece for the banks. The EU is a far greater threat to Europe than the
Third Reich was. Is Andrew stupid enough to think European powers should give up their power
to print money to these corporate fascists?
Fascist EU enablers, like the author, have called the Brits racists for years, simply
because they want out of the Nazi-arming EU. Andrew doesn't want any lessons from his
crushing defeat -- they relate to the perils of being a fanboy for corporate war-mongering
fascists.
So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were
subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a
Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very
lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.
The Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau is a U.S. creation. It is therefore not astonishing to
find that it is corrupt.
@kooleksiy 16:29 UTC
· Dec 13, 2019
Director of Ukraine's National Anti-corruption Bureau Sytnyk will pay a ~$140 fine for
"violation of restrictions on accepting gifts" [valued at ~$1 thousand in his case] - his
lawyer stated today after Appellate Court ruling @dw_ukrainian reports
www.dw.com/uk/
"As part of your rehabilitation, it's crucial that you admit you have a problem - you are
hijacking the Intelligence Committee for political purposes while excusing and covering up
intelligence agency abuses ." -Devin Nunes to Adam Schiff
This b
recommends at his Twitter, saying "Some interesting and quite believable claims in this
thread "
Rudy Giuliani:
"Budapest | Kiev | Vienna
"After hundreds of hours & months of research, I have garnered witnesses &
documents which reveal the truth behind this impeachment, which includes NO wrongdoing by
@realDonaldTrump.
"These threads only touch the surface. Read & watch all. More to come."
The following tweet:
"Evidence revealed that corruption in 2016 was so extensive it was POTUS's DUTY to ask for
US-Ukraine investigation.
"Also, DNC collusion w/ Ukraine to destroy candidate Trump."
Need to separate the partisan chaff from the genuine evidence, but IMO b's correct that
there's more than a few things here that will stick. One political cartoon in the thread
comments is beyond apt.
by Rob Urie
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to
a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana
that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established
order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for
outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing
meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational
systems.
This isn't to suggest that these are equivalent concerns. And in fact, they aren't. Absent
something akin to a revolution, the worst possible outcome for the connected insiders engaged
in impeachment-tainment will be moving on to lucrative 'careers' working for private equity and
/ or investing their family fortunes in one world-ending enterprise or another. Four plus
decades into the neoliberal overthrow of 'managed' capitalism, circumstances aren't quite so
universally advantageous for the rest of us. Rising global political unrest seems destined to
bring this division to the fore.
The document argues that the American president "betrayed the Nation" by delaying "the
release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated for the
purpose of providing vital military security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian
aggression."
This is the first impeachment of a sitting president on the claim that he is a "threat to
national security." The types of extraconstitutional arguments used by the US intelligence
agencies to justify mass warrantless wiretapping, torture, "rendition," and the assassination
of an American citizen, within the framework of the "war on terror," are now being used in an
effort to remove a president.
The impeachment drive and the anti-Russia campaign that predated it have involved an
enormous intervention by the CIA and FBI in domestic politics. The impeachment inquiry was
itself triggered by a CIA agent working at the White House, while a recently-released report
shows that the FBI justified a wiretap of a former Trump aide by citing a Ukraine policy change
in the Republican Party's platform.
This process is the first time -- with the possible exception of the dark and murky
events surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy -- that the CIA and associated
intelligence agencies have sought to remove a sitting president. Anyone who supports the
Democrats' impeachment operation, in the hope that removing Trump on these grounds can have
some sort of progressive consequence, is simply ignoring everything the Democrats and their CIA
allies have done and said.
The most extraordinary element of the impeachment proceedings was its almost complete
domination of the issue of US policy in Ukraine. It is of the greatest political significance,
not to mention strangely ironic, that the United States' instigation of the 2014 fascist-led
coup in Kiev has had far reaching consequences for political life in the US. In order to carry
through the implementation of the confrontation with Russia, which was the rationale behind the
coup, the intelligence agencies that determine the policy of the Democratic Party have been
compelled to seek the impeachment of Trump.
In 1986, the Iran-Contra scandal was triggered by the revelation that the Reagan
administration had concocted a scheme to sell arms to Iran, in order to buy weapons to finance
an illegal war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. That investigation revealed that the
Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress to prohibit
US government assistance to the Contras.
But in this case, the main charge is that Trump held up the disbursing of money that was
allocated by Congress to promote a war that is being planned entirely behind the backs of the
American people.
The antidemocratic impulses behind the impeachment drive were summed up by the comments of
the arch-warmonger Thomas Friedman, who wrote in the New York Times yesterday,
"Generally speaking, I believe presidents should be elected and removed by the voters at the
polls. But when I hear Trump defenders scream, 'Impeachment subverts the will of the people,' I
say: "Really?"
To say that "generally speaking" the leadership of the country should be selected by voters,
is to say that this should only be the case when it suits the CIA, FBI, and the military.
Friedman's real complaint is not that Trump was subverting "the will of the people," but
that he was subverting what dominant factions of the intelligence agencies consider the
geostrategic imperatives of the American ruling class.
For all the Democrats' talk of "corruption," "obstruction of justice," "bribery," and an
"organized crime shakedown," the real reasons for the impeachment stand starkly revealed as
differences over how best to conduct the predatory policies of American imperialism.
Both the Trump presidency and the impeachment campaign of the Democrats are different
manifestations of the deep and intractable crisis of American democracy. Trump has threatened
to turn the impeachment struggle into a "civil war," implying that he could appeal to his
armed, far-right supporters to defend him against what he has called a "deep-state coup."
The Democrats' campaign against "foreign meddling" that framed the impeachment drive has
provided the framework for imposing domestic censorship measures, with the intelligence
agencies and representatives of both parties recruiting Google, Facebook and Twitter to demote
and delete left-wing, anti-war and socialist publications, pages, and groups.
But even as Trump and his Democratic opponents frantically denounce one another as traitors
and demand each other's prosecution, there has, at the same time, emerged a remarkable
bipartisan unity on fundamental issues facing US imperialism.
This was made perfectly clear this week with the rapid-fire announcement, by congressional
Democrats, of agreements on two landmark pieces of legislation: The USMCA anti-China trade deal
and the passage of the biggest military budget in US history.
The military budget, passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives yesterday,
establishes a new branch of the US armed forces, the Space Force, while levelling sanctions
against Russia, China, Turkey and North Korea.
"Wow! All of our priorities have made it into the final NDAA," Trump gloated, noting in
particular the removal of language preventing Pentagon funds being used for his immigration
crackdown. Amid soaring social inequality, all factions of the American ruling elite are
dedicated to war abroad and attacks on democratic rights at home.
The political crisis in Washington is framed by the global upsurge of the class struggle and
the deepening crisis of US imperialism.
The past six months have seen an unprecedented expansion of the class struggle all over the
world. Mass protests against inequality have broken out from Chile, to Puerto Rico, to Lebanon
and Iraq. Autoworkers have gone on strike in Mexico and the United States, while much of the
Paris Metro remains shut down, amid a strike wave throughout France. A recent issue of
Time magazine, entitled "How America's Elites Lost Their Grip," notes with concern the
growing audience for socialism throughout the country.
Just as important is the series of setbacks for US imperialism's efforts, in the wake of the
dissolution of the USSR, to preserve its global hegemony through military violence.
In 2003, when the US invaded Iraq, the World Socialist Web Site noted , "Whatever the outcome of
the initial stages of the conflict that has begun, American imperialism has a rendezvous with
disaster. It cannot conquer the world. It cannot reimpose colonial shackles upon the masses of
the Middle East. It will not find through the medium of war a viable solution to its internal
maladies. Rather, the unforeseen difficulties and mounting resistance engendered by war will
intensify all of the internal contradictions of American society."
We will see... I am skeptical about idea that Brennan will be indicted.
But this article supports the idea that impeachment was a counterattack of Brannan faction of CIA and Clinton mafia against
Barr and Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top prosecutor John Durham ..."
"... We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go... ..."
"... when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan, former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. " ..."
"... during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats ..."
"... Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world is facing . Shipp says, ..."
Former CIA officer and counter-intelligence expert Kevin Shipp says that former Obama
Administration Attorney General (AG) Eric Holder gave a big Deep State panic signal when he
wrote in an Op-Ed last week in the Washington Post trashing current AG William Barr and his top
prosecutor John Durham. Shipp explains,
"This is very significant. We all remember that Holder was Obama's right hand man. Eric
Holder was Barack Obama's enforcer. The fact that Holder comes out this quickly after the
Inspector General (IG) Horowitz Report comes out... and makes this veiled threat against
Durham's reputation. The fact that Eric Holder came out and made this statement is a clear
indication to me they are running scared.
We have to understand it was Eric Holder that Barack Obama used to target the heads of
corporations that spoke out publicly about Barack Obama. We know Holder was held in 'Contempt
of Congress.' He spied on AP reporters, ran guns to drug cartels and blacked out the
information. He spied on over a hundred journalists, and on and on we go...
They (Deep State) are convinced there are going to be indictments. Secondly, there is AG
Barr's outrage over (IG) Horowitz's report and what it did not do. He made statements that
there was spying and actions by government officials that need to be criminally looked into.
Barr's outrage over this shows me that there are going to be indictments, and that he is
taking this seriously. Again, when Holder comes out and puts out this bombshell in the
Washington Post, which is another indication that indictments are coming. John Brennan,
former Obama Administration CIA Director, is going to be at the top of the list. "
Shipp says during the entire Trump Presidency, the mainstream media (MSM) has operated as a
propaganda arm of the Deep State and the Democrats . Shipp contends,
"They put these stories out intentionally because they are creating their own story, and
that is what the propaganda mainstream media does. It creates its own story...
They want to frame their latest story that there really wasn't any spying on Trump. That's
what FISA warrants and applications are all about. They are all about spying ."
Shipp thinks this will be a big nail in the coffin of the MSM. Shipp says, "The mainstream
media will never come back from this..."
"...because finally, through shows like this and others, the real information is coming
out as to what the mainstream media has done . At the top of that list is the New York Times,
the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC...
What they did is they created the Russia collusion story as if it was reality, as if it
was real. That is part of the procedure in doing this. Then, they invented the evidence, and
that was the Steele Dossier. They portrayed this as evidence to create this false narrative.
Then they sent this story out to each outlet, and all repeat the same story over and over and
over again knowing the more they repeat it, the more people were going to believe it. Then,
the FBI leaked information to the mainstream media. The FBI took that information leaked to
the media and used their stories as evidence. Brennan leaked the dossier to the mainstream
media as part of this whole machine."
Shipp says the hoax of Russia collusion and the impeachment sham of President Trump is
distracting us from other very big problems such as the extreme debt the country and the world
is facing . Shipp says,
"Trump inherited a financial monster that was not his doing. When he was sworn into
office, it already existed. It is very serious, and I think now or very soon the U.S.
government will not be able to afford the interest on the national debt, much less paying off
the debt itself."
It is reported that central banks are buying record amounts of gold, and even Goldman Sachs
is telling its clients to buy the yellow metal. Shipp says,
" This is a solid indicator that we are headed for the financial rapids with Goldman Sachs
especially. Goldman Sachs is a global bank, and it's one of the main banks in the United
States. The fact that Sachs and others are building up gold reserves is a clear indication
that they expect a financial downturn, to put it mildly, that is coming. "
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with former CIA Officer and whistleblower Kevin Shipp.
I kinda think that everyone is holding off to see if Trump gets re-elected.
If he does then there will be indictments, jail time, and a real cleaning of the
house.
The guys in the middle of this investigation depose the "liberal" old guard and offer
sacrifices to their own "conservative" god of filth. Same Mammon, just a different order of
worship.
If he doesn't get re-elected then the guys that are investigating this can just slink back
into the current slime and survive in some basic way.
I have seen this dynamic when companies merge as equals. Everybody is afraid to act
because the stakes are so high. It's a chess game played by ruthless cowards.
In case of Page it was much worse the Glenn Greenwald claims. The most probably scenario
that he was directed to join Trump compain and then to contact Russian government so that this
false flag operatin can be used for establishing surveillance. Why they need to establish
surveillance on CIA/FBI informant? Because he called people they really wanted to survail.
Just as was true when the Mueller investigation closed
without a single American being charged with criminally conspiring with Russia over the
2016 election, Wednesday's issuance of the long-waited report from the
Department of Justice's Inspector General reveals that years of major claims and narratives
from the U.S. media were utter
frauds .
Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI's gross abuse of its power
– its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to
demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI –
in order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter
Page during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating
evidence, and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don't consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in
order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major
scandal, what is? But none of this is aberrational: the FBI still has its headquarters in a
building named after J. Edgar Hoover – who constantly blackmailed elected officials
with dossiers and tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into killing himself – because
that's what these security state agencies are. They are out-of-control, virtually unlimited
police state factions that lie, abuse their spying and law enforcement powers, and subvert
democracy and civic and political freedoms as a matter of course.
In this case, no rational person should allow standard partisan bickering to distort or
hide this severe FBI corruption. The IG Report leaves no doubt about it. It's brimming with
proof of FBI subterfuge and deceit, all in service of persuading a FISA court of something
that was not true: that U.S. citizen and former Trump campaign official Carter Page was an
agent of the Russian government and therefore needed to have his communications
surveilled.
Just a few excerpts from the report should suffice to end any debate for rational persons
about how damning it is. The focus of the first part of the IG Report was on the warrants
obtained by the DOJ, at the behest of the FBI, to spy on Carter Page on the grounds that
there was probable cause to believe he was an agent of the Russian government. That Page was
a Kremlin agent was a widely disseminated media claim – typically asserted as fact even
though it had no evidence. As a result of this media narrative, the Mueller investigation
examined these widespread accusations yet concluded that "the investigation did not establish
that Page coordinated with the Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016
presidential election."
The IG Report went much further, documenting a multitude of lies and misrepresentations by
the FBI to deceive the FISA court into believing that probable cause existed to believe Page
was a Kremlin agent. The first FISA warrant to spy on Page was obtained during the 2016
election, after Page had left the Trump campaign but weeks before the election was to be
held.
About the warrant application submitted regarding Page, the IG Report, in its own words,
"found that FBI personnel fell far short of the requirement in FBI policy that they ensure
that all factual statements in a FISA application are 'scrupulously accurate.'" Specifically,
"we identified multiple instances in which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA
application were inaccurate, incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based
upon information the FBI had in its possession at the time the application was filed."
It's vital to reiterate this because of its gravity: we identified multiple instances in
which factual assertions relied upon in the first FISA application were inaccurate,
incomplete, or unsupported by appropriate documentation, based upon information the FBI had
in its possession at the time the application was filed.
The specifics cited by the IG Report are even more damning. Specifically, "based upon the
information known to the FBI in October 2016, the first application contained [] seven
significant inaccuracies and omissions." Among those "significant inaccuracies and
omissions": the FBI concealed that Page had been working with the CIA in connection with his
dealings with Russia and had notified CIA case managers of at least some of those contacts
after he was "approved as an 'operational contact'" with Russia; the FBI lied about both the
timing and substance of Page's relationship with the CIA; vastly overstated the value and
corroboration of Steele's prior work for the U.S. Government to make him appear more credible
than he was; and concealed from the court serious reasons to doubt the reliability of
Steele's key source.
... ... ..
Among the most significant new acts of deceit was that the FBI "omitted the fact that
Steele's Primary Subsource, who the FBI found credible, had made statements in January 2017
raising significant questions about the reliability of allegations included in the FISA
applications, including, for example, that he/she did not recall any discussion with Person 1
concerning Wikileaks and there was 'nothing bad' about the communications between the Kremlin
and the Trump team, and that he/she did not report to Steele in July 2016 that Page had met
with Sechin."
In other words, Steele's own key source told the FBI that Steele was lying about what the
source said: an obviously critical fact that the FBI simply concealed from the FISA court
because it knew how devastating that would be to being able to continue to spy on Page. As
the Report put it, "among the most serious of the 10 additional errors we found in the
renewal applications was the FBI's failure to advise [DOJ] or the court of the
inconsistences, described in detail in Chapter Six, between Steele and his Primary Sub-source
on the reporting relied upon in the FISA applications."
The IG Report also found that the FBI hid key information from the court about Steele's
motives: for instance, it "omitted information obtained from [Bruce] Ohr about Steele and his
election reporting, including that (1) Steele's reporting was going to Clinton's presidential
campaign and others, (2) [Fusion GPS's Glenn] Simpson was paying Steele to discuss his
reporting with the media, and (3) Steele was "desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and
was passionate about him not being the U.S. President."
If it does not bother you to learn that the FBI repeatedly and deliberately deceived the
FISA court into granting it permission to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a
presidential campaign, then it is virtually certain that you are either someone with no
principles, someone who cares only about partisan advantage and nothing about basic civil
liberties and the rule of law, or both. There is simply no way for anyone of good faith to
read this IG Report and reach any conclusion other than that this is yet another instance of
the FBI abusing its power in severe ways to subvert and undermine U.S. democracy. If you
don't care about that, what do you care about?
* * * * *
But the revelations of the IG Report are not merely a massive FBI scandal. They are also a
massive media scandal, because they reveal that so much of what the U.S. media has
authoritatively claimed about all of these matters for more than two years is completely
false.
Ever since Trump's inauguration, a handful of commentators and journalists – I'm
included among them – have been sounding the alarm about the highly dangerous trend of
news outlets not merely repeating the mistake of the Iraq War by blindly relying on the
claims of security state agents but, far worse, now employing them in their newsrooms to
shape the news. As Politico's media writer Jack Shafer wrote in 2018, in
an article entitled "The Spies Who Came Into the TV Studio" :
In the old days, America's top spies would complete their tenures at the CIA or one of
the other Washington puzzle palaces and segue to more ordinary pursuits. Some wrote
their memoirs . One
ran for president . Another died a few months after
surrendering his post. But today's national-security establishment retiree has a different
game plan. After so many years of brawling in the shadows, he yearns for a second,
lucrative career in the public eye. He takes a crash course in speaking in soundbites,
refreshes his wardrobe and signs a TV news contract. Then, several times a week, waits for
a network limousine to shuttle him to the broadcast news studios where, after a light
dusting of foundation and a spritz of hairspray, he takes a supporting role in the anchors'
nighttime shows. . . .
[T]he downside of outsourcing national security coverage to the TV spies is obvious.
They aren't in the business of breaking news or uncovering secrets. Their first loyalty --
and this is no slam -- is to the agency from which they hail. Imagine a TV network covering
the auto industry through the eyes of dozens of paid former auto executives and you begin
to appreciate the current peculiarities.
In a perfect television world, the networks would retire the retired spooks from their
payrolls and reallocate those sums to the hiring of independent reporters to cover the
national security beat. Let the TV spies become unpaid anonymous sources because when you
get down to it, TV spies don't want to make news -- they just want to talk about it.
It's long been the case that CIA, FBI and NSA operatives tried to infiltrate and shape
domestic news, but they at least had the decency to do it clandestinely. In 2008, the New
York Times' David Barstow
won the Pulitzer Prize for exposing a secret Pentagon
program in which retired Generals and other security state agents would get hired as
commentators and analysts and then – unbeknownst to their networks – coordinate
their messaging to ensure that domestic news was being shaped by the propaganda of the
military and intelligence communities.
But now it's all out in the open. It's virtually impossible to turn on MSNBC or CNN
without being bombarded with former Generals, CIA operatives, FBI agents and NSA officials
who now work for those networks as commentators and, increasingly, as reporters.
Congrats to my friend @joshscampbell , CNN's newest
national Correspondent. His passion for going where the news is and covering important
stories will continue to benefit viewers. pic.twitter.com/j49k0KOzNj
The past three years of "Russiagate" reporting – for which U.S. journalists have
lavished themselves with Pulitzers and other prizes despite a
multitude of embarrassing and dangerous errors about the Grave Russian Threat – has
relied almost exclusively on anonymous, uncorroborated claims from Deep State operatives (and
yes, that's a term that fully applies to the U.S.). The few exceptions are when these
networks feature former high-level security state operatives on camera to spread their false
propaganda, as in this enduringly humiliating instance:
John Brennan has a lot to answer for -- going before the American public for months,
cloaked with CIA authority and openly suggesting he's got secret info, and repeatedly
turning in performances like this. pic.twitter.com/EziCxy9FVQ
All of this has meant that U.S. discourse on these national security questions is shaped
almost entirely by the very agencies that are trained to lie: the CIA, the NSA, the Pentagon,
the FBI. And their lying has been highly effective.
For years, we were told by the nation's leading national security reporters something that
was blatantly false: that the FBI's warrants to spy on Carter Page were not based on the
Steele Dossier. GOP Congressman Devin Nunes was
widely vilified and
mocked by the super-smart DC national security reporters for issuing a
report claiming that this was the case. The Nunes memo in essence claimed what the IG
Report has corroborated: that embedded within the FBI's efforts to obtain FISA court
authorization to spy on Carter Page was a series of misrepresentations, falsehoods and
concealment of key evidence:
As the Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi – one of the few left/liberal journalists with
the courage and integrity to dissent from the DNC/MSNBC script on these issues – put it
in
a detailed article :
"Democrats are not going to want to hear this, since conventional wisdom says former
House Intelligence chief Devin Nunes is a conspiratorial evildoer, but the Horowitz report
ratifies the major claims of the infamous '
Nunes memo .'"
That the Page warrant was based on the Steele Dossier was something that the media
servants of the FBI and CIA rushed to deny. Did they have any evidence for those denials?
That would be hard to believe, given that the FISA warrant applications are highly
classified. It seems far more likely that – as usual – they were just repeating
what the FBI and CIA (and the pathologically dishonest Rep. Adam Schiff) told them to say,
like the good and loyal puppets that they are. But either way, what they kept telling the
public – in highly definitive tones – was completely false, as we now know from
the IG Report:
Yes. I am telling you the dossier was not used as the basis for a FISA warrant on Carter
Page.
Over and over, the IG Report makes clear that, contrary to these denials, the Steele
Dossier was indeed crucial to the Page eavesdropping warrant. "We determined that the
Crossfire Hurricane team's receipt of Steele's election reporting on September 19, 2016
played a central and essential role in the FBI's and Department's decision to seek the FISA
order," the IG Report explained. A central and essential role .
Just compare the pompous denials from so many U.S. national security reporters at the
nation's leading news outlets – that the Page warrant was not based on the Steele
Dossier – to the actual truth that we now know :
"in support of the fourth element in the FISA application-Carter Page's alleged
coordination with the Russian government on 2016 U.S. presidential election activities, the
application relied entirely on the following information from Steele Reports 80, 94, 95,
and 102″ (emphasis added).
Indeed, it was the Steele Dossier that led FBI leadership, including Director James Comey
and Deputy Diretor Andrew McCabe, to approve the warrant application in the first place
despite concerns raised by other agents that the information was unreliable. Explains the IG
Report:
FBI leadership supported relying on Steele's reporting to seek a FISA order on Page
after being advised of, and giving consideration to, concerns expressed by Stuart Evans,
then NSD's Deputy Assistant Attorney General with oversight responsibility over QI, that
Steele may have been hired by someone associated with presidential candidate Clinton or the
DNC, and that the foreign intelligence to be collected through the FISA order would
probably not be worth the 'risk' of being criticized later for collecting communications of
someone (Carter Page) who was "politically sensitive."
The narrative manufactured by the security state agencies and laundered by their reliable
media servants about these critical matters was a sham, a fraud, a lie. Yet again, U.S.
discourse was subsumed by propaganda because the U.S. media and key parts of the security
state have decided that subverting the Trump presidency is of such a high priority –
that their political judgment outweighs the results of the election – that everything,
including outright lying even to courts let alone the public, is justified because the ends
are so noble.
As Taibbi put it:
"No matter what people think the political meaning of the Horowitz report might be,
reporters who read it will know: Anybody who touched this nonsense in print should be
embarrassed."
No matter how dangerous you believe the Trump presidency to be, this is a grave threat to
the pillars of U.S. democracy, a free press, an informed citizenry and the rule of law.* * *
* *
Underlying all of this is another major lie spun over the last three years by the
newly-minted media stars and liberal icons from the security state agencies. Ever since the
Snowden reporting – indeed, prior to that, when the New York Times' Eric Lichtblau and
Jim Risen (now with the Intercept)
revealed in 2005 that the Bush-era NSA was illegally spying on U.S. citizens without the
warrants required by law – it was widely understood that the FISA process was a
rubber-stamping joke, an illusory safeguard that, in reality, offered no real limits on the
ability of the U.S. Government to spy on its own citizens. Back in 2013 at the Guardian, I
wrote a
long article , based on Snowden documents, revealing what an empty sham this process
was.
But over the last three years, the strategy of Democrats and liberals – particularly
their cable outlets and news sites – has been to venerate and elevate security state
agents as the noble truth-tellers of U.S. democracy. Once-reviled-by-liberal sites such as
Lawfare – composed of little more than pro-NSA and pro-FBI apparatchiks –
gained
mainstream visibility for the first time on the strength of a whole new group of liberals
who decided that the salvation of U.S. democracy lies not with the political process but with
the dark arts of the NSA, the FBI and the CIA.
Sites like Lawfare – led by Comey-friend Benjamin Wittes and ex-NSA lawyer Susan
Hennessey – became Twitter and cable news stars and used their platform to resuscitate
what had been a long-discredited lie: namely, that the FISA process is highly rigorous and
that the potential for abuse is very low. Liberals, eager to believe that the security state
agencies opposed to Trump should be trusted despite their decades of violent lawlessness and
systemic lying, came to believe in the sanctity of the NSA and the FISA process.
The IG Report obliterates that carefully cultivated delusion. It lays bare what a sham the
whole FISA process is, how easy it is for the NSA and the FBI to obtain from the FISA court
whatever authorization it wants to spy on any Americans they want regardless of how flimsy is
the justification. The ACLU and other civil libertarians had spent years finally getting
people to realize this truth, but it was wiped out by the Trump-era veneration of these
security state agencies.
In an excellent article
on the fallout from the IG Report , the New York Times' Charlie Savage, long one of the
leading journalistic experts on these debates, makes clear how devastating these revelations
are to this concocted narrative designed to lead Americans to trust the FBI and NSA's
eavesdropping authorities :
At more than 400 pages, the study amounted to the most searching look ever at the
government's secretive system for carrying out national-security surveillance on American
soil. And what the report showed was not pretty.
The Justice Department's independent inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, and his
team uncovered a staggeringly dysfunctional and error-ridden process in how the F.B.I. went
about obtaining and renewing court permission under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, or FISA, to wiretap Carter Page, a former Trump campaign adviser.
"The litany of problems with the Carter Page surveillance applications demonstrates how
the secrecy shrouding the government's one-sided FISA approval process breeds abuse," said
Hina Shamsi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's National Security
Project. "The concerns the inspector general identifies apply to intrusive investigations
of others, including especially Muslims, and far better safeguards against abuse are
necessary."
His exposé left some former officials who generally defend government
surveillance practices aghast.
"These errors are bad," said David Kris, an expert in FISA who oversaw the Justice
Department's National Security Division in the Obama administration. "If the broader audit
of FISA applications reveals a systematic pattern of errors of this sort that plagued this
one, then I would expect very serious consequences and reforms" .
Civil libertarians for years have called the surveillance court a rubber stamp because
it only rarely rejects wiretap applications. Out of 1,080 requests by the government in
2018, for example, government records
showed that the court fully denied only one.
Defenders of the system have argued that the low rejection rate stems in part from how
well the Justice Department self-polices and avoids presenting the court with requests that
fall short of the legal standard. They have also stressed that officials obey a heightened
duty to be candid and provide any mitigating evidence that might undercut their request. .
. .
But the inspector general found major errors, material omissions and unsupported
statements about Mr. Page in the materials that went to the court. F.B.I. agents
cherry-picked the evidence, telling the Justice Department information that made Mr. Page
look suspicious and omitting material that cut the other way, and the department passed
that misleading portrait onto the court.
This system of unlimited domestic spying was built by both parties, which only rouse
themselves to object when the power lies in the other side's hands. Just last year, the vast
majority of the GOP caucus joined with a minority of Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi and Adam
Schiff to
hand President Trump all-new domestic spying powers while blocking crucial reforms and
safeguards to prevent abuse. The spying machinery that Edward Snowden risked his life and
liberty to expose always has been, and still is, a bipartisan creation.
Perhaps these revelations will finally lead to a realization about how rogue, and
dangerous, these police state agencies have become, and how urgently needed is serious
reform. But if nothing else, it must serve as a tonic to the three years of unrelenting media
propaganda that has deceived and misled millions of Americans into believing things that are
simply untrue.
None of these journalists have acknowledged an iota of error in the wake of this report
because they know that lying is not just permitted but encouraged as long as it pleases and
vindicates the political beliefs of their audiences . Until that stops, credibility and faith
in journalism will never be restored, and – despite how toxic it is to have a media
that has no claim on credibility – that despised status will be fully deserved.
The former (((Guardian))) "journalist" *** libtard Joo who lives in Brazil with his
boyfriend, is going to tell us the truth about the (((FBI))) and the (((Deep
State)))????
LOL
The (((Intercept))) has already ratted out at least one whistleblower to the Deep State,
so be careful on who do you believe in..
The most important point of the FISA abuse for surveillance authorization of 4 US
citizens was for the purpose of collateral surveillance of all of their contacts with the
Trump campaign, transition and White House
investigate the 17 intel agencies that unanimously said Russia 'meddled' in the 2016
election. if they lied for political gain, then they are traitors for trying to start a war
with Russia that endangers all Americans
I honestly don't care either way. The entire system is corrupt and overrun with Zionists
from top to bottom, including of course the MSM. All this theater of a witch hunt against
Trump is for show; in reality they're all on the same page, playing the American public for
fools. That's why nothing significant ever changes no matter who gets into office. Always
more wars for faux-Israel and the MIC, staged coups and proxy wars abroad, more regulatory
capture, the national debt skyrocketing into oblivion, no border security, special
privileges for a (((chosen few))) which violate Constitutional law, massive bailouts at
taxpayers' expense, and on it goes.
I did not waste my time reading it all. Just skimmed few paragraphs to confirm that all
of this was known to everybody long time ago.
To me the basic question is why Trump is a such *****. He should fire long time ago 3/4
of CIA, FBI, Justice Department and many other three letter government employers. He has
full right as a president to do this. If he doesn't do that they eventually will destroy
him.
Instead he is pussying around those grave issues and nobody gets punished for high
crimes they committed. He is just tweeting crap that bear no consequences to anybody.
This is the best chance he's got to drain the swamp. But I am pretty sure swamp will
stink for a long time after he is gone. In short, he is sissy unable to do the job he
promised to do to the people who voted for him.
It's a bit like calling 9/11 an intelligence failure. First, identify the actual measure
of success against which this outcome should really be judged...
An excerpt:
"Here's the real "secret history" of the Afganistan war: It wasn't a failure, it was a
success. In every facet, on every front, Afghanistan is exactly what America needed it to be.
They dripfeed in the blood of young Americans, they destroy 100,000s of Afghan lives, and
they reap the rewards they always intended to reap:
The permanent slow-simmer conflict gives them an excuse to keep thousands of US military
personnel in a country which borders Iran, Pakistan AND China. (Not to mention a host of
ex-Soviet states).
It keeps military expenditure nice and high, so Congressman, ex-generals and everyone else
on the boards of Boeing or Lockheed Martin get great big bonuses every year.
They have sole access to the rare-Earth elements and other vital metals in the Afghan
mountains. Lithium, most importantly of all.
They have control of the world's opium industry. A vital cog in the relations of the US
intelligence agencies, and organised crime. It's essentially reverse money-laundering –
turning tax-payer funds into dark money that can be spent hiring mercenaries, organising
assassinations, arranging coups or simply be stolen.
They have access to all the "radicalised" young men they could ever want. A little Jihadi
farm, where "terrorists" can be named, trained and sent off to fight proxy wars in Syria, or
spread fear and chaos in the West."
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
Clapper and Brennan will be shaking in their boots after watching Barr's interview: done in
"bad faith" = SEDITION !!!! Deep State operatives...ie, Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Stork, Lisa,
McCabe, should be held accountable. Obama should probably be impeached.
The hard fact is, that the top of the FBI knew, in advance, that the "dossier" was just bs
invented by Russian liars, for money, to be used as political lies for kilary's campaign. It
Wasn't evidence and Comey knew far in advance of crossfire hurricane. I can't see less than 20
years in comey's future. That same includes barak, brennan and clapper, who were all informed,
willing accomplices in this crime.
10:30
Whoever in FBI that intentionally misled the court using the Steele dossier knowing that the
dossier was "total rubbish" as Barr states, needs to be inditing immediately. Why we are
continuing to investigate instead of inditimg while continuing to investigate. Until these people
are held accountable I don't think our country will begin to heal and media and others apologize
to the country for the damage they have done.
7:49 -
"Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance, and therefore couldn't be questioned
about classified matters." Well now, isn't that interesting. Haven't heard that one before.
In an exclusive interview, Attorney General William Barr spoke to NBC News' Pete Williams
about the findings on the Justice Department Inspector General's report on the Russia
investigation and his criticisms of the FBI.
I'm So glade we have a competent attorney General pushing back on the massive
disinformation narrative that comes from Giant News outlets of which are used to being
unchallenged, unchecked by today's "journalistic standards"
so this guy really asked Bahr"why not open an investigation even with little evidence?"
because is a violation of civil liberties to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens. You
need compelling evidence for something so huge
Horowitz should be instructed to edit or update his Report to discuss The Question of Bias
and Evidence of Bias. He has clearly misguided Americans with his choice of words and has
omitted important facts underpinning bias.
AG Barr is an outstanding role model, a man of integrity and wisdom, calm in a raging
political storm. I have full confidence he will make those who fabricated evidence and hid
exculpatory evidence finally face justice. AG Barr for President 2024!
Barr is a straight shooter and I love it. It sounds like we will get to the real truth
eventually through Durhams investigation I just hope it doesnt take another year to get to
the prosecutions.
So, I watched the interview... The video is called, "Full Interview: Barr Criticizes
Inspector General Report On The Russia Investigation." Not once did I hear him criticize the
I.G.'s report. In fact, A.G. Barr clarified that the I.G.'s report was limited in scope
because of the limitations put on the I.G. He said that the report was appropriate.
It's scary to see how powerful the corruption of the Democratic Party has grown. It
represents a serious threat to all our personal freedom. The Democratic Party has to be
stopped.
Ok after watching this interview its quite clear that Barr and Durham is going after these
criminals and people are going to jail. Maybe there is hope for US yet becuase this dane
consider US atm a banana republic. Spying on political candidates? Forging documents? You FBI
behaving like Stalins secret police. Lets see what happen.
Amazing for the AG to go in deep into enemy territory at the heart of the opposition media
to lay out a case for the criminal activities that undermined our country prior to and after
the 2016 election. The deep state is trembling at the prospect of being held accountable
after all the facts are laid out to the american people that these activities cannot be
brushed aside or swept under the carpet if we are to continue as a country.
The corrupt media is trying to act like they have not been involved in this treasonous
scam since the beginning working directly with the treasonous cabal. The media has been lying
and pushing fake news for 3 years calling Trump a Russia agent and called him treasonous. I
knew the whole time that they were lying there was evidence from day one that this was all
lies and if I can see that from the public then they can definitely see that from the inside
they are purposefully lying.
I dare anyone on here to research Barr's History back to his involvement in the
assignation of JFK, the cover up, defending Nixon, Epstein, and many other illegal and
immoral activities. After reviewing the evidence, I walked away believing that Barr is trying
to cover up his tracks so he does do jail time. No need to reply. Either take my dare or not.
God Bless America and ALL her people, Stephan
The public are sick of waiting . I find myself skipping through a half hour news show in 5
minutes flat looking for arrests ,whereas before I was rivited to every minute of the half
hour show but it goes on and on and at the there is Nothiing .The Democrats are the masters ,
it's obvious . If they break the law they get off scott free . If you are republican wave bye
bye , you will be in jail for years . America is not the free and fair country it is all
cracked up to be . It is corrupted by the democrats who have peoiple in high places that
thwart real justice.
Mifsud approached George! Who was Mifsud working for (western asset) and why did he
approach George? He’s the one who offered George dirt on Hill. Then invited him to meet
the fake “niece”, of Putin, in England! What about this information? Someone set
George up to make this happen outside the US, because of EO 12333. It had to happen outside
the US so they could go to the fisa court!
I dont trust Christopher Wrey. He keeps slow-walking all the FBI documents and
declassifications. He also fights judicial watch and judges that rule in their favor and
continue not giving over what is ordered! This last judge was ready to hold him in contempt
for refusing to cooperate with court ordered documents.
Why did the FBI continue to investigate Trump after January when the case collapsed? To
try and find a way to impeach Trump. Remember the Washington Post headlined article right
after the inauguration "The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already
underway." The FBI "insurance" policy was essential!
The USA "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine requires weakening and, if possible, partitioning Russia.
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin tells the audience that Skripals poisoning was a false flag operation. 7:00
He also point several weak points in Western politicians narrative about MH17
Notable quotes:
"... Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America ..."
"... Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it. ..."
"... The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans). ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause". ..."
"... Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic. ..."
"... "Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily
determined to undermine Russia.
A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign
to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff
when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on Russia," Kevin says in his conversation
with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating
a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy
Vogan.
Putin & the Russian citizenry play chess on this 3-dimensional world.! The Americas and their inane elites attempt checkers
on their flat Earth . Pity, some such as Noam Chomsky are admirable world citizens..! Pity again.! WE will miss men of this honest
calibre and down- to-earth intelligence. Bob Carr is of this cohort.
Eugenie Basile , December 10, 2019 at 03:36
The 'Russia did it' mantra is a gift for the powers in the Kremlin. It rallies most Russians behind their leaders because they
are proud of their country and don't accept the West's moral hypocrite grandstanding.
Just recently the WADA proclaimed sporting ban against Russia is a perfect example. It excludes all Russian athletes because
they happen to represent their country while U.S. athletes who have been caught cheating in the past are allowed to participate
.
It is very encouraging to know there are good people like Mr. Tony Kevin and Mr. Bob Carr alive and sharing their powerful
wisdom at this dangerous historical point on planet Earth. Mr. Kevin and Mr. Carr's immensely important and courageously honest
discussion should become – immediately, and for many years to come – required study in university classrooms and government halls
around this world.
Peace.
ElderD , December 9, 2019 at 15:03
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive state of affairs deserve the widest
possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed. Cold War patterns of thinking
about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer
we come to its revival. Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now
so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then,
it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of
nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is.
Lois Gagnon , December 9, 2019 at 17:30
I agree. Putin made it clear when he said the next war would not be fought inside Russia. The troglodytes in the West are
unable to grasp not only what that means, but why he said it.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been, are via that US supported supposed
oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events
including the upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase
Russophobia) sort – about Russian hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour Party's
source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally destroy the NHS and replace it with (of
course) US "health" insurance company profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity among many Tory party supporters among
the working and lower middle classes prevented them from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the
undermining, via installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds that would otherwise
have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money – a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally
conceived and constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how
either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the
neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters
are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile
the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military,
thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what I've read the man is the most diplomatic
and intelligent politician (not just political leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world
stage. None of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries. Unlike their western "world"
political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely
assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said
any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked well. We're trying to
do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that
doesn't.
SIPIRI tags US military spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the energy department or our veteran's
expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better
than we can sustain our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there was NEVER a surrender, intended in
any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships. For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live
and work in peace. (By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear as never before, a mad man throwing
a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence universally consulted), allowing the
light in for the mass of the viewing and listening public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus.
Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more.
(The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a nation which has been started by
killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive
campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country on earth capable of obliterating
the United States. Not even China has yet reached that capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting, and worked to benefit average Russian
citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The Magnitsky Act monster, the election
interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a
very telling moment for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all
of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly. But it has regularly done the right thing in international
conflicts which the Kremlin seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
This article is so much weaker then his testimony that it is a great disappointment. May be threats has had a shilling effects.
This is a Kabuki theater. Both sides are afraid to talk about the real issues such as CIA/FBI intrusion in 2016 elections and the
coup d'état to depose Trump after it. As well as Trump support of Yemen war, Douma false flag operation, the role of Obama
administration in Ukraine, Libya, Syria and Skripals poisoning false flag operation, etc
Notable quotes:
"... Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these claims, it is worth closer scrutiny. ..."
"... he flopped on his face when he said " It certainly was not akin to the Russian hacking operation in 2016." ..."
"... WHAT Russian hacking operation, fella? Technology has already proven the "hacking" was a download to a thumb-drive done MANUALLY. ..."
"... Here is another article that says "the Russians hacked". If they use this lie enough than it will become fact. ..."
"... Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/ ..."
"... Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal. ..."
"... Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back. ..."
"... If Washington DC were NOT a den of crooks, it shouldn't need a newspaper like The Washington Post to paint everything pearly white. ..."
"... The crookedness is proportional to the count of starched collars ..."
The House Judiciary Committee is about to approve two articles of impeachment as member after member last night declared that
time is of the essence. The House is now set to fulfill its pledge to impeach President Donald Trump by Christmas. For some us, the
mad rush toward impeachment by the Democrats has been utterly incomprehensible. It is difficult enough to go to the Senate in a presidential
impeachment without an accepted crime and on the narrowest basis in history. However, the Democrats know that they have combined
those liabilities with the thinnest record of any modern impeachment – a record filled with gaps and conflicts. The Democrats know
that this record is guaranteed to fail and could easily justify the Senate holding a trial as cursory as its hearings.
Yet, they would prefer guaranteed failure rather than build a credible case for removal. Why? The reasons put forward by House
Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and others are not credible and, given the paucity of examination given these
claims, it is worth closer scrutiny.
So why? The answer to that question will likely occupy historians for decades after this slipshod impeachment is summarily rejected.
In the impeachment hearing, I testified that President Donald Trump could be impeached for abuse of power but that the record was
facially inadequate and incomplete. I encouraged the Committee to just take a few more months to subpoena roughly ten witnesses with
direct evidence and secure judicial orders that I believe would support the Committee on its obstruction article. While I was relieved
to see the Committee drop the allegations of bribery, extortion, and other crimes that I testified against, it refused to simply
take a little more time to develop a more complete case.
None of the excuses for the pledge to impeach by Christmas are even remotely plausible. They can be divided into two basic groupings:
court challenges would take too much time and there is a crime in progress that must be stopped.
No Time To Wait
First, there is the argument by Chairman Schiff in response to the criticism over the short investigation (which even the New
York Times has challenged). Schiff insisted that waiting will mean a guarantee of that there will be no impeachment while also guaranteeing
that there will be foreign meddling in the 2020 election: "People should understand what that argument really means. It has taken
us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no absolute right to defy Congress. Eight months for one court decision."
As has consistently been the case, no major media outfit seemed interested to fact check that statement. It happens to be untrue.
The House waited until August 7th to go to court to compel McGahn's appearance. That was roughly four months ago, not eight. It
was also filed before the House voted to start the impeachment inquiry on October 31st. Back in January, I testified in the House
Judiciary Committee and pushed the Committee to hold such a vote to allow for expedited cases over testimony like McGahn's. At the
time, I warned that the House was running out of runway to get an impeachment off the ground. With such a vote, these cases could
have moved at the accelerated pace of an impeachment.
The question is why would the House not only refuse to try to secure these witnesses but actually withdraw a subpoena before
a ruling in the Kupperman.
Turley asks, but doesn't answer. The obvious answer, is they don't have any good reason or case to impeach Trump, and they
just disagree with him politically. As Turley says, the case will be "summarily rejected". There are many elections in the coming
months, though mostly at the state level: https://election-calendar.com/
Half the Dems want impeachment to get the TDS vote from their gerrymandered heavily Democrat districts. They've gerrymandered
their districts into ones that do not represent the majority of the country, and it's going to bite them as the few socialists
that get elected, will get nothing done, and swing districts will swing to the GOP giving them a House majority, and GOP control
of all branches. They got rid of more competitive districts, so they don't have to serve conservatives, and they won't regardless
if they win or lose. They've manufactured their own demise.
At least Trump reaches out to liberals, while liberals denigrate and show their hate for conservatives, as their reps like
Mad Maxine call for more hate.
Turley thinks there is a case if the Dems just spend more time developing it? I think this guy is just trying to get out
from under all the hate mail for himself he generated telling the truth at the impeachment tribunal.
Funny you are saying that, I thought the same thing. Screw him, you either have honor all the time or not at all. Some of the
clowns think it is like being funny, sometimes you are not at all.
Turley dishonors himself trying to look now more in the impeachment camp when he told the truth in the first place...at
the Hearing....It is obvious now he is trying to save his job at a left wing school....maybe he needs to find some independent
or moderate school to teach at for he is now showing a yellow streak down his back.
NYT fails to state that the most plausible scenario was that CIA send Page to join Trump
campaign, then to establish contacts with Russians and after that obtain FICA warrants in a
typical false flag operation manner. Essentially Trump campaign was entrapped.
First, when agents initially sought permission for the wiretap, F.B.I. officials scoured
information from confidential informants and selectively presented portions that supported
their suspicions that Mr. Page might be a conduit between Russia and the Trump campaign's
onetime chairman, Paul Manafort.
But officials did not disclose information that undercut that allegation -- such as the fact
that Mr. Page had told an informant in August 2016 that he "never met" or "said one word" to
Mr. Manafort, who had never returned Mr. Page's emails. Even if the investigators did not
necessarily believe Mr. Page, the court should have been told what he had said.
Second, as the initial court order was nearing its expiration and law-enforcement officials
prepared to ask the surveillance court to renew it, the F.B.I. had uncovered information that
cast doubt on some of its original assertions. But law enforcement officials never reported
that new information to the court.
Specifically, the application included allegations about Mr. Page contained in a dossier
compiled by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent whose research was funded
by Democrats. In January 2017, the F.B.I. interviewed Mr. Steele's own primary source, and he
contradicted what Mr. Steele had written in the dossier.
The source for Mr. Steele may, of course, have been lying. But either way, officials should
have flagged the disconnect for the court. Instead, the F.B.I. reported that its agents had met
with the source to "further corroborate" the dossier and found him to be "truthful and
cooperative," leaving a misleading impression in renewal applications.
Finally, the report stressed Mr. Page's long history of meeting with Russian intelligence
officials. But he had also said that he had a relationship with the C.I.A., and it turns out
that he had for years told the agency about those meetings -- including one that was cited in
the wiretap application as a reason to be suspicious of him.
That relationship could have mitigated some suspicions about his history. But the F.B.I.
never got to the bottom of it, and the court filings said nothing about Mr. Page's dealings
with the C.I.A.
The inspector general's report contains many more examples of errors and omissions. Mr.
Horowitz largely blamed lower-level F.B.I. agents charged with preparing the evidence, but he
also faulted high-level supervisors for permitting a culture in which the inaccuracies took
place.
The recent shootings of three U.S. soldiers in Florida at the hands of a Saudi citizen raises a standard question in the U.S.
government's perpetual "war on terrorism": "Why do they hate us?"
Soon after the 9/11 attacks, the official mantra began being issued: The terrorists just hate us for our "freedom and values."
No other explanation for motive was to be considered. If anyone suggested an alternative motive -- such as "They are retaliating
for U.S. governmental killings over there" -- U.S. officials and interventionists would immediately go on the attack, heaping a mountain
of calumny on that person, accusing him of treason, hating America, loving the terrorists, and justifying their attacks.
It happened to me and other libertarians who dared to challenge the official motive behind the 9/11 attacks. Shortly after the
attacks, I spoke at a freedom conference in Arizona consisting of both libertarians and conservatives. When I pointed out that the
attacks were the predictable consequence of a foreign policy that kills people over there, another of the speakers was filled with
anger and rage over such an "unpatriotic" suggestion. Then, a few weeks after the 9/11 attacks, FFF published an article by me entitled,
" Is This the Wrong Time
to Question Foreign Policy? " in which I pointed out the role that U.S. interventionism had played in the attacks. FFF was hit
with the most nasty and angry attacks I have ever seen.
Eighteen years later, the evidence is virtually conclusive that the reason that the United States has been suffering a constant,
never-ending threat of terrorism is because U.S. military and CIA forces have been killing people in the Middle East and Afghanistan
since at least the end of the Cold War, and even before.
After all, if the terrorists hate us for our "freedom and values," why haven't they been attacking the Swiss? They have pretty
much the same freedom and values that Americans have. And they are much closer geographically to Middle East terrorists than the
United States is. Why haven't the terrorists been attacking them?
The answer is simple: the Swiss government, unlike the U.S. government, hasn't been killing, maiming, and injuring people and
hasn't been bombing and destroying countries in the Middle East and Afghanistan.
A long history of U.S. interventionism
U.S. interventions in the Middle East began, of course, long before the 9/11 attacks. There was the 1953 CIA coup that destroyed
Iran's experiment with democracy with a coup that replaced the democratically elected prime minister of the country with a tyrannical
pro-U.S. dictator. Not surprisingly, that produced the violent Iranian revolution almost 25 years later. The Iranian revolutionaries
didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America for the U.S. government's installation, training, and support
of the tyrannical regime against which they revolted.
In the 1980s, there was the sending of U.S. troops into Lebanon as interventionist "peacekeepers." The terrorists ended up blowing
up a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. soldiers. The terrorists didn't hate America for its "freedom and values." They hated America
for the federal government's interventionism into Lebanon. As soon as all U.S. troops were withdrawn from Lebanon, which was the
right thing to do, there were obviously no more deaths of U.S. soldiers in that country.
It was after the Pentagon and the CIA lost their official Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia), that they proceeded
headlong into the Middle East and began killing multitudes of people. There was the Persian Gulf War, waged without the constitutionally
required congressional declaration of war, where thousands of Iraqis were killed or injured. That was followed by a decade of brutal
sanctions against Iraq, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children.
Thus, when Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorists who tried to bring down the World Trade Center with a bomb in 1993, appeared before
a federal judge for sentencing, he angrily told the judge that it was U.S. officials who were the butchers, for killing multitudes
of innocent children in Iraq.
As those Iraqi children were dying, there were retaliatory terrorist strikes on the USS Cole and the U.S. embassies in East Africa.
Once again, however, U.S. officials continued to steadfastly maintain that was all about hatred for America's "freedom and values"
and had nothing to do with the deadly and destructive U.S. interventionism in the Middle East.
Then came Osama bin Laden's declaration of war against the United States, in which he expressly cited U.S. interventionism in
the Middle East as his motivating factor. That was followed by the 9/11 attacks, along with other terrorist attacks both here and
abroad. Through it all, U.S. officials and interventionists have blindly maintained that the terrorists hate us for our "freedom
and values," not because the U.S. government kills, maims, injures, and destroys people over there.
The recent Florida killings
And now we have the latest killing spree, this one at the hands of a Saudi citizen in Florida. According to
a story in yesterday's Washington Post about the killing of three U.S. soldiers, the killer, Ahmed Mohammed al-Shamrani
was described as "strange" and "angry." "He looked like he was angry at the world," said one person who knew him. Another said that
he looked at people in an "angry, challenging" way.
The article says that "the FBI has not yet determined a motive for the mass shooting."
Well, of course it hasn't. That's undoubtedly because the FBI hasn't yet found any statements in which the killer states that
he hates America for its "freedom and values."
But the Post article does point out something quite interesting. The article states: "The gunman, who was shot dead by
a sheriff's deputy responding to the shooting, is thought to have written a 'will' that was posted to the account a few hours before
the rampage. In it, he blasts U.S. policies in Muslim countries."
Well, isn't that interesting! Unfortunately, the Post didn't provide a verbatim transcript of the killer's "will" in which
he "blasts U.S. policies in the Muslim countries." The Post does point out though that "the writer says he does not dislike
Americans per se -- 'I don't hate you because of your freedoms,' he begins -- but that he hates U.S. policies that he views as anti-Muslim
and 'evil.'"
I n an article at antiwar.com entitled, " Pensacola: Blowback Terrorism ," Scott Horton provides a verbatim transcript of the
killer's "will," in which the killer states in part:
I'm not against you for just being American, I don't hate you for your freedom, I hate you because every day you supporting,
funding, and committing crimes not only against Muslims but also humanity. I am against evil, and America as a whole has turned
into a nation of evil. What I see from America is the supporting of Israel which is invasion of Muslim countrie, I see invasion
of many countries by it's troops, I see Guantanamo Bay. I see cruise missiles, cluster bombs and UAV.
Now, if one goes back to Ramzi Yousef's sentencing hearing in 1995 -- some 24 years ago -- one will see that Yousef angrily said
much the same thing to the federal judge who was getting ready to sentence him to jail for his 1993 terrorist attack on the World
Trade Center.
Americans have a choice:
One, continue the U.S. government's decades-long killing spree in the Middle East, in which case America will continue to experience
never-ending terrorist retaliation, the perpetual "war on terrorism, and the ongoing destruction of our liberty and privacy at the
hands of our government, which is purportedly protecting us from the terrorist threats that it produces with its foreign interventionism.
Or, two, stop U.S. forces from killing any more people, bring them all home and discharge them, which would help get America back
on the right track, one toward liberty, peace, prosperity, morality, normality, and harmony with the world.
This post was written by: Jacob G. Hornberger
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received
his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for
twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. In 1987,
Mr. Hornberger left the practice of law to become director of programs at the Foundation for Economic Education. He has advanced
freedom and free markets on talk-radio stations all across the country as well as on Fox News' Neil Cavuto and Greta van Susteren
shows and he appeared as a regular commentator on Judge Andrew Napolitano's show Freedom Watch . View these interviews at
LewRockwell.com and from
Full Context
. Send him email .
The Hill reports that a man in Illinois has been charged after allegedly threatening to
shoot Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and accusing the congressman of "backing the Russians."
Rodney Lee Davis
64-year-old Randall Tar of Rochester, Ill. was charged with communicating threats to injure
a person and threatening to assault, kidnap or murder a federal official, according to court
documents released this week (full release below).
Contacted at his home Thursday, Tarr said he saw a television ad in which Davis, a
Republican from Taylorville, claimed that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for meddling in
the 2016 U.S. elections , and it angered him enough to call.
Prosecutors say Tarr called Davis's district office last month and left a profanity-filled
voicemail, saying:
"I just saw you ... on the TV. You backing the Russians, boy?"
"Stupid son of a bitch, you're gonna go against our military and back the Russians?" he
allegedly added.
"I'm a sharpshooter. ... I'd like to shoot your f---ing head off you stupid
motherf---er."
The bigger story is the number of mentally unstable Americans. When you go driving next,
remember that about 20% of them are gorked on prescribed medications. The behavior you will
observe makes complete sense in that context.
It's surprisingly easy to get bogged down in the nonsense of the moment when this is what's
actually happening: the impeachment of the president, and a struggle over the power of the
presidency and of the Congress, over the integrity of elections in the United States, and over
the Constitution and the republic.
We're almost certainly heading for a party-line vote in the House with only a handful of
defections, and there's every reason to believe the Senate trial will yield similar results.
But there are some unanswered questions that could prove quite important in the long
term.
Will Trump, and will future presidents, be more restrained because even impeachment and
acquittal is still a sufficient punishment? Or will it backfire? Will Trump believe, if he is
not removed, that pressuring a foreign nation to help his re-election bid and then stiff-arming
Congress when they investigate it now has a seal of approval? We don't know. Nor do we really
know how the specifics of the Senate trial -- whether witnesses are called, what the final vote
is -- will matter.
Judge Marcus Alfonso Paralapalos of the conservative 51st District Court of Warrants, has
ordered the medical treatment files for Nancy Pelosi's alcoholism unsealed and available to the
general public. While technically a violation of about 11 laws, Judge Paralopolos stands by his
ruling, fully expecting it to be overturned:
"The public has a right to know if the Speaker of the House is undergoing treatment for
alcoholism and bloogie addiction. The 9th Circuit Court will certainly overrule this, but I
cannot in good conscience deny the motion to the plaintiff."
The plaintiff, Rudy Giuliani on behalf of the people of the United States, will now have to
find a way to convince a panel of liberals that it's in the country's best interests to see the
private treatment notes of one of our most powerful elected officials.
Let's face it. Even Trump had his doctor weigh in on his mental and physical well-being,
calling him the healthiest 78-year-old of all time. It's not like they're asking for her tax
returns. Nancy Pelosi should have to be seen and certified by a mental health professional. She
sits way too close to power not to.
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
Notable quotes:
"... Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal threshold for impeachment. ..."
"... Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what was in the President's mind. ..."
"... What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment. ..."
"... After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and demands that I be fired from GW. " ..."
"... For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient, unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ? ..."
"... Did any of those 31 notice when the Constitutional law experts were asked by Rep. Matt Gaetz " Can you identify one single material fact in the Schiff Report? – all four remained silent. ..."
"... As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity, the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House seats in 2020? ..."
"... You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum." ..."
"... It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties ..."
Despite an inadequate performance last week by Constitutional law experts before the House
Judiciary Committee, Chair Jerrold Nadler released a unilateral committee report on Saturday
entitled " Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment ." The Report came the day after
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference
in which she directed the formation of Articles of Impeachment.
As has become apparent to any objective observer; that is one who prefers facts over
fiction, the Democrats remain locked in an imaginary world struggling to maintain relevance, a
stature of standing that no longer exists.
Presumably with no Quid Pro Quo, no allegation of criminal conduct, no legally substantial
evidence or factual basis and no bipartisan support, in defiance of previous impeachment norms,
the Democrats are hell bent on making public jackasses out of themselves.
In a hearing with
Constitutional legal experts expected to score big legal points in support of impeachment,
the witnesses instead turned out to be smug, hyper partisan activists as they were consistently
unpersuasive and unimpressive .
All three displayed not a wit of objectivity or neutrality while touting their own personal
political agenda with a foreign policy ax to grind, leaving the unmistakable impression that
their testimonies were nothing short of conflated.
Condescending as if pontificating to a class of mediocre law students,
Professor Noah Feldman had suggested in 2017 that Presidential tweets could be grounds for
impeachment, indicative of the depth of his thinking as he repeatedly impressed himself with
his own rhetoric.
Professor Pamela Karlan opened with a shrillness that grew into a hyperbole spewing
divisiveness among the American people and went on to revisit the Russiagate and foreign
electoral influence myth ad nauseam. Those dim witted Democrats on the committee repeated the
mantra as if held in a spellbound trance whenever "Russiagate" was mentioned. There was no
mention of Israel interference in US elections. Testimony of
Professor Michael Gerhardt .
Stating that he had not voted for Trump in 2016, GWU Law P
rofessor Jonathan Turley who is a registered Democrat (as is yours truly) opened with a
brilliant statement as he set the tone for an extraordinarily compelling testimony
throughout the day, carefully explaining to the Democrats why they had not met a credible legal
threshold for impeachment.
Factually concise with rational, impartial explanations, Turley effectively disputed
Democratic claims that an abuse of power stemming from a presumed effort to help one's own
re-election is " inferred " and does not constitute proof of intent or direct knowledge of what
was in the President's mind.
However, it did not appear that any of the Democrats had the acute sensibility to understand
Turley's point as there is an edge of lunacy to the collective Democratic mind these days.
What the Democrats fail to grasp is the double-standard that every politician makes
decisions based on what is best for their reelection just as the Dems are hoping to benefit
electorally in 2020 with the farcical impeachment.
After his testimony, Mr. Turley tweeted. " Before I
finished my testimony, my home and office were inundated with (death) threatening messages and
demands that I be fired from GW. "
While it was surprising that there was no Democratic Star on either the Intel or Judiciary
Committees who stepped forward to make a credible, cogent case for impeachment, it was somewhat
surprising that the Republicans had an energetic array of participating Members not limited to
Intel ranking member Devin Nunes (Calif), Judiciary ranking minority Rep. Doug Collins (NC),
Rep. Jim Jordan (Oh), Rep. John Ratcliffe (Texas) and Rep. Mark Gaetz (R-Fla) all of whom can
be expected to continue their Bulldog approach as the Committee begins preparing Articles of
Impeachment.
For instance, Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala) asked the defining question regarding the purpose of
the hearing with "no fact witnesses " via a process that has been " insufficient,
unprecedented and grossly inadequate ." Roby pointed out that the Dems had apparently not
considered: that a constitutional law panel should come " only after specific charges have been
made known and underlying facts presented in full due to an exhaustive investigation. How does
anyone expect a panel of law professors to weigh in on legal grounds for impeachment prior to
knowing what the grounds brought by this Committee are going to be ?
At her news conference the day after the Judiciary committee hearing, Pelosi was asked by a
reporter " Do you
hate President Trump ?" Pelosi responded with a shaky false piety as if she knows the votes
are not there:
We don't hate anybody. Not anybody in the World. And as a Catholic, I resent your using
the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in a way
that is full – a heart full of love and always pray for the president, And I still pray
for the president. I pray for the president all the time, So don't mess with me when it comes
to words like that.
It is a curiosity that with the 2020 election a scant twelve months away, the Democrats have
not made the case for the urgency of why impeachment needs to occur right now, immediately,
before the Christmas holidays when the Spirit of Good Cheer, Universal Love and Peace for all
Americans should take precedence over the Democrat's divisive animosity, pitting one American
against another.
In 2018, thirty-one new Democrats were elected to the House; predominately from districts
that voted for Trump in 2016 assuring a tough 2020 re-election campaign.
Let's assume that every one of those 31 newbies have been paying very close attention to the
Intel and Judiciary committee hearings with two questions in mind:
Is there sufficient legal evidence to convince my constituents to support Articles of
Impeachment and is this flawed impeachment campaign worth losing my seat in Congress?
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-0SC) has already indicated that he does
not intend to 'whip" the Dems in preparation for an Impeachment vote on the House floor and
that the Dems "expect to lose some votes."
Let's do the math: With 233 Dems and 197 Republicans, if 18 of the 31 House newbies do not
vote to impeach, the Democratic Motion to approve Articles of Impeachment will fail with a tie
of 215 votes. Whether the Dems lose 18 votes or less, the damage will be irreversible.
As the Democratic party appears to have lost whatever is left of its sanity and integrity,
the question remains why are the Democrats willing to sacrifice losing some of those 31 House
seats in 2020?
Seamus Padraig ,
This whole Schiff-Show is just bizarre. Why are the Dems doing this? In an election
year to boot? There is just zero chance that the Senate will remove Trump from office, and
the case against him is a total laughing stock anyway. All that's going to happen is that the
senators are going to start discussing L'affaire Biden openly and loudly, thereby
killing the Dem's current front-runner. Is that what Pelosi wants? Meanwhile, none of their
other three dozen or so candidates are going to get any media at all, once this impeachment
sucks all the oxygen right out of the room. Is that intentional?
All I can say is, you have to really dig all the way to the bottom of the tinfoil-cooler
to find an explanation for this one. Others it makes no sense whatsoever.
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
George Cornell ,
So your argument consists essentially of name-calling to exercise your own demons. You make
Trump look good, like the other stark raving lunatics opining on this , many in the
Democratic Party. You have zero chance of unseating Trump by impeachment and by the looks of
things that might not be such a bad thing, he said, making the sign of the cross and mouthing
pagan incantations, begging forgiveness from the ether.
You recall Bill Maher's comment before a previous election. "The Republicans have shifted
to the right and the Dems have shifted right into the insane asylum."
Rhys Jaggar ,
Would Ms Parsons like to write an OpEd on the US Senate pushing forward false narratives that
Russia is 'a promoter of terrorism'?
The biggest promoter of terrorism workdwide since 1945 is the USA, be it through OSS, CIA,
or other outsourced channels of coup-promoting violence .
Is it not time a motion were voted upon in the UN on precisely that postulate?
wardropper ,
Unfortunately, as you know, the UN, like NATO, to all intents and purposes actually IS the
USA, and vetoes all criticism of itself. And if vetoing doesn't work, it just ignores the
criticism. Other recent farces at the UN show the US and Israel sitting alone while the rest
of the world condems them, and the condemnation is simply shrugged off.
Astonishing that educated adults put up with it, but there it is.
Rhys Jaggar ,
It is always good to hear of committed political activsts demanding that their own party
stick to fundamental principles of justice, adherence to the Constitution etc etc. There does come a point when you have to ask whether this is temporary insanity or
metastatic terminal cancer. If it is the latter, America needs new political parties
wardropper ,
This person has made herself ridiculous by refusing to impeach GWB in 2003, when she knew he
was lying about Iraq's weapons.
What has Trump done which is comparable to that death toll?
Proof enough that Washington has nothing more to say to human beings.
The place belongs in The Book of Revelation – and not in the optimistic part
The impeachment . The two articles of impeachment are so anemic as to invite ridicule.
1. "Abuse of power" by expressing concern over thievery by Ukrainians and Americans? This is
a charge? The Washington Post has been running a series of articles based on "leaked" US Afghan IG reports and interviews with people involved in that wretched place. These articles reveal
the massive scale of the thievery that lost America enormous amounts of money taken through
graft and bribery. Was it unreasonable for this president to solicit the Ukrainian president's
cooperation in trying to deal with a similar situation in that country. He mentioned Uncle Joe
Biden and his drug addled son? Well, why not? The younger of the two has IMO been used as the
family bag man for collecting protection money. Joe Biden himself looks to me to be a political
version of Jimmy Hoffa the mobbed up Teamsters boss of long ago, but, with less charm, "a
little for you, a lot for me," etc. He was potentially a rival for the 2020 election? He was
not then a candidate. Is every human or semi-human to be exempt from investigation and
prosecution because he MIGHT become a political rival? The Democrats know full well this would
be absurd.
2. "Obstructing congress" What we are seeing in the behavior of the Democratic majority in
the House and minority in the senate is an attempt to seize control of the federal government
using the constitutional powers to "advise and consent" on appointments and the ability to
impeach in the House.. They have not yet tried to impeach federal judges appointed by the other
party but IMO they will try that soon. In this article of impeachment they claim that the
president has obstructed their function by relying on the doctrine of Executive Privilege to
deny them access to his present and past staff. Trump did not invent this doctrine. It is a
well established feature of American law. Without it no president could conduct internal policy
discussions or confidential discussions with foreign leaders. The Democrats know full well that
the principal of Executive Privilege is often contested in the courts. That is what they should
have done this time, but instead they have chosen to charge the president for impeachment for
claiming Executive Privilege. They do not claim this is a violation of law. They merely stamp
their feet and scream that they are unhappy and want him gone.
This farce will end in a trial in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.
The Republicans control the senate and will not allow Trump to be deposed. The senate can
dismiss the charges by a simple majority vote and that is what Senator Lindsey Graham wants to
see happen. Trump does not want that. He wants to be tried for the purpose of turning the
tables on the Democrats.
I think he is correct in wanting that. If that occurs, witnesses must be subpoenaed and
examined in open court. The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of
Trump's concern over their behavior in Ukraine . pl
Just wondering. Suppose the Senate dismisses the Impeachment. Won't the Chief Justice have to
rule on the question of whether or not there is at least probable cause for the democrats'
determination that this is probable cause to Impeach?
Chief Justice could rule on a demurrer which would dismiss the case without a trial - failure
to present prima facie elements of the underlying charge. Therefore nothing of fact is
triable - case dismissed.
Which is probably why Democrats ditched the more specific treason, bribery and extortion
charges, leaving only the garbage can of "abuse of power" and "obstruction" behind. By what
standards of evidence are both those remaining elements - abuse of power and obstruction --
even tried, let alone judged?
Biden on camera bragging about a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor examining corruption at
a company where Biden's son is on the board taking a fat paycheck with no experience or
expertise to have that position.
I agree that Trump should get his wish. He has endured a lot of false "reporting." And those
untruths need to be shown for what they are. I wonder if Mitch McConnell would be able to
arrange that despite Graham.
I know that Trump's personality attracts that sort of shocked response from some people.
Heck, I'm a Republican and was first also opposed to Trump because of his personality. But
I'm of the opinion that the Democrats and their fawning media characters have earned a lot of
the same sort negative responses and disgust on the part of the people because their
personalities are pretty off-putting also.
I'm still suffering from cognitive dissonance because Adam Schiff has somehow actually
remained in his elected position. I can't imagine a high school principal allowing someone
who does "parody" to continue as a student council candidate.
I do believe that Nancy Pelosi may be really sinking into dementia or alcoholism--just
on the basis of her inability to control her dentures. To have those two criticize the
character of Trump really seems strange. I feel that I'm watching a Dickens novel performed
on national news each day. I can't laugh, though, because this is happening in
reality.
Given the corruption on both sides of the Senate it is probable that no-one wants an in depth
trial during which unwanted facts might accidentally appear. Much better to whisk it through
without it touching the sides so to speak.
OK so Trump doesn't get the exoneration he wants but then nothing will explode in his
face. Its not a win win but then its not a lose either and it is unlikely to seriously affect
his chances next November. Plus as a quid pro quo he might have got his defence spending
increase and the trade bill through.
I'm trying to remember the site I read it on, maybe south front, where the point was made the
graft flows through these governments we give billions to, back through the various
institutes and global initiatives the US politicians set up. McCain and Clinton being the two
mentioned. So neither side wants it looked into too deeply.
A conversation between two heads of state is not and should not be conducted as though the
subject matter of the conversation is subject to the rules and assumptions of a court of
justice.
Graham has a vested interest in not having an extensive trial with many witnesses as it
may uncover his own culpability in the Ukraine corruption. And of course may drag in Saint
McCain too!
His and Mitch's argument to Trump likely would be, that with no trial they can guarantee
acquittal but with a trial they can't.
An article in the Duran indicates that and why Senate Republicans may buck Trump's wishes, as
they are as deep in Ukraine corruption as any of the Dems are. Lindsay, the late John M and
Sleep Joe are perhaps the most deeply planted ...
You mean that with the same investigative power the Obama administration had he has none
of the alleged evidence on senators you allude to? What a wonderful implication from a Cyprus
based media outlet founded in 2016 and run by the host of an RT political show. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-duran/
As of today Trump's approval rating is 43.9% and Congress's approval rating is 24%. I gather
that the House Democrats don't realize how unpopular they are and how many Americans support
"obstruction of Congress". Are they trying to turn Trump into a national hero?
In the legitimate focus on the impeachment, a stunning revelation in the Horowitz report has
been largely overlooked. In January 2017, the FBI conducted three interviews with the key
source to Christopher Steele for his dossier. He told interviewed on all three occasions that
the material he passed on to Steele was gossip and second and third-hand rumors with no
proof. He even said that the sexual allegations were actually a joke and he never meant for
them to be taken serious. The FBI in seeking the follow-on FISA warrant merely reported they
interviewed Steele's source and he was "cooperative and candid." No content reported.
In addition, Horowitz found email exchanges between FBI and CIA, in which the FBI inquired
if Carter Page was a CIA source. Three times the CIA responded "yes." But the FBI agent
preparing the affidavit for the FISA renewal lied and wrote "no" to the question of Page's
CIA work. That was the false statement Horowitz referred to.
These are serious crimes by FBI officials and they should not go unnoted in the MSM or
left to be ignored. I hope that Durham is carefully reading every word of the Horowitz report
for points of criminal misconduct to present to his Federal grand jury.
You can't fully discuss impeachment of Trump without going back to the first cause, and in
this case it was clearly criminal misconduct by Federal law enforcement.
that a bipartisan agreement exists that the Democrats can introduce the impeachment but
the majority Republicans will vote it out without trial.
An approach which seems plausible. But after nigh on four full years of a campaign against
initially a candidate and for the majority of the time the holder of the presidential office
involving lurid allegations might not a trial be helpful in restoring some public confidence
in the body politic? And in reducing the levels of vitriol.
Earlier today a person asked me what was going to happen in the impeachment trial, and I said
that the senate will decide that after the case gets to them. The rules of procedure and
rules of evidence (if any!) will be determined by the senate.
The U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, section 3 that--
"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: and no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit, under the
United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law".
Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Repub. Kentucky) appeared on the Sean
Hannity television show on FoxNews and said in essence that how a trial will proceed is up in
the air, as he explains at the 1 minute mark until 2 minutes and 17 seconds into the
video--
McConnell, as usual, carefully maintains his position, and says that everything he does
about an impeachment trial, "I am coordinating with White House counsel". And, "There will be
no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this to
the extent that we can".
What McConnell is obviously doing is protecting himself no matter what the political
effect of the content of the trial may be.
He says: "We all know how it's going to end. There is no chance the president is going to
be removed from office".
It is worse than that. Groups of current or former high level employees band together to
bid on large scale development contracts. They have local partners and the loot is
tremendous.
"... While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay home. ..."
"... Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno. ..."
They want to do it by Christmas in the vain hope that this circus will all blow over by
November. I think not.
While the typical BubisAmericanus will have forgotten all the details by then, me thinks
the hard core democrats, I mean nomal'ish people that usually vote blue, simply stay
home.
Part of me, however, thinks back to something that Harry Truman said, "in politics there
are no accidents" .
Was this whole impeachment thing completely designed for the dems to fall on their sword
and put the Donald back in for another 4? Dunno.
The Republicans will have both houses when in 2024 the the tax take will barley cover
interest.
designed for the dems to fall on their sword and put the Donald back in for another 4?
Dunno.
Been thinking along the same lines. May be the last thing they want is to be "on line" in
2021. I even wonder if CNN and BSNBC, etc, are there to DRIVE the decent Democrat to the
Republicians.
"... And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say Page was not an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive assessment." ..."
"... Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok. ..."
"... And the only reason Contreras did so was because his friendship with Strzok was revealed in their anti-Trump text messages found by the Inspector General. ..."
The shadowy Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) and the processes behind
obtaining a warrant from it has fallen under harsh scrutiny by lawmakers following the release
of the DOJ Inspector General's report which found that the FBI was able to easily mislead the
judges to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page.
"The goal is to make sure this doesn't happen again, so you tighten up the system right,"
said Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC), adding: "Quite frankly, I'm looking at
the FISA court itself. ... I'm looking for the court to tell the public, 'Hey, we're upset
about this too,' and, you know, take some corrective steps."
Graham said his committee will look into legislation to introduce more "checks and balances"
to the FISA process, according to
The Hill .
When asked if he thought there would be bipartisan support for FISA reform, Sen. Dick Durban
(D-IL) said "I hope so," adding "This was a real wake-up call that three different teams can
screw this up at the FBI."
The renewed interest comes after five hours of partisan barb trading during a Judiciary
hearing Wednesday with Horowitz that resulted in one clear bipartisan interest: overhauling
the FISA court.
"One of the only points I've heard with bipartisan agreement today is a renewed interest
in reforming the FISA process," said Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.). -
The Hill
Created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, the FISA court is made up
of 11 judges who are chosen by the chief justice of the Supreme Court to serve seven-year
terms. They are responsible for approving warrant applications for intelligence gathering
purposes and national security operations, which - as The Hill notes, "more often than not,
they sign off."
And in the case of Carter Page, the FISA judges initially denied a warrant to surveil the
former Trump aide until the agency padded the application with the wildly unverified Steele
Report , lying about Steele's credibility, and then fabricating evidence to specifically say
Page was not
an "operational contact" for the CIA , when in fact he was - and had a "positive
assessment."
Last year the government filed 1,117 FISA warrant applications, including 1,081 for
electronic monitoring. The court signed off on 1,079 according to a DOJ report.
That said, reform may come slowly.
But the timeline for any legislative reforms is unclear. Congress already faces a
mid-March deadline to extend expiring surveillance authorities under the USA Freedom Act.
Durbin suggested the discussions could merge, while Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a longtime privacy advocate,
appeared skeptical that Republicans would ultimately get on board with broader changes to
surveillance powers.
"Why after YEARS of blocking bipartisan FISA reforms are senior Republicans suddenly
interested in it? There is no question that we need to improve transparency, accountability
and oversight of the FISA process," Wyden tweeted. -
The Hill
Still, the IG report appears to have 'enlightened' some GOP lawmakers who previously
resisted the notion of reining in FISA courts . Several GOP senators gave credit to their
libertarian-minded colleagues on the hill, who have pushed for surveillance reform after
accurately predicting the potential for abuse.
Those who have long-advocated for reform include GOP Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Ben Sasse
(Neb.), according to Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT).
"I wish Mike Lee weren't sitting here two people from me right now, because as a national
security hawk I've argued with Mike Lee in the 4 1/2 or five years that I've been in the Senate
that stuff just like this couldn't possibly happen at the FBI and at the Department of
Justice," said Sasse during the Horowitz testimony, who added that the IG's findings marked a
"massive crisis of public trust" since we should know about FISA applications that aren ' t as
high-profile as Page's.
Horowitz reported a total of 17 "significant inaccuracies and omissions" in the
applications to monitor Page , taking particular issue with applications to renew the FISA
warrant and chastising the FBI for a lack of satisfactory explanations for those
mistakes.
Horowitz stressed that he would not have submitted the follow-up applications as they were
drafted by the FBI . Kevin Clinesmith, an FBI lawyer, altered an email related to the warrant
renewal application, according to Horowitz's report.
" [The] applications made it appear as though the evidence supporting probable cause was
stronger than was actually the case ," Horowitz said. " We also found basic, fundamental and
serious errors during the completion of the FBl's factual accuracy reviews. "
Horowitz also found that there were errors that "represent serious performance failures by
the supervisory and non-supervisory agents with responsibility over the FISA applications." -
The Hill
Let's not forget that FISA court judge Rudolph Contreras recused himself from overseeing the
case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn due to his personal friendship with
former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok.
No reputable legal authority would fear ensuring due process for an accused, unless it had no evidence of an actual crime
to justify prosecution...but DID have ulterior motives and nefarious purposes for doing so.
Let's be clear.
To date, not a single shred of actual evidence has ever been produced to prove Russian involvement or interference in the
2016 presidential election.
***.
Nada.
We have the opinion of domestic intelligence agencies, but we have no physical or direct evidence.
On the contrary, we have as much reason to believe some or all of them interfered in the Trump campaign, to orchestrate
and execute a foreign interference hoax against Trump, before and after his election.
Daily, and throughout this sick prog left congressional abuse of power, we have repeatedly heard claims of an "ongoing
war with Russia" in Ukraine.
Which war is this? Is this a continuation of the non-invasion of the Donbas in 2014? The specious and false claims of Russian troop concentrations, and tanks rolling, that even spy satellites didn't see? Are we still lying about this? If so, where are the media reports of Russian airstrikes, burning Ukrainian villages, or body bags?
In any "on-going" war with Russia, we would've been treated to near-constant news video of Russian armor all over eastern Ukraine. Have we? Perhaps this war they keep telling us about is like the Russian "invasion" of Crimea that didn't happen either.
We clearly remember the two Crimean-initiated referenda which put them back in their ancestral Russian
homelands, but none of that had anything to do with invading Russians, who already had a substantial military
presence in Crimea for decades.
No sir, Professor Turley.
There is no basis whatsoever for Trump's impeachment.
There is mounting evidence of a continued coup against this president, and the substantial number of Americans
who actually elected him.
We too are closely monitoring the actual situation...
As Tony Kevin reported (watch-v=dJiS3nFzsWg) at one small fundraiser
Bill Clinton made an interesting remark. He said that the USA should always have enemies. That's absolutely true, this this
is a way to unite such a society as we have in the USA. probably the only way. And Russia simply fits the
bill. Very convenient bogeyman.
Notable quotes:
"... The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium. ..."
One aspect of this report in the NYT is very troubling but not a great surprise to those who
pay attention to Asian affairs.
The reports that US military leaders had no idea of what to
do in Afghanistan and constantly lied to the public should rouse citizens in America to take
a different view of military leaders. That view must be to trust nothing coming from the
Pentagon or from spokespersons for the military. Included must be any and all secretaries of defence, and all branches of the military.
It is totally unacceptable that 1-2 trillion dollars and several thousand lives were spent
by America for some nebulous cause. This does not include many thousands of civilians.
During the Vietnam disaster, it became obvious that American military was lying to the
public and taking many causalities in an unwinnable war. Nothing was learned about Asia or
Asian culture because America entered Afghanistan without a real plan and no understanding of
the country or it's history.
The experience of the USSR in that country should have sent up
all kinds of red flags to the invading US military but it apparently did not. Both USSR and
America lost thousands of military lives -- but nothing has changed in the country. Life in
Afghanistan is actually worse now than before the multiple invasions. The only think which
has improved is the cultivation of poppies and the export of opium.
It would be amusing to watch. However, the end result is a lose-lose for The United States
no matter who wins.
Crook(D) v Crook(R) is the perception – much as it is with impeachment with Pelosi
playing the part of Biden – with Trump standing a good chance to win. As of right now,
the 2020 election is Democrats to lose. They are doing a great job of that so far and it is
not even 2020.
Centrist Democrats will be trying to court the same voters – suburban center-right
Republicans – that Trump will be angling to get. Should it be Biden that wins the
nomination.
If Sanders somehow is nominated and Trump refuses to engage in debats? Run a "Trump Tucks
Tail and Runs" campaign with a massive highlight of his policy failures. Trump excels in the
arena of personal attacks. Biden would lose. Sanders could keep it clean and focused on
policy, dropping nuke after nuke on Trump. With Biden? Given how Centrist Democrats and
Republicans are both guilty of cooperating on issues such as Syria, Libya, Wall Street,
torture, Iraq, etc?
Centrist Democrats have no powder or if they do? Their powder is all wet. It was amazing
the number of policy attacks and opportunities that Centrist Democrats had to use against
Trump in 2016 yet were too afraid to. Opting for personal attacks. I still remember that
ambush by Andersen Cooper and Hillary Clinton against Trump at the 2nd(?) debate discussing
the allegations against Trump regarding rape, etc.
Never mind that Hillary Clinton had Bill with his prior allegations of sexual abuse. That
was the lamest ambush I've ever seen. You could practically see Hillary Clinton's vein pop
out on her forehead when Trump responded. I thought she was going to have a stroke. That
ambush wasted approximately 25 minutes of debate time and achieved less than nothing.
As we've seen with the latest funding bill? Centrist Democrats gave Trump what he wanted.
So, what do Centrist Democrats have to run on?
In a rare interview on Fox News' "Hannity" Thursday night, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed certainty that President Donald Trump would stay in office
despite the fact that there has yet to be a vote on
impeachment .
"There's no chance the President's going to be removed from office," McConnell told
Hannity.
Further, McConnell said he expects all Republicans and even some Democrats to vote against
impeachment.
"This is a thoroughly political exercise. It's not like a courtroom experience, It's a
political exercise. They've been trying to do this for three years. They've finally screwed up
their courage to do it," McConnell said.
He continued,
" It looks to me like it may be backfiring on them particularly in swing districts that
the Speaker's party managed to win in order to get the majority. Most of the nervousness I
see on this issue with politicians since it's a political process is on the Democratic
side."
When the Impeachment gets finally voted on in the Senate, what will Sanders do? He will do
best by being true to his own self, regardless of what votes he loses whichever way he
votes.
But I hope that being true to himself involves voting NOT to remove. Because depending on
how bitter the Democratic Convention is, a Nominee Sanders may get few or zero Clintonite
Democratic votes by definition, regardless of what he does. Whereas if he votes TO remove, he
will lose any votes, or even respectful hearing, that he might have had otherwise among the
deplorables.
"... no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing it to overthrow the president. ..."
"... The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security state. ..."
"... All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy. ..."
"... Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is rather a rogue CIA agent ..."
"... his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate ..."
"... It could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of. What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who supervised him, and who exactly were his associates? ..."
"... And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the “whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath. He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with losing his license to practice law. ..."
"... Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman ..."
Hillary Clinton sure got her money's worth with the Fusion GPS deal : it induced a
three-year psychotic break in the body politic, destroyed the legitimacy of federal law
enforcement, turned a once-proud, free, and rational press into an infernal engine of bad
faith, and is finally leading her Democratic Party to an ignominious suicide . And the damage
is far from complete. It's even possible that Mrs. Clinton will return to personally escort the
party over the cliff when, as is rumored lately, she jumps into the primary contest and
snatches the gonfalon of leadership from the ailing old man of the sclerotic status quo, Uncle
Joe Biden.
The citizens of this foundering polity have been subjected to a stunning doubleheader of
political spectacle clear through the week.
On Monday, the Horowitz Report was briefly celebrated by the Left for claiming "no bias" and
a "reasonable predicate" for the RussiaGate mess - until auditors actually got to read the
400-plus-page document and discovered that it was absolutely stuffed with incriminating details
that Mr. Horowitz was too polite, too coy, or too faint-hearted to identify as acts worthy of
referral for prosecution.
Mr. Barr, the attorney general, and US attorney John Durham immediately stepped up to set
the record straight, namely, that this was hardly the end of the matter and that they were
privy to fact-trains of evidence that would lead, by-and-by, to a quite different conclusion.
This reality-test was greeted, of course, with shrieking for their dismissal from the Jacobin
Left. But then at mid-week, Mr. Horowitz put in a personal appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee and left no doubt that entire RussiaGate extravaganza was spawned by Fusion
GPS's utterly false Steele dossier and the so-called "Intel Community's" zeal for weaponizing
it to overthrow the president.
The shock-waves from all that still pulsate through the disordered collective consciousness
of this sore-beset republic, and will disturb the sleep of many former and current officials
for months to come as the specter of Barr & Durham transmutes into a nightmare of Hammer
& Tongs, perp-walks, and actual prosecutions. The utter falsity of the Steele dossier seems
not to have yet penetrated the minds of Dean Baquet and Martin Baron, editors of The New York
Times and The Washington Post , the head cheerleaders for the seditious coup by the security
state. Their obdurate mendacity can no longer be attributed to a simple quest for clicks and
eyeballs. It speaks to a sickness of mind that has infected the whole thinking class of America
as it succumbed to the ultimate smashing of boundaries: the one between what is real and what
is not real (or what is true and what is not true.)
All the week long, the Horowitz Report and its aftershocks were attended by the impeachment
show in Jerrold Nadler's House Judiciary Committee -- an exercise so devoid of sense and
prudence that it would embarrass all the kangaroos ever assembled in the courts of legend. As I
write early Friday morning, Mr. Nadler's majority is preparing to report out two dubious
articles of impeachment: "abuse of power" and "contempt of congress." As is always the case
with the Resistance, Mr. Nadler's posse is projecting on its enemy the very offenses it
commits. One senses that the voters are seeing through this feeble hocus-pocus, and that even
members of the greater Democratic caucus in the house may be getting the heebie-jeebies about
staking their political futures on a vote for this idiocy.
For one thing the procedure would ascertain finally that Mr. Eric Ciaramella does not qualify as a “whistleblower” but is
rather a rogue CIA agent (from a rogue agency) helping to carry out a seditious conspiracy.
The defense should call him to the
stand, along with his enabler Michael Atkinson, the “Intel Community” Inspector General who flouted and altered the rules in the
whistleblower ploy — and who, by the way, was formerly at the center of the RussiaGate mess when he worked as chief counsel to
then assistant attorney general John P. Carlin, one of the instigators of the “Crossfire Hurricane” overture to RussiaGate.
It
could benefit the nation to hear testimony from shrinking violet Gina Haspel, the current CIA Director nobody has ever heard of.
What does she know about Mr. Ciaramella’s role in this melodrama, who detailed him to the National Security Council, who
supervised him, and who exactly were his associates?
And, of course, not a few fair-minded people would be interested to hear from Rep. Adam Schiff, who engineered the
“whistleblower’s” entry into his concocted UkraineGate sequel to the now discredited RussiaGate ruse. Get Mr. Schiff under oath.
He is almost certain to lie about his activities, and that will certainly get him expelled from congress in disgrace, along with
losing his license to practice law.
Bring in Hunter Biden and ask him to explain whether he was busted for crack cocaine in a rent-a-car before-or-after he
was hired to serve on the board of directors of a Ukrainian gas company. Bring in Lt. Col. Vindman, bring in Daniel Goldman,
bring them all in and compel their testimony under penalty of perjury. This will eventually get America right in its weakened
mind.
Just as was true when the Mueller investigation closed
without a single American being charged with criminally conspiring with Russia
over the 2016 election, Wednesday's issuance of the long-waited report from the
Department of Justice's Inspector General reveals that years of major claims and narratives
from the U.S. media were utter
frauds .
Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI's gross abuse of its power
– its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to
demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in
order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page
during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence,
and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don't consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in
order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal,
what is? But none of this is aberrational: the FBI still has its headquarters in a building
named after J. Edgar Hoover – who constantly blackmailed elected officials with dossiers
and tried to blackmail Martin Luther King into killing himself – because that's what
these security state agencies are. They are out-of-control, virtually unlimited police state
factions that lie, abuse their spying and law enforcement powers, and subvert democracy and
civic and political freedoms as a matter of course.
In this case, no rational person should allow standard partisan bickering to distort or hide
this severe FBI corruption. The IG Report leaves no doubt about it. It's brimming with proof of
FBI subterfuge and deceit, all in service of persuading a FISA court of something that was not
true: that U.S. citizen and former Trump campaign official Carter Page was an agent of the
Russian government and therefore needed to have his communications surveilled.
Is it just part of the human condition that as any writer or any publication gains a
reputation for truth and revelation and dependability, that that reputation is sooner or
later leveraged for gain or influence or access?
I can think of a number of examples where I'm almost certain that that is the case,
although I'll avoid writing their names.
In the end, we are all of us really quite alone in the universe, enjoying only periods
with the illusion of support and fellowship.
On the example of the Kennedys, the assassinations provide perhaps the greatest
illustration of how things work.
I should say that I regard them as two chapters in one book. John's killers had to be
Bobby's killers also because that intense younger man, once holding the powers of the
presidency, would have relentlessly hunted down his brother's killers.
We know that he did not believe the Warren Commission, though he did not go around saying
that. He even apparently had some idea of who the killers might be, never telling others any
details of his suspicions.
Books have for decades been churned out by either the CIA or friends of the CIA or
unwitting assets of the CIA arguing for the truth of the Warren Commission.
On the other hand, as someone with a long interest in the events, I believe that a great
many of the books against the Warren Commission were also written by the same interests. Not
all of them, but many.
Books especially that either are so preposterous or poorly written and edited that they
effectively discredit those who do not accept the (absurd) findings of the Warren
Commission.
After all, it was some CIA disinformation officer who came up with the term "conspiracy
theorist" in the 1960s to discredit genuine critics of the Warren Commission, a term of such
lasting power, it is still widely used, its application having spread to a large number of
topics.
Those with power do tend to keep guiding events no matter how hard we struggle to
understand and correct the course of affairs.
Power is a very real thing, almost physical in its presence, and it is rarely overturned
by truth or justice or fairness.
It's not an inspiring view, but I fear it is reality.
Jacques Ellul's 1973 Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Minds is still the antidote to
Bernaysian brainwashing. Short of reading it, there are excellent reviews on Amazon and
elsewhere. Ellul makes the same point as the author here, that no group is more taken in by
propaganda than the educated classes who fancy themselves above propaganda for being
constantly immersed in it.
@Adrian About Chris Hedges' participation in presenting this award to Bellingcat "News from
Underground" came yesterday up with this:
a friend who knows the background of Chris Hedges' involvement writes that "he was duped
into presenting the Emmy to Bellingcat -- and, from what I hear, he believes it was done
intentionally to smear him."
As this friend is someone I (and many others) quite admire for his integrity and bravery,
and as it's wholly plausible that Hedges would have been set up, I am reserving judgementon
his action, and urge people on this list to do so, too.
@Adrian Hedges would have known who the nominees are just seeing Bellingcat in there and
knowing this is the Emmies well, it's hard to believe otherwise than Hedges is a clever fake as
I have long suspected
Let's recall that Hedges in his previous life was an NYT war correspondent who covered the
Bosnian conflict knowing Yugoslavia quite well from visits there in the 1980s his reports
demonizing Serbs stood out like a sore thumb
I quickly pegged him as a complete liar, like the rest of the MSM propagandists that were
repeating boilerplate canards meant to demonize the hugely successful nation of Yugoslavia
which of course they were trying to tear apart
For instance, 'the Serb-dominated Yugoslavia' was a standard sentence that appeared
literally in every single story repeated ad nauseum literallu dozens of times a day and clearly
meant to convince the reader that dismantling the progressive and ethnically harmonious nation
of Yugoslavia was somehow the right thing to do
But it was pure bullshit anyone who had ever been to Yugoslavia would instantly recognize
that as a 'WTF ?'
There is much much more in Hedges' closet
But then, miraculously, he had a 'Road to Damascus' moment a few years later [we are
supposed to believe] and somehow became a 'good guy'
Bullshit Mr. Curtin nails the sly method here exactly
[The] bread of truth is essential to conceal untruth.
An excellent article
PS Counterpunch is a complete bullshit rag that has been coopted completely Plutocrat Pierre
Omidyar and his little 'Intercept' outfit is similarly continuing in the footsteps of prior
plutocrat propagandists like the Ford foundation Rockefellers and others
The ultimate goal is controlling YOU they need you to be obedient and believing and not ask
any questions
@FB Haven't looked at Bellingcat (not exactly a sophisticated operation if you ever worked
in the ad business) since MH 17 and Putin's Syria pacification, but upon reading this article
it became clear that Hedges must be either an idiot or deeply embedded.
One doesn't exclude the other, of course. The uneducated public wouldn't need to catch up on
so much information, and still get a great head start if they ever found out wtf "cui bono"
even means – but that's not gonna happen.
It's just not how the human mind works.
"... the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen. ..."
"... the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately hamper their own servants and damage their own tools? ..."
"... damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses. ..."
"... First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such moves impact their profits. ..."
Hopefully readers can now clearly see that the bunny persona is disingenuous and is here primarily for spin management.
psychohistorian @36 , on the other hand, is quite legit and raises points that are worth discussing.
So we have to ask, cui bono?
Lets start answering that question by identifying who is not benefitting:
The American public economically...except the top X%
The Congress Critters that are being made to look corrupt
The Deep State of various branches of government
Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations
Point #1 is no big surprise. The elites (including Trump) firmly believe that what is good for them personally is good for
everyone. What is good for the lord of the land is good for his serfs, right? There is, however, a caveat to this that I want
to touch on later.
Points #2 and #3 are problematic. ...the credibility
of the Congress Critters is undeniably taking a severe hit. As well the Deep State is "deep" because it is supposed
to be hidden far below ( "deep" below) surface appearances. The fact that people are now openly discussing it in and
of itself constrains the actions of the Deep State. If this attention on the Deep State continues it could lead the public
to demanding legal remedies, and you can safely bet the Deep State doesn't want that to happen.
So points #2 and #3 are absolutely true, but they are problematic because they conflict with the narrative that the circus
we've been watching play out in D.C. since the 2016 elections is all intentional and choreographed by the elites. I don't think
anyone here would dispute that the Congress Critters are principally servants of the business elites (and Big Finance elites
most of all) and that the Deep State is a tool used by those business elites to get their way, so why would those elites deliberately
hamper their own servants and damage their own tools?
No, these two points by themselves expose the falsity of the notion that
what we are witnessing playing out in the imperial capital was the intended outcome of the 2016 elections. Furthermore, damage control on these two points is precisely the reasoning behind the impeachment deal that our host discusses.
Point #4 about who is not benefiting, "Many, but not all national and multi-national corporations" , is related to
the caveat that I mentioned above.
First, the empire is ruled by an oligarchy, but the oligarchs all have differing bases of power and wealth. The most powerful
of the oligarchs are, of course, the Big Finance power brokers... the bankers, basically. They make money with money. They
need almost no fixed capital to maintain and feed their wealth. The finance oligarchs are not tied to any location and can
easily move their wealth from place to place as their profit needs dictate. At the other extreme are oligarchs whose wealth
is based upon real estate. These oligarchs cannot shift their wealth around to avoid local problems. In between are oligarchs
whose wealth is based upon tangible fixed capital (factories, for example) who can move their wealth around somewhat, but such
moves impact their profits.
The reader should be able to see that not all oligarchs are created equal. While all of the oligarchs share the imperative
of maintaining the oligarchy itself and expanding the empire that it operates within, their interests begin to diverge outside
of those issues. In particular, finance oligarchs and real estate oligarchs have a natural antagonism. This antagonism also
exists between the finance oligarchs and the fixed-capital oligarchs. Current imperial policy strongly favors the finance oligarchs.
The other oligarchs are willing to accept that so long as the economy continues to grow in real terms, but that hasn't been
happening for years now within the empire. Because of this we are now seeing infighting among the oligarchs, with Trump being
on the side of the non-finance underdogs.
Does this mean that the reader should become a fan of Trump? Not if one is prone to latching onto powerful individuals as
saviors. If, on the other hand, personal emotional attachment can be kept at the level of rooting for one stranger in a drunken
bum fight over the other stranger then it should be perfectly acceptable. It doesn't hurt to cheer the oligarchs on when they
fight among themselves.
@ Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
The problem is that you don't got to change the rules when they don't fit you anymore. The USA has deprived the rest of
the world of "dignity" for 70 years. Now that China is being better than the USA at its own game, it's going to change the
game?
Unfortunately to the likes of Rubio, that's not how the real world works, because the real world is not a game.
The aggregate household debt balances in the U.S. increased to a record high of $13.95 trillion, or 73 percent of the country's
GDP, in the third quarter of 2019, said a recent report released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Mortgage balances accounted for 2/3 of the total household debt balances, followed by student loans that took 11 percent
of the share. Besides, auto loans and credit card balances also stood at a high level.
Each household in the U.S. carrying at least one form of debt owed an average of $144,100, said a report issued by America's
Debt Help Organization.
For comparison, the American manufacturing sector makes only 12% of its GDP. Manufacturing is so tiny in the USA that we
had recession in the sector this year and that didn't moved its GDP growth rate at all.
That's why the USA -- which has been failing in this trade war against China -- will ultimately fail in its Trumpian attempt
to revert to isolationism: the empire is now essentially a financial superpower. To maintain your status as a financial superpower,
you have to keep yourself economically open, otherwise the financial architecture that sustains the Dollar Standard will crumble
(since the USD is fiat money).
If your country wants to be the world's sole superpower in a capitalist world, it has to have two titles/belts: financial
and industrial superpower.
In 1946, the USA was both, hence it was the sole capitalist superpower. When Germany and mainly Japan threatened its title
as the sole industrial superpower in the 1970s, the USA maneuvered to curb their developments in the Plaza Accord of 1985,
which forced both nations to value their respective currencies in relation to the Dollar.
The maneuver was providential, but it worked. Germany and Japan would enter into recession in the early 1990s, to never
recover again. However, it came with a cost to the USA: it had to outsource its manufacturing sector to China and content itself
in being just to retain the financial champion belt, scattering the industrial champion belt around Asia, thus letting this
"title" vacant. It stayed "vacant" for 20 years, until China, thanks to its socialist doctrine, was able to free itself from
the commodity cycle and middle income traps to launch itself in the direction of gaining the industrial superpower status.
div> Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top
who likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something like
"supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff , Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Some people seem to think that for an entity to be classified as an "empire" there needs to be a guy at the top who
likes to wear shiny metal hats. If such individuals cannot update their archaic definitions then perhaps it would be better
for the discussion if new terminology were introduced that does not contain baggage for those individuals. Maybe something
like "supranational wealth extraction gang" would help?
Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 13 2019 13:46 utc |
60
Excellent posting thus far. Just one thing to add to your analysis: the non-finance oligarchs are more dependent on the
finance oligarchs than the other way around.
b's posting says:
"The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between
Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi.."
I can't see those two trusting each other on anything. And the Senate Majority Leader, McConnell, appeared on Fixed News
last night and insisted that he will defer to Trump's lawyers in all strategic matters, including whether or not to call witnesses.
Given that the House Democrats have threatened that if this impeachment doesn't work, they will impeach him again on some other
matter; plus Trump's insane craving for vindication; or for the need to produce juicy sound bites for the re-election campaign;
or simply to stretch out the process past the Iowa caucuses, it is likely that this impeachment will have a more or less full
process, saving the summary treatment for the predictable follow-on impeachments.
Who was it that said "Repeating the same mistake, over and over, and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity"?
This strikes me as a George Zimmerman style impeachment.
Zimmerman's prosecutor purposefully charged him with murder, a case doomed to fail, rather than manslaughter, where it was
likely to fail but would have been more damning in the failure -- i.e. more facts would have been brought in and a big mess
would have been created.
Pelosi purposefully charges Trump with a very narrow impeachment, which is doomed to fail in the Senate, rather than conducting
a months-long investigation that would dig up what Biden was really doing in Ukraine and who he got permission from to operate
there. The investigation wouldn't have made impeachment more likely to succeed, it would have just made a bigger mess.
interesting that trump's numbers have risen so spectacularly in the last couple of weeks with this impeachment thing in my
view because it puts him (falsely or not) squarely back into the "maverick" role that the Public is ravenous to see, with all
its anger and desire to strike back at "the government" which is not doing well by the way (60% country moving in the wrong
direction; 17% approval of congress)--so, to me, the question is: Can Donald resist playing his cowboy savior maverick role
and pretending to straighten things out or not. Will he "do a deal" because McConnell is so convincing to him and he can pass
up a wonderful opportunity to put the Dems on trial for their obvious bullshit in the past three years, including what impetus
will be (coming right up) from Durham? I tend to believe the Donald Ego will welcome a Big Fight in The Impeachment Corral
much as he once delighted in phony wrestling.
--Patriot Act renewed
--New NAFTA passed this week
--New massive Defense bill passes
--New Paid Parental Leave for Fed employees(Clinton and Obama ignored this)
--Maybe a budget or at least easy continuing resolutions.
--Jews now nationality??? not too sure, more like the usual Trump stuff like moving embassy.
This stuff all happened in the last week or so after nothing happened for years.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are still making) money on the plundering
of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign
time on the TV for Trump.
Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment.
Posted by: Ed | Dec 12 2019 19:12 utc | 5
=====================
The imperialist foreign policy entails "bipartisan consensus", "interagency consensus" etc. Sometimes I think that establishment
Democrats are patriots [in their self-image] who prefer a political calamity over the betrayal of that consensus. Trump is
an incoherent idiot and he may be attacked in many ways. Should he be attacked for disastrous breach of international agreements,
starting with the crown jewel of Obama's tenure, multilateral agreement with Iran? Or for a mockery he made from negotiations
with North Korea? Or inflicting misery across the globe with "maximal sanctions" policies, pretty much against everybody*?
No, no and no.
As some of the incoherent statements of Trump were "friendly toward Russia" (while he continued Nuland-Boland policies),
THAT was selected as the main target. So we are going back to 2016. In 2018 Democrats switched gears for the duration of election
campaign focusing on health care, something that Trump monumentally botched, but the imperialist circus is back. Lamentably,
the "deplorables" are not impressed and the electorally wobbly Rustbelt may be lost again in 2020 because of this inanities,
but the consensus (bipartisan, inter-agency etc.) will be preserved. History will remember the selfless sacrifice of these
idiots.
=====
* I read an article in Russia, full of gleeful satisfaction, about Lithuanian dairy producers being hit by a round of Trumpian
sanctions, in spite of indefatigable efforts of Lithuanian government to be the most obedient (if often neglected) poodle of
USA.
[Rubio's] Defending against the global mercantilist aspirations of China is a very responsible course of action for a policymaker.
Posted by: Nemesiscalling | Dec 13 2019 13:14 utc | 56
I wonder if Rubio will stay on this topic for full 15 minutes. It is actually very much against GOP ideology, industrial
policy coordinated by the federal government -- is a 5-year plan (as Stalin practiced) next? Or will he revert to plan B, assuring
that American families live better than those in the Marxist hell that is Venezuela through sanctions, sabotage etc.? Plan
A, actually doing something about USAians having decent jobs, would make the likes of Rubio vomiting and defecating uncontrollably
as they couldn't digest it. So my bet is that he will stay with plan B.
Maybe I am dim, but I have read the transcript of the infamous phone call between Trump and Zelensky several times and I do
not understand how it is being interpreted as Trump trying to pressure the Ukrainian president to smear Biden. As I read the
transcript, the favour Trump asked was for Ukraine to look into Crowdstrike. It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was
almost an afterthought, not the main thrust of the conversation.
I'm not American, maybe I am missing something that is culturally obvious to Americans? Do Americans read the transcript
and see something I don't? Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that
are said to have been an interference in the last election?
Not trying to derail the discussion here, but genuinely puzzled.
Posted by: Lorna MacKay | Dec 13 2019 19:50 utc | 69
"Do Americans read the transcript and see something I don't?"
Only the ones that are Trump-Deranged. Everyone else sees what you saw, standard operating procedure among all US elites
including of course all presidents and high officials. Both Obama and Sec. of State Hillary made dozens of calls exactly like
that.
I'll give it a 2-finger shot. The Credentialed 20%ers, along with their center-left-turned-right House masters are furiously
clutching their rosery bead (heres hatin on you and your pitiful brethren, Nancy!) .. while the Red Senators are all taking
turns hold Satan's pitchfork, hoping they don't get pricked .. or worse!, as the republican mope's support starts to melt away
like an iceberg at the equator !!
As an aside .. all one has to do is read the comments over at the Hedge, to see that many (but not all, by far ..) have, over
these past 3+ years, have gone through a phase-change, seeing the blatant bs .. from both legasy parties, without eyes wide
shut !
Both Trump and Zelensky were elected on platforms of peace with Russia. What was in that phone call that got Pelosi onboard
with impeachment, after years of taking it off the table?
I doubt very much that it was the claimed statement of Trump asking for help with a corruption investigation. (Which is perfectly
legal under a 1998 Treaty signed by Clinton).
Something got that CIA spy running to Adam Schiff, and something got Pelosi to move forward. Did Trump and Zelensky speak of
the Forbidden thing, making peace?
Biden was not the front runner until they needed him to be. You would be hard pressed to find an actual Biden supporter. They
are telling us this, because otherwise the ridiculous impeachment charge would not make sense. (Not that it makes a whole lot
of sense anyway).
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still in
touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Lorna MacKay at 69, when the media tells you something, it doesn't mean it is true. Of course, the transcript doesn't show
anything wrong. The only Americans who are culturally programmed to see anything there are the ones whose brains have been
turned to mush by TDS. (Trump Derangement Syndrome).
It's not you, it's us.
If I had money to put on the impeachment trial in the Senate, it would be on Donald NOT doing a deal to save various butts
and FOR going for the Dems' jugualar(s) and let the chips fall where they may on the Repug side.
I just cannot see him acting "statesmanlike" and forgoing seeking vindication after the provocations of the past three years.
Would you? I mean, even normal-size egos have a "Make my day" threshold. I reckon that Trump's threshold was the beginning
of the actual impeachment "hearing."
It seems to me that asking about the Bidens was almost an afterthought
This is what I have contended. Trump didn't need to mention Biden at all.
Did he do it innocently? Was it an ego-driven mistake?
Maybe.
But Trump has done other things that suggest that he did so as kayfabe . He engaged in a heated campaign with
Hillary and promised to have a special prosecutor investigate her if he was elected. But within days of being elected announced
that he would not do so (his first broken promise). Was the Hillary-Trump battle really as contentious as it appeared?
Trump invited Nancy Pelosi to a White House meeting days before the vote for Speaker of the House. This gave Pelosi a boost
at a time when Democrats were grumbling that she didn't deserve to be Speaker (she had worked closely with GW Bush Administration).
Result: Pelosi was elected Speaker.
Lastly, it's strange that Hilllary and Pelosi were adamantly against impeachment wrt Russiagate (the Mueller Report
cited possible obstruction of justice), saying that voters should decide in 2020 but approved impeachment for Ukrainegate where
the grounds for impeachment are arguably worse. Their refusal to allow impeachment after the Mueller Report was widely seen
(by progressives) as the establishment protecting Trump. Impeachment over Ukrainegate conveniently ended such speculation
.
Impeachment over Russiagate could have brought unwanted public scrutiny of CIA-MI6 and the Deep State. Instead, AG Wm Barr
will make sure things are 'sorted' in a way that safeguards the Deep State. Not surprisingly, he just announced that the FBI
acted in "bad faith" - a mild rebuke that almost guarantees that no one will be held accountable.
Some believe that the political disaster that Democrats reap from impeachment will be hung around the neck of the progressives
that clamored for impeachment in Spring 2019 (after the Mueller Report). IMO that 'hunch' is likely to prove accurate.
Whereas it is very likely that not just Hunter but Joe Biden can be brought down, it would come at the expense of a massive
draining of a bipartisan Congressional / Senatorial money laundering swamp, with millions, perhaps billions in US tax dollars
being recycled back into campaign contributions, etc. Many heads might roll, including several on the Republican side of
the Senate chamber.
Thank you and exactly that.
There has been brief mention of Biden shenanigans in China too but now studiously avoided. Perhaps the same boondoggle there
as well or maybe that is the country behind the threat from Biden to Lindsay Graham re going down big time.
Would it not be in the USA's interest to know if Crowdstrike was involved in the activities that are said to have been an
interference in the last election?
I fully agree with you. The Crowdstrike bust would give Trump the material needed to truly unravel the CIA (Brennan) and
FBI (Comey/Mueller)saboteurs. These pigs set out to smash Trump and his family, and Presidency. He will no doubt find a way
to extract revenge as he is known for that.
Pressing Zelensky on the Crowdstrike element is mighty good politics as it would likely disable the Democrat machinery for
many election cycles if the dogs of war are loosed on the DNC internal malevolence.
The Agreement to have limited charges (nothing related to Russiagate!) and no calling of witnesses (Bidens are safe) was
likely agreed in late Spring 2019 when the kayfabe was arranged.
Also, although there's been much hand-wringing about Joe Biden's electoral prospects, the kayfabe has helped Biden
as he now says that Trump focused on him because Trump fears him as a political opponent. This plays into the establishment's
main electoral ploy: electability!
In the Foreign Relations speech in which Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired, he also said that he was still
in touch with Ukrainian oligarchs, and he then would pass the word to Pence. Pence?
Don't be too surprised if the Senate votes to replace Trump with Pence.
Fascinating proposition. The Senate calls no witnesses and votes for impeachment? Unlikely, but I wont dismiss either that
or a drawn out trial and votes for impeachment - or not. Strange theatre this stuff.
One thing for sure - if the Senate votes to impeach all hell will break out in the Repugnant party. The USA political serenity
has been totally disturbed by Trump's election (or should I say Hillary Clinton's capitulation and not campaign in three key
states).
If Trump gets re-elected, if Big Tech continues to evade accountability, if imperial
adventures continue abroad, if migrant farmworkers cannot feed their families, you can trace
it back to this Tuesday, and the actions a House Speaker took while nobody was paying
attention .
-- David Dayen, The American Prospect (emphasis added)
As the Impeachment Drama lumbers to a 2020 conclusion, morphing into its variant selves and
sucking life from every other story the media most folks attend to are inclined to tell,
unwatched things are happening in its shadow.
Nancy Pelosi has used end-of-year urgency and the impeachment distraction to pass four
pieces of major legislation, three of which will become law, all on the same day.
NAFTA 2.0 is one of them. Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, agreed under pressure to
approve Pelosi's House version of NAFTA 2.0, rebranded "USMCA," or United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, for obvious reasons. This is a deal he should never have made, yet he made it.
Consider who Trumka is -- a bridge between the neoliberal mainstream of the Democratic Party
and the (presumably further left) labor movement that supports and sustains it. In other words,
he's the person who blesses neoliberal policies as "progressive" (thus retaining mainstream
Democratic Party approval) while modifying those policies in the margins to be less terrible
(thus retaining the approval of progressives, who want to think of him as opposed to
neoliberalist policies).
He's the person, in other words, who makes the labor movement look less like a puppy of the
Democratic Party establishment to progressives, while keeping the labor movement (and himself)
firmly in the Party establishment tent. The drama of "Will Trumka approve USMCA?" we recently
witnessed exemplified this role.
To anyone with two cells in their brain, it was obvious as soon as the question was asked
that he would approve USMCA. The stage was set; his arrival on it announced; the spotlight was
ready and bright. Would he really walk onto this stage at this late date and say no to Party
leaders? Of course not.
Would he have been able to stay in his lofty perch if he had? His job was to bless the cake
after it had been baked, not to unbake it.
What pressure was Trumka under? First, obviously, from the Democratic Party and its
billionaire donors, to give them what they and the Republicans -- and Donald
Trump -- all wanted, a neoliberal-lite trade deal that could become in Nancy Pelosi's words "a
template for future trade agreements a good template."
Second, Trumka was under pressure from his union base itself (so say some, including David
Dayen in the piece linked below), many of whom are Trump supporters, to give President Trump a
signature first-term victory, just in time for the start of his second-term campaign.
Do I believe this latter explanation? No, but I believe Trumka believes it. And if indeed it
is true that Trumka has to serve Trump, at least in part, in order to serve his own base, it's
further evidence of the careerism of his actions, in contrast to behavior from actual
labor-movement principles.
Here's Dayen on this sordid tale (emphasis added):
Pelosi got
AFL-CIO president Rich Trumka to sign off on the U.S.–Mexico-Canada Agreement
(USMCA), handing Trump a political victory on one of his signature issues. Predictably, White
House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham immediately gushed, calling USMCA "the biggest and
best trade agreement in the history of the world."
It's, um, not that. Economically, USMCA is a nothingburger; even
the most rose-colored analysis with doubtful assumptions built in shows GDP growth of
only 0.06 percent per year. There's one good provision: the elimination of the investor-state
dispute settlement (ISDS) provision that allowed corporations to sue governments in secret
tribunals over trade violations. There's one bad provision: the
extension of legal immunity for tech platforms over user-generated content, put into a
trade deal for the first time. This will make the immunity shield, codified in Section 230 of
the Communications Decency Act, much harder to alter in the future. Pelosi has called this
deal a "template" for future agreements, though trade reformers have called it a bare minimum
floor.
Pelosi
tried to remove the immunity shield , but abandoned the request. She did succeed in
removing a provision for Big Pharma that extended exclusivity periods for biologics. The
Sierra Club has termed the deal an "
environmental failure " that will not have binding standards on clean air and water or
climate goals. But the threshold question on the USMCA was always going to be labor
enforcement: would the labor laws imposed on Mexico hold, improving their lot while giving
U.S. manufacturing workers a chance to compete? There was also the open question of why the
U.S. would reward Mexico with a trade deal update when trade unionists in the country
continue to be kidnapped and killed.
In his statement, Trumka lauds the labor enforcement, noting provisions that make it
easier to prove violations (including violence against workers), rules of evidence for
disputes, and inspections of Mexican facilities, a key win. But I've been told that the
AFL-CIO did not see the details of the text before signing off, which is unforgivable ,
especially on trade where details matter. There was
no vote by union leaders , just a briefing from the AFL-CIO.
At least one union, the Machinists, remains opposed , and
others were noncommittal until they see text. The Economic Policy Institute, which is
strongly tied to labor, called the agreement " weak tea at
best ," a tiny advance on the status quo that will not reverse decades of outsourcing of
U.S. jobs.
Meanwhile, back at the Trump re-election ranch:
While the economics are negligible (and potentially harmful on tech policy), on the
politics
activists are losing their mind at the prospect of a Trump signing ceremony, with labor
by his side, on a deal that he will construe as keeping promises to Midwest voters . "Any
corporate Democrat who pushed to get this agreement passed that thinks Donald Trump is going
to share the credit for those improvements is dangerously gullible," said Yvette Simpson, CEO
of Democracy for America, in a statement. Only a small handful of Democratic centrists were
pushing for a USMCA vote, based mostly on the idea that they had to "do something" to show
that they could get things done in Congress. Now they've got it, and they'll have to live
with the consequences.
I guess helping re-elect the "
most dangerous president ever " pales in comparison to passing bipartisan-approved
neoliberal trade deals.
One of Richard Trumka's jobs, if he wants to stay employed, is to make sure neoliberal Party
leaders like Nancy Pelosi are happy and well served while simultaneously keeping progressives
thinking that Big Labor is still in their corner even on issues the donor class most cares
about.
"... Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA) office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny his status as the whistleblower. ..."
NY Post Editorial Board Names Eric Ciaramella As Whistleblower by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 - 10:30 0
SHARES
The
New York Post Editorial Board has named CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella as the whistleblower at
the heart of the Trump impeachment saga, confirming an October 30 report by
RealClearInvestigation 's Paul Sperry which has been widely cited in subsequent
reports.
Whistleblower lawyers refuse to confirm or deny Ciaramella is their man. His identity is
apparently the worst-kept secret of the Washington press corps . In a sign of how farcical
this has become, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said his name as part of a series of names
during a live hearing Wednesday night aired on television. He never called him the
whistleblower, just said he was someone Republicans thought should testify, yet Democrats
angrily denounced the "outing." If you don't know the man's name, how do you know the man's
name? -
New York Post
Ciaramella, a registered Democrat, is a CIA analyst who specializes in Russia and Ukraine,
and ran the Ukraine desk at the National Security Council (NSC) in 2016. He previously worked
for then-NSC adviser Susan Rice, as well as Joe Biden when the former VP was the Obama
administration's point-man for Ukraine. He also worked for former CIA Director John Brennan,
and was reportedly a highly valued employee according to
RedState ' s Elizabeth Vaughn. He also became former National Security Adviser H.R.
McMaster's personal aide in June 2017, was
called out as a leaker by journalist Mike Cernovich that same month.
He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa , a Ukrainian-American lawyer and Democratic operative
involved in allegations that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 US election by releasing the so-called
'Black Ledger' that contained Paul Manafort's name.
In 2017, former White House chief strategist
Steve Bannon wanted Ciaramella kicked off the National Security Council over concerns about
leaks.
Earlier this year, Ciaramella ignited the Democratic impeachment efforts against President
Trump when, using second-hand information, he anonymously complained that Trump abused his
office when he asked Ukraine to investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son Hunter, as well as claims related to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in
2016.
Ciaramella notably contacted House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff's (D-CA)
office before filing his complaint , on a form which was altered to allow for second-hand
information, after going to a Democratic operative attorney who will neither confirm nor deny
his status as the whistleblower.
Steve Bannon was only on the National Security Council for two months, and was removed in
early April 2017 at the direction of the President. So the story about Bannon valiantly
trying to save the day is probably more of his resume padding.
Why did so many people -- from government contractors and high-ranking military officers, to
state department and National Security Council officials -- feel the need to lie about how
the war in Afghanistan was going?
This is because it's easy cash cow for the old boys club by sending working class kids
to be killed in a far off land.
The pentagon with the full cooperation of MSM will sell it as we are defending our ways of
life by fighting a country 10,000 kms away. This show the poor literacy, poor analytical
thinking of US population constantly brain washed by MSM, holy men, clergy, other neo con
organisations like National rifle club etc.
I never knew USA dropped 2.7 millions tons of bombs and now so many left unexploded and
its same in Vietnam, Cambodia as neutral,
but i met so many injured kids etc from the bombs,.
the total MADNESS OF USA IS NAZI SM AT ITS BEST,.NO SHAME OR COMPASSION FOR THE
VICTIMS.
I cannot comprehend the money it cost USA,. AN ALSO PROFITS FOR SOME,.
With the exceptions of two attacks on American soil-Pearl Harbor and 911- the American people
and for the most part their legislative representatives in Congress- will always remain
cluless what the United States Government does overseas.
This country runs on its own drum beats. The ordinary man on the street needs to take care
of his economic needs. The Big Boys always take care of themselves. That includes the
military establishment, that is always entitled to an absurd amounts of monies, fueled by an
empire building machinery, pushed by the elites that control the fate of economic might, and
political orchestra that feeds its ego and prestige.
Time and again, our American sociopaths in power have a strangle hold on us, regardless of
the destruction and animosity they heap on distant peoples and lands the world over in the
name of national security and the democratic spiel, as they like to tell us ....
Richard Nixon, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson- Vietnam and the South East Asian countries of
Laos , Cambodia, are an example .
Years later, the establishment manufactures blatant cover-ups with lies upon lies to accuse
on record, as general Powell eloquently presented at the United Nations: That Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction and needs to be held accountable.And now, this report on
Afghanistan with all this pathological violence.
Is it reasonable to conclude that our democracy and its pathological actors in government
and big business will always purchase it by demagoguery and self vested interest, because the
ordinary man whose vote should count will never have the ultimate say when it comes to war
and destruction!
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- In testimony before Congress this week, Lieutenant Colonel Alexander
Vindman, an Army officer with more than 20 years of service, told lawmakers that he had heard
the president try to pressure Ukraine's president to unearth dirt on a political rival. In
response, the president's allies have decided to make an issue of Vindman's birthplace. They
say his infanthood in Kiev -- he left at age 3 -- reveals something about his character and his
allegiances. They are right, but in exactly the wrong way.
Here, you should pardon the expression, are some facts and a little bit of history. When
Vindman was born on June 6, 1975, Ukraine was enveloped in the Soviet Union. At birth, Vindman
would have been added temporarily to his parents' internal passports, a document that all
Soviet citizens were required to carry starting at 16, mostly to make sure they were not
residing somewhere without official permission.
That passport contained the infamous "fifth line" or "pyati punkt," in Russian, which had
been created under Josef Stalin and listed the holder's "nationality." Vindman was born in
Ukraine, but that line would not have said "Ukrainian" unless his parents had chosen to defy
the law. It would have said "Jew."
In the Soviet Union, Jews were considered separate and apart from other nationalities,
especially in two of the republics, Russia and Ukraine, where the local party enforcers were
particularly happy to do the Kremlin's dirty work. You could be born in Minsk or Pinsk, or Omsk
or Tomsk, or even Alexandrovsk or Petropavlovsk, and if you were born to Jewish parents, your
passport was likely stamped "Jew."
When I first learned this, upon arriving in Moscow in May 1983 as a reporter for the
Associated Press, I was outraged. I saw it like the Nazi's yellow star. I couldn't imagine how
Jewish people could stand it.
Until one day, I put that question to Naum Meiman, a Jewish mathematician who was part of
Andrei Sakharov's circle of dissidents. The answer was simple and humbling.
He didn't want "Russian," or any other so-called Soviet nationality, in his passport.
Russians didn't consider him Russian, officially or otherwise, and he didn't want the label.
"I'm a Jew who is forced to live in Russia, not a Russian," he said more than once.
I am certainly not speaking for Vindman, whom I do not know, but I have never met a Jew who
fled the Soviet Union and felt any kind of loyalty to the country -- one where Jews were
spurned from birth and then imprisoned within the state's borders until it decided to allow
them to leave. In those days, the Soviet Union revoked émigré's citizenships, in
what was supposed to be a final act of deep humiliation, but was invariably a badge of
pride.
"Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside
the White House, apparently against the president's interest," Fox News host Laura Ingraham
told viewers Monday.
The circumstances of Vindman's birth argue for a different interpretation. They show him to
be part of a tradition of 20th century Eastern European Jews who suffered under tyrannies of
the left and the right. These people fled the first chance they had to a country that would
accept them as fellow citizens, one where they would not be constantly questioned about their
loyalties. For many decades, that country was the United States.
To contact the author of this story: Andrew Rosenthal at [email protected]
Retired Brigadier General Peter Zwack spoke to "Nightline" ahead of Vindman's testifying
before the House Intelligence Committee during a public impeachment hearing of President
Trump.
Former democrat
21 days ago Mr Vindman looks more like a doorman, than a Army Officer in that uniform !
Larry
21 days ago
What's that "thing" on his ring finger (appears wooden)? Is that from his partner "Husband"?
In my US Army years, soldiers were dishonorable discharged from this "Criminal Offense" !
A retired Army officer who worked with
Democrat "star witness" Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman in Grafenwoher, Germany, claims
Vindman "really talked up" President Barack Obama and ridiculed America and Americans in
front of Russian military officers.
In an eye-opening thread on Twitter last week, retired U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Jim Hickman
said that he "verbally reprimanded" Vindman after he heard some of his derisive remarks for
himself. " Do not let the uniform fool you," Hickman wrote. "He is a political activist in
uniform."
Hickman's former boss at the Joint Multinational Simulation Center in Grafenwoehr has
since gone on the record to corroborate his story.
Hickman, 52, says he's a disabled wounded warrior who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and
who received numerous medals, including the Purple Heart.
The retired officer said that Vindman, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Ukraine, made
fun of the United States to the point that it made other soldiers "uncomfortable." For
example, Hickman told American Greatness that he heard Vindman call Americans
"rednecks" -- a word that needed to be translated for the Russians. He said they all had a
big laugh at America's expense.
Vindman, who serves on the National Security Council (NSC), appeared last week before the
House Intelligence Committee and testified
that he'd had "concerns" about the July phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky. Vindman's testimony rested on his negative opinions of the
call, rather than any new facts about the call.
Vindman's former boss, NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison, threw cold
water on Vindman's claims
in his own testimony later in the week, saying he didn't have concerns that "anything
illegal was discussed" in the phone call. Morrison also testified that Ukrainian officials
were not even aware that military funding had been delayed by the Trump Administration until
late August 2019, more than a month after the Trump-Zelensky call.
"Completely Beyond Reproach"
Hickman said he decided to come forward because Vindman "disobeyed a direct order from
the commander-in-chief, his boss," made his testimony "about his foreign policy opinions
versus facts," and "wore his Army service uniform to make a political statement" against the
president.
"Then right on cue, the mainstream media began calling him a war hero with a purple
heart, and completely beyond reproach," Hickman wrote in a statement to American Greatness
and another journalist. "Knowing his political bias, backed by his somewhat radical
left-leaning ideology, it was my obligation, indeed my duty, to come forward with this
information. I couldn't go to the same mainstream media to put it out, nor could I go to the
Army, as they're backing Vindman, so I took to Twitter, a source for getting the truth out,"
he added.
According to Hickman, Vindman was the Defense Department attaché at the Russian
embassy in Germany when he met him in 2013. He told American Greatness that he also met
Vindman's twin brother Lt. Col. Yevgeny Vindman while he was stationed in Germany.
"I know LTC Alex Vindman from a Combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision [13] in
Grafenwoher," Hickman wrote on Twitter. "He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was
assigned to the JMTC (Joint Multinational Training Command), within USAREUR (US Army Europe).
He worked coordination w/the Russian 15th Peacekeeping Brigade, and I was in charge of all
Simulations planning, as well as assisting the USAREUR Lead Planner as the Senior Military
Planner."
Like his twin, Eugene Vindman has forged a career in White House civil service. In fact,
The Wall Street Journal reported
that it's possible Eugene Vindman might also be called to testify. Alexander Vindman
has stated that Eugene Vindman, also called Yevgeny Vindman, "witnessed (the) decision to move Trump-Zelensky call's
transcript to a top secret server," The Journal reported of the president's call to the president of Ukraine.
Vindman's twin brother lists his title as attorney at the White House on his Facebook page. Born Yevgeny Vindman, he
goes by Eugene Vindman on social media.
The twin's Facebook page explains that he is an attorney at The White House and a former Attorney at Judge Advocate
General's Corps, United States Army. He also says that he is a former Senior Trial Counsel at U.S. Army and former Major at
United States Army.
According to JTA
, Eugene Vindman is a lawyer on the national security council.
CNN called
Eugene Vindman "the chief ethics counsel at NSC."
His Facebook page also provides the following biographical details about Eugene:
Studied Law School at University of Georgia
Studied General Administration at Central Michigan University
Studied at UGA School of Law
Studied History at SUNY Binghamton
Went to Franklin D.Roosevelt High School
Lives in Washington, District of Columbia
From Brooklyn, New York
2. Eugene Vindman Was a Campaign Strategist for a Democratic Congressional Candidate
The Vindman brothers.
Eugene Vindman's Facebook page also describes him as a "former Campaign Strategist at Bobby Saxon for Congress (GA
District 10)."
Saxon ran as a Democrat. According to an article in
The Red & Black
, Saxon was running for public office for the first time and called himself a "regular guy."
The 2008 article describes him as saying, "I'm 46-years-old, and I've never run for an office. Most of all, I'm a
frustrated American who's mad that politicians have no clue what it's like to be one of us. We need regular people with
common sense in Washington D.C."
Like Eugene Vindman, Saxon had an Army background. "I'm a major in the Georgia Army National Guard," he explained.
3. Eugene Vindman Was Involved in Efforts to Find Roadside Bombers in Iraq
A 2010 NPR article
on the U.S. connecting dots to find roadside bombers quoted Eugene Vindman. "Maj. Eugene Vindman, a
JAG officer, or judge advocate general" said that a "network analysis course put him and other military lawyers in a better
position to carry out oversight responsibilities in Iraq," the article stated.
"[You could] maybe do a little bit of analysis on your own or ask some intelligent questions of the targeteers," Eugene
Vindman said to NPR, "to make sure that the target they've identified is not a guy that might have made a wrong phone call
to a bad guy but actually has enough links to that bad guy through other activities to actually be a bad guy and therefore
be a legal military target."
Alexander Vindman is also similarly invested in American government work. "Since 2008, I have been a Foreign Area
Officer specializing in Eurasia," he wrote. "In this role, I have served in the United States' embassies in Kiev, Ukraine
and Moscow, Russia. In Washington D.C., I was a politico-military affairs officer for Russia for the Chairman of Joint
Chiefs where I authored the principle strategy for managing competition with Russia. In July 2018, I was asked to serve at
the National Security Council."
... ... ...
There is another Vindman brother. He's older than the twins and his name is Leonid Simon Vindman.
Leonid Simon Vindman is the "Founder and Managing Partner, Tungsten Capital Advisors" and "has approximately thirty
years of experience in the financial markets,"
his company
website states.
"During the past twenty five years, he has been focusing predominantly on Central Eastern Europe, Russia and Central
Asia where he completed some of the biggest investment and advisory transactions in the region," according to the website.
"He also completed transactions in the Middle East, and traveled extensively in Asia and Africa."
The page continues: "Prior to founding Tungsten he was a Managing Director responsible for investment banking
origination and client coverage activities for Russia and CIS region at UniCredit Group – the largest international bank in
Central and Eastern Europe at that time. Previously he worked as a Vice President Investment Banking at JPMorgan Chase,
Principal Banker at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the EBRD), Senior Associate at Bankers Trust and
Manager at Central Europe Trust."
Leonid Vindman "received his Bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College and an MBA from the University of Chicago Booth
Graduate School of Business," his company website says.
The company's founding and managing partner Maria Starkova-Vindman is described as "an art historian and art advisor"
who previously "worked at the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow as an assistant keeper and curator, and taught on the
Courtauld MA course on global contemporary art."
Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman admitted that he had been offered to serve as minister of defense for
Ukraine.
Vindman, 44, explained
during his impeachment testimony that he had been offered the position three times but
declined the position because of his loyalty to the United States. The lieutenant colonel was
born in Ukraine, but his family immigrated to the U.S. when he was a toddler.
Vindman claimed he did not know why he was offered the high ranking position of defense
minister.
"Every single time, I dismissed it. Upon returning, I notified my chain of command and the
appropriate counterintelligence folks about the offer," said Vindman, later adding, "I think it
would be a great honor, and frankly, I'm aware of service members that have left service to
help nurture the developing democracies in that part of the world."
He declined the offer and told Congress, "I'm an American. I came here when I was a toddler,
and I immediately dismissed these offers. I did not entertain them."
Vindman added that he found the offer "rather comical," saying, "I was being asked to
consider whether I would want to be the minister of defense, I did not leave the door open at
all. But it is pretty funny for a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, which really is
not that senior, to be offered that illustrious of a position."
He explained that he had no follow-up questions about the position with his chain of
command. Vindman said he was not concerned about a "perception of a conflict of interest"
following his offer because he only valued the opinion of his American colleagues.
"Frankly, if they were concerned with me being able to continue my duties, they would have
brought that to my attention," said Vindman.
Vindman is the top Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council. He testified that he
raised concerns about President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky,
calling it "improper."
'Pushing a coup': Fellow soldiers slam Vindman for
testifying in uniform by Russ Read | November 08, 2019 03:49
PM
Print
this article S ome of
Alexander Vindman's fellow soldiers have blasted him for testifying in uniform during the
House impeachment hearings, accusing him of politicizing the military by stating personal
opinions that were highly critical of President Trump.
Vindman, 44, the National Security Council's
Ukraine director , was thrust into the political spotlight when he testified before
Congress on Oct. 29 as one of the few people who listened in on a
July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
His
appearance in uniform has been a point of contention. Military members detailed to the NSC
typically wear suits but Vindman gave his testimony in uniform, and was lauded for having been
awarded a Purple Heart for being wounded in Iraq, and a Combat Infantryman's Badge.
"This is a bad look for him to be in uniform," an active duty military officer stationed at
the Pentagon told the Washington Examiner. "He makes it look like the Army is behind
this. Like the Army is pushing a coup."
Another officer was concerned that Vindman's testimony veered too much into personal
assessment. "I don't care what he thinks, he's entitled to his opinion," the officer said. "But
it's an opinion and he should give it without the uniform."
A third officer said that Vindman's weight indicated he would be unlikely to pass the Combat
Fitness Test even though he had achieved a Ranger tab earlier in his career.
Matt Zeller, an Afghanistan veteran and fellow at the American Security Project, defended
Vindman. "I think he's a patriot, and how he's been treated is an abomination," Zeller told the
Washington Examiner . "All he is is a public servant doing his duty."
Vindman might have been required to wear his uniform, Zeller said, although where Army
regulations come down on the issue is unclear. The Army's Training and Doctrine Command did not
respond to questions from the Washington Examiner .
H.R. McMaster, who was an active duty lieutenant general in the Army during his tenure as
national security adviser, did not normally wear his uniform at the White House.
Military personnel such as Vindman detailed to the NSC operate within a unique system.
Unlike other troops who report to military commanders, military NSC staffers fall under
directors within the NSC itself. As a Ukraine expert, Vindman reports to civilian Andrew Peek,
who replaced Tim Morrison as the NSC's senior director for European and Russian affairs after
Morrison announced his departure last Wednesday, one day before he testified before the House
impeachment proceeding.
Military detailees generally are assigned to a unit within the Department of Defense for
administrative issues such as leave and pay. Performance reports, however, are handled by the
individual's boss on the NSC.
Most NSC staffers are drawn from the military and various other government agencies. They
generally are recruited via word-of-mouth, another change from typical government agencies that
are notorious for their long application processes.
The Reagan administration's NSC included Lt. Gen. Colin Powell and Lt. Col. Oliver North, .
Powell was national security adviser from 1987 to 1989 and went on to become chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State . North was on the NSC from 1981 to 1986 and
testified in uniform during the Iran-Contra hearings.
Vindman returned to work after his testimony and is expected to stay on at the NSC until his appointment ends next summer.
Rudy Giuliani Can Barely Contain Himself Over His Ukraine Findings by Tyler Durden Fri, 12/13/2019 -
17:05 0 SHARES
Rudy Giuliani is grinning like the Cheshire cat. His standard smile.
For the past several weeks, the personal attorney to President Trump has been in Ukraine,
interviewing witnesses and gathering evidence to shed light on what the Bidens were up to
during the Obama years, and get to the bottom of claims that Kiev interfered in the 2016 US
election in favor of Hillary Clinton. He has enlisted the help of former Ukrainian diplomat,
Andriy Telizhenko, to gather information from politicians and ask them to participate in a
documentary series in partnership with One America News Network (OANN) - which will make the
case for investigating the Bidens as well as Burisma Holdings - the natural gas firm which
employed the son of a sitting US Vice President in a case which reeks of textbook
corruption.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/zi2UWTO2DyY
According to the
Journal , Giuliani will present findings from his self-described "secret assignment" in a
20-page report .
Trump and Giuliani say then-Vice President Biden engaged in corruption when he called for
the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor who had investigated a Ukrainian gas company where
Hunter Biden served on the board. The Bidens deny wrongdoing, and ousting the prosecutor was
a goal at the time of the U.S. and several European countries . -
Wall Street Journal
( Note the Wall Street Journal's use of a straw man when they write: "The allegations of
Ukrainian election interference are at odds with findings by the U.S. intelligence community
that Russia was behind the election interference ."
Apparently the three journalists who collaborated on the article didn't get the memo that
two countries can meddle at the same time, nor did any of them read the January, 2017 Politico
article: Ukrainian
efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - which outlines how Ukrainian government officials
conspired with a DNC operative to hurt the Trump campaign during the 2016 election - a move
which led to the disruptive ouster of campaign chairman Paul Manafort).
Telizhenko, the former diplomat, tells the Journal that the plan for the series was
conceived during the impeachment hearings as a way for Giuliani to tell his side of the story.
The former Ukrainian diplomat flew to Washington on November 20 to film with Giuliani, while in
early December he accompanied America's Mayor on the Kiev trip - stopping in Budapest, Vienna
and Rome.
Rudy comes home
Upon his return to New York on Saturday, Giuliani says he took a call from President Trump
while his plane was still taxiing down the runway, according to the
Wall Street Journal .
" What did you get? " Trump asked. " More than you can imagine ," answered the former New
York mayor who gained notoriety in the 1980s for taking down the mob as a
then-federal prosecutor.
According to the 77-year-old Giuliani, Trump instructed him to brief Attorney General
William Barr and GOP lawmakers on his findings. Soon after, the president then told reporters
at the White House, " I hear he has found plenty ."
Rudy has been working on this project for a while. In late January, he conducted phone
interviews with former Ukrainian prosecutors Viktor Shokin and Yiury Lutsenko. On the call
was George Boyle -
Giuliani's Chief Operating Officer and Director of Investigations. Boyle started as a NYPD beat
cop in 1987, and was promoted to detective - eventually joining the Special Victims Squad. In
short, the ever-grinning Giuliani has some serious professionals working on this.
" When he believes he's right, he loves taking on fights ," said longtime Giuliani friend,
Tony Carbonetti.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
That said, Giuliani's efforts have not gone off without a hitch. In October, two associates
- Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, both of whom assisted with his Ukraine investigation, were
related in October on campaign-finance charges. Both men have pleaded not guilty, while
Giuliani denies wrongdoing and says they did not lobby him. Parnas, notably, was also on the
January call with Shokin and Lutsenko as a translator.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/tc4nQD6eiW4
In pressing ahead on Ukraine, Mr. Giuliani has replaced the translation skills of Messrs.
Parnas and Fruman with an app he downloaded that allows him to read Russian documents by
holding his phone over them . But on his recent trip, he said, "despite whatever else you can
say, I missed them." -
Wall Street Journal
Trump opponents insist Giuliani is conducting shadow foreign policy and orchestrated the
ouster of former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch - who Ukraine's new president
Volodomyr Zelensky complained on a now-famous July 25 phone call accused of not recognizing his
authority.
In the impeachment hearings, witnesses accused Mr. Giuliani of conducting a shadow foreign
policy and orchestrating the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. He was described as
"problematic" and "disruptive" and, in testimony that cited former national security adviser
John Bolton, likened to a "hand grenade that's going to blow everybody up." Mr. Giuliani has
said he kept the State Department apprised of his efforts and that he was working at the
president's behest. -
Wall Street Journal
" Just having fun while Dems and friends try to destroy my brilliant career ," Giuliani
wrote in a text message while conducting his investigation overseas.
Never forget... Giuliani was up to his neck in the treasonous happenings on 9/11. For
that, he can NEVER be forgiven... no matter how much dirt he digs up in this inane Ukranian
circus.
Three j ournalists also wrote a WSJ piece October 22, '19; one author same as
December 13 piece. ( Identify a narrative?)
Excerpts:
" Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani have repeatedly promoted an unsubstantiated theory that Ukraine
was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee before the 2016 election, and
that a related computer server is now located there. That theory is sharply at odds with the
findings of a special counsel investigation and a 2017 U.S. intelligence community report
that found Russia was responsible for the hack and leak of Democratic emails as part of a
broader operation intended to aid Mr. Trump."... ...
... ... " Mr. Giuliani, who didn't respond to a request for comment, had for months
pressed for Ukraine to investigate issues related to the 2016 election as well as Mr. Biden,
a potential 2020 rival of Mr. Trump. As vice president under President Obama, Mr. Biden led
an anti-corruption drive in Ukraine at the same time as his son received $50,000 a month for
sitting on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, an arrangement Mr. Trump has called corrupt.
Mr. Biden and his son have denied any wrongdoing, and no evidence of wrongdoing has been
presented. "
John Glaser and Christopher Preble have written a valuable
study of the history and causes of threat inflation. Here is their conclusion:
If war is the health of the state, so is its close cousin, fear. America's foreign policy
in the 21st century serves as compelling evidence of that. Arguably the most important task,
for those who oppose America's apparently constant state of war, is to correct the threat
inflation that pervades national security discourse. When Americans and their policymakers
understand that the United States is fundamentally secure, U.S. military activism can be
reined in, and U.S. foreign policy can be reset accordingly.
Threat inflation is how American politicians and policymakers manipulate public opinion and
stifle foreign policy dissent. When hawks engage in threat inflation, they never pay a
political price for sounding false alarms, no matter how ridiculous or over-the-top their
warnings may be. They have created their own ecosystem of think tanks and magazines over the
decades to ensure that there are ready-made platforms and audiences for promoting their
fictions. This necessarily warps every policy debate as one side is permitted to indulge in the
most baseless speculation and fear-mongering, and in order to be taken "seriously" the skeptics
often feel compelled to pay lip service to the "threat" that has been wildly blown out of
proportion. In many cases, the threat is not just inflated but invented out of nothing. For
example, Iran does not pose a threat to the United States, but it is routinely cited as one of
the most significant threats that the U.S. faces. That has nothing to do with an objective
assessment of Iranian capabilities or intentions, and it is driven pretty much entirely by a
propaganda script that most politicians and policymakers recite on a regular basis. Take Iran's
missile program, for example. As John Allen Gay explains in a recent
article , Iran's missile program is primarily defensive in nature:
The reality is they're not very useful for going on offense. Quite the opposite: they're a
primarily defensive tool -- and an important one that Iran fears giving up. As the new
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report entitled "Iran Military Power" points out, "Iran's
ballistic missiles constitute a primary component of its strategic deterrent. Lacking a
modern air force, Iran has embraced ballistic missiles as a long-range strike capability to
dissuade its adversaries in the region -- particularly the United States, Israel, and Saudi
Arabia -- from attacking Iran."
Iran's missile force is in fact a product of Iranian weakness, not Iranian strength.
Iran hawks need to portray Iran's missile program inaccurately as part of their larger
campaign to exaggerate Iranian power and justify their own aggressive policies. If Iran hawks
acknowledged that Iran's missiles are their deterrent against attacks from other states,
including our government, it would undercut the rest of their fear-mongering.
Glaser and Preble identify five main sources of threat inflation in the U.S.: 1) expansive
overseas U.S. commitments require an exaggerated justification to make those commitments seem
necessary for our security; 2) decades of pursuing expansive foreign policy goals have created
a class dedicated to providing those justifications and creating the myths that sustain support
for the current strategy; 3) there are vested interests that benefit from expansive foreign
policy and seek to perpetuate it; 4) a bias in our political system in favor of hawks gives
another advantage to fear-mongers; 5) media sensationalism exaggerates dangers from foreign
threats and stokes public fear. To those I would add at least one more: threat inflation
thrives on the public's ignorance of other countries. When Americans know little or nothing
about another country beyond what they hear from the fear-mongers, it is much easier to
convince them that a foreign government is irrational and undeterrable or that weak
authoritarian regimes on the far side of the world are an intolerable danger.
Threat inflation advances with the inflation of U.S. interests. The two feed off of each
other. When far-flung crises and conflicts are treated as if they are of vital importance to
U.S. security, every minor threat to some other country is transformed into an intolerable
menace to America. The U.S. is extremely secure from foreign threats, but we are told that the
U.S. faces myriad threats because our leaders try to make other countries' internal problems
seem essential to our national security. Ukraine is at most a peripheral interest of the U.S.,
but to justify the policy of arming Ukraine we are told by the more
unhinged supporters that this is necessary to make sure that we don't have to fight Russia
"over here." Because the U.S. has so few real interests in most of the world's conflicts,
interventionists have to exaggerate what the U.S. has at stake in order to sell otherwise very
questionable and reckless policies. That is usually when we get appeals to showing "leadership"
and preserving "credibility," because even the interventionists struggle to identify why the
U.S. needs to be involved in some of these conflicts. The continued pursuit of global
"leadership" is itself an invitation to endless threat inflation, because almost anything
anywhere in the world can be construed as a threat to that "leadership" if one is so inclined.
To understand just how secure the U.S. really is, we need to give up on the costly ambition of
"leading" the world.
Threat inflation is one of the biggest and most enduring threats to U.S. security, because
it repeatedly drives the U.S. to take costly and dangerous actions and to spend exorbitant
amounts on unnecessary wars and weapons. We imagine bogeymen that we need to fight, and we
waste decades and trillions of dollars in futile and avoidable conflicts, and in the end we are
left poorer, weaker, and less secure than we were before.
Daniel
Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter .
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
This deal confirms the hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
Notable quotes:
"... Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit but there will be no additions to its core. ..."
"... The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the Democrats during this process would be enormous. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional voter support and not risk any Senate seats. ..."
"... The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both sides with uncertain outcome. ..."
"... That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached. ..."
"... Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they stand with their president and against the lame accusations. ..."
"... my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival. ..."
"... So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental. ..."
"... I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty option for the establishment. ..."
"... The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today. ..."
"... The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS. ..."
"... he Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits everyone, including Biden, except Trump! ..."
"... Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him, and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force... ..."
"... If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in survival mode. ..."
"... Yep, and not just centrism, but the whole neo-liberal philosophy. Not to worry though, big organised $ will win the day. ..."
"... ...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that going after Biden could open a flood of scandals. ..."
"... I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat. ..."
The Impeachment Deal Between The House And The Senate
Two weeks ago we analyzed the consequences of an impeachment process of President Donal
Trump. We found that the Democrats would lose by impeaching him and would therefore
likely censure him instead . We were wrong. A week later Pelosi announced
to proceed with impeachment.
Only today did I understand where I was wrong and what had since happened. Let me walk you
through it.
The earlier conclusion was based on this table of possible outcomes of an impeachment
resolution:
If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
If the House votes for censure, Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
Should the House vote for impeachment the Senate is likely to go the second path.
Looking at the choices it is quite curious why Pelosi took that decision and there has been
so far no in-depth explanation for it.
The rather short
House Resolution (also
here ) Pelosi let pass has only two articles of impeachment of Trump. The issues over which
he is supposed to be impeached for are
very limited :
Democratic leaders say Trump put his political interests above those of the nation when he
asked Ukraine to investigate his rivals, including Democrat Joe Biden, and then withheld $400
million in military aid as the U.S. ally faced an aggressive Russia.
They say he then obstructed Congress by stonewalling the House investigation.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky himself said that he did not know that Trump withheld
the $400 million for Ukraine when he had the phone call with the president in which Trump asked
him to dig into the Burisma/Biden affair. The request itself is legitimate as Biden has lots of
dirt in Ukraine. But there was no quid-quo-pro and no bribery, at least not in the phone call
the CIA 'whistleblower' and some of the witnesses complained about. Where then is the evidence
that Trump abused his power?
The obstruction of Congress accusation is equally weak. Trump had rejected the House
subpoenas to his staff because he wanted a judicial review of their legality. They might indeed
infringe on certain presidential privileges. The court process would take several months but
the Democrats simply do not want to wait that long. So who is really obstructing the legal
process in this?
Law professor Jonathan Turley, who is not a Trump fan and had testified in front of the
House Judiciary Committee, finds both points the Democrats make extremely week :
For three years, the same Democratic leadership told the public that a variety of criminal
and impeachable acts were proven in the Mueller investigation. None of those crimes are now
part of this impeachment.
Why? Because it would have been too easy an impeachment? Hardly.
Instead, the House will go forward on the only two plausible grounds that I outlined in my
testimony - abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Unlike the other claims, the problem
is not with the legal basis for such impeachable offences but the evidentiary record.
This record remains both incomplete and conflicted. The Democrats have insisted on
impeaching by Christmas rather than build a record to support such charges.
...
This is now the fastest investigation with the thinnest record supporting the narrowest
impeachment in modern history.
...
The Democrats just gave Trump the best Christmas gift he could hope for under these two
circumstances ...
Professor Turley correctly points out that there are several other serious issues over which
Trump could (and should) probably be impeached. So why did House Speaker Pelosi allow only such a narrow and weak impeachment
resolution? The text of the impeachment resolution is currently in the Judiciary Committee where it will
be discussed today. The language may still get sharpened a bit
but there will be no additions to its core.
The House will then vote on it within the next week. The Senate will launch the impeachment
trial in January.
Which brings me back to the possible outcomes table:
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
The Senate could interrupt the campaigning of several sitting Senators who run in the
primaries to stand as the Democratic presidential candidate. It could call Joe and Hunter Biden
and the 'whistleblower' as witnesses. It could dig deeper into Russia-gate. The risk for the
Democrats during this process would be enormous.
But Pelosi still took that way and allowed for only a very weak impeachment resolutions. That led me to assume that a deal was made that allowed Pelosi to go that way. But there was
no sign that such a deal was made. Only today do we get the confirmation, as open as we will ever get it, that a deal has
indeed been made.
Senate Republicans are coalescing around a strategy of holding a short impeachment trial
early next year that would include no witnesses , a plan that could clash with President
Trump's desire to stage a public defense of his actions toward Ukraine that would include
testimony the White House believes would damage its political rivals.
Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus.
"I would say I don't think the appetite is real high for turning this into a prolonged
spectacle," Senate Majority Whip John Thune (S.D.), the chamber's second-ranking
Republican, told The Washington Post on Wednesday when asked whether Trump will get the
witnesses he wants in an impeachment trial.
...
Most notably, a quick, clean trial is broadly perceived to be the preference of Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) , who wants to minimize political distractions in an
election year during which Republicans will be working to protect their slim majority in the
chamber.
The piece goes on to say that the Republicans allegedly fear that they may not have the
votes to call witnesses. That is of course nonsense. The Republicans have 53 Senate seats and
the Democrats have 47. And digging into the sleaze of Joe Biden would surely bring additional
voter support and not risk any Senate seats.
The only reason why the Senate will go the soft way and just vote the impeachment down is
because a deal was made between Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi. The deal prevented an extensive impeachment inquiry and trial that could have hurt both
sides with uncertain outcome.
The narrowness and weakness of the impeachment resolution that can not hurt the president
was in exchange for a no-fuzz process in the Senate that will not dig into Biden and will not
hurt the Democrats during next year's election.
That a deal was made explains why Pelosi has chosen impeachment and not censure even as
polls were showing opposition to impeachment. It explains why she allowed only a narrow
resolution based on weak evidence. It explains why the House agreed to Trump's ginormous
defense budget in the same week that it produced an impeachment resolution against him. It also
guarantees that there would be no deeper digging by Democrats against Trump. It guarantees the
he will under no circumstances be found guilty and impeached.
Both sides can live with the results of this narrow process. The Democrats demonstrate to
their core constituency that they are willing to take on Trump. The Republicans show that they
stand with their president and against the lame accusations.
Trump will loudly claim that he does not like that the Senate will shut down the issue as
soon as possible. He will twitter that the Senate must tear into Biden and other Democrats. He
will play deeply disappointed when it does not do that.
But my hunch is that he is in on the deal. The narrowness of the impeachment resolution
prevents that some other dirty deals by him might come to light. It makes another real
impeachment process more unlikely. It guarantees his political survival.
The question left is if there were additional elements in this deal. What could those be
about?
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 12, 2019 at 18:44 UTC |
Permalink
Don't forget Sanders.
Pelosi pulling back from any impeachment attempt would only serve to underscore the
pusillanimity of the Democratic leadership.
If the Democrats *must* do an impeachment but would be hurt by a Republican Senate hit back,
this deal makes perfect sense.
Clearly Trump doesn't care about doling out money to corrupt countries. If he did, he would
be stopping aid to Israel where Netanyahu has actually been indicted on multiple counts of
corruption.
So, after indulging her caucus, Pelosi has thus cut a deal to make sure it ends quickly. I
think the double-dealing is harming her health, both physical and mental.
Dems will be able to paint swing state republicans that have been trying to distance
themselves from Trump as Trump lackeys for their 2020 reelection bids. Saying these GOP
senators are perfectly fine with inviting foreign interference into elections.
To me this proves that there really is no difference between Ds and Rs, both side made (are
still making) money on the plundering of Ukraine after the coup.
I don't think McConnell wants to help Trump win re-election and a drawn out impeachment
trial will just be more free campaign time on the TV for Trump. Both parties need an establishment president in 2020, a short trial is the least shitty
option for the establishment.
Not sure. McConnell may actually prefer working against a Dem prez than working for a Pub.
Especially a Pub loose cannon like Trump. To date, McConnell has a better record in
obstructing Dem execut8ve plans than passing GOP proposals.
Bernard makes a lot of sense today. The swamp is on the verge of eating its own and
neither Pelosi or McConnell desire that.
Pelosi remains alive only through the deal she made with the Devil decades ago which she
continues to honor daily.
This quote from the cited WaPost article is too funny:
"Several GOP senators on Wednesday said it would be better to limit the trial and quickly
vote to acquit Trump, rather than engage in what could become a political circus ."
[my emphasis]
The "political circus" is ongoing like some crazed Broadway production for 3+ years
already and destined for more. That genuine articles of impeachment that ought to gain a
conviction weren't employed is glaringly obvious to those few patriots that are watching. But
the Congressional insanity continues as noted in my other comments made today.
Someone wrote that this is the season of pantomime, and to that I must agree. Fantasies
and falsehoods peddled as realities all for the purpose of further enriching the few while
the many rejoice in their collective gullibility. Please, add another shot of brandy to my
eggnog!
B, you are right that deals have been made, but you are wrong to think Trump is in on it.
He may go along with it, but that does not mean he is arguing from a point of
weakness.
Here is the fact:
The average Republican in the Senate still does not like DJT. The average Republican in
the Senate does not like where the DJT-phenomenon is leading the country (into the light) and
therefore prefers a course of action to not only minimize the gain that POTUS could incur as
a result of a full-blown impeachment, but also minimizes the damage to Democrats and their
constituents that are still littered with true-believers suffering from massive TDS.
If they look weak towards POTUS, the Dems will have signaled their acknowledgment that
this whole affair is in fact a distraction.
Therefore, you can see that the Repub decision for an expedited impeachment benefits
everyone, including Biden, except Trump!
It can be inferred that the Repubs are still dreaming of DJT's eventual dethronement and a
return to the standard operating procedure of the pre-DJT era.
Biden is still the front-runner (to my great surprise). A show in the senate could sink him,
and then someone else would be nominated. Someone stronger, perhaps. Thus, tactically it
might make sense to let Biden get the nomination, and then attack him with full force...
Who knows. They have consultants to tell them how to play the game.
This deal confirms my long-held hypothesis that the DNC is fighting a "war on two fronts":
one against Trump and another against the socialist faction of its own party.
If Biden was disposable, the impeachment would go on in its full or there would be simply
a censure. The reason the DNC is going so far to save Joe Biden is because centrism is in
survival mode.
...another reason might be that a lot of politicians from both parties are so corrupt that
going after Biden could open a flood of scandals.
I'm sure when Biden said "Lindsey [Graham] is about to go down in a way that I think he's
going to regret his whole life" he meant something. They're all in the same boat.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
As early as
August 2018 , there had been speculation that the Skripals were being held at USAF
Fairford airbase, based on audiovisual evidence in the background garden scene where the
interview took place. Helmer's sources (they requested anonymity) spotted a chicken coop in
the background which they say is a crow ladder trap. This is one indication that the garden
scene was located near a runway. Background noises included the roar of jet engines.
If Helmer's information is correct, then we can now understand why the British government
never gave Russian embassy staff access to the Skripals: London was in no position to do so,
the Skripals were on US territory.
One implication of this new information is that the Skripals may no longer be in Britain
and may now be living in North America somewhere with new identities. Should something happen
to them (or have happened to them already), they will not be missed by their new neighbours.
The Skripals will never be allowed to return to Russia and Sergei Skripal will never see or
be allowed to communicate with his elderly mother again.
It really does look as if Sergei Skripal may have had something to do with that Orbis
dossier after all, even if as a minor source or as a reference rather than the primary source
of disinformation about Donald Trump's past activities in Moscow. What other work has Skripal
done for his American masters?
It looks as if Sergei Skripal may not be the primary source of the disinformation in
Christopher Steele's dossier. Perhaps the person who is the primary source
is not a Russian at all.
JR | Dec 11 2019 19:41 utc | 20 brings up a revisiting of the Litvinenko polonium poisoning.
It is worth mentioning that a tiny but crucial and virtually never mentioned detail of the
official inquiry (considered the last word on the matter) is that those conducting the
official inquiry were never allowed access to the autopsy report -- which should have been
(which would have been, in any honest effort at inquiry) the bedrock starting point. The
report has right along been sequestered by Scotland Yard in the interests of... you guessed
it: national security. Go figure...
It strikes me that the best explanation of the attack on the Skripals is not that he was
responsible for the Steele Dossier in any way, but that he could easily prove that it was a
fantasy. And was planning to do so.
He knew better, though, than to say so in the UK which suggests that he was on his way
home with his daughter when MI6 caught up with him and poisoned them both.
Steele, Pablo Miller and Skripal were old partners in crime.
I'm wondering whether the mistake Sergei made was not to leave the house -- probably worth
lotsa rubles -- behind and just go. On the other hand he was almost certainly under constant
surveillance.
@50 The Official Report to which you refer was also very careful to enter extensive
caveats regarding its conclusions for which there was almost no real evidence.
It seems important to note that Mr. Lavrov refers to administrations in his
comments, not presidents per se. As there are many staff in presidential
administrations, it seems entirely possible that 1) the requests from the Russians never
reached Obama or Trump personally, and 2) either or both presidents were therefore not even
aware of the requests. In the case of Trump, that would be consistent with the fact that many
members of his administration have been revealed to have operated contrary to his wishes.
@Jen #42
The Skripals residing on US territory would definitely indicate that the US has been the
senior partner in the "Skripal operation". This seems to be part of a general pattern.
@Jackrabbit #48
For the Steele dossier to be intentional bullshit (meaning its creator(s) knew it was
false when they created it) doesn't seem all that surprising. Intelligence agencies promote
disinformation all the time. That in no way means that Trump is in on the game.
Both Putin and Lavrov have stated that they talked directly with Obama and Trump about the
issues involved with their relations, so there's no excuses or obfuscation possible is this
case.
This is selective quotes from anti-Trump of neocon author. The general tone of the article is
completely different from presented quotes.
Notable quotes:
"... ..."This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow -- and a lot of people were in on it," Trump declared , while Barr insisted , in a more lawyerly fashion, "The Inspector General's report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken." ..."
The report confirmed that the Russia investigation originated, as has been previously
reported, with the Trump campaign adviser
George Papadopoulos bragging to an Australian diplomat about Russia possessing "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton, which the IG determined "was sufficient to predicate the investigation." The
widespread conservative belief that the investigation began because of the dubious claims in
the Steele dossier was false. "Steele's reports played no role" in the opening of the Russia
investigation, the report found, because FBI officials were not "aware of Steele's election
reporting until weeks later."
...The IG also "did not find any records" that Joseph Mifsud, the professor who told
Papadopoulos the Russians had obtained "dirt" on Clinton, was an FBI informant sent to entrap
him.
...Page "did not play a role in the decision to open" the Russia investigation, and that
Strzok was "was not the sole, or even the highest-level, decision maker as to any of those
matters."
...the IG did determine that the Page FISA application was "inaccurate, incomplete, or
unsupported by appropriate documentation," which misled the court as to the credibility of the
FBI's evidence when seeking authority to surveil Page.
..."This was an overthrow of government, this was an attempted overthrow -- and a lot of
people were in on it,"
Trump declared , while Barr insisted , in a more lawyerly fashion, "The Inspector General's
report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential
campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps
taken."
Adam
Serwer is a staff writer atThe Atlantic, where he covers
politics.
If the allegations against the president are all completely false, then his supporters can
continue to back him with a clear conscience, because anything and everything negative they
hear about the president must be false. The consistency of that message is more important than
the actual details, which frequently end up contradicting complex explanations for the
president's innocence that are often incongruous with each other, such as the
insistence that Robert Mueller's investigation was a "total exoneration" of the president,
but also " total bullshit ."
"... Yes, something happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us ..."
"... David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve our interests." ..."
This new front opened
when Representative Devin Nunes of California, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, repeatedly
insisted during last month's impeachment hearings that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 election against Trump. That drew
a stern rebuke from one witness asked to testify, the former Trump National Security Council adviser Fiona Hill, who
warned that congressional Republicans were spreading "a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by
the Russian security services themselves."
But Hill's words have not stopped Republicans from reprising those arguments. In late November, Senator John Kennedy
of Louisiana claimed during a television interview that Ukraine, not Russia, might have hacked the Democratic National
Committee's computers in 2016. After
retreating from that claim
, he went on
Meet the Press
on Sunday
and equated public criticism of Trump by some Ukrainian officials with
Russia's systematic interference campaign in 2016.
The Senate Intelligence
Committee, during its investigation of 2016 election meddling,
found no evidence of Ukrainian interference
. But when asked about Kennedy's comments this week, Senator Richard Burr
of North Carolina, the committee's chairman, came closer to endorsing rather than repudiating them.
"Every elected
official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton,"
Burr told NBC
. "Is that very different than the Russians being for Donald Trump?" Burr went on to liken Russia's
massive intelligence and hacking campaign to occasional public comments by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump. "The
president can say that they meddled because they had a preference, the elected officials,"
Burr said
. Other Republican senators, including John Barrasso of Wyoming, offered similar arguments this week.
The report released on
Monday by House Republicans likewise blurred the difference. "Publicly available -- and irrefutable -- evidence shows how
senior Ukrainian government officials sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President
Trump's candidacy," the report insisted.
Tucker Carlson took these arguments to new heights
on his show Monday night, not only minimizing Russian involvement
in 2016 but questioning why the U.S. was opposing its incursion into Ukraine at all. "I think we should probably take
the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine," Carlson insisted.
Republican
foreign-policy experts are still worried about the attempts by GOP leaders to defend Trump by disparaging Ukraine.
"For starters, you end up validating the Kremlin line which they have been peddling since 2016:
Yes, something
happened, but it was because Ukraine did it and not us
," says Richard Fontaine, who runs the nonpartisan Center for
a New American Security and was the top foreign-policy adviser to the late Senator John McCain of Arizona. "It's one
thing if Putin says these things, or if Kremlin spokespeople say these things; people, I hope, will take it with a
gigantic mountain of salt. But when you have U.S. elected leaders saying these things, it gives it a significant dose of
credibility, and that's not a good thing."
David Hale, an undersecretary in Trump's own State Department, expressed that concern at a Senate hearing on
Tuesday. When asked about the national-security ramifications of the rhetoric, Hale said pointedly, "It does not serve
our interests."
The accusations against Ukraine have drawn forceful pushback this week from Democrats, but only a few
Republicans -- most directly Senator Mitt Romney of Utah -- have openly condemned them. "What you are seeing unfortunately is
Republicans wanting to just adopt and parrot the Trump talking points, which also coincide with the Putin talking
points," Van Hollen said.
"... According to the Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson, Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the Senate. ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... Washington Examiner ..."
"... That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine. ..."
"... Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according to the report. ..."
"... On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion" or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the process. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Senate Republicans To Let Bidens Off The
Hook? May Skip Witnesses In 'Expedited' Impeachment Trial by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 19:45 0
SHARES
While House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate
the Bidens for what looks like obvious corruption - Senate Republicans have no interest in
calling witnesses to determine whether Trump's request was justified in the first place.
According to the
Washington Examiner , the GOP-controlled Senate have no plans to call key witnesses to
testify in an impeachment trial. This means Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, John Kerry's stepson,
Alexandra Chalupa and Ukrainian prosecutors involved in the Burisma case won't set foot in the
Senate.
Their reasoning? Senate Republicans have "no appetite" for it.
Senate impeachment rules require a majority vote to call witnesses, and with just two out
of 53 votes to spare, there is no "appetite" among Republicans to pursue testimony from
people that Democrats
blocked Republicans from subpoenaing during the House investigation . Indeed, Republicans
might forgo calling witnesses altogether, saying minds are made up on Trump's guilt or
innocence and that testimony at trial on the Senate floor would draw out the proceedings
unnecessarily. - Washington Examiner
Instead, top Senate Republicans are leaning towards calling a quick vote to acquit Trump
once House Democrats and the White House have delivered their arguments.
"At that point, I would expect that most members would be ready to vote and wouldn't need
more information," said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming - the #3 ranked Senate Republican. "Many
people have their minds pretty well made up."
"Here's what I want to avoid: this thing going on longer than it needs to," said Sen.
Lindsey Graham (R-SC). " I want to end this. "
The president is not in danger of being removed from office by the Senate, a move that
requires 67 votes.
But in a trial, he is seeking exoneration . Some Republicans question whether that's
possible without hearing from witnesses, whether it be these or other less politically
charged figures. " Not sure how you have a fair trial without calling witnesses ," said one
Trump ally in the House.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
" How many senators would enjoy a Trump rally? That's probably your whip count for calling
Hunter, " a Republican senator said, requesting anonymity to speak candidly. Senate Democrats
are not expected to provide any votes to call Biden or the others. Or they might ask so high
a price, demanding that in exchange, they be allowed to call Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
and Vice President Mike Pence, that Republicans balk. - Washington Examiner
"It becomes endless motions to call people, and I'm not sure what anybody gains from all
that," said #2 Senate Republican, John Thune of South Dakota.
That may not play well with Trump's base, who was expecting to see a doddering Joe Biden
and his cokehead son Hunter answer tough questions about Ukraine.
"President Trump's allies will want to see witnesses called. How many, and which witnesses,
will quickly become a dividing line," said former Trump adviser Jason Miller, who co-hosts an
impeachment-centric podcast with Steve Bannon.
Without witness testimony, the Senate proceedings would take roughly two weeks according
to the report.
On Tuesday, House Democrats introduced two articles of impeachment accusing President
Trump of abusing his power and obstructing Congress. Notably, there is no mention "extortion"
or "quid-pro-quo" - accusations Democrats have been pounding on throughout the
process.
But with some Senate Republicans facing uncertain 2020 reelection contests and others
privately unhappy with Trump's behavior, mustering 51 GOP votes for Trump's dream witness
list appears impossible.
Oh, you mean their own corruption will be exposed.
Democrats will claim that it was a rush to 'Political Judgement' and that they did all the
investigating and the Senate did nothing ... which will be true.
We need a complete Senate trial to bring to light the truth ... the IG report did not do
it and the DOJ seem impossibly incapable ... only chance is complete witnessed Senate
trial
I,m just curious to see if anybody has the balls to publish the names of all the grifting
family members of Senators and Congressmen and the details of what they are skimming and
where.......
I Guess Peter Schweitzer is the closest we will get.....
Well, I just watched Nadler's Articles of Impeachment presser. Jeez, I never saw the dems
so scarred and glum. Nancy looked like a zombie, as did all the rest. Check out the fat, ugly
bitch in the red jacket near Adam Schiff. Tells you all you need to know about the dems.
The tread is reproduced as is. And out 100 posts available in NYT "all view mode 90% can be classified as plain vanilla Neo-McCarthyism
If they are representative sample of the country, the country is crazy.
This editorial can also be classified as lunatic. But in reality it is much worse: the paper became completely subservant
to intelligence agencies. Should probably be renamed the Voice of the CIA. .
Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
By Jesse Wegman Mr. Wegman is a member of the editorial board.
When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected.
That's the most important lesson from the two big events that played out Monday on Capitol Hill -- the House Judiciary Committee's
hearings on President Trump's impeachment and the
release of the report on the origins of the F.B.I.'s investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
One of these involved the 2016 election. The other involves the 2020 election. Both tell versions of the same story: Mr. Trump
depends on, and welcomes, Russian interference to help him win the presidency. That was bad enough when he did it in 2016, openly
calling for Russia to hack into his opponent's emails -- which
Russians tried to do that
same day . But he was only a candidate then. Now that Mr. Trump is president, he is wielding the immense powers of his office
to achieve the same end.
That is precisely the type of abuse of power that the founders
were most concerned about when they
created the impeachment power, and it's why Democratic leaders in the House are pressing ahead with such urgency on their inquiry.
They are trying to ensure that the 2020 election, now less than a year away, is not corrupted by the president of the United States,
acting in league with a foreign power. "The integrity of our next election is at stake," said Representative Jerry Nadler, the chairman
of the Judiciary Committee. "Nothing could be more urgent."
On Monday morning, lawyers for the Democrats on the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees presented
the clearest and most comprehensive narrative yet of President Trump's monthslong shakedown of the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, for Mr. Trump's personal political benefit. They explained in methodical detail how the president withheld a White House
meeting and hundreds of millions of dollars in crucial, congressionally authorized military aid to Ukraine, all in an effort to get
Mr. Zelensky to announce two investigations -- one into Mr. Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter, and another
into Ukraine's supposed interference in the 2016 election.
David Leonhardt helps you make sense of the news -- and offers reading suggestions from around the web -- with commentary every
weekday morning.
Who would benefit from these announcements? Mr. Trump, who believes his re-election prospects are threatened most by Mr. Biden,
and Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, who has been working for years to make Ukraine the fall guy for his own interference
in the 2016 election. Mr. Putin has not fooled serious people, like those in the American intelligence community who determined that
his government alone was responsible
for meddling on Mr. Trump's behalf . But he has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices
by faithfully parroting Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press.
Republicans are in lawyer mode, advocating for Trump as if he were their client. Lawyers make the best case they can for their
clients. It helps if they believe in the case, but it also helps to know the case's weaknesses so they can avoid them. The best
lawyers can do both at the same time. Republicans are called on by the Constitution to exit lawyer mode and enter juror mode (which
is, or should be, similar to why-did-this-aircraft-crash mode). So far, they are not heeding this call. From all appearances,
they are mouthing the words of the Constitution while avoiding or refusing to hear or understand them. They took an oath to support
the Constitution, but they are deaf to its call, or have moved to a place beyond understanding it.
The issue of whether to impeach was made by the President when he engaged in an abuse of his office for personal gain and then
obstructed Congress' oversight function. We all understand the political downside arising from an acquittal in the Senate but
that interest needs to be secondary to doing the right thing. On these facts, the decision representatives must make of whether
to impeach really is no decision at all. Just do the right thing.
When Senator John McCain died, he scripted his own funeral as a full bore defense against Trumpian Nationalism, and as an admonishment
against a GOP too willing to sell the soul of our nation out to a cultist repudiation of objective fact, truth, and Constitutional
order. McCain was a controversial maverick –a person I both admired and disliked in equal proportion. But there is one thing I
will always admire him for: his final letter to the nation. It was a warning! He blew a golden bugle to sound the alarm against
those entities both within and without our nation who wish to do our democratic republic harm. McCain, whether you agreed with
the premise of the Vietnam war or not, was an American hero who served his country and his fellow soldiers with incontrovertible
valor and love. President Donald Trump has no concept of what that dedication and sacrifice entails – and sadly, neither do many
of the GOP members who continue to lie and make excuses for a president who is clearly abusing his office for personal gain. McCain
characterized Trump's actions in Helsinki as an unfathomable 'abasement of the U.S. presidency.' All I can say is the GOP sure
ain't the party of my father who fought in WWII against fascism and autocracy. It aggrieves me to no end to witness what too many
members of Congress have become: tyrants toward the very meaning of American democracy. God save us from our own duplicity.
@Twg Well said, and though I sometimes did not agree with McCain on matters of policy, I wish he were still with us, hopefully
to show his fellow republicans what integrity looks like, and what America is supposed to be about. The Republican party I have
known and respected is alas, like Senator McCain, no longer with us.
Americans have to realize that the whole world is mocking us, and that doesn't necesarily inspire respect. That cold be dangerous.
Many medical professionals have noticed a decay in the mental abilities of the president, and certain abnormalities. It would
be wise to suggest to the family that maybe the best way forward, with minimal losses would be to motivate a retirement. That
would be face saving for them, and save the country from a bitter impeachment spectacle that would not be positive for the USA.
I'm waiting for Trump's financial info to be released. There's something in there he doesn't even want his base to know . I think
the logical conclusion is that whatever financials DJT has hidden do indeed lead to Moscow. Actually, all of this is very, very
alarming. Does Putin have a political asset planted here? Y or N I wish the answer was no and that we had a different President.
Can we as a nation hold things together when our leader wants to tear us apart?
All roads lead to the highest bidder(s). 21st century America in the era of Citizens United. Market pricing and the government
is open for transactional business domestic and international. Alternate realities per GRU/FOX/GOP misinformation. Combine foreign
money carefully grooming an in-need Trump, and a party worshipping money and you have a perfect storm removing any sense of civic
duty. Hundreds of years to build and unwound in a few decades, the breathtaking and tragic fall of greatness and hope in our lifetime.
It's not fiction, and every day I have to check if it's really happening, and shockingly it is.
There was no Russian meddling, only Ukraine who meddled in 2016 and they are still at it. Listening to the Judiciary Committee
hearings, it seems that the Russians have hacked into the Republican Party servers and are sending talking points to Republicans
who are defending the indefensible president.
At some point, Republicans have to ask themselves which is better for their party and the country. Slavish devotion to Trump,
or losing an election and leaving Democrats a mess to clean up, as in 1932 and 2008?
Block witnesses from testifying, then say that the hearing is incomplete. Romney told America at the Republican Convention in
2012 that Russia was our biggest enemy, DJT wanted them to help Republicans win in 2016, said he believed Putin in 2018, and wants
to convince us that it was really the Ukraine in 2019. The House has to impeach, even if politically it may be a bad move, because
it is the right thing to do; indeed, the very actions I've seen in the past several weeks has given me glimmers of hope for the
country.
Trump will be reelected for the reason that the Russian intelligence agencies are still able to hack our election results, because
Trump has blocked fixing the weaknesses. That is what happens when a Manchurian candidate is elected and then allowed to obstruct
justice. It is not clear the US will survive Trump. One key thing he did was arrange to have the teams at DHS that watch for smuggled
nuclear bombs were stood down and disbanded. See the report in the LA Times last July "Trump administration has gutted programs
aimed at detecting weapons of mass destruction".
I don't suppose a constructed transcript of Trump's meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tomorrow will be offered up as
a token of our leader's transparency.
It's clear now that AG William Barr isn't interested in enforcing the rule of law with fellow republicans, and especially the
president. How can there be no recourse when an attorney general completely sells out to a criminal president? Can the employees
of the Justice Dept hold a vote of no confidence in the AG? Can 10,000 attorneys nationwide express the same? The prospect of
Trump and Barr running roughshod over the rule of law for another year is truly frightening.
65,845,063 voters knew clearly who this man was from the beginning and voted for what would have been a better now and future.
It was never any secret. 62,980,160 voters also knew clearly who this man was and voted for him anyway. If the Democrats can ensure
that we have a fair election in 2020. I'm confident they will win the majority in the house and senate and retake the White House
and the end game for Trump will be jail. The problem is, he might not be the only one who's crimes come to light and I suspect
a good lot of the GOP are threatening and blackmailing each other to hold the line. If there's any good men or women left in the
GOP, your country and history are calling you.
It has easy to predict Trump's next move for the last 3 years. Just ask, "What would both benefit Trump, and benefit Putin?" Trump
supporters = Putin supporters.
Do you know the American people are fed up with the discourse of all politicians. The republicans are fed up with any decency
for the republic. The democrats are fed up with the republicans not facing the common sense of a exec not capable of being the
President of the United states. I as a person am fed up with a political system that is not working for all people, just a select
few. It's time too have term limits for all positions in gov't. That means all people that serve the people whether it be judges,
senators or congressmen/women. It's time to find common sense again in our society as a whole society. We on this earth are all
HUMAN.
Unfortunately their are serious problems with term limits. Just consider yourself in the role of a Congressional Representative
limited to 4 terms. You know that in 8 years, you'll be be back on the job market. You can selflessly work for the public and
damage your ability to get a job or tend to people who can hire you after you leave office. You're rational. Which future would
you pick?
Trump needs to keep Putin happy lest he unleash with all the damaging info he has collected on Trump and his financial crooked
deals with Russians over decades. THe Russian mob reports to Putin as a former KGB agent he knows how to collect compromat on
a politician and how to use it to get Trump to break into a giddy smile when he sees Putin his master it's obvious to most keen
observers.
Folks it is simple. Can we hear what Trump and Putin said to each other a few months ago. It is recored and on a server it should
not be on. I am not sure why nobody is talking about these transcripts.
Finally! We get someone stating the obvious fact of Trump/Putin. Why are the Dems not talking about this all the time? Why are
Congressmen and women not asking the witnesses about this? This is the ONE thing the Republicans are afraid of, so it is the one
thing Democrats should do. I have been disappointed that the Russian asset thing hasn't been brought up....It's as if it is purposely
bold. Trump is a Russian asset, either witting or unwitting. I doubt if there is one upper Intelligence Official that wouldn't
say this. So find the right one and have them sit as a witness for this inquiry. And now the Russian big wig Diplomat and KGb
spy, Lavarov, is visiting tomorrow. Good grief! Everyone is thinking this, so get out and say it Dems! Dr. Fiona Hill tried to
lead into this direction but still the Dem Committee would take it up and aske her what she thought. Say it: All of Trump's Roads
Lead to Russia.
Any American adult who has made an effort to educate himself or herself about Mr. Mueller's investigation or these impeachment
proceedings understands that yes, with Trump all roads lead to Russia. Now if the poll numbers mean anything, Trump's crimes and
Russia's involvement only matter to about 60% of us. As Trump's poll numbers remain steady, some 40% of Americans don't care what
lawbreaking he is involved with or whether other nations now control our elections. Stop and think about this for a minute. Trump
supporters know but literally do not care that Russia is tampering with our elections (2016 and 2020). Their cult-like support
for Trump is why the Republican Senate will not remove him. There is no other reason Trump will remain in office. Trump has mesmerized
his supporters like a modern day Rasputin. They will do literally anything for him, and Senate Republicans know this. Trump voters
do not mind that Putin controls our nation at the highest levels of decision making. Again - think about this - they know he does,
and they do not care. So I ask the rest of us. Is this the America we want to live in? To raise our families in? Where a large,
rabid minority is in thrall to a lunatic puppet whose strings are firmly in Putin's hands? Because this is very much the America
we live in now. The time will come, though, when we, the majority, will no longer tolerate the Trump/Putin regime. But the longer
we wait, the harder it will be oust these tyrants.
In 2008, Donald Trump Jr. said Russia was an important source of funding for the Trump businesses. American banks wouldn't lend
him money. Saudi Arabia likely bailed out Jared's disastrous real estate investment in NYC. Follow. The. Money.
You say that Mr. Putin "has fooled Republicans in Congress, who have degraded themselves and their offices by faithfully parroting
Mr. Putin's propaganda in the mainstream press." You are correct on all counts, except that the Republicans have not been fooled
by Putin. They have gone along, headlong and absolutely willingly, in a complete sellout of personal and national principle and
integrity. They should not be forgiven for this conduct, any more than Mr. Trump should be forgiven for his sellout of America.
For Republicans who believe so fervently in their counterfactual narrative, there is an immediate remedy. Bring facts and evidence
to the Committees and testify under oath. Without witnesses and evidence presented under oath, all of the GOP antics simply look
foolish and very much like they are defending the guilty. It is unfortunate that there is no penalty for elected officials who
share unfounded conspiracy theories, engage in innuendo and obstruct process in official Committee hearings. It is also regretable
that this President is not held accountable for trying to intimidate witnesses in real time during testimony. And it is a sad
reality that one of the most corrupt rulers in the world, who rules a hostile power, has managed to entirely win over one of our
major parties.
The strangest defense advanced today was the idea that the alleged state of the economy was reason not to impeach the President:
the Republicans assert that America, the Constitution, the principle of our government are for sale to be bought by the rising
stock market and a plethora of low-wage jobs. We are Faust, and the smell of sulphur is nauseating.
If the IG's report on the 2016 Russia investigation had found the only problem was that two of the agents involved had horrible
hangnails, Barr and Trump would have condemned it.
Whatever Trump is doing, he always care about his main benefactors, Putin and MBS. This is the first time I have witnessed in
history that an American president became a Russian puppet with all his Republican followers at the Congress and Senate. American
constitutional crisis happening right in front of the world. I heard the cries of James Madison, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin
from their graves.
Sir, do you honestly think that House Republicans have been "fooled" by Mr. Putin? On the contrary, it's pretty obvious they understand
and believe the conclusions from our Intel community. These are instead willful lies for political gain. And while some Americans
may actually be misled by the theater presented as rebuttal to the impeachment, it's hard to imagine for most it's once again,
not conviction but convenience that places such "patriots" solidly in Russia's back pocket.
The pattern of behavior is clear and compelling: Trump is selling out this country, its national security, its integrity and sovereignty,
in order to keep power and avoid his own prosecution, and protect his financial interests. We must get the truth about his relationships
and indebtedness to Putin, the Saudis, and Erdogan. Our country has been hijacked and Trump will continue to corrupt the US and
turn it into an autocracy if he is not stopped and held accountable under the law.
The country voted for this President knowing he is a flawed man in many ways. I don't think anything changes here - the Senate
will speedily acquit him and the voters in the swing states will have to decide if they want to give Mr. Trump a second chance
while the rest of the country impotently watches.
If one looks at all of his actions as "How could this benefit Russia?" most of it makes sense. Why start a trade war with China
and Western allies? Why withdraw from Syria? Why try to polarize the American public? Effectively showing this to the public is
critical.
Excellent piece. We all know Trump, Inc. turned to Russian oligarchs after '08 for condo sales. It just so happened that those
same oligarchs (read as kleptocrats) were laundering money through Deutsche Bank, who was the only bank willing to lend to Trump.
Trump's loan officer amazingly was SC Justice Anthony Kennedy's son. Trump was and is a desperate man in need of cash/ Putin is
a desperate man who knows that the geyser of oil money that funds his national budget, and has done so since the 1920's, is coming
to an end. Russia has no large material economic exports other than oil and gas, but it does still have a large military, hence
the military incursions into Moldova, Ossetia, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria. Desperate men do desperate things, and desperately
try to project power with weak hands.
The Republicans in Congress were not fooled by the Russians. They believe in Trump no matter what the Russians do. The bottom
line is - What does Putin have on Trump
I don't understand why there hasn't been more of a pushback by the military. They went heavily for Trump in 20116, with many bases
in the South and many recruits from economically devastated areas, but in the interim, they have seen his reckless, lurching foreign
policy, worship of Putin, and clear evidence that somehow everything he does benefits Russia. A commander's first obligation is
to their troops, so knowing the man in charge considers their lives subject to both Trump's whims, and Putin's whispers should
provoke some reaction. No?
Unfortunately - to put it mildly - impeachment will have no effect on the conduct of the 2020 election. The wheels are already
turning, everyone knows their part, and only a massive commitment by an honest intelligence apparatus (if there is one) can stop
it. One can only hope that, in 2020, the American people make a statement so overwhelming that there can be no doubt as to their
intent, despite whatever meddling there may have been. It is entirely possible that there will never be a truly credible election
again as long as there are bad actors who are power hungry or bent on destabilizing democratic governments. And make no mistake,
these threats are coming from right wing autocracies, and they are in the ascendancy all over the world. American centrists and
liberals are the only force that can change that. Are those stakes big enough for you?
We may finally have the answer as to why Trump is so accommodating to Putin. Trump has so many investments in Russia dependent
on Putin's support. Trump financial reports will reveal this collusion between Trump and Putin. This should not come as a surprise
to attentive Americans. Think of the worst an American president can do and that will bring you close to understanding Trump.
Nobody's saying how Trump withholding military aid to Ukraine would benefit Putin and Russia in their WAR against Ukraine. It
was, indeed, MILITARY aid he was withholding, was it not? I understand that this is not the impeachable offense of attempting
to enlist a foreign government to win an election, but I believe this aspect of the situation should be brought out.
The Republican Party has been officially reduced to a giant miasma of fraud, fiction, fantasy, conspiracy theory, deflection,
misdirection and prevarication. After tax cuts for rich people and rich corporations...the GOP has no other public policy ideas
(except for bankrupting the government). A civilized country needs little things like infrastructure, education, technology, voting
rights, law and order, regulations, fair taxation and facts to move forward. But none of those things are ever mentioned by the
Republican Party; conspiracy-mongering and tax cuts are now the official governing planks of the Grand Old Propaganda/Grand One
Percent party. This is no way to manage a nation anywhere except into the ground. Americans need to hit the Trump-GOP eject button
before these Lord of the Fly Republicans take us over a very steep right-wing cliff of insanity.
The Republican Party is now Trump's party and the Republicans know it and are acting accordingly. You could call them opportunists
following the way the political winds are blowing. The Constitution is based on members of Congress caring about the Constitution
and searching for the truth. Since this is now not the case when if comes to the Republicans the Constitution has no remedy for
this situation. The only remedy is an election and if Trump can manipulate elections to his advantage using foreign powers then
there is no remedy and the system of government set up by the founders will be no more. The new system replacing it will be controlled
by Trump. Putin figured out how to control Russian elections so he always wins and it is likely that Trump has a goal of imitating
Putin. Ultimately this would mean taking over the press as Putin did. Trump cannot declare total victory as long as the there
is a free press which he has labeled the enemy of the people.
From an acute perspective ..indeed shocking to say the least of the nature of this peculiar relationship. But looking at the big
picture as evidence by all that has occurred in his or during this eye opening period for all the world to see....not so much
so...For me, this dynamic is much expected.
"The witness has used language which impugns the motives of the president and suggests he's disloyal to his country, and those
words should be stricken from the record and taken down," Mr. Johnson said. The Johnson rule effectively reads the impeachment
power out of the constitution. How can you impeach a president if no one can say anything bad about him/her?
We have yet to plow the most fertile road yet. What does Trump care about over all else? Trump. How does Trump gauge his progress?
His money. Where does his money come from? Good question. We all know he has filed for bankruptcy 6 times. We all know that because
of those bankruptcies, American banks will not loan him any money. We all know he has significant financial dealings with Deutsche
Bank. Now, who put the money in Deutsche Bank that ended up financing Trump's business.? That is the two billion dollar question.
We also know that Russian oligarchs deal in billions of dollars. We also know that Trump has close relations with Russian business
interests. We also know that Trump kowtows to Putin like Pence kowtows to him. We also know that Trump is doing everything possible
to conceal his financial dealings from everyone and everything. So, we know that one billion plus one billion equals two billion.
But does it also equal Trump? This money road is one we should take a ride on. Will it also take us to Putin?
The first Democratic candidate who labels Trump a "Russian agent" will own the simplest and most effective tag line going into
the general election, provided of course that that candidate does his best to channel his inner Trump by never backing down but
instead doubling down every chance he or she gets. Is Trump a Russian agent, paid for and accounted for? Not easy to say without
some doubt, but that doesn't really matter because he sure as shoottin' acts like one. And when have the facts ever stopped Trump
from going on the attack? The more Trump denies the label, the more he'll be digging his own grave. The real crime here is not
so much the strong arming of Zelenskyy for a Biden investigation. That's small potatoes compared to Trump's withholding congressionally
designated US military aid from a country engaged in a hot war with Russia, the same cast of characters who starved anywhere from
one to eleven million Ukrainians during the 1930's. The Russian agent must go.
I would not say Trump's lying "is effective", I would say it "has been effective". At some point, the public and his party may
have had it with the thuggery and we do not know when that breaking point is.
For the sake of protecting our 2020 elections from Russian hackers and disinformation, the House is justified in moving forward
fast, over the process howls of Republicans, with the compelling evidence they have surrounding Ukraine. But they need to continue
investigating his business and financial ties to Russia and any other autocratic governments and their oligarchs, e.g. Turkey
and Saudi Arabia. Especially if he is not convicted and removed by the Senate and stands for re-election, Americans need to know
what conflicts of interest he has in making foreign policy and military decisions because American soldiers' lives are at stake.
The Mueller investigation did not go down that road. Any businessman with global interests is automatically compromised, even
more than a vice president whose son sits on a foreign corporation's board of director. Trump's own children continue to do business
in foreign countries and we have no idea what Ivanka and Jared, sitting in the White House with top security clearances, are doing.
In short, Ukraine should not be the only concern of congressional oversight committees. There's a lot more.
Trump must believe that Russian help in 2016 did help him to win. He must feel that fake evidence presented by an "independent"
investigator such as a foreign government appears to carry more weight that the same fake evidence from a partisan investigator.
Otherwise why would he be taking such chances to duplicate via Ukraine what he got from the Russians in 2016. But now that the
Russian connection is outed, he can't go back to that well.
I worry it's all for naught. Dems in the House vote to impeach, GOP in the Senate vote to acquit. Trump remains highly competitive
in 2020 election, Russia and other adversaries interfere, Trump stays put. Then what?
@NA Wilson Think of this situation differently. To have all possible scope to defeat him, we must support everything we can to
undermine him. Lack of impeachment would have been business as usual. At some point his finances will get out and then all bets
are off.
@NA Wilson: It's all Hands on deck to save the country. Don't just vote, donate what money you can, work for candidates, knock
doors, make calls. It's the only way out of this nightmare.
The Impeachment hearings weren't really necessary to prove what most everyone who's been paying attention knows. With Trump, all
roads lead to Moscow. In fact, he's already acting very Putin-esque in his own way by forbidding anyone in the White House to
respond to subpoena, by installing the fear of God in those who do, by punishing anyone who dares to think or act on their own,
and then there's the act of holding a foreign country ransom until they agree to do his bidding -- not to mention inviting outside
interference in our presidential elections. All the signs are not only there but they are ominous. By holding himself above the
U.S. Constitution, Trump has declared war on this country and all the laws that govern it. And while entertainment-starved Americans
laugh and cheer at his rallies, he and the Republicans drain our right to vote, and with it our Democracy. Today wasn't an epiphany.
It was a warning.
There seems to be no discussion of the financial backing trump received after '08-09 from sources inside Russia and how these
actors would have expressed their support (or conditions for their silence) to the trump campaign during '15-16. Did the FBI not
identify and investigate the funders behind trump and their interactions with the campaign during 2016? Would this not have been
reasonable for an investigation to look into when its entire raison d'etre was to detect sources of Russian influence?
I wonder if Mr. Wegman believes that this editorial will change anyone's mind or influence how anyone votes in the upcoming presidential
election. Basically, this is classic preaching to the choir and sadly mostly a wasted effort. I would like to read articles with
proven ideas that worked to change the minds of Republicans and other like them. Such articles might give me some better ideas
to convince my pro-Trump friends and neighbors to Vote for America next November.
"When it comes to Donald Trump and Russia, everything is connected." This! This is the central fact of all the things Trump has
done (so far), and yet, the Democrats have failed to make this the central focus of the case against him. Instead, they've focused
on one incident, and not even the most egregious one, to justify impeachment and removal from office. This was a terrible miscalculation.
No, there is no doubt that Trump attempted to coerce Ukraine into helping with his re-election by announcing a bogus investigation
of the Bidens. Nor any doubt that this constituted "high crimes and misdemeanors". But this was not the highest of crimes he's
committed, nor have the Dems been able to convince any Republicans, or many independents, that this deserves Trump's removal.
Moreover, they failed to produce the "smoking gun" of one witness or document in Trump's own words directing the quid pro quo.
They gave plenty of room for the Republican attack machine to cast enough doubt and confusion that all but ensures Trump's acquittal
in the Senate. Instead of focusing only on this one incident, the Democrats should have built their case around the theme that
"with Trump, all roads lead to Russia". That is a crime that even the most skeptical doubter can grasp, and when linked together,
all of his crimes can be shown to be of a pattern of serving Putin, and not the people of the United States. All roads lead to
Putin, but the Democrats chose to follow a dead end.
@Kingfish52 I completely agree with you and truly don't understand why the Democrats have not been shouting this from the rooftops.
For mercy's sake! The problem is not just that the president solicited help from a foreign power for his own personal gain! That's
bad enough, but isn't the point that he did this because he is beholden to Russia? Russia. is. not. our. friend. Why aren't the
Democrats explaining this clearly to the American people? Trump is Putin's puppet and it could not be more obvious! Don't people
understand that it doesn't just happen to be Ukraine that Trump took a notion to squeeze for his "personal gain"? He doesn't just
want to win because it is so nice to win elections. He has to do what Putin tells him. Obviously, every last Republican in Congress
understands this clearly. Why can't the Democrats explain it to the American people clearly?
Obama did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine, after the Russians invaded Crimea. Obama did not Russia prevent the Iranian nuclear
deal. Trump cancelled the Iranian nuclear deal, then provided lethal aid to Ukraine. Now I get it. Trump is working for Putin.
By March 2015, the US had committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine and had pledged an additional $75
million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies, according to the
Pentagon's Defense Security Cooperation Agency. That assistance also included some 230 armored Humvee vehicles. Trump appears
to be echoing a critique leveled at the Obama administration by the late Republican Sen. John McCain. "The Ukrainians are being
slaughtered and we're sending blankets and meals," McCain said in 2015. "Blankets don't do well against Russian tanks." While
it never provided lethal aid, many of the items that the Obama administration did provide were seen as critical to Ukraine's military.
Part of the $250 million assistance package that the Trump administration announced (then froze and later unfroze) included many
of the same items that were provided under Obama, including medical equipment, night vision gear and counter-artillery radar.
The Trump administration did approve the provision of arms to Ukraine, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and Javelin anti-tank
missiles, something long sought by Kiev.
@Mike Trump was not the one providing lethal aid to Ukraine. It was the house and senate that proposed and forced this aid into
an appropriation bill - against the wishes of the Trump administration. After Trump realized he could not block this funding he
did the second best thing - he used it to blackmail the Ukraine government to provide him with dirt on Biden and support for Putin's
favorite narrative (that it was Ukraine not Russia that interfered in the 2016 election).
@Mike It also took two acts of Congress to get the aid to Ukraine. Trump had nothing to do with it. Only the Impound Inclusion
Act for foreign aid allows the President to time the release of the funds, which Trump did not follow. The Act was created because
Nixon, like Trump, was playing fast and loose with our tax dollars. Who was the last President who asked for help from a foreign
intelligence agency? Which President favored foregn intelligence agencies over his own? Answer no one other than Trump. If that
doesn't show he's in someone's pocket, nothing does.
FBI Didn't Tell Surveillance Court That Carter Page Was "Operational Contact" For CIA
With "Positive Assessment" by Tyler Durden Tue, 12/10/2019 - 07:55 0
SHARES
The FBI failed to inform surveillance court judges that Carter Page was an "operational
contact" for the CIA for years , and that an employee at the spy agency gave the former Trump
aide a "positive assessment," according to a Justice Department report released Monday.
The finding is included in a list of seven of the FBI's "significant inaccuracies and
omissions" in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants against
Page, a longtime energy consultant who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016.
(emphasis ours)
The report said the FBI "omitted" information it obtained from another U.S. government
agency about its prior relationship with Page.
The agency approved Page as an "operational contact" from 2008 to 2013, according to the
report.
"Page had provided information to the other agency concerning his prior contacts with
certain Russian intelligence officers, one of which overlapped with facts asserted in the FISA
application," the report stated.
Page told the Daily Caller News Foundation he believes the agency in question is the CIA.
Page has previously said he provided information to the CIA and FBI before becoming ensnared in
the bureau's investigation of the Trump campaign.
The report stated an employee with the CIA assessed Page "candidly" described contact he had
with a Russian intelligence officer in 2014. But the FBI cited Page's contact with the officer
to assert in its FISA applications that there was probable cause to believe that Page was
working as a Russian agent.
The IG faulted the FBI for failing to disclose to FISA judges that Page was an operational
contact for the CIA for five years, and that "Page had disclosed to the other agency contacts
that he had with Intelligence Officer 1 and certain other individuals."
The report also stated that the FBI omitted that "the other agency's employee had given a
positive assessment of Page's candor."
The IG said the FBI's failure to disclose Page's relationship with the CIA "was particularly
concerning" because an FBI attorney had specifically asked an FBI case agent whether Page had a
current or prior relationship with the other federal agency.
***
[editor's note: Not only that, an FBI employee - undoubtedly 'resistance' lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , altered an email to specifically state that Page was "not a source" for
the CIA . ]
The FBI agent falsely asserted Page's relationship was "outside scope" of the investigation
because it dated back to when Page lived in Moscow from 2004 to 2007.
"This representation, however, was contrary to information that the other agency had
provided to the FBI in August 2016, which stated that Page was approved as an 'operational
contact' of the other agency from 2008 to 2013 (after Page had left Moscow)," the IG report
stated.
The report also said Page's CIA contacts considered him to have been candid about his
interactions with a suspected Russian intelligence officer who was later indicted for acting as
an unregistered agent of Russia.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 8 minutes ago
link
I sometimes think Page was a plant- he's vigorously defended Trump and slammed the CIA and
the hoax of the spying- but that could all be a ruse.
In my mind the jury is still out.
Papadopolous on the other hand- was clearly used, honey pot and all.
The entire "Russian collusion" investigation is another example of the Feds manufacturing
false evidence. Mitsud, supposedly a Russian agent, was actually an asset of US intelligence.
Ever since the foisting of the 17th Amendment, which destroyed the veto of the several states
of Washington excesses and corruptions, Washington D.C. has been the only REAL enemy that the
people have ever had.
Rudy is going to take a huge Trump Dump, right on the heads of the Libtards this
week....... Open wide Retards..........
=============
Breaking: Ukrainian Official Reveals Six Criminal Cases Opened in Ukraine Involving the
Bidens
Trump told the waiting reporters that his personal attorney former New York City Mayor
Rudy Giuliani "found plenty" of "good information" during his recent trip to Ukraine and
Europe.
Trump then added that he believes Giuliani wants to present a report to the Attorney
General William Barr and to Congress. Trump added Giuliani has not told him what he
found.
Giuliani reportedly traveled to Budapest and Ukraine this past week to meet with several
Ukrainian officials about corruption.
OAN reporter Chanel Rion has been traveling with Rudy Giuliani and reporting on his
investigations in Hungary and Kiev, Ukraine.
In her report released on Sunday night Chanel Rion mentioned that Ukrainian officials
showed her six criminal cases involving the Bidens, Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
A more powerful force is at work here, the agencies are their tools, operators. We need to
get our heads out of the weeds if we are to identify the source. Whatever it is, it is likely
internal, thought a higher cause and convincing as CIA, FBI have bought in?
I read the linked article. Quite fascinating that Hillary and her minions were treated
with kid gloves (and nothing at all about Obama, Lynch, Holder, Jarrett, et al) and extended
every courtesy and soft-pedal, yet Roger Stone and Paul Manafort were greeted with platoons
of FBI ninjas and armored vehicles in early morning raids akin to those in Stalinist
Russia.
The FBI didn't tell the FISA court a lot of things. The FBI failed to tell the FISA court
the interview with Papadopoulos revealed there to be absolutely NO Russian collusion. The FBI
deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence that would have freed General Flynn and ended the
investigations.
Instead, the FBI covered up the truth with omissions and lies. That what I call bias.
Call it willful blindness by omission, but I prefer to call it a criminal act and sedition
against a President.
This guy is an Annapolis grad and CIA contact and they destroyed him. Hes gonna get very
rich with lawsuits now. The thing that amazes me no one is talking about.........motivation.
All of these major and minor infractions add up to one thing.....an orchestrated attempt to
frame and over throw the President.\ of the United States
"... Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress . ..."
"... What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties. The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko were not done independently. ..."
"... Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch. ..."
In a fantastic display of true investigative journalism, One America News journalist Chanel
Rion tracked down Ukrainian witnesses as part of an exclusive OAN investigative series. The
evidence being discovered dismantles the baseless Adam Schiff impeachment hoax and highlights
many corrupt motives for U.S. politicians.
Ms. Rion spoke with Ukrainian former Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko who outlines how
former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch perjured herself before Congress .
What is outlined in this interview is a problem for all DC politicians across both parties.
The obviously corrupt influence efforts by U.S. Ambassador Yovanovitch as outlined by Lutsenko
were not done independently.
Senators from both parties participated in the influence process and part of those influence
priorities was exploiting the financial opportunities within Ukraine while simultaneously
protecting Joe Biden and his family. This is where Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey
Graham were working with Marie Yovanovitch.
Imagine what would happen if all of the background information was to reach the general
public? Thus the motive for Lindsey Graham currently working to bury it.
You might remember George Kent and Bill Taylor testified together.
It was evident months ago that U.S. chargé d'affaires to Ukraine, Bill Taylor, was
one of the current participants in the coup effort against President Trump. It was Taylor who
engaged in carefully planned
text messages with EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland to set-up a narrative helpful to Adam
Schiff's political coup effort.
Bill Taylor was formerly U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine ('06-'09) and later helped the Obama
administration to design the laundry operation providing taxpayer financing to Ukraine in
exchange for back-channel payments to U.S. politicians and their families.
In November Rudy Giuliani released a letter he sent to Senator
Lindsey Graham outlining how Bill Taylor blocked VISA's for Ukrainian 'whistle-blowers' who are
willing to testify to the corrupt financial scheme.
Unfortunately, as we are now witnessing, Senator Lindsey Graham, along with dozens of U.S.
Senators currently serving, may very well have been recipients for money through the
aforementioned laundry process. The VISA's are unlikely to get approval for congressional
testimony, or Senate impeachment trial witness testimony.
U.S. senators write foreign aid policy, rules and regulations thereby creating the financing
mechanisms to transmit U.S. funds. Those same senators then received a portion of the laundered
funds back through their various "institutes" and business connections to the foreign
government offices; in this example Ukraine. [ex. Burisma to Biden]
The U.S. State Dept. serves as a distribution network for the authorization of the money
laundering by granting conflict waivers , approvals for financing (think Clinton Global
Initiative), and permission slips for the payment of foreign money. The officials within the
State Dept. take a cut of the overall payments through a system of "indulgence fees", junkets,
gifts and expense payments to those with political oversight.
If anyone gets too close to revealing the process, writ large, they become a target of the
entire apparatus. President Trump was considered an existential threat to this entire process.
Hence our current political status with the ongoing coup.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out , because, well, in reality all of the U.S.
Senators (both parties) are participating in the process for receiving taxpayer money and
contributions from foreign governments.
A "Codel" is a congressional delegation that takes trips to work out the payments
terms/conditions of any changes in graft financing. This is why Senators spend $20 million on a
campaign to earn a job paying $350k/year. The "institutes" is where the real foreign money
comes in; billions paid by governments like China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Ukraine, etc.
etc. There are trillions at stake.
[SIDEBAR: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell holds the power over these members (and the
members of the Senate Intel Committee), because McConnell decides who sits on what committee.
As soon as a Senator starts taking the bribes lobbying funds, McConnell then has
full control over that Senator. This is how the system works.]
The McCain Institute is one of the obvious examples of the financing network. And that is
the primary reason why Cindy McCain is such an outspoken critic of President Trump. In essence
President Trump is standing between her and her next diamond necklace; a dangerous place to
be.
So when we think about a Senate Impeachment Trial; and we consider which senators will vote
to impeach President Trump, it's not just a matter of Democrats -vs- Republican. We need to
look at the game of leverage, and the stand-off between those bribed Senators who would prefer
President Trump did not interfere in their process.
McConnell has been advising President Trump which Senators are most likely to need their
sensibilities eased. As an example President Trump met with Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski in
November. Senator Murkowski rakes in millions from the multinational Oil and Gas industry; and
she ain't about to allow horrible Trump to lessen her bank account any more than Cindy McCain
will give up her frequent shopper discounts at Tiffanys.
Senator Lindsey Graham
announcing today that he will not request or facilitate any impeachment testimony that
touches on the DC laundry system for personal financial benefit (ie. Ukraine example), is
specifically motivated by the need for all DC politicians to keep prying eyes away from the
swamps' financial endeavors. WATCH:
This open-secret system of "Affluence and Influence" is how the intelligence apparatus gains
such power. All of the DC participants are essentially beholden to the various U.S.
intelligence services who are well aware of their endeavors.
There's a ton of exposure here (blackmail/leverage) which allows the unelected officials
within the CIA, FBI and DOJ to hold power over the DC politicians. Hold this type of leverage
long enough and the Intelligence Community then absorbs that power to enhance their self-belief
of being more important than the system.
Perhaps this corrupt sense of grandiosity is what we are seeing play out in how the
intelligence apparatus views President Donald J Trump as a risk to their importance.
Everyone loves money. I like money. The only question is how to earn them. Neither I, nor
you, nor many of us will cross a certain moral and ethical line (border), but there are
people without morality, without ethical standards, without conscience. We all look the same
outwardly, but we are all completely different inside.
Ukraine is Obama's **** , this is not Trump's ****. Trump's stupidity was only one - he
got into this ****. I wrote, but I repeat - USA acted as the best friend in relation to
Russia, having taken off a leech from Russia and hanging it on itself. Do you know such an
estate of Rothschilds - called Israel and its role in the life of USA?
So, Ukraine was for the Russians the same Israel in terms of meaningless spending. Look at
Vlad, in 2014 he looked like a fox who was eating a chicken, and on January 1, 2020 he will
look like a fox who eating a whole brood of chickens. I think he has portraits of Obama and
Trump in his bedroom.
Yes, indeed. Lindsey will bury the story, he is on the take. Your tax dollars at work. By
the way, the Fed picked up all of the Ukies gold for safekeeping at 33 Liberty St. NY, with
Yats permission, of course.... https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
A glimpse into how elected officials accumulate millions, retire wealthy, pampered and
privileged....and I'm not talking pensions I'm talking corruption. Obama, Biden, Hillary,
Kerry, Holder, Rice and ALL the senior Obama Administration officials knew of each other's
corrupt sinecures.
Well, it is based on a OAN story. Believe it or not, they actually sent a reporter to
Ukraine to talk to people with knowledge of the matter and look what they came up with. Kind
of makes you wonder why other well funded news organizations never thought to do something
like that.
I don't know that we deserve this. We are all working people, with families to raise,
taxes to pay and the Dems and Commies have been working against us 24/7. And most of them get
paid to do so from government jobs that pay them 8 hours a day when many work 1 hour a day,
all the while scheming against us.
If Trump wins a second term, he is gonna **** these people up good.
Now that I've read the article, I'm both shocked and appalled at learning that Ukraine is
a money laundering operation for the politically connected. (They provide many other 'perks'
as well.)
I've warned about light in the loafers Lindsey as well as McConnell before and more than
once. Sessions should also be denied a re-admission into the swamp. There are others.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a
manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus
warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy
any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
I agree with everything you say in the article, Mr. Larison. And yet, I have serious qualms
about whether Congress should impeach and remove Trump.
From a purely legal perspective, they should. But impeachment is a blend of legalism and
politics. And the politics here are murky at best. The problem is that Congress does not
come to these issues with clean hands. It is common knowledge that Congress, too, is
corrupt and sells out the national interest in favor of their own political and personal
interests on a daily basis. They have no moral credibility here; who are they to judge the
President? Neither the impeachment itself, nor the subsequent, apparently inevitable,
acquittal by the Senate will be seen as legitimate, except by partisans of the respective
acts. It is all the more problematic because an election is less than a year away.
Yes, I want Trump out of office, too. But unfortunately our Congress lacks the moral
legitimacy to do this; the impeachment and trial will serve only to reinforce each party's
views of the other as treasonous. The impeachment will be seen as an attempted coup, and
the acquittal will be seen as a whitewash and cover-up. (If by some odd circumstance he is
removed rather than acquitted, it will be seen as a successful coup, an undoing of the 2016
election.)
There are no really good outcomes from this scenario. It would, I think, be better for
the the country were the Democrats to reverse course and leave the removal of Trump to the
people next November. We have survived nearly three years of him, we can survive one more.
I fear the fallout from impeachment and trial will create more problems than are
solved.
I agree. I also respectfully disagree with Larrison's judgment and consider this
development as very dangerous for the Republic. We need to weight our personal animosity
toward Trump with the risks of his forceful removal on dubious charges.
Please remember that nobody was impeached for the Iraq war. That creates a really high
plank for the impeachment. And makes any Dems arguments for Trump impeachment not only moot
but a joke.
The fundamental question is: How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable,
and this entrapment impeachable?
The furor over Russian interference in the election, which was extremely minor, if
existed at all, compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the
corrupt and incompetent Clinton wing of Democratic Party leadership (Neoliberal Democrats.)
Political "shelf life" for whom is over in any case as neoliberalism is dead as an ideology
and entered zombie ( bloodthirsty ) stage. Hillary political fiasco taught them nothing.
Russiagate was and still is a modern witch hunt, the attempt to patch with Russophobia the
cracks in the neoliberal facade. Neo-McCarthyism, if you wish.
In view of the Iraq war, the impeachment of Trump means the absolute contempt for the
plebs. Again, Trump's election happened because neoliberalism as ideology died in 2008, and
plebs in 2016 refused to follow corrupt neoliberal democrats and decided to show them the
middle finger. They will not follow the neoliberal elite in 2020, impeachment, or no
impeachment. So the whole "Pelosi gambit" (and from the point of view of Nuremberg
principles she is a war criminal like Bush II and Co ) will fail.
The House Democrats did not act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the
evidentiary record, and provide the equality of procecutor and the defense in the process
which is the fundamental part of the Due Process prior to filing charges. A large part of
their witnesses (Karlan, Hill, Vindman) were just "true believers" (Karlan) or corrupt Deep
Staters (Hill, Vindman) taking a stand to defend their personal well-being, which is based on warmongering. And protect
their illegal role in formulating the USA foreign policy (actually based on the quality of Fiona Hill book alone, she should
be kept at mile length
from this area; she is a propagandist not a researcher/analyst)
Among State Department witnesses there could well be those who were probably explicitly
or implicitly involved in the money laundering of the US aid money via Ukraine
(Biden-lights so to speak)
The article of impeachment saying:
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat
to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office and has acted in
a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump
thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold
and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
opens a huge can of worms (this is essentially the Moscow show trials method of removing
politicians.) This is equivalent to a change in the Constitution, introducing the vote of
no confidence as the method removal of the top members of the executive branch.
Impeachment is always a political decision. And here I am not sure the "Pelosi gambit"
will work. I think many independents, who would stay home or would vote for Dems in 2020
now will vote for Trump as a protest against the abuse of impeachment by the
Neoliberal/Corporate Dems.
That people are still dredging up the ludicrous Russiagate
conspiracy theory is beyond pathetic. If that were not enough, there is no
evidence that "Russian hackers" or anyone "screw[ed] with swing states'
election databases".
Full disclosure: were I allowed to decide Trump's
fate, impeachment would be the least of his fears. I would
subject him to the fate of the defendants at Nuremberg.
"... This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually governed by is a good thing. ..."
"... For the powers that be war crimes are not impeachable offenses. ..."
"... The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is Neo-Orwellian. ..."
"... Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment. ..."
"... The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt, the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact. ..."
"... Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping today in the IG report. ..."
"... Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars ..."
"... The verdict is prepared before the charges! ..."
"... The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear. ..."
"... Schiff started to look like a cornered animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman. ..."
"... Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin. ..."
"... I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even that while the play's afoot. ..."
"... "However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d 209 (1980). ..."
"... Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither. ..."
"... A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of Executive Privilege. ..."
"... JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the subjective intent of the actor is crucial. ..."
"... As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it " isn't evidence. ..."
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. –Matt 23:24
Patient readers, I had originally intended to compare and contrast the statements of the
four lawyers (Feldman, Karlan, Gerhardt, and Turley)
appearing before the House Judiciary Committee . But I changed course, for a few reasons:
First, Feldman, Karlan, and Gerhardt simply didn't produce serious documents; all were short,
and Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether to facts, or to law.
Turley's statement at least showed signs of legal reasoning, as opposed to preaching to the
choir, but there's no point my summarizing it;
you can just read it .[1]
Second, since the House Judiciary's report on the " Constitutional
Grounds for Impeachment " followed so soon after the lawyers' testimony that it could
hardly have been influenced by it, their testimony was evidently for show. Finally, this
abbreviated Season 2 of Impeachment! , "UkraineGate," reminds me of nothing so much as
Gish Gallop : There's
too much to track in the time frame available, the few trustworthy interpreters are
overwhelmed, and that's by intent. (Season 1, "RussiaGate," was more of a Gish stroll by
comparison.)
So I'm going to do something completely different. Conventional wisdom agrees that when
impeaching a President, the House plays the role of the prosecutor, and brings and prosecutes
the indictment; and the Senate then tries the case. From Senate.gov
, just as a change from citing the Federalist Papers, which I too shall get to:
In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the
federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of
representatives, called "managers," acts as prosecutors before the Senate.
The question nobody seems to be asking is whether the House, in this impeachment
inquiry, is acting as a prosecutor should act[2]. That is the question I will ask in this post.
(I'm sensible that we have actual prosecutors in the readership, and so I'm going out on a limb
here; the fact that nobody I can find has gone out on this particular limb doesn't mean that it
is, or is not, a good limb to go out on. We'll see!)
The primary duty of the prosecutor is to seek justice within the bounds of the law,
not merely to convict . The prosecutor serves the public interest and should act with
integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate
criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal
charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and
convict the guilty, consider the interests of victims and witnesses, and respect the
constitutional and legal rights of all persons, including suspects and defendants.
What then is justice? Philosophers differ, but here is a defintion from which "the rule of
law" (of which we hear so much) can be derived. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy :
The third aspect of justice to which Justinian's definition draws our attention is the
connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules
– that is what the 'constant and perpetual will' part of the definition conveys.
Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are
relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way . Following a rule that
specifies what is due to a person who has features X, Y, Z whenever such a person is
encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in
the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is
exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially
applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to
behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable
information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).
The Law Dictionary conceptualizes the requirement for "impartial and consistent application
of rules" as fairness. From " The Four Pillars of the Rule
of Law ":
It's one thing for the laws to be written fairly, but if they are enforced in such a way
that is either arbitrary or unfair then the rule of law begins to break down. For example, if
a jurisdiction passes laws against drug use, but then only enforces those laws against a
particular ethnic minority or social group, then the laws are not being enforced fairly.
Citizens living under a rule of law system have a right to know that the laws are being
administered and enforced in a way that is fair and accessible.
There are many theories of justice, but surely the "impartial and consistent application of
rules" is understood by lay readers as fundamental. From the Washington Post, "
The U.S. court system is criminally unjust ":
We like to believe that decisions made in U.S. courts are determined by the wisdom of the
Constitution, and guided by fair-minded judges and juries of our peers.
Unfortunately, this is often wishful thinking. Unsettling research into the psychology of
courtroom decisions has shown that our personal backgrounds, unconscious biases about race,
gender and appearance, and even the time of day play a more important role in outcomes than
the actual law.
Having established that the House, when impeaching a President, acts as a Prosector, that
the duty of a prosecutor is not merely to seek conviction, but justice, let's now ask ourselves
whether the House, assuming it to have impeached Trump, will have acted in accordance with its
duties, or not.
As a sidebar, it may be urged that unlike a prosecutor's office, the House has no permanent
prosecutorial function. Indeed, House.gov seems, unlike the Senate, to have no page on
impeachment at all; and the House is structured
very differently :
The House is the only branch of government that has been directly elected by American
voters since its formation in 1789. Unlike the Senate, the House is not a continuing body.
Its Members must stand for election every two years, after which it convenes for a new
session and essentially reconstitutes itself -- electing a Speaker, swearing-in the
Members-elect, and approving a slate of officers to administer the institution. Direct,
biennial elections and the size of the membership (currently 435 voting Representatives) have
made the House receptive to a continual influx of new ideas and priorities that contribute to
its longstanding reputation as the "People's House."
It could be argued, then, that the "rules" for impeachment need only to be consistent during
the two years of a House session, and could then be changed at the next session, an evident
absurdity since the President serves for four years, and could presume himself acting
unimpeachably for two years, and then be impeached, for the same acts , in the third.
Clearly, some sort of institutional memory of what is impeachable and what is not, even if
tacit, must be shared among the three branches of government and the public -- even if not
adhered to by all. Fortunately, for Trump's impeachment, we have such repository in the person
of the Leader of the House -- one might call them the Chief Prosecturor -- Nancy Pelosi, to
whose remarkable statement I now turn. End sidebar.
Here is how Nancy Pelosi describes her past exercise of her prosecutorial function (in this
case, declining to prosecute:
DEAN CHIEN, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY: So, Speaker Pelosi, you resisted calls for
the impeachment of President Bush in 2006, and President Trump, following the Mueller report
earlier this year.
This time it's different. Why did you impose – why did you oppose impeachment in the
past? And what is your obligation to protect our democracy from the actions of our President
now?
PELOSI: Thank you. Thank you for bringing up the question about – because when I
became Speaker the first time, there was overwhelming call for me to impeach President Bush,
on the strength of the war in Iraq[3], which I vehemently opposed, and again not –
again, I – I say "Again," I said – said at other places that I – that was
my we – all has always (ph) Intelligence.
I was Ranking Member on the Intelligence Committee even before I became part of the
leadership of Gang of Four. So, I knew there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq . It
just wasn't there.
They had to show us now – to show the Gang of Four all the Intelligence they
had. The Intelligence did not show that that – that was the case. So, I knew it was a
– a misrepresentation to the public. But having said that, it was a, in my view, not a
ground for impeachment. That was – they won the election. They made a
representation . And to this day, people think – people think that that it was
the right thing to do.
If people think that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11, I mean it's as appalling what
they did. But I did – and I've said, if somebody wants to make a case, you bring it
forward.
(Remarkably, or not, Pelosi kept her knowledge that the Iraq War was built on lies secret
from the public. This doesn't strike me as the right approach to " a Republic, if you can keep it .") First,
apparently a President's "misrepresentation to the public" that led to war -- a war that
resulted, even in the early years of the war, in tens of thousands of civilian deaths,
thousands of American deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the Abu Ghraib torture
scandal -- is not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Pelosi would have us believe that Bush's
disinformation campaign was not, as Madison writes in Federalist 65 , a
case of "misconduct of public men, or, in other words the abuse or violation of some public
trust." And why? Because "[Bush] won the election." Except Pelosi gets the timeline wrong. Bush
won his election in 2004. The Democrats took back the House in 2006 -- how we cheered, then; it
was almost as satisfying as Obama's inaugural -- based in large part on Bush's botched handling
of Iraq. Pelosi "won the election." And then didn't do anything with her power.
Let's ask a little consistency from our Chief Prosecutor, shall we? Because that's what
justice demands? If "misrepresentation to the public the public" in service of taking the
country into war -- the aluminum tubes, the yellowcake, all the whackamole lies that Bush put
forth -- is not impeachable, then how on earth is what Trump did, even under the very worst
intepretation, impeachable? Are we really going to convict Trump because he -- Bud
from Legal insists I insert the word "allegedly" -- tried to muscle Zelensky? Here is
what Turley, who approached his statement as a lawyer would, did with that accusation . I'm
going to quote a great slab of this, because the whole thing ticks me off so much:
Presidents often put pressure on other countries which many of us view as inimical to our
values or national security. Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama reportedly put
pressure on other countries not to investigate the U.S. torture program or seek the arrest of
those responsible.103 President Obama and his staff also reportedly pressured the Justice
Department not to initiate criminal prosecution stemming from the torture program.104
Moreover, presidents often discuss political issues with their counterparts and make comments
that are troubling or inappropriate. However, contemptible is not synonymous with
impeachable. Impeachment is not a vehicle to monitor presidential communications for such
transgressions. That is why making the case of a quid pro quo is so important – a case
made on proof, not presumptions. While critics have insisted that there is no alternative
explanation, it is willful blindness to ignore the obvious defense. Trump can argue that he
believed the Obama Administration failed to investigate a corrupt contract between Burisma
and Hunter Biden. He publicly called for the investigation into the Ukraine matters.
Requesting an investigation is not illegal any more than a leader asking for actions from
their counterparts during election years.
Trump will also be able to point to three direct conversations on the record. His call
with President Zelensky does not state a quid pro quo. In his August conversation with Sen.
Ron Johnson (R., WI.), President Trump reportedly denied any quid pro quo. In his September
conversation with Ambassador Sondland, he also denied any quid pro quo. The House
Intelligence Committee did an excellent job in undermining the strength of the final two
calls by showing that President Trump was already aware of the whistleblower controversy
emerging on Capitol Hill. However, that does not alter the fact that those direct accounts
stand uncontradicted by countervailing statements from the President. In addition, President
Zelensky himself has said that he did not discuss any quid pro quo with President Trump.
Indeed, Ambassador Taylor testified that it was not until the publication of the Politico
article on September 31st that the Ukrainians voiced concerns over possible preconditions.
That was just ten days before the release of the aid. That means that the record lacks not
only direct conversations with President Trump (other than the three previously mentioned)
but even direct communications with the Ukrainians on a possible quid pro quo did not occur
until shortly before the aid release. Yet, just yesterday, new reports filtered out on
possible knowledge before that date -- highlighting the premature move to drafting articles
of impeachment without a full and complete record.105
Voters should not be asked to assume that President Trump would have violated federal law
and denied the aid without a guarantee on the investigations. The current narrative is that
President Trump only did the right thing when "he was caught." It is possible that he never
intended to withhold the aid past the September 30th deadline while also continuing to push
the Ukrainians on the corruption investigation. It is possible that Trump believed that the
White House meeting was leverage, not the military aid, to push for investigations. It is
certainly true that both criminal and impeachment cases can be based on circumstantial
evidence, but that is less common when direct evidence is available but unsecured in the
investigation. Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set
for this country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is
meant to be thorough and complete. This is neither.
Put Turley's justifiable polemic against a childish West Wing view of international
relations aside. Just look at the triviality of the subject matter, whether you think Trump
is guilty or not . White House appearances. Military aid. Corruption investigations. How is
lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities im peachable? When it's the same prosecutor declining to indict for Iraq,
and deciding to indict for Ukraine? Whatever this is, it's not "the impartial and consistent
application of rules", and that means the House is failing in its prosecutorial duty to seek
justice, and not merely conviction.
NOTE Yes, I'm leaving the national security aspects of Ukraine aside. We can take up the
question of whether the interagency process should run foreign policy, or the President, and
the Blob's peculiar view of the national interest another time.
I agree with this analysis, but Madam Speaker Pelosi and her fellow players are not doing
what they are doing for the Republic's, the law, ethics, morality, and certainly not for
justice's sake. If they were, Pelosi would not have mentioned her prewar knowledge of
President Bush's and his Administration's lies on the reasons given for going to war.
This is merely political theater and a way to stiffen their spines of jello for their
coup. Heaven forfend that President Evo Morales Donald Trump be ousted in a coup by
the American Deep State. Our ruling class and their servants really are stupid enough to
believe that destroying the norms, both written and unwritten, that our society is actually
governed by is a good thing.
Maybe TPTB truly believe that an increasingly ungovernable, immiserated, and desperate
society in an increasingly unpredictable climate is just another chance to consume the poor
instead of the poor consuming them.
The democrats couldn't go after the bush administration for falsely leading this country to
invade iraq, for one big reason . they were JUST as guilty . They, including clinton; voted,
and went on all the air waves, did op eds; all justifying the charade, that was the run up to
the iraq invasion.
People ought not forget,
EVERY bit of information proving the iraq war was a lie . was in plenty of places BEFORE the
invasion. And every establishment shill did their level best to not only ignore the truth,
but to discredit it with pathetic lies and rhetoric.
The democrats were just as guilty for iraq as the republicans.
And when the terrorists who were used as a ploy to blow up the twin towers, were being
protected by the fbi between 1998 and 2000.(look at Robert Wright and John Vincent fbi agents
from chicago office, who were told by superiors to "let sleeping dogs lie".. after a two year
investigation of two of the "were to become terrorists"and yasin al-qadi. their money man who
was a co owner of P-TECH(above top secret clearances at :cia,fbi,nsa,faa,secret
service,norad,nro,etc.) and later a donor to the MITT Romney campaign) The clintons and the
democratic elite were right there pretending nothing was happening. And have since pretended
that "the war on freedom",,,,or as they call it "the war on terror" is justified.
whether it was the democratic party or the new york times or la times or washington post of
the weekly standard or fox news or PBS EVERY media powerhouse was on the side of "the big
lie"..
Pathetic logic fails were fed to the american population 24/7/365
The truth be damned and still is
When you have a Democrat do away with Glass-Steagall, who needs Republican villains. Both
totally corrupt parties are beholden to the banks and corporations, and need to be voted out
of office.
Question, is there a statute of limitations for impeachable offenses? Because the Speaker of the House admitted on the public record of implicitly participating
(by her silence) in an orchestrated lie that led to the deaths and maiming of thousands of
American soldiers. Should we be taking that public statement and calling for her impeachment? Can you impeach
the Speaker of the House?
Maybe the Democrats are hoping that once it reaches the Senate, that one of their number
will step up, make a stirring West-Wing style speech which will cause all those present
– Republicans included – to rise to their feet and clap and cheer as they vote
for Trump to be finally kicked out of the White House. Then in their newfound maturity, they
will make Mike Pence the new President of the United States as they work together for a
better country with new respect for each other.
The MSM is reporting the "impeachment" as if it was a serious (approved by expert
academics) endeavor. However, the veil is lifting. The revealed face of the ruling class is
Neo-Orwellian.
"Nadler's committee will likely vote to impeach Trump. In a report defining what it
considers impeachable offenses, the committee states that even if Trump did not actually
break any laws in his supposed "quid pro quo" dealings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky, he can still be impeached for his unstated motives.
"The question is not whether the president's conduct could have resulted from
permissible motives. It is whether the president's real reasons, the ones in his mind at the
time, were legitimate, " it stated."
Turley says he is now getting threatening phone calls as well people trying to get him
fired as professor because he dared to pooh pooh the case for impeachment.
There has been a
vast and irrational response to Trump from day one–perhaps based on the fantasy that
the presidency really is like The West Wing whereas the reality is likely closer to the HBO
comedy Veep. From "now watch this drive" Dubya to Obama and his "propeller heads" our
presidents are a series of vain peacocks with Trump merely the extreme case. Impeach them
all–or none.
This observation by Lambert Strether sums it up: "Karlan's wasn't even footnoted, whether
to facts, or to law." She is supposedly a professor of law, supposedly advising the Congress
about the process of impeachment. She didn't even try to do her job. One may not agree with
Turley, although the long excerpt brings a broad perspective to what is criminality and to
how much criminality we now consider normal in the U.S. government. To his credit, Turley
marshals facts into a synthesis.
What the Republicans don't seem to get is that will to power isn't all that matters and
that their commitment to economic degradation and looting the citizenry have thrown them into
a crisis (as the paleo-conservatives keep pointing out). Among liberals like Pelosi (and
Karlan), the cluelessness is breathtaking. American liberalism is in a profound crisis, with
Karlan's disquisition being particulary breathtaking for clichés-a-minute, sheer
vulgar thinking, and kitsch.
This is the end. For those of us on the left, and I hesitate to advise non-action, it may
be time simply to let these two rotten structures and ways of thinking collapse. It is like
watching two ghost ships engaged battle, desparately trying to sink one another into a putrid
ocean.
On a lighter (!) note, I will quote Gramsci:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying away and the new cannot
yet be born; during this break in continuity, unhealthy events of every kind are
happening.
La crisi consiste appunto nel fatto che il vecchio muore e il nuovo non può
nascere: in questo interregno si verificano i fenomeni morbosi piú svariati.
I think your last quote hits the nail on the head. It should be painted on every highway
overpass. The insanity of [neo]liberals strikes me as the actions of the philosophically bankrupt,
the hysterical demonizing of Trump being their desperate way to avoid recognizing that fact.
I can understand that almost all people crave certainty, but Jesus its time to let it go and
strike out to elsewhere.
An old lawyer adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the
law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither the facts nor the law , pound the
table.
Nadler, like Schiff before him, is putting on a diversionary show. The big rush in both
shows has been to construct narratives to sow doubt in the minds of viewers and voters, on a
tight schedule. That schedule has been known for some time, with a big component dropping
today in the IG report.
They had seen enough in SCIFs and elsewhere to know that Team Dem was going to get slammed
due to its supporters in the FBI and DOJ. That much is evident in reviewing the report and
scores of other documents available to the public. What hasn't been made available, like the
Atkinson piece, also provide further support to the Schiff and Nadler accelerants.*
In a way, I almost feel sorry for Rep. Schiff as he was sent on a fool's errand. History
will be unkind to him, among others.
Of greater concern during their proceedings is the absolute lack of regard for the
principles like Due Process established in our US Constitution, and the rule of law.
Then she's a war criminal too! I also remember her saying, "well, we didn't want to ruin
our chances" (in the next election). My fondest wish is that GW Bush, Jr. and the gang who
lied us into the war in Iraq be prosecuted and convicted for war crimes. A somewhat hopeless
wish – that.
She can be surprisingly frank about these things sometimes. She is saying the same thing
in this quote ("people think that that it was the right thing to do" = opposing this would
have cost us votes). I can't understand why anybody would ever trust her again after a
revelation like that.
Whether it's Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and any others I've missed, I want
to know how many of these rats had / have financial interests in these wars including daily
drone-fests a few years ago.
The war drums have been beating on the Ukraine vs Russian for a
few years now. Pelosi is worth over $100,000,000 on mere $200,000 humble public servant
salary, many others on both Team Blue and Team Red similar.
If Team Red Senate votes to
summarily dismiss impeachment it is the tell that there were / are many more cockroaches they
do not want to expose, such as Lindsey Graham, Mitt, McCain, Kerry, not to forget Rummy,
Wolfe, Condi, Cheney, W, O, Hillary, Poppy and so on.
Any 20 somethings in those households
die or maimed "over there"? Let them all hang, dig their corpses up if you have to. Trump
should double-dog dare them all to do it.
I voted for Trump solely as a bull in the china shop, with everything preceding him the
past ~ 40 years as the china shop. Andy Jackson was not on the ballot 3 years ago, so I had
to settle.
I agree that DJT's misdeeds (at least the ones we know about) do not approach those of the
Bush/Cheney presidency (the ones we know about). I wonder what lies beneath the D
determination to impeach. I have been getting emails from various D-oriented organizations asserting that control of
the Senate is within reach for the Ds in 2020, and asking for funds.
Given the near certainty that the Senate will not vote to convict (either through ~20Rs
voting with Ds or ~30Rs simply not voting), perhaps it is hoped that a failure to convict in
the Senate would help Ds make the case for an extra heavy base turnout in 2020 to deliver the
Senate to the Ds.
They can't, or won't, govern. But with control of both houses, they might be able to
impeach and convict.
If the Democratic Party refuses to govern, just why should they be in office? Unless it is
Goldman Sach, Jeff Bezos, and their fellow oligarchs, it is just mendacity masquerading as
seriousness. The Republicans also do not govern, but loot the lower 80% of the population
while dismantling the government.
Just before the Civil War, Republican Party replaced the American Whigs and the Democratic
Party split in two and looked like it too was going away as well. Let's have a clean sweep
this time and maybe prevent another war.
It seemed that the Democrats started out focused on a Trump connection to laundered
Russian money. They didn't like his friendliness toward Putin. The FBI and Mueller went
straight for Manafort and got him cold. It's possible they can't get Trump because he dealt
through DeutscheBank and DB has been protected so far from prosecution.
Every bank in the EU
seems to have laundered Russian money. So to start prosecuting would/will be a total circus.
The House Dems started to boil when Trump suggested the Magnitsky Act was not impartial and
Browder might be a crook, heaven forbid. But when Trump really started to focus on the Ukraingate stuff the House shifted into high gear.
Schiff started to look like a cornered
animal, the expression on his face went from moral superiority to downright angst. His eyes
started to bug out. Nancy went from no impeachment to, almost overnight, yes impeachment. And
Rudy Giuliani was accused of Treason for questioning their favorite operative, Joe Bagman.
And how impolite of Trump and Rudy to suggest that Joe's doofus son could be up to the same
corruption as daddy. So the fear in the House is visible. I'm thinking there are lotsa
members who might be not just complicit in the coup but complicit having received money for
favors. Or in the case of Browder, helping an international thief and conman with high
connections here and in the UK. High connections usually means political bribes. So Trump
knows where the skeletons are buried imo and it freaks them out beyond any possible just
proceeding. And Nancy's an idiot with a gavel.
Prosecutors seeking justice? On what alien planet do you suppose that might be happening?
Prosecutorial misconduct, caprice, and inconsistency is a hallmark of the US criminal
carcerial system. Our Gulag doesn't just fill itself it needs prosecutors to keep the ball
rolling. Sorta like insurance delivering healthcare.
How is lying the country into the Iraq war not impeachable, and this mass of anodyne
trivialities impeachable?
It's not. The system has broken completely down, although many americans don't know it
yet. The democrats need to back off, although I wouldn't put money on it.
Good to remember the ultimate frame that bounds this Gong Show Trial: "In the long run we
are all dead."
What's going on here seems to me to have the same overall flavor of what's happening in
Britain. Let the last stage of the Great Looting of the Planet begin.
I think there are too many moving parts to allow any meaningful analysis of such a
soon-to-be-fait accompli. Justice, fairness, Constitution, "rule of law" are the shibboleths
of the weak. None of those are anything but fig leafs over tumescent power, mentioned
occasionally and clearly without adherence or conviction by that tiny set of front people and
spokespersons for the even smaller set that actually move the levers of power. In the end, of
course, as with all the climax events of the last few generations, we mopes will never get
more than a modified limited hangout of an inkling to what actually happened, and not even
that while the play's afoot.
And what good would it doe us to know all the details? What power do American mopes, for
sure, atomized and fearful and befuddled, have to "bend the arc of history toward
justice"?
Well, I think we made a credible effort to bend the arc of history in 1776, and again in
1865. I have little doubt that history will eventually repeat itself, or at least rhyme quite
nicely.
Pence represents a large cohort of Evangelicals who are not averse to using 'direct
action' to advance their causes. Think of the abortion doctors who were shot by 'right wing
nutters,' and the horrific tactics used against women trying to enter and leave abortion
clinics.
One of Pence's strengths is his unswerving adherence to a particular ideology. He has focus,
and that aspect of his character gives him strength and purpose.
Even Napoleon realized the value of the Moral in human affairs.
Also consider groups within the Government and Military aligned with the Evangelical mind
set. Pence has ample resources to manage the job of President.
History shows that relatively small groups of committed and coordinated True Believers can
take over and run governments. Pence is the figurehead for such a group. Beware.
Biden was asked if he would comply if subpoenaed for the Senate trial and he said no. So
Trump is to be impeached for his "crimes" while his potential opponent defies the law and
that's ok because .why was that ok again?.
"However hurried a court may be in its efforts to reach the merits of a controversy, the
integrity of procedural rules is dependent upon consistent enforcement because the only fair
and reasonable alternative thereto is complete abandonment." Miller v. Lint, 62 Ohio St. 2d
209 (1980).
"We have granted discretionary review because a majority of a Court of Appeals panel has
refused to follow a long line of decisions of the highest court of this state in violation of
S.C.R. 1.030(8)(a) which provides:
'The Court of Appeals is bound by and shall follow applicable precedents established in
the opinions of the Supreme Court and its predecessor court.'
The rule is fundamental and is absolutely necessary in a hierarchical judicial system. If
every tier of courts in the judicial hierarchy were free to disregard the decisions of a
higher court, the Court of Appeals could freely disregard the decisions of the Supreme Court,
the circuit courts could freely ignore the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court and our District Courts would be bound by no law at all, free to ignore the decisions
of all higher courts. The result of that course is anarchy." Special Fund v. Francis, 708
S.W.2d 641 (Ky. 1986).
The above favorable articulations notwithstanding what I've been seeing the past decade,
or so, is something much more akin to "The Rule of Whimsy," with said rule of whimsy having
replaced "The Rule of Law."
I don't think the comparative impeachable offenses argument adds any clarification. The
distinction is that the current proceedings are about potential extortion that impacts the
next election; the impeachable lies and corruption that led to the Iraq war took two years
for the public to perceive. Future versus past. Even if Kerry won in 2004, there would not
have been convictions because the conflict was still in progress. Besides, those that carry
out orders are the ones that get convictions, not the commanders. Oh, and let's not forget
"the fog of war" – a very useful alibi for top military advisers and political
leaders.
I think the problem with the current impeachment mess can be Venn diagrammed. Imagine two
circles. Once circle titled political leverage, the other circle titled extortion. Move the
circles together to partially overlap. Where they overlap is titled Joe Biden. A distinction
can usually be made between political leverage and extortion by asking who the stakeholders
are. Leverage (with military aid) is always going on, and it benefits "regional stability"
and "national security". Extortion benefits the requester, weakens his rivals, creates a
compromising dependency the supplicant. In the overlap area the extorted political smear gets
executed and the goods get delivered. I think the GOP's argument is that as long as the goods
get delivered it is acceptable political leverage. They want to minimize the effect of
smearing Joe Biden on the election. They want to blur the distinction between extortion and
leverage.
Back to future versus past: The current mess may originate with an lack of conflict of
interest oversight during/by the Obama administration by sending Joe Biden and John Kerry to
Ukraine to negotiate anti-corruption deals favorable to the US, knowing that their family
members were involved with Burisma. Surely there were others in the state Department that
could have been direct envoys of the administration. If Burisma wants to stack their board
with influential people and pay them a ridiculous sum for doing nothing – just to
attract investors – well you can chalk that up to corporate stupidity. It's not
necessarily corruption, especially if it works. How many US private equity firms have
high-visibility dead weight board members?
It took me all of one week to connect corruption with the Iraq war, back when it was
beginning. The comparison of past with present is quite useful because it highlights the
injustice that is going on right now. Even if Trump committed impeachable offenses, does not
give the House any moral authority to engage in selective prosecution for the exact same type
of behavior that they themselves, and past presidents have engaged in. This whole circus is
nothing but politics, it certainly isn't about justice, nor doing what is actually good for
the country. Disclaimer: I voted for Jill Stein. Deal with it.
I can only watch small snippets of the "impeachment hearings" before screaming at the TV
like an insane man. Even if one accepts the argument that Trump was using leverage to influence US
election: BIDEN WAS NOT THE NOMINEE !!!!!!!!!!! there were many others vying for the position. How
can you use leverage for personal gain on an event which hasn't and may not occur ?
It only works if he becomes the nominee. Trump was very effective at portraying his
opponents as he wanted during the 2016 campaign ("Crooked Hillary" ) with all the self
inflicted gaffs "Uncle Joe" makes it would seem to be shooting fish in a barrel for Trump in
2020 Why work through Ukraine, when he'd have it so easy destroying him on national TV while
stroking his own ego at the same time
So, in Myanmar, should the Hague not act because it's hands aren't clean? It hasn't acted
against the US, for example, which was a much more dangerous agressor in the ME recently (not
to speak of other cases), and so clearly, the investigation into Myanmar is "merely"
political. Even if investigating the US is impractical, it could investigate smaller
countries that have been involved in that case -- but they haven't, since this is merely
"political".
In fact, following this to the reduction to absurdity, no court ever has clean hands --
everything is corrupt to some extent, self-interested and hypocritical. Do we abandon all
pretense at systems of justice? Or is the case presented here "special" in some sense,
whereby we should look at the goals of the accusers beyond and above the acts and goals of
the accused?
Thank you, Lambert this is a great piece. I haven't been able to follow this impeachment
thing at all. But your final question and answer pulls it together for me.
It doesn't make sense because it really doesn't make sense. Also why now, when we are about to have an election?
I just wish I had the nerve and moral strength to share your post.
The are two answers to the question, "How is lying the country into the Iraq war not
impeachable, and this mass of anodyne trivialities impeachable?"
The optimistic answer is, "Because the former is a matter of statecraft, and the latter is
using official power to derive a direct personal benefit, and the standards for impeachment
based statecraft are much higher." (Congress in rejected Cambodia based articles of
impeachment in 1974)
The cynical answer is, "Because everyone in Washington, DC has sad-sack children who get
jobs because of their political power, and Trump must not be allowed to infringe on our
privilege."
The thing is, BOTH answers are true for different people.
For folks like Pramila Jayapal or AOC, I think that they see this as bribery and an abuse
of office for personal gain. (This group has been calling for impeachment for a while)
For someone like Nancy Pelosi, whose kids have clearly had opportunities as a result of
her position, I think that it is the latter.
How these two categories are split in the Democratic caucus, and there are probably some
in the, "Both," camp, is beyond me.
However, even by a relatively strict interpretation if impeachable offense, we have
obstruction of justice in the Mueller report, obstruction of Congress right now, tax and bank
fraud (though those were done when he was a private citizen), connections to the mob, both
domestic and Russian, witness intimidation, and bribery off the top of my head. (Ignoring
campaign finance violations, because seriously, who cares)
I have always felt the the furor over Russian interference in the election, which was
minor compared to what Churchill did in 1940, was primarily about excusing the corrupt and
incompetent Democratic Party (mis)leadership, and you will notice that I have not included
any of that, though obviously the cover-up flowed from that in some cases.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege. JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
As Lambert knows, I'm retired after working as a prosecutor in Silicon Valley for 32
years. I think that Lambert is "on to something" here, but doesn't quite hit the mark.
Selective Prosecution is a huge issue in this country, but it isn't the issue
here.
I agree that for years , Presidents have been committing "impeachable offenses"
without being impeached. Unlike the decision to prosecute an ordinary citizen, impeachment
is a political decision . However, the question being asked by the House Judiciary
Committee, whether attempting to extort the investigation of a political rival through the
withholding of foreign aid or favors to a foreign head of state is only one small
facet of the impeachment inquiry. If Trump were to have engaged in such conduct, I
believe that it would certainly constitute an impeachable offense . Whether to proceed with
an investigation into such an offense is a political decision. I happen to agree that Trump
is a turd and that he should be investigated.
Once this political decision has been made, the potentially impeachable offense must be
investigated and prosecuted . The House leadership are engaging in the typical mistake of the
rookie prosecutor: saying to him/herself " I know he's good for it " and filing
charges without conducting a complete and thorough investigation . This is where
Professor Turley is correct:
Proceeding to a vote on this incomplete record is a dangerous precedent to set for this
country. Removing a sitting President is not supposed to be easy or fast. It is meant to be
thorough and complete. This is neither.
A thorough investigation is the missing step before a case is presented to the Senate (or
to a jury). The White House stonewalled the House Intelligence Committee. Just like with the
Nixon impeachment inquiry the first step must be to litigate in the courts the assertion of
Executive Privilege.
JeffK above is correct that there is a subtle distinction between the
Venn circles of "leverage" and "extortion" -- the distinction being whether pressure is being
exerted on behalf of the state in pursuit of a stated foreign policy objective (however
misguided that policy may be) or whether it is intended for the personal political or
financial benefit of an official. These are "gray areas" in which understanding the
subjective intent of the actor is crucial.
This is where hard evidence such as tapes and transcripts of the actual words used become
critical. This evidence apparently exists, but House Democrats have failed to file suit to
obtain them. Only when we know the words used and the surrounding circumstances can we draw
inferences about the subjective intent of the actors. In the criminal law we draw such
inferences about an actor's subjective intent all the time . However, we apply special
rules when drawing inferences about a person's intent. Those inferences must not only be
reasonable , they must be the only reasonable inferences that can be drawn from
the facts and circumstances presented.
As a veteran prosecutor, to me this is where the House Democrats are failing to act as
ethical prosecutors. They have failed to develop the evidentiary record, which is their
fundamental Due Process duty prior to filing charges. " I know he's good for it "
isn't evidence.
"... If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent. ..."
"... The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president." ..."
"... Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page 165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. " ..."
"... Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries; the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years. ..."
If Russia spending $100,000 on Facebook ads constitutes election interference, and Donald
Trump asking Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is too - then Hillary Clinton takes the cake
when it comes to influence campaigns designed to harm a political opponent.
Contained within Monday's FISA report by the DOJ
Inspector General is the revelation that Fusion GPS, the firm paid by the Clinton campaign to
produce the Steele dossier, " was paying Steele to discuss his reporting with the media. " (
P.
369 and elsewhere)
And when did Steele talk with the media - which got him
fired as an FBI source ? Perhaps most notably was Yahoo News journalist Michael Isikoff ,
who says he was invited by Fusion GPS to meet a
"secret source" at a Washington restaurant . That secret source was none other than
Christopher Steele , who fed Isikoff information from his now-discredited dossier - and which
appeared in a
September 23, 2016 article roughly six weeks before the election - which likely had orders
of magnitude greater visibility and impact coming from a widely-read, MSM source vs. $100,000
in Russian Facebook ads.
The article suggests that former Trump campaign aide Carter Page "has opened up private
communications with senior Russian officials - including talks about the possible lifting of
economic sanctions if the Republican nominee becomes president."
Steele told us that in September [of 2016] her and Simpson gave an "off-the-record" briefing
to a small number of journalists about his reporting, " reads page
165 of the FISA report, which says that Steele "acknowledged that Yahoo News was identified
in one of the court filings in the foreign litigation as being present. "
Put another way, Hillary Clinton paid Christopher Steele to feed information to the MSM in
order to harm Donald Trump right before the 2016 election . Granted, there were intermediaries;
the Clinton campaign paid law firm Perkins Coie, which paid Fusion GPS, which paid Steele. And
if asked, we're guessing Clinton would claim she had no idea this happened - which simply isn't
plausible given the stakes. Whatever the case - the act of Simpson paying Steele to peddle
fiction to the media for the purpose of harming Trump, by itself , constitutes blatant election
meddling by every standard set by the left over the past three years.
We're sure Hillary can explain that if and when she jumps into the 2020 race.
Schiff behaviour was egregious and as such it is now DemoRats liability...
Goldman finding are all bogus as they can't be compared with crimes on Obama and Clinton family.
Notable quotes:
"... Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. ..."
"... "The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney." ..."
Here's the Democratic position, according to their lawyers...
"The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power" by trying to get
Ukraine to help his prospects for re-election by announcing an investigation into a political
rival, former Vice President Joe Biden," said Barry Berke, counsel to House Judiciary
Democrats.
He and Daniel Goldman, counsel for Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, also cited
numerous instances of the Trump administration withholding documents and other evidence
sought by Congress in connection with the Ukraine probe.
...and the Republican position.
The panel's Republican counsel, Steve Castor, reiterated one of the chief defenses of the
president that's been put forward by Trump allies: "The impeachment inquiry's record is
riddled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation."
He accused Democrats of pursuing an "artificial and arbitrary political deadline" to
overturn the 2016 election and impeach Trump's before the Christmas holiday.
Goldman detailed what he called four "critical" findings from the investigation, according
to Dems. All of these points will likely feature prominently in the articles.
Trump used the power of his office to pressure and induce the newly-elected president of
Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 presidential election for Trump's personal and political
benefit.
In order to increase the pressure on Ukraine to announce the politically-motivated
investigations that the president wanted, he withheld a coveted Oval Office meeting and $391
million of essential military assistance from Ukraine.
Trump's conduct undermined the U.S. election process and poses an imminent threat to our
national security.
Faced with the revelation of his pressure campaign against Ukraine, Trump directed an
unprecedented effort to obstruct Congress' impeachment inquiry into his conduct.
Meanwhile, Republicans insist that the Dems' impeachment drive was a waste of time because
it doesn't show abuse of power.
Castor accused Democrats of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to
impeach Trump. After Mueller's investigation didn't deliver the results they wanted, he said
Democrats now are focusing on Trump's interactions with Ukraine, particularly his July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
"The record in the Democrats' impeachment inquiry does not show that President Trump
abused the power of Congress or obstructed Congress," Castor said. "To impeach a president
who 63 million people voted for over eight lines in a call transcript is baloney."
Unfortunately, the impeachment hearing blitz has done little to shift public opinion. Poll
averages compiled by FiveThirtyEight and RealClear Politics show that Americans are evenly
divided with roughly 47% to 48% supporting impeachment and 44% to 45% opposing. Some individual
polls have found that more than eight in ten people say their minds are made up.
Though Nadler says he hasn't yet made a final decision, it looks like evidence from the
Mueller probe will be left out of the articles of impeachment by Democrats (probably not a bad
idea).
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
Appearing on "Tucker Carlson Tonight," Maté
said Ukraine's efforts to tamper in the election are "no secret."
"Ukrainian officials -- they leaked information that exposed some apparent corruption by Paul Manafort and it was consequential.
It led to Paul Manafort's resignation
from the Trump campaign," he said. "And, the stated intent of Ukrainian officials was to weaken the Trump campaign because they
wanted to help elect Hillary Clinton ."
Yet, when Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told "Meet The Press" host
Chuck Todd Sunday that reports from various
media outlets indicated that former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko favored Clinton over now-President Trump, Todd accused him
of parroting Russian President
Vladimir Putin's talking points.
"Are you at all concerned that you've been duped?" Todd asked.
On the same network, anchor
Nicolle Wallace and her guest The Bulwark Editor-at-Large Charlie Sykes echoed Todd, agreeing that Kennedy "comes off as an addled
Russian asset on television" after "peddling Vladimir Putin's talking points."
"I don't understand the proactive work on behalf of Putin's Kremlin," said Wallace.
Maté told Carlson that what these pundits are trying to do is "conflate that with a different theory by Ukrainian meddling. Which
is not proven -- it's true."
"And, that is the one that Trump tried to put forward in this
phone call with Zelenksy where he appears to be saying that it wasn't Russia that was behind the
hacking of the DNC and that it might have been Ukraine," he continued.
"It's true there's no evidence for that theory, and it's fair enough to point out that. But. what's also ironic here is that the
people who are indignant about that claim by Trump are accepting the claim that Russia hacked the DNC," Maté stated, adding that
journalists should be demanding to see the underlying evidence used by U.S. intelligence to draw that conclusion.
Carlson said the mainstream media now accuses anyone who questions their narrative of being a "traitor to the country" and supporting
Russia. Julia Musto is a reporter for Foxnews.com
So CIA agent Carter Page joins Trump campaign and then do several "improper" moves like
travel to Moscow and contracts with Russian officials things in order to create a pretext for FBI
investigation. Which of course was promptly started. This is called false flag operation.
From comments: "He wasn’t a victim, he was an asset. When actors portray a victim, they
are ACTING!!!"
Notable quotes:
"... "The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X. ..."
"... Seth Rich downloaded the emails on a potable drive. Was he Russian? ..."
"... DNC/ FBI/ CIA/ CNN/ NBC have merged into the 5 headed serpent. ..."
"... Roger Stone got some minor facts wrong and is facing jail time, Brennan and Comey outright lied to Congress, when are they going to jail? ..."
"... "June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them (the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA) renewal. ..."
"... "Lets hope Carter Page spends the rest of his life sueing everyone..." lol Thats the meanest thing ive ever heard you say! O:) ..."
There are so many crooked actors and actresses hired by the MSM it is just pathetic. They
are not reporters, they are there only to put on a show for the masses.
"The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the
innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the
minds of the masses". - the esteemed Malcolm X.
"June 2017, CIA told FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith that Carter Page was working for them
(the CIA)." Clinesmith then changed that notification so he could submit the last (FISA)
renewal.
1:52
- This is what a paid shill looks like. If the money is good, they'll read whatever is on the
prompter. Years from now when they're demonized by the corrupt media they'll scratch their
head and ask... What happened to integrity in our country???
If you asked me 20 years ago wether I would be watching Fox News to get the most rational
point of view in politics, I would have said you were crazy. Another great job Tucker! In my
opinion, you’re one of the best news men of our current time; questioning needless
wars, and calling out politicians, gvmnt officials and your counterparts at other news desks
with rational arguments. Well done sir!
Personally seen these types of things/cases in lower levels, police chiefs and officials,
judges, prosecutors, mayor, FBI, and so on. Not surprisingly it happens elsewhere. ...But
very disappointed of it all.
If I were an American citizen, I'd be very concerned about the utter incompetence of the
FBI that the IG report exposed. The dems don't seem to be bothered by this at all. Go
figure.
The Establishment has played this game many times before .. remember PM Harold Wilson was
put up as a Russian Agent .. sure they won that game but NOT this time .. they fear President
Trump because the have nothing over him .
The Democ-rats and the media (I repeat myself) are shamelessly LYING through their teeth
to the American People. There was NO Russian collision—it's a HOAX made by LOSERS who
can't accept their loss in 2016 so they were up to smear the winner, President Trump, by all
means, possible including Illegal surveillance, fraud and manipulation—ABUSE of
government power for political prosecution.
Steele dossier......fake evidence bought and payed for by the democrats and presented to
the FISA court by James Comey...........FELONY FELONY FELONY!......this one can’t be
talked away!
Tucker, thank you for being a constant drumbeat for the criminal activity undertaken by
the FBI and CIA to ultimately unseat a duly elected President. No rest until they are held
accountable.
How could the FBI be innocent? We saw the emails. We saw them cover up for Bill Gates,
Clinton, Epstein, Brunel, and all the others. We saw how they protected these abusers of
children. We saw how they worked to overthrow a sitting president. We saw how they protected
the Awan’s and Huma.
THE FIX WAS IN - People are saying that Nellie Orr the Russian Expert is best friends with
the IG's Horowitz wife - So nice - Bruce your husband is a lap dog and works for the FBI .
People should be outraged as the cover up continues . Just like OJ - they have 10 times the
evidence that would convict anyone else - have them charged , arrested , tried and jailed .
Different rules for corrupt politicians and their friends in law enforcement .
Michael Cohen In prison, Papadopulos went to prison, Flynn is going to prison, Roger Stone
is going to prison, Manafort is in prison and Devin Nunes and Rudy Giuliani are under
investigation.....Lock them up, lock them up!!!!
CIA tells FBI who in turn uses their corrupt media to spread the lies as truth. The less
intelligent among us believe them as gospel and thus we get "Russian Collusion, or Quid Pro
Quo, or Iraq has weapons of mass destruction " and on and on.....
Ukraine and Barisma may be corrupt, but after reading the summary of this report, this
country better not be calling any country corrupt. The USA is following Rome. Soon it will
die.
FBI is totally corrupted by it's unchecked power, these deep states have the guts to
repeatedly use FALSE Information again & again to spy on the opposition political party
presidential candidate campaign. The Fake News medias continue to cover for them, it is
sickening!
The FBI based on the IG report are either criminally liable for deceiving FISA courts, or
the most inept, bumbling criminal investigation agency ever. Looks like both to me. Any FBI
agent or employee who knew the FBI was breaking the law, and remained silent needs to be
fired immediately and prosecuted along with the principals, for aiding and abetting criminal
activity. This sounds like RICO violations.
if Carter Page didn't run the 2016 "Trump Election Campaign Committee of Moscow" from the
ROSNEFT bureau offices inside the Kremlin, where did Carter Page run the "Trump Election
Campaign Committee of Moscow" ?
Horowitz needs to stop being a wuss and tell the whole truth. His report is a big lie. The
whole thing was a political attack. It started with John McCain and he handed it off to Obama
and Crooked Hillary. There was no reason at all to investigate Trump. Is the IG part of the
deep state? Democrats are acting like this report is good news for them.
Steele was not the author of the fake dossier, DNC FusionGPS Glen Simpson was, and Steele
used as cover. Coming in the Durham findings. 17 FBI "mistakes" in a row all against Trump?
No bias? B S.
How Trump has "conned" the American tax payer: This is just a few of his fraud actions!He
set up a foundation to benefit the military, then him and his family pocketed our money.He
started a Fake University, then stole the money from the American people.He cheated on his
wives, then paid them to keep quiet so it wouldn't damage his chances in the election.He
stiffed 100's of worker's he hired and then made up an excuse y they didn't get paid
If Donald Trump was a Russian spy it would’ve been the deepest cover of any secret
agent ever....he came here after his lgb training as a young man and became a celebrity for
30 years before finally putting his dastardly plan to go from pageant owner to president into
action! If that were anywhere close to true the Russians did so much work I think they earned
the 4-8 years in the White House! I know that at this point I’d rather have Vladimir
Putin as President than any of the top democrats!
Folks..All this soap opera is just a smoke screen to hide what is really important and is
happening right now at this very minute. The Federal Reserve Banking cartel is pumping 100s
of billions of dollars into insolvent banks again like they did in 2008. This time it is more
and we taxpayers will again foot the bill. The banks are getting this money called REPO
loans. Watch your cash everyone as the Federal Reserve has only 1 product and that is
printing money( debt) that they will use to steal your assets and future.
There are many opinions about the Horowitz report. As with a prior report Horowitz lays
out damning evidence and then draws exactly the wrong conclusion. Why does he have to draw
ANY CONCLUSIONS? His job is to present the facts and the evidence and to let "We the People'
draw conclusions. Reminds me of Comey declaring that Hillary's actions were irresponsible but
not criminal. Why? She didn't act with intent. She was just incompetent! Tucker is absolutely
right! What does it matter what their motive was? Like Clinton, they behaved in a criminal
fashion.
The idea that Trump wanted to derail Biden is very weak. Biden is optimal opponent for Trump.
He can just wipe floor with him because of his long recoprd in Congress and dirty deals he was
involved, including Burisma.
Notable quotes:
"... It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm ..."
"... Professor Karlan I believe has tanked her career ..."
It's funny because 3 out of 4 of those people screaming "Framers" had frames on.. so is it
the framed trying to frame the framers or is it the presidents framers framing the
framed..wait a minute!.. uhhmm
What I see is copious amounts of wailing from the usual sources about the demise of what
was supposed to be an era of Unipolar dominance by the Evil Outlaw US Empire and blame being
thrown in all directions hoping some sticks instead of directing it at themselves for they
are he true authors of the Empire's decline--they being the Current Oligarchy and their
Congressional, Administrative, and BigLie Media accomplices. The Empire's current "defense"
doctrine calls for war to be waged against the nation(s) impeding the Empire's unilateralism.
The brats are spoilt beyond belief and 100% believe they're entitled to having Full
Spectrum Dominance because of their exceptionalist ideology--they've destroyed their own
basic law to attain that goal; the impeachment derangement is just the most overt symptom
being shown at the moment. Just look at the unanimity on the two recent anti-China
votes--Congress is in almost 100% lockstep with Marco Rubio's insanity.
IMO, there were saner heads in 1962 than now, particularly in Congress. What's worse than
an Evil Outlaw US Empire is it's becoming deranged.
"... Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well. ..."
"... "Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason ." ..."
"... NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies. ..."
"... I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces. ..."
"... What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO. ..."
"... Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this. ..."
"... LOL. The NATO ONLY serves US interests. It has the same function as always. Keep the US in, Russia out and Germany down. ..."
"... The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon the myth of American exceptionalism. ..."
"... US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed. ..."
"... Technocratic sociopaths, doing a CYA for their incompetence. ..."
"... ZATO cries out in pain as it strikes you. ..."
NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov by
Tyler Durden Mon,
12/09/2019 - 02:45 0 SHARES
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to "dominate the world"
a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.
"We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any
competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,"
Lavrov said from Bratislava,
the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens
Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia . Stoltenberg declared
at the summit that NATO has to "tackle the issue" of China's growing
capabilities.
Lavrov told reporters Thursday: "I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We
are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is
multiplying in this world." He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under
the guise of NATO as well.
The new accusation of 'world domination'
comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era
military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and
looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost
sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.
"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov
stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position
to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for
some reason ."
A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been
to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution"
hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national
interests.
NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in
search of new official enemies.
Remember the last Bilderberg meeting. Russia and China were not invited. The globalists
have planned this, and apparently, Russia has better intelligence to know what's going on,
and they will take the necessary precautions, along with China. Let's just hope it's not
going to lead us to WW3.
I'm wondering how many NATO states don't have US Military Bases positioned in them. It's a small distance between a forward operating base and an occupying forces.
NATO is not trying to dominate, NATO is trying to extend its profit from frightened
European donkeys who still believe that the USSR exists, and Uncle Joe sits in the Kremlin
and eats a Christian baby in garlic sauce for lunch.
What NATO is doing is called racketeering. Only the problem of Europe is not Russia, but
the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same Americans and NATO.
So there will
be a big "raspathosovka" with shooting and explosions, do not even doubt it.. Only the problem of
Europe is not Russia, but the ******* Wahhabis, who are the best friends of the same
Americans and NATO. So there will be a big **** with shooting and explosions, do not even
doubt it.
I'll just repeat the erased: NATO - lovers of freebies and they don't refuse this
freebie voluntarily. Children sometimes need a made-up friend, and these bastards need a
made-up enemy. Russia is perfect for this.
NATO is obsolete. The organization no longer serves US interests, and quite frankly,
hasn't for some time. I respectfully suggest the USA move all forces out of Germany on day 1, and station them
at Fort Trump in Poland.
Day 2, the US forms a new "mutual defense pact" with Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary.
(Former Eastern Bloc nations)
Russia and Germany can duke it out, just not where our guys are hanging out. Hades,
Germany and France can limp wrist at each other as they have done in the past so many
times. But insofar as US troops leaving continental Europe forever? Sorry Sergei, that ain't happening, no matter how much
propaganda you shove up western
europe's (willing) ***.
Meanwhile Vlad makes new friends around the world... Last year Putin signed accords with President Macri of Argentina which included Russia
recognizing Argentina's Falklands claim. (La Voz, 23 Jan 2018).
An Argentinian claim based upon 'usurpation' – meaningless in the 18th century and
inheritance from Spain just like Mexico inherited California and Texas.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety. As it stands, I am not
excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing. People have been predicting that for
a while and for the moment, I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate. The
US is a crooked gangster, but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big
league.
The NATO advantage right now is of the least dirty shirt variety.
The NATO disadvantage right now is of the "sitting with pants full of **** and asking
others who farted" variety.
As it stands, I am not excited about the thought of the US empire collapsing.
The collapse of the US empire has been underway for years. Nobody is excited about it
because, instead of gracefully adapting to change with the dignity of a great nation, the
US will continue to cling to denial, lashing out at all and sundry as reality intrudes upon
the myth of American exceptionalism.
I don't see a legit replacement stepping up to the plate.
US imperial decline is reminiscent of Casey at the Bat.
but the other countries are not exactly ready for the big league.
Or they've decided the US game is not worth playing.
Since 2013 I have followed Russian foreign policy and actions in the middle east and
elsewhere,thanks to statesmen like Lavrov they have crossed every t and dotted every i
following international law and convention, true history will be a lot kinder to Russia than
N ot A nother T errorist O rganisation
What is happening to Europe is the same as what's happening to Russia, only Russia
didn't ask for it. Nevertheless, Azeris and Tatars are on the rise demographically, and
Russians are on the decline.
I don't think Russia ... or China for that matter ... need to worry much. The West is imploding and NATO will implode along with it. The West can't even depend on its technical superiority anymore ( see Boeing 737MAX
); it sure can't depend on (most of) its people to do any real fighting.
NATO is fading and becoming a contradictory mess. China and Russia will be the foe, with possibly India, and far more effective,
economically and militarily. Europe doesn't stand a chance against these no matter how they posture, their slope is
downward.
US geopolitics has created a foe it cannot defeat without itself being destroyed.
"The problem is ZATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to
persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only ZATO is in the
position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West
dislikes for some reason ."
A long time ago I watched "Manufacturing Consent" and have since assumed that what passes
for mainstream "news" is nothing more than propaganda, and that Mark Twain was entirely
correct in his observation that if you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do
read the newspaper you are misinformed. Though it is sad when I see the likes of the once
great Nature engage in such, all things must pass and I am sure they will too, most of what I
read these days comes straight off arxiv.org so they have already been disintermediated in my
life.
@32 c1ue
That will be £1,000,000 for linking to my post, please pay within 24 hours or legal
action will be taken!
"... Hillary Clinton, Her husband Bill and Barak Obama are all deep cover CIA agents in addition to their other positions, as documented in the book "CIA: Crime Incorporated of America". ..."
"... The arms came from more places than simply Libya, although Libya was the central shipping and gathering point to go to Turkey and then on to Syria. Turkey was part of the Obama enablers of ISIS and ISIL big time ! Obama made sure ISIS got all the weapons and munitions and equipment we left behind and did literally nothing to stop them at all. He, Brennan, Hillary as well as Kerry all have massive blood on their hands via the atrocities of ISIS ! ..."
"... Not forgetting William Browder, part of the same gang, whose grandfather was the Leader of the US Communist Party. No doubt with close ties to Allen Dulles and ''peration Paperclip'. ..."
"... Will never forget Brennan, going to Ukraine, with instructions, just prior to 2 May 2014 and the Odessa Trade Union Massacre. Coincidence or what? ..."
"... Brennan may well have already been CIA when he joined the CPUSA. In any case, he's scum. ..."
"... Tucker Carlson and the author of this article asks, How can someone like Brennan be provided security clearance for top secrets in the CIA. A very easy answer: the entire American financial/judicial/military/spy organizations have become highly corrupt. Meanwhile, millions of adult Americans could care less. ..."
"... "When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America...America will triumph over you". https://t.co/uKppoDbduj -- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) March 17, 2018 ..."
Let's get something clear from the start. In 1976, in his 20s, John Brennan was a card carrying communist who supported the then
Soviet Union, at the height some might say of the Cold War, so much so he voted and assisted Gus Hall, the communist candidate for
President against a devout Christian, Jimmy Carter who ultimately won the Presidency.
Yet under four years later, just after the then Soviet Union invaded, just weeks before, Afghanistan and months after the tumultuous
Iranian revolution of 1979, which at the time many thought the Soviet Union had a hand in, Brennan was accepted into the CIA as a
junior analyst.
At that time, John Brennan should have never got into the CIA, or any Western Intelligence agency given his communist background.
Think on that carefully as you continue to read this.
Also reflect on the fact that Brennan, later in his CIA career, was surprisingly elevated from junior analyst to the prestigious
position of Station Chief in Saudi Arabia where he spent a few years.
Its said he was appointed purely for 'political' reasons, alleged to have been at the direct request of Bill Clinton and other
Democrats not because of a recommendation or merit from within the Agency.
Its further said that the Saudis liked Brennan because he became very quickly 'their man' so to speak. Some reports, unsubstantiated,
even allege Brennan became a Muslim while there to ingratiate himself with the Saudis.
Important to read is an NBC news article entitled 'Former Spooks Criticize CIA Director John Brennan for Spying Comments' by Ken
Dilanian dated March 2nd, 2016.
The article contains many revealing facts and evidence, while giving a flavour, of the feelings of many in the CIA who felt that
Brennan was totally unsuitable and unqualified to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
A final controversy is the little known fact of Brennan's near four year departure from the CIA into the commercial world, having
been 'left out in the cold' from the CIA, from November 2005 to January 2009 when he was CEO of a private company called 'The Analysis
Corporation'.
So why was he then reinstated into the CIA, to the surprise of CIA's senior management, by newly elected President Obama, to head
the CIA? No answer is available as to why he left the CIA in 2005.
Lastly let's not forget Brennan's many failures as CIA head in recent years, one most notable is the Benghazi debacle and the
death of a US Ambassador and others there. Something else to ponder.
Back to the present an the issue of security clearances.
In early August, on the well known American TV Rachel Maddow Show, Brennan back tracked on his Trump traitor claim by saying "I
didn't mean he (Trump) committed treason. I meant what he has done is nothing short of treasonous." Rachel Maddow responded correctly
"If we diagram the sentence, 'nothing short of treason' means it's treasonous?"
A simple question follows. Since he is no longer in the CIA, why does he need a security clearance other than to commercially
exploit it?
Tucker Carlson explains succinctly here:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kzxf9TcJ_3k
Last month what can be described as 200+ 'friends of Brennan', former CIA officials of varying rank, responded against the removal
of former CIA Director Brennan's security clearances, in support of him.
These men and women too most likely will have their clearances revoked.
And why not?
Since the only purpose they retain it is to make money as civilians?
A potentially more serious issue than 'the Brennan controversies' is that the US intelligence community has around 5 million people
with security clearances as a whole includes approximately 1.4m people holding top secret clearances. It is patently a ridiculously
high number and makes a mockery of the word secret.
Former CIA veteran Sam Faddis is one of the few people brave enough and with the integrity required, that has stood up
and told some of the real truths about Brennan in an 'Open Letter', yet this letter's contents have hardly at all been reported in
the media.
Generally by nature, CIA Officers sense of service and honour to their Country, their professionalism and humility, and disdain
for publicity has dissuaded most of them to enter the current very public Brennan controversy; but for how much longer?
I implore you to cease and desist from continuing to attempt to portray yourself in the public media as some sort of impartial
critic concerned only with the fate of the republic. I beg you to stop attempting to portray yourself as some sort of wise, all-knowing
intelligence professional with deep knowledge of national security issues and no political inclinations whatsoever.
None of this is true.
You were never a spy. You were never a case officer. You never ran operations or recruited sources or worked the streets abroad.
You have no idea whatsoever of the true nature of the business of human intelligence. You have never been in harm's way. You have
never heard a shot fired in anger.
You were for a short while an intelligence analyst. In that capacity, it was your job to produce finished intelligence based
on information provided to you by others. The work of intelligence analysts is important, however in truth you never truly mastered
this trade either.
In your capacity as an analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, while still a junior officer, you were designated to brief
the President of the United States who was at that time Bill Clinton. As the presidential briefer, it was your job to read to
the president each morning finished intelligence written by others based on intelligence collected by yet other individuals. Period.
While serving as presidential briefer you established a personal relationship with then President Bill Clinton. End of story.
Everything that has transpired in your professional career since has been based on your personal relationship with the former
president, his wife Hillary and their key associates. Your connection to President Obama was, in fact, based on you having established
yourself by the time he came to office as a reliable, highly political Democratic Party functionary.
All of your commentary in the public sphere is on behalf of your political patrons. It is no more impartial analysis then would
be the comments of a paid press spokesman or attorney. You are speaking each and every time directly on behalf of political forces
hostile to this president. You are, in fact, currently on the payroll of both NBC and MSNBC, two of the networks most vocally
opposed to President Trump and his agenda.
There is no impartiality in your comments. Your assessments are not based on some sober judgment of what is best for this nation.
They are based exclusively on what you believe to be in the best interests of the politicians with whom you long since allied
yourself.
It should be noted that not only are you most decidedly not apolitical but that you have been associated during your career
with some of the greatest foreign policy disasters in recent American history.
Ever since this President was elected, there has been a concerted effort to delegitimize him and destabilize him led by you.
This has been an unprecedented; to undermine the stability of the republic and the office of the Presidency, for solely partisan
political reasons. You and your patrons have been complicit in this effort and at its very heart.
You abandoned any hope of being a true intelligence professional decades ago and became a political hack. Say so.
Sam Faddis
EPILOGUE:
I decided to update this article with this epilogue that summarises events since its first publication, but by not writing more.
By simply adding links showing Brennan speaking in March just before Meuller's Report was released, and excerpts of other interviews
and commentaries.
In this way, reader's can judge for themselves Brennan's essentially undoubtable despicable character which shines through by
watching and reading the below 8 links up to 1st April 2019. There are many more, but in consideration of space, I've selected these
links.
These are not in chronological order, date/time wise.
I would add that, for his own 'survival', and that of his co-conspirators, there will, I predict, over the coming days and weeks,
be an attempt by Brennan to STILL try and fabricate 'dirt' on President Trump to justify his treacherous behaviour against importantly
more than just Trump, but 'the Office of the President', something for which, in my opinion, he and those involved should be prosecuted
for, even some jailed for.
Most particularly in addition to Brennan is clearly Obama himself, Clinton, Clapper and Comey et al.
The CIA operation in Benghazi was smuggling weapons captured from the Libyan army to Syria via Jordan and Turkey to arm the
anti Assad forces. This operation was directed by Brennan, Clinton, Obama and General Petraeus and was in total violation of national
and international law.
Ambassador Stevens was aware of this operation and allowed to die by delaying a military rescue operation, as part of a cover
up of this illegal operation. Dead men tell no tales.
Hillary Clinton, Her husband Bill and Barak Obama are all deep cover CIA agents in addition to their other positions, as documented
in the book "CIA: Crime Incorporated of America".
They don't like Trump because he is the first non CIA President in a long while
(George W. Bush was not CIA but under his father's influence) and not part of the secret team. Hopefully, they eventually will
be punished for their crimes. Qanon gives hope!
The arms came from more places than simply Libya, although Libya was the central shipping and gathering point to go to Turkey
and then on to Syria. Turkey was part of the Obama enablers of ISIS and ISIL big time ! Obama made sure ISIS got all the weapons
and munitions and equipment we left behind and did literally nothing to stop them at all. He, Brennan, Hillary as well as Kerry
all have massive blood on their hands via the atrocities of ISIS !
Not forgetting William Browder, part of the same gang, whose grandfather was the Leader of the US Communist Party. No doubt
with close ties to Allen Dulles and ''peration Paperclip'.
Which provided safe passage and new identities for the Nazi and Bolshevik
Elite. Funny how the stench behind the overthrow of he Russian Empire, can still be found, firmly embedded in the swamps of the
21st century.
Will never forget Brennan, going to Ukraine, with instructions, just prior to 2 May 2014 and the Odessa Trade Union
Massacre. Coincidence or what?
Wasn't McCain's father also good friends with Allen Dulles? Wonder where Clinton fitted into the work of Dulles?
One of the more murky issues is the murder of Michael Hastings. A lot of information died with his murder but some info indicates
that he was working on a major report on Brennan. He reportedly advised his friends that the fbi was working on an investigation
on him and he was fearful for his survival
As many will recall, Hastings died in June 2013 in fiery crash of his Mercedes which
was speeding at up to 100 mph in a calif neighborhood.
Also, many will recall, the leaking of "Vault 7" by wikileaks indicated that one of the tools revealed was the ability to remotely
control a vehicle without any input from the driver, positive or negative. This ability is described in detail in the following:
How do you think the Royal Family killed princess Diana? If they can control a drone on the other side of the globe, they can
certainly control the accelerator, brakes and steering of a motor vehicle.
Only the most creepy evil people are allowed to be in our government. They have done a terrible job. Our country is like a
plane in a death spiral, and the same list of creeps keeps getting into the White House. The same people no matter who we elect.
Trump has the same people, or worse than Obama or Hillary or Bush had. It's past time to try and salvage whatever is left of this
country.
100 Stinger shoulder launch ground-to-air missiles. Stevens tried to block the shipment, the embassy was attacked by a highly
skilled, armed, assault team - the story told by "Tonto", one of the military contractors involved in the attempted rescue. All
those Americans in Benghazi were sacrificed in the same way the USS Liberty crew was sacrifice.
Greater Israel is the base of all this violence. Incidentally, "Tonto" and his mates had to commandeer a private jet, after
the fire-fight, that got them to Germany - the US/CIA/State Dept., etc. left them to their own methods and they got out, to the
consternation of the Obama/Clinton Administration.
Tucker Carlson and the author of this article asks, How can someone like Brennan be provided security clearance for top secrets
in the CIA. A very easy answer: the entire American financial/judicial/military/spy organizations have become highly corrupt. Meanwhile,
millions of adult Americans could care less.
Well............Those two contrasts will be intriguing to watch how the grandchildren and great-grandchilren will fare when
the US Empire becomes so degraded, that the young will have to forage on their own for housing, water, and food.
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy
America...America will triumph over you".
https://t.co/uKppoDbduj -- John O. Brennan (@JohnBrennan) March 17, 2018
He has to be part of a CIA "cleansing" operation.
Better put him in jail with no rights whatsoever . Let that turd rot in some humid dungeon . That's for the rats like this one
.
"... there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized ..."
"... This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences, like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day. ..."
"... Another rapidly creeping Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become common coin ..."
"... increasingly they have that "enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch. ..."
There is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly
Sovietized, writes Weir .
This is becoming quite the meme. Upon reflection, I do think there is something in it. Not
this idiotic suggestion that Repubicans have somehow morphed into borscht-swilling,
shapka-wearing, Putin-loving Russkies. Indeed, there are hardly any actual Russians like that.
But there is something to the idea that American political culture is becoming increasingly Sovietized. Of course it's two separate camps, not a monolith, and the Democrats are at least
as guilty as Republicans.
This article below inadvertently illustrates the obsession with malign foreign influences,
like that which pervaded Soviet discourse and remains a bad smell in Russia to this day.
Russians scoff at the idea that Putin is able to get his own man elected president of the US
when he can't even fix the governor in Irkutsk. But the author of this piece implies that Putin
is somehow pulling the strings, not only of Trump but all Republicans?
Another rapidly creeping
Soviet trait is the weaponization of politics, turning any disagreement into an existential
struggle, opponents into enemies, the way words like "treason" or "Russian asset" have become
common coin. And they are not just deployed as simple insults: increasingly they have that
"enemy of the people" ring to them. The growing prominence of the intelligence services in
political life, and their alumni on cable TV news shows, is another worrisome trend to watch.
Also, it looks like big part of the media have become almost Pravda-like, making ideological
mission their main priority. I spend some of my down-time perusing shows from Fox News and
MSNBC, which an alien from outer space would think were the propaganda organs of two different,
mutually-hostile states -- but both very Soviet-like.
... ... ...
THEATLANTIC.COM
The Russification of the Republican Party
GOP lawmakers used to oppose the president's embrace of Putin and the Kremlin. Not anymore.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/12/impeachment-republican-party-russia/603088/?fbclid=IwAR1EC0-CDBEx-3SMS1lJTMT2m0xVjfaguZehK4BIeZ5Bov41Ds1XFi_Cbkg
"... I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq. As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense. ..."
"... He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign. ..."
"... When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress. ..."
"... Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over. ..."
Enthusiasm over entrepreneurship is now found in every corner of society -- even, apparently, within the federal bureaucracy.
Witness after witness in last month's House impeachment inquiry hearings referred to "the interagency," an off-the-books informal
government organization that we now know has enormous power to set and execute American foreign policy.
The first to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, State Department official George Kent, seemed to conceive of the
interagency as the definitive source of foreign-policy consensus. That Mr. Trump's alleged decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine
deviated from that consensus was, for Mr. Kent, prima facie evidence that it was misguided.
Next up, Ambassador William Taylor told the committee that it was the "unanimous opinion of every level of interagency discussion"
that the aid should be resumed without delay. Fiona Hill, a former National Security Council official, gave the game away by admitting
how upset she was that Gordon Sondland, President Trump's ambassador to the European Union, had established an "alternative" approach
to helping Kyiv. "We have a robust interagency process that deals with Ukraine," she said.
What is the interagency, and why should its views guide the conduct of American diplomatic and national-security professionals?
The Constitution grants the president the power to set defense and diplomatic policy. Where did this interagency come from?
I first heard of the interagency in Baghdad in 2009. I was there as part of a Council on Foreign Relations delegation to Iraq.
As a U.S. Army general briefed us on how the war was being fought, he spoke of the interagency as the source of the strategy he was
executing. Naively, I asked why he wasn't operating according to orders from his military superiors or the secretary of defense.
He explained that American war-fighting was being guided by a "whole of government" philosophy. Incredibly, he explained that
the war couldn't be won without, among other agencies, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Justice and Labor. Iraq needed economic expansion, modern farming, business statistics, new
hospitals, a working court system and workplace regulations. The strategy framed by the interagency was nothing less than a yearslong
engagement in nation building -- precisely what President George W. Bush had rejected in his 2000 campaign.
Interagency cooperative agreements have been around for decades. The Justice Department, for example, has opioid-interdiction
programs that require it to work with the Department of Homeland Security. Today a dictionary of more than 12,500 official terms
exists to guide bureaucrats in writing interagency contracts that repurpose federal funds appropriated to various executive departments.
Often these interdepartmental initiatives devised by bureaucrats are unknown to Congress. It's hard to imagine that the legislative
branch wouldn't object to these arrangements, if only it were aware of them.
When the war on terror opened, with all the secret activity it required, professional cadres in the diplomatic corps, the military
and the nation's many intelligence agencies were able to transform interagency cooperative agreements that had existed since the
Cold War into a de facto agency -- a largely informal and virtual bureaucracy -- with the assumed power, if need be, to determine
and execute a foreign policy at odds with the intent of the president and Congress.
Last month's testimony before the Intelligence Committee shed light on this club whose members are a permanent shadow government
credentialed by family histories, elite schools and unique career experiences. This common pedigree informs their perspective of
how America should relate to the world. The dogmatists of the interagency seem to share a common discomfort with a president who
probably couldn't describe the doctrine of soft power, doesn't desire to be the center of attention at Davos, and wouldn't know that
Francis Fukuyama once decided that history was over.
The impeachment hearings will have served a useful purpose if all they do is demonstrate that a cabal of unelected officials are
fashioning profound aspects of U.S. foreign policy on their own motion. No statutes anticipate that the president or Congress will
delegate such authority to a secret working group formed largely at the initiation of entrepreneurial bureaucrats, notwithstanding
that they may be area experts, experienced in diplomatic and military affairs, and motivated by what they see as the best interests
of the country.
However the impeachment drama plays out, Congress has cause to enact comprehensive legislation akin to the Goldwater-Nichols Act
of 1986, which created more-efficient structures and transparent processes in the Defense Department. Americans deserve to know who
really is responsible for making the nation's foreign policy. The interagency, if it is to exist, should have a chairman appointed
by the president, and its decisions, much like the once-secret minutes of the Federal Reserve, should be published, with limited
and necessary exceptions, for all to see.
Mr. Schramm is a university professor at Syracuse. His most recent book is "Burn the Business Plan."
"A botched assassination attempt against Ukrainian politician and businessman Vyacheslav
Sobolev has resulted in the death of his three-year-old son, Alexander.
"While Sobolev and his wife were leaving his high-end restaurant "Mario" in Kiev this past
Sunday, right-wing thugs opened fire on Sobolev's Range Rover, missing him but hitting his
son who was seated in the back of the vehicle. The three-year-old died on the way to the
hospital.
"Police later apprehended two men who had fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan, Oleksiy
Semenov, 19, and Andrei Lavrega, 20. Both are veterans of the war in Donbass in eastern
Ukraine where they served as members of the fascist Right Sector's paramilitary formation
until June of this year.
"The Right Sector was instrumental in the US- and EU-backed, fascist-led coup in February
2014 that toppled the Yanukovitch government and replaced it with a pro-Western and
anti-Russian regime. Since then, the Right Sector has been among the far-right forces that
have been heavily involved in the war against Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine.
"As is usual when members of neo-Nazi groups carry out political attacks, the Right Sector
and their former battalion commander fraudulently attempted to distance themselves from
Lavrega and Semenov, claiming they had lost contact with them since they left Ukraine's armed
forces in June. These claims are not credible.
"Lavrega, who has been identified as the principal shooter in the killing, has been a
member of the Right Sector for at least half a decade. He had participated in the Maidan
movement of 2014 as a member of the Right Sector and perfected his shooting skills as a
sniper killing separatist soldiers in eastern Ukraine. According to his Right Sector
battalion commander, Andrei Herhert, Lavrega -- also known as "Quiet" -- was "one of the best
snipers in the war" and "very ideological."
"As a thanks for his service to the right-wing Kiev government, Lavrega received a
military decoration from former President Petro Poroshenko for "courage" just last year, in
October of 2018." ..........
"Whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering this political assassination and the
murder of the three-year-old boy, it is clear that the same far-right forces that were
instrumental in the coup in February 2014 and the civil war are now being employed to carry
out political assassinations by the Ukrainian oligarchy.
"Since the 2014 coup, the number of targeted political assassinations by right-wing
neo-Nazi groups like C14 and the Right Sector has skyrocketed. At least 15 people have been
murdered in such hit jobs by the far right since 2014. Among them was the well-known
Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet and the politician Kateryna Handziuk, who was killed in
a horrific acid attack by right-wing thugs last year.
"In virtually all these cases, the perpetrators have been protected from serious legal
prosecution. One of the murderers of Handziuk received a barely three-year prison sentence. A
critical role in shielding the neo-Nazis is played by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs'
Arsen Avakov, who controls the country's police force and possesses well-known ties to
Ukraine's most notorious fascist militia, the Azov Battalion.
"Avakov is one of the few members of the previous Poroshenko government that have remained
in the current Cabinet of Ministers under President Volodmyr Zelensky. He was recently
praised by former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while testifying before the
House of Representatives regarding the Trump impeachment investigation (see also: "The
impeachment crisis and American imperialism").
"President Zelensky, who was elected in April this year on the basis of promises that he
would bring an end to the widely despised civil war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed the
lives of over 13,000 people, has maintained a conspicuous silence on this latest political
assassination attempt by the far right. Instead, the day after the murder, he posted a
message on Facebook to honor two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed while fighting in eastern
Ukraine this past weekend."
The rest of the story can be found at the WSWS https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/07/ukra-d06.html
The Right Sector links with the former US Ambassador-Democratic heroine- are topical.
Thank you for that insight. I cannot see how Zelensky will manage the Nazi Ukrainians
short of a virtual civil war against one western district. The USA will foment a major
insurrection to destroy him if he does a deal with Gazprom. Your suggestion as to where those
issues are discussed would be welcome.
A User #72
Thank you and well said. The eurocentric kabuki does mesmerise the information providers.
I too seek escape from that dominance and spent a good time today researching the Power of
Siberia implications and issues of South America. The global assault on all things African is
a matter of deep despair for me and I feel totally powerless to reverse the relentless
assault on their world.
"... The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders and Russiagate. ..."
"... Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States. It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured. ..."
"... It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first. Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation is. ..."
"... Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov (Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency). ..."
"... Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing. ..."
"... I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian citizen!) ..."
"... "From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global domination. " ..."
"... "At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause." ..."
Retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin, in conversation with former Australian Foreign
Minister Bob Carr, says the West is unnecessarily determined to undermine Russia. A t an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause.
When Kevin said he returned to Russia after more than 40 years in 2016 he realized he "had
to take sides" in the U.S.-Russia standoff when all Nato countries boycotted the Moscow
celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.
"I had to take a moral position that it is not right for the West to be ganging up on
Russia," Kevin says in his conversation with the former Australian foreign minister.
The New Cold War can traced back to a broken promise made to Moscow on Nato expansion
eastward. "London and Washington are orchestrating a disinformation" campaign today against
Russia, as the New Cold War has heated up over Syria, Ukraine, NATO troops on Russia's borders
and Russiagate.
Watch the hour-long in depth discussion which was filmed and produced by Consortium
News' CN Live! Executive Producer Cathy Vogan.
Tony's (especially!) and Bob's sane and sensible view of this dangerous and destructive
state of affairs deserve the widest possible distribution and attention.
George McGlynn , December 9, 2019 at 13:27
A quarter century has passed since the fall of the Soviet Union, and little has changed.
Cold War patterns of thinking about Russia show no sign of weakening in America. The further
we distance ourselves from the end of the Cold War, the closer we come to its revival.
Hostility to Russia is the oldest continuous foreign policy tradition in the United States.
It is now so much of a part of America's identity that it is unlikely to be ever cured.
It is a dangerous miscalculation to think the "New Cold War" will end like the first.
Russia (the USSR) had a buffer zone then, it doesn't today. For Moscow the coming war (world
war) will be about survival. All that is left is the fall-back position of nuclear deterrence
doctrine – annihilation. I don't think western capitals see how perilous the situation
is.
AnneR , December 9, 2019 at 07:48
The latest efforts at attacking Russia via smear, allegation and Doublespeak have been,
are via that US supported supposed oversight committee, WADA which has done what the US-UK
wanted: banned Russia for four years from international sporting events including the
upcoming Tokyo Olympics and World Cup (Football – soccer to Americans).
Then there were allegations – of those "highly likely" (therefore one knows to be
untrue and unadulterated propaganda to increase Russophobia) sort – about Russian
hackers (always giving the impression that the "Kremlin" is behind itl) being the Labour
Party's source of the Tory party's US-UK trade deal which would/will deliberately and finally
destroy the NHS and replace it with (of course) US "health" insurance company
profiteering.
(Always the Tory intention from the NHS's initiation in May of 1948; only its popularity
among many Tory party supporters among the working and lower middle classes prevented them
from a full-frontal killing off the NHS; the Snatcher's government began the undermining, via
installing a top-heavy bureaucratization, siphoning off a sizable proportion of the funds
that would otherwise have gone to medical care, demanding that hospitals not "lose" money
– a concept completely beyond the remit of the NHS as originally conceived and
constructed and like exactions.)
Then there are snide remarks about the meeting today concerning the Ukrainian Azov
(Neo-Nazi) attacks on the Donbass (NOT how either the BBC or NPR speaks of this of course) in
France. This struggle, between the Russian-speaking Donbass peoples and the neo-Nazis of
western Ukraine, has killed many thousands of people (most likely mostly those of the
Donbass). The Donbass fighters are spoken of as "Russian-supported" in an attempt to deny
them and the reasons for their struggle *any* legitimacy (meanwhile the support for the
neo-Nazis goes unmentioned, leaving the listener with the impression that they are the
Ukrainian military, thus legitimately fighting a foreign funded and manned insurgency).
Someone even suggested that President Putin needed to be diplomatic. Really? From what
I've read the man is the most diplomatic and intelligent politician (not just political
leader) along with Xi Jinping and the Iranian government that exist on the world stage. None
of them are hubristic, solipsistic, eager beaver killers of peoples in other countries.
Unlike their western "world" political counterparts.
Jeff Harrison , December 8, 2019 at 18:30
Mad Dog Mattis spoke the truth when he said that an opponent wasn't defeated until they
agreed they were defeated. The US merely assumed that Russia agreed that they were defeated
and are doubling down when they now suddenly realize that Russia never said any such thing.
St. Ronnie's whole thing back in the 80's was to outspend Russia militarily and it worked
well. We're trying to do it again but Russia isn't playing the same game this time and now it
is the US that has a mountain of debt and Russia that doesn't. SIPIRI tags US military
spending at $650B and Russian military spending at $62B. But we know that the $650B number is
bogus because it doesn't include our in-violation-of-the-NNPT nuclear program which is in the
energy department or our veteran's expenses which are in HHS. I don't know what's missing
from Russia's $62B but I'll bet they can sustain that a whole lot better than we can sustain
our $650B and rising bill.
Antonio Costa , December 9, 2019 at 13:17
Good point regarding Russia's downsizing the Soviet Union. From Gorbachev to Putin there
was NEVER a surrender, intended in any way. The intent has been multilateral partnerships.
For Russia the US/West won nothing at all except the opportunity to live and work in peace.
(By the way this policy has a long Russian history.)
They gave up the Warsaw Pact and America with our worthless "word" expanded NATO.
The US foreign policy has lost even the semblance of sanity. Our naked aggression is clear
as never before, a mad man throwing a global fit armed with megaton nuclear projectiles on
trigger first strike alert. What could go wrong?
nondimenticare , December 8, 2019 at 15:56
If, magically, Consortium News/CN Live! were a mass-distribution network/magazine (hence
universally consulted), allowing the light in for the mass of the viewing and listening
public, it could change the world – both an exalting and despairing thought.
Lily , December 8, 2019 at 09:52
It is a great joy to listen to this conversation!
I am really sick of the smearing of Russia done by the US and UK. The Skripal as well as
the MH17 case are plain ridiculus. Anybody can see through these silly plants. US and UK
obviously don't feel obliged to respect any international rules any more. (The one person who
is suffering most at the moment from the decline in respect is Julian Assange, an Australian
citizen!)
I wish people would have the courage to break away from the group pressure originated by a
nation which has been started by killing more than 90% of the indigenous people in their
country and since then has turned the worl into a very insecure place.
Chapeau, Tony Kevin! Thanks to Bob Carr and Consortiums News.
Lily , December 9, 2019 at 01:18
It seems that some facts are beginning to be realized in the military department.
Words are catalysts of connotations and connotations are functions of
expectations/framing..
Some conflate cause with purpose thereby limiting perception of cause and purpose.
Some understand that causation is interactive and in any lateral system the genesis of
causation is difficult to determine.
Some understand that evaluation is a function of purpose and that purpose can be evaluated
through such portals into wonderlands such as "What is the "United States of America" and how
is it facilitated?"
As thumb-nailed in the comments section of the article Capitalism's suicidal trajectory
– OlyaPola
December 6, 2019 at 07:46
"From 1922 onwards the strategic purpose of the Soviet Union was to defend the Soviet
Union not global domination, whereas the purpose of the "West" has always been global
domination. "
From 1922 onwards various tactics have been attempted by the "West" to facilitate their
purpose, including attempts at "Orange revolution" in many areas which catalysed many lateral
trajectories including the process of transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian
Federation in the period from 1991 to 2005.
Consequently Mr. Suslov's observation re war of "The United States of America" can be
extended into present times and hence no "New cold war" exists.
""What is the "United States of America"
An initial step through the portal is that "The United States of America" is – a
regime of social relations to facilitate its purpose – the social relations not being
restricted to the "nation state" presently self designated "The United States of America" but
including classes in other "nation states".
Consequently alternative purposes and social relations pose an existential threat to "The
United States of America"; this being perceived of lesser significance in regard to "The
Soviet Union" and greater in regard to the Russian Federation.
"At an event last week in Sydney, Kevin and Carr discussed how the West, led by the United
States, has been on an aggressive campaign to destabilize Russia, without cause."
The American establishment's problem with Russia is simply that Russia is the only country
on earth capable of obliterating the United States. Not even China has yet reached that
capacity.
"Carthago delenda est"
Skip Scott , December 9, 2019 at 06:13
There is "cause." Russia was our latest vassal under Yeltsin. Putin stopped the looting,
and worked to benefit average Russian citizens. Just watch "The Magnitsky Act, behind the
scenes" to know the "cause".
Bruno DP , December 8, 2019 at 02:34
The West is ganging up on Russia? Replace "West" by "United States of America", and I will agree.
Much of the West (i.e. Germany) has been dragged by force into damage control mode. The
Magnitsky Act monster, the election interference hysteria, are just 2 crying examples met
with shock and disbelief across the pond. The Fiona Hill testimony was a very telling moment
for the inner workings of a self perpetuating logic.
Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin
seems to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined.
I'm German, living in the US, and I agree with your comment. I especially love the last
two sentences:
"Russia is no lightweight by any means, and not always friendly.
But it has regularly done the right thing in international conflicts which the Kremlin seems
to understand better than all of "the Western" intelligence combined."
@Dave from Oz Dietrich Doerner's Logic of Failure makes clear that decision makers
consistently make grotesque errors based on faulty modeling of the world, incomplete feedback
assumed to be complete, and so on. Even the data are often mistaken for deductive truths, but
if one looks at, for example, the number of actual weather data points used to create those
complex surface maps, it becomes obvious why the results are disappointing -- in that case
possibly spoiling a picnic, but with the military, destroying a civilization.
You might recall the lessons of Longterm Capital Management's use of predictions based on
PDE's, with results that should have been foreseen as being predictably as unreliable as
weather forecasting, and for the same reasons -- that beneath all the fancy math lie guesses
of all too fallible men.
Regarding a faulty worldview, could there possibly be a more distorted model of reality
than America serving as Israel's footstool, the country that with its fifth column is
responsible for Lavon, USS Liberty, JFK/RFK, and, not least, 9/11. In the world of
probabilities, there is no standard of textual evidence evaluation or mathematical
demonstration so low it won't give cover to the Pentagon's costumed bureaucrats and members
of Congress to look the other way regarding Israel and its fifth columns' acts of war against
the country they're all sworn to protect.
MLK became a problem when he joined RFK against Vietnam in early 1968. When he started
counseling his young Black men against Vietnam, he had to go too. I'll never forget that.
Hideous.
Why do they always shoot their rivals in the head? Never a miss back then, ever..
@Anonymous I have doubts that zionists were central to, or instigators of, the JFK coup,
but the Jewish mob sure was in on it, and since they knew and were involved, as was Lyndon,
that gave the zionists Mossad the blackmail they needed to put Lyndon in their pocket. They
proved this when he covered up the Liberty affair. Since then the zionists have been free to
do as they wished. I propose these changes were gradual, and that zionism has been curated as
a MI6 intelop since the Balfour Declaration, in part to create the 5th column we have now.
Looks like it got out of control, Golem-like. This is a pity, as it may result in the ruin of
their own people, just as we see Semitic zionists shooting Semitic natives in a sort of
turkeyshoot every Friday is it kosher to kill on Shabbos? I wonder.. . a kind of civil war,
so we see a vast schism forming between Jews and nominally Jewish zionists.
@Walter The Zionism Psy-Op began much earlier than the Balfour declaration. It was a
result of losing sovereignty when Poland disappeared in 1772 and was partitioned between
Prussia, Russia, and Austria. (Poland was a condominium with two governments, a Jewish one
and a Polish one. The Jews had their own parliament, and the Poles theirs, plus a king. This
evolved out of the original agreements the Khazars of the south made with the Lithuanians to
be a mercenary army, police force, and tax collectors.) Having lost control of one country,
Poland (through their own misuse of taxes), the High Command in Lithuania decided they needed
another country. The propaganda was that the riots -- pogroms -- that began in Russia at the
end of the 19th century were anti-Jewish riots; that the Czar was anti-Jewish, etc. And the
big Psy-Op was the Dreyfus Affair, which was completely fake. Which is why the original
written offer to sell "secrets" -- which were not secrets at all -- mysteriously disappeared
before the Germans occupied France in 1940. But the phony Dreyfus Affair immediately led to
the first Zionist Congress in Basel. Herzl was only a hired propagandist, and disposed off
when he finished the job for which he was recruited as a journalist (as was Wilhelm Marr --
who popularized the term "Antisemitism"). World War I and the Balfour agreement to get
America into the war on the British side delivered the goods.
"... Haddad added that he is now seeking legal advice and looking into the possibility of whistleblower protections for himself, and said at the very least he will publish the information he has while omitting anything that could subject him to legal retaliation from his former employer. ..."
"... Newsweek has long been a reliable guard dog and attack dog for the US-centralized empire, with examples of stories that its editors did permit to go to print including an article by an actual, current military intelligence officer explaining why US prosecution of Julian Assange is a good thing, fawning puff pieces on the White Helmets , and despicable smear jobs on Tulsi Gabbard . ..."
"... Newsweek also recently published an article attacking Tucker Carlson for publicizing the OPCW scandal, basing its criticisms on a bogus Bellingcat article I debunked shortly after its publication . ..."
"Yesterday I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations
about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason," journalist Tareq Haddad
reported today via Twitter .
"I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence from
another case where info inconvenient to US government was removed, though it was factually
correct," Haddad said.
"I plan on publishing these details in full shortly. However, after asking my editors for
comment, as is journalistic practice, I received an email reminding me of confidentiality
clauses in my contract. I.e. I was threatened with legal action."
Haddad added that he is now
seeking legal advice and looking into the possibility of whistleblower protections for himself,
and said at the very least he will publish the information he has while omitting anything that
could subject him to legal retaliation from his former employer.
"I could have kept silent and kept my job, but I would not have been able to continue with
a clean conscience," Haddad said .
"I will have some instability now but the truth is more important."
This is the first direct insider report we're getting on the mass media's conspiracy of
silence on the OPCW scandal that I wrote
about just the other day . In how many other newsrooms is this exact same sort of
suppression happening, including threats of legal action, to journalists who don't have the
courage or ability to leave and speak out? There is no logical reason to assume that Haddad is
the only one encountering such roadblocks from mass media editors; he's just the only one going
public about it.
The ubiquitous propagandistic tactic of fake news by omission distorts the public's
worldview just as much as it would if mass media outlets were publishing bogus stories whole
cloth every day, only if they were doing that it would be much easier to pin them down on their
lies, hold them accountable, and discredit them.
A
recent FAIR article by Alan MacLeod documents how the Hong Kong demonstrations are pushed
front and center in mainstream consciousness despite the fact that to this day not one
protester has been killed by security forces, while far more deadly violence is being directed
at huge protests in empire-aligned nations like Haiti, Chile and Ecuador which have been almost
completely ignored by these same outlets.
This deliberate omission causes a distorted worldview
in casual and mainstream news media consumers in which protests are only happening in nations
that are outside the
US-centralized power alliance . We see the same kind of deliberate distortion-by-omission
with the way mass media continually pushes the
narrative
that Donald Trump is "soft on Russia", while remaining completely silent on the overwhelming
mountain of evidence to the contrary .
The time is now for everyone with a platform to start banging the drum about the OPCW
scandal, because we're seeing more and more signs that the deluge of leaks hemorrhaging from
that organisation is only going to increase. Mainstream propagandists aren't going to cover it,
so if larger alternative media outlets want to avoid being lumped in with them and discredited
in the same sweep it would be wise to start talking about this thing today. It's only going to
get more and more awkward for everyone who chose to remain silent, and more and more validating
for those who spoke out.
@Moi You are quite correct. The overly sanguine attitude of many Christians toward
nuclear war one might call "nuclear exceptionalism." They adopted the imaginary hope of
Anglo-Irish 1800's cult leader John Nelson Darby: "Darby has been credited with originating
the pre-tribulational rapture theory wherein Christ will suddenly remove His bride, the
Church, from this world to its heavenly destiny before the judgments of the tribulation."
(Wikipedia).
The military leadership are loaded with rapture believers, in particular the Air Force. So
if the world nukes itself, that's fine by them; they have no skin in the "game."
Except that on Judgment Day they will have to give account for the lives they destroy by
their recklessness. The turning of Christ into a war god is both blasphemy and idolatry, for
which also they will give account. "My Kingdom is not of this world," said the Lord to
Pilate. Christians are to contend for the Gospel through love, not war.
Both Saker reviews are important, and I'll get both books.
My own experience with US Army officers and enlisted – and this extended over40
years off and on, the last encounters six continuous years ending in 1992 – was that
the WW2 men were realists and competent. And that their replacements were delusional fools.
The level of incompetence was breath-taking by 1992 – when NATO as the cloak of Empire
undertook to bomb cities in Yugoslavia – self evidently criminal and foolish officers
went along And I said Adios MoFo
@peterAUS Tactical nukes. Such a humane idea. Doesn't that make everyone feel warm and
fuzzy all over. Nuclear war, even a first strike, is now acceptable. Isn't semantics
wonderful! Tactical nukes are the thing, to NOT prick the conscience of the western public.
I do not envy the Russian position. They can't publicly warn the US/Israel against nuclear
strikes. The MSM would take such a common sense position and spin into more Russian bullying.
How dare they tell us what we can't do! The Russian message would quickly be lost in a wave
of western hysterics.
On the other hand, a secret warning is of limited value. If they listen, great. What if
they call Russia's bluff? Being secret, the Russians could back down and not even lose face.
It seems obvious that the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea
that they can get away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will
mean the end of humanity therefore they will not respond.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war comes
to Iran. How much damage will nuking an entire country do to Russia and all of Asia? If the
fall out is that extreme then they might treat such an attack as an attack on Russia itself.
I do think the likely plan is to make the best of whatever happens. No matter how one spins
it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity. An extreme option the Russians will
try to avoid if possible.
All this is based on the assumption Israel or America will use their nuclear arsenal. If
Hitler had the bomb in 1945 would he have used it? Of course he would have. The people
running the West have shown the same callous disregard for human life. There is no moral
deterrent to stop these people. Plus all western propaganda the past 20 years has been aimed
at making the use of nuclear weapons acceptable. Why would they be conditioning their public
unless they wished to have the option to use them?
How do we get there? Yes the US military has the ability to drop lots of bombs and destroy
many things. Yet in any war primary targets will all be hit fairly quickly. Then what? From
Day Two they are into the phase of diminishing returns. This is what confronted the IDF in
2006. So you go to tactical nukes. However I see the nuclear attack coming on the heels of a
ferocious Iranian counter attack. Psychologically can America handle even minimal losses? The
most likely response will be a huge temper tantrum: "how dare they fight back!" The nuclear
option will be taken because things will have gone wrong. It will be as much a show of
weakness as strength. Plus it won't be just one of two bombs. Because the Iranians will not
say "Uncle". The Japanese did after Nagasaki, however the Japanese were trying to surrender
the entire time. The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable. Especially if there is no longer any Reason left in the western world.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most apathetic/ignorant
and propagandized public on the planet. As Vietnam and Iraq proved, Americans have no
conscience when it comes to dead foreigners. They get what they deserve for "starting" a war
against Uncle Sam. Yet there are two Achilles Heels.
1) Americans hate losing. Iraq was a great success during the Mission Accomplished phase.
The moment the narrative changed Americans quickly switched to hating their leadership for
botching Iraq. So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win
– and can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender. Or how well does the MSM
do in turning such losses into part of a patriotic war that Americans' must support and
win?
2) Quality of life. All westerners are the most spoiled people in human history.
Consequently we have become the most materialistic and the most superficial people ever. We
are an "end justifies the means" society. So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and
our quality of life hasn't fallen too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our
political elites a blank cheque to do whatever they like. Bomb Yugoslavia, invade
Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, murder Palestinians, sanction or threaten
regime change the list is endless. Everything is on the table – likely nuclear
holocaust too(so long as it's them doing the dying) – just don't mess with our Cozy
Prisons! Support for war on Iran will evaporate pretty fast unless such a war can be
prosecuted quickly and everything can return to normal fast. Definitely westerners –
not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes. There will be some initial shock,
which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall into line because we'll need to win
the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be seen as the convenient solution for
the problem. End justifies the means.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Circle 2021 on your calendars. Once Trump is re-elected there will be nothing to stop him.
If there are any history classes in the future then 2021 will be remember like 1914 or 1789
or 1066. I still hope it is remembered as the year the states of Israel and USA ceased to
exist.
@Jim Christian "Fact is, if the elites and corporate defense establishment of the US
would become diplomatic, imagine the cooperation between us and Russia that could take place.
Imagine the prosperity! Even the elites could share in it!"
Exactly so. This was the basis for my immediate initial support for Trump; his calling
bullshit on the entire rationale behind the empire, and the potential benefits of a new
detente. (Even if we were evil geni, it would make more sense to at least pretend to be
non-threatening.) This is the root of the hostility to Trump, IMO.
Incidentally, this piece and it's commentary is greatly supportive of Ron's argument that
heavy users should step up and financially support the UR. I haven't seen this sort of thing
anywhere else easily available on the web. I don't comment much here (feeling somewhat too
short for this ride ) but I do spend hours everyday, reading most of the articles and many
comments. Would definitely donate.
@Andrei Martyanov I suspect that the US is extremely concerned about Russia's
decapitating first strike capability via nuclear armed Zircons (1-2 minutes flight time to
Washington DC or New York) who are hard to detect, almost impossible to stop missiles. The US
does not have a capability like this. This is why the whole talk about buying Greenland. It
is very important to stop russian subs from reaching the Atlantic US Coast.
How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?
In 1-2 minutes the WhiteHouse, Congress, Federal Reserve HQ, CIA and NSA HQs, Pentagon,
etc will be gone. No wonder Putin is trolling the US about selling some hypersonic
weapons.
.the psychopathic thinking among western elites is based on the idea that they can get
away with nuclear strikes against Iran because Russian retaliation will mean the end of
humanity therefore they will not respond.
Something like that.
I'm sure the Russians have already calculated what is and is not acceptable when war
comes to Iran.
Any interested state-level player has.
No matter how one spins it, a Russian nuclear response is the end of humanity.
Yep.
There is no moral deterrent to stop these people.
You mean TPTBs in the West? Yep ..
The Iranians will never surrender. Therefore 80 million dead might not be
unreasonable.
Disagree.
This can be prevented but only by the western public. You know the most
apathetic/ignorant and propagandized public on the planet.
Don't say.
So how long before Americans turn against an Iran War that isn't an easy win – and
can't be won because the Iranians will never surrender.
The Iranian regime can surrender–>from then on there are a couple of
scenarios.
As, for example:
So long as we have our tvs and weekend football and our quality of life hasn't fallen
too far, too fast, we are perfectly happy to give our political elites a blank cheque to do
whatever they like
And so long as I don't get drafted to be a part of occupying force in Iran among some
other things.
Definitely westerners – not just Americans – will support nuclear strikes.
There will be some initial shock, which the MSM will cover over. Then everyone will fall
into line because we'll need to win the war and get back to normal. Nuclear weapons will be
seen as the convenient solution for the problem. End justifies the means.
Yep.
Maybe I'm wrong about westerners and they still have a conscience. After 20 years of
accepting endless wars, it doesn't seem likely.
Now, the key question is, how is this relevant. I have no doubt that this and previous book
contain good info, but can this info be ever digested by the US politicians and neocons? Of
course not!
The US elites have degenerated to the point of no return. This always happens to the
elites of dying empires. So, discussing the reality, military or economic, with them is like
teaching madhouse inmates calculus. You might be right, but they won't appreciate it.
@Jim Christian There is already some internal opposition to war with Iran. Out of the
various recent provocations, the US has been reluctant to escalate. Maybe its Trump's
skepticism regarding the list of options provided by the military. Or his political
instincts. It would be an unpopular war without a rapid, decisive victory, which is
unrealistic.
I think other than a rather weak veto power, Trump is too weak to prevent a war. So I
think some other faction of the elite is resisting. Maybe the military. It would be logical
for them to resist. They got their big budget without needing a war. And they would be stuck
with the mess.
The war has been teed up for a Trump signoff two or three times lately. If the only
missing piece is finding the sucker to take the blame, it is inevitable. Rather, I would
infer that there is some deep opposition, that is lying low. The large defense contractors
have it pretty good right now, but they probably aren't set up to oppose any war, however
foolish.
@Andrei Martyanov Our societies have been gutted by thieves and their accomplices while
the thieves buddies look on and play loud music to confuse everyone. The thieves are the
buzzard 'capitalists', the accomplices are the crooked politicians and the noise comes from
the media.
The common denominator in the U.S., Canada, Australia, the U.K., NZ and others is that the
thieves den is a triumvirate: Old Money 'elite' (read: scum), New Money Jews and the
politicos (multi-generational civil servant families and the con artists talking head actors
who play president, pm, etc.).
The West has been systematically destroyed. Every institution has been corrupted including
our religions. The Vatican, for example, was completely corrupted in the early 1960's when,
according to Father Malachi Martin, Satan formally enthroned himself in Vatican City.
There is a common denominator here gentlemen: destruction. Satan is always close to any such
destruction which is why Communism has always been so anti-Christian and anti-religion (China
destroyed Buddhism and is destroying Falun Gong, or trying to). Our elites and the elite Jews
have a religion of their own: Luciferianism.
It is time to pray gentlemen. We need a miracle. It isn't too late to turn this ship around.
We just need the willpower to do it. Prayer is the beginning of building the strength to do
what is needed for our progeny.
@Passer by{ the US is extremely concerned about Russia's decapitating first strike
capability} {How can a US president sleep if he knows that a russian tactical nuclear missile could
arrive in 1-2 minutes?}
By making sure US does not initiate a nuke strike on Russia.
Why would Russia initiate a 'decapitating* nuke strike' on US?
What will she gain by it? Nothing.
Both US and Russia will have more than enough surviving nukes to wipe the other out, and then
some, if one of them initiates a nuke first strike.
My guess is Russia continues developing faster, harder to detect nuke strike systems to
deter the psychopaths in US from doing something stupid and awful. But the problem with all
these developments of ever faster strike capabilities – on both sides – is that
the possibility of an accidental nuke strike by one side or another, keeps increasing.
Because it takes a few minutes for a missile to reach its target, you cannot afford to wait:
if your defenses falsely detect a 'launch', then you _have_ to launch and then the runaway
chain reaction of strike-counterstrike-countercounterstrike begins ..and everything ends.
______________________________
* there is no such thing as 'decapitating' nuke strike against US or Russia. Both are
large enough and have enough nuke warheads (8,000-10,000) to render the idea of a
'decapitating' strike meaningless. Just one (surviving) boomer sub (US or Russia) carries
enough nuke warheads/megatons to wipe most of US/Russia.
Well, spending 5% of GDP on military and lowering further the standard of living of population will definitely increase the
security of the US MIC. Not so much the security of Ukraine.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Perhaps the learned professor Karlan may affirm: "Never argue with
stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
"... Primacists use the security threats that are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't stop, or in fact increase, the use of force. ..."
"... These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example, veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all parties involved. ..."
"... September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and denying this space wouldn't have prevented it. ..."
"... For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the Pacific." ..."
"... The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and importance. ..."
"... This article originally appeared on LobeLog.com . ..."
The unrivaled and unchallenged exertion of American military power around the world, or
what's known as "primacy," has been the basis for U.S. Grand Strategy over the past 70 years
and has faced few intellectual and political challenges. The result has been stagnant ideas,
poor logic, and an ineffective foreign policy. As global security challenges have evolved, our
foreign policy debate has remained in favor of primacy, repeatedly relying on a select few,
poorly conceived ideas and arguments. Primacy's greatest hits arguments are played on repeat
throughout the policy and journalism worlds and its latest presentation is in a recent
article in
the Wall Street Journal, written by its chief foreign policy correspondent, titled,
"America Can't Escape the Middle East." The piece provides a case study in how stagnant these
ideas have become, and how different actors throughout the system present them without serious
thought or contemplation.
Hyping the threat of withdrawal
The WSJ piece trotted out one of the most well-worn cases for unending American military
deployments in the region. "The 2003 invasion of Iraq proved to be a debacle," it rightly
notes. However, there's always a "but":[B]ut subsequent attempts to pivot away from the region
or ignore it altogether have contributed to humanitarian catastrophes, terrorist outrages and
geopolitical setbacks, further eroding America's standing in the world."
Primacists often warn of the dire security threats that will result from leaving Middle East
conflict zones. The reality is that the threats they cite are actually caused by the
unnecessary use of force by the United States in the first place. For example, the U.S. sends
military assets to deter Iran, only to have Iran increase attacks or provocations in response.
The U.S. then beefs up its military presence
to protect the forces that are already there. Primacists use the security threats that
are responding to the unnecessary use of U.S. military force to justify why the U.S. shouldn't
stop, or in fact increase, the use of force.
These stale arguments claim there will be consequences of leaving while conveniently
ignoring the consequences of staying, which of course are far from trivial. For example,
veteran suicide is an epidemics and military spending to perpetuate U.S. primacy continues at
unnecessarily high rates. The presence of U.S. soldiers in these complex conflicts can even
draw us into more unnecessary wars. The United States can engage the world in ways that don't
induce the security dilemma to undermine our own security; reduce our military presence in the
Middle East, engage Iran and other states in the region diplomatically and economically, and
don't walk away from already agreed upon diplomatic arraignments that are favorable to all
parties involved.
Terrorism safe havens
And how many times have we heard that we must defend some undefined geographical space to
prevent extremists from plotting attacks? "In the past, jihadists used havens in Afghanistan,
Yemen, Syria and Iraq to plot more ambitious and deadly attacks, including 9/11," the WSJ piece
says. "Though Islamic State's self-styled 'caliphate' has been dismantled, the extremist
movement still hasn't been eliminated -- and can bounce back."
The myth of the terrorism safe havens enabling transnational attacks on the United States
has
persisted despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and significant scholarly research
that contradicts it. The myth persists because it provides a simple and comforting narrative
that's easy to understand. September 11th was planned in Germany and the United States, the
ability to exist in Afghanistan under the Taliban without persecution didn't enable 9/11, and
denying this space wouldn't have prevented it.
Terrorists don't need safe havens to operate, and only gain marginal increases in
capabilities by having access to them. Organizations engage in terrorism because they have such
weak capabilities in the first place. These movements are designed to operate underground with
the constant threat of arrest and execution. The Weatherman Underground in the United States
successfully carried out bombings while operating within the United States itself. The Earth
Liberation Front did the same by organizing into cells where no cell knew anything about the
other cells to prevent the identification of other members if members of one cell were
arrested. Organizations that engage in terrorism can operate with or without safe havens.
Although safe havens don't add significantly to a terrorist groups' capabilities, governing
your own territory is something completely different. ISIS is a commonly used, and misused,
example for why wars should be fought to deny safe havens. A safe haven is a country or region
in which a terrorist group is free from harassment or persecution. This is different from what
ISIS created in 2014. What ISIS had when it swept across Syria and Iraq in 2014 was a
proto-state. This gave them access to a tax base, oil revenues, and governing resources. Safe
havens don't provide any of this, at least not at substantial levels. The Islamic State's
construction of a proto-state in Syria and Iraq did give them operational capabilities they
wouldn't have had otherwise, but this isn't the same as the possible safe havens that would be
gained from a military withdrawal from Middle Eastern conflicts. The conditions of ISIS's rise
in 2014 don't exist today and the fears of an ISIS resurgence like their initial rise are
unfounded .
Credibility doesn't work how you think it works
For those arguing to maintain the ongoing forever wars, American credibility will always
be ruined in the aftermath of withdrawal. Here's the WSJ piece on that point: "When America
withdraws from the Middle East unilaterally, the Russians internalize this and move into Crimea
and Ukraine; the Chinese internalize it and move into the South China Sea and beyond in the
Pacific."
Most commentators have made this claim without recognition of their own contradictions that
abandoning the Kurds in Syria would damage American credibility. They then list all the other
times we've abandoned the Kurds. Each of these betrayals didn't stop them from working with the
United States again, and this latest iteration will be the same. People don't work with the
United States because they trust or respect us, they do it because we have a common interest
and the United States has the capability to get things done. As we were abandoning the Kurds
this time to be attacked by the Turks, Kurdish officials were continuing to
share intelligence with U.S. officials to facilitate the raid on ISIS leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi because both the United States and the Kurds wanted Baghdadi eliminated and only
the United States had the capability to get it done.
Similarly, the idea that pulling out militarily in one region results in a direct chain of
events where our adversaries move into countries or areas in a completely different region is
quite a stretch of the imagination. Russia moved into Crimea because it's a strategic asset and
it was taking advantage of what it saw as an opportunity: instability and chaos in Kiev. Even
if we left troops in every conflict country we've ever been in, Russia would have correctly
assessed that Ukraine just wasn't important enough to spark a U.S. invasion. When the Soviets
withdrew from Afghanistan, did the United States invade Cuba? What alliance did the Soviets or
Chinese abandon before the United States entered the Korean War?
Assessments of credibility , especially in times of crisis (like that in Ukraine), are made
based on what leaders think the other country's interests are and the capabilities they have to
pursue those interests. There is no evidence to support -- in fact there is a lot of evidence
that contradicts -- the idea that withdrawing militarily from one region or ending an alliance
has any impact on assessments of a country's reliability or credibility.
Not all interests are created equal
Threat inflation isn't just common from those who promote a primacy-based foreign policy,
it's necessary. Indeed, as the WSJ piece claimed, "There is no avoiding the fact that the
Middle East still matters a great deal to U.S. interests."
The exorbitant costs of the U.S.'s numerous military engagements around the world need
to be justified by arguing that they secure vital U.S. interests. Without it, Primacists
couldn't justify the cost in American lives. Whether the military even has the ability to solve
all problems in international relations aside, not all interests are equal in severity and
importance. Vital interests are those that directly impact the survival of the United
States. The only thing that can threaten the survival of the United States is another powerful
state consolidating complete control of either Europe or East Asia. This would give them the
capabilities and freedom to strike directly at the territorial United States. This is why the
United States stayed in Europe after WWII, to prevent the consolidation of Europe by the
Soviets. Addressing the rise of China -- which will require some combination of cooperation and
competition -- is America's vital interest today and keeping troops in Afghanistan to prevent a
terrorism safe haven barely registers as a peripheral interest. There are U.S. interests in the
Middle East, but these interests are not important enough to sacrifice American soldiers for
and can't easily be secured through military force anyway.
Consequences
Most of these myths and arguments can be summarized by the claim that any disengagement of
any kind by the United States from the Middle East comes with consequences. This isn't entirely
wrong, but it isn't really relevant either unless compared with the consequences of continuing
engagement at current levels. We currently have 67,000 troops in the
Middle East and Afghanistan and those troops are targets of adversaries, contribute to
instability, empower hardliners in Iran, and provide continuing legitimacy to insurgent and
terrorist organizations fighting against a foreign occupation. One
article in The Atlantic argued that the problem with a progressive foreign policy
is that restraint comes with costs, almost ironically ignoring the fact that the U.S.'s current
foreign policy also comes with, arguably greater, costs. A military withdrawal, or even
drawdown, from the Middle East does come with consequences, but it's only believable that these
costs are higher than staying through the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions that inflate
such risks and costs. No wonder then that these myths have become the greatest hits of a
foreign policy that's stuck in the past.
"... " Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month? $83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? " ..."
"... Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" - to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ." ..."
"... Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read what was said in the phone call." ..."
"... "On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends ..."
"... Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack ..."
Resistance activist and NBC host Chuck Todd lost his cool on Sunday after Sen. Ted Cruz
(R-TX) said that Ukraine "blatantly interfered" in the 2016 US election.
Of note, less than three months before Donald Trump was elected, Ukrainian officials working
with a DNC operative leaked a " black
ledger " containing evidence of off-book payments to Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort -
leading to his disruptive ouster, while Ukraine's ambassador to the UK, Valeriy Chaly wrote in
an Op-Ed for
The Hill slamming Trump in the same month.
While Democrats have sought to ignore or downplay this as a 'debunked' theory, Republicans
aren't letting it go - nor are they giving the Bidens a pass for what looks like textbook
corruption while then-Vice President Joe Biden was in charge of the Obama administration's
Ukraine policy.
" Any president, any administration is justified in investigating corruption . There was
serious evidence of real corruption concerning Hunter Biden. [He] was on the board of Burisma,
the largest natural gas company in Ukraine. Do you know how much he was paid every month?
$83,000 -- that's a million dollars a year," said Cruz - adding "The media ought to care if
there is actual corruption ... Do you think Hunter Biden with zero experience justifies making
ten times as much as the board member of Exxon Mobil? "
Todd then asked Cruz: "Do you believe Ukraine meddled in the American election in 2016?" -
to which Cruz replied "I do. And I think there is considerable evidence ."
Todd then suggested that President Trump could have created "a false narrative" in order to
hurt Cruz during the 2016 Republican primary - to which Cruz shot back: "Ha, ha, ha. Except
that's not what happened. The president released the transcript of the phone call. You can read
what was said in the phone call."
"On the evidence, Russia clearly interfered in our election, but here's the game the media
is playing because Russia interfered, the media pretends
Media & Chuck Todd, having lied throughout the Russia "collusion" BS, now lie about Ukraine. And if Todd wants to be the mouthpiece for the Dems, then he should have the
integrity to resign from the news business &push his propaganda as a paid DNC hack
top 7 donors all obvious connections to global agenda.... and Ireland by association, but
curious who the corporatocracies are connected to Ireland -Usual suspects I presume ( with
"usual suspects" having a group of real actors in contrast to the poser JV team in
Eiremen
"... "Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem equal. I don't understand that." ..."
"... "I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative." ..."
Senator Ted Cruz and NBC's Chuck Todd had an intense exchange on Meet the Press over
the media's role in fueling President Donald Trump's impeachment firestorm.
As Cruz defended Trump's dealings with Russia and Ukraine, he bashed House Democrats for the
"garbage" report they put out on Saturday to outline the legal argument for proceeding with
impeachment. This led to an initial flare-up where Todd and Cruz went back and forth about
whether Trump's conduct meets Constitutional standards for an impeachable misdemeanor.
Cruz segued the conversation toward Hunter Biden's controversial employment with Burisma,
saying "the media ought to care if there is actual corruption" regarding Joe Biden's son. Todd
countered by remarking that "the reason you know this information is the media reported it,"
and shortly after that, he asked Cruz "do you believe Ukraine meddled in the election in
2016?"
"I do," Cruz answered, "and I think there is considerable evidence."
... ... ...
"I appreciate you dragging up all that garbage, that's very kind of you," Cruz interjected
as Todd asked "Is it not possible that this president is capable of creating a false narrative
about somebody in order to help him politically?"
"Except that's not what happened," Cruz said. He went on to accuse "the media" of playing "a
game" and "pretends" no country except Russia interfered in the election. When Cruz invoked an
op-ed from former Ukrainian ambassador Valeriy Chaly as proof of their interference, Todd
derided that equivalence by saying "you're saying a pick-pocket, which essentially is a Hill
op-ed, compared to Bernie Madoff and Vladimir Putin . You are trying to make them both seem
equal. I don't understand that."
Cruz's retort:
"I understand that you want to dismiss Ukrainian interference because A: they were
trying to get Hillary Clinton elected, which is what the vast majority of the media wanted
anyway. And B: it's inconvenient for the narrative."
From page 12 of Martyanov's RRMA, " people such as Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, none of whom had spent a
day serving in cadre officer uniform "
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years and retired from the Navy Reserve as a full
Captain.
Rumsfeld was in fact a Naval Aviator who flew ASW aircraft for a number of years
A Tracker, in 1950s for a couple of years, while having a degree in Political Science. That sure qualifies him for making strategic
decisions, right? Especially in the 21st century. Well, we all saw results, didn't we?
@Jim Christian Jim, a lot of truth in what you say. But especially this:
As for the military? A reflection of our society. When I went into the Navy in 1975, it was Stars and Stripes and we served
in large part for Mom, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.
Here is a quote from one of Russian undercover intelligence assets which was outed when Anna Chapman was outed. Unlike her,
however, this guy was a real deal. Here is what he had to say recently about US:
What is THEIR weakness? As enemies these guys are mediocrities, second rate. They overate. Their previous generation was
stronger. They respected us, we respected them. We don't respect these ones,they didn't deserve it. They can bully, as for
the real fight–we'll see about that They are enraged that soon they will have to live within their means.They forgot how to
do so long time ago. That is why they want to solve a problem with us now, while others are still afraid of them.
I remember 70s and 80s clearly, being myself a Cold Warrior, these were different times. many different people. Today, as you
say, I see decay everywhere in everything, the country (the US) was literally robbed, people blinded and all for a reasons of
bottom line in "business" and for Israel's, Saudi and corporate interests. The America I encountered in 1990s is gone.
So a republican staffer, a neocon without any diplomatic experience was the NSC senior director of European and Russian
affairs, the successor of Fiona Hill.
Washington
-- A top National Security Council official who listened to President Trump's July call with the
president of Ukraine told lawmakers he "promptly" told White House lawyers he was concerned details of the call would
become public, but did not think "anything illegal was discussed" during the conversation.
Tim Morrison, the outgoing senior director of European and Russian affairs at the National Security Council and a
deputy assistant to the president, is testifying before committees leading the
impeachment inquiry
on Capitol Hill on Thursday. He has emerged as a central witness to the events at the center
of the inquiry, particularly the administration's policy toward Ukraine.
CBS News learned the substance of his opening statement to the committees, which ran six pages and appears below.
Morrison said the summary released by the White House of the call between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky accurately reflects his memory and understanding of the call, but he said he had three concerns in the event
the summary became public.
"[F]irst, how it would play out in Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the
bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the
Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine relationship," Morrison, who was in the Situation Room for the call, told
lawmakers. "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed."
However, he also corroborated a central allegation in the Democratic case against the president: that a U.S.
ambassador told a high-ranking Ukrainian official that the release of military aid was contingent on an investigation
into the Bidens.
Tim Morrison arrives for a deposition at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on October 31,
2019.
SAUL LOEB / AF
Morrison said his predecessor, Fiona Hill, told him about "concerns about two Ukraine processes that were
occurring": one led by traditional U.S. diplomatic entities, and one led by the U.S. Ambassador the E.U. Gordon
Sondland and Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. He said Hill told him about their efforts to get Ukraine
to investigate Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that had employed Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe
Biden's son.
"At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the investigation entailed," Morrison said. "After the
meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy company and that Hunter Biden was
on its board."
Morrison said he spoke frequently with Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in the embassy in Kiev. Taylor
testified before the committees
last week and described his misgivings about efforts to pressure Ukraine
to open investigations into the president's rivals. Morrison, in his statement, confirmed the substance of Taylor's
account, but said he remembered two details differently.
Taylor testified that Morrison told him Sondland had demanded the Ukrainian president announce an investigation
into Burisma, while Morrison said he remembered Sondland saying an announcement by the country's top prosecutor would
suffice. Taylor also indicated Morrison met with the Ukrainian national security adviser in his hotel room, while
Morrison said it was in the hotel's business center.
Morrison said he learned about a delay in military aid to Ukraine shortly after assuming his post, and was tasked
with coordinating with various agencies to demonstrate why the aid was needed.
"I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could convince President Trump to
release the aid," he said.
Morrison testified he had "no reason to believe" the Ukrainians knew of a delay in military aid until August 28,
and said he was unaware the aid may have been tied to the demand for an investigation into Burisma until he spoke to
Sondland on September 1.
Morrison arrived on Capitol Hill before 8 a.m. Thursday for his deposition after Democrats issued a subpoena for
his testimony. A spokesman for House Intelligence Committee chairman declined to comment on his opening statement.
Morrison appeared on the same day the House
approved a resolution
greenlighting the rules for impeachment proceedings moving forward.
On Wednesday, officials said Morrison would be leaving his White House post. He said in his statement he has yet
to submit his resignation "because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and
my impending departure."
"I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish," he said.
Read Morrison's full statement
Opening Statement of Timothy Morrison
Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and
the House Committee on Oversight and Reform
October 31, 2019
Chairman Schiff and Members of the Committees, I appear today under subpoena to answer your questions about my
time as Senior Director for European Affairs at the White House and the National Security Council ("NSC"). I will
give you the most complete information I can, consistent with my obligations to the President and the protection of
classified information. I do not know who the whistleblower is, nor do I intend to speculate as to who it may be.
Before joining the NSC in 2018, I spent 17 years as a Republican staffer, serving in a variety of roles in both
houses of Congress. My last position was Policy Director for the then-Majority Staff of the House Armed Services
Committee.
I. The Role of the National Security Council
From July 9, 2018 to July 15, 2019, I served as a Special Assistant to the President for National Security and as
the NSC Senior Director for Weapons of Mass Destruction and Biodefense. In that role, I had limited exposure to
Ukraine, focusing primarily on foreign military sales and arms control. On July 15, 2019, I became Deputy Assistant
to the President for National Security. In this role, I serve as the lead interagency coordinator for national
security issues involving Europe and Russia.
It is important to start with the role of the NSC. Since its creation by Congress in 1947, the NSC has
appropriately evolved in shape and size to suit the needs of the President and the National Security Advisor it
serves at the time. But its mission and core function has fundamentally remained the same: to coordinate across
departments and agencies of the Executive Branch to ensure the President has the policy options he needs to
accomplish his objectives and to see that his decisions are implemented. The NSC staff does not make policy. NSC
staff are most effective when we are neutral arbiters, helping the relevant Executive Branch agencies develop options
for the President and implement his direction.
In my current position, I understood our primary U.S. policy objective in Ukraine was to take advantage of the
once-in-a-generation opportunity that resulted from the election of President Zelensky and the clear majority he had
gained in the Ukrainian Rada to see real anti-corruption reform take root.
The Administration's policy was that
the best way for the United States to show its support for President Zelensky's reform efforts was to make sure the
United States' longstanding bipartisan commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered, it is easy to
forget here in Washington, but impossible in Kyiv, that Ukraine is still under armed assault by Russia, a
nuclear-armed state.
We also tend to forget that the United States had helped convince Ukraine to give up Soviet
nuclear weapons in 1994. United States security sector assistance (from the Departments of Defense and State) is,
therefore, essential to Ukraine. Also essential is a strong and positive relationship with Ukraine at the highest
levels of our respective governments.
In my role as Senior Director for European Affairs, I reported directly to former Deputy National Security
Advisor, Dr. Charles Kupperman, and former National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton. I kept them fully
informed on matters that I believed merited their awareness or when I felt I needed some direction. During the time
relevant to this inquiry, I never briefed the President or Vice President on matters related to Ukrainian security.
It was my job to coordinate with the U.S. Embassy Chief of Mission to Ukraine William Taylor, Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker, and other interagency stakeholders in the Departments of Defense and State of
Ukrainian matters.
My primary responsibility has been to ensure federal agencies had consistent messaging and policy guidance on
national security issues involving European and Russian affairs. As Dr. Fiona Hill and I prepared for me to succeed
her, one of the areas we discussed was Ukraine. In that discussion, she informed me of her concerns about two Ukraine
processes that were occurring: the normal interagency process led by the NSC with the typical department and agency
participation and a separate process that involved chiefly the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union. Dr. Hill told
me that Ambassador Sondland and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, were trying to get President
Zelensky to reopen Ukrainian investigations into Burisma. At the time, I did not know what Burisma was or what the
investigation entailed. After the meeting with Dr. Hill, I googled Burisma and learned that it was a Ukrainian energy
company and that Hunter Biden was on its board. I also did not understand why Ambassador Sondland would be involved
in Ukraine policy, often without the involvement of our duly-appointed Chief of Mission, Ambassador Bill Taylor.
My most frequent conversations were with Ambassador Taylor because he was the U.S. Chief of Mission in Ukraine and
I was his chief conduit for information related to White House deliberations, including security sector assistance
and potential head-of-state meetings. This is a normal part of the coordination process.
II. Review of Open Source Documents in Preparation for Testimony
In preparation for my appearance today, I reviewed the statement Ambassador Taylor provided this inquiry on
October 22, 2019. I can confirm that the substance of his statement, as it relates to conversations he and I had, is
accurate. My recollections differ on two of the details, however. I have a slightly different recollection of my
September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland. On page 10 of Ambassador Taylor's statement, he recounts a
conversation I relayed to him regarding Ambassador Sondland's conversation with Ukrainian Presidential Advisor Yermak.
Ambassador Taylor wrote: "Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that security assistance money would not come until
President Zelensky committed to pursue the Burisma investigation." My recollection is that Ambassador Sondland's
proposal to Mr. Yermak was that it could be sufficient if the new Ukrainian prosecutor general -- not President Zelensky -- would
commit to pursue the Burisma investigation. I also would like to clarify that I did not meet with the Ukrainian
National Security Advisor in his hotel room, as Ambassador Taylor indicated on page 11 of his statement. Instead, an
NSC aide and I met with Mr. Danyliuk in the hotel's business center.
I also reviewed the Memorandum of Conversation ("MemCont') of the July 25 phone call that was released by the
White House. I listened to the call as it occurred from the Situation Room. To the best of my recollection, the
MemCon accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call. I also recall that I did not see anyone from the
NSC Legal Advisor's Office in the room during the call. After the call, I promptly asked the NSC Legal Advisor and
his Deputy to review it. I had three concerns about a potential leak of the MemCon: first, how it would play out in
Washington's polarized environment; second, how a leak would affect the bipartisan support our Ukrainian partners
currently experience in Congress; and third, how it would affect the Ukrainian perceptions of the U.S.-Ukraine
relationship. I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed.
III. White House Hold on Security Sector Assistance
I was not aware that the White House was holding up the security sector assistance passed by Congress until my
superior, Dr. Charles Kupperman, told me soon after I succeeded Dr. Hill. I was aware that the President thought
Ukraine had a corruption problem, as did many others familiar with Ukraine. I was also aware that the President
believed that Europe did not contribute enough assistance to Ukraine. I was directed by Dr. Kupperman to coordinate
with the interagency stakeholders to put together a policy process to demonstrate that the interagency supported
security sector assistance to Ukraine. I was confident that our national security principals -- the Secretaries of State
and Defense, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and the head of the National Security Council -- could
convince President Trump to release the aid because President Zelensky and the reform-oriented Rada were genuinely
invested in their anti-corruption agenda.
Ambassador Taylor and I were concerned that the longer the money was withheld, the more questions the Zelensky
administration would ask about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine. Our initial hope was that the money would be released
before the hold became public because we did not want the newly constituted Ukrainian government to question U.S.
support.
I have no reason to believe the Ukrainians had any knowledge of the review until August 28, 2019. Ambassador
Taylor and I had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector assistance might be conditioned on a
public statement reopening the Burisma investigation until my September 1, 2019 conversation with Ambassador Sondland.
Even then I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's strategy was exclusively his own and would not be considered by leaders
in the Administration and Congress, who understood the strategic importance of Ukraine to our national security.
I am pleased our process gave the President the confidence he needed to approve the release of the security sector
assistance. My regret is that Ukraine ever learned of the review and that, with this impeachment inquiry, Ukraine has
become subsumed in the U.S. political process.
IV. Conclusion
After 19 years of government service, I have decided to leave the NSC. I have not submitted a formal resignation
at this time because I do not want anyone to think there is a connection between my testimony today and my impending
departure. I plan to finalize my transition from the NSC after my testimony is complete.
During my time in public service, I have worked with some of the smartest and most self-sacrificing people in this
country. Serving at the White House in this time of unprecedented global change has been the opportunity of a
lifetime. I am proud of what I have been able, in some small way, to help the Trump Administration to accomplish.
Well, spending 5% of GDP on military and lowering further the standard of living of population will definitely increase the
security of the US MIC. Not so much the security of Ukraine.
Attributed to Mark Twain. Perhaps the learned professor Karlan may affirm: "Never argue with
stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."
I cannot understand how any Democrat who is interested in winning in 2020 can think that
Biden is their best candidate. Similarly, I do not understand how any neoliberal can think
that backing Biden will save their positions in the party apparatus. If Biden is nominated
and is badly beaten, the dinosaurs now running the party will not be able to simultaneously
hold off the prog left while also holding the party together. But they seem bent on repeating
the same mistake the GOP made in 2012 with Romney.
If Biden had a better answer - or any answer - regarding Hunter, that would be one thing.
Like Kamala Harris's inability to respond to attacks on her Weed-For-Me-But-Not-For-Thee
stance, the media shield surrounding Borg-ists does not help them when they are unable to
avoid questions about actually existing reality.
Questions about his crackhead son is an obvious trigger, and all Biden is doing is
telegraphing this opening to Trump. The President, who never got the memo that the job of
conservatives is to lose gracefully and repeatedly so long as the tax cuts flowed, will not
shrink from using this the way a loser like Romney would.
My guess is Democrats know they can't win in 2020, so they will sacrifice their most
expendable and/or most annoying.
Biden earned this 2020 shot by sheer longevity in the system, but since he will be a 2020
loser, why not put him in this unenviable position as the DNC nominee. John McCain served a
similar purpose in 2008 - when no GOP had a chance after GW Bush.
No one wanted the job, so falling on his sword with some sense of duty John McCain stood
up as best he could. He goosed the entire operation with his addition of Sarah Palin which
opened up new legions of GOP voters.
And exposed the hypocrisy of the Left at the same time - no one was more anti-women than
the Democrats who attacked both Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin with unrestrained venom.
Someone should be taking Joe Biden's car keys away not trying to give him an important
government position. His mental acuity was never above average seems to have degraded
significantly. Pity the corrupt DNC can not allow the likes of Gabbard or Yang to shine more
brightly.
You expose the most obvious flaw in Schiff's impeachment crusade. Trump did not need any
"dirt" on Biden in order to win 2020. Biden will dig his own 6 feet under abode on his own,
if he makes it to the DNC nomination.
In fact, Trump would have gone out of his way to make sure Biden was the DNC pick. Which
is why this entire impeachment charade continues to get no traction. It simply does not sound
in fact. Regardless of the trumped up charges we are now being exposed to.
The more realistic picture is Trump sweeping the path in front of Biden, with a broom like
in a curling match, making sure Biden gets the DNC nod.
"... Today USA even is no more an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything negotiated by a rival spider. ..."
US political "elites" are generally appallingly incompetent in matters of war and are
"educated" mostly through Hollywood and Clansiesque "literature". I am not even sure that
they comprehend what Congressional Research Service prepares for them as compressed
briefings. Neocon wing of US political elite is simply mentally inadequate.
Very true, especially the part about "Hollywood and Clansiesque 'literature.'" I used to
read Clancy's books and, while entertaining, in retrospect they appear ridiculous, even
childish. But they probably capture the popular notion of American military invincibility
better than any other.
Most of Hollywood's output is garbage anyway, and its grasp of real war and military
matters appears to be that of a not so precocious third grader.
Katyn, whoever did it, was much before Cold War and before even first relatively small
nuclear blast.
And if you want to go that far – why not remember crisis over West Berlin, where
tank armees were watching one another, but no one pulled trigger?
Afghanistan was attacking one's own ally. Same as Prague 1968 and Hungary 1956.
If you want to compare – that is like USA invading Panama to remove their no longer
reliable puppet Norriega.
Did American attack on their own Panama risk USSR going ballistic? Hardly so. There was no Soviet invasion into Pakistan nor there was Chinese/American invasion into
India.
And looking away from purely military events, there was no attempt to arrest the whole
embassy stuff them, neither in Moscow nor in DC. No killing Soviet ambassadors in NATO states
during official events.
Those dirty games had red lines, both sides maintained. Today? Today USA even is no more
an entity. You can not negotiate a thing with "America" because there is no such institution
any more, but a hellish swarm of infighting spiders, each delightfully breaking anything
negotiated by a rival spider.
> deploying conventional anti-ballistic missile defenses around their most important
cities.
No, by then effective treaty both USSR and USA had only ONE region they were allowed to
protect.
Those were some nuclear launchpads in USA i guess, and one single city (Moscow) in USSR. No
more.
> deterrence [did not] worked > See the last phrase in bullet 2.
You suppose USSR killed itself trying to keep deterrence working.
That does not show it did not work, already.
That shows it worked so well (at least from Soviet perspective) that they gambled all they
had on the futile effort of keeping that deterrence working into the future.
What coup? There have been loads of offenses, mostly to the liberal sense of decorum and
mildly to the republican notion of fair play. Orange is the new black.
"... This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy. Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad? ..."
"... And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable. ..."
"... Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most: if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big. ..."
From the founding of this country, the power of the president was understood to have
limits. Indeed, the Founders would never have written an impeachment clause into the
Constitution if they did not foresee scenarios where their descendants might need to remove
an elected president before the end of his term in order to protect the American people and
the nation.
The question before the country now is whether President Trump's misconduct is severe
enough that Congress should exercise that impeachment power, less than a year before the 2020
election. The results of the House Intelligence Committee inquiry, released to the public on
Tuesday, make clear that the answer is an urgent yes. Not only has the president abused his
power by trying to extort a foreign country to meddle in US politics, but he also has
endangered the integrity of the election itself. He has also obstructed the congressional
investigation into his conduct, a precedent that will lead to a permanent diminution of
congressional power if allowed to stand.
The evidence that Trump is a threat to the constitutional system is more than sufficient,
and a slate of legal scholars who testified on Wednesday made clear that Trump's actions are
just the sort of presidential behavior the Founders had in mind when they devised the
recourse of impeachment. The decision by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to proceed with drafting
articles of impeachment is warranted.
Much of the information in the Intelligence Committee report, which was based on witness
interviews, documents, telephone records, and public statements by administration officials,
was already known to the public. The cohesive narrative that emerges, though, is worse than
the sum of its parts. This year, the president and subordinates acting at his behest
repeatedly tried to pressure a foreign country, Ukraine, into taking steps to help the
president's reelection. That was, by itself, an outrageous betrayal: In his dealings with
foreign states, the president has an obligation to represent America's interests, not his
own.
But the president also betrayed the US taxpayer to advance that corrupt agenda. In order
to pressure Ukraine into acceding to his request, Trump's administration held up $391 million
in aid allocated by Congress. In other words, he demanded a bribe in the form of political
favors in exchange for an official act -- the textbook definition of corruption. The fact
that the money was ultimately paid, after a whistle-blower complained, is immaterial: The act
of withholding taxpayer money to support a personal political goal was an impermissible abuse
of the president's power.
Withholding the money also sabotaged American foreign policy. The United States provides
military aid to Ukraine to protect the country from Russian aggression. Ensuring that fragile
young democracy does not fall under Moscow's sway is a key US policy goal, and one that the
president put at risk for his personal benefit. He has shown the world that he is willing to
corrupt the American policy agenda for purposes of political gain, which will cast suspicion
on the motivations of the United States abroad if Congress does not act.
To top off his misconduct, after Congress got wind of the scheme and started the
impeachment inquiry, the Trump administration refused to comply with subpoenas, instructed
witnesses not to testify, and intimidated witnesses who did. That ought to form the basis of
an article of impeachment. When the president obstructs justice and fails to respect the
power of Congress, it strikes at the heart of the separation of powers and will hobble future
oversight of presidents of all parties.
Impeachment does not require a crime. The Constitution entrusts Congress with the
impeachment power in order to protect Americans from a president who is betraying their
interests. And it is very much in Americans' interests to maintain checks and balances in the
federal government; to have a foreign policy that the world can trust is based on our
national interest instead of the president's personal needs; to control federal spending
through their elected representatives; to vote in fair elections untainted by foreign
interference. For generations, Americans have enjoyed those privileges. What's at stake now
is whether we will keep them. The facts show that the president has threatened this country's
core values and the integrity of our democracy. Congress now has a duty to future generations
to impeach him.
How can Trump have sabotaged American foreign policy, when he has full responsibility and
authority to set it?
IMO this impeachment is partly about Trump personally asking a foreign country for help
against a domestic political opponent. But it is mostly about geopolitics and the national
security bureaucracy's need for US world domination.
Just listen to the impeachment testimony--most of it is whining about Trump's failure to
follow the 'interagency' policies of the deep state.
Stalin would approve that. And if so, what is the difference between impeachment and a
show trial, Moscow trials style? The majority can eliminate political rivals, if it wishes
so, right? This was how Bolsheviks were thinking in 30th. Of course, those backward Soviets used "British spy" charge instead modern, sophisticated
"Putin's stooge" charge, but still ;-)
The facts show that the president has threatened this country's core values and the integrity
of our democracy.
This is just low level Soviet-style propaganda: "Beacon of democracy" and "Hope of all
progressive mankind" cliché. My impression is that the train left the station long ago, especially as for democracy.
Probably in 1963. The reality is a nasty struggle of corrupt political clans. Which involves intelligence
agencies dirty tricks. BTW, how do you like that fact that Corporate Democrats converted themselves in
intelligence agencies' cheerleading squad?
In short Boston Globe editors do not want that their audience understand the situation, in
which the county have found itself. They just want to brainwash this audience (with impunity)
And both Corporate Dems and opposing them Republican are afraid to discuss the real issues
facing the country, such as loss of manufacturing, loss of good middle class jobs (fake labor
statistics covers the fact the most new jobs are temps/contractors and McJobs), rampant
militarism with Afghan war lasting decades, neocon dominance in foreign policy which led to
increase of country debt to level that might soon be unsustainable.
Both enjoy impeachment Kabuki theater. With Trump probably enjoying this theatre the most:
if they just censure him, he wins, if charges go to Senate, he wins big.
Can you imagine result for Corporate Dems of Schiff (with his contacts with Ciaramella ) ,
or Hunter Biden (who was just a mule to get money to Biden's family for his father illegal
lobbing) testifying in Senate under oath.
The truth is that they are all criminals (with many being war criminals.) So Beria
statement "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime" is fully applicable. That really is
something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA.
Calling Trump 'Putin's boy' brings up coup tactics used by Birchers when Truman fired
MacArthur!
Brookings tools (Mr. Vindman (I have silver leaves Vindman does not fit) , Fiona Hill,
Holmes eavesdropping....) pleading to Schiff that Trump ain't their kind of 'Murekan empire
builder.
Making up "charges", hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over.
"...Making up 'charges', hearsay evidence, hiding DNC US #resistance corruption, despise the
constitution, hide behind it and patriotism...... define democracy and who is 'patriotic'.
All the trappings of Mao and Hitler before they took over."
[Funny (NOT) that they say the same thing about Trump. Your adversaries and yourself would
all make better lampshades or bars of soap than you do citizens.
Democracy has never been more than an illusion, sometimes just an allusion, particularly
though in modern republican times. Leaders have all too rarely been patriotic aside from
maybe George Washington, who largely despised the representative government that he had made.
TJ did not exactly fall in love with the US Congress either. In these times the political
class and their pet sycophants are more idiotic than patriotic.]
One bone: the coup #resistance despises the "office of the president" more than they (swamp
trolls like Schiff's tool Vindman) disdain deplorables and the US constitution.
It is a constitutional thingie in my view going back to the Henry Luce media and
Birchers/McCarthy (the ragings over "who lost Chiang's fiefdom in China?") going after anyone
who they described wrongfully in most cases as "subversives".
I believe that Washington was like Ike as to taking up the executive office.
"Eric Foner" in an effort to unearth this buried history
Calls Congressional Reconstruction
A second founding of the Republic
Reconstruction like the New Deal
Ended by producing its opposite
[ Please be careful in spelling names, and set down where the specific reference is. This
will be important, if a reference is set down. Also, further explanation when possible would
be helpful. ]
I doubt that it was imagination that characterized Joe McCarthy's behavior, but with friend
kurt then imagination appears to be in full blossom. Joe McCarthy was just an opportunistic
scoundrel crassly impersonating a concerned patriot as a pure political convenience for
attacking the left in general with specific intentions on casting a specter of fear over all
New Deal loyalists. He weaponized socialist sympathizers against FDR's legacy. Remember that
it was socialist sentiments that gave rise to FDR and his New Deal. It seemed only fair to
Joe that those same sentiments be used to cover FDR in his grave.
"... It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he behind that or was someone else? ..."
"... After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped. That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump. ..."
"... The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington, elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the abomination. ..."
"... If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see. Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar. ..."
@Z-man I
wasn't sure how to characterize McMaster and Kelly. My sense was that they represented the
foreign policy establishment consensus, ergo neocon by default.
I share your optimism about Trump -- because it's the only strand of hope out there, and
his enemies are so impeccably loathsome -- but am fully prepared to be proved wrong.
"How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it
was the doing and legacy of the neocon John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate such
appointees."
It started before Bolton came on board.
Believe Trump when he says "Loyalty to me first". And that begins with his son in law
Jared .his former personal attorney Jason Greenblatt .his former bankruptcy attorney David
Friedman and his largest donor Sheldon Adelson .
Trump is too stupid to see that his Zios have no loyalty to him. Trump doesn't appoint anyone, doesn't even know anyone to appoint to national security or
foreign policy. He never had any associations or confidents in his business life in NY except
the above Jews .
Ask yourself how a 29 year old Jewish boy (now gone) with zero experience got brought onto
the WH NSC. He was recommended by Gen. Flynn who did it as a favor to Zio Frank Gaffney of
Iraq fame, and Jared because he was a friend of Jared and Gaffney was a friend Ezra's family.
..getting the picture?
All Trumps appointments look like a chain letter started by Kushner and his Zio
connections.
It may be as simple as Trump does not really know what he's doing. He doesn't seem to
understand the complexity and dynamics of foreign policy. The way he handled Israel is an
example as well as some of the bombs he ordered dropped on Afghanistan and Syria. Was he
behind that or was someone else?
He's a walking contradiction.
After Bolton came onboard, and then Eliot Abrams, the 24/7 Russia-gate suddenly stopped.
That was also around the time USA was fomenting a Venezuelan coup. Was obvious that
Russia-Gate was designed to control Trump.
There was a lull in the attacks on Trump between the time they stopped the 24/7
Russia-gate garbage and start of Impeachment inquiry.
He did something else to tick them all off, so now impeachment is on front burner.
In the days of Kissinger, Baker, et al the Imperial Staff were well coached in the
Calculus of Power, knew the limits to Empire and thrived within them. Since the end of
history, and the apparent end of limits, policy makers had no more need of realists and their
confusing calculations and analyses.
The US had power, and no-one else had any. That's all they needed to know, and set about
creating new, wonderfully intoxicating realities. As Rove famously inverted the MO they'll
act first, creating realities and the analysis and calculation can come later. In awe of
their creations, they failed to notice that while history may have ended in Washington,
elsewhere it moved on to surround them with a reality where they found themselves in
zugzwang, with no understanding how they got there. Flailing (and wailing) like a Mastodon in
a tar pit, they've managed only to attract an unhelpful crowd of onlookers, fascinated by the
abomination.
In the second term watch out Trump is not as dumb as they think
I too believe he isn't dumb, but the real question is whether he's playing the fool in
furtherance of a plan, or whether it's just who he is and his successes are accidental.
The Deep State's (aka: PFPE's) ongoing behaviour indicates that Trump's using buffoonery
to work a plan that's anathema to their created realities, and their increasing shrillness
indicates it's working. At every turn, he's managed to make unavailable the resources their
reality called for. From the M.E., to the Ukraine to N. Korea to Venezuela, things just
aren't working the way they're supposed to. In fact, they're invariably working out in a way
that exposes the Deep State's ineptitude and malevolence, and maximizes its
embarrassment.
If that's so, his is the most extraordinary political performance I thought I'd ever see.
Even though I can't imagine a more effective single handed way to accomplish what he promised
to do, that he's lasted this long and has been so effective is astonishing. I guess we'll see
if he abandons buffoonery when his opponents finally sink into the tar.
Decades old rhetorical question and answer-the indolent, indoctrinated and illiterate masses
who only care about the Super Bowl and other sports,Disneyland and burgers. Twelve per cent of
Americans have never heard of the Vice President Mike Pence - that is 30,870,000 American
adults.
It is the same people who have been making it since the creation of central banks in
America (all three of them).
Never in the history of America, probably never in the history of any country, had there
been such open and direct control of governmental activities by the very rich. So long as a
handful of men in Wall Street control the credit and industrial processes of the country,
they will continue to control the press, the government, and, by deception, the people. They
will not only compel the public to work for them in peace, but to fight for them in war.
– John Turner, 1922
What coup? There have been loads of offenses, mostly to the liberal sense of decorum and
mildly to the republican notion of fair play. Orange is the new black.
"The story that has emerged in the impeachment hearings is one of extortion and bribery."
Ralph Nader and conservative constitutional scholar Bruce Fein have put together a
succinct series of audio topics on these and other good articles of impeachment, some which
are probably much more serious but would have also applied to most other recent
presidents.
It comes to mind that since most of Ralph and Bruce's articles equally apply to previous
Democratic presidents, and expose institutional disfunction among all the branches, that
Leadership may be pursuing this rather narrow inquiry to avoid some kind of self
incrimination unpleasantness.
Yes, the reason Democrats haven't gone after Trump for his more obvious forms of criminality
is most likely that they are guilty of the same forms of corruption.
Has anyone checked out what O'Bomber has been up to lately. It turns out that he's been
cashing out (no quid pro quo there!) And he's been hobnobbing with the wealthy folks who own
the Democratic Party and in his spare time he's been criticizing the Left!
"Equipped with fame, wealth, and a vast reservoir of residual goodwill Obama now has more
power to do good in an hour than most of us do in a lifetime. The demands of etiquette and
propriety notwithstanding, he no longer has intransigent Blue Dog senators to appease, donors
to placate, or personal electoral considerations to keep him up at night. When he speaks or
acts, we can be reasonably certain he does so out of sincere choice and that the substance of
his words and actions reflect the real Barack Obama and how he honestly sees the world.
It therefore tells us a great deal that, given the latitude, resources, and moral authority
with which to influence events, Obama has spent his post-presidency cozying up to the global
elite and delivering vapid speeches to corporate interests in exchange for unthinkable sums
of money.
Though often remaining out of the spotlight, he has periodically appeared next to various
CEOs at events whose descriptions might be read as cutting satire targeting the hollowness of
business culture if they weren't all-too real. As the world teeters on the brink of
ecological disaster, he recently cited an increase in America's output of oil under his
administration as a laudable achievement.
When Obama has spoken about or intervened in politics, it's most often been to bolster the
neoliberal center-right or attack and undermine the Left." https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/obama-socialism
But to EMichael and his ilk, it was all Republicans' fault that O'bombers didn't get much
done O'Bomber's eye on his personal prize--his post-presidential earning potential--never
figured in!!!
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so.But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?" https://www.thenation.com/article/inconvenient-truths-2/
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
It isn't our two party system - it is one of the two parties contained within. The "both
sides" are bad is both demonstrably not accurate (with some exceptions that prove the rule)
and requires ignoring the shattered norms of the last 10 years that came from only one side.
Mitch McConnell is the most dangerous person in America. Trump and Pence are just useful
idiots. But Trump is also corrupt and dangerous because he doesn't believe he is constrained
by anything. And Mitch keeps proving him right.
The cause goes back as far as Truman with roots all the way back to our nation's founding on
the shoulders of slaves and a trail of tears, but "the shattered norms of the last 10 years
that came from only one side" were the inevitable effect of a failed political system. When
the US government has no obvious external enemies and imminent threats then it must
manufacture them from within to maintain a meaningful commanding presence. Otherwise the
government would be tasked with solving our nation's social and economic problems, which
would be both costly and far too complicated for simple self-absorbed minds.
I disagree. What the problem is now is that non-whites and women have taken some power - and
in fact may be able to displace the white christian patriarchy (actually, I think as long as
we can hang onto a free and fair democracy this is inevitable) and the white christian
patriarchy is trying to rule from the minority via fascism and authoritarianism.
I could almost understand this obsession had you never left Indiana, presumably Indianapolis
or somewhere similar, but unlikely Gary. There is greater diversity in the US than just what
you have seen. Every picture tells a story, and it is a different story for each.
Overall the common ground that moves everyone everywhere is money, which in some cases is
just a proxy for power and in other cases is a means to material satisfaction. If one already
has power, then purchase can be had in reverse, money for power instead of power for money.
This is a great explaination of why we need 1. independent regulatory agencies with power, 2.
white collar crime enforcement 3. rule of law and most of all 4. an independent judiciary
that is not overrun by ideologues and theocrats who ignore the first amendment wholesale.
It would have been nice if Obama has demonstrated his concern for the rule of law by frog
marching banksters to Rikers, closing Guantanamo, and prosecuting CIA torturers.
But kurt is only concerned with the rule of law when his party is not in power typical
partisan hack.
I have been to every state except Alaska and have lived in the North East, Southwest,
Midwest, South and California. My comment was about power structures - and the patriarchy of
white supremacy and christianity. I am well aware of the diversity. Heck - I even lived next
to the Great Checkerboard for 3 summers.
"... Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way. ..."
The average demorat, aside from worshipping Ba'al and hating the constitution, is depraved,
been such since crooked Hillary forgot that the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering
liberals living on the coasts do not run the world.
"...the neocon, empire spreading, war mongering liberals living on the coasts do not run the
world."
[Who says that they do not? Certainly, it is close enough to that for government work.
Besides, in the end corporations and the interests of the donor class dictate the rules of
engagement for both illiberal and unconservative politicians. How the dogs of politics fight
over scraps thrown out for them should be of less interest to the wage class than who is
throwing out the scraps to them.]
Of course a former Air Force military hardware procurements officer likely knows no more
about present day life among the wage class than a banker. That would be like thinking that a
kid raised in poverty by the welfare state knew how to farm. Still, it is possible for either
one to be haunted by guilt late in life.
You are bound with your adversaries in ways known only to God, not a religious testimonial
but merely a proxy for the abstraction of omniscience. Some things can be seen as clear as
day and remain a complete mystery, to me at least.
At the very least Trump is guilty of being Trump. So, if you believe the charges against
Trump are Trumped up, then what else would you expect?
Just war theory and military ethics crumble to dust on the battle field. We rarely
fight because it is right, but rather because in some context it seemed necessary at the
time. After 9/11 there was an imperative that the US military wage an extended war against
any and every group of Muslims that defied US global hegemony in any way.
The US Constitution was written and then rewritten repeatedly in blood going all the way
back to Apr 19, 1775. That is what it means to be an American, son, my Cherokee ancestors
notwithstanding.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made no secret of her desire to pass the
U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement by the end of the year
Meanwhile, a top priority for labor has been sitting quietly on Pelosi's desk and, unlike
USMCA, already commands enough support to get it over the House finish line. The Protecting
the Right to Organize Act would be the most comprehensive rewrite of U.S. labor law in
decades. It would eliminate right-to-work laws, impose new penalties on employers who
retaliate against union organizing, crack down on worker misclassification, and establish new
rules so that employers cannot delay negotiating collective bargaining contracts." https://theintercept.com/2019/12/02/nancy-pelosi-usmca-pro-act-unions/
Echoes of 2009, when Pelosi refused to pass union card check, when it had already passed
the House in 2007? The difference? In 2007 Bush would have vetoes. In 2009, Democrats had the
votes and a Democratic president, so they chose to ignore their campaign promise.
'Senate Intel Committee Chairman @SenatorBurr: "Every
elected official in the Ukraine was for Hillary Clinton. Is that very different than the
Russians being for Donald Trump?"
"You considered Russia meddling with just the preference they had before you knew the rest
of it. Apply the same standard to Ukraine. The President can say that they meddled because they
had a preference, the elected officials, that's not the current people."
Q: Is there any evidence that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election? BURR: I don't think
there's any question that elected officials in Ukraine had a favorite in the election.
Q: Would you consider that meddling? BURR: I mean, you'll have to define meddling, but that
was something that was publicly out there.'
The interview concluded with a long passage in which Burr does some tap-dancing that would
have shamed the Nicholas Brothers.
And the interview itself is even more preposterous given the news that the very committee
that Burr chairs already has dismissed the whole Ukrainian fantasy has groundless....
Even Burr now is parroting the absurd notion that a preference for Hillary Rodham Clinton on
the part of the Ukrainian leadership in 2016 -- a preference they shared with practically every
other government on the planet, then and now -- is somehow mysteriously equivalent to the
Russian ratfcking. They're all lost now, amazingly so. It will confound future historians, who
will wander through whatever's left, kicking the rubble ahead of them and wondering how
everybody had been so easily turned."
"... Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... According to White House visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives: ..."
December 2015 was a pivotal month in many respects...
During the first week of December 2015, Donald Trump began to establish a substantial
lead over his
Republican primary opponents.
Vice President Joseph Biden traveled to Ukraine to announce, on
December 7th, a $190 million program to "fight corruption in law enforcement and reform the
justice sector," but behind the scenes explicitly linked a $1 billion loan guarantee to the
firing of Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating the energy company
Burisma, which employed Biden's son Hunter.
On December 9, 2015, the reported whistleblower Eric Ciaramella held a meeting in Room 236
of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building with Daria Kaleniuk, executive director of the
Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, which was 59%- funded by Barack Obama's State Department
and the International Renaissance Foundation, a George Soros organization.
Also attending that meeting was Catherine Newcombe, attorney in the Criminal Division,
Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice, where,
among other duties, she oversaw the Department's legal assistance programs to Ukraine.
By December 2015, Paul Manafort was undoubtedly considering approaching the Trump campaign
to rejuvenate his U.S. political bona fides and mitigate the legal and financial difficulties he was
experiencing at the time.
From the beginning of his association with the Trump campaign, Roger Stone, a long-time
Manafort partner, made a strong case to Trump to bring in
Manafort, who would officially connect to the campaign
immediately after the February 1, 2016 Iowa caucuses.
Based on events occurring during the same period, were Obama Deep State operatives aware of
Manafort's intent and already intending to use his past questionable practices and links to
Russia against Trump?
Such awareness of Manafort's plans could have been obtained either through FBI surveillance , which began
in 2014 and ended in early 2016, or through information provided by Manafort associates, for
example, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik , who worked for
Manafort and was a FBI and Department of State asset, not a Russian agent as later painted by
the Mueller investigation.
According to White House
visitor logs , on January 19, 2016, Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting of FBI, Department of
Justice and Department of State personnel, which had two main objectives:
To coerce the Ukrainians to drop the Burisma probe , which involved Vice President Joseph
Biden's son Hunter, and allow the FBI to take it over the investigation.
To reopen a closed 2014 FBI investigation that focused heavily on GOP lobbyist Paul
Manafort , whose firm long had been tied to Trump through his partner and Trump pal, Roger
Stone.
That is, contain the investigation of Biden's son and ramp up the investigation of Paul
Manafort.
Again, according to White House
logs , the attendees at the January 19, 2016 meeting in Room 230A of the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building were:
Eric Ciaramella - National Security Council Director for Ukraine
Liz Zentos - National Security Council Director for Eastern Europe
David G. Sakvarelidze - Deputy General Prosecutor of Ukraine
Nazar A. Kholodnitsky, Ukraine's chief anti-corruption prosecutor
Catherine L. Newcombe - attorney in the Criminal Division, Office of Overseas
Prosecutorial Development, with the U.S. Department of Justice
Svitlana V. Pardus – Operations, Department of Justice, U.S. Embassy, Ukraine.
Artem S. Sytnyk - Director of the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine
Andriy G. Telizhenko, political officer in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington DC
Jeffrey W. Cole - Resident Legal Advisor at U.S. Embassy Ukraine, presumed to be FBI
Just two weeks after that meeting, on February 2, 2016, according to White
House logs , Eric Ciaramella chaired a meeting in Room 374 of the Eisenhower Executive
Office, which seems to be a planning session to re-open an investigation of Paul Manafort
(Note: one of the crimes of which Manafort was accused was money laundering, an area covered by
the Department of the Treasury). The attendees were:
Jose Borrayo - Acting Section Chief, Office of Special Measures, U.S. Department of the
Treasury, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Julia Friedlander - Senior Policy Advisor for Europe, Office of Terrorist Financing and
Financial Crimes, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Michael Lieberman - Deputy Assistant Secretary, Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes,
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Scott Rembrandt - Anti-Money Laundering Task Force, Assistant Director/Director, Office
of Strategic Policy, Department of the Treasury
Justin Rowland - Special Agent (financial crimes), Federal Bureau of Investigation
It appears that Paul Manafort became a vehicle by which the Obama Deep State operatives
could link Trump to nefarious activities involving Russians, which eventually evolved into the
Trump-Russia collusion hoax.
Remember, the key claim of the follow-up Steele dossier, the centerpiece of the Mueller
investigation, was that Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort was the focal point of a
"well-developed conspiracy between them [the Trump campaign] and the Russian leadership."
Nellie Ohr, Fusion GPS employee and wife of Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr, not
only worked with Christopher Steele on the so-called Trump dossier, but, in May 2016, was the
conduit of information to her husband and two Department of Justice prosecutors of the
existence of the "black ledger" documents that contributed to Manafort's prosecution.
Bruce Ohr and Steele attempted to get dirt on Manafort from a Russian oligarch, Oleg
Deripaska, efforts that eventually led to a September 2016 meeting in which the FBI asked
Deripaska if he could provide information to prove that Manafort was helping Trump collude with
Russia.
The surveillance and entrapment attempts of Paul Manafort, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos
and others were designed to collect evidence about Trump
without formally documenting that Trump was the target.
After the election, to cover their tracks, James Comey, representing the FBI and the
Department of Justice, misleadingly told Trump that the investigation was about
Russia and a few stray people in his campaign, but they assured him he personally was not under
investigation.
They lied.
Donald Trump always was, and still is, the target of the Deep State , the left-wing media
and their Democrat Party collaborators.
"... A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have kept the allegations alive. ..."
"... The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today, Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even an Obama aide termed it , will remain. ..."
"... Listen to the podcast here ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
"... The John Batchelor Show ..."
"... Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument. The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline! ..."
"... You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills. ..."
"... It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision. They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy. ..."
"... CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it. ..."
"... We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths. If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or intelligence, so we should stop paying them. ..."
"... Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise. ..."
"... Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is, as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep "in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards. ..."
"... Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes likes it or not, except as . ..."
"... Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to conclude that he's fully on board. ..."
"... There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it, not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe propaganda value. ..."
"... In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination ..."
"... Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie enemies. It makes it ' real '. The ' heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches, etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice. ..."
"... To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens. In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security 'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world. (Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.) ..."
"... or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow continue to believe his campaign rhetoric? ..."
"... The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid. ..."
"... "TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ". Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ? ..."
"... Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics, and that's through America's brutal empire abroad. ..."
"... Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference, except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things. ..."
President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where,
he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente ("cooperation") with Moscow.
And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not
share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them
seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow's 2014
annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
Similarly, Trump was slow in withdrawing Marie Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer appointed by President Obama as ambassador
to Kiev, who had made clear, despite her official position in Kiev, that she did not share the new American president's thinking
about Ukraine or Russia. In short, the president was surrounded in his own administration, even in the White House, by opponents
of his foreign policy and presumably not only in regard to Ukraine.
How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon
John Bolton, briefly Trump's national security adviser. But this doesn't explain why the president would accept or long tolerate
such appointees.
A more plausible explanation is that Trump thought that by appointing such anti-Russian hard-liners he could lay to rest the
Russiagate allegations that had hung over him for three years and still did: that for some secret nefarious reason he was and remained
a "Kremlin puppet." Despite the largely exculpatory Mueller report, Trump's political enemies, mostly Democrats but not only, have
kept the allegations alive.
The larger question is who should make American foreign policy: an elected president or Washington's permanent foreign policy
establishment? (It is scarcely a "deep" or "secret" state, since its representatives appear on CNN and MSNBC almost daily.) Today,
Democrats seem to think that it should be the foreign policy establishment, not President Trump. But having heard the cold-war views
of much of that establishment, how will they feel when a Democrat occupies the White House? After all, eventually Trump will leave
power, but Washington's foreign-policy "blob," as even
an Obama aide termed it , will remain.
Listen to the podcast
here . Stephen F. Cohen Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton University. ANationcontributing editor, his most recent book,War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate, is available
in paperback and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host ofThe John Batchelor Show, now in their sixth
year, are available at www.thenation.com .
because of Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.
In an otherwise decent overview, this sticks out like a sore thumb. It would be helpful to stop using the word annexation.
While correct in a technical sense – that Crimea was added to the Russian Federation – the word comes with all kinds of connotations,
that imply illegality and or force. Given Crimea was given special status when gifted to Ukraine for administration by the USSR,
one could just as easily apply "annexation" of Crimea to Ukraine. After Ukraine voted to "leave" the USSR, Crimea voted to join
Ukraine. Obviously the "Ukrainian" vote did not include Crimea. Even after voting to join Ukraine, Crimea had special status within
Ukraine, and was semi autonomous. If you can vote to join, you can vote to leave. Either you have the right to self determination,
or you don't.
This is what is so infuriating, Stephen! These silent coups of the executive branch have been taking place for my entire life!
Both parties are guilty of refusing to appoint cabinet members that the elected presidents would have chosen for themselves, because
both parties are more interested in making the president of the opposing party look bad, make him ineffective, and incapable of
carrying out policies that he was elected to carry out. That is the very definition of treason!
Things are a disaster. The JCPOA is at the heart of the issue and Trump and his advisors stubborn refusal to capitulate on
this issue very well may cause Trump to lose the 2020 election. Trump's anti-Iranian fever is every bit as ludicrous as the
DNC's anti-Russian fever. There is absolutely nothing to support the anti-Iranian policy argument or the anti JCPOA argument.
The only thing that is missing from all of this is Iranian hookers, and that would certainly be an explosive headline!
The anti-Iranian fever has created so much havoc not only with Iran, but with every country on earth other than Israel, Saudi
Arabia, and the UAE. Germany announced that it is seeking to unite with Russia, not only for Gazprom, but is now considering purchasing
defense systems from Russia, and Germany is dictating EU policy, by and large. Germany has said that Europe must be able to defend
itself independent of America and is requesting an EU military and Italy is on board with this idea, seeking to create jobs and
weapons for its economy and defense.
The EU is fed up with the economic sanctions placed on countries that the U.S. has black-listed, particularly Russia and Iran,
and China as well for Huwaei 5G.
Nobody in their right mind could ever claim this to be the free market capitalism that Larry Kudlow espouses!
You know why Rhodes called it the blob, right? Why he made it sound so formless and squishy? Ask yourself, how does a failed
novelist with zilch for foreign-affairs credentials get the big job of Obama's ventriloquist? That's a CIA billet. It so happens
that Rhodes' brother has a big job of his own with CBS News, the most servile of the Mockingbird media propaganda mills.
It's not a blob, it's a precisely-articulated hierarchy. And the top of it is CIA. So please for once somebody answer this
blindingly obvious question, Who is making US foreign policy? CIA, that's who. For the CIA show trial run by Iran/Contra nomenklatura
Bill Barr and his blackmailed flunky Durham, Trump's high crime and misdemeanor is conducting diplomacy without CIA supervision.
They come out and say so, pointing to the National Security Act's mousetrap bureaucracy.
CIA runs your country. They've got impunity, they do what they want. We've got 400,000 academics paid to overthink it.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them guilty
of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
It is a political game between to competing kleptocratic cults. The DNC and RNC are whores and will do what ever their donors
tell them to do. That is also treason. This country is just a total wasteland.
Everyone has pledged allegiance to fraud.
Too big to fail, like the Titanic and the Hindenberg.
We cannot trust that the people that destroyed the country will repair it. It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
If they were limited to just the CIA, America would be in far better shape than its in. The CIA is not capable of thinking or
intelligence, so we should stop paying them.
Drumpf has been a tool of the Wall Street/Las Vegas Zionist billionaires for many, many years. so his selection of warmongering
Zio neo-con advisors should be no surprise.
What kind of stupid question is this? You mean you don't know or asking us for confirmation? If you really don't know then why
are you writing an article about it? If you do know then why are you asking the UNZ readers?
Perhaps part of the reason that Trump often seems to be surrounded by people who don't support his policies or values is,
as Paul Craig Roberts suggested in 2016, that Trump would have real problems simply because he was an outsider. An outsider to
the Washington swamp, a swamp that Clinton had been swimming in for decades. In short he didn't know who to trust, who to keep
"in the tent" & who to shut out. Thus, we have had this huge churn in Secretaries & on so on downwards.
It is run by a Cult of Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths.
That's ok but it's a bit unfair to Hedonistic Satanic Psychopaths After all most of the country is Hedonistic as hell,
it sells commercials or wtf. Satanic is philosophical and way over the heads of these clowns, though if the be a Satan, then they
are in the plan for sure, and right on the mark. As for psychopaths, those are criminals who are insane, but they can have remorse
and be their own worst enemies, often they just go off and go psycho and bad things happen, but can be unplanned off the wall
stuff, not diabolic.
Sociopaths are the ones that do the worst because they lack any concern or "Empathy", like robots. So I read that the socio's
are some of the brightest people who often are very successful in business etc. and can hide the fact that they would soon as
kill as look at ya, but cool as ice, all they want is to get what the hell they want! They don't give a rats petoot who likes
likes it or not, except as .
So, once upon a time, a people got so hedonistic and they didn't watch the game and theier leaders were low quality
(especially religeous/morals ) and long story short Satan unleashed the Socio's , Things seem to be heading disastrously,
so will bit coin save the day? Green nudeal?
While massive attention is directed towards Russia and the Ukraine, the majority of the public are shown the slight of hand
and their attention is never brought near to the real perpetrators of subverting American and British foreign policy.
Doesn't matter if he's surrounded. A president CAN make foreign policy, and a president CAN fire people who disagree with his
policy. Trump hasn't fired any of the neocons, but he proved that he CAN fire defense executives. He fired the Sec of Navy
for disagreeing with some ridiculous personal thing that Trump wanted to do. Since Trump hasn't fired any neocons, we have to
conclude that he's fully on board.
The CIA has no authority what so ever as defined by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. That would make them
guilty of a coup which would be an act of treason, so if what you claim is true, why have they not been prosecuted.
--
first off the supreme law of the land maybe the Constitution and to oppose it may be Treason, but the Law that is supreme to the
Law of the land is Human rights law.. it is far superior to, and it is the TLD of all laws of the land of all of the Nation States
that mankind has allowed the greedy among its masses, to impose.
There are so many security holes in the constitution of the USA including that it was ratified by those who invented it,
not by a vote put to the people that would be made to suffer being governed by it. Basically the USA is useless as a defender
of human rights (one of which is the right to self determination). The so called bill of rights (1st 10 amendments) are contractual
promises, but like all clauses in contracts if there is no way to enforce them, then there is no use for the clause except maybe
propaganda value.
If you note the USA constitution has seven articles..
Article 1 is about 525 elected members of congress and their very limited powers to control
foreign activities. Each qualified to vote member of the governed (a citizen so to speak) is allowed to
vote for only 3 of the 525 persons. so basically there is no real national election anywhere .
Article II grants the electoral college the power to appoint two persons full control of the assets,
resources and manpower of America to conquer the entire world or to make peace in the entire world.
Either way: the governed are not allowed to vote for either; the EC vote determines the P or VP.
Article III allows the Article II person to appoint yes men to the judiciary
Where exist the power of the governed to deny USA governors the ability to the use the powers the constitution claims
the governors are to have, against the governed? <==No where I can find? Theoretically, the governed are protected from abuse
for as long as it takes to conduct due process?
One person, the Article II person, is basically the king when in comes to constitutional authority to establish, conduct,
prosecute or defend USA involvement in foreign affairs.
No where does the constitution of the USA deny its President the use of American resources or USA military power, to
make and use diplomat appointments, or to use the USA to use the wealth of America and the hegemonic powers of the USA to make
a private or public profit in a foreign land. <= d/n matter if the profit is personal to the President or if it assigned by appointment
(like the feudal powers granted by the feudal kings to the feudal lords) to corporate feudal lords or oligarch personal interest.
AFAICT, the president can USE the USA to conduct war, invade or otherwise infringe on, even destroy, the territory, or a
private or public interest, within a foreign sovereign more or less at will. So if the President wants to command a private
or secret Army like the CIA, he can as far as I can tell, obviously this president does, because he could with his pen alone shut
it down.
Seems to me the "NO" from Wilson's four points
no more secret diplomacy peace settlement must not lead the way to new wars
no retribution, unjust claims, and huge fines <basically indemnities paid by the losers to the winners.
no more war; includes controls on armaments and arming of nations.
no more Trade Barriers so the nations of the world would become more interdependent.
have been made the essence of nation state operations world wide.
IMO, The CIA exists at the pleasure of the President.
@Curmudgeon all of that,
plus the Kosovo precedent.
In a normally functioning world you simply can't simultaneously argue that in one case West can bomb a country to force
self-determination as in Kosovo, and also denounce exactly the same thing in Crimea. On to Catalonia and more self-determination
Trump, among his other occupations, used to engage with the professional wrestling circuit. In that well-staged entertainment
there is always a bad guy – or a ' heel ' – who is used to stir up the crowds, the Evil Sheik or Rocky's hapless movie
enemies. It makes it ' real '. The 'heel ' is sometimes allowed to win to better manage the audience. But
the narrative never changes. Our rational judgments should focus on what happens, and on outcomes – not on talk, slogans, speeches,
etc Based on that, Trump is a classical ' heel ' character. He might even be playing it consciously, or he has no choice.
To answer the question who runs ' foreign policy ', let's ignore the stadium speeches, and simply look at what happens.
In a world bereft of enough profitable consumer things to do, and enough justifiable careers for unemployable geo-political security
'experts' of all kinds, having enemies and maybe even a small war occasionally is not such an irrational thing to want. Plus there
are the deep ethnic hatreds and traumas going back generations that were naively imported into the heart of the Western world.
(Washington warned against that 200+ years ago.)
Trump should have kept Steve Bannon as his advisor and should have fired instead his son-in-law. Perhaps "they" are blackmailing
Trump with photos like here: https://www.pinterest.com/richarddesjarla/creepy/
That would explain why Trump is so ineffective at making a reality anything he campaigned for.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
An anti-neocon president appears to have been surrounded by neocons in his own administration.
The fact is Trump is not an anti-neocon (Deep State) president he only talks that way. The fact that he surrounded himself
with Deep State denizens gives lie to the thought that he is anti-Deep State no one can be that god damn stupid.
or maybe trump was a lying neocon, war-loving, immigration-loving neoliberal all along, and you and the trumptards somehow
continue to believe his campaign rhetoric?
Halfway around the world from Washington's halls of power, Ukraine sits along a civilizational and geopolitical fault line.
To Ukraine's west are the liberal democracies of Europe, governed by rule of law and democratic principles. To its east are
Russia and its client states in Eurasia, almost all of which are corrupt oligarchies. [ ] In this war on democratic movements
and democratic principles, Russia's biggest prize and chief adversary has always been the United States. Until now, however,
Russia has always had to contend with bipartisan resolve to counter
No mention of China, and this is the problem with the whole foreign policy establishment not just the neocons. Russia is more
of an annoyance than anything, but they are still operating assumptions on what is the
Geographical Pivot of History , so they want to talk about Russia. Like an Edwardian sea cadet we are supposed to care about
Russia getting (back) a water port in Crimea. Mahan's definition of sea power included a strong commercial fleet. After tearing
their own environment apart like a car in a wrecking yard and heating up the planet China has taken time out from deforestation
and colonising Tibet, to send huge container vessels full of cheap goods through the melting Arctic round the top of Russia all
the better to get to Europe and deindustrialise it.
Western elites have sold out to China, seen as the future, so we hear about Russia rather than the three million Uyghurs in
concentration camps complete with constantly smoking crematoria, and harvesting of organs for rich foreigners.
Who
poses a greater threat to the West: China or Russia?
By the time the West finds itself in open conflict with Beijing, we will have lost our relative advantage. Brendan Simms and
K.C. Lin [ ] The concept of China being a threat is harder to comprehend. In what way? Yes, its hacking and intellectual property
theft is a headache. But is it worse than what Russia is up to? And don't we need Chinese investment, so does it really matter
if China builds our 5G mobile networks? In London, ministers agonise over these issues -- not knowing whether to pity China
(we still send foreign aid there), beg for its money and contracts (with prime ministerial trade trips), or treat it as a potential
antagonist.
Aid ! They sent robots to the far side of the Moon
Beijing has been the beneficiary of liberal revulsion at the Trump presidency: if the Donald is against the Chinese,
who cannot be for them? As a result, Trump's efforts to address China's unfair trade practices have so far missed the mark
with the domestic and international audience. As Trump declares war on free trade, China -- one of the most protectionist economies
in the world -- is now celebrated at Davos as the avatar of free trade. Later this month, China's Vice-President is likely
to be in attendance at Davos -- and there is even talk of him meeting with Trump. Similarly, the messiness of American politics
has made China's one-party state an apparent poster boy of political stability and governability.
"TRUMP SUPPORTERS WERE DUPED – Trump supporters are going to find out soon enough that they were duped by
Donald Trump. Trump was given the script to run as the "Chaos Candidate" .He is just a pawn of the ruling elite .It is a tactic
known as 'CONTROLLED OPPOSITION' ".
Wasn't it FDR who said "Presidents are selected , they are not elected " ?
Trump selected the Neocons he is surrounded with. And he's given away all kinds of property that he has absolutely no legal
authority to give. He was seeking to please American Oligarchs the likes of Adelson. That's American politics. "Money is free
speech." Of course, there is another connection with foreign policy beyond the truly total corruption of American domestic politics,
and that's through America's brutal empire abroad.
The military/intelligence imperial establishment definitely see Israel as a kind of American colony in the Mideast, and they
make sure that it's well provided for. That's what the Neocon Wars have been about. Paving over large parts of Israel's noisy
neighborhood. And that includes matters like keeping Syria off-balance with occupation in its northeast. And constantly threatening
Iran.
Obama or Trump, on the main matters of importance abroad – NATO, Russia, Israel/Palestine, China – there has been no difference,
except Trump is more openly bellicose and given to saying really stupid things.
By the way, the last President who tried seriously to make foreign policy as the elected head of government left half of his
head splattered on thec streets of Dallas.
@Jon Baptist We have
all been brainwashed by the propaganda screened by the massmedia ,whether it be FOX , MSNBC , CBS ,etc.. SeptemberClues.info has
a good article entitled "The central role of the news media on 9/11 " :
"The 9/11 psyop relied foremostly on that weakspot of ours .We all fell for the images we saw on TV at the time we can only
wonder why so many never questioned the absurd TV coverage proposed by all the major networks The 9/11 TV imagery of the crucial
morning events was just a computer-animated, pre-fabricated movie."
@follyofwar Pat inhabits
a strange Hollywood type world, where the US is always the good guy. He believes that, although the US may make foreign policy
mistakes, its aims and ambitions are nevertheless noble and well intentioned.
In Pat's world it's still circa 1955, but even then, his take on US foreign policy would have been hopelessly unrealistic.
Exiting the news conference as she was addressed, Pelosi turned around, walked up to the
journalist -- James Rosen of Sinclair Broadcast Group -- and proceeded to wag her finger with
scorn.
"As a Catholic, I resent you using the word 'hate' in a sentence that addresses me,"
she said. "Don't mess with me when it comes to words like that."
To Republicans eager to paint Democrats as out-of-control partisans, the forceful rebuttal
was a sign of the speaker losing her grip.
"It's caused them to lose sight of why they got the majority," House Minority Whip Steve
Scalise (R-La.) said of impeachment and Pelosi's outburst. "I think things are starting to
unravel."
... ... ...
Indeed, Pelosi also has cast the constitutional clash in terms of defending
an ally against Russia, calling the concerns raised by the whistleblower complaint the "aha
moment" and repeating a phrase that she used in challenging Trump face-to-face at the White
House in October.
"All roads lead to Putin," she told reporters.
Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), a former CIA officer who was among the "national security
freshmen" who pushed Pelosi toward supporting an impeachment inquiry, praised her handling of
the process. From the beginning, she said, she asked Pelosi to ensure that the investigation
was done in a strategic, efficient and serious manner, and she said Pelosi has followed
through.
"... Lev Golinkin explained in The Nation a few months ago that the release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it gets." ..."
"... But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it didn't happen doesn't change the historical record. ..."
"... Yasha Levine is an investigative journalist and a founding editor of The eXiled Online. His latest book is "Surveillance Valley: The Secret Military History of the Internet." ..."
Not only did it happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as
varied as Yahoo, Politico and The Financial Times, reports Yasha Levine.
I know I've written about
this before, but I feel like I have to address it again -- seeing how just about every
impeachment witness has repeated the claim that meddling by Ukrainian government officials did
not happen in 2016 and that anyone who says otherwise is spreading toxic Russian propaganda.
I've been dipping into these hearings every now and again and I've seen this said over and
over. It reminds me of those new age quantum-mind-over-matter types in the "The Secret:"
Repeat the mantra often enough and convince yourself it's true and it is!
Let's start with a fact: Meddling in the 2016 election by Ukrainian politicians and
government agencies happened.
The above is true and no amount of denial is going to change that. What's more: Ukrainian
nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with Americans -- including
Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the Democratic Party. Not only
did all this happen, it was written up as fact by establishment papers and outlets as varied as
Yahoo , Politico
, and TheFinancial Times in
2016 on the eve of the election. ( See this by me here
.)
One of the best examples of this is the
plot to take down Paul Manafort -- the sleazy Republican political consultant who had long
worked in Ukraine and who headed Donald's Trump campaign.
In 2016, Serhiy Leshchenko, a Ukrainian member of parliament and an anti-corruption activist
(who got embroiled in his own corruption scandal), coordinated the release of a handwritten
ledger. The document purported to show off-the-book payments made to Manafort from the Party of
the Regions -- the political arm of the Viktor Yanukovich, the Ukrainian president who had been
overthrown in a coup-type revolt by a much more Western-friendly political faction. The ledger
itself was released by NABU, a Ukrainian government anti-corruption organization set up as
result of prodding by the Obama administration and which was
run with the backing and financial support of the FBI .
(As an aside: NABU -- which also got embroiled into its own political corruption scandal --
also happens to be at the heart of an internal Ukrainian political fight that sucked in
ex-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. But that's a different and
complicated story . And then there's the weird angle of the FBI being so closely involved
with NABU at a time when this Ukrainian anti-corruption agency decided to involve itself in an
American election.)
Anyway, Leshchenko -- a foreign politician -- made clear that his objective at the time was
to kill off Trump's candidacy. That's a direct admission of meddling. As Oleksiy Kuzmenko has
documented so well, Leshchenko repeated this statement in various ways in both English and
Ukraine over and over again.
Lev Golinkin explained in TheNationa few months ago that the
release of that ledger by Leshchenko and NABU was an important event -- and a direct
intervention in the election. "The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as
head of Trump's campaign. The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that
Manafort -- and therefore Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin," he wrote. "Manafort
was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere
without NABU and Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it
gets."
But three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment. What used to be fact is now smeared as either a pro-Trump
rightwing conspiracy theory or Russian propaganda -- and probably both. But saying that it
didn't happen doesn't change the historical record.
Mark Ames makes a very good point: All this outside meddling didn't swing the election, but
it did help us learn something useful about our own political process. The hacking of email
accounts belonging to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee revealed to
Americans the corruption of the Democratic Party, including the way that the primaries are run.
And leaks about Manafort revealed the corruption inside Trump campaign (if anyone doubted it in
the first place) and ultimately sent a corrupt scumbag lobbyist to jail for tax evasion.
But this burst of transparency hasn't done much good. Instead of reckoning with the
fundamental rot in our political establishment and our political culture, all we've gotten is
this non-stop selective outrage -- a spectacle that puts Trump and his cronies and a foreign
power at the center of everything that's wrong domestically in America. But the problems are
larger than Trump and they sure are larger than whatever foreign meddling may have occurred --
whether from Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Israel, or any of the other foreign and business
interests that are constantly jockeying to sway the world's most powerful empire.
Manafort did million dollar deals with the Podestas for over 10 years -- then offered to
work for Trump for free.
Daniel , December 5, 2019 at 09:08
I am a daily reader of this site and have always had a healthy skepticism of the
propaganda emanating from corporate media, but I am really struggling with this
Ukraine-interfered vs. that's-a-debunked-conspiracy-theory conflict. Corporate media is
really losing it's mind on this one with virtually ALL of it shaming and shutting down anyone
who acknowledges past reporting on this issue, as here. What is going on? How can one party
tell a story that is (seemingly) obviously true and another claim that it never happened? Do
the facts in this article and previous reporting have nothing to do with the 'debunked
conspiracy theory' we are being shamed about? Are these two separate stories? Or is objective
truth being ghosted out of existence now? I fear the latter.
The propaganda hyper-drive that corporate media has accelerated since Clinton's 2016
defeat has been quite astonishing to witness and a bit of a shock to me, even with all my
skepticism. But it is now apparent to me that there is no depth too low for our corporate
controllers to sink when tasked with defending their corrupt, violent, self-serving status
quo. Trump is too much of a wild card on some points for these folks, it seems, so of course
they feel he must be taken down. (On other points, they play right along as he delivers some
of the benefits they feel their positions have privileged them.)
And, despite my own feeling that the man is unfit for office and could rightly be
impeached on any number of counts, the degradation of our discourse in service of this right
now – and the slim propaganda-confused Ukraine shoulders upon which it is being laid
– is absolutely sickening to me, and seems wildly off the mark. It is, however, giving
those who benefit from our corrupt system a strong feeling of self-righteousness. So there's
that.
Wonder not why Trump's supporters aren't jumping ship (Schiff?). They can smell the BS as
well as anybody.
Eugenie Basile , December 5, 2019 at 04:44
Watched the house judiciary hearing yesterday on CNN. Do the analysts on the Jake Tapper
panel really believe all viewers of CNN have not one functioning brain cell left ?
What was clear yesterday is that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot.
When even the chairman of the judiciary committee doesn't respect the principles of Law and
Justice, ordering his committee to rubberstamp the partisan report of the Intel committee
without any direct factchecking and possibility for minority members to call directly
involved witnesses, this impeachment becomes void of any legitimacy.
The three pro impeachment Law professors were so blinded by their Anti Trump feelings, they
didn't even realise the danger that this disastrous precedent will create.
DH Fabian , December 3, 2019 at 12:29
We see the same familiar phrases, "catch words," used throughout to sell Russia-gate, as
if all of it has been written by a single small group of people. We see the same claims that
someone said or wrote something that proves there was some INTENT to "meddle," this was
confirmed by (list pro-Democrat sources), and therefore Russia/Ukraine stole the election!
Meddle? How? This began with the Clinton campaign team claiming that Russia hacked into
voting machines across the country, a claim that media repeatedly stated was true. Proof?
Other media said it was true! Except that an extensive investigation of voting machines
across the country proved that it wasn't. No matter, just keep spinning the tale, weaving in
threads of Ukraine-gate in recent months. What does this "meddling" consist of? We still
don't know. They didn't invade the US and overthrow the government, didn't wage a massive
propaganda campaign -- although all of us who dared to criticize Clinton & Co. were
accused of being "foreign operatives." They didn't hack into voting machines, and efforts to
find the alleged "voter fraud" (on anyone's behalf) fell flat. They no longer even bother
trying to show that X did Y, invalidating the election results.
Go back to the 2016 election results. In spite of so much Dem voter opposition to the
Clinton right wing, Hillary Clinton got the most votes. Why did Russia and/or Ukraine try so
hard to get her into the White House? Never mind that, just keep repeating the allegations.
(Trump is president because he got the most electoral voted, something a foreign entity
couldn't influence, hack into, steal, etc., etc.)
Buddy , December 5, 2019 at 12:36
The George Constanza theory at work. "It's not a lie if you believe it." Oh how sad and
true that is. So many people prefer to believe a lie than accept the truth.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 10:56
What is the latest on the authenticity of the "hand-written ledger" and Manafort payments?
After all, NABU investigators had a lot of adversaries and aimed to "ugrobit'" them (word
from Leshchenko tweet, "send to their tombs").
michael , December 4, 2019 at 04:20
I heard on the radio that 'the Ukraine did NOT interfere in the 2016 Election"; it has
been "debunked", just like Biden corruption there. There is no corruption in Ukraine,
officially. The Establishment has backed up all the coup-born Ukrainians, Ukrainian
Americans, "Anti-Corruption" Agencies and American Ambassadors who, despite published and
videoed facts from the last three or more years, now will tell you there was "no
interferference, no Black Ledger" of fake handwritten notes that has now disappeared ("no
evidence, no crime"). The Ukrainians had nothing to do with Manafort being toppled as Trump's
Campaign Manager, despite all the evidence to the contrary (evidently invented by the
Russians!!!) The US Establishment wants enough skirmishes with Russia on the Ukraine border
"to the last Ukrainian" to sell arms, based on loans that will never be repaid, with
politicians and their minions (not just Manafort!) lining their pockets.
Just watched Tim Canova's interview with Jimmy Dore from a few days ago. He ran in both 2016
and 2018. His story is a microcosm of what the Establishment has done to election integrity
in America. It is a joke. Once the Establishment silences alt media, there is no point in
having elections.
If you define "meddling" as "anything said or done by a non-US person that may somehow
influence a US voter" then by that standard just about every country out there "meddles" in
US elections.
The difference between Russian "meddling" and Ukrainian "meddling" is that the Ukrainian
flavor is welcomed by the US establishment.
Josep , December 4, 2019 at 18:19
I think it has something to do with the way Ukraine, like Georgia, is seen as a "victim"
of what is touted as "Russian aggression" thanks to its relatively smaller size, though your
guess is as good as mine.
Exiled reader , December 3, 2019 at 10:26
I'm surprised to see Mark Ames (and Yasha) allow that Russia "interfered" in the election,
especially in the context of WikiLeaks. Where is the evidence that Assange was some sort of
Kremlin cut-out?
Is this just a case of bowing slightly to the prevailing winds to prove a larger point, ie,
western presstitutes are incapable of dialectical thinking? Understandable but be careful,
1st thing you're making little concessions to establishment thinking, the next thing your
shilling for forever wars.
Bob Van Noy , December 3, 2019 at 09:39
As usual thank you CD.
"What's more: Ukrainian nationals didn't just meddle on their own, they also worked with
Americans -- including Ukrainian-American political operatives on the payroll of the
Democratic Party."
Many thanks Yasha Levine your statement above says it all and it's terribly important that
America understands that
michael , December 3, 2019 at 07:29
Of course the politicians of Ukraine worked openly with Ukrainian Americans and DNC
members to knock Manafort out as the head of Trump's campaign. These were locusts and
parasites who came into power based on the American-backed coup, and they were eager to show
their fealty to Hillary, and to Biden, as they stole everything that wasn't nailed down,
similar to the plague of Americans who descended on Russia after the Soviet Union collapsed.
The median income of Ukrainians dropped over half after the coup; their culture of
corruption, unlike that of their Ukrainian American overlords, is necessary to the bottom
Ukrainians survival. So they bragged, wanting the world and particularly Hillary to know that
Ukraine had interfered on her side in the Election. The facts are clear and straightforward,
as the author notes (although there is too much incredulity in his tone. Maybe he reads MSM
and is confused?)
However we will not see a three year investigation of Hillary and Biden being in the pocket
of Ukraine; that Russiagate nonsense was just a ruse to undercut America while they worked to
get their agendas back on track. They are the Establishment politicians, they are Democrats
of an administration who brought about coups and wars, and they want their monetary rewards
from these actions, as do the FBI, State Department and CIA (in a more institutional sense)
who crossed the red Hatch Act line to support political candidates (Hillary and Biden) in our
now banana republic. The Establishment have been pushing neolib/neocon agendas since at least
Bill Clinton, with ample support from Bush II (the groundwork) and particularly since Obama
(who was able to greatly expand both the domestic police state and the Empire). They do not
want some outsider, even the incompetent demagogue Trump, interfering in their best laid
plans, and in their consensus community foreign policies. This has nothing to do with America
per se, this is about extending their corrupt profitable dreams which are coming together
after 20+ years of preparations.
" three years later, this episode has been wiped from the collective memory of our media
and political establishment."
But everything important in the United States is treated that way now. Everything.
America has conducted more than 15 years of aggressive war in the Middle East, and you'd
be hard put to find a single honest article about any of it in a mainline American
publication or a story on air by broadcast journalism.
America just conducted a coup against an elected government in Bolivia, attempted another,
again against an elected government, in Venezuela, and is heavily pressuring the governments
of Cuba and Nicaragua. What you see in America's mainline press is not what has happened.
And the nasty Bolsonaro government in Brazil definitely represents fiddling with the
country's institutions, including its courts, but you won't read that in America's press.
Children are being hurt by lack of medicines and foodstuff in Iran, a country which done
absolutely nothing illegal, yet that land of eighty million is just ignored, except for
unwarranted insults. Never once are any of its leaders – including some highly
intelligent and civil men like the President and the Foreign Minister – interviewed or
allowed to make their case.
A creepy outfit like the White Helmets in Syria receives nothing but admiration in
America's press, even though its main job has been to create pressure for increased
bombing.
America's huge fleet of drones, each carrying Hellfire missiles, works day and night to
kill people in many places without the least pretence of legality or justice. Try finding the
victims' faces in the press. Try finding stories about the bizarre buzz-cut CIA workers who
sit at computer screens playing electronic games with live human beings.
Doing that would represent a bit of what Chelsea Manning and Julian Assange did, and just
look at their fates.
If it weren't for alternative and foreign press on the Internet, we'd know little about
any of these things and far more. But even those sources are limited. All the Western
European mainline press is under the same thumb. The Guardian or the BBC read like they were
written in Langley Virginia when it comes to such matters.
Russian sources are constantly attacked and vilified and threated. Outfits like Google,
Washington's willing helpers, now make it hard even to find legitimate alternate news
sources. And what those sources write gets buried in search results. Wikipedia has armies of
folks writing articles now in the same vein as those of the mainline press.
The United States literally does not make any sense anymore. Contradictions all the time.
No logic, no honest words ever come from officials or the press about any important
matter.
That is the just the nature of being at the center of a brutal empire, one engaged in
countless dark and dishonest activities, not ready to be observed, and certainly not
criticized, in any of them.
Correcting the record is almost meaningless anymore. As is speaking the truth on almost
any important matter.
Look at Tulsi Gabbard and how she is treated by the establishment, including that of her
own party.
She's the only Democratic candidate even saying a few honest things, and she is abused or
ignored or brushed aside.
Those who speak to establishment interests are given daily headline coverage, as Biden or
Warren, even though they have nothing to say that is new or helpful or even honest.
It really is a losing battle.
The Inner Party has a small army of Outer Party workers constantly writing and rewriting
Oceania's current events and recent history. Computers make the work easier and more
efficient than ever.
I think the quality of truth in America today makes Donald Trump a perfect representative
of the country. In many ways the perfect President. Full of contradictions and confusion,
given to bellowing and virtually never telling the truth.
michael , December 3, 2019 at 18:34
Agree that this is representative of the American character. Disagree that it is a recent
phenomenon. Americans killed off 15 to 20% of North Koreans in the Korean War (that
percentage would equate to 50-60 million Americans), and killed 2.5 to 4 million in Southeast
Asia (with quite a bit of CIA involvement in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. George HW Bush (who
headed and was active with the CIA) ran the Iran Contra drug running scheme to get Reagan
elected with the October Surprise, killing any Latin Americans who opposed his Freedom
Fighters. Clinton's sanctions killed 500,000 kids in Iraq and Albright noted "we think the
price is worth it"; Clinton had no interest in the Rwanda genocide. The seven Forever Wars
will likely multiply under Trump or his successor. That's where the money is.
9/11 supposedly happened because the CIA failed to "turn" Khalid al Mihdhar, who was also
heavily involved with Saudi spooks. The CIA always escape any accountability or
responsibility. Most of the CIA involved with "mistakes" of 9/11 were promoted despite
(because?) of their illegal actions, which led to the Patriot Act, and forever wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq, joined now by Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Ukraine and
Honduras. Perkin's "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" showed the basic model; the CIA, his
"jackals", have become less covert, their visibility projects power. The principals and goals
are the same.
More and more domestic actions will occur at the hands of the CIA, and their propaganda is
passed down by the MSM on any important issue. The CIA is the Gestapo of the American Police
State. Elected politicians are just clowns for entertainment.
Caitlin Johnstone just published an article this morning about despair. It is an
inevitable emotion for those of us who know the truth about the current state of affairs.
Keep soldiering on John, your words have value. Who knows how many eyes are being opened
every day by your efforts? And in the end we could never live with ourselves if we just quit
the game.
In some ways Trump is the perfect President for making the desperation of the Deep State
more visible to the average person. There is less faith in the MSM today than there ever was
before. It's a starting point.
ML , December 4, 2019 at 22:29
Good post, Mr. Chuckman. Try and keep a sense of humor to ward off despair. Your post
reminded me of one of my favorite H. L. Mencken quotes regarding who Americans elect as their
presidents:
"All the odds are on the man who is intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre- the man who
can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends,
year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of the President
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious
day, the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts's desire at last and the White House
will be adorned by a downright moron." H.L. Mencken
robert e williamson jr , December 5, 2019 at 17:47
Perfect read on it being what it is.
Hunter S. Thompson described the dumbing down of America in his 1990 "SONGS OF THE DOOMED"
.
He was right and we now see the effects of the demise of American acceptable set of
values. Far too many Americans have bull shitted themselves for far too long and it
shows.
Americans get what government they demand no more no less. The bar is pretty close to
touching the ground right now.
Some Americans want a malcontent, despot, bully to push "the other " around and Trump is
proving it by playing to his base.
The far too many of rest of Americans could care less just as long as nobody screws up
their good deal.
This should be interesting and may become painful enough to enough Americans that some
real progress and change can happen.
We need to hope that this happens by ballot rather than by bullet.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:20
A general warning for all viewers of the impeachment hearings: this is a political process
that has no factual value. The witnesses are nothing more than politicized instruments for
either political party.
Congress being under control of the democrats, we got their version As soon as the procedure
is passed to the Senate, the republicans will take control.
The timing should be a bonus for the reelection of Trump . seems the DNC has learned nothing
from their 2016 defeat.
Hmmm , December 3, 2019 at 00:49
I think most of the politicians, press, and pundits can and do hold both thoughts in their
head. They just lie about it shamelessly. Take Fiona Hill -- she certainly knows better. But
she's an anti-Russian ideologue, on top of which she knows that her reputation in the proper
circles now depends on promoting one of the two thoughts and dismissing the other. (Indeed,
the mainstream press has been fawning over her as a "heroine" since her testimony.)
Some people with influence may genuinely be unable to understand. But even with them, it's
mostly what Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when
his salary depends on his not understanding it."
There's no price to be paid for this lie. An article in Consortium News, or even The
Nation -- while commendable and most welcome, to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. Similar
points made in conservative outlets get dismissed as pro-Trump propaganda.
Anyway, it's nice to run across a piece like this as a sanity check.
Piotr Berman , December 3, 2019 at 11:12
"An article in Consortium News, or even The Nation -- while commendable and most welcome,
to be sure -- doesn't do the trick. "
The outcome of these revelations is hard to foresee, but currently they are amplified by
Fox News and other pro-Republican media. War liberals of the Democratic Party getting
squeezed from both sides. Trump does not have many talents, but I know no one better at
making adversaries look stupid, while getting away with inane rants -- a trick that never
ceases to amaze me.
A tragedy is that by focusing on Russia, Democrats take oxygen away from other fires they
should tend, pretty much like in 2016.
Excellent, but I was surprised to see the words "The hacking of email accounts belonging
to the John Podesta and the Democratic National Committee," when CN has well documented
articles that it was an insider leak and not a hack. We need to squash the myth of hacking
whenever we can.
Eugenie Basile , December 3, 2019 at 04:25
The Guccifer2 was definitely a hack with some Cyrillic traces ..( bit too obvious )
jdd , December 2, 2019 at 19:40
Robert Mueller's babbling notwithstanding, the VIPS have proven through uncontroverted
forensic analysis, that Popdesta's email account, like that of Hillary Clinton, was leaked
not hacked. As Julian Assange, who is slowly being murdered in a British prison, has
repeatedly stated, he did not receive the emails from "a state actor." Yet the truth of what
they revealed was, among other things, that the DNC conspired with the Clinton campaign to
rig the 2016 primaries against Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton to be a craven puppet of
Wall Street. The big lie of "Russian hacking" needs to be fully exposed, as it sits at the
very heart of the Russiagate narrative, and is the basis for all the lies that followed..
Jeff Harrison , December 2, 2019 at 19:22
The truth is that lots of countries meddle in large and small ways and in effective and
ineffective ways. The biggest meddler is Israel. Without US support, Israel would be a small
piece of pea gravel on a hot asphalt road with a full sized steam roller headed her way. So
they control the direction of the steam roller. The only countries that don't meddle in
American politics are countries that don't care what the US does. There aren't many of those.
Companies hire lobbyists to meddle in Congressional decisions so that the government will
issue edicts that favor their business over the people. Countries do the same thing.
Sometimes they skip the lobbyist and do it themselves. Only Americans are stupid enough to
think that it doesn't happen. We have recently seen a parade of Americans who are that stupid
and worse, they don't seem to realize that the US has been doing that and worse all over the
world.
Jb , December 3, 2019 at 06:44
Amen!!
AnneR , December 3, 2019 at 07:33
Jeff – So true. I would only add that what Americans decry in other (usually, you
know, those "lesser" countries of Africa, Asia and MENA) as rank corruption and blatant
bribery is so well-established, deeply rooted, and by all appearances legalized in this
country, particularly in DC that for the general population, whose voices, needs and
desperation go totally unheeded (no money to sway Congressional minds), the lobbying, the
really existing political meddling by such countries as Israel (Occupied Palestine) and, I
would also add, the UK, is normal. And not the bribery, conniving, interference and
corruption that it really, truly is.
As for the well-educated bourgeoisie – they have, largely, benefited from the
results of that bribery and corruption. Until the Strumpet pipped Killary to the post. (Not
that they've not continued enjoy their self-presumed merited lifestyles even under him.)
And it is abundantly clear that repeating the lies (even, especially when they are known
to be lies by those controlling and disseminating the stories), obfuscating the truth by
avoidance of those topics that the ruling elites want to remain unnoticed, has not only
increased in the MSM but also continues to be believed by large swathes of the bourgeoisie
who consider themselves to be "progressive," "left-wing," and who are juggling which Demrat
candidate to vote for while ignoring what some candidates, at least, have voted *for* in
Congress.
"This was a debate over policy. Trump's critics may not have liked the policy he was
pushing. But as former Defense Intelligence Agency official Pat Lang noted on his blog last
week,
the statute in question applies only to "intelligence activities" but "does not include
differences of opinions concerning public policy matters."
That's what this fight is about, said Lang . Speaker after speaker at the hearings asserted
that Trump's views did not comport with official national policy. But the president sets that
policy, Lang said, not the diplomats.
"They think they are the people who set national policy and the president is this figurehead
who is guided by all these people around him who agree on everything," he said. "The president
doesn't need to use the State Department at all to conduct foreign policy." ' Paul Mulshine
-------------
Actually, I was too minimal in speaking of "diplomats." Vindman is not a diplomat and there
are many other actors in this drama of Borgist angst (foreign policy establishment ) who are
not diplomats.
For one thing a large percentage of the Drones at the State Department are civil service
employees rather than Foreign Service Officers, and although they do not play well together
they agree on the ultimate authority of the Supremacy Clause (non-existent) in the US
Constitution that gives the State Department dominion over all the Lord created. A career
ambassador's wife once lectured me that the US Army should change the cap badge that officers
wear because it looks too much like the Great Seal of the United States which in the State
Department can only be displayed by Ambassadors. I told her that she should petition the
Secretary of the Army in this matter.
Various departments of government, media, academia, thinktankeries, etc., all have heavy
infestations of folks who went to graduate school together in poly sci in all its branches, or
who wish to be thought worthy of such attendance. They specialize in group think, conformity,
and conformism, even to the solemn dress they affect. The four in hand tie knot is pretty much
mandatory for serious consideration for inclusion in the Borg. It indicates a certain preppy
insouciance and faux disregard for details of dress.
Trump's casual disregard for all that enrages the Borg who thought they had "won it all"
long ago and that they would have a Borgist neocon to deal with in Hillary.
Hillary's Foundation has lost millions recently, which has Hillary pursing her lips like
she's been using a lemon for her lipstick. I mean, worse than fish-lips, Hillary's pursing
expression.
Too bad that we can't form some cement shoes for the Borg and toss them into the east
river AKA the Atlantic, or send them back to hell from where they originated!
OT:
This afternoon my wife and I turned on the TV to watch football. We were flipping through
channels and came upon some local ABC affiliate (WMUR) which had on a documentary which
mentioned the Medal of Honor and a Catholic chaplain in Vietnam. Needless to say we stayed on
that channel. Long story short, it was one of the most powerful things we've ever watched. We
were both in tears by the end (nb: I don't cry easily) and we were changed from having
watched it. We immediately went online to purchase copies for family members. It was recently
released.
As the Borg like to say "We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our
own." They have done this with the four in hand tie knot which was previously worn by giants
like George Kennon and Chip Bohlen. Yet now, the midgetry prevails.
Colonel...This is another Reason why I appreciate your levels of Experience and knowledge
with SST..Thank you for doing that...I always come away with New Insight..and Understanding
of Real Dynamics..what has Progressively Developed inside the State.Department.with its
Influence On so Much POLICY...and .is as You say...The BORG..and Their Own Culture.your
Article put that all into a Big Picture for Me..(Connecting the Data..) .It.as you aptly
Described. is a Universal.Sect..and...At The National Level...They are Cyber Borgs..Shciff
Shapers..and that Whole Colony has Been Exposed.,,, Bad Products and All....
Fiona Hill appears to be part of the Borg, not really sure which part she's affiliated.
Some have called her a 'sleeper agent', but a sleeper for whom? British Intelligence agent of
influence? Or an Israeli agent of influence, or maybe a Daniel Pipes trained NEOCON agent of
influence? Any way one spins it, Fiona Hill has been undermining POTUS Trump while she was
part of his NSC and his advisory team. Why her intense hatred of Putin? Does he happen to
know through his nation's intelligence exactly who she is and whom she may be working on
behalf of? The Skripal incident showed just how much that the British Government and Crown
hate Russia. But why the intense British hatred of Russia, why?
Questions, so many questions regarding Ms. Hill and who she really works for.
"... Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed. https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 … ..."
"... So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17? ..."
"'Our Democracy Is at Stake.' Pelosi Orders Democrats to Draft Articles of Impeachment
Against Trump" [ Time ]. With autoplay video.
""The President abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of
our national security by withholding military aid and a crucial Oval Office meeting in
exchange for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival." • So now when
a President doesn't allow The Blob to dictate Ukraine policy it's an impeachable offense?
Really? Yasha Levine quotes Democrat impeachment witness Karlan (see below) but the point is
the same:
Yasha Levine ✔ @yashalevine
Thanks again for making explicit what I have long known: To America, Ukraine is nothing but a weapon
against Russia. The whole point of support for Ukraine is to make Russia bleed—doesn’t matter how many people die or
suffer in the process or how much of Ukraine is destroyed.
https://twitter.com/BBuchman_CNS/status/1202267180219478024 …
So fomenting on a war on Russia's border is, it appears, self-evidently aids our
national security. What's next? A war scare? Ramping up MH17?
"Read opening statements from witnesses at the House Judiciary hearing" [
Politico ]. "Democrats' impeachment witnesses at Wednesday's judiciary committee hearing
plan to say in their prepared remarks that President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine were
the worst examples of misconduct in presidential history." • So again, it's all about
Ukraine. I feel like I've entered an alternate dimension. Aaron Maté comments:
My very subjective impression: I've skimmed three, and read Turley. Karlan, in particular,
is simply not a serious effort. Turley may be wrong -- a ton of tribal dunking on Twitter --
but at least he's making a serious effort. I'm gonna have to wait to see if somebody, say at
Lawfare, does a serious effort on Turley. Everything I've read hitherto is and posturing and
preaching to the choir. (Sad that Larry Tribe has so completely discredited himself, but that's
where we are.)
Lambert, while Trump was unable to complete his attempt to extort the President of
Ukraine, as someone who practiced the criminal law for 34 years, let me be the first to clue
you in to the concept in the criminal law of the inchoate offense . This is
criminal law, not contract law.
An inchoate offense includes an attempt, a conspiracy, and the solicitation of a crime.
All focus on the state of mind of the perpetrator, and none require that the offense be
completed -- only that a person or persons having the required criminal intent took material
steps toward completing the crime. Such a person becomes a principal in the contemplated
crime, and in the eyes of the law is just as guilty as if he or she had completed the
attempted offense.
(The details of Trump's offense differ from what David in Santa Cruz said they would be.)
"Inchoate" appears only in Turley's piece, indicating, to me, that his was the only serious
effort.
Republicans are afraid to raise this key question. Democrats are afraid of even mentioning CrowdStrike in Ukrainegate hearings.
The Deep State wants to suppress this matter entirely.
Alperovisch connections to Ukraine and his Russophobia are well known. Did Alperovich people played the role of "Fancy Bear"? Or
Ukrainian SBU was engaged? George Eliason clams that
"I have already clearly shown the Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian Intelligence Operators." ... "Since there is so much crap surrounding
the supposed hack such as law enforcement teams never examining the DNC server or maintaining control of it as evidence, could the hacks
have been a cover-up?"
Notable quotes:
"... So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility. ..."
"... What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation. ..."
"... On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/ .) ..."
"... And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net ) ..."
"... The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed? ..."
"... Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers. ..."
"... What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian conclusion. ..."
"... Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link ..."
"... Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth ..."
"... Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike. ..."
"... In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives. ..."
"... His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services, is very suspicious indeed. ..."
"... Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time. ..."
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI investigation, was tied very closely to
the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake malware" troubles? Beyond, that
I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware breach at all, simply an insider copying
files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to give 'resilience' to their cover-up
strategies, they could have organised a planting of evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an actual 'false flag' hack. A possible
calculation would have been that this could have made it easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious
questions about the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear
contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the
remarks by Ms. Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of Rich's laptop, designed as part of
a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against
the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant 'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48. Both are short,
and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining
the truth about 'Russiagate.' (See
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6775665/clevenger-v-us-department-of-justice/
.)
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced
as a contingency plan to ensure that if it becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original
form, his laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard drives' can be changed, and that the
level of computer skills that can be found throughout the former Soviet Union is very high. Another matter of some importance
is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims' site is back up online. (See
http://debunkingrodwheelersclaims.net )
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think that, while it is very helpful to
have some key material available in a single place, it would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate transcript was made of the conversation with
Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly recorded. What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions,
and that the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the former. That said, the fact that
Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not
justify the conclusion that he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh
talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given accurate information. Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes
were not hopelessly blinded by prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that, in
this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time to time, fall for disinformation.
(If anyone says they can always spot when they are being played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but
it is more likely that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or a deliberate attempt to disguise
the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak
before he was identified as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show it was an internal download. What
was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the "Russian" conclusion instead. Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to
help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Mueller team that conspired to reach this Russian
conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's evidentiary demand to ascertain how
exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian
link .
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -- Crowsdtrike player links and loyalties to see if there are
any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question
when you don't already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth .
Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or independent investigation and prominently
put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted
to help Trump and harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and unavailable computers.
Alperovich is really a very suspicious figure. Rumors are that he was involved in compromising PGP while in MacAfee( June 2nd,
2018 Alperovich's DNC Cover Stories Soon To Match With His Hacking Teams - YouTube ):
Investigative Journalist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the CEO Bill Larsen bought a small,
Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate to reduce NSA spying on the
public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order
to crack encrypted communications to write a back door for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named Dmitri Alperovich who would
go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry platform to provide encrypted
communications for covert action operatives.
His role in what we may define as "converting DNC leak into DNC hack" (I would agree with you that this probably was a
false flag operation), which was supposedly designed to implicated Russians, and possibly involved Ukrainian security services,
is very suspicious indeed.
Mueller treatment of Crowdstrike with "kid gloves" may suggest that Alperovich actions were part of a larger scheme. After
all Crowdstike was a FBI contactor at the time.
While all this DNC hack saga is completely unclear due to lack of facts and the access to the evidence, there are some stories
on Internet that indirectly somewhat strengthen your hypothesis:
"... Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that here . ..."
"... Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails here . ..."
"... Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations here . ..."
"... Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the embassy's statement here and here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary Clinton winning." You can read her testimony here . ..."
"... Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality. ..."
"... Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars, including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter here . Kent testified he signed the letter here . ..."
"... Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I accurately quoted him by watching the video here . ..."
"... Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
"... Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting here . ..."
honor and applaud Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman's service to his country. He's a hero. I also respect his decision to testify
at the impeachment proceedings. I suspect neither his service nor his testimony was easy.
But I also know the liberties that Lt. Col. Vindman fought on the battlefield to preserve permit for a free and honest debate
in America, one that can't be muted by the color of uniform or the crushing power of the state.
So I want to exercise my right to debate Lt. Col. Vindman about the testimony he gave about me. You see, under oath to Congress,
he asserted all the factual elements in my columns at The Hill about Ukraine were false, except maybe my grammar
"I think all the key elements were false," Vindman testified.
Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y, pressed him about what he meant. "Just so I understand what you mean when you say key elements, are you
referring to everything John Solomon stated or just some of it?"
"All the elements that I just laid out for you. The criticisms of corruption were false . Were there more items in there, frankly,
congressman? I don't recall. I haven't looked at the article in quite some time, but you know, his grammar might have been right."
Such testimony has been injurious to my reputation, one earned during 30 years of impactful reporting for news organizations that
included The Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Daily Beast/Newsweek.
And so Lt. Col. Vindman, here are the 28 primary factual elements in my Ukraine columns, complete with attribution and links to
sourcing. Please tell me which, if any, was factually wrong.
Fact 1 : Hunter Biden was hired in May 2014 by Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas company, at a time when his father
Joe Biden was Vice President and overseeing US-Ukraine Policy.
Here
is the announcement. Hunter Biden's hiring came just a few short weeks after Joe Biden urged Ukraine to expand natural gas production
and use Americans to help. You can read his comments to the Ukrainian prime minister
here . Hunter Biden's firm then began receiving monthly payments totaling $166,666. You can see those payments
here .
Fact 2 : Burisma was under investigation by
British authorities for corruption
and soon came under investigation by
Ukrainian authorities led by Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
Fact 3 : Vice President Joe Biden and his office were alerted by a
December 2015 New York Times article that Shokin's office was investigating Burisma and that Hunter Biden's role at the company
was undercutting his father's anticorruption efforts in Ukraine.
Fact 4 : The Biden-Burisma issue created the appearance of a conflict of interest, especially for State Department officials.
I especially refer you to State official George Kent's testimony
here . He testified he viewed
Burisma as corrupt and the Bidens as creating the perception of a conflict of interest. His concerns both caused him to contact the
vice president's office and to block a project that State's USAID agency was planning with Burisma in 2016. In addition, Ambassador
Yovanovitch testified she, too, saw the Bidens-Burisma connection as creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. You can read
her testimony
here .
Fact 5 : The Obama White House invited Shokin's prosecutorial team to Washington for meetings in January 2016 to discuss
their anticorruption investigations. You can read about that
here . Also, here is the official agenda for that meeting in
Ukraine and
English
. I call your attention to the NSC organizer of the meeting.
Fact 6 : The Ukraine investigation of Hunter Biden's employer, Burisma Holdings, escalated in February 2016 when Shokin's
office raided the home of company owner Mykola Zlochevsky and seized his property.
Here is the announcement of that court-approved
raid.
Fact 7 : Shokin was making plans in February 2016 to interview Hunter Biden as part of his investigation. You can read
his interview with me here, his sworn deposition to a court
here and his interview with
ABC News
here .
Fact 8 : Burisma's American representatives lobbied the State Department in late February 2016 to help end the corruption
allegations against the company, and specifically invoked Hunter Biden's name as a reason to intervene. You can read State officials'
account of that effort here
Fact 9 : Joe Biden boasted in a
2018 videotape
that he forced Ukraine's president to fire Shokin in March 2016 by threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid. You can view his
videotape here
.
Fact 10 : Shokin stated in interviews with me and
ABC News that he was told he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy the Burisma investigation wasn't shut down. He made that
claim anew in this sworn deposition prepared for a court in Europe. You can read that
here .
Fact 11 : The day Shokin's firing was announced in March 2016, Burisma's legal representatives sought an immediate meeting
with his temporary replacement to address the ongoing investigation. You can read the text of their emails
here .
Fact 12 : Burisma's legal representatives secured that meeting April 6, 2016 and told Ukrainian prosecutors that "false
information" had been spread to justify Shokin's firing, according to a Ukrainian government memo about the meeting. The representatives
also offered to arrange for the remaining Ukrainian prosecutors to meet with U.S State and Justice officials. You can read the Ukrainian
prosecutors' summary memo of the meeting here and here and the Burisma lawyers' invite to Washington
here .
Fact 13 : Burisma officials eventually settled the Ukraine investigations in late 2016 and early 2017, paying a multimillion
dollar fine for tax issues. You can read their lawyer's February 2017 announcement of the end of the investigations
here .
Fact 14 : In March 2019, Ukraine authorities reopened an investigation against Burisma and Zlochevsky based on new evidence
of money laundering. You can read NABU's February 2019 recommendation to re-open the case
here , the March 2019 notice of suspicion by Ukraine prosecutors
here and a
May 2019 interview
here
with a Ukrainian senior law enforcement official stating the investigation was ongoing. And
here is an announcement this week that the Zlochevsky/Burisma probe has been expanded to include allegations of theft of Ukrainian
state funds.
Fact 15 : The Ukraine embassy in Washington issued a statement in April 2019 admitting that a Democratic National Committee
contractor named Alexandra Chalupa solicited Ukrainian officials in spring 2016 for dirt on Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
in hopes of staging a congressional hearing close to the 2016 election that would damage Trump's election chances. You can read the
embassy's statement
here and
here . Your colleague, Dr. Fiona Hill, confirmed this episode, testifying "Ukraine bet on the wrong horse. They bet on Hillary
Clinton winning." You can read her testimony
here .
Fact 16 : Chalupa sent an email to top DNC officials in May 2016 acknowledging she was working on the Manafort issue. You
can read the email here .
Fact 17 : Ukraine's ambassador to Washington, Valeriy Chaly, wrote an OpEd in The Hill in August 2016 slamming GOP nominee
Donald Trump for his policies on Russia despite a Geneva Convention requirement that ambassadors not become embroiled in the internal
affairs or elections of their host countries. You can read Ambassador Chaly's OpEd
here and the Geneva Convention rules of conduct for foreign diplomats
here . And your colleagues
Ambassador Yovanovitch and Dr. Hill both confirmed this, with Dr. Hill
testifying this
week that Chaly's OpEd was "probably not the most advisable thing to do."
Fact 18 : A Ukrainian district court ruled in December 2018 that the summer 2016 release of information by Ukrainian Parliamentary
member Sergey Leschenko and NABU director Artem Sytnyk about an ongoing investigation of Manafort amounted to an improper interference
by Ukraine's government in the 2016 U.S. election. You can read the court ruling
here . Leschenko and Sytnyk deny the allegations, and have won an appeal to suspend that ruling on a jurisdictional technicality.
Fact 19 : George Soros' Open Society Foundation issued a memo in February 2016 on its strategy for Ukraine, identifying
the nonprofit Anti-Corruption Action Centre as the lead for its efforts. You can read the memo
here .
Fact 20 : The State Department and Soros' foundation jointly funded the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. You can read about
that funding here from the Centre's own funding records and George
Kent's testimony about it here
.
Fact 21 : In April 2016, US embassy charge d'affaires George Kent sent a letter to the Ukrainian prosecutor general's office
demanding that Ukrainian prosecutors stand down a series of investigations into how Ukrainian nonprofits spent U.S. aid dollars,
including the Anti-Corruption Actions Centre. You can read that letter
here . Kent testified he signed the
letter here .
Fact 22 : Then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko said in a televised interview with me that Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
during a 2016 meeting provided the lists of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups she did want to see prosecuted. You can see I
accurately quoted him by watching the video
here .
Fact 23 : Ambassador Yovanovitch and her embassy denied Lutsenko's claim, calling it a "fabrication." I reported their
reaction
here .
Fact 24 : Despite the differing accounts of what happened at the Lutsenko-Yovanovitch meeting, a senior U.S. official in
an interview arranged by the State Department stated to me in spring 2019 that US officials did pressure Lutsenko's office on several
occasions not to "prosecute, investigate or harass" certain Ukrainian activists, including Parliamentary member Leschenko, journalist
Vitali Shabunin, the Anti-Corruption Action Centre and NABU director Sytnyk. You can read that official's comments
here . In addition, George Kent confirmed this same information in his deposition
here .
Fact 25 : In May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions sent an official congressional letter to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo asking that Yovanovitch be recalled as ambassador to Ukraine. Sessions and State confirmed the official letter,
which you can read here
.
Fact 26 : In fall 2018, Ukrainian prosecutors, using a third party, hired an American lawyer (a former U.S. attorney) to
proffer information to the U.S. government about certain activities at the U.S. embassy, involving Burisma and involving the 2016
election, that they believed might have violated U.S. law. You can read their account
here . You can also confirm it independently by talking to the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan or the American lawyer representing
the Ukrainian prosecutors' interests.
Fact 27 : In May 2016, one of George Soros' top aides secured a meeting with the top Eurasia policy official in the State
Department to discuss Russian bond issues. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Fact 28 : In June 2016, Soros himself secured a telephonic meeting with Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland to
discuss Ukraine policy. You can read the State memos on that meeting
here .
Lt. Col. Vindman, if you have information that contradicts any of these 28 factual elements in my columns I ask that you make
it publicly available. Your testimony did not.
If you don't have evidence these 28 facts are wrong, I ask that you correct your testimony because any effort to call factually
accurate reporting false only misleads America and chills the free debate our Constitutional framers so cherished to protect.
Pelosi interference in elections might cost democrats a victory. She enraged Trump base and
strengthened Trump, who before was floundering. Now election changed into "us vs them" question,
which is very unfavorable to neoliberal Dems. as neolibelism as ideology is dead. She also
brought back Trump some independents who othersie would stay home or vote for Dem candidate. No
action of House of Representatives can changes this. Bringing Vindman and Fiona Hill to testify
were huge blunders as they enhance the narrative that the Deep State, unaccountable Security
Establishment, controls the government, to which Trump represents very weak, but still a
challenge. As such they strengthened Trump
Essentially Dems had driven themselves into a trap. Moreover actions of the Senate can drag
democrats in dirt till the elections, diminishing their chances further and firther. Can you
image the effect if Schiff would be called testify under oath about his contacts with Ciaramella?
Or Biden questioning about his dirty dealing with both Yanukovich administration and Provisional
Government after the 2014 coup d'état (aka EuroMaydan, aka "the Revolution of dignity"
?
Notable quotes:
"... It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over "withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one. Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed "isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to criticize a president. ..."
"... Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe, Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S. involvement overseas are reducing it. ..."
"... We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually been adding to them. ..."
Gideon Rachman tries to find
similarities between the foreign policies of Trump and Obama:
Both men would detest the thought. But, in crucial respects, the foreign policies of
Donald Trump and Barack Obama are looking strikingly similar.
The wildly different styles of the two presidents have disguised the underlying
continuities between their approaches to the world. But look at substance, rather than style,
and the similarities are impressive.
There is usually considerable continuity in U.S. foreign policy from one president to
another, but Rachman is making a stronger and somewhat different claim than that. He is arguing
that their foreign policy agendas are very much alike in ways that put both presidents at odds
with the foreign policy establishment, and he cites "disengagement from the Middle East" and a
"pivot to Asia" as two examples of these similarities. This seems superficially plausible, but
it is misleading. Despite talking a lot about disengagement, Obama and Trump chose to keep the
U.S. involved in several conflicts, and Trump actually escalated the wars he inherited from
Obama. To the extent that there is continuity between Obama and Trump, it has been that both of
them have acceded to the conventional wisdom of "the Blob" and refused to disentangle the U.S.
from Middle Eastern conflicts. Ongoing support for the war on Yemen is the ugliest and most
destructive example of this continuity.
In reality, neither Obama nor Trump "focused" on Asia, and Trump's foray into
pseudo-engagement with North Korea has little in common with Obama's would-be "pivot" or
"rebalance." U.S. participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership was a major part of Obama's
policy in Asia. Trump pulled out of that agreement and waged destructive trade wars instead.
Once we get past generalizations and look at details, the two presidents are often
diametrically opposed to one another in practice. That is what one would expect when we
remember that Trump has made dismantling Obama's foreign policy achievements one of his main
priorities.
The significant differences between the two become much more apparent when we look at other
issues. On arms control and nonproliferation, the two could not be more different. Obama
negotiated a new arms reduction treaty with New START at the start of his presidency, and he
wrapped up a major nonproliferation agreement with Iran and the other members of the P5+1 in
2015. Trump reneged on the latter and seems determined to kill the former. Obama touted the
benefits of genuine diplomatic engagement, while Trump has made a point of reversing and
undoing most of the results of Obama's engagement with Cuba and Iran. Trump's overall hostility
to genuine diplomacy makes another one of Rachman claims quite baffling:
The result is that, after his warlike "fire and fury" phase, Mr Trump is now pursuing a
diplomacy-first strategy that is strongly reminiscent of Mr Obama.
Calling Trump's clumsy pattern of making threats and ultimatums a "diplomacy-first strategy"
is a mistake. This is akin to saying that he is adhering to foreign policy restraint because
the U.S. hasn't invaded any new countries on Trump's watch. It takes something true (Trump
hasn't started a new war yet) and misrepresents it as proof that the president is serious about
diplomacy and that he wants to reduce U.S. military engagement overseas. Trump enjoys the
spectacle of meeting with foreign leaders, but he isn't interested in doing the work or taking
the risks that successful diplomacy requires. He has shown repeatedly through his own behavior,
his policy preferences, and his proposed budgets that he has no use for diplomacy or diplomats,
and instead he expects to be able to bully or flatter adversaries into submission.
So Rachman is simply wrong he reaches this conclusion:
Mr Trump's reluctance to attack Iran was significant. It underlines the fact that his
tough-guy rhetoric disguises a strong preference for diplomacy over force.
Let's recall that the near-miss of starting a war with Iran came as a result of the downing
of an unmanned drone. The fact that the U.S. was seriously considering an attack on another
country over the loss of a drone is a worrisome sign that this administration is prepared to go
to war at the drop of a hat. Calling off such an insane attack was the right thing to do, but
there should never have been an attack to call off. That episode does not show a "strong
preference for diplomacy over force." If Trump had a strong preference for diplomacy over
force, his policy would not be one of relentless hostility towards Iran. Trump does not believe
in diplomatic compromise, but expects the other side to capitulate under pressure. That
actually makes conflict more likely and reduces the chances of meaningful negotiations.
It is true that both Obama and Trump have been falsely accused of presiding over
"withdrawal" and "retreat." In Obama's case, Republican hawks made this false claim so that
they could attack a fantasy version of Obama's record instead of arguing against the real one.
Members of the foreign policy establishment have been warning about Trump's supposed
"isolationism" for four years and it still hasn't shown up. Both presidents have been
criticized in such similar ways despite conducting significantly different foreign policies
because these are the automatic, knee-jerk criticisms that pundits and analysts use to
criticize a president.
Because there is a strong bias in favor of "action" and "leadership," the only way most
of these people know how to attack a president is to say that he is "failing" to "lead" and is
guilty of "inaction." It doesn't matter if it makes sense or matches the facts. It is the safe,
Blobby way to complain about a president's foreign policy without suggesting that you think
there is something wrong with the underlying assumptions about the U.S. role in the world.
Instead of challenging the presidents on their real records, it is easier to condemn
non-existent "isolationism" and pretend that presidents that maintain or increase U.S.
involvement overseas are reducing it.
Rachman ends his column with this assertion:
In their very different ways, both Mr Obama and Mr Trump have reduced America's global
commitments -- and adjusted the US to a more modest international role.
The problem here is that there has been no meaningful reduction in America's "global
commitments." Which commitments have been reduced or eliminated? It would be helpful if someone
could be specific about this. The U.S. has more security dependents today than it did when
Trump took office. NATO has been expanded to include two new countries in just the last three
years. U.S. troops are engaged in hostilities in just as many countries as they were when Trump
was elected. There are more troops deployed to the Middle East at the end of this year than
there were at the beginning, and that is a direct consequence of Trump's bankrupt Iran
policy.
We should debate whether U.S. commitments overseas need to be reduced, but we really
have to stop pretending that the U.S. has been reducing those commitments when it has actually
been adding to them.
"... Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward Russia. The Council in turn is financed by Google Inc. ..."
"... In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma. ..."
"... Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race. ..."
"... Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. ..."
"... Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are "disputed." ..."
There are common threads that run through an organization repeatedly relied upon in the
so-called whistleblower's complaint about President Donald Trump and CrowdStrike, the outside
firm utilized to conclude that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee's servers
since the DNC would not allow the U.S. government to inspect the servers.
One of several themes is financing tied to Google, whose Google Capital led a $100 million
funding drive that financed Crowdstrike. Google Capital, which now goes by the name of
CapitalG, is an arm of Alphabet Inc., Google's parent company. Eric Schmidt, the chairman of
Alphabet, has been a staunch and active supporter of Hillary Clinton and is a longtime donor
to the Democratic Party.
CrowdStrike was mentioned by Trump in his call with Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Perkins Coie, the law firm that represented the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign,
reportedly helped draft CrowdStrike to aid with the DNC's allegedly hacked server.
On behalf of the DNC and Clinton's campaign, Perkins Coie also paid the controversial
Fusion GPS firm to produce the infamous, largely-discredited anti-Trump dossier compiled by
former British spy Christopher Steele.
CrowdStrike is a California-based cybersecurity technology company co-founded by Dmitri
Alperovitch.
Alperovitch is a nonresident senior fellow of the
Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, which takes a hawkish approach toward
Russia. The Council in turn is financed
by Google Inc.
In a perhaps unexpected development, another Atlantic Council
funder is Burisma, the natural gas company at the center of allegations regarding Joe
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Those allegations were the subject of Trump's inquiry with
Zelemsky related to Biden. The Biden allegations concern significant questions about Biden's
role in Ukraine policy under the Obama administration. This took place during a period when
Hunter Biden received $50,000 a month from Burisma.
Besides Google and Burisma funding, the Council is also financed by billionaire activist
George Soros's Open Society Foundations as well as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc. and
the U.S. State Department.
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund and an agency of the State
Department each also finance a self-described investigative journalism organization
repeatedly referenced as a source of information in the so-called whistleblower's complaint
alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign
country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the whistleblower's document and released
by the Google and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's
own claims, as Breitbart News
documented .
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S.
officials told me that Mr. Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of
other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the
Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the
"cases" mentioned in that call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The
complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request for Ukraine to investigate the Biden
corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials
told me" – it contains a footnote referencing a report by the Organized Crime and
Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on
22 July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met
with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three
more occasions. It does so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko
"also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters." Document that Trump adviser Rudi Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former
Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr.
Giuliani were trying to make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called
whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I do not know whether these associates of
Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced
above."
The OCCRP
report repeatedly referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime
and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and
business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published the full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's
presidential campaign and Russia. The dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and
the Democratic National Committee and was produced by the Fusion GPS opposition dirt
outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed
publishing similar lengthy pieces on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use
connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP
and does not reference BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia
collusion claims.
Another listed OCCRP funder is the Omidyar Network, which is the nonprofit for liberal
billionaire eBay founder Pierre Omidyar.
Together with Soros's Open Society, Omidyar also
funds the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, which hosts the International
Fact-Checking Network that partnered with Facebook to help determine whether news stories are
"disputed."
Like OCCRP, the Poynter Institute's so-called news fact-checking project is openly
funded by not only Soros' Open Society Foundations but also Google and the National
Endowment for Democracy.
CrowdStrike and DNC servers
CrowdStrike, meanwhile, was brought up by Trump in his phone call with Zelensky. According to the transcript, Trump told Zelensky, "I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike I guess you have one of
your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it."
In his extensive
report , Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller notes that his investigative team did not
"obtain or examine" the servers of the DNC in determining whether those servers were hacked
by Russia.
The DNC famously refused to allow the FBI to access its servers to verify the allegation
that Russia carried out a hack during the 2016 presidential campaign. Instead, the DNC
reached an arrangement with the FBI in which CrowdStrike conducted forensics on the server
and shared details with the FBI.
In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017, then-FBI Director
James Comey
confirmed that the FBI registered "multiple requests at different levels," to review the
DNC's hacked servers. Ultimately, the DNC and FBI came to an agreement in which a "highly
respected private company" -- a reference to CrowdStrike -- would carry out forensics on the
servers and share any information that it discovered with the FBI, Comey testified.
A senior law enforcement official stressed the importance of the FBI gaining direct access
to the servers, a request that was denied by the DNC.
"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to
servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been
mitigated," the official was quoted by the news media as saying.
"This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions
caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier," the
official continued.
... ... ...
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter.
He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "
Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio ." Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
Russians did not hack the DNC system, a Russian named Dmitri Alperovitch is the hacker
and he works for President Obama. In the last five years the Obama administration has
turned exclusively to one Russian to solve every major cyber-attack in America, whether the
attack was on the U.S. government or a corporation. Only one "super-hero cyber-warrior" seems
to "have the codes" to figure out "if" a system was hacked and by "whom."
Dmitri's company, CrowdStrike has been called in by Obama to solve mysterious attacks on
many high level government agencies and American corporations, including: German Bundestag,
Democratic National Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), the White
House, the State Department, SONY, and many others.
CrowdStrike's philosophy is: "You don't have a malware problem; you have an adversary
problem."
CrowdStrike has played a critical role in the development of America's cyber-defense policy.
Dmitri Alperovitch and George Kurtz, a former head of the FBI cyberwarfare unit founded
CrowdStrike. Shawn Henry, former executive assistant director at the FBI is now CrowdStrike's
president of services. The company is crawling with former U.S. intelligence agents.
Before Alperovitch founded CrowdStrike in 2011, he was working in Atlanta as the chief
threat officer at the antivirus software firm McAfee, owned by Intel (a DARPA company). During
that time, he "discovered" the Chinese had compromised at least seventy-one companies and
organizations, including thirteen defense contractors, three electronics firms, and the
International Olympic Committee. He was the only person to notice the biggest cyberattack in
history! Nothing suspicious about that.
Alperovitch and the DNC
After CrowdStrike was hired as an independent "vendor" by the DNC to investigate a possible
cyberattack on their system, Alperovitch sent the DNC a proprietary software package called
Falcon that monitors the networks of its clients in real time. According to Alperovitch,
Falcon "lit up," within ten seconds of being installed at the DNC. Alperovitch had his
"proof" in TEN SECONDS that Russia was in the network. This "alleged" evidence of Russian
hacking has yet to be shared with anyone.
As Donald Trump has pointed out, the FBI, the agency that should have been immediately
involved in hacking that effects "National Security," has yet to even examine the DNC system to
begin an investigation. Instead, the FBI and 16 other U.S. "intelligence" agencies simply
"agree" with Obama's most trusted "cyberwarfare" expert Dmitri Alperovitch's "TEN SECOND"
assessment that produced no evidence to support the claim.
Also remember that it is only Alperovitch and CrowdStrike that claim to have evidence
that it was Russian hackers . In fact, only two hackers were found to have been in the
system and were both identified by Alperovitch as Russian FSB (CIA) and the Russian GRU (DoD).
It is only Alperovitch who claims that he knows that it is Putin behind these two hackers.
Alperovitch failed to mention in his conclusive "TEN SECOND" assessment that Guccifer 2.0
had already hacked the DNC and made available to the public the documents he hacked –
before Alperovitch did his ten second assessment. Alperovitch reported that no other hackers
were found, ignoring the fact that Guccifer 2.0 had already hacked and released DNC documents
to the public. Alperovitch's assessment also goes directly against Julian Assange's repeated
statements that the DNC leaks did not come from the Russians.
The ridiculously fake cyber-attack assessment done by Alperovitch and CrowdStrike
naïvely flies in the face of the fact that a DNC insider admitted that he had released the
DNC documents. Julian Assange implied in an interview that the murdered Democratic
National Committee staffer, Seth Rich, was the source of a trove of damaging emails the website
posted just days before the party's convention. Seth was on his way to testify about the DNC
leaks to the FBI when he was shot dead in the street.
It is also absurd to hear Alperovitch state that the Russian FSB (equivalent to the CIA) had
been monitoring the DNC site for over a year and had done nothing. No attack, no theft, and no
harm was done to the system by this "false-flag cyber-attack" on the DNC – or at least,
Alperovitch "reported" there was an attack. The second hacker, the supposed Russian military
(GRU – like the U.S. DoD) hacker, had just entered the system two weeks before and also
had done "nothing" but observe.
It is only Alperovitch's word that reports that the Russian FSB was "looking for files on
Donald Trump."
It is only this false claim that spuriously ties Trump to the "alleged"
attack. It is also only Alperovitch who believes that this hack that was supposedly "looking
for Trump files" was an attempt to "influence" the election. No files were found about Trump by
the second hacker, as we know from Wikileaks and Guccifer 2.0's leaks. To confabulate that
"Russian's hacked the DNC to influence the elections" is the claim of one well-known Russian
spy. Then, 17 U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously confirm that Alperovitch is correct
– even though there is no evidence and no investigation was ever conducted .
How does Dmitri Alperovitch have such power? Why did Obama again and again use Alperovitch's
company, CrowdStrike, when they have miserably failed to stop further cyber-attacks on the
systems they were hired to protect? Why should anyone believe CrowdStrikes false-flag
report?
After documents from the DNC continued to leak, and Guccifer 2.0 and Wikileaks made
CrowdStrike's report look foolish, Alperovitch decided the situation was far worse than he had
reported. He single-handedly concluded that the Russians were conducting an "influence
operation" to help win the election for Trump . This false assertion had absolutely no
evidence to back it up.
On July 22, three days before the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, WikiLeaks dumped a
massive cache of emails that had been "stolen" (not hacked) from the DNC. Reporters soon found
emails suggesting that the DNC leadership had favored Hillary Clinton in her primary race
against Bernie Sanders, which led Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair, along with three
other officials, to resign.
Just days later, it was discovered that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
(DCCC) had been hacked. CrowdStrike was called in again and once again, Alperovitch immediately
"believed" that Russia was responsible. A lawyer for the DCCC gave Alperovitch permission to
confirm the leak and to name Russia as the suspected author. Two weeks later, files from the
DCCC began to appear on Guccifer 2.0's website. This time Guccifer released information about
Democratic congressional candidates who were running close races in Florida, Ohio, Illinois,
and Pennsylvania. On August 12, Guccifer went further, publishing a spreadsheet that included
the personal email addresses and phone numbers of nearly two hundred Democratic members of
Congress.
Once again, Guccifer 2.0 proved Alperovitch and CrowdStrike's claims to be grossly incorrect
about the hack originating from Russia, with Putin masterminding it all. Nancy Pelosi offered
members of Congress Alperovitch's suggestion of installing Falcon , the system that
failed to stop cyberattacks at the DNC, on all congressional laptops.
Key Point: Once Falcon was installed on the computers of members of the U.S.
Congress, CrowdStrike had even further full access into U.S. government accounts.
Alperovitch's "Unbelievable" History
Dmitri was born in 1980 in Moscow where his father, Michael, was a nuclear physicist, (so
Dmitri claims). Dmitri's father was supposedly involved at the highest levels of Russian
nuclear science. He also claims that his father taught him to write code as a child.
In 1990, his father was sent to Maryland as part of a nuclear-safety training program for
scientists. In 1994, Michael Alperovitch was granted a visa to Canada, and a year later the
family moved to Chattanooga, where Michael took a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While Dmitri Alperovitch was still in high school, he and his father started an
encryption-technology business. Dmitri studied computer science at Georgia Tech and went on to
work at an antispam software firm. It was at this time that he realized that cyber-defense was
more about psychology than it was about technology. A very odd thing to conclude.
Dmitri Alperovitch posed as a "Russian gangster" on spam discussion forums which brought his
illegal activity to the attention of the FBI – as a criminal. In 2005, Dmitri flew to
Pittsburgh to meet an FBI agent named Keith Mularski, who had been asked to lead an undercover
operation against a vast Russian credit-card-theft syndicate. Alperovitch worked closely with
Mularski's sting operation which took two years, but it ultimately brought about fifty-six
arrests. Dmitri Alperovitch then became a pawn of the FBI and CIA.
In 2010, while he was at McAfee, the head of cybersecurity at Google told Dmitri that Gmail
accounts belonging to human-rights activists in China had been breached. Google suspected the
Chinese government. Alperovitch found that the breach was unprecedented in scale; it affected
more than a dozen of McAfee's clients and involved the Chinese government. Three days after his
supposed discovery, Alperovitch was on a plane to Washington where he had been asked to vet a
paragraph in a speech by the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton.
2014, Sony called in CrowdStrike to investigate a breach of its network. Alperovitch needed
just "two hours" to identify North Korea as the adversary. Executives at Sony asked Alperovitch
to go public with the information immediately, but it took the FBI another three weeks before
it confirmed the attribution.
Alperovitch then developed a list of "usual suspects" who were well-known hackers who had
identifiable malware that they commonly used. Many people use the same malware and
Alperovitch's obsession with believing he has the only accurate list of hackers in the world is
plain idiocy exacerbated by the U.S. government's belief in his nonsense. Alperovitch even
speaks like a "nut-case" in his personal Twitters, which generally have absolutely no
references to the technology he is supposedly the best at in the entire world.
Dmitri – Front Man for His Father's Russian Espionage Mission
After taking a close look at the disinformation around Dmitri and his father, it is clear to
see that Michael Alperovitch became a CIA operative during his first visit to America.
Upon his return to Russia, he stole the best Russian encryption codes that were used to protect
the top-secret work of nuclear physics in which his father is alleged to have been a major
player. Upon surrendering the codes to the CIA when he returned to Canada, the CIA made it
possible for a Russian nuclear scientist to become an American citizen overnight and gain a
top-secret security clearance to work at the Oakridge plant, one of the most secure and
protected nuclear facilities in America . Only the CIA can transform a Russian into an
American with a top-secret clearance overnight.
We can see on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page that he went from one fantastically
top-secret job to the next without a break from the time he entered America. He seemed to be on
a career path to work in every major U.S. agency in America. In every job he was hired as the
top expert in the field and the leader of the company. All of these jobs after the first one
were in cryptology, not nuclear physics. As a matter of fact, Michael became the top expert in
America overnight and has stayed the top expert to this day.
Most of the work of cyber-security is creating secure interactions on a non-secure system
like the Internet. The cryptologist who assigns the encryption codes controls the system
from that point on .
Key Point: Cryptologists are well known for leaving a "back-door" in the base-code so
that they can always have over-riding control.
Michael Alperovitch essentially has the "codes" for all Department of Defense sites, the
Treasury, the State Department, cell-phones, satellites, and public media . There is hardly
any powerful agency or company that he has not written the "codes" for. One might ask, why do
American companies and the U.S. government use his particular codes? What are so special about
Michael's codes?
Stolen Russian Codes
In December, Obama ordered the U.S. military to conduct cyberattacks against Russia in
retaliation for the alleged DNC hacks. All of the attempts to attack Russia's military and
intelligence agencies failed miserably. Russia laughed at Obama's attempts to hack their
systems. Even the Russian companies targeted by the attacks were not harmed by Obama's
cyber-attacks. Hardly any news of these massive and embarrassing failed cyber-attacks were
reported by the Main Stream Media. The internet has been scrubbed clean of the reports that
said Russia's cyber-defenses were impenetrable due to the sophistication of their encryption
codes.
Michael Alperovitch was in possession of those impenetrable codes when he was a top
scientist in Russia. It was these very codes that he shared with the CIA on his first trip
to America . These codes got him spirited into America and "turned into" the best
cryptologist in the world. Michael is simply using the effective codes of Russia to design
his codes for the many systems he has created in America for the CIA .
KEY POINT: It is crucial to understand at this junction that the CIA is not solely working
for America . The CIA works for itself and there are three branches to the CIA – two of
which are hostile to American national interests and support globalism.
Michael and Dmitri Alperovitch work for the CIA (and international intelligence
corporations) who support globalism . They, and the globalists for whom they work, are
not friends of America or Russia. It is highly likely that the criminal activities of Dmitri,
which were supported and sponsored by the FBI, created the very hackers who he often claims are
responsible for cyberattacks. None of these supposed "attackers" have ever been found or
arrested; they simply exist in the files of CrowdStrike and are used as the "usual culprits"
when the FBI or CIA calls in Dmitri to give the one and only opinion that counts. Only Dmitri's
"suspicions" are offered as evidence and yet 17 U.S. intelligence agencies stand behind the
CrowdStrike report and Dmitri's suspicions.
Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys
Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who
works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and
distribution of digital certificates which are used to
verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital
certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central
repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a
cryptographic
technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure
public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures .
Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key
bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA's own private key, so that trust in the user
key relies on one's trust in the validity of the CIA's key. Michael Alperovitch is
considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the
market .
Michael's past is clouded in confusion and lies. Dmitri states that his father was a nuclear
physicist and that he came to America the first time in a nuclear based shared program between
America and Russia. But if we look at his current personal Linked In page, Michael claims he
has a Master Degree in Applied Mathematics from Gorky State University. From 1932 to 1956, its
name was State University of Gorky. Now it is known as Lobachevsky State University of Nizhni
Novgorod – National Research University (UNN), also known as Lobachevsky University. Does
Michael not even know the name of the University he graduated from? And when does a person with
a Master's Degree become a leading nuclear physicist who comes to "visit" America. In Michael's
Linked In page there is a long list of his skills and there is no mention of nuclear
physics.
Also on Michael Alperovitch's Linked In page we find some of his illustrious history that
paints a picture of either the most brilliant mind in computer security, encryption, and
cyberwarfare, or a CIA/FBI backed Russian spy. Imagine that out of all the people in the world
to put in charge of the encryption keys for the Department of Defense, the U.S. Treasury, U.S.
military satellites, the flow of network news, cell phone encryption, the Pathfire (media control)
Program, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the Global Information Grid, and TriCipher
Armored Credential System among many others, the government hires a Russian spy . Go
figure.
Michael Alperovitch's Linked In Page
Education:
Gorky State University, Russia, MS in Applied Mathematics
VT
IDirect -2014 – Designing security architecture for satellite communications
including cryptographic protocols, authentication.
Principal SME (Contractor)
DISA
-Defense Information Systems Agency (Manager of the Global Information Grid) – 2012-2014
– Worked on PKI and identity management projects for DISA utilizing Elliptic Curve
Cryptography. Performed application security and penetration testing.
Technical Lead (Contractor)
U.S.
Department of the Treasury – 2011 – Designed enterprise validation service
architecture for PKI certificate credentials with Single Sign On authentication.
Comtech Mobile
Datacom – 2007-2010 – Subject matter expert on latest information security
practices, including authentication, encryption and key management.
BellSouth – 2003-2006 – Designed and built server-side Jabber-based messaging
platform with Single Sign On authentication.
Principal Software Research Engineer
Pathfire – 2001-2002
– Designed and developed Digital Rights Management Server for Video on Demand and content
distribution applications. Pathfire provides digital media distribution and management
solutions to the television, media, and entertainment industries. The company offers Digital
Media Gateway, a digital IP store-and-forward platform, delivering news stories, syndicated
programming, advertising spots, and video news releases to broadcasters. It provides solutions
for content providers and broadcasters, as well as station solutions.
Obama – No Friend of America
Obama is no friend of America in the war against cyber-attacks. The very agencies and
departments being defended by Michael Alperovitch's "singular and most brilliant" ability to
write encryption codes have all been successfully attacked and compromised since Michael set up
the codes. But we shouldn't worry, because if there is a cyberattack in the Obama
administration, Michael's son Dmitri is called in to "prove" that it isn't the fault of his
father's codes. It was the "damn Russians", or even "Putin himself" who attacked American
networks.
Not one of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies is capable of figuring out a successful
cyberattack against America without Michael and Dmitri's help. Those same 17 U.S. intelligence
agencies were not able to effectively launch a successful cyberattack against Russia. It seems
like the Russian's have strong codes and America has weak codes. We can thank Michael and
Dmitri Alperovitch for that.
It is clear that there was no DNC hack beyond Guccifer 2.0. Dmitri Alperovitch is a
"frontman" for his father's encryption espionage mission.
Is it any wonder that Trump says that he has "his own people" to deliver his intelligence
to him that is outside of the infiltrated U.S. government intelligence agencies and the Obama
administration ? Isn't any wonder that citizens have to go anywhere BUT the MSM to find
real news or that the new administration has to go to independent news to get good intel?
It is hard to say anything more damnable than to again quote Dmitri on these very
issues: "If someone steals your keys to encrypt the data, it doesn't matter how secure the
algorithms are." Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of CrowdStrike
"... And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike. ..."
"... Russia was probably not one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also, government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do wholesale dumps, like, ever. ..."
"... That's what the DNC is lying about. Not that hacks happened (they undoubtedly did), but about who did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered (they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway). ..."
"... The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters: ..."
"... An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups did hack the DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities? ..."
"... And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who supposedly harmed them. level 2 ..."
"... DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the server. Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done with all this Russia shit. level 2 ..."
"... Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed. Continue this thread level 1 ..."
"... George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing Information War material as evidence for MH17: ..."
"... Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital Forensics Lab ..."
Cyberanalyst George Eliason has written some intriguing blogs recently claiming that the
"Fancy Bear" which hacked the DNC server in mid-2016 was in fact a branch of Ukrainian intelligence linked to the Atlantic
Council and Crowdstrike. I invite you to have a go at one of his recent essays:
Since I am not very computer savvy and don't know much about the world of hackers - added
to the fact that Eliason's writing is too cute and convoluted - I have difficulty navigating Eliason's thought. Nonetheless,
here is what I can make of Eliasons' claims, as supported by independent literature:
Russian hacker Konstantin Kozlovsky, in Moscow court filings, has claimed that he did the
DNC hack – and can prove it, because he left some specific code on the DNC server.
Kozlovsky states that he did so by order of Dimitry Dokuchaev (formerly of the FSB, and
currently in prison in Russia on treason charges) who works with the Russian traitor hacker group Shaltai Boltai.
According to Eliason, Shaltai Boltai works in collaboration with the Ukrainian hacker group
RUH8, a group of neo-Nazis (Privat Sektor) who are affiliated with Ukrainian intelligence.
And RUH8 is allied with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike.
Cyberexpert Jeffrey Carr has stated that RUH8 has the X-Agent malware which our
intelligence community has erroneously claimed is possessed only by Russian intelligence, and used by "Fancy Bear".
This might help explain why Adam Carter has determined that some of the malware found on
the DNC server was compiled AFTER Crowdstrike was working on the DNC server – Crowdstrike was in collusion with Fancy Bear
(RUH8).
In other words, Crowdstrike likely arranged for a
hack by Ukrainian intelligence that they could then attribute to Russia.
As far as I can tell, none of this is pertinent to how Wikileaks obtained their DNC emails,
which most likely were leaked.
How curious that our Deep State and the recent Mueller indictment have had nothing to say
about Kozlovsky's confession - whom I tend to take seriously because he offers a simple way to confirm his claim. Also
interesting that the FBI has shown no interest in looking at the DNC server to check whether Kozlovsky's code is there.
Its worth noting that Dimitri Alperovich's (Crowdstrike) hatred of Putin is
second only to Hillary's hatred for taking responsibility for her actions.
level 1
Thanks - I'll continue to follow Eliason's work. The thesis that Ukrainian
intelligence is hacking a number of targets so that Russia gets blamed for it has intuitive appeal.
level 1
and have to cringe.
Any hacks weren't related to Wikileaks, who got their info from leakers, but
that is not the same thing as no hack. Leaks and hacks aren't mutually exclusive. They actually occur together
pretty commonly.
DNC's security was utter shit. Systems with shit security and obviously
valuable info usually get hacked by multiple groups. In the case of the DNC, Hillary's email servers, etc.,
it's basically impossible they weren't hacked by dozens of intruders. A plastic bag of 100s will not sit
untouched on a NYC street corner for 4 weeks. Not. fucking. happening.
Interestingly, Russia was probably not
one of the hacking groups. The willful destruction of evidence by the DNC themselves probably points to Russia
not being one of the those groups. The DNC wouldn't destroy evidence that supported their position. Also,
government spy agencies keep info like that closely held. They might leak out tidbits, but they don't do
wholesale dumps, like, ever.
That's
what the DNC is lying about.
Not that hacks
happened
(they undoubtedly did), but about
who
did them (probably not Russian gov), and if hacks mattered
(they didn't since everything was getting leaked anyway).
The DNC/Mueller/etc are lying, but like most practiced liars they're mixing
the lies with half-truths and unrelated facts to muddy the waters:
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools
Yes, but that spoofed 'evidence' is not the direct opposite of the truth,
like I see people assuming. Bad assumption, and the establishment plays on that to make critic look bad. The
spoofed evidence is just mud.
An interesting question is, since it's basically guaranteed the DNC got
hacked, but probably not by the Russians, is, what groups
did
hack the
DNC, and why did the DNC scramble madly to hide their identities?
And while you think about that question, consider the close parallel with
the Awan case, where Dems were ostensibly the victims, but they again scrambled to cover up for the people who
supposedly harmed them.
level 2
What's hilarious about the 2 down-votes is I can't tell if their from
pro-Russiagate trolls, or from people who who can't get past binary thinking.
level 1
DNC wasn't even hacked. Emails were leaked. They didn't even examine the
server.
Any "evidence" produced is spoofable from CIA cybertools that we know about
from wikileaks. It's important to know how each new lie is a lie. But man I am just so done
with all this Russia shit.
level 2
Crowdstrike claims that malware was found on DNC server. I agree that this
has nothing to do with the Wikileaks releases. What I am wondering is whether Crowdstrike may have arranged for
the DNC to be hacked so that Russia could be blamed.
Continue this thread
level 1
George Eliason promises additional essays: *The next articles, starting with one about Fancy Bear's hot/cold ongoing
relationship with Bellingcat which destroys the JIT investigation, will showcase the following: Fancy Bear worked with Bellingcat and the Ukrainian government providing
Information War material as evidence for MH17:
Fancy Bear is an inside unit of the Atlantic Council and their Digital
Forensics Lab
Fancy Bear worked with Crowdstrike and Dimitri Alperovich Fancy Bear is
Ukrainian Intelligence
How Fancy Bear tried to sway the US election for Team Hillary
Fancy Bear worked against US Intel gathering by providing consistently
fraudulent data
Fancy Bear contributed to James Clapper's January 2017 ODNI Report on Fancy
Bear and Russian Influence. [You really can't make this shit up.]
Fancy Bear had access to US government secure servers while working as
foreign spies.*
level 1
Fancy Bear (also know as Strontium Group, or APT28) is a Ukrainian cyber espionage group. Cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike incorrectly has said
with a medium level of confidence that it is associated with the Russian military intelligence
agency GRU . CrowdStrike
founder,
Dmitri Alperovitch , has colluded with Fancy Bear. American journalist
George Eliason has written extensively on the subject.
There are a couple of caveats that need to be made when identifying the Fancy Bear hackers.
The first is the identifier used by Mueller as Russian FSB and GRU may have been true- 10 years
ago. This group was on the run trying to stay a step ahead of Russian law enforcement until
October 2016. So we have part of the Fancy bear hacking group identified as Ruskie traitors and
possibly former Russian state security. The majority of the group are Ukrainians making up
Ukraine's Cyber Warfare groups.
Eliason lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT,
the BBC , and Press-TV. His
articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews,
the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been
cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson,
SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.
Fancy Bear is Ukrainian IntelligenceShaltai Boltai
The "Fancy Bear hackers" may have been given the passwords to get into the servers at the
DNC because they were part of the Team Clinton opposition research team. It was part of their
job.
According to Politico ,
"In an interview this month, at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing
ethnic communities -- including Ukrainian-Americans -- she said that, when Trump's unlikely
presidential campaign. Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev
and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private
intelligence operatives. While her consulting work began surging in late 2015, she began
focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump's ties to Russia, as well."
[1]
The only investigative journalists, government officials, and private intelligence
operatives that work together in 2014-2015-2016 Ukraine are Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta, Ukraine
Cyber Alliance, and the Ministry of Information.
All of these hacking and information operation groups work for Andrea
Chalupa with EuroMaidanPR and Irena
Chalupa at the Atlantic Council. Both Chalupa sisters work directly with the Ukrainian
government's intelligence and propaganda arms.
Since 2014 in Ukraine, these are the only OSINT, hacking, Intel, espionage , terrorist , counter-terrorism, cyber, propaganda , and info war channels
officially recognized and directed by Ukraine's Information Ministry. Along with their American
colleagues, they populate the hit-for-hire website Myrotvorets with people who stand against
Ukraine's criminal activities.
The hackers, OSINT, Cyber, spies, terrorists, etc. call themselves volunteers to keep safe
from State level retaliation, even though a child can follow the money. As volunteers motivated
by politics and patriotism they are protected to a degree from retribution.
They don't claim State sponsorship or governance and the level of attack falls below the
threshold of military action. Special Counsel Robert Mueller had a lot of latitude for
making the attribution Russian, even though the attacks came from Ukrainian Intelligence. Based
on how the rules of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber are
written, because the few members of the coalition from Shaltai Boltai are Russian in
nationality, Fancy Bear can be attributed as a Russian entity for the purposes of retribution.
The caveat is if the attribution is proven wrong, the US will be liable for damages caused to
the State which in this case is Russia.
How large is the Fancy Bear unit? According to their propaganda section InformNapalm, they
have the ability to research and work in over 30 different languages.
This can be considered an Information Operation against the people of the United States and
of course Russia. After 2013, Shaltay Boltay was no longer physically available to work for
Russia. The Russian hackers were in Ukraine working for the Ukrainian government's Information
Ministry which is in charge of the cyber war. They were in Ukraine until October 2016 when they
were tricked to return to Moscow and promptly arrested for treason.
From all this information we know the Russian component of Team Fancy Bear is Shaltai
Boltai. We know the Ukrainian Intel component is called CyberHunta and Ukraine Cyber Alliance
which includes the hacker group RUH8. We know both groups work/ worked for Ukrainian
Intelligence. We know they are grouped with InformNapalm which is Ukraine's OSINT unit. We know
their manager is a Ukrainian named Kristina Dobrovolska. And lastly, all of the above work
directly with the Atlantic Council and Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich.
In short, the Russian-Ukrainian partnership that became Fancy Bear started in late 2013 to
very early 2014 and ended in October 2016 in what appears to be a squabble over the alleged
data from the Surkov leak.
But during 2014, 2015, and 2016 Shaltai Boltai, the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance, and CyberHunta
went to work for the DNC as opposition researchers .
The
First Time Shaltai Boltai was Handed the Keys to US Gov Servers
The setup to this happened long before the partnership with Ukrainian Intel hackers and
Russia's Shaltai Boltai was forged. The hack that gained access to US top-secret servers
happened just after the partnership was cemented after Euro-Maidan.
In August 2009 Hillary Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff at the State Department Huma Abedin
sent the passwords to her Government laptop to her Yahoo mail account. On August 16, 2010,
Abedin received an email titled "Re: Your yahoo account. We can see where this is going, can't
we?
"After Abedin sent an unspecified number of sensitive emails to her Yahoo account, half a
billion Yahoo accounts were hacked by Russian cybersecurity expert and Russian intelligence
agent, Igor Sushchin, in 2014. The hack, one of the largest in history, allowed Sushchin's
associates to access email accounts into 2015 and 2016."
Igor Sushchin was part of the Shaltai Boltai hacking group that is charged with the Yahoo
hack.
The time frame has to be noted. The hack happened in 2014. Access to the email accounts
continued through 2016. The Ukrainian Intel partnership was already blossoming and Shaltai
Boltai was working from Kiev, Ukraine.
So when we look at the INFRASTRUCTURE HACKS, WHITE HOUSE HACKS, CONGRESS, start with looking
at the time frame. Ukraine had the keys already in hand in 2014.
Alexandra
Chalupa hired this particular hacking terrorist group, which Dimitry Alperovich and
Crowdstrike dubbed "Fancy Bear", in 2015 at the latest. While the Ukrainian hackers worked for
the DNC, Fancy Bear had to send in progress reports, turn in research, and communicate on the
state of the projects they were working on. Let's face it, once you're in, setting up your
Fancy Bear toolkit doesn't get any easier. This is why I said the DNC hack isn't the big crime.
It's a big con and all the parties were in on it.
Hillary Clinton exposed secrets to hacking threats by using private email instead of secured
servers. Given the information provided she was probably being monitored by our intrepid
Ruskie-Ukie union made in hell hackers. Anthony Weiner exposed himself and his wife
Huma Abedin using
Weiner's computer for top-secret State Department emails. And of course Huma Abedin exposed
herself along with her top-secret passwords at Yahoo and it looks like the hackers the DNC hired to
do opposition research hacked her.
Here's a question. Did Huma Abedin have Hillary Clinton's passwords for her private email
server? It would seem logical given her position with Clinton at the State Department and
afterward. This means that Hillary Clinton and the US government top secret servers were most
likely compromised by Fancy Bear before the DNC and Team Clinton hired them by using legitimate
passwords.
Dobrovolska
Hillary Clinton retained State Dept. top secret clearance passwords for 6 of her former
staff from 2013 through prepping for the 2016 election. [2][3] Alexandra Chalupa was
running a research department that is rich in (foreign) Ukrainian Intelligence operatives,
hackers, terrorists, and a couple Ruskie traitors.
Kristina Dobrovolska was acting as a handler and translator for the US State Department in
2016. She is the Fancy Bear *opposition researcher handler manager. Kristina goes to Washington
to meet with Chalupa.
Alexandra types in her password to show Dobrovolska something she found and her eager to
please Ukrainian apprentice finds the keystrokes are seared into her memory. She tells the
Fancy Bear crew about it and they immediately get to work looking for Trump material on the US
secret servers with legitimate access. I mean, what else could they do with this? Turn over
sensitive information to the ever corrupt Ukrainian government?
According to the Politico article, Alexandra Chalupa was meeting with the Ukrainian embassy
in June of 2016 to discuss getting more help sticking it to candidate Trump. At the same time
she was meeting, the embassy had a reception that highlighted female Ukrainian leaders.
Four Verkhovna Rada [parlaiment] deputies there for the event included: Viktoriia Y.
Ptashnyk, Anna A. Romanova, Alyona I. Shkrum, and Taras T. Pastukh. [4]
According to CNN ,
[5] DNC sources said Chalupa
told DNC operatives the Ukrainian government would be willing to deliver damaging information
against Trump's campaign. Later, Chalupa would lead the charge to try to unseat president-elect
Trump starting on Nov 10, 2016.
Accompanying them Kristina Dobrovolska who was a U.S. Embassy-assigned government liaison
and translator who escorted the delegates from Kyiv during their visits to Albany and
Washington.
Kristina Dobrovolska is the handler manager working with Ukraine's DNC Fancy Bear Hackers.
[6] She took the Rada
[parliament] members to dinner to meet Joel Harding who designed Ukraine's infamous Information
Policy which opened up their kill-for-hire-website Myrotvorets. Then she took them to meet the
Ukrainian Diaspora leader doing the hiring. Nestor Paslawsky is the surviving nephew to the
infamous torturer The WWII OUNb leader, Mykola Lebed.
Fancy Bear's Second Chance at Top
Secret Passwords From Team Clinton
One very successful method of hacking is called
social engineering . You gain access to the office space and any related properties and
physically locate the passwords or clues to get you into the hardware you want to hack. This
includes something as simple as looking over the shoulder of the person typing in
passwords.
The Fancy Bear hackers were hired by Alexandra Chalupa to work for DNC opposition research.
On different occasions, Fancy Bear handler Kristina Dobrovolska traveled to the US to meet the
Diaspora leaders, her boss Alexandra Chalupa, Irena Chalupa, Andrea Chalupa, US Dept of State
personnel, and most likely Crowdstrike's Dimitry Alperovich. Alperovich was working with the
hackers in 2015-16. In 2016, the only groups known to have Fancy Bear's signature tools called
X-tunnel and X-Agent were Alperovich, Crowdstrike, and Fancy Bear (Shaltai Boltai, CyberHunta,
Ukraine Cyber Alliance, and RUH8/RUX8. Yes, that does explain a few things.
Alleged DNC
hack
There were multiple DNC hacks. There is also clear proof supporting the download to a USB
stick and subsequent information exchange (leak) to Wikileaks . All are separate events.
The group I previously identified as Fancy Bear was given access to request password
privileges at the DNC. And it looks like the DNC provided them with it.
the Podesta email hack looks like a revenge hack.
The reason Republican opposition research files were stolen can be put into context now
because we know who the hackers are and what motivates them.
At the same time this story developed, it overshadowed the Hillary Clinton email scandal. It
is a matter of public record that Team Clinton provided the DNC hackers with passwords to
State Department
servers on at least 2 occasions, one wittingly and one not. Fancy Bear hackers are Ukrainian
Intelligence Operators.
If the leak came through Seth Rich , it may have been because he saw
foreign Intel operatives given this access from the presumed winners of the 2016 US presidential
election . The leaker may
have been trying to do something about it. I'm curious what information Wikileaks might
have.
Alperovitch and Fancy Bear
George Eliason, Washingtonsblog: Why Crowdstrike's Russian Hacking Story Fell
Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear. investigated. [7]
In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing
the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing
substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security
firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on
par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an "as is"
statement showing this.
The difference bet enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of
specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors
that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an
out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the
Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when
it is their business to know?
The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words
like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri
Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking
America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of
Russian involvement?
information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or
unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be
free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90's
that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with
McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch's discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John
McAfee had this to say. "Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that
Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta's
emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, "if it looks like
the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians."
How does Crowdstrike's story part with reality? First is the admission that it is
probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. "Intelligence agencies do not have
specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin 'directing' the identified
individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks." The public evidence never goes
beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike
insists that it's Russia behind both Clinton's and the Ukrainian losses.
NBC carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant
for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this."The company, Crowdstrike, was hired
by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian
intelligence. One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry , a former senior FBI
official who consults for NBC News.
In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian
intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers
call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia's CIA, known as the FSB. The other,
known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called
the GRU." The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above "believed to
be." According to the December 12th Intercept article "Most importantly, the Post
adds that "intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in
the Kremlin 'directing' the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to
WikiLeaks."
The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that
Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren't on it, the former
Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine
would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this
wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary
Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in
Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing
intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If
it's done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be
investigated? If unwinding the story from the "targeting of Ukrainian volunteers" side
isn't enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia
influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who's involved? Does this pose
conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let's face it, a
hacking story isn't complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason
are exposed.
According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page "After
Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a
meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns
within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. "That's when we knew it was the
Russians," said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal
probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, "we told her
to stop her research."" July 25, 2016
If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her
sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news.
The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by
Russian actors based on the work done byAlexandra Chalupa? That is the
conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the
Russian government connection.
How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he
should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a
presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has
vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of
his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the
measures taken were directly because of his work.
Alperovitch's relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian
propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When
it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to
influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard
to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the
Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, "Other
statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in
Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for" What is
OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed
in the 1930's by Stepan Bandera . When these
people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating
both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed.[8] There is no
getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an
authoritarian
fascism .
Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly , [9]
"The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms.
Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko
and others." The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the
Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine's chubby nazi,
Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan
and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The "Sniper Massacre" on the
Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed
evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the
"heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas
is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached
to it because it ended in a coup.
Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa
described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine's important "dreamers." He is a young
activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn't say
is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh's spokesman just after
Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy
Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He
became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni
Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet
Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found
out.
At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense
of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh's spokesman and can be seen
either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to
reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an
appointment with Yurash.
Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash's Euromaidan Press which is associated with
Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice
is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the
Atlantic Council's Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent
at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than
twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council,
where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor
for Ukraine's propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
According to Robert Parry's article [10] At the forefront
of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and
especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council . Their main
goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central
and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia.
Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was "Are you
willing to go to war with Russia?" Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support
throughout the campaign.
What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the
Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship
status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite
conflict of interest for Crowdstrike's investigation. Trump's campaign was gaining ground
and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or
Homeland Security?
When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that
could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked
heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it
opens up criminal conspiracy.
If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants
a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic
Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of
his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri
Alperovitch's case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a
crime.
Alperovitch's relationship with Andrea Chalupa's efforts and Ukrainian intelligence
groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and
Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch's twitter relationships, you have to ask why the
CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and
its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for
the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine's Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be
investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is
also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely
resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
Crowdstrike's product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon
Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service
Crowdstrike offers?
In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA.
[11] They consider the
CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance
is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity,
Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the
Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency."
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he
writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This
image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker
network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The
network communication goes through a secondary source. Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for
Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence.
The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates
journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could
be on the list.
Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of
Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his
"Peacemaker" site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the
past.
Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine's Information Ministry (UA
Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the
Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single
tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information
Minister's following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and
Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch's story was received and not retweeted or
shared. If this was just Alperovitch's victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be
shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it
to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through
the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded
and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and
with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article,
one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh's Pravy Sektor
members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor
admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let's
understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very
powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of
the USA I don't know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don't think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp
movements in international politics."
What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it
out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored,
Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack
they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are
also laughing at US intel efforts.
The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting
a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt
Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by
Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
According to the Esquire interview "Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought
the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of
the personal in his battle cry. "A lot of people who are born here don't appreciate
the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they've never had it any
other way," he told me. "I have."
While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism
is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine's interests and delivering
a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he's a patriot. He isn't
serving US interests. He's definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to
Ukraine.
The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for
conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these
hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in
international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment
of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of
rumor.
Obama, Brazile, Comey, and CrowdStrike
According to Obama the
hacks continued until September 2016. According to ABC, Donna Brazile says the hacks didn't stop
until after the elections in 2016. According to Crowdstrike the hacks continued into
November.
Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile said Russian hackers persisted in trying
to break into the organization's computers "daily, hourly" until after the election --
contradicting President Obama's assertion that the hacking stopped in September after he warned
Russian President Vladimir Putin to "cut it out."-ABC
This time frame gives a lot of latitude to both hacks and leaks happening on that server and
still agrees with the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPs). According to
Bill
Binney , the former Technical Director for the NSA, the only way that data could move off
the server that fast was through a download to a USB stick. The transfer rate of the file does
not agree with a Guciffer 2.0 hack and the information surrounding Guciffer 2.0 is looking
ridiculous and impossible at best.
The DNC fiasco isn't that important of a crime. The reason I say this is the FBI would have
taken control over material evidence right away. No law enforcement agency or Intel agency ever
did. This means none of them considered it a crime Comey should have any part of investigating.
That by itself presents the one question mark which destroys any hope Mueller has proving law
enforcement maintained a chain of custody for any evidence he introduces.
It also says the US government under Barrack Obama and the victimized DNC saw this as a
purely political event. They didn't want this prosecuted or they didn't think it was
prosecutable.
Once proven it shows a degree of criminality that makes treason almost too light a charge in
federal court. Rest assured this isn't a partisan accusation. Team Clinton and the DNC gets the
spotlight but there are Republicans involved.
Investigative Jouralist George Webb worked at MacAfee and Network Solutions in 2000 when the
CEO Bill Larsen bought a small, Moscow based, hacking and virus writing company to move to
Silicon Valley.
MacAfee also purchased PGP, an open source encryption software developed by privacy advocate
to reduce NSA spying on the public.
The two simultaneous purchase of PGP and the Moscow hacking team by Metwork Solutions was
sponsored by the CIA and FBI in order to crack encrypted communications to write a back door
for law enforcement.
Among the 12 engineers assigned to writing a PGP backdoor was the son of a KGB officer named
Dmitri Alperovich who would go on to be the CTO at a company involved in the DNC Hacking
scandal - Crowdstrike.
In addition to writing a back door for PGP, Alperovich also ported PGP to the blackberry
platform to provide encrypted communications for covert action operatives.
Our leaders like to say we value human rights around the world, but what they really manifest
is greed. It all makes sense in a Gekko- or Machiavellian kind of way.
Highly recommended !
Notable quotes:
"... Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise) path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional" belief system, what is? ..."
"... A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for America's vast military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety, especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today, it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right. ..."
"... If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything, it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium. Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life. ..."
"... I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama administration too. ..."
"... Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it. ..."
"... they are not only lobbyists for MIC, but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of militarism. ..."
"... Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower. ..."
"... The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive resources. ..."
"... Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.) ..."
"... The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus, the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world. Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep! ..."
By William Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor. His
personal blog is Bracing Views .
Originally published at TomDispatch
Ever since 2007, when I first started writing for TomDispatch , I've been arguing
against America's forever wars, whether in Afghanistan , Iraq , or elsewhere . Unfortunately, it's no surprise that,
despite my more than 60 articles, American blood is still being spilled in war after war across the Greater Middle
East and Africa, even as foreign peoples pay a far higher price in lives lost and cities
ruined . And I keep asking myself: Why, in this century, is the distinctive feature of
America's wars that they never end? Why do our leaders persist in such repetitive folly and the
seemingly eternal disasters that go with it?
Sadly, there isn't just one obvious reason for this generational debacle. If there were, we
could focus on it, tackle it, and perhaps even fix it. But no such luck.
So why do America's disastrous wars
persist ? I can think of many reasons , some obvious and easy to
understand, like the endless pursuit of profit through weapons sales for those very wars, and some more
subtle but no less significant, like a deep-seated conviction in Washington that a willingness
to wage war is a sign of national toughness and seriousness. Before I go on, though, here's
another distinctive aspect of our forever-war moment: Have you noticed that peace is no longer even a topic in America
today? The very word, once at least part of the rhetoric of Washington politicians, has
essentially dropped out of use entirely. Consider the current crop of Democratic candidates for
president. One, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, wants to end regime-change wars, but is otherwise
a self-professed hawk on the
subject of the war on terror. Another, Senator Bernie Sanders, vows to end " endless
wars " but is careful to express strong support for Israel and the ultra-expensive
F-35 fighter jet.
The other dozen or so tend to make vague sounds about cutting defense spending or gradually
withdrawing U.S. troops from various wars, but none of them even consider openly speaking
of peace . And the Republicans? While President Trump may talk of ending wars, since his
inauguration he's sent more
troops to Afghanistan and into the Middle East, while greatly expanding drone and other
air strikes ,
something about which he openly
boasts .
War, in other words, is our new normal, America's default position on global affairs, and
peace, some ancient, long-faded dream. And when your default position is war, whether against
the Taliban, ISIS, "terror" more generally, or possibly even Iran or Russia
or
China , is it any surprise that war is what you get? When you garrison the world with an
unprecedented 800 or so
military bases , when you configure your armed forces for what's called power projection,
when you divide the globe -- the total planet -- into areas of dominance (with acronyms
like CENTCOM, AFRICOM, and SOUTHCOM) commanded by four-star generals and admirals, when you
spend more on your military than the next
seven countries combined, when you insist on modernizing a
nuclear arsenal (to the tune of perhaps $1.7 trillion ) already
quite capable of ending all life on this and several other planets, what can you expect but a
reality of endless war?
Think of this as the new American exceptionalism. In Washington, war is now the
predictable (and even desirable) way of life, while peace is the unpredictable (and unwise)
path to follow. In this context, the U.S. must continue to be the most powerful nation in the
world by a country mile in all death-dealing realms and its wars must be fought, generation
after generation, even when victory is never in sight. And if that isn't an "exceptional"
belief system, what is?
If we're ever to put an end to our country's endless twenty-first-century wars, that mindset
will have to be changed. But to do that, we would first have to recognize and confront war's
many uses in American
life and culture.
War, Its Uses (and Abuses)
A partial list of war's many uses might go something like this: war is profitable , most notably for
America's vast
military-industrial complex ; war is sold as being necessary for America's safety,
especially to prevent terrorist attacks; and for many Americans, war is seen as a measure of
national fitness and worthiness, a reminder that "freedom isn't free." In our politics today,
it's far better to be seen as strong and wrong than meek and right.
As the title of a book by former war reporter Chris Hedges so aptly put it , war is
a force that gives us meaning. And let's face it, a significant part of America's meaning in
this century has involved pride in having the toughest military on the planet, even as
trillions of tax dollars went into a misguided attempt to maintain bragging rights to being
the world's sole superpower.
And keep in mind as well that, among other things, never-ending war
weakens democracy while strengthening authoritarian tendencies in politics and society. In
an age of
gaping inequality , using up the country's resources in such profligate and destructive
ways offers a striking exercise in consumption that profits the few at the expense of the
many.
In other words, for a select few, war pays dividends in ways that peace doesn't. In a
nutshell, or perhaps an artillery shell, war is anti-democratic, anti-progressive,
anti-intellectual, and anti-human. Yet, as we know, history makes heroes out of its
participants and celebrates mass murderers like Napoleon as "great captains."
What the United States needs today is a new strategy of containment -- not against communist
expansion, as in the Cold War, but against war itself. What's stopping us from containing war?
You might say that, in some sense, we've grown addicted to it , which is true enough, but here
are five additional reasons for war's enduring presence in American life:
The
delusional idea that Americans are, by nature, winners and that our wars are therefore
winnable: No American leader wants to be labeled a "loser." Meanwhile, such dubious
conflicts -- see: the Afghan War, now in its 18th year, with
several more years, or even generations
, to go -- continue to be treated by the military as if they were indeed winnable, even though
they visibly aren't. No president, Republican or Democrat, not even Donald J. Trump, despite
his promises that American soldiers will be coming home from such fiascos, has successfully
resisted the Pentagon's siren call for patience (and for yet more trillions of dollars) in the
cause of ultimate victory, however poorly defined, farfetched, or far-off. American
society's almost completeisolationfrom war's deadly
effects: We're not being droned (yet). Our cities are not yet lying in ruins (though
they're certainly suffering from a lack of funding, as is our most essential infrastructure , thanks in part to the
cost of those overseas wars). It's nonetheless remarkable how little attention, either in the
media or elsewhere, this country's never-ending war-making gets here. Unnecessary and
sweeping secrecy: How can you resist what you essentially don't know about? Learning its
lesson from the Vietnam War, the Pentagon now
classifies (in plain speak: covers up) the worst aspects of its disastrous wars. This isn't
because the enemy could exploit such details -- the enemy already knows! -- but because the
American people might be roused to something like anger and action by it. Principled whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning have been imprisoned or otherwise dismissed or, in the case of Edward Snowden,
pursued and indicted for sharing honest
details about the calamitous Iraq War and America's invasive and intrusive surveillance
state. In the process, a clear message of intimidation has been sent to other would-be
truth-tellers. An unrepresentative government: Long ago, of course, Congress
ceded to
the presidency most of its constitutional powers when it comes to making war. Still, despite
recent
attempts to end America's arms-dealing role in the genocidal Saudi war in Yemen (overridden
by Donald Trump's veto power), America's duly elected representatives generally don't represent
the people when it comes to this country's disastrous wars. They are, to put it bluntly,
largely captives of (and sometimes on leaving politics quite literally go
to work for) the military-industrial complex. As long as money is speech ( thank
you , Supreme Court!), the weapons makers are always likely to be able to shout louder in
Congress than you and I ever will. \America's persistent empathy gap.
Despite our size, we are a remarkably insular nation and suffer from a serious empathy gap when it comes to
understanding foreign cultures and peoples or what we're actually doing to them. Even our
globetrotting troops, when not fighting and killing foreigners in battle, often stay on vast
bases, referred to in the military as "Little Americas," complete with familiar stores, fast
food, you name it. Wherever we go, there we are, eating our big burgers, driving our big
trucks, wielding our big guns, and dropping our very big bombs. But
what those bombs do, whom they hurt or kill, whom they displace from their homes and lives,
these are things that Americans turn out to care remarkably little about.
All this puts me sadly in mind of a song popular in my youth, a time when Cat Stevens sang
of a " peace train " that was
"soundin' louder" in America. Today, that peace train's been derailed and replaced by an armed
and armored one eternally prepared for perpetual war -- and that train is indeed soundin'
louder to the great peril of us all.
War on Spaceship Earth
Here's the rub, though: even the
Pentagon knows that our most serious enemy is
climate change , not China or Russia or terror, though in the age of Donald Trump and his
administration of arsonists
its officials can't express themselves on the subject as openly as they otherwise might.
Assuming we don't annihilate ourselves with nuclear weapons first, that means our
real enemy is the endless war we're waging against Planet Earth.
The U.S. military is also a major consumer of fossil fuels and therefore a significant
driver of climate change. Meanwhile, the Pentagon, like any enormously powerful system, only
wants to grow more so, but what's welfare for the military brass isn't wellness for the
planet.
There is, unfortunately, only one Planet Earth, or Spaceship Earth, if you prefer, since
we're all traveling through our galaxy on it. Thought about a certain way, we're its
crewmembers, yet instead of cooperating effectively as its stewards, we seem determined to
fight one another. If a house divided against itself cannot stand, as Abraham Lincoln pointed
out so long ago, surely a spaceship with a disputatious and self-destructive crew is not likely
to survive, no less thrive.
In other words, in waging endless war, Americans are also, in effect, mutinying against the
planet. In the process, we are spoiling the last, best hope of earth: a concerted and pacific
effort to meet the shared challenges of a rapidly warming and changing planet.
Spaceship Earth should not be allowed to remain Warship Earth as well, not when the
existence of
significant parts of humanity is already becoming ever more precarious. Think of us as
suffering from a coolant leak, causing cabin temperatures
to rise even as food and other resources dwindle .
Under the circumstances, what's the best strategy for survival: killing each other while
ignoring the leak or banding together to fix an increasingly compromised ship?
Unfortunately, for America's leaders, the real "fixes" remain global military and resource
domination, even as those resources continue to shrink on an ever-more fragile globe. And as
we've seen recently, the resource part of that fix breeds its own madness, as in President
Trump's recently stated desire to keep U.S. troops in Syria
to steal that country's oil resources, though its wells are largely wrecked (thanks in
significant part to American bombing) and even when repaired would produce only a miniscule
percentage of the world's petroleum.
If America's wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen prove anything,
it's that every war scars our planet -- and hardens our hearts. Every war makes us less human
as well as less humane. Every war wastes resources when these are increasingly at a premium.
Every war is a distraction from higher needs and a better life.
Despite all of war's uses and abuses, its allures and temptations, it's time that we
Americans showed some self-mastery (as well as decency) by putting a stop to the mayhem. Few
enough of us experience "our" wars firsthand and that's precisely why some idealize their
purpose and idolize their practitioners. But war is a bloody, murderous mess and those
practitioners, when not killed or wounded, are marred for life because war functionally makes
everyone involved into a murderer.
We need to stop idealizing war and idolizing its so-called warriors. At stake is
nothing less than the future of humanity and the viability of life, as we know it, on Spaceship
Earth.
I think that the main reason of the current level of militarism in the USA foreign
policy is that after dissolution of the USSR neo-conservatives were allowed to capture the
State Department and foreign policy establishment. This process actually started under
Reagan. During Bush II administration those “crazies from the basement” fully
controlled the US foreign policy and paradoxically they continued to dominate in Obama
administration too.
They preach “Full Spectrum Dominance” (Wolfowitz doctrine) and are not shy to
unleash the wars to enhance the USA strategic position in particular region (color revolution
can be used instead of war, like they in 2014 did in Ukraine). Of course, being chichenhawks,
neither they nor members of their families fight in those wars.
For some reason despite his election platform Trump also populated his administration with
neoconservatives. So it might be that maintaining the USA centered global neoliberal empire
is the real reason and the leitmotiv of the USA foreign policy. that’s why it does not
change with the change of Administration: any government that does not play well with the
neoliberal empire gets in the hairlines.
Which also means that the USA foreign policy is not controlled by the elected
officials but by the “Deep State” (look at Vindman and Fiona Hill testimonies for
the proof). So this is kind of Catch 22 in which the USA have found itself. We will be
bankrupted by our neoconservative foreign establishment (which self-reproduce in each and
every administration). And we can do nothing to avoid it.
Good point. But why the rise of the neocons? Why did they prosper? I'd say because of the
military-industrial complex. Or you might say they feed each other, but the Complex came
first. And of course the Complex is a dominant part of the Deep State. How could it not be?
Add in 17 intelligence agencies, Homeland Security, the Energy Dept's nukes, and you have a
dominant DoD that swallows up more than half of federal discretionary spending each year.
I agree, but it is a little bit more complex. You need an ideology to promote the interests
of MIC. You can't just say -- let's spend more than a half of federal discretionary spending
each year..
That's where neo-conservatism comes into play. So they are not only lobbyists for MIC,
but they also serve as "ideological support", trying to manipulate public opinion in favor of
militarism.
wjastore December 2, 2019 at 12:25 PM
Yes. Ideology is vital. During the Cold War it was all about
containing/resisting/defeating the godless Communists. Once they were defeated, what then? We
heard brief talk about a "peace dividend," but then the neocons came along, selling
full-spectrum dominance and America as the sole superpower.
The neocons were truly unleashed by the 9/11 attacks, which they exploited to put
their vision in motion. The Complex was only too happy to oblige, fed as it was by massive
resources.
Think about how no one was punished for the colossal intelligence failure of 9/11.
Instead, all the intel agencies were rewarded with more money and authority via the PATRIOT
Act.
The Afghan war is an ongoing disaster, the Iraq war a huge misstep, Libya a total failure,
yet the Complex has even more Teflon than Ronald Reagan. All failures slide off of it.
greglaxer , December 2, 2019 at 4:12 PM
There is a still bigger picture to consider in all this. I don't want to open the door to
conspiracy theory–personally, I find the claim that explosives were placed inside the
World Trade Center prior to the strikes by aircraft on 9/11 risible–but it certainly
was convenient for the Regime Change Gang that the Saudi operatives were able to get away
with what they did on that day, and in preparations leading up to it.
Leaving that specific incident aside, the bigger picture is that the brains behind the
Deep State understand that global capitalism is running out of new resources (which includes
human labor) to exploit. Why is the US so concerned with Africa right now, with spies and
Special Forces operatives all over that continent? Africa is the final frontier for
development/exploitation. (The US is also deeply concerned about China's setting down
business roots there, and wants to counterbalance their activities.)
Once the great majority of folks in Africa have cellphones and subscriptions to Netflix
whither capitalism? Trump denies the severity of the climate crisis because that is part of
the ideology/theology of the GOP.
The brains in the US Ruling Class know full well that natural resources will become
ever more valuable moving forward, as weather disasters make it harder to access them. Thus,
the Neo-Cons (you thought I'd never get around to them, right?) came to the fore because they
advocate the unbridled use of brute military force to obtain what they want from the world.
Or, to use their own terminology, the US "must have the capability to project force anywhere
on the planet" at a moment's notice. President Obama was fully in agreement with that
concept. Beware the wolf masquerading as a peaceable sheep!
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
The possibility of CrowdStrike central role in creation of Russiagate might be one reason that Congressional Democrats (and
Republicans) were trying to swipe under the carpet the part of Trump conversation where he asked Zelenski to help to recover
server images CrowdStrike shipped to Ukraine.
Another question is that now it is possible that one of CrowdStrike employees or Alperovich himself played the role of Gussifer
2.0
Notable quotes:
"... There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange. ..."
"... Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions. ..."
"... the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking. ..."
"... John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump. ..."
Most of the material in this article will be familiar to regular readers of SST because I
wrote about it first. Here are the key conclusions:
The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that
Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence
officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to
WikiLeaks.
The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative,
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not
only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that
provided them.
There is strong reason to doubt Mueller's suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout
called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
Mueller's decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims
Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of
evidence on fundamental questions.
U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the
Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers
themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for
the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as "Russian dossier" compiler Christopher Steele,
also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors
squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller
ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel
to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be
revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
Mueller's report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out
the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a
private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was
sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the
collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked
hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all
facets of what became Mueller's investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial
collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment
that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate.
Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral
party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.
I encourage you to read the piece. It is well written and provides an excellent overview of
critical events in the flawed investigation.
This is just a bad show... Republicans are afraid to ask critical question. And Democrats are
afraid even to touch the issue of their alliance with CIA, as they have way to many skeletons
buried in the closet. I would like to see Obama testifying on Trump spying he ordered Brennan to
conduct, Brennan contacts with MI6 which he authorized and on his actions in Ukraine, when he
crushed a fragile constitutional order and installed right-wing junta. Nobody wants truth.
Instead, they peddled three hyper-partisan scholars in front of the House Judiciary
Committee who had an obvious emotional investment in impeaching Trump, over claims that he
abused his office by asking Ukraine to investigate credible allegations of corruption by former
Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
The lone moderate was George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley, who told House
Democrats that by attempting such an ill-founded impeachment they are the ones abusing their
power.
... ... ...
Gaetz ends by suggesting that if "wiretapping a political opponent is an impeachable
offense, I look forward to reading that Inspector General's report because maybe it's a
different president we should be impeaching.
Too bad this questioning could not go on further. She is a total A$$, to say the least.
Just an example of the elite in our "Elite" colleges. I hope the admin of Stanford is happy
with her "performance"! Good thing I wasn't smart enough to go there! Embarrassing.
"Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during
congressional impeachment hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the
Russians there and we don't have to fight them here."
Yes, you read that right. It seems in Karlan's mind, all that's stopping "the Russians" from
invading the US is the Ukrainian army, which must be kept strong to stave off the ultimate
disaster. The law professor made the baffling comment during the House Judiciary Committee
impeachment hearing on Wednesday."
The most likely outcome of a continuation of the impeachment fiasco is the reelection of
Trump
In the push for a December impeachment vote, House Democrats appear poised to make history.
It will be the shortest investigation producing the thinnest record of wrongdoing for the
narrowest impeachment in history.
This is the worst sort of self-interested partisan politics and factional bureaucratic power
grab creeping into a full-blown war. Nobody represents me in this fight, and nobody is serving
the national interest. Remove them all before they blow us all up.
Those people who want Trump out of office ASAP because of the damage he is doing to the
country and the world, should understand that the rot is too entrenched and both parties want the
things Trump is doing. So changing who is at the help of the Titanic is not going to change a
damn thing.
And now about the level of corruption of US academy or professor as a gangster: Stanford law
professor Pamela Karlan raised eyebrows online for suggesting during congressional impeachment
hearings that the US must keep Ukraine strong "so they fight the Russians there and we don't have
to fight them here."
"presumed" the aid to Ukraine was conditioned on
investigations." [snip]
"Will Chamberlain, lawyer and publisher of the conservative journal Human Events, went a
step further and argued that Schiff's report actually exonerates Trump. By noting that the
president's view of Ukraine as corrupt was based on discussions with Hungarian PM Viktor Orban,
the report actually gives evidence that Trump's actions were based on policy concerns –
which would make them perfectly in line with his authority as president, Chamberlain argued on
Twitter.
Not that any of this matters for the further course of the impeachment inquiry. The
publication of Schiff's report was a mere formality, as House Judiciary Committee chair Jerry
Nadler (D-New York) had scheduled the first of his own impeachment hearings for Wednesday."
'House Democrats begin next phase of impeachment drive', By Patrick Martin, 3 December 2019 ,
wsws.org
"The Democratic Party effort to impeach President Trump for withholding military aid to
Ukraine moves into its next stage Wednesday [today], with the first formal hearing before the
House Judiciary Committee, which is expected to draw up articles of impeachment for a vote by
the full House before the end of the month.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, in a five-page letter sent Sunday to Judiciary Committee
Chair Jerrold Nadler, denounced the hearing and said Trump would not send a legal
representative or otherwise participate.
Wednesday's hearing will review the legal and constitutional requirements for impeachment,
without any testimony on the nature of the charges being brought against Trump. Late Monday,
Nadler released the names of the four witnesses. All are law school professors, including three
called by the Democrats -- Noah Feldman of Harvard Law School, Pamela Karlan of Stanford Law
School, and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina School of Law -- and one
called by the Republicans, Jonathan Turley of the George Washington University Law School.'
[snip]
If Biden was corrupt as hell, why not to coordinate with President administration and his
personal lawyer about this matter. Biden status as a Democratic contender does not absolve him
from criminal liability under Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et seq.
("FCPA"), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and
entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining
business.
Contained within a 300-page report on the Democrats' impeachment investigation was a
startling admission; House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) had obtained
call records between Rep. Devin Nunes, Rudy Giuliani, Ukraine intermediary Lev Parnas,
and journalist John Solomon .
In response, House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) said "It
raises a lot of serious questions," before demanding to know what Schiff was up to.
" I want to know all the people Adam Schiff is spying on ," Schiff told the Washington Examiner . "Are there other members of Congress that he is spying on,
and what justification does he have? He needs to be held accountable and explain what he's
doing, going after journalists, going after members of Congress, instead of doing his job."
The records showed calls between Nunes and President Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy
Giuliani, and calls between Nunes and Lev Parnas , a Giuliani associate now under indictment
for funneling foreign money to U.S. political candidates.
Schiff said the calls raise questions about whether Nunes was involved in what Democrats
believe was a scheme to undermine Trump's political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. -
Washington Examiner
On Tuesday, Schiff said "I find it deeply concerning at a time when the president of the
United States was using the power of his office to dig up dirt on a political rival, that there
may be evidence of members of Congress complicit in that activity ."
Nunes says he doesn't recall speaking with Parnas, and that any discussions with Giuliani
would have likely revolved around the Mueller report.
"I remember talking to Rudy Giuliani, and we were actually laughing about how Mueller bombed
out," Nunes told Fox News on Tuesday. Democrats claim that the Nunes call records
reveal that he's been coordinating with the Trump administration and Giuliani to go after
former Vice President Joe Biden, who has been credibly accused of corruption in Ukraine
involving his son Hunter.
Democrats have been critical of Nunes since his tenure as the House Intelligence Committee
chairman from 2017 to 2019. During that time, Nunes made a trip to the White House to inform
Trump his transition meeting messages were intercepted by U.S. intelligence.
"I always felt that Mr. Nunes was a dividing character," Democratic Rep. Bill Pascrell of
New Jersey told the Washington Examiner . "We know of his meetings with the president,
which he had every right to do by the way. But in the peculiar position he was in, it was
obvious where he was getting his orders and how he proceeded. And I think he's going to get
what's coming to him."
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said "there are serious questions" about the calls between
Nunes and Giuliani and Parnas. He said Democrats "need to look at them and see what action
ought to be taken, if any."
Hoyer declined to say whether it would be in the form of a House ethics investigation or a
punitive House floor measure.
"I want to have input from other people before I opine on what we ought to be doing. I
will be doing that," he said. - Washington Examiner
The call record produced by House Democrats also reveal calls in late April between Lev
Parnas and journalist John Solomon, a previous columnist for The Hill who has broken
several bombshell stories regarding the Russia investigation and the Bidens.
"I'm interested in why he was doing this," said Scalise of Schiff. "And under what
authority."
The fraction of RussiaGate/UkraineGate that can be taken seriously is quite small. An
enormous amount of it is "it's ok when we do it"-level material. Difficult to sort without
presenting a range encompassing all factions.
It's possible I'm too jaded, but "reporters presents material derived from his political
faction" isn't all that exciting, since I don't belong to either of the factions engaged in
this battle. I remember the Lewinsky Matter, WMDs, and (see today's Links), being smeared by
Prop0rNot, and UkraineGate just a little too well.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a
potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as
accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a
master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show
appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are
still busying themselves atop the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It
appears the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a
vote. Nancy Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party
votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the
Intelligence Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's
no opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and
testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock, I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
One of the problems with show trials is that they usually backfire...
Notable quotes:
"... What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the whistle-blower law. ..."
"... Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant. ..."
"... The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job isn't it? ..."
"... turcopolier , 20 November 2019 at 09:46 PM ..."
"... I will try again. The law has nothing to do with non-intelligence matters and there were no intelligence matters in the phone call. ..."
"... The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn it asunder. ..."
"... If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires. ..."
"... Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it. ..."
"... The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'. ..."
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political surveillance and political targeting. ..."
"... Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse. ..."
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for
filing false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint.
Only if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal
destruction. While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint
of irony) to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump
alone has torn it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating
complaints about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect
luggage at the airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson
is the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint;
an intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information
of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very
epicenter of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
On Sunday, Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana, was on "Meet the Press"
spreading this disinformation . "I think both Russia and Ukraine interfered," he said.
Russia may have been more aggressive and sophisticated, he allowed, but "that does not exclude
the fact that President Poroshenko actively worked for Secretary Clinton."
... ... ...
Mr. Kennedy went even further a week earlier, when he suggested on "Fox News Sunday" that,
in fact, Ukraine had hacked the Democratic computer server, obtaining emails that embarrassed
Hillary Clinton's campaign. "I don't know, nor do you, nor do any of us," he
told the host, Chris Wallace. (The next day he
told CNN's Chris Cuomo: "I was wrong. It was Russia who tried to hack the computer. I've
seen no indication that Ukraine tried to do it." It is unclear what changed his mind.
Again.)
... ... ...
The day after Dr. Hill's testimony, Mr. Trump
regaled "Fox & Friends" with wild assertions that the F.B.I. never properly examined
the hacked server because it had been handed over to a shadowy Ukrainian company called
CrowdStrike.
More broadly, the dueling Ukraine narratives are fomenting division and confusion among the
American public, an enduring goal of Mr. Putin's.
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
O/T but there doesn't seem any other live thread where it can be put.
Israel is heading for a third election and is becoming politically more and more
incoherent.
Avigdor Liberman, leader of Israael's far right secular party Yisrael Beytenu has failed
in his attempts to form a government of national unity and is now denouncing the ultra
orthodox parties as "anti-semitic!"
Netanyahu continues to wobble over the void of jail.
Gantz's Blue and White party has, like Netanyahu and Liberman, failed in attempts to lead
a government of national unity.
I know there continues to be fighting in NE Syria and Yemen, and air attacks on Damascus,
riots in Iraq, Iran and Lebanon, but I suspect that a lot of M.E. leaders are using this
relative calm - due to the eclipse of Bibi - to do some serious talking.
Neo-conservatives in the US continue with his policies even if he is there no longer.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
While the Impeachment circus act was in gear, the Democrats were quietly reauthorizing The
Patriot Act in the funding resolution keeping the government afloat for another 3
months.
I am a bit puzzled with what the Democrats are doing.
In reading the Constitution, there's nothing that I can see that enumerates a specific
procedure on impeachment in the House. It also appears that there is no definition of what
High Crimes & Misdemeanors are and it would be whatever the House says it is. It appears
the House can impeach by bringing the Articles of Impeachment to the floor for a vote. Nancy
Pelosi has enough votes in her caucus to pass that with just her own party votes.
What is prompting the current process they are following? An inquiry by the Intelligence
Committee, where the majority decides which witnesses can be called and there's no
opportunity for the accused to cross-examine and provide rebuttal evidence and testimony.
They have controlled the media news cycle for most of the last few weeks. They are also
deploying and testing soundbites. Given the news from FB, Twitter and Google to limit the
ability of "political ads" to target audiences with unique adds. That's all coordinated
against Trump. The fact these hearings showed the career bureaucracy is not only out of touch
with America but contemptuous of most Americans.
The last two were prime examples. The "good immigrant" - and a woman; check a couple of
boxes for democratic party declared support groups being victimized by Trump's Tweets
(now labeled attacks, kind of like the hate speech label). Then there is wonderboy Mr.
Holmes. Do you think either know what's going on in Tupelo or Topeka, or give a damn? Mr.
Holmes was upset that two Ukrainians recently died in combat. That was last night in Detroit.
And Baltimore. And Chicago. Of course the Dynamic Duo was working to end corruption: in
Kiev.
Of course those aren't the lives that matter to the Council on Foreign Relations crowd or
those who went to that fine proletarian school: St. Andrews - in Scotland. A fine school all
middle class Americans aspire too. Yep, just regular ole American's. You are concerned about
due process and evidence faked by police? Just ask some inner city black Americans if that
happens in their neighborhood.
Once Trump RIFs 90 percent of these people they can go put their skills in corruption
fighting to good use in a country they all love. I'm sure these two fine examples of white
privelege integrity and honest governance will have no trouble getting hired in a place
like Baltimore. They hired DeRay McKesson; these well credentialed experts will have no
problems at all fixing that city. It's full of honest Americans.
Witches are devious and the nature of their witchcraft may only be apparent to the accusers.
See how at each session the Witchfinder General takes plenty of time to explain to onlookers
the nature of the witchcraft lest they mistake it for, say, a regular phone call.
Democrats reluctance to go on record impeaching a popular opposition party President is what
is driving this Democrat-led inquiry process - almost impeachment but not quite impeachment.
The intent is to wound, smear, damage, distract and distort. Typical Democrat politics of
personal destruction that we have seen in play now for three long painful years.
I live in California, so we see a lot of this 24/7/365. It has been a very effective and
intimidating tactic since now most Democrat central committee chosen candidates run u
unopposed - no one wants to face the Democrat mean machine meat grinder.
The only wild card is how tough Trump has been facing this onslaught down. He is our
favorite schmoo doll who simply cannot be knocked down. Thank you President Trump.
Winning.
blue peacock,
I am also puzzled by the Democrats - soviet style show trial like, a campaign whose
„face" now is Adam Schiff. I have asked the SST commenters, in different article, why
would DT be so viciously attacked by the very same supporters of Israel, who should be very
grateful to him for his many actions in favor of Israel. One commenter replied that DT is not
going to wage war on Iran and therefore he is not useful anymore. I disagree with that
assessment, and am still puzzled by the whole theater. Adam Schiff and his show trial is
playing in the hands of republicans, and the democrats will bitterly regret that they did not
follow once more the mantra of Nancy Pelosi - in different context - „impeachment is
off the table".
"... Billionaire investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society. ..."
Billionaire
investor/activist George Soros has a giant footprint in Ukraine. Similar to his operations in
dozens of other nations, he has, over the past couple of decades, poured tens of millions of
dollars into Ukrainian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), ostensibly to assist them in
transforming their country into a more "open" and "democratic" society.
Many of the participants in Kiev's "EuroMaidan" demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given "more than any
other donor organization" to "democratic transformation" of Ukraine.
The International Renaissance Foundation's Annual Report for 2012, the latest available,
states that, "IRF provided UAH 63 million in funding to civil society organizations -- more
than any other donor organization working in this field in Ukraine." The "UAH" reference used
above refers to the Ukraine Hryvnia, Ukraine's currency, which is worth about 0.11 $US, or 11
cents in U.S. currency. That translates into roughly $6.7 million that IRF provided to
Ukrainian groups in 2012; not a huge sum, by comparison to many other political and social
campaigns, but more than merely "significant." In the cash-starved Ukraine, Soros's dollars go
a long way toward seducing and co-opting all legitimate political opposition into the
Soros-approved "progressive" camp.
Over the period from 1990 to 2010 the International Renaissance Foundation provided more
than $100 million in support to numerous Ukrainian non-government organizations (NGOs),
community groups, academic and cultural institutions, publishing houses, etc.
The IRF website and annual reports make clear that the Soros funds are targeted at promoting
Ukrainian "partnership" with, and "integration" into, the EU. Soros has provided many millions
more through his other "philanthropic" spigots. However, Soros' influence in Ukraine extends
far beyond the traceable funding he provides to activist Ukrainian NGOs, academics and think
tanks. Equally, if not more, important is the influence he exerts on global opinion through his
massive propaganda network (including Project Syndicate and other Soros megaphones) and his
direct personal contacts with presidents, prime ministers, parliamentarians, central bankers,
media executives, and Wall Street titans.
In a February 26 column he penned for Project Syndicate that was carried by hundreds of
newspapers and websites, Soros argued that the EU and the IMF must initiate a new Marshall Plan
for Ukraine, meaning, of course, transfers of money from EU and U.S. taxpayers to the
politicians, organizations, and institutions approved by the globalist/socialist/corporatist
operatives running the EU and IMF. Perhaps the key point in Soros' essay, entitled, "Sustaining
Ukraine's Breakthrough," is this: "Ukraine will need outside assistance that only the EU can
provide: management expertise."
George Soros is all about management by "experts," i.e., central planning, the hallmark of
every socialist, fascist, or communist regime. In fact, he is one of the planet's premier
advocates of global central planning and control. Hence, he is a longtime fervent supporter of
the United Nations, the IMF/World Bank, the WTO, global population control through the WHO and
UNFPA, and virtually every other internationalist endeavor to subvert national sovereignty and
advance the building of an omnipotent world government.
His fetish with internationalism includes, especially, further enlarging and empowering the
EU, which has been the prime subject of concern in books and essays by Soros, as well as many
of his speeches and media interviews. Soros is a full-blown proponent of total political and
economic "integration" of the EU, meaning a complete annihilation of any residual independence
of the EU member states and the transfer of all substantive legislative, executive, and
judicial powers to EU politicians and administrators in Brussels.
Over the past several years Soros has been particularly emphatic in pushing for a central EU
Treasury, or European Fiscal Authority (EFA), which he
says is "the missing ingredient that is needed to make the euro a full-fledged currency
with a genuine lender of last resort." The European Central Bank (ECB), says Soros, has
insufficient powers to do what is needed, even though he admits it has illegally usurped powers
-- which he applauds.
When European Central Bank President Mario Draghi (a former Goldman Sachs vice chairman and
managing director) announced on August 1, 2012 that the ECB would "do whatever it takes to
preserve the euro as a stable currency," German Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann objected,
pointing out that the ECB's powers are limited by statute. Nevertheless, Draghi forged ahead,
promising that the ECB would make unlimited purchases of government bonds of indebted EU
members -- provided they put their countries under the control of executors from "the Troika"
-- the EU Commission, ECB and IMF. This is the same Troika that devastated the citizens of
Cyprus last year,
raiding their bank accounts to pay off the bonds that socialist politicians and Goldman
Sachs had saddled them with. But Soros, whose many "human rights" fronts extol the "rule of
law," "accountability," and "transparency," says that the lawless and unaccountable Troika does
not have enough power! It must be complemented by an EFA, says he, which should exercise power
over all fiscal matters.
The IMF's Managing Director Christine Lagarde and EU Commission President José Manuel
Barroso (a "former" Maoist Communist) have already lined up a multi-billion package for
Ukraine. However, many Ukrainians, all across the political spectrum, are leery of coming under
the Troika's control, and rightfully so. They do not want to trade the corruption and
oppression of Yanukovych's pro-Kremlin regime for another dictated by the EU and IMF. As we
pointed out recently , even the poll commissioned by the U.S. State Department found that
only 37 percent of Ukrainians favored joining the EU.
Economist Michael Roberts describes himself on his blogsite as "a Marxist economist."
Nevertheless, Roberts is on the mark in his February 27 column in stating: "The people of
Ukraine are left with Hobson's choice: either go with KGB-led crony capitalism from Russia or
go with equally corrupt pro-European 'democrats'." He is also correct in asserting that
Ukraine's foreign debt will soon double, if it takes IMF loans, and that the Ukrainian people
will burdened with crushing debt for a generation. He writes:
Ukraine could still stage a financial meltdown and a banking collapse. More likely, the new
government will be helped over the next few months with bridging loans until the IMF deal is
struck. Then the hardship for the people will really begin in earnest. Ukraine's foreign debt
is about to double as it takes on new debt from the IMF and the cost of existing dollar and
euro debt jumps as the hyrvnia is devalued. This burden will be on shoulders of Ukrainians for
a generation.
Only it could double several times over, and it could burden Ukrainians for much longer than
a generation; it could fasten them with debt bondage in perpetuity . Bosnian writer
Andrej Nikolaidis warns Ukrainians that massive debt and grinding poverty under Troika-managed
regime are to be expected. "It hardly comes as a surprise to us in former Yugoslavia,"
writes
Nikolaidis. "At the beginning of its dissolution, the Yugoslav foreign debt was
£9.5bn; today, after all the 'help' we got from the troika, it's more than £107bn."
He continues:
Bosnia today is a poor and divided country, even more so than it was back in 1992. Former
soldiers, hungry and sick, are gathering and protesting. "While we were bleeding, they were
stealing," says one Some Bosnians saw their future under the Bosnian and EU flag, others under
the Croatian and EU flag, and others still under the flag of The Great Serbia. Lots of flags,
but only one poverty for all.
But why must Ukraine formally join either the EU or the Kremlin-sponsored Customs Union? Are
those the only options? Is it not possible for Ukraine to adopt a neutral position of
independence and peaceful trade with both sides? Would not such a position be best for all
concerned? From the available polling, it seems that may be the view of a plurality, if not a
majority, of Ukrainians.
Ukraine's huge network of natural gas pipelines not only supplies much-needed
Russian-produced gas to EU countries, but also is the source of vital revenues to Russia from
that energy delivery system. The peoples of Russia, Ukraine, and the EU benefit from a stable,
peaceful, neutral Ukraine; forcing Ukrainians into choosing one or the other camp benefits no
one -- except the power-mad rulers of Russia and the EU, and their globalist confreres.
Why then, should Americans take direction from George Soros, Barack Obama, John Kerry,
Hillary Clinton, the New York Times , Washington Pos t, CNN, John McCain and
other internationalist voices who insist it is Ukraine that must "choose" but the only choice
considered acceptable and legitimate to the globalist choir is for Ukraine to join the EU?
Soros and his huge stable of "public intellectuals" at Project Syndicate have been flooding the
global media with propaganda to that purpose. As we've reported previously, Project Syndicate
is a project of George Soros' Open Society Foundation that has sprouted into a network of
nearly 500 newspapers in more than 150 countries with worldwide circulation of over 70 million
copies. According to the syndicate's web site, it is the largest syndication of independent
commentators in the world.
However, his great wealth, foundations, media presence, and network of activist NGOs
notwithstanding, George Soros' power and influence -- in Ukraine and elsewhere -- stem not so
much from these oft-cited trappings of power, but from the fact that he is a player, an
Insider, in the top rank of globalists who are pushing and shoving "global governance" upon the
entire planet. This was formally recognized in November 2010 when Soros received the
"Globalist of the Year Award" from the Canadian International Council (CIC).
Soros' real heft derives from the fact that he is a member of the globalist power elite.
First and foremost, he is a member of (and leader in and major financial supporter of) the
Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) , the premier globalist brain trust that has become the de facto
governing force within the executive branch of the U.S. government and the Federal Reserve
System, as well as Democrat and Republican parties, for most of the past century. His Soros
Fund Management is a President's Circle Corporate Member of the CFR and Soros himself served as
a director of the CFR for a decade (1995-2004). In addition, he has been a key participant in
many CFR events, including serving as presider at the CFR's 2000 conference, "Latin America:
Sustaining Economic & Political Reform," a major sendoff promoting the Free Trade Area of
the Americas (FTAA).
Further, he has been an activist participant with, and sometime funder of, important
globalist organizations such as the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, the World Policy Conference, the World Economic Forum, the International
Crisis Group, the Clinton Global Initiative, the Bilderberg Group, the U.S. State Department,
the Gorbachev Foundation, the United Nations, and The Good
Club (an exclusive billionaire club -- whose members include Bill Gates, Warren Buffett,
David Rockefeller, Ted Turner, Michael Bloomberg, and Oprah Winfrey -- with the singular
purpose of pushing global population control). Per the UN, Soros has served on a number of
boards and advisory groups promoting a global "Tobin Tax" on financial transactions, global
controls on CO 2 to stop "Climate Change," dramatically expanding the powers and
funding of the International Monetary Fund, and massive global wealth redistribution through
the UN's Millennium Development Goals.
Many of Soros' critics on both the Left and the Right ignore these facts and treat Soros as
if he is a singular earthshaking force all on his own. Focusing solely on his grant
distributions, political donations, NGO networks, etc., they greatly exaggerate his importance,
which can act as a diversion to distract liberty-minded advocates from focusing on the bigger
picture. Taken in isolation, without his tie-ins to the CFR-globalist network of power, Soros'
global impact would be, not insignificant, but marginal. It is precisely because he is one of
many super-wealthy globalists (albeit, he is far more visible and vocal than most) acting in
concert that his impact is so remarkable.
Especially noteworthy in relation to Ukraine is his key involvement in the
American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee (AUAC). The Ukrainian Weekly of December 10, 1995,
reported :
The American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee met in New York on November 17-18 [1995] and
reiterated its strong conviction that a resilient Ukraine is in the interest of European
stability and thus also American security.
Among other things, the AUAC called upon the U.S. Congress, USAID, the IMF, the World Bank,
and the EU to shower the Ukrainian government (then run by "former" Communist Leonid Kuchma).
It also encouraged the Ukrainian government to hasten "privatization" by selling "blocks of
equity to private investors."
Kuchma followed their advice and, as in the former Soviet Union,
his false "privatization" scheme transferred enormous state assets into the hands of select
Communist Party members, creating instant billionaire oligarchs, who have dominated Ukraine
ever since. Sitting on the UAUC with Soros were one-world CFR heavyweights Zbigniew Brzezinski,
Henry Kissinger, Frank Carlucci, and Richard Burt. The same one-worlders are pushing the same
agenda today, two decades later.
Oligarchs R Us
One of the billionaire oligarchs who benefitted from the Ukraine's crony privatization
program is Victor Pinchuk, with whom Soros has been very active. Soros's foundations and The
Victor Pinchuk Foundation collaborate on funding many NGOs and projects, in Ukraine and
elsewhere. And Soros is a participant in Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy (YES) conferences,
annual extravaganzas held in the Crimea at Livadia Palace, a summer retreat of Russian czars on
the Black Sea. The YES confabs feature current and former presidents, prime ministers,
potentates, financiers, corporate execs and celebrities.
Besides Soros, U.S. participants have included Bill Clinton, William Daley (Obama's White
House chief of staff), Robert Zoellick (Bush's trade representative, then president of the
World Bank), Newt Gingrich, and Condoleezza Rice, to name a few -- Democrats and Republicans,
CFR globalists all.
Pinchuk, a pal and funder of both Bill and Hillary Clinton, not only has generously
supported Bill's Clinton Global Initiative, but also has poured more than $13 million into the
Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Another close tie is Douglas E. Schoen (CFR), a
longtime Clinton operative and political consultant, whom, according to the New York
Times , Mr. Pinchuk hired as an adviser in 2000 -- and to whom the oligarch has been paying
a tidy retainer of $40,000 per month ever since.
One of the important ventures that Soros and Pinchuk are financing is the Ukrainian Crisis
Media Center (CMC), a collaboration of Ukrainian public relations corporations and journalists
that is headquartered in Kiev's Hotel Ukraine. Ostensibly, it was created to counter the
propaganda onslaught of Putin's Russian media cartel. Much of the "independent news" we receive
from Ukraine is produced by the CMC and stamped with the Pinchuk/Soros-approved brand of
propaganda. That includes cheering on or papering over the fact that the "new" government in
Kiev is simply the latest rotation of musical chairs, and it has ended with Pinchuk's fellow
oligarchs (virtually all of which are "former" communists) and their parliamentary blocs and
political parties occupying the most important chairs (as we
reported here ).
Pinchuk is a member of the Board of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and
sits on the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution, both of which Soros
has long been associated with. Another very important Soros-Pinchuk tie is their mutual
connection to the famous (or infamous, as you prefer) Rothschild banking dynasty.
In 2011, George C. Karlweis, adviser to Baron Edmond de Rothschild and his Banque Privee,
revealed that it was Rothschild who provided Soros with the startup money -- and,
undoubtedly much (illegal) insider trading intelligence -- for Soros' fabulously successful
Quantum Fund.
The full extent of Pinchuk's connections to the Rothschild's global private empire would
require a similar revelation from an insider. That could be Jean-Pierre Saltiel, who sits on
the board of Pinchuk's Yalta European Strategy, as well as the oligarch's global steel and
metallurgy conglomerate, Interpipe, Inc. He is also a longtime adviser to the Rothschilds and
the past president of Rothschild Conseil International, one of the fabled family's major bank
holding companies. Interestingly (but not so surprising), Rothschild agent Saltiel also sits on
the board of PIK Group, Russia's largest residential real estate developer, founded by Russian
oligarchs Yuri Zhukov and Kirill Pisarev (and still run by Pisarev).
Like Soros and the Rothschilds, Ukrainian oligarch Pinchuk works with and partners with a
number of Russian oligarchs. And his YES summits regularly feature Putin-allied Russian
oligarchs, as well as Putin-appointed Russian politicians and apparatchiks. Alfa Bank, Russia's
largest private bank, for example, is a YES sponsor. And Alfa Bank chairman, Mikhail Fridman, a
Putin ally and one of Russia's richest billionaires, sits on the CFR's International Advisory
Board and provided the funds to create the CFR's "Russia and Russian-American Relations
Lecture" program.
Similarly, Rinat Akhmetov, Ukraine's richest oligarch, a former
Putin-Yanukovych supporter and ally, is now a member of the new government. He is also, along
with Fridman and Soros, a YES sponsor and a business partner with Russian, EU and U.S.
Insiders. What these and dozens of other similar examples indicate is that there is much more
to all of the Sturm und Drang over the Ukraine-Russia-EU "crisis" than meets the
eye.
Soros gave a strong clue as to what the scripted outcome of the scenario would likely be.
His solution would see Russia as a "partner," and Angela Merkel (the "former" Communist from
East Germany who now runs the unified Germany) would be the broker.
"Germany should take the lead," Soros said, in his February 26 Project Syndicate column
cited above. "Chancellor Angela Merkel must reach out to President Vladimir Putin to ensure
that Russia is a partner, not an opponent, in the Ukrainian renaissance."
Instructions on the WB info says your disclosure must involve Classified Information, but not
about differences of opinions, and "please identify the agency wrongdoing".
Then you are faced with who-knows lawyer warnings by numbers/letters like "Section 2302
(a)(2)(A) of Title 5" and "threat prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B)" .
But here's their HotLine number in case you want to Ask Them any Questions:
ICIG Hotline 855-731-3260 (Intelligence Community Inspector General)
"... Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway. ..."
Folks, this "Ukraine Whistleblower" event was a
pre-planned event. As we begin to understand the general outline of how the Schiff Dossier was
assembled, we are now starting to get into the specifics. First discovered by researcher Stephen
McIntyr e, there is now evidence surfacing showing the ICIG recently created an entirely
new 'whistleblower complaint form' that specifically allowed for the filing of complaints "
heard from others ".
... ... ...
The timing here is far too coincidental. This was a set-up .
Sean Davis from the Federalist
is also hot on the trail.
Sean Davis – Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly
eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged
wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the
August submission of a
whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no
longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to
Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are
reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand
knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have
zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from
others."
The internal properties of the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form , which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24,
2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released
to the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed. (
read more )
President Trump announced Joseph Macguire as the Acting ODNI on August 8th, 2019 . (
link ) The CIA operative "whistle-blower" letter to Adam Schiff and Richard Burr was on
August 12th ( link
). Immediately following this letter, the ICIG rules and requirements for "whistle-blowers" was
modified, allowing hearsay complaints. On August 28th Adam Schiff begins tweeting about the
construct of the complaint.
As Stephen McIntyre notes : "it
appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced
a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report
allegations with no personal knowledge."
The CIA whistleblower complaint is likely the VERY FIRST complaint allowed using the new
IGIC protocol and standard. Taken in combination with the timeline of the August 12th
notification letter to Schiff and Burr and the Schiff tweet of August 28th, there's little room
for doubt this Ukraine whistleblower impeachment effort was pre-planned.
Additionally, this coordinated effort ties back-in Intelligence Community Inspector General,
Michael K Atkinson .
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on
second hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie '
hearsay '.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
... ... ...
Within a heavy
propaganda report from the New York Times there are also details about the Intelligence
Community Inspector General that show the tell-tale fingerprints of the ICIG supportive intent
(emphasis mine):
[ ] Mr. Atkinson, a Trump appointee, nevertheless concluded that the allegations appeared
to be credible and identified two layers of concern.
The first involved a possible violation of criminal law. Mr. Trump's comments to Mr.
Zelensky " could be viewed as soliciting a foreign campaign contribution in violation of the
campaign-finance laws, " Mr. Atkinson wrote , according to the Justice Department memo. (
read
more )
Does the " foreign campaign contribution " angle sound familiar? It should, because
that argument was used in the narrative around the Trump Tower meeting with the Russian
Lobbyist Natalia Veselnitskaya. More specifically, just like FARA violations the overused
"campaign contribution" narrative belongs to a specific network of characters, Lawfare.
The "Schiff Dossier", aka "whistle-blower" complaint was a constructed effort of allied
members within congress and the intelligence apparatus to renew the impeachment effort. The
intelligence team, including the ICIG, changed the whistleblower form to allow the CIA to
insert the Schiff Dossier, written by Lawfare.
And the irony is the jstreet/lawfare group along with congress are taking two weeks off for
Rosh Hashanah/Yom Kippur, day of repentance and day of atonement. What do you wanna make a
bet they're not atoning or repenting of their evil hearts.
The Bongino video (1076 IIRC) did a nice job of showing that Shiff had it before it was
formally filed Schiff references things in the complaint in a tweet prior to the complaint
being filed
"
The Duran's Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss more news
breaking in the Ukrainegate hoax, where "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella appears to have been
acting on behalf of former CIA director John Brennan as a essentially a spy within the Trump
White House.
In April of 2019, Dan Bongino's had figured out that disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok and
his lover Lisa Page, were messaging one another about developing sources to spy within the
White House talking about sending a "CI" guy, and worried about outing "Charlie."
Bongino believes that Strzok and Page were referencing Ciaramella as being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy. Bongino notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he
included a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced char -a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
October 4, 2019 by sundance The inspector
general for the Intelligence Community is Michael Atkinson . He is very sketchy. Atkinson was
previously legal counsel for the DOJ-NSD during the 'stop-Trump' tenure of John Carlin and Mary
McCord. As a result, Atkinson was a participant in the weaponizing of the DOJ-NSD via FISA
abuse, along with NSA database exploitation and tenuous FARA legal theories used to target
political opposition.
In short, Atkinson seems dirty. At the very least he hangs around dirty characters.
Today, according to Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge , ICIG
Michael Atkinson testified the anti-Trump CIA ' whistle-blower' , likely to be Michael
Barry, did not inform Atkinson that Barry and his legal team already contacted staff working
for HPSCI Chairman Adam Schiff when he submitted his complaint. More sketchy .
After he took the complaint, ICIG Michael Atkinson then changed the rules for the ICIG
office allowing a second-hand hearsay complaint to be processed. Again, sketchy .
According to New York Times reporting
earlier this week, the 'whistle-blower' (likely CIA operative Michael Barry) first tried to
push the hearsay claims to CIA management through a colleague. Fearing CIA management would not
take the gossip seriously "the officer then approached a democrat House Intelligence Committee
aide, alerting him to the accusation against Mr. Trump." Chairman Schiff never told anyone.
Buckets of sketchy .
Mr. Sketchy –
ICIG Michael Atkinson
What is occurring is becoming clear
After the 2018 mid-terms, and in preparation for the House "impeachment" strategy, House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler
hired Lawfare Group members to become committee staff.
Chairman Schiff hired former SDNY U.S. Attorney Daniel Goldman (
link ), and Chairman Nadler hired Obama Administration lawyer Norm Eisen and criminal
defense attorney Barry Berke (
link ), all are within the Lawfare network. [You probably saw Berke questioning former
Trump campaign chairman Corey Lewandowski.]
It now looks like the Lawfare network constructed the 'whistle-blower' complaint aka
a Schiff Dossier, and handed it to allied CIA operative
Michael Barry to file as a formal IC complaint. This process is almost identical to the
Fusion-GPS/Lawfare network handing the Steele Dossier to the FBI to use as the evidence for the
2016/2017 Russia conspiracy.
This series of events is exactly what former CIA Analyst Fred Fleiz said last week . Fleitz has extensive knowledge of the
whistleblower process. Fleitz said last week the Ukraine call whistleblower is likely driven by
political motives, and his sources indicate he had help from Congress members while writing
it.
Additionally, prior to the "whistleblower complaint" the Intelligence Community Inspector
General did not accept whistle-blower claims without first hand knowledge. However, the ICIG
revised the protocol to allow this specific complaint to be registered by the CIA
whistle-blower .
Now it surfaces that the ICIG Michael Atkinson didn't even review the Trump-Zelenskyy phone
call transcript before forwarding the complaint to congress [
SEE HERE ]
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson . ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay ' whistle-blower '
complaint; an intelligence whistleblower who was " blowing-the-whistle " based on second
hand information of a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie ' hearsay
'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also the
DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901) originated.
Michael K Atkinson
was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of the National
Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes Atkinson senior
legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the DOJ-NSD in 2016
when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA court
( Judge Rosemary Collyer )
about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI contractors; (2) filed the FISA
application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations as tools for political
surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
If the DOJ-NSD exploitation of the NSA database, and/or DOJ-NSD FISA abuse, and/or DOJ-NSD
FARA corruption were ever to reach sunlight, current ICIG Atkinson -as the lawyer for the
process- would be under a lot of scrutiny for his involvement.
Yes, that gives current ICIG Michael Atkinson a strong and corrupt motive to participate
with the Pelosi-Schiff/Lawfare impeachment objective. Sketchy!
The report comes one day after Republicans on the House Intel committee released their own "
prebuttal " claiming Trump committed "no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of
power. The Democrats' report will be combined with the 'prebuttal' and sent to the House
Judiciary Committee, which will draft articles of impeachment following their own inquiry.
They claim there is "nothing inherently wrong" with the Trump administration's actions
toward Ukraine and justify each of them in detail, including Rudy Giuliani's direct
involvement in U.S. diplomacy.
They say any references to a quid pro quo are conjecture and hearsay -- including EU
Ambassador and Trump donor Gordon Sondland's testimony.
They question the origins of the impeachment inquiry and Democrats' motives, and they
allege that Democrats have wanted to undo the 2016 election since Trump won.
They mock Democrats for calling the impeachment inquiry a serious process, and they
characterize the speedy nature of the inquiry as proof that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is
motivated by politics rather than substance.
They use Trump's well-known skepticism about U.S. spending on foreign aid as
justification for his hesitation to give money to Ukraine.
They say there was "nothing wrong" with asking questions about Hunter Biden's role on the
board of Burisma, a Ukrainian company, or renewing unfounded allegations about who interfered
in the 2016 elections.
Neoliberal Soros is an enemy of the western civilization... He is yet another "great vampire
squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything
that smells like money." His tentacles spread to Ukraine and his money and NGO was instrumental
in EuroMaydan coup d'état. Of course, the USA agencies such as the State Delatment and CIA
played the primary role, but Soros role also should not be underestimated.
"First on Ukraine, one of the things that many people recognized about you was that you
during the revolutions of 1989 funded a lot of dissident activities, civil society groups in
eastern Europe and Poland, the Czech Republic. Are you doing similar things in Ukraine?"
Zakaria
asked Soros .
"Well, I set up a foundation in Ukraine before Ukraine became independent of Russia. And the
foundation has been functioning ever since and played an important part in events now," Soros
responded.
It is well-known, although forbidden for the establishment media to mention, that Soros
worked closely with USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy (now doing work formerly
assigned to the CIA), the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute
for International Affairs, the Freedom House, and the Albert Einstein Institute to initiate a
series of color revolutions in Eastern Europe and Central Asia following the engineered
collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Many of the participants in Kiev's 'EuroMaidan' demonstrations were members of Soros-funded
NGOs and/or were trained by the same NGOs in the many workshops and conferences sponsored by
Soros' International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), and his various Open Society institutes and
foundations. The IRF, founded and funded by Soros, boasts that it has given 'more than any
other donor organization' to 'democratic transformation' of Ukraine," writes
William F. Jasper .
This transformation led to fascist ultra-nationalists controlling Ukraine's security
services. In April it was announced Andriy
Parubiy and other coup leaders were working with the FBI and CIA to defeat and murder
separatists opposed to the junta government installed by Victoria Nuland and the State
Department. Parubiy is the founder of a national socialist party in Ukraine and currently the
boss of the country's National Security and Defense Council.
Now that the billionaire "chocolate king" Petro Poroshenko is president of Ukraine, the
effort to wipe out all opposition in eastern Ukraine will pick up steam. Poroshenko is a near
perfect choice for the globalists and EU apparatchiks. He sat on the Council of the National
Bank of Ukraine and collaborated with the IMF, Wall Street and the European Commission.
Poroshenko and the February coup leaders are now
killing civilians in Donetsk as the effort continues to dislodge and eradicate "pro-Russian
militants" and "terrorists," i.e., armed resistance fighters going up against Right Sector
enforcers possibly accompanied by American mercenaries with the help of the CIA. Civilians are
also victims in "rebel"-held Slovyansk and neighboring Kramatorsk as retaliation against
resistance to the junta in Kyiv intensifies.
The military response with its overly fascist character, including the
terrorist torching of a trade union building in Odessa by "pro-regime rioters" (i.e., Right
Sector paramilitaries), can be directly attributed to the activism of George Soros and the
hands-on approach of the U.S. State Department, various NGOs (which are, in fact, government
and Wall Street fronts), and USAID, NED, and the malattributed "Freedom House," etc.
Following the murder and expulsion of those opposed to the IMF lording over the government
and the people of Ukraine, Russia can expect further provocation, especially now that it has
stepped away from supporting the resistance. The financial elite and their EU collaborators are
determined to diminish and ultimately eliminate any challenge by Russia and the BRICS as these
countries move to counter the neoliberal financial agenda.
"The buildup of NATO air and ground forces along the borders of Russia in eastern Europe and
President Barack Obama's American power-influencing trip to Asia have a single purpose,"
Wayne Madsen wrote earlier this month. "The seen and unseen forces who dictate policy to
their political puppets in Washington, London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, and other vassal
capital cities have decided to smash BRICS – the emergent financial power bloc
encompassing Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa."
In his foreign policy Trump looks like a Republican Obama, save Nobel Peace Price. If Obama was/is a CIA-democrat, this guy
is a Deep State controlled republican. Why is the Deep State is attacking him is completely unclear. May be they just do not like unpredictable,
inpulsive politicians
Despite his surrender "Neocon crazies from the basement" still attack his exactly the same way as they attacked him for pretty
mundane meeting with Putin and other fake "misdeeds" like Ukrainegate
And that means that he lost a considerable part of his electorate: the anti-war republicans and former Sanders supporters, who voted
for him in 2016 to block Hillary election.
And in no way he is an economic nationalist. He is "national neoliberal" which rejects parts of neoliberal globalization based on
treaties and prefer to bully nations to compliance that favor the US interests instead of treaties. And his "fight" with the Deep state
resemble so closely to complete and unconditional surrender, that you might have difficulties to distinguish between the two. Most of
his appointees are rabid neocons. Just look at Pompeo, Bolton, Fiona Hill. That that extends far beyond those obvious crazies.
Washington Post stating that he "has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details" of his discussions with Russian President
Vladimir Putin - telling Fox News host Jeanine Pirro in a phone interview that he would be willing to release the details of a private
conversation in Helsinki last summer.
"I would. I don't care," Trump told Pirro, adding: "I'm not keeping anything under wraps. I couldn't care less."
"I mean, it's so ridiculous, these people making up," Trump said of the WaPo report.
The president referred to his roughly two-hour dialogue with Putin in Helsinki -- at which only the leaders and their translators
were present -- as "a great conversation" that included discussions about "securing Israel and lots of other things."
"I had a conversation like every president does," Trump said Saturday. "You sit with the president of various countries. I
do it with all countries." -
Politico
In July an attempt by House Democrats to subpoena Trump's Helsinki interpreter was quashed by Republicans. "The Washington Post
is almost as bad, or probably as bad, as the New York Times," Trump said. When Pirro asked Trump about a Friday night New York
Times report that the FBI had opened an inquiry into whether he was working for Putin, Pirro asked Trump "Are you now or have you
ever worked for Russia, Mr. President?" "I think it's the most insulting thing I've ever been asked," Trump responded. "I think
it's the most insulting article I've ever had written."
Trump went on an
epic tweetstorm Saturday following the Times article, defending his 2017 firing of former FBI Director James Comey, and tweeting
that he has been "FAR tougher on Russia than Obama, Bush or Clinton. Maybe tougher than any other President. At the same time, &
as I have often said, getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. I fully expect that someday we will have good relations
with Russia again!"
The early winter holidays are notorious for giving people the blues, but as the last
Thanksgiving leftovers slide into the stockpot, the Democratic Party was put on suicide watch .
Is the ghost of Jeffrey Epstein in charge? It's a little late to call an exorcist.
The gun pointed at the Democrats' head now is a stubby little low-caliber weapon in the
person of Jerrold Nadler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, who has only grazed the
party's skull in two previous misfirings. The third time, the old saying goes, may be the
charm.
When Mr. Nadler entertained Special Counsel Robert Mueller in July, he succeeded
spectacularly in discrediting Mr. Mueller, and the inquisition he rode in on . It was the worst
public demonstration of aphasia since William Jennings Bryan had a stroke at the Scopes Trial
in 1925. Mr. Mueller's pitiful performance put to rest the last sticky tendril of hope that his
tortured report might avail to cast out the arch-demon in the White House. Even the Republicans
on the dais seemed to feel sorry for him. True to his character as a schoolyard sap wearing a
"kick me" sign on his back, Mr. Nadler just waddled away in a fog of bamboozlement, hitching
his pants up to his sternum, to plot his next foolish move .
Which was to haul former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski into the committee in
September. Mr. Lewandowski's performance was the equivalent of watching poor Mr. Nadler get
hitched to the rear bumper of a Lincoln Navigator and dragged over several miles of broken Coke
bottles. And yet, ever-sturdy, like one of those plastic punching dummies with all its weight
on the bottom, Mr. Nadler just popped back up, adjusted his "kick me" sign, and moved on to his
next folly: the current comedy of errors around impeachment.
Really, the only question now is what new way will Mr. Nadler find to humiliate himself and
mortify his party? Opening testimony this week will be supplied by a panel of Woke
constitutional law professors who will attempt to tease out some hermeneutic legal basis for an
impeachment other than actual misdeeds. They'll surely settle on thought-crime, since there is
nothing else. Whose idea was it to hit the snooze button just as the curtain goes up on the
show?
Next will come a mighty hassle over whether the minority can call witnesses of its own
choosing. Ranking member Doug Collins (R-GA) has already asked for an appearance by Adam
Schiff, chair of the House Intel Committee, whose procedural shenanigans last month embarrassed
anyone with a vestigial memory of Anglo-American due process. Some folks think that Mr. Schiff
has got some 'splainin' to do about the predicating circumstances of his star chamber
spectacle. He is, in fact, a fact-witness to all that, on top of being the issuer today of his
own committee's report on all that, and therefore susceptible to public examination --
especially in a train of proceedings as grave as impeachment. If Mr. Nadler enables Mr. Schiff
to slither out of testifying, there will be hell to pay, and in the not-so-likely prospect of
an actual impeachment trial in the senate, it would be paid there as an unleashed defense goes
for Mr. Schiff with pithing needles and thumbscrews of genuine interrogation.
NEVER MISS
THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
Then there is the "Whistleblower," this would-be pimpernel of perfidy hiding behind Adam
Schiff's apron under the false assertion that he is entitled to everlasting anonymity. What an
idea under our system of jurisprudence! In fact, contrary to Mr. Schiff's public
pronouncements, there is no law that states what he claims -- one of several things Mr. Schiff
can be called to account for. And that is even if you accept the dishonest proposition that the
fugitive who started this fiasco even was a whistleblower, rather than a rogue CIA officer
acting on explicitly illegal political motives to interfere in the 2020 election . The CIA, you
must know, is forbidden by charter and statute from operating against American citizens,
including the president of the United States. Under the circumstances, the so-called
"Whistleblower" might fairly be accused of treason.
Has anyone failed to notice that one of the "Whistleblower's" attorneys, Mark Zaid, tweeted
notoriously on January 30, 2017 that " Coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion.
#impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers ." Mr. Zaid later explained, "I was referring to
a completely lawful process." Yeah, sure. I think he meant a completely Lawfare process . Of
course, the engineered "Whistleblower" escapade was only the latest (perhaps the last) chapter
in the annals of nefarious events and actions carried out far-and-wide by several government
agencies for three years, and by many officials working within them, and not a few freelance
rogues in their service. There is no more accurate way to describe all that except as a coup.
The authorities looking into all that have not been heard from yet. The portentous silence is
making a lot of people in Washington edgy.
If the various House committees have put the Democratic Party on suicide watch, then
something even more deadly is lurking just offstage. Hillary Clinton is making noises about
jumping into the 2020 election. She senses opportunity as Joe Biden goes pitifully through the
motions of running for office to avoid prosecution for his international grifting operations as
Veep. Think of Hillary as the cyanide capsule that the party might actually choose to bite down
on as the year ominously turns.
Not really a death wish,just ignorance.Walter Hooper told CS Lewis about the epitaph of a
notable atheist'All dressed up and no place to go'To which Lewis replied,'I'll bet he wishes
that were so...'
People who believe that the democrats are doomed are ignoring a very important and large
part of the equation---the democrat base is the most ignorant, brainwashed and insane group
of people the world has ever seen.
Sure, the DNC is a clown show and tragedy of errors. But it doesn't matter when a
significant % of the population is incapable of perceiving anything close to reality.
It is not going to work any longer. Talk of "Democrats" or "Republicans". The world is
rapidly getting wise. It is the Zionists who own and run both parties...
Republicans instead want to mire Democrats in a sloppy fight, making the hearings into such
a confusing mishmash of competing information that even Republicans troubled by Mr. Trump's
actions see no upside in breaking with him. They plan to take advantage of early impeachment
advocacy by Mr. Nadler and Democrats on the panel to portray the Ukraine matter as simply
another attempt by Mr. Trump's critics to take him down.
"Any article to come out of this? There is no world in which a Republican, especially on the
Judiciary Committee, will accept this," Representative Doug Collins of Georgia, the panel's top
Republican, said in an interview. "We have seen this sideshow up close all year."
Joining Mr. Collins on Republicans' side of the dais are some of the most ardent culture
warriors and defenders of Mr. Trump: Louie Gohmert of Texas, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Andy Biggs
of Arizona and Jim Jordan of Ohio, who led
the president's defense in the Intelligence Committee . They have already shown a flair for
the dramatic, organizing conservative lawmakers to
storm the Intelligence Committee's secure chambers in a stunt to stall the proceedings,
which they called a "kangaroo court."
Mr. Collins, a Georgia lawyer with an auctioneer's cadence and a lawyer's knack for tripping
up committee business with time-consuming parliamentary tactics, is ready to make the
proceedings as painful as possible for Democrats. He warned that if Mr. Nadler intended to jam
articles of impeachment through the committee, he would go down in history as "a giant rubber
stamp" for Ms. Pelosi and Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the Intelligence
Committee chairman.
Trump called the Democrats bluff when he released the transcript. That changed their
narrative and destroyed their strategy. Now they can impeach and take it to the Senate. They
won't. They know that is where their continuous charade will be exposed for what it really
is. Nothing more than the slander that was Stormy, Mueller, obstruction, Blasey-Ford, racism,
homophobia, misogyny, collusion, et. al.
I'm beginning to see this impeachment circus as it was practiced in the Soviet Union; present
an obvious political accusations to rub out an opponent and have the rest of the minions pile
on to approve an beforehand agreed upon verdict. Yes this is and will be a circus made for
MSNBC.
So, "this spring", Representative Nadler was asking his (Democratic) colleagues on the
Judiciary panel whether "given the facts before us", they were "heading toward" impeaching
the President. This question was put, of course, weeks if not months before the presidential
conversation with the Ukrainian President that now has them all in a partisan froth. This
proves that for the Democrats, impeachment has always been more a political cause looking for
a reason, than a response to high crimes. That makes this the equivalent to the Clinton
impeachment, generally now acknowledged to have been a political mistake for the Republicans.
That's why the Speaker has been reluctant to allow this process to go forward, and should be
something to keep in mind for Representative Nadler as well.
The GOP line of defense - that the deep state is out to get him - is both nonsense and true.
There is the old saying that it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you. In that
context Trump and his minions do have a point. We really are out to get him. From the
beginning of his bizarre, crude, confabulating campaign, a majority of Americans have opposed
him. That's called democracy, not a deep state conspiracy. Trump's lack of fitness,
temperament and preparation are self-evident. Robert Mueller's report cited broad cooperation
with a foreign power in election tampering and highlighted at least 10 instances of
obstruction of justice that might be prosecuted if not for the Justice Department memo
suggesting that a sitting president may not be indicted. It is not a stretch to compare this
bizzaro world to a story of organized crime figures whining that the cops are just out to get
them and those darned reporters just keep printing photos of the bodies and blood. It's just
so unfair!
Here's an an interesting idea for Democrats to ponder: Suppose Trump is impeached and then
Pelosi did NOT immediately send the case to the Senate, but instead declared it would be
wrong to hold a trial in a hot election year, but that it could be picked up later. Of
course, Trump would yell bloody murder about his "right" to a speedy trial but no such right
exists, and besides, didn't McConnell invoke the same in the Merrick Garland case? This would
leave Trump twisting in the wind while the Dems pursued their winning kitchen table agenda.
Of course, a Democratic victory would make the case moot while a Democratic defeat would
still leave the option open to try and remove him. Your thoughts?
How can the White House put up a defense when it's unclear what the charges are? While
witnesses who testified during the impeachment inquiry presented many reasons why they think
Americans should not vote for Trump in 2020, none of them alleged the president committed
treason, bribery or a high crime or misdemeanor. (People who disagree should cite testimony.)
Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified that he put "two and two together" and "presumed" that
the president would refuse to meet with President Zelensky at the White House unless Zelensky
publicly announced he was investigating Burisma and the Bidens. The two presidents met at the
United Nations instead of the White House. The expectation that the Senate will remove the
president from office for meeting Zelensky at the UN instead of the White House is
delusional. Committee Chairman Adam Schiff coaxed witness Fiona Hill into recounting a
childhood incident in which her classmates set her pigtails ablaze, but it's unclear whether
the articles of impeachment will alleged Trump had anything to do with the incident.
"When all is said and done, given the facts before us, are we heading toward impeaching this
president?" You tell lies: The Democratic Party, and its supporters, have called for
impeachment since the day after Trump's election. It's not based on "facts." The premise of
this article is that the Democrats were struggling with a decision about whether to impeach
or not. The premise is false and insincere because the decision to impeach the president was
made before he ever took office. In addition, "The Blue Wave" Democrats ran on impeaching the
president. It was a campaign promise. So there was no struggle to decide. The only "struggle"
was how to present it so it would succeed.
With a Senate acquittal guaranteed, and McConnell skilled at putting on a circus, it's crazy
to impeach Trump and hand the torch to the GOP. The smarter path would be to broadcast to the
public that we know the game is rigged and we're not playing. Pass a strong censure and get
back to campaigning on the kitchen table issues that won the House in 2018. We have both a
winning and a losing formula. Choose to win!
"... The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats, sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. ..."
"... I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out. ..."
Stephen Kinzer
comments on the creation of a new think tank, The Quincy Institute, committed to promoting a foreign policy of restraint and
non-interventionism:
Since peaceful foreign policy was a founding principle of the United States, it's appropriate that the name of this think tank
harken back to history. It will be called the Quincy Institute, an homage to John Quincy Adams, who in a seminal speech on Independence
Day in 1821 declared that the United States "goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom
and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." The Quincy Institute will promote a foreign policy
based on that live-and-let-live principle.
The creation of a think tank dedicated to "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than threats,
sanctions, and bombing" is very welcome news. Other than the Cato Institute, there has been nothing like this in Washington, and
this tank's focus will be entirely on foreign policy. The lack of institutional support has put advocates of peace and restraint
at a disadvantage for a very long time, so it is encouraging to see that there is an effort underway to change that. The Quincy Institute
represents another example of how antiwar progressives and conservatives can and should work together to change U.S. foreign policy
for the better. The coalition opposed to the war on Yemen showed what Americans opposed to illegal and unnecessary war can do when
they work towards a shared goal of peace and non-intervention, and this institute promises to be an important part of such efforts
in the future. Considering how long the U.S. has been
waging war without end
, there couldn't be a better time for this.
TAC readers and especially readers of this blog will be familiar with the people involved in creating the think tank:
The institute plans to open its doors in September and hold an official inauguration later in the autumn. Its founding donors
-- Soros's Open Society Foundation and the Charles Koch Foundation -- have each contributed half a million dollars to fund its
takeoff. A handful of individual donors have joined to add another $800,000. By next year the institute hopes to have a $3.5 million
budget and a staff of policy experts who will churn out material for use in Congress and in public debates. Hiring is underway.
Among Parsi's co-founders are several well-known critics of American foreign policy, including Suzanne DiMaggio, who has spent
decades promoting negotiated alternatives to conflict with China, Iran and North Korea; the historian and essayist Stephen Wertheim;
and the anti-militarist author and retired Army colonel Andrew Bacevich.
"The Quincy Institute will invite both progressives and anti-interventionist conservatives to consider a new, less militarized
approach to policy," Bacevich said, when asked why he signed up. "We oppose endless, counterproductive war. We want to restore
the pursuit of peace to the nation's foreign policy agenda."
Trita Parsi and Andrew Bacevich are both TAC contributors and have participated in our foreign policy conferences in recent
years. Parsi and I were on the same panel last fall at our most recent conference. I have also cited and learned from arguments made
by Suzanne DiMaggio and Stephen Wertheim in my
posts here . Their involvement is a
very good sign, and it shows both the political breadth and intellectual depth of this new institution. I look forward to seeing
what they do, and I wish them luck.
Good luck. I hope you will be invited on cable shows. I am tired of seeing the beard from the Foundation of the Defense of Democracies
and his clones.
Once in a while the hosts mess up and they interview someone who doesn't give the correct answer about the M.E., or somewhere
else and I see the blank look on their face as they thank the guess as since it is obvious they cannot process the information.
I generally do not see those guests ever again.
The guidelines are, the world is divided into those who crave U.S. leadership and the evildoers who are constantly testing
our leadership. We must always be vigilant against the latter. It is inconceivable that anyone merely act in their own interest.
It is all about us.
I also am looking forward to reading their thoughts and ideas about a foreign policy that doesn't include the US invading yet
another country under the ridiculous notion that we are somehow being threatened by them. We have the largest military on earth.
It's also telling that we pick on and invade countries that can't actually hurt us. That makes us all the more the bully on the
block. It's to our shame that we even consider these shameful actions.
Exciting news. An early endeavor , if not already accomplished, should be consideration of relevant theoretical models for understanding
competition and cooperation. Since the Cold War and to the present day, variants of the Prisoners Dilemma serve this function.
Prior to that, misconceptions of survival of the fittest led to the disasters of eugenics and WW2. Maybe the new think tank will
outline or draw inspiration from a new theory.
Re: "I look forward to seeing what they do, and I wish them luck."
So do I. Very much so. However, the most prominent realist Washington Think Tank is the Cato Institute. It has well spoken
advocates of realism and restraint including Christopher Preble, Doug Bandow and Ted Galen Carpenter. Unfortunately, the thoughtful
Cato scribes get very little exposure on the MSM compared to the atrocious Heritage, AEI and Brookings nests of go along to get
along Neocon / Neoliberal lackeys. It's not clear to me how and why the Quincy Institute will generate any more leverage.
I've argued many times before that the linchpin of the busted U.S. Global Cop foreign policy model is the Pentagon. As long
as the Pentagon hacks are considered the paragons of Olympian insight and wisdom by the political class and the MSM, nothing will
change.
Related to that though, there actually was a hopeful article in the Atlantic about the newest Pentagon Big Mouth, CENTCOM Commander
General General Kenneth McKenzie:
Hopefully, that is a crack in the wall of Military Exceptionalism. The sooner others start taking a 2x4 to the sanctified occupants
of the 5-Sided Pleasure Palace, knocking them off of their pedestals, the better.
BTW, the new Acting Defense Secretary and MIC Parasite Mark Esper is no friend of the taxpayers. Expect that failed Pentagon
audit that was deep-sixed by Mad Dog Mattis to stay deep-sixed with Esper in the Big Seat.
I am quite amazed that Soros and Koch bro are involved. We will wait to see how this plays out.
Jeez, who can believe this amongst the "think" tanks: "an approach to the world based on diplomacy and restraint rather than
threats, sanctions, and bombing"
"... No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian antipathy to Russia. ..."
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
"So
democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them?"
No. My point was it's very misleading. Misleading to set the parameters of discussion on
U.S. posture toward Russia in such a way as to assume that Putin's actions against a purported
Russian "democracy" have anything at all to do with USian antagonism of Russia. I'm sure you'll
note current U.S. military cooperation with that boisterous hotbed of democratic activity, Saudi
Arabia, in Yemen. Our allies in the house of Saud require help in defending their democratic way
of life against the totalitarianism of Yemeni tribes, you see. The U.S. opposes anti-democratic
forces whenever and where ever it can, especially in the Middle East. I guess that explains USian
antipathy to Russia.
"I'd give a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections."
Yeah, it'd be interesting to see what the U.S. looked like with those dynamics in place.
"Those have been slowly crushed in Russia. The results for transparency have not been
great."
If you say so. For now I'll leave any decisions or actions taken on these outcomes to Russian
citizens. I would, however, kindly tell Victoria Nuland and her ilk to fuck off with their senile
Cold War fantasies, morally bankrupt, third-rate Great Game machinations, and total spectrum dominance
sociopathy.
"Personally, I don't believe that Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot
down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of Russians do."
There's definitely some of 'em hanging about, but yeah it mostly seems to be a motley assortment
of oligarchs, gangsters, and grifters tied into international neoliberal capital and money flows.
No doubt Russian believe a lot things. I find Americans tend to believe a lot things as well.
"... Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect it, everybody else be damned. ..."
"... Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class". ..."
"... Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch". ..."
Some paranoid claptrap to go along with your usual anti intellectualism.
Interestingly, with your completely unrelated non sequitur, you've actually illustrated something that does relate to Krugmans
post. Namely that there are wingnuts among us. They've taken over the Republican Party, but the left has some too. Fortunately
though the Democratic Party hasn't been taken over by them yet, and is still mostly run by grown ups.
"I am confident that what you say here is consistent with your methods and motivations."
Pretty consistent, I agree. IMHO Sanjait might belong to the category that some people call the "Vichy left" – essentially
people who are ready to sacrifice all principles to ensure their 'own' prosperity and support the candidate who intends to protect
it, everybody else be damned.
Very neoliberal approach if you ask me. Ann Rand would probably be proud for this representative of "creative class".
Essentially the behavior that we've had for the last 8 years with the king of "bait and switch".
"... More generally, I think AI gets far too much of the billing in authoritarian apocalypse forecasts. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras, microphones, and location trackers are the real issue. If the state can track everyone's movements and conversations, then it can build a better Stasi even with crude, simple ai. ..."
The theory behind this is one of strength reinforcing strength – the strengths of
ubiquitous data gathering and analysis reinforcing the strengths of authoritarian repression to
create an unstoppable juggernaut of nearly perfectly efficient oppression. Yet there is another
story to be told – of weakness reinforcing weakness. Authoritarian states were always
particularly prone to the deficiencies identified in James Scott's Seeing Like a State
– the desire to make citizens and their doings legible to the state, by
standardizing and categorizing them, and reorganizing collective life in simplified ways, for
example by remaking cities so that they were not organic structures that emerged from the
doings of their citizens, but instead grand chessboards
with ordered squares and boulevards, reducing all complexities to a
square of planed wood . The grand state bureaucracies that were built to carry out these
operations were responsible for multitudes of horrors, but also for the crumbling of the
Stalinist state into a Brezhnevian desuetude, where everyone pretended to be carrying on as
normal because everyone else was carrying on too. The deficiencies of state action, and its
need to reduce the world into something simpler that it could comprehend and act upon created a
kind of feedback loop, in which imperfections of vision and action repeatedly reinforced each
other.
So what might a similar analysis say about the marriage of authoritarianism and machine
learning? Something like the following, I think. There are two notable problems with machine
learning. One – that while it can do many extraordinary things, it is not nearly as
universally effective as the mythology suggests. The other is that it can serve as a magnifier
for already existing biases in the data. The patterns that it identifies may be the product of
the problematic data that goes in, which is (to the extent that it is accurate) often the
product of biased social processes. When this data is then used to make decisions that may
plausibly reinforce those processes (by singling e.g. particular groups that are regarded as
problematic out for particular police attention, leading them to be more liable to be arrested
and so on), the bias may feed upon itself.
This is a substantial problem in democratic societies, but it is a problem where there are
at least some counteracting tendencies. The great advantage of democracy is its openness to
contrary opinions and divergent perspectives . This opens up democracy to a specific set of
destabilizing attacks but it also means that there are countervailing tendencies to
self-reinforcing biases. When there are groups that are victimized by such biases, they may
mobilize against it (although they will find it harder to mobilize against algorithms than
overt discrimination). When there are obvious inefficiencies or social, political or economic
problems that result from biases, then there will be ways for people to point out these
inefficiencies or problems.
These correction tendencies will be weaker in authoritarian societies; in extreme versions
of authoritarianism, they may barely even exist. Groups that are discriminated against will
have no obvious recourse. Major mistakes may go uncorrected: they may be nearly invisible to a
state whose data is polluted both by the means employed to observe and classify it, and the
policies implemented on the basis of this data. A plausible feedback loop would see bias
leading to error leading to further bias, and no ready ways to correct it. This of course, will
be likely to be reinforced by the ordinary politics of authoritarianism, and the typical
reluctance to correct leaders, even when their policies are leading to disaster. The flawed
ideology of the leader (We must all study Comrade Xi thought to discover the truth!) and of the
algorithm (machine learning is magic!) may reinforce each other in highly unfortunate ways.
In short, there is a very plausible set of mechanisms under which machine learning and
related techniques may turn out to be a disaster for authoritarianism, reinforcing its
weaknesses rather than its strengths, by increasing its tendency to bad decision making, and
reducing further the possibility of negative feedback that could help correct against errors.
This disaster would unfold in two ways. The first will involve enormous human costs:
self-reinforcing bias will likely increase discrimination against out-groups, of the sort that
we are seeing against the Uighur today. The second will involve more ordinary self-ramifying
errors, that may lead to widespread planning disasters, which will differ from those described
in Scott's account of High Modernism in that they are not as immediately visible, but that may
also be more pernicious, and more damaging to the political health and viability of the regime
for just that reason.
So in short, this conjecture would suggest that the conjunction of AI and authoritarianism
(has someone coined the term 'aithoritarianism' yet? I'd really prefer not to take the blame),
will have more or less the opposite effects of what people expect. It will not be Singapore
writ large, and perhaps more brutal. Instead, it will be both more radically monstrous and more
radically unstable.
Like all monotheoretic accounts, you should treat this post with some skepticism –
political reality is always more complex and muddier than any abstraction. There are surely
other effects (another, particularly interesting one for big countries such as China, is to
relax the assumption that the state is a monolith, and to think about the intersection between
machine learning and warring bureaucratic factions within the center, and between the center
and periphery).Yet I think that it is plausible that it at least maps one significant set of
causal relationships, that may push (in combination with, or against, other structural forces)
towards very different outcomes than the conventional wisdom imagines. Comments, elaborations,
qualifications and disagreements welcome.
Ben 11.25.19 at 6:32 pm (no link)
This seems to equivocate between two meanings of bias. Bias might mean a flaw that leads to
empirically incorrect judgements and so to bad decisions, and it's true that that type of
bias could destabilize an authoritarian state. But what we usually worry about with machine
learning is that the system will find very real, but deeply unjust, patterns in the data, and
reinforce those pattern. If there's a particular ethnic group that really does produce a
disproportionate number of dissidents, and an algorithm leads to even-more-excessive
repression of that group -- I'm not sure why an authoritarian state would see a stability
threat in that tendency.
More generally, I think AI gets far too much of the billing in authoritarian
apocalypse forecasts. Cheap, ubiquitous cameras, microphones, and location trackers are the
real issue. If the state can track everyone's movements and conversations, then it can build
a better Stasi even with crude, simple ai.
I'd just like to point out (re: the tweet in the original post) that the "Uighur
face-matching AI" idea is bullshit invented by scaremongers, with no basis in fact and
traceable to a shoddy reddit thread. The Chinese government is not using facial recognition
to identify Uighur, and the facial recognition fears about the Chinese government are vastly
overstated.
Australia's border control facial recognition software is far more advanced than
China's, as is the UK's, and facial recognition is actually pretty common in democracies. See
e.g. the iPhone.
The main areas in which China uses facial recognition are in verifying ID for some high
cost functions (like buying high speed rail tickets), and it's quite easy to avoid these
functions by joining a queue and paying a human. The real intrusiveness of the Chinese
security state is in its constant bag searches and very human-centric abuses of power in
everyday life in connection with "security". Whether you get stopped and searched depends a
lot on very arbitrary and error prone judgments by bored security staff at railway stations,
in public squares, and on buses, not some evil intrusive state technology.
Conversely, the UK is a world leader in installing and using CCTV cameras, and has been
for a long time. Furthermore, these CCTV cameras are a huge boon to law-abiding citizens,
since they act as both excellent forms of crime prevention (I have had this experience
myself) and for finding serious criminals. The people responsible for the death of those 39
Vietnamese labourers in the ice truck were caught because of CCTV; so was the guy who
murdered that woman on the street in Melbourne a few years ago.
Finally to address another point that's already been raised (sadly): China no longer
harvests organs, and the 2019 report that says it does is a sham. The social credit system is
also largely a myth, and nobody from China even seems to know wtf it is.
If you're going to talk about how state's work, and the relative merits of autocratic vs.
democratic states and their interaction with technology, it's a really good idea to get the
basic facts right first.
Nathanael 11.26.19 at 6:10 am (no link)
I'll add that John Quiggin's point that Xi has already lost control of the provinces is
correct -- but it DOES threaten his position as dictator. Once the provincial governors know
they can act with impunity, it is absolutely standard for the next step to be getting rid of
that annoying guy who is pretending to be dictator. It may take a few years but Xi now has
dozens of powerful insiders who know that he's a weakling. They'll bide their time but when
he crosses too many of them they'll take him out. And if China doesn't shut down coal, he's
going to look like a weakling internationally too, in a couple of years. This will create a
new group of ambitious insiders with a different reason to take him out.
Xi broke the "technocratic consensus" which was present after Deng, of central committee
members who strove for competence and fact-based decision-making. That was a surprisingly
effective type of junta government which led to lots of thinkpieces about whether
authoritarian China would beat the democratic west. But it succumbed to the succession
problem, like all authoritarian systems; Xi made himself Premier-for-life and the country is
now exhibiting all the usual failures of authoritarian countries.
Hidari 11.26.19 at 9:08 am (no link)
@11 Yes it's strange that allegations of Chinese use of facial recognition software is
gaining so much traction at a time when the Trump regime is deliberately ratcheting up
tensions with China to pursue nakedly imperial goals, when the objective facts of Israeli use
of similar software, which the Israelis boast about (
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/why-did-microsoft-fund-israeli-firm-surveils-west-bank-palestinians-n1072116
) doesn't cause so much interest, at a time when the Trump regime has simple decreed that the
Israeli invasion/colonisation of Palestine is 'legal under international law'.
One of life's little mysteries I guess.
If we must talk about China could we at least bring it back to areas where we are
responsible and where, therefore, we can do something about it?
"... Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak , "Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November 10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal U.S. President who was his predecessor. ..."
"... The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of America's war to conquer Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy, but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for Congress to force Trump out of office. ..."
"... a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. ..."
"... But right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship. ..."
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office.
Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly
have abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies,
whom Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable.
But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
Trump can easily turn the table on his impeachment assuers calling Ukranian "Revolution of
Dignity" what it was: the smashing of constitutional order and installing far right junta. But he
will never do that.
New
York Times is reporting that Trump was aware of the whistleblower memo when he decided to
resume military aid to Ukraine. But after hearing the testimonies of William B. Taylor,
Alexander Vindman, and Fiona Hill, it appears few, if any, Americans changed their mind about
the conclusions they had already reached. Support and opposition to impeachment is the same as
it was before two weeks of public testimony about Ukraine and Trump. According to CNN , nine
in every ten Americans polled say they feel "very strongly" about their opinion.
Trump has been making several moves to try and insulate himself from the inquiry. For one
thing, he is seeking to distance himself from his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, telling Bill
O'Reilly in an interview that he was not aware of his activities in Ukraine: "No, I didn't
direct him. But he's a warrior. Rudy's a warrior. Rudy went. He possibly saw something." He
added, "Rudy has other clients, other than me." The Justice Department has also asked for a
stay on the ruling that former White House counsel Don McGahn must appear before Congress.
Most importantly, the Republican base shows no signs of abandoning Trump. "They're pushing
that impeachment witch hunt. A lot of bad things are happening to them. You see what's
happening in the polls? Everybody said, 'That's really bullshit!'" Trump
said at a campaign rally last night in Sunrise, Florida. The crowd cheered and responded
with chants of "Bullshit! Bullshit!"
Since the beginning of October, polls show no less than 80
percent of Democrats have supported impeachment, no more than 48 percent of independents have,
and no more than 10 percent of Republicans have. Absent a major revelation expect these numbers
to stay right where they are. The presidential election, not impeachment, is what's likely to
determine Trump's fate in 2020.
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
Will Democrats actually impeach a president of the US without cause/crime? DC's unholy
trinity, (Democrats, media, and the Deep State) don't want their coup to look like a
coup, so they gin up plausible offenses that fall short of treason, bribery, or other
high crimes and misdemeanors. The problem? The left's media narrative relies on nothing
but opening statements from their hearings -- and leaks from Democrats themselves. The
self-described goal of Mr. Schiff's hearings is to impeach and remove from office a
President elected by 63 million Americans. This requires more transparency and public
scrutiny than Mr. Schiff's unprecedented process of secret testimony, followed by
selective leaks to the friendly media to put everything in the most anti-Trump light, in
order to sway public opinion. But a process that denies the president his rights and
pushes through impeachment without a crime, to exert control over the president, will
effectively subjugate the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch. Once Congress can
remove a president from office without cause, they will call the shots. Any future
president will govern under the threat of losing the Oval Office unless he goes along
with congressional oversight. Presidents will be commander in chief in name only, because
military/ foreign policy decisions will be subject to congressional review and approval,
Judicial appointments will not be limited to Senate approval, and presidential vetoes
will be a thing of the past. Impeachment without just cause would be a precedent for
Congress to overturn presidential elections at will, revoking the separation of powers,
checks and balances, and will have achieved tyranny.
The minority Republicans are not allowed to speak, call witnesses, or issue subpoenas.
They're powerless, have no legal options, and aren't part of this impeachment effort.
Stand up and walk out of the hearings. Expose the show trial for what it is, a Democrat
plot against the president, and a move to dismantle our Republic. As long as Republicans
allow themselves to be sidelined in these hearings, they make it appear a bipartisan
process, giving an air of legitimacy to this kangaroo court.
I am sick to death of our country, our freedom, and our Republic being used as political
capital. Walk out as an American to uphold your oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. "Liberty,
once lost, is lost forever." -- John Adams
Speak now, Republicans, or forever hold your peace.
Impeachment with flop like a boneless fish, just like Russiagate did. Of course, the
die-hard liberast progressive lunatics infesting the DNC won't admit to this, but then
why should they start embracing reality now?
Looking forward to another round of autistic screeching when Trump takes it again in
2020. I wonder who the demo-rats (and the Deep State) will choose to blame next time?
Maybe the Chinese? Maybe the "Proud Boys" and other so-called "White Extremists"? Maybe
anyone who doesn't "celebrate" LGBT degeneracy?
An Australian professor has been charged with implementing a bogus harassment campaign
against herself following the controversial cancellation of a degree program.
Dianne Jolley, a professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of
Technology Sydney, allegedly sent threatening letters to herself between May and September as a
protest against abolition of the degree in traditional Chinese medicine, university officials
believe.
According to Stuff.com, Jolley, who's also the school's Dean of Science, claimed that in
addition to the letters, various articles of clothing had been sent to her ... had clothes
stolen from her backyard.
As a result, "significant security measures" were put in place to protect the professor. But
after an investigation by Sydney Police, officials ended up charging Jolley with "obtaining a
financial advantage by deception, giving false information about a person or property in
danger, and making false representations resulting in a police investigation."
Jolley attorney Aaron Kerneghan said his client would plead "not guilty" to all charges.
"... Vindman appears to believe the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune from civilian challenge. ..."
"... After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated: ..."
"... Washington's roster of provocations is long and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected, pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then, Washington has made Ukraine a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver: ..."
"... Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a "coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to join the West. ..."
"... In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed officer. ..."
"... And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above all, an affront to America's "national security." ..."
"... Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics) lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming Ukraine is dubious on the merits. ..."
...conservatives mustered something approaching a point: that Vindman appears to believe
the national security bureaucracy's account of America's national interests should be immune
from civilian challenge. Or, in the hysterical (and fundamentally
misleading) phrasing of Daily Caller deputy editor J. Arthur Bloom, "This impeachment stuff
is textbook imperial liberalism: the president is accused of thwarting U.S. foreign policy,
because they think foreign policy should not be subject to political control."
Now, there are a few problems with the claim, "Donald Trump is being impeached for nothing
more than challenging the national security Establishment's policy preferences." The biggest,
perhaps, being that Trump has actually done very little to challenge those preferences.
...In explaining why he found Trump's requests of Zelensky alarming enough to merit
reporting, Vindman said:
It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government
investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent. It was also clear that if Ukraine pursued
an investigation into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma, it would be interpreted as
a partisan play. This would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing bipartisan support,
undermine U.S. national security, and advance Russia's strategic objectives in the region.
[my emphasis]
Vindman's analysis here is tendentious in several respects. For one, his assertion that an
investigation of Biden would "undoubtedly" result in the Democratic Party adopting a dovish
posture toward Russia is mere punditry (and given
the many partisan reasons Democrats have for adopting a hawkish policy toward Vladimir
Putin's regime, it's not even very good punditry). More critically, Vindman's statement
suggests that one of his objectives, as an active military officer, was to safeguard
"bipartisan support" for existing U.S. policy in Ukraine. Which is to say: He felt an
obligation to prevent partisan conflict from producing a change in the orders he received from
civilian leadership. That sentiment is genuinely anti-democratic. It's a forthright assertion
that U.S. policy in the region should not be subject to democratic dispute.
This is a contemptible notion in the abstract. And it's even more so in this particular
context. After all, the idea that the United States has a "national security" interest in
preventing Russian hegemony in the Donbass region is not obvious, to say the least. American
media paints Russia as the unambiguous aggressor in the Ukraine conflict. But as the Cato
Institute's Ted Galen Carpenter has
written , the truth of the matter is far more complicated:
Washington's roster of provocations is long
and damaging . With strong U.S. encouragement, NATO's membership has crept inexorably
eastward, reaching the western border of the Russian Federation and even incorporating the
three Baltic republics, which had been constituent parts of both Czarist Russia and the
Soviet Union. Beginning with George W. Bush's administration, Washington has pressed NATO to
expand still farther and offer membership to both Georgia and Ukraine. The United States and
its allies have greatly increased the number and scope of their military deployments and war
games in Eastern Europe and the Black Sea. Barack Obama's administration interfered
blatantly in Ukraine's internal political affairs to unseat a democratically elected,
pro-Russian government and replace it with a pro-Western regime in 2014. Since then,
Washington has made Ukraine
a de facto military ally , training and conducting joint military exercises with
Ukrainian forces and concluding two significant arms sales to Kiev.
In this context of persistent Western interference in its border regions, John Mearsheimer
argues that Putin's annexation of Crimea is best understood as a defensive maneuver:
Since the mid-1990s, Russian leaders have adamantly opposed NATO enlargement, and in
recent years, they have made it clear that they would not stand by while their strategically
important neighbor turned into a Western bastion. For Putin, the illegal overthrow of
Ukraine's democratically elected and pro-Russian president -- which he rightly labeled a
"coup" -- was the final straw. He responded by taking Crimea, a peninsula he feared would
host a NATO naval base, and working to destabilize Ukraine until it abandoned its efforts to
join the West.
... one can also argue that America has no significant security or economic interests in who
governs a relatively small, poor country on Russia's border. Or that intervening against Russia
in Ukraine's civil war -- when our country will never be willing to invest as much blood and
treasure into that conflict as Moscow will -- is only going to prolong the fighting and get
more innocent people killed. Or that the U.S. government's finite resources would be better
spent on more classrooms for American children than anti-tank missiles for Ukrainian
soldiers.
In his statement, Vindman suggests that he does not want Americans to have that
argument. He posits a Western-aligned Ukraine as self-evidently critical to our national
security, and the maintenance of bipartisan support for that premise a duty of a uniformed
officer.
And Democrats have tacitly affirmed his analysis. From the very beginning of its
impeachment inquiry, Nancy Pelosi's caucus has framed Trump's malfeasance in Ukraine as, above
all, an
affront to America's "national security." This emphasis is likely dictated by
Democrats' desire to attach impeachment to a maximally nonpartisan cause. For the bulk of
elected Democrats' lifetimes, countering Russian aggression has been the transpartisan national
purpose par excellence. Further, the national security officials willing to blow the whistle on
Trump tend to be more comfortable denouncing the president's activities on Ukraine's behalf
than on Joe Biden's. Like Vindman, acting Ukraine ambassador
Bill Taylor framed his objections to Trump's "quid pro quo" around the needs of the
Ukrainian military, rather than the constitutional authorities of the U.S. Congress.
But Democrats should not let their witnesses (or vestigial attachment to Cold War politics)
lead them astray. The notion that America has a clear national security interest in arming
Ukraine is dubious on the merits. And premising the case for Trump's impeachment on that notion
is politically misguided.
Warren Wealth Tax Has Wide Support, Except
Among One Group https://nyti.ms/37OZEEH
NYT - Ben Casselman and Jim Tankersley
Nov. 29, 2019, 5:00 a.m. ET
(graphs at the link)
Senator Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the assets of America's wealthiest individuals
continues to draw broad support from voters, across party, gender and educational lines. Only
one slice of the electorate opposes it staunchly: Republican men with college degrees.
Not surprisingly, that is also the profile of many who'd be hit by Ms. Warren's so-called
wealth tax, which has emerged as the breakout economic proposal in the Democratic
presidential primary race.
Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it, the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll conducted by the online research firm
SurveyMonkey for The New York Times. That support has dipped slightly since July, but Ms.
Warren's plan remains more popular than most proposed tax increases, and its appeal across
coalitions is unusual among high-profile campaign proposals.
(The link provided to the 'new poll' is non-functional.)
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has also proposed a wealth tax, which would hit more
taxpayers than Ms. Warren's version, and several other candidates have announced their own
plans to raise taxes on the rich, with varying degrees of detail.
The other policy plan dominating the primary debate so far -- the conversion to a
government-financed health care system known as "Medicare for all" -- enjoys narrower support
that breaks much more cleanly along party lines. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose it.
Independents favor it two to one, and Democrats support it by an even higher ratio.
As the Democratic contest barrels toward the first caucuses in Iowa and beyond, the
polling continues to show a racial fissure on the subject of the economy, with nonwhite
Democrats expressing more concern about their economic situations than white Democrats. Those
more anxious voters are less likely to support Ms. Warren, or her wealth tax, a dynamic that
could prove consequential as Democrats winnow their field.
Here are three takeaways on Democratic voters, policy proposals and the role of the
economy in the campaign.
College-educated Republican men take exception to a wealth tax.
The wealth tax has lost a few points of support since the last time The Times asked about
the issue, in July. But it remains broadly popular, even more so than it was in February.
Three-quarters of Democrats and more than half of Republicans say they approve of the idea of
a 2 percent tax on wealth above $50 million.
Support for a wealth tax cuts across many of the demographic dividing lines in American
politics. Men and women like it. So do the young and the old. The proposal receives majority
support among every major racial, educational and income group.
College-educated Republican men, though, disapprove of it by a 15-point margin -- though a
vast majority of Republican men with college degrees would have a net worth below the tax
threshold. (College-educated Republican women approve of the policy by an even wider margin
than their male counterparts oppose it.)
One note that might give Republicans pause: The wealth tax is much more popular than the
tax-cut package that President Trump signed in 2017, which only 45 percent of Americans in
this Times survey said was a good move. That's a decline from April, when the law was drawing
slightly more approval than disapproval.
The movement against the Trump tax cuts since then has been powered, oddly enough, by
Republicans. They largely still back the law -- by 76 percent over all, compared with 20
percent of Democrats -- but that support has dropped six percentage points since April.
The shift appears most pronounced among high-earning Republicans, and it contributes to a
striking contrast in tax-plan approval: Americans earning more than $150,000 a year are far
more likely to favor a tax increase on the very wealthy than a package of tax cuts that
delivered the bulk of its benefits to the rich.
Education and race divide Democrats on economic policy.
Among Democrats, education has emerged as a key dividing line on economic policy. Ms.
Warren's tax is overwhelmingly popular (86 percent support) with Democratic voters who have
graduate degrees. Among voters with a high school diploma or less, the policy is still
popular, but meaningfully less so, drawing 75 percent support.
Accordingly, less-educated voters are also less likely to say they favor Ms. Warren on the
economy. That fits with other polling that has found the Massachusetts senator struggling to
win over voters without a college degree.
Strikingly for a candidate who has put so much emphasis on the economy, Ms. Warren is
viewed with caution by voters who care the most about the economy, and by those who are most
worried about it. Among Democrats who say they are "very concerned" about losing their job,
for example, 15 percent say they would trust Ms. Warren most on the economy out of all the
Democratic candidates, compared with 23 percent of other Democratic voters.
Those struggles for Ms. Warren may partly reflect another important divide in the
Democratic electorate: race. Black and Hispanic voters tend to rate the economy more highly
as an issue than their white counterparts. They are also less likely to trust Ms. Warren on
the economy.
Black and Hispanic voters are more likely to choose former Vice President Joseph R. Biden
Jr. as the candidate they would trust on the economy. So are voters who say they are
concerned about their jobs or their economic prospects. But voters' preferences don't fall
neatly along ideological lines: Those same groups also tend to give high ratings to Mr.
Sanders, who is closer to Ms. Warren than to Mr. Biden on most policy matters.
The survey suggests that the newest member of the Democratic field, former Mayor Michael
R. Bloomberg of New York, may have at least a narrow opening with voters on economic issues.
About 6 percent of Democrats said they trusted Mr. Bloomberg most on the economy, putting him
outside the four-person top tier (Mr. Biden, Ms. Warren, Mr. Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg
of South Bend, Ind.) but ahead of the rest of the field.
Mr. Bloomberg drew less support on his handling of health care and international affairs,
however. The other late entrant to the race, former Gov. Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, was
well outside the top tier of candidates on all three issues. The findings on that question
came after Mr. Patrick entered the race and after Mr. Bloomberg filed paperwork for a
presidential bid; he formally announced his candidacy later in the month.
Health care remains a partisan issue.
Apart from taxes, health care policy has been perhaps the most significant point of
disagreement among the Democratic candidates. Among the top tier of candidates, Mr. Sanders
and Ms. Warren have emphasized their support for a government-run insurance system that they
call Medicare for all, while Mr. Biden and Mr. Buttigieg have argued for less significant
changes to the existing system.
Compared with the wealth tax, Medicare for all is a much more partisan issue. Republicans
strongly oppose the idea; Democrats even more strongly support it. (Independents support it,
too, but by a narrower margin.)
And Medicare for all doesn't divide Democrats the way the wealth tax does. Democrats of
all ages, races and education and levels support the policy by similar margins.
Warren Wealth Tax Could Slow Economy,
Early Analysis Finds https://nyti.ms/379cpJZ
NYT - Jim Tankersley - Nov. 14, 2019
WASHINGTON -- Senator Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax would slow the United States
economy, reducing growth by nearly 0.2 percentage points a year over the course of a decade,
an outside analysis of the plan estimates.
The preliminary projection from the Penn Wharton Budget Model, which was unveiled on
Thursday in Philadelphia, is the first attempt by an independent budget group to forecast the
economic effects of the tax that has become a centerpiece of Ms. Warren's campaign for the
Democratic presidential nomination.
The assessment found that if the tax raised as much new federal revenue as Ms. Warren
intends, and if the proceeds went toward reducing the federal debt, annual economic growth
would slow from an average of 1.5 percent to an average of just over 1.3 percent over a
decade.
The model did not assess growth effects from Ms. Warren's spending plans, which critics
said undercut its findings. Economists who favor Ms. Warren's plan said the analysis did not
accurately account for the economic boost from programs she would fund with the tax revenue,
including universal child care, increased education funding and student loan forgiveness.
Instead, it assumed that the tax revenue would be used to reduce the national debt, a move
that encourages growth in the Penn Wharton simulation. Had the Penn Wharton model factored in
the money's going into programs rather than paying down debt, it most likely would have
produced an even larger drag on growth from the wealth tax.
The model builds on the one that Penn Wharton used to evaluate the tax cuts that President
Trump signed in 2017. That model estimated that the tax cuts would increase economic growth
by roughly 0.06 percentage points per year over a decade, an effect that was much smaller
than White House officials predicted.
Its estimate of Ms. Warren's policy implies the wealth tax would have an effect that is
three times as large as the Trump tax cuts -- but in the opposite direction.
Ms. Warren's plan would impose an annual tax of 2 percent on assets held by Americans,
including stocks and real estate, that total more than $50 million. It would add an
additional 1 percent tax on assets of more than $1 billion. Ms. Warren has said her plan
would raise nearly $3 trillion over a decade.
The proposal has drawn fierce criticism from wealthy Americans, including several titans
of Wall Street. Ms. Warren has delighted in those complaints, splicing some of them into a
campaign commercial that she is set to air on the financial news network CNBC this week.
"I've heard that there are some billionaires that don't support this plan," Ms. Warren
says in the ad, which proceeds to deride several of the plan's critics for financial ties to
Republicans. "All we're saying," she says in conclusion, "is when you make it big, pitch in
two cents so everybody else gets a chance to make it."
Ms. Warren's campaign worked with Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, two economists at the
University of California, Berkeley, who support a wealth tax, to estimate how much money it
could raise over a decade. But they did not produce what economists call a dynamic analysis,
which estimates how the proposal would ripple through the economy and affect growth. ...
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
'Nearly a year after Ms. Warren proposed it,
the wealth tax has the support of six in 10
Americans, according to a new nationwide poll
conducted by the online research firm SurveyMonkey
for The New York Times.'
Stephen Cohen (one of the few pundits who actually knows something about Russia:)
"Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things
about Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the
process, we have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic
Party establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no "attack"
in 2016, only, as I have previously explained, ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both
Russia and America have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more
phobic than the allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And
yet this myth and its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse,
campaigning, and fund-raising.
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President
Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation
"Intelgate," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee Smith in
his new book. Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and equally
Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such transgressions.
This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave power, but
these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be
fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and his
appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's critics
accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report.
And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by Democrats about
Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations that truly
endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can elude US
missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative and
urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if he
is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did his
predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge" accusations
still being directed at him?"
The Russia thingie/falsehoods are part of corrupt demrats assault on the US constitution.
They are even now predicting their loss in 2020 due to "interference" and people wanting to
know how corrupt the DNC [front running] select has been!
Demrat allies in the shadow revolving door government of neocon humbug factories are
denouncing Trump for his ignoring their war mongering imperial objects.
[Adding assault to injury? The US Constitution was damning enough on its own. What are
they thinking inside the deep state apparatus? Don't they know that power and privilege is
reserved for holders of wealth by the US Constitution? Who do they think that they are really
working for?]
Friend ilsm may be less nuts than it appears, but friend ilsm is not less incomprehensible
than it appears. Would it be out of place to thank you for ilsm's sake?
Our two-party system was largely useless after FDR, but our two-party system has been
largely destructive since 1968. Let me know if anything really changes.
not that I would be ordinarily predisposed to defend her. The problem with delusions is that
they can easily become self-perpetuating, even easier with the right hand on the tiller.
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
This is not a story I was told
When all the people are made out of wood
They build their houses of bones
Sail away, Oh sail away
The edge of the world is near
Sail away, Oh sail away from here
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
All the cigarettes are hand rolled
Nothing is bought and nobody is sold
And everything's made of gold
I have just come back from the land beyond the mountain
There a man with wounds I did see
Said: I do not want to escape from reality
I want reality to escape from me
"... Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by whom. ..."
"... The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds during the last three years. ..."
"... And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president. ..."
"... I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. ..."
"... The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats' strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is squarely over the target. ..."
"... Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones. ..."
The conspiracy theory that exposes the Democrats' desperation and panic.
Fri Nov 29, 2019
Oleg Atbashian
133 In the last few days, media talking heads have been saying the word "CrowdStrike" a
lot, defining it as a wild conspiracy theory originating in Moscow. They were joined by Chris
Wallace at Fox News, who informed us that president Trump and his ill-informed fans believe in
a crazy idea that the DNC wasn't hacked by the Russians but by some Ukrainian group named
CrowdStrike that stole the DNC server and brought it to Ukraine , and that it was Ukraine that
meddled in our 2016 election and not Russia.
A crazy idea indeed. Except that neither Trump nor his fans had ever heard of it until the
Democrat-media complex condescendingly informed them that these are their beliefs.
Let's look at the facts:
Fact 1. In 2016 the DNC hired the Ukrainian-owned firm CrowdStrike to analyze their server
and investigate a data breach.
Fact 2. CrowdStrike experts determined that the culprit was Russia.
Fact 3. The FBI never received access to the DNC server, so the Russian connection was never
officially confirmed and continues to be an allegation coming from the DNC and its
Ukrainian-owned contractor.
Fact 4. Absent the official verdict, other theories continue to circulate, including the
possibility that the theft was an inside job by a DNC employee, who simply copied the files to
a USB drive and sent it to WikiLeaks.
None of these facts was ever disputed by anyone. The media largely ignored them except for
the part about the Russian hackers, which boosted their own, now debunked, wild conspiracy
theory that Trump was a Russian agent.
Now that Trump had asked the newly elected Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into
CrowdStrike during that fateful July phone call, the media all at once started telling us that
"CrowdStrike" is a code word for a conspiracy theory so insane that only Trump could believe in
it, which is just more proof of how insane he is.
But if Trump had really said what Mr. Wallace and the media claim, Ukrainians would be the
first to call him on it and the impeachment would've been over by now. Instead, Ukrainians back
Trump every step of the way.
So where did this pretzel-shaped fake news come from, and why is it being peddled
now ?
Note this is a classic case study of propaganda and media manipulation:
Take an idea or a story that you wish to go away and make up an obviously bogus story
with the same names and details as the real one.
Start planting it simultaneously on media channels until the fake story supplants the
real one, while claiming this is what your opponents really believe.
Have various fact-checking outlets debunk your fake story as an absurd conspiracy theory.
Ridicule those who allegedly believe in it. Better yet, have late night comedians do it for
you.
Once your opponent is brought down, mercilessly plant your boot on his face and never let
up.
This mass manipulation technology had been tested and perfected by the Soviet propaganda
machine, both domestically and overseas, where it was successfully deployed by the KGB. The
Kremlin still uses it, although it can no longer afford it on the same grandiose scale. In this
sense, the Democratic think tanks are the true successors of the KGB in deviousness, scope, and
worldwide reach of fake narratives. How they inherited these methods from the KGB is a story
for another day.
For a long time this technology was allowing the Democrats to delegitimize opposition by
convincing large numbers of Americans that Republicans are
Haters
Racists
Fascists
Deniers of science
Destroyers of the environment
Heartless sellouts to corporate interests
And so on - the list is endless.
The Soviet communists had aptly named it "disinformation," which a cut above the English
word "misinformation." It includes a variety of methods for a variety of needs, from bringing
down an opponent to revising history to creating a new historical reality altogether. In this
sense, most Hollywood movies on historical subjects today disinform us about history,
supplanting it with a bogus "progressive" narrative. The Soviet term for such art was
"socialist realism."
Long story short, the Democrat-media complex has successfully convinced one half of the
world that Trump is a Russian agent. Now they're acting as if they'd spent the last three years
in a coma, unaware of any bombshell stories about collusion. And bombshell stories without any
continuation are a telltale sign of fake narratives. The only consequence of these bombshells
is mass amnesia among the foot soldiers.
The Trump-Russian outrage is dead, long live the Trump-Ukraine outrage. And when that
outrage is dead, the next outrage that will be just outrageous.
The current impeachment narrative alleges that Trump used military aid as leverage in asking
Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden (which implies the Democrats know Biden is dirty, otherwise
why bother?). What's not in this picture is CrowdStrike. Even though Trump mentioned it in the
phone call, it has nothing to do with the Bidens nor the Javelin missiles. CrowdStrike has
nothing to do with impeachment. We're told it's just a silly conspiracy theory in Trump's head,
that it's a nonissue.
But then why fabricate fake news about it and plant blatant lies simultaneously in all media
outlets from Mother Jones to Fox News? Why risk being exposed over such a nonissue? Perhaps
because it's more important than the story suggests.
Only a computer illiterate would think that CrowdStrike needed to take the physical DNC
server to Ukraine in order to analyze it. Any computer can be cloned and its digital image can
be sent within minutes anywhere on the planet in the form of ones and zeroes. It can also exist
in multiple digital copies, carrying not just confidential archives, but also history logs and
other content that can reveal to an expert whether the hacking occurred, and if so, by
whom.
The copies of the DNC server on CrowdStrike computers are likely to hold the key to
understanding what really happened during the 2016 election, the origin of the anti-Trump witch
hunt, and the toxic cloud of lies that had been hanging over the world and poisoning minds
during the last three years.
And now the new Ukrainian government might subpoena these copies from CrowdStrike and
finally pass them to FBI experts, which should've been done three years ago. The danger of this
happening is a much greater incentive for the Democrats to preemptively destroy Trump than all
the dirt Joe Biden had been rolling in as Obama's vice president.
This gives the supposedly innocuous reference to CrowdStrike during Trump's call a lot more
gravity and the previously incoherent part of the transcript begins to make sense.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say CrowdStrike... I guess you have one of your
wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went
on, the whole situation.
If you read the transcript on the day it was released, you probably didn't understand what
Trump was even talking about, let alone what had caused such a disproportionate outrage,
complete with whistle blowing and calls for impeachment. What in that mild conversation could
possibly terrify the Democrats so much? They were terrified because, unlike most Americans, the
Democrats knew exactly what Trump was talking about. And now you know, too.
The fraudulent "CrowdStrike conspiracy" deflection is not a show of the Democrats'
strength. Instead, It betrays their desperation and panic, which tells us that Trump is
squarely over the target.
It also helps us to see who at Fox News can be trusted to tell us the truth. And it ain't
Chris Wallace.
Fine dissection of the CrowdStrike story. Of course if the DNC was serious about
finding out who breached their security they would have allowed the FBI to investigate.
They didn't - which means they're covering something up.
And who doesn't have at least one backup system running constantly, I have two and am
just a home user and the DNC would not have been dumb enough not to have one on the
premises and one off site for safety and preservation and the FBI could have gotten to
either one if they wanted to. DWS was involved in something very similar and the FBI
backed off again. I thought the DNC and the FBI were on the same page and would have
liked to find out how the "transfer" happened?
Yet DOJ Mueller conclusively signed off on the unsubtaniated fact the Russians had
hacked the DNC computers in his final Weissman Report. Just one more part of the curious Mueller report that was far more a CYA hit piece
against future claims of Obama crimes, than an investigation of past Trump ones.
Seth Rich - paper trail to Wikilinks needs to come out in any Senate impeachment trail
since Democrats claim the Ukraine phone call was Trump's alleged downfall. CROWDSTRIKE
was the only favor Trumps asked for.
There are two important facts to glean from this article:
1) Crowdstrike, the DNC contractor, is Ukrainian
2) that the famous server may have been backed up in Ukraine and not tampered with.
From the MSM we were given the 'interpretation' that Trump is an idiot who believes
that the DNC shipped the server with no changes to the Ukraine. No folks. He 'gets'
technology and security. He actual ran a business! (imagine).
I'd love to hear that in Hillary's own voice. :) You know, cleaned with a cloth?
That pretty much sums it up. MSM in total cahoots on this too since they put the
entire topic of the CROWDSTRIKE part of the phone call into the cone of silence.
The Left and media (One and the same within the "Deep State") have been playing "Three
Card Monte" with America for a while; it stops now!
The "Impeachment" media show being run by the Lefty tool cretins in the House has
NOTHING to do with wrong doing by President Trump. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fear
that President Trump will expose the depth of the swamp and bring the criminals on the
Left down to Justice!
We are s close to getting to the bottom of the conspiracies that threaten our nation.
Time to make the America haters pay for the harm they have done to our nation!
We need open and in depth prosecution of the criminal activities of the Left. There
needs to be LONG prison sentences and, yes, even executions for those that seek to
undermine our nation.
People need to know that there our GRAVE penalties for betraying our nation!
In fact, when I first heard this story - that is: very recently - I was puzzled: why
should a major party in the Country that invented IT and is still at its leading edge,
ask an obscure firm of a crumbling, remote foreign State to do their IT security
research? I'm not saying that Ukraine is a s++thole Country, but... you get me.
Either they have very much to hide, or they fear some closeted rightwing geek that works
in any of the many leftist US technofirms. Or, CrowdStrike were involved from the
beginning of the story, from the Steele dossier perhaps?
The whole Crowdstrike fiasco has been around for years - plus became a solid CYA part
of the Mueller report too - just in case the Democrats needed to bury it later.
don't you get it? The DNC is completely infiltrated by Ukrainian graft. Even Joe Biden
was on the take. Why won't they run their IT? (there is no Research in IT here, just
office software)
If you want to sell and deliver State Secrets and Intel to our enemies, then you
(Obama, the Clintons, the DNC) simply make it easier for THEM to access. They have done
this for years, and this is why they had to fill the DOJ, the FBI and the State
Department with traitors and haters of America and American principles. Barack Hussein
Obama, the Clintons, their evil administrations and even two-faced RINOS like McCain,
Romney, and Jeff Sessions were actively involved. This is treason pure and simple, and
all of the above could be legitimately and justifiably hung or shot without recourse, and
rightly so!
I have known about "Crowdstrike" since Dec. 2017. Pres. Trump is just subtlety
introducing background on what will be the biggest story of treachery, subversion,
treason and corruption ever. QAnon that the fakenews tries to vilify as a LARP has been
dropping crumbs about "Crowdstrike", Perkins Coir, Fusion GPS, FVEY and so much more!
Crowdstrike mentioned 7x in the last 2 years. I can't urge people enough to actually
investigate the Q posts for themselves! You will be stunned at what you have been
missing. Q which says "future proves past" and "news will unlock" what I see in the media
now is old news to those of us following Q. Q told us that "Senate was the prize" "Senate
meant more" that the investigations started in the House would now move to the Senate and
all this that the Dems and Rinos have been trying to hide is going to be exposed.
Fakenews corporate media has litterally written hundreds of hit pieces against Q - me
knows "they doth protest to much" - Recent Q post told "Chairman Graham its time. Senate
was the target"
Keep up with the Q posts and Pres. Trump's tweets in once place:
https://qmap.pub/ - And if you are still having a hard time believing this is legit
Pres. Trump himself has confirmed Q posts by "Zero Delta" drops - if you think this is
fake - try and tweet within 1 minute of when Pres. Trump does BUT your tweet has to
anticipate his! YOU have to tweet first and HE has to follow you within 1 minute.
MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY UNLESS you are in the same immediate space or communicating at
the time of the tweets! To all you doubters that think Q is just a by chance scam - NO
WAY. There have been MANY, MANY of these ZERO DELTA PROOFS over the last 2 years. The
most recent was Nov. 20th.
Crowdstrike in the dog who did not bark. The Democrat cone of silence they put on even
the mention of the word has been the most damning clue this is where the real action
is.
The assertion that a digital image of the computer can be transmitted quickly all
around the world is not necessarily correct in my experience as a cyber security analyst.
I'm not an upper echelon type, but I am aware that it can take up to weeks to transmit
such images depending on the hard disk, where it is, and the connections/network to your
device creating the image. The FBI should have physically taken the device since there
was a suspicion of wrong doing by Hillary Clinton. Had it been Donald Trump's computer I
do not doubt the FBI would either have imaged it on the spot or taken the device.
Last night I completely removed Catalina-Safari on my older Mac Book Air and
re-installed Mohave-Safari from my backup to the day before I installed Catalina
including the data and system just like it was before. It took around 5 hours and was
cabled and not on Wi-Fi and it was perfect and reset the clock, my old e-mails and the
newer ones as well. I can't believe being hooked into real broadband or fiber couldn't do
the same in a relatively short period of time, but still significantly longer than a
thumb drive or external hard drive.
One variable is how big your hard drive is. If it is a big drive at a remote location,
say somewhere in California to the Midwest, it can take weeks for a forensic backup. I
only say that because . . . well, I'm not allowed to say. But you get it.
The assertion is a figure of speech. Today's IT infrastructure companies sell the
service of maintaining clones in real-time in two or more locations for safety purposes.
VMware and other off-the-shelf products makes this kind of setup easy to deploy. Did
Crowdstrike offer that service and did the DNC buy it, that is the question? And, if so,
did Crowdstrike keep the image on their backups in Ukraine?
(Note: it is not obvious that such a setup would preserve the forensic data the FBI would
be looking for, but its a start).
"... If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was the CIA. ..."
Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally released his conclusions of the investigation into
Russia's role in the US Presidential Election 2016. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump
campaign conspired or coordinated with Russians, the press reported.
But there is a curious detail: most people charged have no connection to Russia, as in Manafort's case. The former
Trump campaign manager has been accused of money laundry and illegal foreign lobbying for Ukraine.
Thus, the Mueller investigation findings are leading to Kiev, not Russia. Moreover, Ukraine did admit to
interfering in the 2016 US election helping the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.
In this regard, there are fair questions to raise: why American citizens are indicted and sentenced with less
charges while the evidence of a foreign conspiracy is omitted? Where are fair debates over the issue? Why there were
no special committee hearings to determine the truth?
It is clear: a new investigation is coming. The US prosecutors need to interrogate Ukrainian politicians and
members of the Clinton campaign as well as to probe the activity of Ukrainian lobbyists in Washington.
Thus, the audio recording made public in the Ukrainian media was one piece of evidence of Ukraine's interference.
According to it, a person with a voice similar to the voice of the head of Ukraine's National Anti-Corruption Bureau
(NABU), Artem Sytnyk, admitted that he had supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election.
His office was responsible for publicly disclosing the contents of the Ukrainian "black ledger", which implicated
Paul Manafort, to the media. The document contained a list of secret payments made by Ukraine's Party of Regions to
Manafort.
Earlier, the county administrative court of Kyiv had pledged the director of the NABU Artem Sytnyk, and a member
of the Ukrainian Parliament Sergey Leshchenko guilty of publicizing the pre-trial investigation materials concerning
Paul Manafort and election interference. The information was spread illegally and inflicted damage on the foreign
policy of Ukraine.
Translation:
Admit unlawful acts of the director of the NABU A. Sytnyk and the Ukrainian MP S. Leshchenko concerning the
disclosure and distribution of the information about D. Trump's campaign chairman P. Manafort and the presence of
P.Manafort's name and signatures in the lists of "The Party of Regions' black ledgers" in the materials of the
pre-trial investigation, which was the result of interference in the electoral processes of the United States of
America in 2016 and harmed the interests of Ukraine.
Eventually, a slew of incriminating information forced Paul Manafort to resign as Donald Trump's campaign chairman
in August 2016, just in the middle of election campaign. Serhiy Leshchenko, the Ukrainian MP, intended to share his
gloat with his Facebook followers by posting a message stressing that "after such a blow Trump would not recover".
Translation:
"The Party of Regions' black ledgers" saved the world. Manafort, who was fed from Yanukovich's hands,
leaves with dishonor. Guess, after such a blow Trump will not recover.
P.S. We can clearly see the reaction of the Ukrainian politicians involved in "Yanukovich's black ledgers".
Political culture – you've either got it or you haven't".
Another confirmation of the Ukrainian officials' overt support of Hillary Clinton was the anti-Trump publications
on social media. However, as soon as the Republican had won, the Ukrainian politicians, in particular, the Minister
of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov and Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko began to remove massively their anti-Trump
narratives from their social media pages.
Certainly, the US President did not forgive the Ukrainian leadership actions. On his Twitter page, Donald Trump
criticized the Ukrainian efforts to "sabotage" his campaign.
Moreover, in August 2017, it became clear that on the election day Petro Poroshenko sent Hillary Clinton a
telegram, in which he congratulated her on the victory in the elections even before the announcement of the voting
results. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavel Klimkin personally delivered it. The president
himself did not comment on this at all. His assistants strongly rejected all the suspicions of illegal actions during
the election campaign. However, all these facts speak for themselves.
Despite this, Washington does not refuse financial assistance and cooperation with Ukraine. The intervention in
the US Presidential Campaign 2016 and the leverages issues undoubtedly overshadow the current position of Petro
Poroshenko. Moreover, the growing scandal related to accusations against our diplomat gives us reason to doubt the
trustworthiness of the head of state and his future plans as a presidential candidate for the second term.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest
amount of support is hugely appreciated.
Gmason
,
Why is ok to expose Manafort's corruption to take down Trump, but not ok to expose Hunter Biden's?
That is inconsistent and hypocritical.
Robbobbobin
,
Perhaps loads of nation states, as well as busy international bodies like the UN, more or less
continually interfere in the affairs of other states and some of the time those ongoing programs of
continual interference are congruent with elections being held in the interfered-with states and on
some of those occasions those elections provide an exceptional opportunity that's just too good to
pass up?
summitflyer
,
I should send this information to Chrystia Freeland, our illustrious foreign affairs minister for
casual reading .Would love to see her reaction upon reading it .
Paul
,
There was one man – backed by a very powerful organisation who worked tirelessly to prevent Trump
becoming President. That was Christopher Steele ...
Jen
,
Paul Manafort was working as Donald Trump's campaign manager until he had to resign halfway through
the campaign when Ukrainians and Ukrainian Americans linked to the Democratic National Committee
and Hillary Rodham Clinton's election campaign released information that Manafort had done work for
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and his party The Party of Regions, whose main support
base was in the Russian-speaking eastern part of Ukraine.
The MSM has played up the notion that
Yanukovych was supported by or was drawing close to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and that he rejected
the EU / Ukraine Association Agreement in late 2013. So by bringing up Manafort's past connection
with Yanukovych, the Democrats were trying to tie the Trump campaign to Moscow.
Ben Trovata
,
It's no mystery;the Russians made a better offer! One that included continuing to supply Ukraine
gas ( even they were woefully behind in their payments)! As far as I can tell, this was almost
totally ignored in corporate medIa.( I learned it from David Pear in a BTL comment.)
summitflyer
,
Yes that is what I heard and read also at the time .That was before the coup .
Mistaron
,
Russia had also arranged a $3 billion loan to Yanukovych govt.
Jen
,
The issue I was alluding to is not whether the Yanukovych government really was drawing
closer to the Russian government and its offer to Ukraine of joining a competing Eurasian
Customs Union – the issue was that the Yanukovych government was made out by Western media
to be subservient to Russia by supposedly rejecting the EU / Ukraine association
agreement.
The Yanukovych government had actually asked for more time to study the EU /
Ukraine AA and its fine print. Moscow had apparently tipped off Yanukovych's government
that complying with the AA would have meant (among other things) a complete overhaul of
Ukraine's entire railway-line network to conform with EU railway gauge standards. This in
spite of the fact that some EU member nations like Finland and Spain don't have
EU-compliant railway track gauges themselves (Finland uses Russian gauge as Ukraine does)
– but then, they joined the EU over 20 years ago. Imagine the billions of euros required
to replace the entire railway-line network and railway carriage stock to conform to EU
standards!
There was also no guarantee in the EU / Ukraine AA that full EU membership and its
attendant benefits would accrue to Ukraine if the country complied with the agreement.
It was probably never Yanukovych's intention not to join the EU but instead to be a
member of both the EU and the Eurasian Customs Union. How that would have worked out, I
don't wish to guess – I can only imagine a lot of juggling would be involved if that had
transpired the way I think Yanukovych might have wished.
Ben Trovata
,
Thanx,for above .btw,it was Ukraine that refused that two-direction trade action.It's
presumed( by me ) that the War Party in Washington D.C. would not have this.Oddly,the
R.F. was okay with it,and,as mentioned above,Ukraine owed the R.F. a lot of money for
what had been keeping them warm all winter!
Savorywill
,
I think the gist is that Ukrainian support for Hillary was behind the disclosure of Manafort's
financial misdealing in Ukraine, to embarrass the Trump campaign as Manafort was the Trump campaign
manager at that time. In addition, Hillary was far more pugnacious to Russia than Trump, and her
assistant, Victoria Nuland seems to have more or less orchestrated the coup against the sitting
president, who wanted to accept Russian help, rather getting funds from the IMF (or something like
that). So, it makes sense the the Ukraine powers that be wanted Hillary to win.
Bob In Portland
,
If you look at Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators.who were either put into
power by the CIA or taken out of power by the CIA. I would suggest that his ultimate employer was
the CIA.
After Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed coup in Ukraine Manafort stuck around there and
helped the people who ousted. Just to refresh anyone's memory William Barr worked for the CIA in
the seventies until he got his JD. He was named Attorney General by President Bush (the first)
during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA operation to
illegally support the contras attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government while illegally arming
both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in Beruit .
The interagency team
investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and perished returning to the US.
Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee.
However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA. His wife, Ann Cabell Standish,
was the granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann Mueller's
granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy's assassination
there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset.
Curiously, Mueller's career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA covert
activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which has been
identified as having arrived in Mena, Arkansas. He prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA's point man
in Panama, where the CIA laundered money, moved cocaine and moved weapons for the contras. Mueller
prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money). Mueller became
the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.
Clone
,
Australia gave something like $50 million to the Clinton racket prior to the election. There was no
choice. The next president of the most exceptionally useless nation was scooping up money from
everywhere Hillary and Bill are rotten to the core but heck slipping them $50M under the table was
seen as a nice way to stay on their good side.
Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko and his mate Manafort
lavished cash and black ops media favours on Hillary to buy her support.
The crimes are (1) Hillary selling her prospective presidency, and (2) Petro 'the pig' Poroshenko
conspiring with the Clinton's to assault the democratic process.
They will end up dragging 'the pig' around the streets of Kiev behind a truck with his guts hanging
out. Filthy stinking creature he is.
Graham Hooper
,
John Key the Then PM of NZ Gave them a Big Donation to the Clinton Foundation Pre Elections an
Investment in Future Favours of Meetings ,Trade,5 Eyes,Military Sharing and Service to Protect Each
Other.
bevin
,
The Italian government, defeated in the last elections, also made an enormous 'donation' to the
Clinton Foundation.
Chris Williams
,
Clone – and of course these crimes are ones that need to be listed against the Donbass bloodshed
and the downing of MH17, which the all the governments with victims including Australia have now
gone silent on, knowing that it was a Ukrainian operation.
Michael Cromer
,
Hillary Clinton has actually been 'Bad Mouthing' Assange this week – Beggars belief.
Let us not forget Tony Blair – Teflon Tony aka T B. Liar – How is he able to walk free amongst law
abiding citizens?
Michael McNulty
,
He is free but he can't walk amongst law-abiding citizens. The last time I heard of somebody saying
he was making a citizens arrest of Blair it was a young waiter, serving Blair's family in the
closed-off upstairs of a restaurant with his bodyguards around. That was maybe seven years ago but
I forget where. So he won't even sit amongst diners on a family night out. I suspect others do tell
him he should be in prison.
Actions connected with Kiev may well have influenced US voters, as a key part of the anti-Russian
disinfo networks was "Stop Fake" based in Kiev. That was only the latest in a whole campaign of
propaganda to distort the views of Americans about Russia, and about anyone who wanted to improve
relations with Russia. You can only say it didn't influence voters because Trump won – but if Russia's
knowledge about Clinton had gained more attention he'd probably have won even more convincingly!
As the photo for the article nicely indicates war criminals help each other out.
By hook or by crook
as they say.
By the way did Poroshenko ever sell Roshen chocolate as he promised in his last election campaign?
OK. How did Ukraine interfere with the election? We see another string of allegations that show what?
How did anything done by Ukraine have an impact on the 2016 election outcome? (I would have expected
some focus on the role of the Clintons' business interests in Ukraine on the anti-Russian allegations,
in view of conflicts between Russia and Ukraine.) As for whatever happened in Ukrainian social media,
it had no influence on US voting choices. There was no surge of voters switching parties. We weren't
inundated with foreign propaganda. Americans just can't concede that when their candidate of choice
loses, it might not be due to some "outside factor."
Go back to the election results. Both candidates were opposed by much of their own voting bases,
for some of the same reasons. Roughly half of all registered voters rejected both Clinton and Trump.
They either voted third party or withheld their votes.In the end, Clinton did get more votes, but
Trump got the most electoral votes. All we can say for certain is that a good chunk of the population
forgot what they learned in school about the electoral college process.
Alfred (Cairns)
,
You are saying that Ukraine's so-called government – which was the outcome of a US-orchestrated
putsch – did not succeed in influencing the voting in the USA. I am quite happy with that. However,
they did try to influence the US election and that is another matter entirely.
It's probably money, US and IMF money for which Manafort got a kickback.
He must have operated like that in the Philippines and the Congo to be so sure that he did not
have to register. Even though Manafort was always helping the Republicans only in election
campaigns, the Ukrainians would have been anxious to keep at the $$$teet; so for them Clinton – no
change – was more attractive.
Francis Lee
,
For the purpose of analysis it might be useful to start with US interference in Ukraine rather than
the other way around. The role of US NGOs was one of the key factors in this process. The National
Endowment for Democracy (NED) which was operating quite openly in Ukraine prior to the coup, is
funded by the US government, so strictly speaking it is a GO not an NGO. Also involved was Human
Rights Watch another American NGO.
On the ground in Kiev during the run up and during the Maidan
events, Geoffrey Pyatt, US Ambassador to Ukraine and his neo-con sidekick Victoria Nuland,
Assistant Secretary of State for East European and Eurasian Affairs, strolled around Independence
Square in Kiev offering solace, cookies and support to the insurrectionists. Subsequent to this
Victoria 'f*** the EU' Nuland gave a talk at the press club in Washington openly stating that the
US had funded the whole Ukrainian imbroglio – $5 million was apparently the going rate for this
particular 'colour revolution'. There is also talk that Soros was involved.
The fact that Poroshenko, owed the US and the EU, in the overturning of a democratically elected
government Ukraine is not in dispute. And the fact that Porky made this perfectly clear with his
support for Hilary confirms this.
The degree to which the Ukrainian government meddled in the US election is difficult to gauge,
but what seems clear is that such meddling had no immediate or long term effect on the outcome as
Trump was duly elected.
Jen
,
Victoria Nuland is married to Robert Kagan.
I'll let Wikipedia tell folks all they need to
know about Kagan; I'm too busy holding my nose to stop breathing in the toxic fumes the
couple emits.
The Ukrainians released information about Donald Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort having done
work for past Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych (perceived by the West to have been close to
Moscow while he was leader) with the implication that Trump was being supported by the Russian
government. The information was released in mid-2016. Had it been released closer to the November
elections, it could have had a greater impact on Trump's chances of becoming President and the
Electoral College could have decided differently.
Savorywill
,
Wouldn't have made any difference. So much so-called 'news' is anything but, most people
probably don't know what to believe. I think Trump's election was more a protest vote as much as
anything, People were just sick of the status quo, seeing the world deteriorating around them.
And then, there were voters like me, who detested what Hillary had done in Libya, most
particularly. Destroyed a functioning country with all of the socialist benefits Bernie Sanders
could only dream about, turning the country into a raging hell-hole with constant civil wars 8
years later. Unforgivable, her role in that disaster. I was so relieved that she got defeated,
actually, and Trump did campaign on not militarily interfering with other countries and so far,
touch wood, he hasn't started any new wars.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
"... November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization, from far-right to far-left. ..."
"... After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution. ..."
"... Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik, will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting land]," said Bortnik, ..."
"... "But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2] ..."
"... Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. ..."
"... For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share" was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate. ..."
"... Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates. ..."
November in Ukraine has been marked by the adoption of the so called 'land reform', in accordance of the demands made by the
IMF amongst other international financial organizations. The reform opens the way for the mass privatization of Ukraine's agricultural
lands. The IMF has been making these demands for many years but assorted Ukrainian presidents have tried to postpone such an unpopular
decision. Recent polls show that the overwhelming majority of Ukrainians of all political persuasions are opposed to land privatization,
from far-right to far-left.
After an intensive period of deindustrialization, which has taken place in recent years, agricultural land remain the only
asset with any value in Ukraine but even so, it may be bought for very little. A remarkable fact is that one of the deputies from
the ruling party 'Servant of the people,' Nikita Poturayev , while pressing his colleagues at the Parliament to vote for the bill
on land reform, claimed [1] that this would be 'settling scores with maniac V. Lenin', i.e. the purpose of the bill was to abolish
the land nationalization carried out following the October revolution.
Ukraine's fertile soil up for grabs
It has long been known that Ukraine's soil is very fertile. Indeed, during WW2 the invading Nazis made a point of appropriating
quantities of it; forcing POWs to collect the top soil and load it onto trains en route to Germany. Now these same lands could fall
into the hands of international agro-holdings.
Ukrainian political expert Ruslan Bortnik says that the President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky and his team came to power
under an obligation to sell out the agricultural land of Ukraine to foreign companies. Those who buy these lands, according to Bortnik,
will only be thinking about making the quickest possible buck. "Foreign companies are already operating on Ukrainian soil [renting
land]," said Bortnik,
"But they are competing with large Ukrainian agricultural holdings. They do not dominate. If the adopted land market model
is launched, then only large foreign companies will remain in our market Let's be honest – we are not a sovereign country. At
least our government is under external control. And this is a part of the obligations of this government. This is the condition
under which they came to power. They are paying the debts through privatization." [2]
Ukrainian farmers who still are landowners, formally at least – they just can't sell it – are the same people who are unable
to pay their gas and electricity bills, especially after the recent raising of energy prices – another IMF demand. Obviously,
their financial desperation will mean that many will have to sell their land at a low price, certainly well below the market value.
Meanwhile, Ukraine remains the poorest country on the continent of Europe and Ukrainian agricultural land remains the cheapest. Moreover,
the lands may be bought up as repaying large loans collected by the Kiev government following the Euromaidan coup in 2014.
This scheme of buying up Ukraine's land is connected with the ongoing corruption scandal in the US: the one related to Joe Biden
and the gas company 'Burisma'. At the end of November, Ukrainian MPs (non-factional people's deputy Andrey Derkach; a deputy from
the Batkivshchyna Party Aleksey Kucherenko; and a deputy from the ruling Servant of the People party, Aleksandr Dubinsky) revealed
it at the press-conference [3].
The point here is that the former Minister of Ecology of Ukraine Nikolay Zlochevsky , an owner of "Burisma" gas company, in 2014
introduced a number of Western politicians to the board of directors of his company, which helped him to avoid accusations of corruption.
Hunter Biden , son of former US Vice President Joe Biden , received monthly large payments for his "consultancy services". As a result
Ukraine's General prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating the corruption schemes of the company, was forced – under
pressure – to resign by Joe Biden, who even boasted about it in the US media.
Ukrainian MPs have now claimed at a press-conference that the money used to bribe the son of the former Vice President of the
United States was in fact stolen. "Biden received money, the source of which is not the successful activity of Burisma, brilliant
business moves, or recommendations. It is the money of the citizens of Ukraine. It was obtained by criminal means," said the MP Andrey
Derkach. The ultimate goal of all this fraud, in which the Bidens were deeply involved, will be the bankruptcy of Ukraine in 2020-2021,
through the formation of a pyramid of public debt.
Laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine
According to Ukrainian deputies, this was a part of a bigger laundering scheme to withdraw money from Ukraine via Latvian banks
and the fund 'Franklin Templeton Investments,' which is close to the United States Democratic Party. The founder of the foundation,
John Templeton Jr., was one of the main sponsors of the campaign of former US President Barack Obama.
For the most part, it was in the region of $7.4 billion of stolen Ukraine's public money, from which only a "small share"
was used to bribe Western politicians, like Hunter Biden. The deputies have stressed that, according to the investigation of Ukraine's
general prosecution, the withdrawn and laundered money was then invested back into Ukraine. In particular through the Franklin Templeton
Investments, the money was used to buy domestic government bonds (DGB), issued by Kiev at high interest rate.
The principle of this scheme is that with the assistance of American funds, the laundered money was legalised and invested in
government bonds at 6-8% in dollars and 15-17% in Ukrainian currency (hryvnia). This is leading to enormous growth in the Ukrainian
public debt and eventually the bankruptcy of the country's economy.
Eventual bankruptcy of the economy
Ukrainian prosecutor Konstantin Kulik recently stated [4] in an interview that Ukraine takes IMF loans to pay out on these
debt obligations (DGB). As deputy Aleksandr Dubinsky stressed at the press conference, 40% of the current public budget goes towards
the payment of the public debt of Ukraine, including the repayment of DGB at inflated interest rates.
According to him, bankruptcy on the debts could happen by the end of 2020 or 2021.
And this scheme is connected with land privatization, as adopted by Kiev in November in accordance with the IMF demand. "DGBs
are a financial instrument by which the state owes all its property when paying off the DGB. And if the land market is opened, the
state will have no other valuable property, with the exception of land," said Dubinsky, demanding the suspension of debt payments
to international creditors.
As a result of this unpopular land reform and the widespread violations of labour rights, Ukraine's trade-unions called a general
strike [5] for November 14 and began preparations. For the first time in the history of independent Ukraine, a strike committee was
formed at the all-national level. This committee was joined by trade unions, individual entrepreneurs, small businesses, agricultural
producers and farmers.
Management fires workers, pays themselves millions in bonuses
On November 14, Ukrainian railroad workers protested [6] in front of the Presidential office in Kiev against the announced plans
to fire some 50% of railroad personnel. The workers demanded the railroad management should resign instead. The deputy head of the
railroad trade-union, Alexander Mushenok, recently said [7] that currently "only 20 workers are employed where 60 workers are needed."
At the same time the workers claim that the top-level management of the company are paying themselves millions in bonuses. One of
the IMF demands requires that the Kiev authorities privatize the railroad system as well. In practice, this means that the few profitable
routes will be privatized by western companies, while the majority of non-profitable routes – to poorly developed provinces – will
remain state-owned, making the railway transport even less profitable.
The entire course of privatization, as promoted by the IMF, can be summarized by the principle 'privatization of profits, nationalization
of losses." And the new Kiev government is far too dependent to protest against the imposition of this policy; however, this will
effectively mean that this government will lose its credibility and trustworthiness among the people.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
Republicans are actually afraid to ask questions about Obama administration smashing constitutional order in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty" NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks. ..."
"... Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine? ..."
"... Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all the way to the bank. ..."
What was inescapable during the hearing was the absence of parliamentary courtesy or simply personal gracious
conduct on the part of Chair of the Committee who was consistently intrusive as he overstepped his role with
arbitrary, prejudicial
violations of Roberts Rules of
Order.
Schiff
routinely ruled Points of Order
to be out of
order with an inflated sense of magisterial presence. His demeanor proved to be classless and boorish as if he had
been granted special dispensation from the House of Representative's Code of Conduct to treat his colleagues with
disdain and contempt.
Schiff routinely
refused to 'recognize
' a Member,
liberally gavelled his authority to cut off debate and at times,
badgered Republican witnesses
and further treated
Republican Members, who are his peers, as second class citizens in what was once regarded as a collegial body.
Once the dust settles, the House Ethics Committee may ultimately weigh in on Schiff's character and the manner in
which he conducted the Committee's business.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount
of support is hugely appreciated.
ttshasta
,
The Ukraine fiasco should be blown wide open for all to see I hope. I even started emailing my "lefty"
NYT reading friends photos of Azov Battalion, Right Sector, and C14 militias and asking why Trump should
be sending Javelin anti tank missiles to these folks.
I also forwarded Eva Bartlett's October pice on her
Crimea visit describing 200 new kindergartens and new airports and bridges to my friends who think I'm
crazy for saying Crimea has been part of Russia since 1784 and voted 90+% to rejoin Russia. Max
Blumenthal's Grayzone reports 4 million have left Ukraine, an exodus like Venezuela's. Adam Schiff had a
$1000/$2500 per plate fundraiser at Ukrainian Igor Pasternaks home in D.C. Is Pasternak a weapons dealer,
I'm not sure? Who is involved in Ukraine: Manafort, Biden, Obama's Hochstein, CIA's Woolsey, US Favarov,
Crowdstrike, Firtash, John Kerry, and on and on.
Ukraine seems a center for weapons trafficking, embezzlement, money laundering, and hacking. 3 billion in
IMF loans with no strings, where did it go, USAID money where did it go? How many weapons purchased by
Qatar & co. ended up in Syria via Ukraine?
I do not like and did not vote for Orange Jesus, but it seems the Biden, Kerry, Obama, Clinton apparatus
has more to answer for regarding Ukraine. Adam Schiff drives me crazy with his misleading and witness
coaching; he did propose repealing Citizens United though, of which I approve if it is not a diversion
tactic.
Like anyone expects an Amerikastani to tell the truth about anything, ever, for any reason. Amerikastanis
are genetically incapable of it.
Ken
,
Friends! Bread and circus, all of this! The monsters who rule over us must be having quite a laugh, all
the way to the bank.
Berlin beerman
,
The fact that there are citizens who watch this and then believe that their President actually committed
an impeachable offense in the process is past comic. Its sad because it implies one of two things.
1. The masses who watch and believe are as evil as the woman they tried to elect to the White House.
and/or
2. The masses are complete idiots .
the fact that Mr.Trump may actually be trying to help their sorry asses – by trying to put the
American people ahead of corporate interests – is one thing these haters have no clue about. Instead they
prefer to sit, watch and partake in their elected fools waste time and money on infighting and stupidity
– ironically all the attributes they dislike in their President.
Its rather poetic.
Jack_Garbo
,
Not at all. Obama has impeccable (unimpeachable?) manners but he's a worse war criminal than Bush,
and he'll never be tried. As I said, look up impeachable offenses. Trump is (sadly) innocent, the
inquiry is a failed charade. Once out of office, he's eminently indictable, but that won't happen
either. His crimes are not relevant.
Guy
,
All this crap about impeachment , he said she said , and lets not forget it's all Russia's fault which
leads me to as ,what are they drawing our attention away from .Could it be the whole Epstein affair ,
nothing to see here folks .Move along ..all guilty as sin of course .
Vexarb
,
Seattle's multi-talented Amy Walker tried to do Trump and failed. I bet she cannot do Hilary either.
Their saurian corporate world of primal GREED & cold blooded FASCISM is too primitive for her. But she
can and did create Eunice. Here is Amy Walker's wickedly affectionate sketch, the most delicately
incisive probing of Yankee psyche since Gatsby -- and much more positive, in its well brought up, well
educated, well intentioned and naively earnest simplicity of mind.
PPPPS And finally, Eunice's simpleminded and muddleheaded search for authentic being is
absorbed and overlayed by the mawkish bloated U$ culture typified by this POTU$A election.
But Eunice is blithely unaware of all this; the machinations of Obomba, Killary and
Trumpety-trump are beneath her dignity and above her head.
There is an article of the Mawkish Culture of the U$A in today's Saker Vineyard; but the
creation of Eunice shows that mawkish culture has fine, sensitive, deep penetrating roots.
" Yanukovych when he refused to join the EU " Yanukovych did not refuse to join the European Union. The
Ukraine was not then, and is not now, in a position to join the European Union. What Yanukovych did was
decide to not proceed with an association agreement which the European Union and the Ukraine had been
negotiating.
Vexarb
,
Short list by Asdlkks above: "[Trump] The guy who sucked up to AIPAC and Zionists, who first day
in office goes to the CIA, then makes torture Queen director of the CIA, and former director of
the CIA his Secretary of State replacing Big Oil tycoon, who has stuffed every regulatory agency
with swamp creatures more swampy than Obama or any other President could manage, who INCREASED
military operations in the ME including making the rules of engagement such it is even easier to
slaughter civilians, who ran on a big military buildup including a buildup of nuclear weapons
far greater than Obama's "modernization" who has pledged now to greatly increase the
distribution of military equipment to police departments than has been occurring for decades
already, " plus Trump's association with 911 coverup Mayor Giuliani.
Admittedly not a heinous
crimesheet by POTU$A standards.
Listening to Elise Stefanik, was reminded of George Galloway's famous stoush with the U.S Senate back in
2005.
But as for Adam Schiff?
He is obviously a lettuce leaf short of a salad, a jam sandwich without the jam, and a person who quite
obviously needs to speak to someone wearing a white coat.
And with both being deluded Russophobes, I'm certain he and Fiona Hill would make a great team.
How much longer is This Crap going for??
Yarkob
,
as long as they need to constantly use the phrase "under the shadow of impeachment" throughout the
2020 election cycle
wardropper
,
I give it about 17 years before western civilization implodes under the sheer gravitational force of
the crap with which it has surrounded itself for many decades.
George Mc
,
And just think that, as the mass of population sinks deeper into poverty, how much money is being
thrown at this, as you say, Crap? And I am aware that This Crap is, if I may switch metaphors, only
the tip of the iceberg. How many gazillions are being thrown at destabilising various societies,
grinding out relentless propaganda, piling into bloated military juggernauts, glutinous showbiz,
sporting and royal festivals etc. (shepherd's crook approaches)
Martin Usher
,
My guess is that the committee will produce a report which won't be used to impeach the President but
will form a central plank of next year's election campaign. The Republicans are desperate to have
actual impeachment proceedings, they know that the Senate would not convict Satan himself if that
person was one of them and the resulting noise will draw attention away from some looming issues in
the economy and the world which may well break in Q1 next year.
I know there are a lot of people who
will support Trump no matter what and who are quick to point out the failings in other politicians.
There's plenty of crap to go round, however while Trump has been fiddling Rome has been burning --
remember, what might be good for industry lobbyists or could be construed as "God's Work" may not be
actually good policies and there signs that things might not be as wonderful as they'd like. Three
that spring to mind are the relentless money printing by the Fed, inflationary at best, the likelihood
that the heartland will experience significant job reductions in key industries that can't be papered
over and the fact that the tariffs and sanctions put on China don't seem to have had any significant
effect -- on the Chinese, that is (US companies, that's a different take). This isn't all Trump's
fault, the problems have been brewing up for a lot longer than his Presidency, but the complete lack
of action or even recognition that there are problems (China trade excepted) combined with a crass and
very ham-fisted approach to foreign policy is exacerbating things.
US of A twinned with Ukraine a marriage made in heaven. I'm at a loss to say who has the finest
democracy.
As Rhys said below "I can fuck your wife anytime I want, but you fuck my wife and you're fucked,
dude." . No wonder Victoria Nuland's name has been passed over in this shit show.
I was asked by a Russian today, "Which country has the best democracy?". To which I replied "First you
have to define what exactly a democracy is." And they said, "It's what you have in the West."
To which I could only remark, "I wish I had your innocence."
George Mc
,
"Which country has the best democracy? .It's what you have in the West."
Kind of answered his own question there. Wrongly of course.
George Cornell
,
Thanks for the summary. I did not watch, preferring to gaze at the peacock feathers in my duster. The
Dems are making Trump look less odious, no small feat.
"... Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, " ..."
"... According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul Manfort," ..."
"... Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal aide. ..."
"... He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump. ..."
"... Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal, unethical and unconscionable. ..."
"... Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the "whistleblower" complaint. ..."
"... Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member of the Intelligence committee. ..."
"... IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new "interpretive" guidelines. ..."
"... The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid mouthpieces for the Deep State. ..."
"... Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017, ..."
"... Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'" ..."
WASHINGTON, DC : Adam Schiff "whistleblower" Eric Ciaramella has
been exposed as a John Brennan ally. An ally who actively worked to defame, target, and destroy
President Donald Trump during both the Obama and Trump administrations. He was fired from the
Trump White House for leaking confidential if not classified information detrimental to the
President. ( The Pajama Boy
Whistleblower Revealed – Rush Limbaugh )
The 33-year-old Ciaramella, a former Susan Rice protege, currently works for the CIA as an
analyst.
Eric Ciaramella: The Deep State non-whistleblower
During his time in the Obama White House, NSC Ciaramella worked under both Vice President
Joe Biden and CIA director John Brennan. He reported directly to NSC advisor Susan Rice through
his immediate boss, Charles Kupchan. Kupchan had extensive ties with Clinton crony Sydney
Blumenthal. Large portions of Blumenthal's disinformation from Ukrainian sources in 2016 was
used in the nefarious Steele Dossier.
Ciaramella also worked extensively with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa. Chalupa led the
effort at the DNC to fabricate a link between the Trump Campaign to Vladimir Putin and Russia.
According to Politico, Chalupa "met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia."
The DNC paid Chalupa $412,000 between 2004 and 2016.
DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa: Ciaramella co-conspirator
"Chalupa told a senior DNC official that, when it came to Trump's campaign, 'I felt there
was a Russia connection.'"
Apparently without any evidence. So she set out to concoct it.
Chalupa (left) also says that the Ukrainian embassy was working directly with reporters
digging for Trump-Russia ties. How convenient, and unethical.
Ciaramella invited Chalupa to meetings and events at the Obama White House. She also visits
the Obama White House with Ukrainian lobbyists seeking aid from Obama. Senator Charles
Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a letter to Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein in 2017, "
"Chalupa's actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a
foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to
influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials."
The FEC complaint against the DNC and Chalupa
In September 2019 a complaint was filed with the Federal Elections Commission against the
DNC naming Alexandra Chalupa. The complaint alleges that Chalupa acted "improperly to gather
information on Paul Manafort and Donald Trump in the 2016 election".
According to Fox News, the complaint alleges that the DNC specifically "tasked Chalupa
with obtaining incriminating or derogatory information about Donald Trump [and] Paul
Manfort,"
Fox News reporting, that Chalupa allegedly
"Pushed for Ukrainian officials to publicly mention Manafort's financial and political ties
to" Ukraine and "sought to have the Ukrainian government provide her information about
Manafort's work in the country."
John Solomon and Wikileaks both expose Chalupa as DNC operative
"Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information
from the Ukrainian government on Paul Manafort's dealings inside the country. Chalupa later
tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's Russian ties
on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign."
Ciaramella's connection with John Brennan and Susan Rice
Eric Ciaramella had been working with John Brennan, Susan Rice, the Obama White House, and
Alexandra Chalupa to target and destroy Donald Trump well before he was elected. He was
initially brought into the NSC and the White House inner circle by John Brennan himself.
Remarkably, despite his clear connections to Rice and Brennan, he was brought back into the
inner circle of the Trump NSC by HR McMaster. McMaster appointed him to be his personal
aide.
He was fired in June of 2017 after being directly implicated in a series of serious national
security leaks from the White House calculated to be damaging to President Trump.
Ciaramella and Alexander Vindman: the second "whistleblower"
Ciaramella's title at the White House was NSC Director for Ukraine. That position is now
held by the newest Schiff star witness and Trump hater Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Vindman is
apparently the "2nd whistleblower" to leak his concerns about the call between Trump and
President Zelensky to Ciaramella.
Vindman also leaked the classified information about the President's call with a foreign
head of state to a number of other people. These unauthorized leaks are criminal. Both illegal,
unethical and unconscionable.
Violating clear national security guidelines for classified information.
Republicans, on cross-examination of Vindman was asked by Republicans cross-examining him
during the closed-door secret police hearings conducted by Adam Schiff, asking who Vindman had
contact with. Schiff cut off the questioning, coaching the witness while refusing to let him
answer the questions.
Schiff coordinated with Ciaramella and Vindman
It is now clear that Ciaramella and Vindman coordinated the entire whistleblower affair with
Schiff and his staff in violation of the "whistleblower" statute. That Ciaramella has been
coordinating his complaint with Schiff committee staffers Abigail Grace and Sean Misko.
Ciaramella worked with both Grace and Misko in the NSC at the Obama White House. Misko and
Grace joined Schiff's committee in early August of 2019, just in time to coordinate the
"whistleblower" complaint.
Both Vindman and Ciaramella do not qualify for "whistleblower" status. They were reporting
on a diplomatic conversation, not an intelligence matter. They were not reporting on a member
of the Intelligence committee.
The suspicious case of IC IG Michael Atkinson
IC IG Michael Atkinson surreptitiously changed the rules for whistleblower complaints to
allow second-hand testimony in September of 2019. He then backdated the changes to allow the
Ciaramella complaint, initially filed in early August, to be included under the new
"interpretive" guidelines.
The level of subterfuge and coordination between Schiff, Ciaramella, Vindman, Abigail Grace,
Sean Misko, and IG Atkinson is more than suspicious. It reeks of yet another episode of a Deep
State coordinated coup attempt.
The whole impeachment affair is a brazen sequel to the Russia Hoax involving many of the
same key players. Susan Rice, John Brennan, Adam Schiff. Designed to target, destroy, and in
this case, fabricate grounds for the impeachment of the President.
The playbook is the same as the Mueller Inquisition and the Russia Hoax, the same as the
Kavanaugh smear campaign. With the same co-conspirators of the left-wing mainstream media. Not
only carrying water for the coup plotters but being actual participants in the scheme. Paid
mouthpieces for the Deep State.
Paul Sperry and Real Clear Investigations
The most comprehensive expose on Ciaramella, that has forced even the mainstream media to
take notice, was the Real Clear Investigations reporting of Paul Sperry. Only Sperry, the
Federalist, and CDN have exposed the whistleblowers' identity. But his name and transparent
partisan actions are the worst kept secret in Washington.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz has said:
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is."
Sperry's devastating expose makes clear that Ciaramella is another cog in the Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, Rice, Obama conspiracy to overthrow the duly elected President of the United
States. As Chuck Schumer said in January of 2017,
"If you take on the intelligence community, they have nines ways to Sunday of getting back
at you."
The never-ending coup attempt against Trump
The reality is that Trump was targeted by the Obama White House well before he was
President. The ongoing coup against him started as soon as he was elected. It morphed into the
Mueller Weissman inquisition and the Peter Strzok insurance policy.
When that fizzled into oblivion it was time for plan B, or in this case plan C or D. The
Deep State and their paid minions in the left-wing press have been unrelenting in their ongoing
anti-constitutional putsch against the President.
The impeachment farce, with its calculated rollout reminiscent of the Kavanaugh smear
campaign, is yet another extension of a never-ending East German Stassi coup (sic) attempt
against the constitution, the Republic, and the people of the United States.
Sperry lays out the trail of evidence against Ciaramella
Paul Sperry's excellent investigative reporting makes clear that Ciaramella "previously
worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan. (He) left his
National Security Council posting in the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns
about negative leaks to the media." As Sperry reports, "He was accused of working against Trump
and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC official.
Sperry reports that "a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research
dossier on him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill". The
dossier documents Ciaramella's bias against Trump. His relationships with Brennan, Rice, the
Obama White House, and DNC operative Chalupa. As well as his coordination with Vindman, Schiff
and his committee staff.
Chuck Schumer: "Eight ways to Sunday of getting back at you"
It questions both Ciaramella's and Vindman's veracity as a legitimate whistleblower. It
makes clear that Ciaramella and his co-conspirators are part of a Deep State coup attempt. A
calculated, coordinated, illegal, seditious, and illegitimate putsch.
As CIA analyst Fred Fleitz makes clear, " They're hiding him ." Fleitz was emphatic,
" They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative. Sperry reports, "In the days
after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used to further political and media calls
for the standup of the special counsel to investigate 'Russia collusion.'"
How IC Inspector General Atkinson found the whistleblower complaint "credible" and "urgent"
at the same time he was backdating the change in regulations to allow the complaint to be filed
is more than highly suspicious. How the 'whistleblower" coordinated with Schiff, Grace, Misko,
and Atkinson to stager the start of impeachment farce is criminal.
Adam Schiff: Constantly lying while moving the goalposts
... ... ...
Schiff: Outstanding scoundrel in a cesspit filled to the brim with similar criminals.
Now Eric Ciaramella is apparently backing away from testifying. Schiff says he no longer
needs his testimony. But Ciaramella should be subpoenaed and called to testify before the
Senate Judiciary Committee. He should not be allowed to escape accountability for his role in
this calculated charade of a conspiracy.
He would then have to testify to his coordination with Schiff and the committee staff. He
would have to expose how Vindmann leaked national security information illegally. How the
entire 'whistleblower" farce was a calculated effort to again derail the Trump Presidency.
A lot has come out about Eric Ciaramella, the Adam Schiff 'Whistleblower", in recent days.
It is the tip of the iceberg. Any legitimate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the
entire Ukraine affair will reveal the extensive criminality of the Obama White House and the
coup plotters.
Exposing the dark underbelly of the Obama White House
It stretches back to the Steele Dossier and the clear efforts of the DNC and the Deep State
to use to a foreign power to interfere in the 2016 election. He exposes the corruption of Vice
President Biden to enrich his family at the expense of the American taxpayer. Details the $6
million dollar bribery scheme of Hunter and Joe Biden by Burisma Holdings.
Lays out the corrupt dealings of Ambassador Yovanovich.
It will lay open the devious underbelly of all the so-called hero witnesses of the Schiff
impeachment Star Chamber inquisition. Of the criminal actions of the coup plotters. Of
Ambassador Yovanovich, Ambassador Taylor, Alexandra Chalupa, and Alexander Vindman.
As well as the so-called whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella.
Calling the Fourth Estate back
It is the tip of the iceberg that only a truly free and independent press will have to
take the reins to fearlessly expose. Like brilliant investigative reporter Paul Sperry at
Real Clear Investigations. Like the Federalist, NOQ Report, and here at CommDigiNews, who
broke the Ciaramella story a full two days before Real Clear Investigations.
No one else in the corrupt media establishment seems willing to rise to the challenge.
If you've not heard the story, Zlochevsky is alleged to have been doing other people's
laundry. About 7.5 billion dollars worth – a sum that has attracted some attention. And
not just because Ukraine claims Hunter Biden's attachment to Burisma resulted in a take if 16.5
million. Money that has nothing to do with his complete lack of knowledge about energy or gas
but probably relates in some predictable way to the name 'Biden.' The investment firm doing the
laundry has close ties to Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Lt. Col Alexander Vindman. Perhaps a few
members of the US State Department. And maybe a George Soros funded operation "fighting
corruption."
We've seen that Vindman has close ties to the previous Ukrainian government, dating back
to Yanukovych and his successor Petro Poroshenko, while this alleged money-laundering scheme
was taking place. The connection to the Franklin Templeton Fund is interesting because John
Templeton, Jr. was a major Obama campaign donor, and Thomas Donilon, who was Obama's National
Security Advisor before Susan Rice and is now the chairman of BlackRock
Investment Institute , a major owner of Franklin Templeton stock.
Vindman is a holdover from the Bamster years, embedded at the NSC.
He served as National Security Advisor to President Barack Obama. In that capacity Mr.
Donilon oversaw the U.S. National Security Council staff, chaired the cabinet level National
Security Principals Committee, provided the president's daily national security briefing, and
was responsible for the coordination and integration of the administration's foreign policy,
intelligence, and military efforts. Mr. Donilon also oversaw the White House's cybersecurity
and international energy efforts. Mr. Donilon served as the President's personal emissary to
a number of world leaders.
Not a casual acquaintance but watch Obama distance himself from him now. "Who? O
I..uh-hardly knew him!"
Under the Obama Administration, former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovich, like Biden,
like the Soros funded group working with the State Department, were all supposed to be focused
on fighting corruption. There's that word again. I don't think it means what they think it
means.
But while all this corruption-fighting was underway Joe's kid Hunter gets a sweetheart
payoff from Burisma. Joe (who is in charge of Ukraine) gets close to a million for himself. All
while 7.5 Billion is alleged to have been laundered through a "fund" whose primary players are
a major Obama donor and the President's "personal emissary" (under the watchful anti-corruption
eye of a group funded by perhaps the biggest Democrat donor in history, George Soros).
During this series of events, Ukraine got leveraged by the Obama Administration to fire a
prosecutor in exchange for a billion in US aid, probably because that prosecutor was getting
too close to what we are learning today.
Somebody was engaged in a record number of quid pro quos, and no one is named Trump.
...
... ... Steve
MacDonaldis a New Hampshire resident, blogger, and activist. A member of the 603
Alliance, NHCMP, NHRVC, LFGC, and the host of GrokTALK! Please Note: My opinions are my own and
not those of my Family, employers, politicians, campaigns, or other contributors or commenters
at GraniteGrok
You say--"John Brennan convened a secret task force at CIA headquarters composed of several
dozen analysts and officers from the CIA, the NSA and the FBI.
The unit functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the
intelligence community. Those brought in signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted
access to intelligence from all three participating agencies."
Repeat: "Those brought in signed new non-disclosure agreements to be granted access to
intelligence from all three participating agencies"!!!
I suppose this means that John Brennan had access to all electronic communications
gathered on Trump campaign officials by the NSA. That suggests to me that the intel agencies
now have almost absolute power over future elections in the US. All the agency chiefs have to
do is concoct some wacky pretext for expanding their surveillance net (Like "collusion") and,
presto, they have immediate access to all private conversations between presidential
candidates and their lieutenants.
Do the American people really want John Brennan and his crooked spawn to choose our future
leaders??
I certainly hope Durham can crack this nut, otherwise this country is headed for the
landfill.
I've been surprised to learn that it wasn't IG Horowitz that uncovered the Strzok-Page texts
but rather Strzok's wife. With all of the so-called investigators involved in the "Russian
collusion" matter, turns out it was a scorned wife who unearthed the Rosetta Stone of the
hoax.
And now Sundance on the CTH has an item addressing the claims of former Overstock CEO
Patrick Byrne that he was used in an FBI op that tried to dirty up Trump campaign associates
via Maria Butina:
Larry, thanks for the clarifications (and the reassurance). Your entry so consistently
mentions payment that I find myself wondering how to correctly relate payment and spying.
That is, one can be an unpaid informant (Sater could be acting simply in exchange for a delay
in sentencing, though that might also constitute payment perhaps?).
Others could just be acting as good citizens, patriots or under direct question by the
authorities. None of which would necessarily entail payment, but some of which could
constitute spying (perhaps??) even if unpaid...
Further, spying here isn't the only thing that might be considered illegal, improper or
otherwise censurable. True?
Sundance sees these leaks as coming from investigation targets who are allowed to read and
comment on and rebut the draft report language addressing them. Thus, this is probably
"spinning" by targets and their media pals to try to "set the narrative" before the report is
released. Horowitz can rebut these "target" comments in the final report and the "targets"
are not provided any rebuttal material prior to the final report release, so it will be quite
interesting to see what the report actually says when final....
so we have this IG investigation that takes forever to complete, and when people ask why so
long the answer is the scope was increasing and we have to get it right. Now, with the report
finally being released, people are told the IG never had the jurisdiction necessary and we
have to wait for Durham.
1. Sater states that he was trying to do the Moscow deal to make money, on his own. Not
prompted by FBI.
2. I don't see in that super long pdf for Steele where there is a payment record. Please
give the exact page. There are some pages on the form, that are for payments. But no
indication that a payment was made. My recollection is that FBI was PLANNING to pay Steele,
but never did. (Correct me if wrong, like to see the actual page number.)
3. The Greenberg thing is the most interesting (and mysterious). Still, it's not 100%
proven to me that he was prompted by the government to make the approach. Perhaps likely, but
I don't see why you refer to it as a fact.
4. In general, there is a bad habit from our side to state speculation, even likely
speculation as fact. See this from Sundance all the time. Really gets in the way of serious
sleuthing and discussion though. The problem is one gets confused over what really is fact,
versus what is speculation. (An easy one is all the speculation that Mifsud was an intel
asset, versus just a networker--who knows for sure.)
P.s. To one of your commenters: My recollection was that the Strozk texts came to light
because of Lisa Page being questioned on the McCabe leak. Have seen a lot of our side jumping
to conclusions that the Strozk wife was the precipitant (but all the recent document said was
that she had access and threatened).
4. Would Trump benefit from investigations in Ukraine and Burisma? Would he benefit any
more then the DNC would benefit with Russia?
Yes, Trump would benefit from investigations into Ukraine and Burisma. Does that mean that
it's not the right thing for the country? No. The truth is important no matter which side it
hurts in the next election. The left should be just as interested in learning the facts about
what had happened in Ukraine as they are trying to make it seem like they are with the Russia
investigations. Would it benefit him more then it would benefit the DNC though, then it does
with the Democrats investigating Russia? No. Unlike the Democrats, Trump doesn't have a
majority of the media on his side. A media who tries to spin absolutely every little rumor into
a major crisis, that they are sure will take down the President this time.
The left is quick to dismiss any talk of Ukraine just like the right is quick to dismiss any
talk of Russia. If either, or both, are true, it is a very severe threat to our Republic and
needs to be dealt with.
5. Which is more in line with America's national interest?
a) Withhold U.S. aid money ($400 billion) until recipient investigates: What happened to $7
billion in U.S aid? Was there any collusion to influence the U.S. election, government
corruption involving the State Department, U.S. intelligence, NGO's, U.S. candidates, etc.
OR
b) A President or Vice President withholding U.S. aid ($1 billion) unless recipient STOPS
investigations.
The answer to this question is really easy. We should absolutely investigate where the $7
billion went. We need to figure out if there was any influence in the US election. We should
investigate Vice President Joe Biden calling for the ambassador to be fired.
We know for a fact that there was collusion between the DNC and the Ukraine embassy in D.C.,
so why is it that nobody cares about that collusion? Why is it a big deal that Trump supposedly
withheld aid from Ukraine until they investigated Joe Biden, but no one seems to have a problem
with Joe Biden withholding aid to force Ukraine to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor so that an
investigation would be stopped? That wasn't an impeachable offense, but Donald Trump's phone
call with the Ukrainian President was? What has Trump done that is any worse then anything the
Obama administration did?
These 5 questions should be questions that both sides should be able to come together on but
sadly both sides are more concerned with party politics, more then they are concerned about the
security of our republic. Claiming that Russia is a treat doesn't automatically mean that you
believe Trump is an illegitimate President and that he colluded with Russia. Claiming that
Ukraine needs to be investigated doesn't mean that you are excusing anything that Donald Trump
has done. It simply means that you are more concerned with the national security of our country
then you are with party politics.
Chalupa reportedly
acknowledged in her 2017 interview with Politico that she worked as a consultant for the
DNC during the 2016 campaign with the goal of publicly exposing Trump campaign aide
Paul Manafort 's
links to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine. Chalupa admitted coordinating with the Ukrainian
Embassy, and with Ukrainian and U.S. news reporters.
I won't sit here and claim that what I've heard over the last 2 days with family in town,
is at all representative of all Americans but it was interesting. I have all kinds of
political affiliation in the family: Maga's, Dims and Independents. All are TIRED of both
sides antics. No one wanted to discuss it except to say that we are ALL fucked in one way or
another. What was lively political debate before was met with a lack of discussion and
instead a pervasive frustration and sadness about the system itself how corrupt it all is but
not knowing what to do about it.
I just wonder if that's how many Americans feel about all this. At least those sick of all
of it.
Most of us are aware of that. It doesn't mean that he isn't right about some things
though, and he's incredibly amusing at times. If there is ever a non zionist candidate, I'd
happily vote for them. At least he's not a west hating bolshevik golem.
As is everyone else in washington. Ron, Rand, and Tulsi, not given a chance. Obama was
probably the least zionist president we've had in decades, and he still went along with most
of their goals, along with being a fabian socialist.
Please wake up soon. Your savior is running $1 trillion annual deficits, has raised the
troop numbers in Afghanistan from 8500-14,000, will not leave Syria, bombed Syria twice with
zero evidence of gas attacks because there were none. Anybody who thinks there's a dime's
worth of difference between the parties comatose, please wake up soon.
"... The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August 2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate evidence to assign blame to Syria. ..."
Manufacturing a pretext for the U.S.
missile strike on Syria in April 2018 is nowhere near the biggest of OPCW's crimes. The
OPCW is an accessory , both before and after the fact to the crime of
mass murder.
It should now be clear to everyone that Syrian "rebels" gassed thousands of hostages in
cellars, most likely with chlorine gas, and then paraded the victims in White Helmets
snuff videos. OPCW conspired in this crime in both encouraging the terrorists to more murder
and by protecting them afterward by assigning blame to Assad and the Syrian government.
The worst of these massacres happened in Ghouta in August
2013 when 2000 civilian hostages (rebel claim) were gassed to death by rebels and their
pre-White Helmets "civil defence". The OPCW was there to cover up the crime and to fabricate
evidence to assign blame to Syria.
We have been documenting
these crimes and hoaxes at A Closer Look On Syria from December 2012. OPCW was used
from the beginning to manufacture consent for war. See for example:
Of course, the OPCW is already there! I highly suggest Caitlin Johnstone's article b
linked be read, which can be
found here .
We should expand on Petri's number of people involved in this crime to include all the
paid disinformation artists noted in Caitlin's essay at minimum. What becomes very clear in
all this is the total collusion with OPCW upper level management--those whom the
whistleblowers and their allies within OPCW petitioned--in these crimes as Petri contends.
Until they are visibly replaced, nothing issued by OPCW has any credence.
OPCW has shown to be a pure political entity, used at will by few regimes in the UN to
promote their agenda, b has done a tremendous job to humanity to bring the truth to the
public worldwide. Syrians have paid the price for UN leaders support to global terrorism for
too long. It must stop now.
"... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."- Joseph Goebbels ..."
At yesterday's Thanksgiving table, fifteen adults present, there was not one word uttered
about impeachment, Russia, Ukraine, and, most notably, a certain Golden Golem of Greatness,
whose arrival at the center of American life three years ago kicked off a political hysteria
not witnessed across this land since southern "fire eaters" lay siege to Fort Sumter.
I wonder if some great fatigue of the mind has set in among the class of people who follow
the news and especially the tortured antics of Rep. Adam Schiff's goat rodeo in the House intel
Committee the past month. I wonder what the rest of congress is detecting among its
constituents back home during this holiday hiatus. I suspect it is that same eerie absence of
chatter I noticed, and what it may portend about the nation's disposition toward reality.
The dead white man Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) famously observed that "all truth
passes through three stages: first, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and
third, it is accepted as self-evident."
America has been stuck in stage two lo these thirty-six months since Mr. Trump shocked the
system with his electoral victory over She-Whose-Turn-Was-Undoubted, inciting a paroxysm of
rage, disbelief, and retribution that has made the Left side of the political transect
ridiculous, and repeatedly, ignominiously so, as their fantasies about Russian "collusion" and
sequential chimeras dissolve in official proceedings.
The astounding failure of Mr. Mueller's report did nothing to dampen the violent
derangement. There was no rethinking whatsoever about the terms-of-engagement in the Left's war
against the populist hobgoblin. The solidarity of delusion remained locked in place, leading to
Mr. Schiff's recent antics over his false "whistleblower" and the enfilade of diplomatic
flak-catchers tasked to ward off any truthful inquiry into events in Ukraine.
But then, with the Thanksgiving shut-down, something began to turn. It was signaled
especially in the Left's chief disinformation organ, The New York Times , with a week-long
salvo of lame stories aimed at defusing the Horowitz report, forthcoming on December 9. The
Times stories were surely based on leaks from individuals cited in the IG's report, who were
given the opportunity to "review" the briefs against them prior to the coming release. The
stories gave off an odor of panic and desperation that signaled a crumbling loss of conviction
in the three-year narrative assault on the truth -- namely, that the US Intel Community
organized a coup to overthrow the improbable President Trump.
From this point forward, the facts of the actual story -- many of them already in the public
record, one way or another, and sedulously ignored by the news media -- will be officially
detailed by federal authorities outside the orbit of the coupsters, and finally beyond the
coupsters' control. The facts may include the uncomfortable truth that Mr. Mueller and his
helpers were major players in the bad-faith exercises of the Intel Community against the
occupant of the White House.
I'm not so sure that the Resistance can keep up the fight,
since their enemy is reality as much as reality's mere personification in Mr. Trump. The
violent opposition Schopenhauer spoke of in his three-stage model was just procedural in this
case, moving through the courts and committees and other organs of the state. I don't think the
Left can bring the fight to the streets. They don't have it in them, not even the ANTIFA corps.
The hard truths of perfidy and treachery in the upper ranks of government will rain down in the
weeks ahead, and when they do, there's an excellent chance that they will be greeted as
self-evident. The Times , the WashPo and the cable news networks will have no choice but to
report it all. My guess is that they will display a kind of breathlessly naïve wonder that
such things are so. Most remarkably, they might just assert that they knew it all along -- a
final twitch of bad faith as the new paradigm locks into place.
I expect that we will see something else happen along with that: a loud repudiation of the
Democratic Party itself, a recognition that it betrayed the mental health of the nation in its
lawless and demented inquisitions . I expect that sentiment will extend to the party's current
crop of candidates for the White House, to the delusional proposals they push, and perhaps even
to the larger ethos of the Wokester religion that has programmatically tried to destroy the
common culture of this country -- especially the idea that we have a duty to be on the side of
truth.
And then there is the Magnitsky Act, Behind the Scenes one showing in the US then banned in all Western countries. Two minute trailer
https://vimeo.com/286527081
I've never wanted to be wrong more in my life, but this IG report and the "investigation"
by Barr et al isn't going to "find" $hit. 99% of their time, effort, and energy has been
focused on what they absolutely have to report and destroying evidence they can get away
with. No big name, evil MFers will be touched by this. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not.
You are correct and the contempt they are going to face will render all of them
meaningless for the rest of their lives. If in doubt, ask Romney; if he gave someone
directions to a doughnut shop they would assume it was a lie.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."- Joseph Goebbels
The Horowitz report on 12-19-19. CNN has already front run the report and reveled a
nothing little fatty that will be blamed for the FISA abuse. There will be no bomb shells
that the mainstream media can't obfuscate. The county is divided and facts no longer matter.
The good news is the right is too polite to fight in the streets and the left are such
pussies nobody can really be afraid of them.
Democrats live in a lie. They live in a completely made up propaganda-supported la-la
land, and they get angry when the rest of the world recognizes those lies.
"... However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible.'" ..."
"... Within days the details of these calls were leaked to the media , resulting in a series of unflattering articles being published by the mainstream media. While no direct evidence has emerged about who was responsible for leaking these calls, NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time suspected the whistleblower. (One of the byproducts of this incident was the decision by NSC lawyers to move the records of Presidential phone calls to a more secure server , significantly limiting access by NSC staff.) ..."
"... When Hill arrived in April 2017 to assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found himself without a job. ..."
"... The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers have been made on the New Cold War. ..."
"... The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in interaction. ..."
"... Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get elected. ..."
"... It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist, communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering according to its own direction. ..."
"... I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time and the president was gone and replace. Political. ..."
"... In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan sight as always. ..."
"... The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required of such. ..."
"... A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign cultures ..."
"... the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat. ..."
"... Evidently he was so pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security. ..."
"... This case is classical sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and won as Democrats in 2018). ..."
"... The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our political leaders and media foist on us. ..."
"... "After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed." When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so many others.) ..."
"... Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive national security decisions. ..."
"... "The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics since 2016 ." ..."
"... If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined to be November 22, 1963. ..."
SCOTT RITTER: The 'Whistleblower' and the Politicization of Intelligence November 27,
2019 •
52 Comments
The whistleblower complaint has opened a window into the politicization of the intelligence
community, and the corresponding weaponization of the national security establishment, argues
Scott Ritter.
Special to Consortium News
The whistleblower. A figure of great controversy, whose actions, manifested in an
11-page
report submitted to the Intelligence
Community Inspector General (ICIG) on August 12 alleging wrongdoing on the part of the
president of the United States, jump-started an ongoing impeachment process targeting Donald
Trump that has divided the American body politic as no other issue in contemporary time.
His identity has been cloaked in a shroud of anonymity which has proven farcical, given that
his name is common knowledge throughout the Washington-based national security establishment in
whose ranks he continues to serve. While Trump
publicly calls for the identity of the whistleblower
to be revealed , the mainstream media has played along with the charade of confidentiality,
and Congress continues to pretend his persona is a legitimate national security secret, even as
several
on-line publications have printed it , along with an extensive document trail sufficient to
corroborate that the named man is, in fact, the elusive whistleblower.
There is no legitimate reason for the whistleblower's identity to remain a secret. The
Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff , (D-CA) has cited statutory protections that
simply do not exist while using his authority as chairman to prohibit any probe by his
Republican colleagues designed to elicit information about the whistleblower's identity. "The
whistleblower has a right, a statutory right, to anonymity," Schiff recently opined during
recent impeachment-related testimony. And yet The Washington Post, no friend of Trump,
was compelled to assign Schiff's statement
three "Pinocchios" , out of a scale of four, in rejecting the claim as baseless.
The myth of statutory protection for the whistleblower's identity has been aggressively
pursued by his legal counsel, Andrew Bakaj , the managing partner of the Compass
Rose Legal Group, which has taken on the whistleblower's case pro bono.
In a letter to the president's legal counsel, Pat Cippolone, Bakaj demanded that Trump
"cease and desist in calling for my client's identity", claiming that the president's actions,
undertaken via Twitter and in press briefings, constituted violations of federal statutes
prohibiting, among other things, tampering with a witness, obstruction of proceedings, and
retaliating against as witness.
All of Bakaj's claims are contingent upon the viability of the whistleblower's status as a
legitimate witness whose testimony can, therefore, be tampered, obstructed or retaliated
against. The legal foundation of the whistleblower's claims are based upon the so-called
Intelligence Community whistleblower statute , 50 USC § 3033(k)(5), which
stipulates the processes required to report and sustain an allegation of so-called "urgent
concern" to the U.S. intelligence community. An "urgent concern" is defined, in relevant part,
as: "A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity
within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving
classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters."
The Call
At issue was a telephone call made between President Trump and the newly elected President
of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky , on July 25
of this year. According to the whistleblower's report to the ICIG, "Multiple White House
officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of
pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests."
President Trump, the whistleblower alleged, "sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take
actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid," an act which the whistleblower claimed
presidential abuse of his office "for personal gain."
Upon review of the whistleblower's report, which consisted of a nine-page unclassified
letter and a separate two-page classified annex, Michael K. Atkinson, the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, initiated an investigation of the complaint as required by the
whistleblower statute. This investigation must be completed within a 14-day period mandated by
the statute, during which time the ICIG "shall determine whether the complaint or information
appears credible."
While the statute is silent on the methodology to be used by the ICIG in making this
determination, Atkinson
had testified during his Senate confirmation hearing that, when it came to any
investigation of a whistleblower complaint, "I will work to ensure that ICIG personnel conduct
investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews in accordance with Quality Standards
promulgated by CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency) to keep
those activities free from personal, external, and organizational impairments." The CIGIE
standard in question requires that, "Evidence must be gathered and reported in an unbiased
and independent manner in an effort to determine the validity of an allegation or to resolve an
issue."
In a
letter transmitting the whistleblower
complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Atkinson stated that he had
"determined that the Complainant (i.e., whistleblower) had official and authorized access to
the information and sources referenced in the Complainant's Letter and Classified Appendix,
including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject
matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant's
Letter and Classified Appendix."
However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the
second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25
Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records
of the telephone call, noting that he "decided that access to records of the telephone call was
not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern
'appears credible.'"
Atkinson declared that "it would be highly unlikely for the ICIG to obtain those records
within the limited remaining time allowed by statute," and opted to perform an investigation in
violation of the very CIGIE standard he had promise to adhere to in his Senate testimony. In
short, no evidence was gathered by the ICIG to determine the validity of the whistleblower's
allegation, and yet Atkinson decided to forward the complaint to the DNI, certifying it as
"credible."
The whistleblower statute allows the DNI seven days to review the complaint before
forwarding it to the House Committee on Intelligence, with comments if deemed appropriate.
However, in reviewing the actual complaint, Joseph McGuire, the acting DNI who took over from
Dan Coats, who was fired by President Trump in early August, had questions about whether or not
the matters it alleged fell within the remit of the whistleblower statute, and rather than
forwarding it to the House Intelligence Committee, instead sent it to the Justice Department
Office of Legal Counsel for legal review.
The Office of Legal Council, on September 3, issued a legal opinion
rejecting the ICIG's certification of the whistleblower complaint as constituting an "urgent
concern" under the law. "The complaint," the opinion read,
"does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence
activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence
community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant
received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory
definition of 'urgent concern' that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence
committees. We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an 'urgent concern'
within the meaning of the statute."
DOJ Rejected Complaint as Urgent
As related in the Office of Legal Counsel's opinion, the Justice Department did, however,
refer the matter to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice for appropriate review.
After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed.
Under normal circumstances, this would have concluded the matter of Trump's phone call with
Zelensky, and the second-hand concerns unnamed White House officials had reported to the
whistleblower. But this was not a normal circumstance. Far from diffusing an improperly
predicated complaint, the failure of the acting DNI to forward the whistleblower complaint to
the House Intelligence Committee, and the concurrent legal opinion of the Justice Department's
Office of Legal Counsel rejecting the "urgent concern" certification of the ICIG, opened the
door for the whistleblower, through legal counsel, to reach out to the House Intelligence
Committee directly.
The whistleblower followed procedures set forth in the whistleblower statute detailing
procedures for a complaint, which had not been certified as an "urgent concern," to be
forwarded to Congress. The issue is that the matter was being treated by the ICIG, Congress and
the whistleblower's attorney's as an "urgent concern", a status that it did not legally qualify
for.
On September 24, Bakaj sent a "
Notice of Intent to Contact Congressional Intelligence Committees" to acting DNI McGuire
providing "formal notice of our intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees
directly" on behalf of the whistleblower, identified only as "a member of the Intelligence
Community." Almost immediately, Schiff announced via Twitter that
"We have been informed by the whistleblower's counsel that their client would like to speak to
our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. We're in touch
with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as this week."
Andrew Bakaj, whistleblower attorney. (Twitter)
Thus was set in motion events which would culminate in impeachment proceedings against
President Trump. On the surface, the events described represent a prima facia case for the
efficacy of statutory procedures concerning the processing of a whistleblower complaint. But
there were warning signs that all was not right regarding both the whistleblower himself, and
the processes involved leading to the whistleblower's complaint being presented to
Congress.
Political Bias?
Far from an exemplar in bureaucratic efficiency, the whistleblower complaint has opened a
window into the politicization of the intelligence community, and the corresponding
weaponization of the national security establishment, against a sitting president.
As I shall show, such actions are treasonous on their face, and the extent to which this
conduct has permeated the intelligence community and its peripheral functions of government,
including the National Security Council and Congress itself, will only be known if and when an
investigation is conducted into what, in retrospect, is nothing less than a grand conspiracy by
those ostensibly tasked with securing the nation to instead reverse the will of the American
people regarding who serves as the nation's chief executive.
The key to this narrative is the whistleblower himself. Understanding who he is, and what
role he has played in the events surrounding the fateful July 25 telephone conversation, are
essential to unravelling the various threads of this conspiracy.
Much has been made about the political affiliation of the whistleblower, namely the fact
that he is a
registered Democrat who
supports Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential election. On the
surface this information is not dispositive -- the intelligence community is populated by
thousands of professionals of diverse political leanings and affiliations, all of whom have
been trained to check their personal politics at the door when it comes to implementing the
policies promulgated by the duly elected national leadership.
Indeed, Inspector General Atkinson, while acknowledging in his assessment of the
whistleblower's complaint an indication of possible political bias on the part of the
whistleblower in favor of a rival political candidate, noted that "such evidence did not change
my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible'". But
when one reverse engineers the whistleblower's career, it becomes clear that there in fact
existed a nexus between the whistleblower's political advocacy and professional actions that
both influenced and motivated his decision to file the complaint against the president.
A Rising Star
Like most CIA analysts, the whistleblower possessed a keen intellect born of
stringent academic preparation , which in the whistleblower's case included graduating from
Yale University in 2008 with a degree in Russian and East European studies, post-graduate study
at Harvard, and work experience with the World Bank.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor, a contemporary colleague of the whistleblower, has provided an apt
account for what is expected of a CIA analyst. "The CIA is an intensely apolitical
organization," Kendall-Taylor wrote . "As
intelligence analysts, we are trained to check our politics at the door. Our job is to produce
objective analysis that the country's leaders can use to make difficult decisions. We undergo
rigorous training on how to analyze our own assumptions and overcome biases that might cloud
our judgement."
The training program Kendall-Taylor referred to is known as the Career
Analyst Program (CAP) , a four-month basic training program run out of the CIA's in-house
University, the Sherman Kent
School , which "introduces all new employees to the basic thinking, writing, and briefing
skills needed for a successful career. Segments include analytic tools, counterintelligence
issues, denial and deception analysis, and warning skills."
Andrea Kendall-Taylor (Center for a New American Security)
The
standards to which aspiring analysts such as the whistleblower were trained to meet were
exacting, and included a requirement to be "independent of political considerations," meaning
the product produced should consist of objective assessments "informed by available information
that are not distorted or altered with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular
policy, political viewpoint, or audience." As an analyst, the whistleblower would have chosen a
specific specialization, which in his case was as a " Political Analyst " , charged with
examining "political, social, cultural, and historical information to provide assessments about
foreign political systems and developments."
By the time the whistleblower completed his application process with the CIA, which requires
a detailed background check, several rounds of interviews, and final security and psychological
evaluation before an actual offer of employment can be made, and by the time he finished his
basic analytical training, the U.S. had undergone a political and social revolution of sorts
with the election of Barack Obama as the 44 th president of the United States.
The whistleblower was assigned to the Office of Russian and Eurasian Analysis (OREA), within
the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence, at a time when U.S.-Russian policy was undergoing a
radical transformation.
Under the guidance of Michael McFaul, President Obama's special advisor on Russia and the
senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council, the Obama
administration was seeking to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the election of
Dmitri Medvedev as Russia's president in 2008. Medvedev had succeeded Vladimir Putin, who went
on to serve as prime minister. Medvedev was a more liberal alternative to Putin's autocratic
conservatism, and McFaul envisioned a policy "reset" designed to move relations between the
U.S. and Russia in a more positive trajectory.
As a junior analyst, the whistleblower worked alongside colleagues such as Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, who joined OREA about the same time after graduating from UCLA in 2008 with a
PhD is Slavic and Eurasian studies. A prolific writer, Kendall-Taylor wrote extensively on
autocratic leaders and Putin in particular . Her work was in high demand at both the CIA
and NSC, which under the Obama administration had undergone a massive expansion intended to
better facilitate policy coordination among the various departments that comprised the NSC.
The whistleblower had a front-row seat on the rollercoaster ride that was U.S.-Russian
policy during this time, witnessing the collapse of McFaul's Russian "reset," Putin's return to
power in 2012, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that led to the annexation of Crimea and
Russian support for rebels in the Donbas region.
During his tenure at OREA, the whistleblower obviously impressed his superiors, receiving
several
promotions and, in July 2015, he detailed to the NSC staff at the Obama White House as the
Director for Ukrainian Affairs. According to a former CIA officer, any high-performing analyst
who aspires to be promoted into the ranks of the Senior Intelligence Service must, prior to
that time, do a rotation as part of the overall policy community, which includes the NSC or
another department, such as Defense or State, as well as a tour within another directorate of
the CIA.
NSC positions were originally intended for senior CIA analysts, at the GS-15 level, but
waivers could be made for qualified GS-14 or "very strong" GS-13's (the whistleblower was a
GS-13 at the time of his assignment at the NSC, a reflection of both his qualification and the
regard to which he was held by the CIA.) NSC assignments do not coincide with the political
calendar -- detailees (as career civil servants who are detailed to the NSC are referred) are
expected to serve in their position regardless of what political party controls the White
House. When an opening becomes available (usually when another detailee's assignment has
finished), prospective candidates apply, and are interviewed by their senior management, who
forward qualified candidates to another board for a final decision.
Assignments to the NSC are considered highly sought after, and while the process for
application must be followed, the selection process is highly political, with decisions being
signed off by the director of the CIA. In the case of the whistleblower, his candidacy would
have been approved by both Peter Clement
, the director of OREA, and John Brennan , the CIA director.
Into the Lion's Den
By the time the whistleblower arrived at the NSC, the NSC staff had grown into a well-oiled
policy machine managing the entire spectrum of Obama administration national security
policy-making and implementation. The NSC staff operated in accordance with Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) 1 ,
"Organization of the National Security Council System", which outlined the procedures governing
the management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple
agencies of the United States Government.
Brennan briefing Obama May 3, 2010. He approved whistleblower. (Official White House Photo
by Pete Souza)
The vehicle for accomplishing this mission was the NSC Interagency Policy Committee
(NSC/IPC). The NSC/IPCs were the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of national
security policy. They provided policy analysis for consideration by the more senior committees
of the NSC system and ensured timely responses to decisions made by the president. NSC/IPCs
were established at the direction of the NSC Deputies Committee and were chaired by the
relevant division chief within the NSC staff.
The whistleblowers job was to develop, coordinate and execute plans and policies to manage
the full range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic national security issues for
the countries in his portfolio, which included Ukraine. The whistleblower coordinated with his
interagency partners to produce internal memoranda, talking points and other materials for the
National Security Advisor and senior staff.
The whistleblower reported directly to Charles Kupchan , the Senior Director for
European Affairs on the NSC. Kupchan, a State Department veteran who had previously served on
the NSC staff of President Bill Clinton before turning to academia, in turn reported directly
to Susan Rice, President Obama's national security adviser.
When the whistleblower first arrived at the NSC, he volunteered for the Ukraine portfolio.
Kupchan was impressed by the whistleblower's work ethic and performance, and soon expanded his
portfolio to include the fight against the Islamic State. The whistleblower was aided by
another organizational connection -- his colleague and mentor at OREA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor,
had been selected to serve in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the d
eputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Among Kendall-Taylor's responsibilities was to
closely coordinate with the NSC staff on critical issues pertaining to Russia and Ukraine.
The whistleblower's arrival at the NSC staff also coincided with the start of Trump's
improbable candidacy for the presidency of the United States. As 2015 transitioned into 2016,
and it became apparent that Trump was the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party,
allegations about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia began to circulate within the
interagency. Trump's electoral victory in November 2016 , the shocked the whistleblower, like everyone else on the NSC
staff.
Alarmed By Trump on Russia
The line between policy and politics began to blur, and then disappeared altogether.
National Security Advisor Rice was becoming increasingly alarmed by the activities of the Trump
transition team, especially when it came to issues pertaining to Russia.
According to The Washington Post , "Rice apparently was closely monitoring the
high-profile investigation into Russian interference."
The President-elect had, during the campaign, openly advocated for better relations between
the U.S. and Russia and had even suggested that the Russian annexation of Crimea could
eventually be accepted by the U.S. This stance was anathema to the policies that had been
massaged into place by the NSC in general, and the whistleblower in particular. According to
multiple sources familiar with the whistleblower during this time, his animus against Trump was
palpable.
In December 2016, Rice was involved in the unmasking of the identities of several members of
the Trump transition team. Various sensitive intelligence reports were circulating within the
NSC regarding the interaction of unnamed U.S. citizens with foreign targets of intelligence
interest. In order to better understand the significance of such a report,
Rice has acknowledged that, on several occasions, she requested that the identity of the
U.S. persons involved be "unmasked."
The U.S. intelligence community is prohibited by law from collecting information about U.S.
citizens. As such, when a conversation undertaken by a foreign national of intelligence
interest was captured, and it turned out the person or persons whom the target was speaking to
was a U.S. citizen, the analysts preparing the report for wider dissemination would "mask", or
hide, the identities of the U.S. citizens involved. Under relevant laws governing the
collection of intelligence, up to 20 officials within the Obama administration had the
authority to unmask the identities of U.S. citizens. One of those was Rice.
In late December 2016, the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin
Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York for a meeting with several top Trump transition officials,
including Michael Flynn, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the President-elect's top
strategist Steve Bannon. Intelligence reports had been circulating about the UAE coordinating a
backchannel for the Trump transition team and Russia.
Zayed's arrival, which was unannounced and had not been coordinated with the U.S.
government, caused great concern among the NSC staff especially given the context of
allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016
election.
The principle NSC staffers who would logically been advising Rice on this matter were
Kupchan, the whistleblower, and
Sean Misko , a State Department detailee who served as the director for the Gulf Arab
States (According the NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time, Misko and the
whistleblower were said to be close friends, frequently socializing with one another after
hours, and possessing a common dislike for Trump.)
Rice requested that the intelligence reports pertaining to Zayed's visit be subjected to
unmasking procedures.
While the
subsequent reporting about the three-hour meeting between Zayed and the Trump transition
team failed to uncover any evidence of a secret communications channel with Russia, Rice (who
would logically have been assisted by Kupchan and the whistleblower) facilitated the near
continuous unmasking of intelligence reports involving Flynn, who was in contact with Russian
officials, including Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.
The Greatest Sin
Susan Rice, center, with Obama, March 10, 2009. (White House photo)
As a professional intelligence analyst detailed to the NSC, the whistleblower was committed
to a two-year assignment, extendable to three years upon the agreement of all parties.
President Obama's departure from the White House did not change this commitment. According to
NSC staffers who served in the White House at the time, the whistleblower, like many of his
fellow detailees, had grown attached to the policies of the Obama administration which they had
fought hard to formulate, coordinate and implement. They viewed these policies to be
sacrosanct, regardless of who followed in the White House.
In doing so, they had committed the greatest sin that an intelligence professional could
commit short of espionage -- they had become political.
In December 2016, the whistleblower was, based upon his role as a leading Russian analysts
advising Rice directly, more than likely helping unmask Flynn's communications with Russians; a
month later, he was working for Flynn, someone he had likely actively helped conspire against,
using the unfettered power of the intelligence community.
The Trump administration had inherited a national security decision-making apparatus that
was bloated, and which fostered White House micromanagement via the NSC. While the Obama NSC
had proven able to generate a prolificate amount of "policy", it did so by relying on a staff
that had expanded to the largest in the history of the NSC, and at the expense of the various
departments of government that were supposed to be the originators of policy.
As the new national security adviser, Flynn let it be known from day one that there would be
changes. One of his first actions was to hire four new
deputies who centralized much of the responsibilities normally tasked to regional directors
such as the whistleblower. Flynn was putting in place a new level of bureaucracy that shielded
professional detailees from top level decision makers.
Moreover, it recognized that the NSC, while staffed with professionals who are supposed to
be apolitical, was viewed by the White House as a partisan policy body whose work not only
furthered the interests of the United States, but also the political interests of the
president. When Trump included his top political advisor, Bannon, on the list of people who
would comprise the National Security Council (normally limited to cabinet-level officials), it
sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, which accused Trump of
politicizing what they claimed was an apolitical process.
But the reality was that the NSC had always functioned as a partisan decision-making body.
Its previous occupants may have tried to temper the level to which domestic politics intruded
on national security decision-making, but its presence was an unspoken reality. All Trump did
by seeking to insert Bannon into the mix was to be open about it.
Like the other professional detailees who comprised 90 percent of the NSC staff and were
expected to remain at their posts as part of a Trump administration, the whistleblower was
dismayed by the changes.
Some accounts of the early days of the Trump NSC indicate that the whistleblower was
defensive of the Ukraine policies he had helped craft during his tenure at the NSC.
When his immediate superior, Kupchan (a political appointee) departed the NSC, the
whistleblower was temporarily elevated to the position of senior director for Russia and
Eurasia until a new replacement could be found. (Flynn had reached out to
Fiona Hill , a former national intelligence officer for Russia under the administration of
George W. Bush, to take this job; Hill had accepted, but would not be available until
April.)
According to persons familiar with his work at the NSC during the Trump administration, the
whistleblower's frustration and anger soon led to acts of resistance designed to expose, and
undermine public confidence in President Trump.
Cut Out of Call to Putin
In late January 2017 Trump made several introductory telephone calls to world leaders,
including President Putin. Normally the NSC director responsible for Russia would help prepare
the president for such a call by drafting talking points and supporting memoranda, and then
monitor the call directly, either from within the Oval Office or from the White House situation
room.
According to sources familiar with the incident, Flynn did not coordinate Trump's call with
NSC staff, and as such the whistleblower, who was acting as the director for Russia and
European Affairs at the time, would have been cut out of the process altogether. When the
whistleblower tried to access the read out of the phone call afterwards, he found that no
verbatim record existed, only a
short summary released by the White House , presumably prepared by Flynn.
More frustrating was the fact that the official readout of the call released by the
Kremlin contained much more information, putting Russia in the driver's seat in terms of
defining U.S.-Russian policy priorities -- the very policy blunder the NSC was supposed to
prevent from happening. While searching for the non-existent records of the Putin-Trump
conversation, however, the whistleblower came across detailed verbatim transcripts of two other
calls made by Trump that day -- one with Mexico, and one with Australia.
On February 13, 2017,
Flynn resigned from his position as President Trump's national security adviser. The reason
given was Flynn's having misrepresented his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak when
questioned by Vice President Mike Pence. For the whistleblower, whose previous work in the
Obama NSC appeared to help Rice's efforts to unmask the very conversations Flynn was being held
accountable for, this had to have been a satisfying moment. He had to have been even more
pleased by
Trump's choice to replace Flynn -- Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, a decorated combat
veteran known for his intelligence and willingness to challenge the establishment.
McMaster rewrote the presidential guidance regarding the functioning of the NSC, replacing
the original Presidential Policy Memorandum 1 with a new version, PPM
4 , which removed Bannon from the NSC and restored much of the policy coordinating
functions that characterized the NSC under Obama.
Moreover, McMaster stuck up for
the professional detailees , such as the whistleblower. When Hill arrived in April 2017 to
assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found
himself without a job.
But instead of being returned to the CIA, McMaster, who had come to know the whistleblower
during his first month as national security adviser,
appointed him to serve as his personal assistant . The whistleblower moved from his desk
next door in the Executive Office Building, where most NSC staffer work, to the West Wing of
the White House, a move which gave him direct access to every issue that crossed McMaster's
desk.
Oval Office Leak
The new job, however, did nothing to diminish the disdain the whistleblower had for Trump.
Indeed, the proximity to the seat of power may have served to increase the concern the
whistleblower had about Trump's stewardship. On May 10, President Trump played host to Russian
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. During the now-infamous meeting,
Trump spoke about the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey; a sensitive Israeli intelligence
source related to the ongoing fight against ISIS in Syria; and alleged Russian interference in
the 2016 presidential election.
As McMasters' assistant, the whistleblower was privy to the readout of the meeting, and was
so alarmed by what he had seen that he sent an email to John Kelly , who at that
time was serving as director of the Department of Homeland Security, detailing the president's
actions and words. All materials relating to this meeting were
collected and secured in the NSC's top secret codeword server ; the only unsecured data was
that contained in the whistleblower's email. When the media subsequently reported on the
details of Trump's meeting with the Russians, the White House condemned the "leaking of private
and highly classified information" which undermined "our national security."
According to a NSC staffer who worked in the White House at the time, an internal
investigation pointed to the whistleblower's email as the likely source of the leak, and while
the whistleblower was not directly implicated in actually transmitting classified information
to the press, he was criticized for what amounted to unauthorized communication with an outside
agency, in this case the Department of Homeland Security. When his initial two-year assignment
terminated in July 2017, the White House refused to authorize a one-year extension (a courtesy
offered to the vast majority of detailees).
The whistleblower had become a liability,
publicly smeared by right-wing bloggers and subjected to death threats. He was released
from the NSC and returned to the CIA, where he resumed his role as a Eurasian analyst. Shortly
after the whistleblower left the NSC, the full transcripts of President Trump's January 28,
2017 conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the press. While
several colleagues in the NSC believed that the whistleblower was behind the leaks, McMaster
refused to authorize a formal investigation which, if evidence had been found that implicated
the whistleblower, would have effectively terminated his career at the CIA.
It is at this juncture the saga of the whistleblower should have ended, avoiding the turn of
events which ended up labeling him with the now famous (or infamous) appellation. However, in
June 2018 the whistleblower's colleague, Kendall-Taylor, ended her assignment as the deputy
national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. An announcement was made to fill the
vacancy , and the whistleblower applied.
Despite having left the NSC under a cloud of suspicion regarding the unauthorized disclosure
of sensitive information, and even though his anti-Trump sentiment was common knowledge among
his colleagues and superiors, the whistleblower was picked for a position that would put him at
the center of policy formulation regarding Russia and Ukraine, and the sensitive intelligence
that influenced such. His appointment would have been approved by Director of National
Intelligence Dan Coates.
Enter Vindman
The whistleblower was well versed in the collaborative functions of the deputy national
intelligence officer position, having worked with Kendall-Taylor during his time at the NSC. He
began to develop professional relationships with a number of individuals, including the new
director of Ukraine at the NSC, Army Lieutenant Colonel
Alexander Vindman . Vindman had extensive experience regarding Ukraine and had been
detailed to the NSC from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two soon appeared to share a mutual
concern over President Trump's worldview of both Russia and Ukraine, which deviated from the
formal policy formulations promulgated by the interagency processes that both Vindman and the
whistleblower were involved in.
The whistleblower's concerns about President Trump and Ukraine predated the July 25, 2019
telephone call, and mirrored those expressed by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, both in chronology
and content,
provided during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee . While Vindman was
critical of President Trump's deviation and/or failure to conform with policy that had been
vetted through proper channels (i.e., in conformity with PDD 4), he noted that, as president,
"It's his prerogative to handle the call whichever way he wants."
Vindman took umbrage at the non-national security topics brought up by the president, such
as investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, regarding their
relationship with a Ukrainian energy company,
Burisma Holdings , and other references to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
According to Vindman, it was this aspect of the telephone call Vindman believed to be
alarming, and which he subsequently related to an authorized contact within the intelligence
community. While Vindman remained circumspect about the identity of the intelligence community
official he communicated with about his concerns over Trump's Ukraine policy, the fact that the
chairman of the House Intelligence Committee refused to allow any discussion of this person's
identity strongly suggests that it was the whistleblower who, as the deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Ukraine, would be a logical, and fully legitimate,
interlocuter.
According to
an account published in T
he Washington Post, sometime after being informed by Vindman of the July 25
Trump-Zelensky telephone call, the whistleblower began preparing notes and assembling
information related to what he believed was untoward activity vis-à-vis Ukraine on the
part of President Trump and associates who were not part of the formal Ukraine policy making
process. He made numerous telephone calls to U.S. government officials whom he knew from his
official work as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Because much
of the information he was using was derived from classified sources, or was itself classified
in nature, the whistleblower worked from his office, using a computer system approved for
handling classified data.
Off Limits
From the perspective of security, the whistleblower's work was flawless. There was one
problem, however; investigating the actions of the president of the United States and officials
outside the intelligence community who were carrying out the instructions of the president was
not part of the whistleblower's official responsibilities.
Indeed, anything that whiffed of interference in domestic American politics was, in and of
itself, off limits to members of the intelligence community.
Robert Gates, a long-time CIA analyst and former CIA director, had warned about this
possibility
in a speech he delivered to the CIA in March 1992 on the issue of the politicization of
intelligence. "National intelligence officers", Gates noted, "are engaged in analysis and --
given their frequent contact with high-level policymakers -- their work is also vulnerable to
distortion."
There was no greater example of politicized distortion than the rabbit hole the
whistleblower had allowed himself to fall into. From Gates' perspective, the whistleblower had
committed the ultimate sin of any intelligence analyst -- he had allowed his expertise to
become tarnished by political considerations.
Worse, the whistleblower had crossed the threshold from advocating a politicized point of
view to becoming political -- that is, to intervene in the domestic political affairs of the
United States in a manner which influenced the political future of a sitting president of the
United States.
Once he had assembled his notes, he sought out staffers on the House Intelligence Committee
for guidance on how to proceed. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had
hired two former members of the Trump NSC staff who had served at the same time as the
whistleblower.
One, Abigail Grace, had worked at the NSC from 2016-2018, covering U.S.-Chinese relations.
Grace was hired by Schiff in February 2019 for the express purpose of investigating the Trump White House.
A second NSC veteran was
hired in August 2019, around the same time that the whistleblower was preparing his
complaint. That staffer was none other than Sean Misko, the whistleblowers friend and fellow
anti-Trump collaborator.
Both Misko and the whistleblower departed the NSC in 2017 under a cloud. Misko went on to
work for the Center for New American
Security , a self-described bipartisan think tank set up by two former Obama administration
officials, Michèle Flournoy and Kurt M. Campbell, before being recruited by Schiff. It
is not known if Misko was one of the House Intelligence staffers the whistleblower approached,
or if there had been any collaboration between the whistleblower and Misko about the nature of
the complaint prior to Misko being recruited by Schiff.
After conferencing with the House Intelligence Committee staffers, the whistleblower sought
legal counsel. He reached out to a lawyer affiliated with Whistleblower Aid , a group of national security lawyers
who came together in September 2017 -- eight months after the inauguration of President Trump
-- to
encourage w histleblowers within the U.S. g overnment to come out agains Trump , and
provide legal and financial assistance to anyone that chose to do so. One of Whistleblower
Aid's founding members was a lawyer named Mark Zaid.
In the days following Trump's swearing in as president, Zaid turned to Twitter to send out
messages supportive of a "coup" against Trump that would lead to the president's eventual
impeachment. The identity of the lawyer who met with the whistleblower is not known. However,
this lawyer referred the whistleblower to Bakaj, a fellow member of Whistleblower Aid, who took
on the case and provided procedural guidance regarding the preparation of the complaint. Bakaj
later brought on Zaid and another lawyer, Charles McCullough, with close ties to Senator Chuck
Schumer and Hillary Clinton, to assist in the case.
On August 12, the whistleblower completed his complaint, and forwarded it to the
intelligence community inspector general, thereby setting in motion events that produced weeks
of hearings before the House Intelligence Committee that will very likely result in Trump's
impeachment.
Shielded from Questions
While the whistleblower, through counsel, had expressed a desire to testify before the House
Intelligence Committee about the issues set forth in his complaint, he was never called to do
so, even in closed-door session. The ostensible reason behind this failure to testify was the
need to protect his anonymity, a protection that is not contained within the relevant statutes
governing whistleblower activities within the intelligence community.
Later, as witnesses were identified from the content of the whistleblower's complaint and
subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, both Schiff and Bakaj indicated
that the whistleblower's testimony was no longer needed, since the specific issues and events
covered in his complaint had been more than adequately covered by the testimony of others.
But the apparent reason Schiff and Bakaj refused to allow the whistleblower to testify, or
to be identified, was to avoid legitimate questions likely to be asked by Republican committee
members.
Namely, what was a deputy national intelligence officer of the U.S. intelligence community
doing investigating activities of a sitting president? Who, if anyone, authorized this
intervention in U.S. domestic political affairs by a CIA official? How did the whistleblower,
who had a history of documented animosity with the Trump administration that included credible
allegations of leaking sensitive material to the press for the express purpose of undermining
the credibility of the president, get selected to serve as a deputy national intelligence
officer? Who signed off on this assignment? What was the precise role played by the
whistleblower in unmasking the identities of U.S. citizens in 2016, during the Trump
transition?
Did the whistleblower maintain his friendship with Misko after leaving the NSC in July 2017?
Did the whistleblower collaborate with Misko to get the House Intelligence Committee to
investigate the issues of concern to the whistleblower before his complaint was transmitted to
the ICIG? Who did the whistleblower meet on the House Intelligence staff? What did they
discuss? Who was the lawyer the whistleblower first met regarding his intent to file a
complaint? Did the whistleblower have any contact with Whistleblower Aid prior to this
meeting?
Answers to these questions, and more, would have been useful in understanding not only the
motives of the whistleblower in filing his complaint -- was he simply a concerned citizen and
patriot, or was he part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the political viability of a
sitting president? There is no doubt that Congress has a constitutional right and obligation to
conduct proper oversight of the operations of the executive branch, and to hold the president
of the United States accountable if his conduct and actions are deemed unworthy of his office.
Whether or not the facts surrounding the July 25, 2019 telephone call between Trump and
Zelensky constitute grounds for impeachment is a political question for Congress to decide.
Intervening in Domestic Affairs
There is, however, the major issue looming in the background of this impeachment frenzy: the
intervention by elements of the intelligence community in the domestic political affairs of the
United States. There is no question that the whistleblower's complaint served as the genesis of
the ongoing impeachment proceedings.
The American people should be deeply concerned that an inquiry which could result in the
removal of a duly elected president from office was initiated in secrecy by a member of the
intelligence community acting outside the four corners of his legal responsibilities. The
legitimacy of the underlying issues being investigated by the House Intelligence Committee is
not at issue here; the legitimacy of the process by which these proceedings were initiated
is.
To find out what happened, the whistleblower should not only be identified, called before
the House Intelligence Committee, and other relevant Congressional committees, and be compelled
to answer for his actions.
Impeachment is a constitutional remedy afforded to the U.S. Congress to deal with the
political issues surrounding the conduct of a sitting president. If this constitutional remedy
can be triggered by the intelligence community in a manner which obviates laws prohibiting the
intrusion of intelligence agencies into the domestic political affairs of the United States,
and done so in a manner where the identities of the persons and organizations involved, along
with their possible motives, are shielded from both American people and those whom they elect
to represent them in Congress, then a precedent will have been set for future interventions of
this nature which undermine the very foundation of American democracy.
The political weaponization of intelligence represents a significant threat to the viability
of the American constitutional republic that cannot be ignored.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet
Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm,
and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
Great Article Scott. You are as right about the politicization of Intelligence you were
about there being no WMD's in Iraq.
There is a corollary to the old saw that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." The
power to surveil also carries the power to destroy.
FBI director J. Edgar Hoover used it (after WWII) to control or get what what he wanted from
politicians who had something embarrassing in their past or maybe a current affair.
FBI Director James Comey's attempt to Hoover president Trump didn't work. It does reveal
that the FBI hasn't changed much. Intelligence, especially the CIA, is so corrupted (read
politicized) it has to be considered a political faction. A very powerful political faction
that wants to run the country without being elected. If Russiagate was the coup d'essai
(first attempt) the impeachment is a coup de theatre.
Former US Senator from New York, and UN Ambassador, Danial Patrick Moynihan (1927-2003)
proposed disbanding the CIA and transferring its intelligence functions to the State Dept. He
also introduced a bill in the senate to do it. See onlinelibrary dot wiley dot com. –
"Do we still need the CIA" 15 pages pdf. If even half the CIA's 'deeds' were public and half
what it has failed to do or know became public, the voters would happily support Senator
Moynihan's bill.
Tedder , November 29, 2019 at 10:53
I always thought that focussing on Trump's rather idiotic and stupid obsession with
Ukraine and Joe Biden made little sense for impeachment, compared with a long list of valid
and important reasons of Trump's transgressions. The fact that the team who listened to the
call were disturbed by it but 'blew no whistle' implies that they probably just shrugged
their shoulders and looked away in embarrassment.
The "whistleblower" was CIA and it seems 'he' just seized this transgression as the main
chance for the security state to finally get rid of Trump, just as they have tried since his
campaign statements for restoring detente with Russia. As Scott Ritter points out, careers
have been made on the New Cold War.
Arnieus , November 29, 2019 at 10:30
Scott Ritter is obviously still a fearless truth teller. My first awareness of Scott was
an interview on CNN with the disgusting Paula Zahn during the months before the Iraq war.
Like the rest of corporate media, her job was obviously to be a cheer leader for "W" Bush's
disastrous war. She didn't know how to respond to Scott as he explained that as Chief Weapons
Inspector he had witnessed the elimination of anything that could be considered a WMD in
Saddam's Iraq. This interview, the exposure of the outdated plagiarized student thesis held
up as intelligence, the Downing St. memo, and the yellow cake lie outing of Valerie Plame all
added up to one thing. The Bush administration obviously knew there was no justification for
their "shock and awe" invasion. This was my awakening at age 50 I am embarrassed to admit. I
helped organize the local protest demonstrations of several thousand people in my area which
did no good of course. Millions of people all over the world could not stop it.
Mark Rabine , November 29, 2019 at 08:41
If you think it is proper, in fact imperative, to publically identify the whistleblower
(which is publically known anyway), then why do you keep referring to him as the
whistleblower? Not only iis it annoying it casts a shadow over the rest of the information
you present (without sources).
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:49
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
OlyaPola , November 29, 2019 at 04:14
"the Politicization of Intelligence"
The purpose of "intelligence" is to enhance/preserve specific political relationships of
the entity/entities for whom activities which are defined/framed as "intelligence" are
undertaken, and hence "intelligence" is always "politicised" since it is a component of
politics a.k.a. interactions defined/framed by the "initiators" implemented in
interaction.
Often interactions deemed to facilitate de-mystification are facilitated/framed by
mystification a.k.a. perception management in which the "initiators" are also
immersed/subject to in some assay.
Bill Rood , November 29, 2019 at 00:49
Note that House Democrats just extended the PATRIOT act for 3 mos by stealthily attaching
it to a "must pass" bill.
Thank you, Scott Ritter, for this background info. I'm very upset about the Dems
protecting the whistleblower, who works for them, while persecuting others.
Sam F , November 28, 2019 at 19:34
Thanks for this detailed glimpse of secret operations at the top of the USG. Indeed
interventions of this nature "undermine the very foundation of American democracy" along with
the economic power of oligarchy that controls all branches of federal government and the mass
media.
Scott seems convinced that the NSC serves the administration, although it surrounds and
outnumbers them, controls the information and narratives available to them, is controlled by
secret tribes of the secret agencies, and acts against them everywhere when it disagrees. The
administration are mere figureheads in a government by secret agencies lost in their own
self-serving narratives. Any contrary administration would have to move in a shadow
government by force right after election, and abolish the NSC. Not that it could get
elected.
Bill Mack , November 28, 2019 at 16:21
In 1979 a presidential CAMPAIGN colluded with a foreign country for political leverage ,
and used it successfully .
Good investigative reporting in the tradition of Consortium News founder Bob Parry, who
was warned he would be "controversialized" and went full scale ahead anyway -- no, not
"anyway" -- rather ALL THE MORE, ALL THE STRONGER.
More than two years before his untimely death, Bob had it pretty much figured out, and
wrote it. See, for example The Foundering Russia-gate Scandal on Dec. 13, 2007 and Protecting
the Shaky Russia-gate Narrative on Dec. 15, 2017.
Needless to say, your VIPS colleagues are among those proud of your gutsy, professional
work. Perhaps Consortium News folks merit a reminder to send this piece of Scott's far and wide
-- and best BEFORE the politicians, who prefer not to understand why intelligence needs to be
apolitical, make the usual hay out of your findings.
This afternoon I told a close friend about your findings in getting the truth out. He
asked, Will this help Trump??
Aaaaaaaaagh, no, I said, this will help the TRUTH, which still matters. If the dumb Dems
can't find something more important and unconstitutional on which to impeach Trump, they are
beyond help.
Ray McGovern
Sam F , November 29, 2019 at 07:24
Yes, it is astounding that the Dems seek to impeach Trump for investigating their own
corruption, rather than exposing Rep corruption. I am doing the latter at one corner of the
state government level, and am sure that hundreds of times that could be found at the federal
level if the Dems were not equally enthusiastic kleptocrats and nepotists.
But we would be ahead even if Reps prosecute only Dems and Dems prosecute only Reps: the
public would at least see that Rep judges only convict Dems and probably the reverse as well.
Only the scum floats to the top in an unregulated market economy dumbed-down by
oligarchy-controlled mass media.
Fran Macadam , November 27, 2019 at 17:44
It works the same in every country, whether monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship, socialist,
communist or various blends with democracy. Once you set up an unaccountable secret police or
intelligence agency and empower it to spy on people, carry out various deceptions and allow
it to operate outside the law, it becomes the real power, blackmailing and even murdering
according to its own direction.
robert e williamson jr , November 27, 2019 at 17:28
I believe Scott is right on target with his presented material. We still don't know what happened with the JFK murder but we do know that CIA knew
something big was up. So JFK get murdered and CIA prevents a thorough exacting investigation. I see CIA
interference as being political. What else would it be be. CIA escaped any blame at the time
and the president was gone and replace. Political.
Then Robert fell, a likely winner of the next election he was terminated.
In this day and age CIA can't afford getting caught with gunpowder residue anywhere on it
entity if a sitting president happens to catch a round or two. The alternative is to use all
that money the Super Wealthy Elites have stashed and go openly political. Hiding in plan
sight as always.
Veronica Roberts , November 27, 2019 at 15:26
Excellent report, Scott Ritter. Thank you. I have always trusted your reports and analysis
since the days of Iraq's supposed
weapons of mass destruction. You have really served the American people well.
phree , November 27, 2019 at 14:40
Interesting stuff. I'm certainly against politicization of intelligence. I am troubled
about the whistleblower not being willing and allowed to testify.
But the rest of this sounds very much like a conspiracy theory. I'll have to reread
Ritter's prior work, which I viewed very favorably. Given this mess, though, I'll have to
reconsider. Let's assume the whistleblower was out to get the President. What difference does
the whistleblower's motivations t make if the President was doing exactly what the
whistleblower said the President was doing? Prosecutors are always out to get criminals, and
we don't let the criminals go just because of that. Prosecutors get tips from all sorts of
unsavory people, such as informants and criminal competitors. Are they supposed to just
ignore those tips?
There are a number of other problems with this theory.
First, Ritter confuses "political" with "partisan." Foreign policy is necessarily
political -- can't be avoided. What it shouldn't become is partisan -- the party in power
shouldn't leverage the United States' national security interests to gain political power
over their domestic opponents. I hope we can all agree on that. When we say intelligence
shouldn't be political, we mean intelligence shouldn't be "fixed around the policy." Even
going into Iraq, as stupid as that was, and as bad as the intelligence agencies acted, that's
different than using national foreign policy to stick it to your domestic political rivals.
The Bushies and the neocons really thought it was in the national interest to go into Iraq.
It also isn't being "political" in the "partisan" sense to become wedded to a policy that you
helped developed, it just means you think that's the right policy and should be followed
regardless of which party or politician is in office. It's actually the opposite of
political. Fiona Hill is a perfect example: To her, Russia is and always will be evil and
duplicitous, and she's going to say that no matter which party is in the oval office. She may
not be right, but she sure isn't partisan. If you are convinced that the President is selling
the U.S. and the Ukraine out, what are you supposed to do?
Second, it is a real stretch to call phone calls to friends and acquaintances to verify
the reports of the July 25 call and the surrounding circumstances "an investigation" of the
president. Really? Sounds pretty deep statey to me.
Third, why does Ritter refer to the President's request of a "favor" of a Biden
investigation as "non-national security topics" rather than what it clearly was -- a request
for help that could only be primarily for Trump's personal benefit in our domestic politics?
Such sophistry is troubling and revealing. If the whistleblower's claim is true, and it sure
looks like it is based on publicly available evidence, Trump was giving Ukraine $391 Million
reasons to fabricate evidence on Biden. Even the mere announcement, as Sondland says, would
be politically damaging to the candidate who polls the best against Trump in key
constituencies with no benefit at all to the U.S.'s national security. That's why the story
is troubling, not because it related to "non-national security topics."
Fourth, who else other than an anti-Trump lawyer is the whistleblower supposed to choose?
A pro-Trumper? Ridiculous criticism.
Fifth, he's got friends here and there, and he might have leaked. This is just more "deep
state" conspiracy nonsense, and the old look at all of this smoke, there must be a fire. It
was so smoky and he was such a swampy deep stater that he was rehired into the White House
despite those concerns? Yeah, maybe, or maybe the suspicions were not substantiated. And,
again, what does any of that have to do with Trump essentially soliciting a bribe in exchange
for aid and/or a White House meeting. All this shows is that Trump, who complains that
they're all out to get him, was stupid enough to get caught. Because he was stupid enough to
rely on Rudy Giuliani.
So, this would make a nice spy novel, but it is pretty weak tea to support the claim that
the Whistleblower did anything other than report what he thought was an improper and likely
illegal act, and even weaker tea to support a claim that we ought to just ignore the whole
scandal.
Withholding aid and a White House meeting unless Ukraine agreed to announce an
investigation the primary purpose of which is to benefit the President personally and
politically is wrong. It's wrong for Trump and it will be wrong for every president of any
party. If Ritter isn't alarmed about that, it says more about him than it does about the
whistleblower. If Ritter isn't also troubled by that allegation, and the evidence that has
come out to support it, his judgment is more suspect than the whistleblower's.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 17:09
From Scott Ritter:
The bottom line here is that a deputy national intelligence officer charged with
overseeing intelligence activities regarding the Russian-Ukraine target used his position to
initiate a Whistleblower complaint which failed to conform to the legal requirements required
of such. Many sins are conducted by officials "under the cover of law", and this is one. You
can spin and cherry pick and obfuscate the article all you like, but you can't avoid the
reality that an intelligence officer, operating under a veil of secrecy, initiated a
political action under the color of law designed to unseat the President of the United
States. At a minimum this individual should be identified and subjected to an appropriate
amount of investigation as to his motive and that of those who collaborated/conspired with
him.
John Neal Spangler , November 27, 2019 at 14:12
Anner is right. A huge problem is that most US bureaucrats have never lived abroad and
gone thru culture shock. They are so rigidly American they do not understand foreign
cultures
jhawk620 , November 27, 2019 at 12:12
this is an historical abstract into the machinations of bureaucrats within the U S
government. Well worth the time to read it.
Ojkelly , November 27, 2019 at 11:38
Blowing the whistle on the whistle blower! Great article. He learned well.. I am still in
shock from Morrell's op ed in NYT, "I used to run the CIA and I am for Hillary Clinton".
I know the morels post the government career doesn't include a job at Booz Allen or SAIC or $
think tank world, just a desk at the Clinton Foundation BGS. Plus only a few crumbs from CBS
and CNN. Maybe that is an instructive object lesson for other senior retiring officials.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 19:52
Good point, although the MSM is spiking any negative Biden stories. Biden seems to be the CIA's preferred Democrat.
Heavy published their "five facts" on the presumed whistleblower several days ago, including
that he worked as the point man with Biden on Ukraine issues. Evidently he was so
pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia (pointed out by Mike Cernovich who suggested he was involved in
leaks, as noted in Foreign Policy back in 2017), that it must have been difficult for him to
fall in line and do his required job, implementing new foreign policy with a new
administration. Whether he "went native" or truly decided to over-ride the President's
policies in favor of the old Obama "consensus community" policies for Ukraine, he has crossed
several lines interfering with foreign policy and national security.
Ritter mentions treason, but that is only applicable to wartime. This case is classical
sedition. If the CIA wants to run the country, they should run for office (as several did and
won as Democrats in 2018).
Llitchfield , November 27, 2019 at 20:55
Exactly. The relevant timeline is not the 2020 election.
The relevant timeline is of VP Biden's alleged activities on behalf of his son while serving
as VP and as the Obama administration point man on Ukraine. The sequence whereby various
phone calls by Biden and his son resulted in monies departing Ukr bank accounts and arriving
in American bank accounts Those are the activities that need to be investigated. Before Biden
can dream of running for POTUS.
It is in a sense coincidence that Biden's activities became known to the public and others at
this moment in time.
AnneR , November 27, 2019 at 08:09
Mr Ritter's own anti-Russian bias is clearly on display throughout this piece, which
reduces considerably its pretensions toward objectivity.
As for the politicization of the secret agencies – as a fairly recent phenomenon or
so it would seem from Mr Ritter's piece – from my reading and understanding of the past
70+ years, these agencies and their forebears have *Always* been politically biased. Not
necessarily regarding whichever of the dual headed monopoly party that has controlled US
politics for even longer, but biased always on behalf of the Ruling Elites.
As for the educational attainments of these secret agencies' staffs and their supposed
knowledge of, in this instance, Russia and other eastern European/Eurasian countries, I would
suggest that they apparently understand very little about Russia particularly, no matter how
well they speak, read and write the language; and what they remain steeped in, for reasons
having to do with the insatiable desire for the US to remain *the* hegemon and the political
biases of their university tutors/professors which they clearly absorb (their leanings
probably already in those directions anyway), is the COLD WAR US/western erroneous
apprehension of what the USSR intended. Of course Russia (the USSR before) want to dominate
the world – we do, so obviously other such nations (China being the other one) want to
overtake us. We visit war, coups, invasions, destruction, siege warfare (sanctions) on every
nation that won't do as we want – therefore Russia and China want to do exactly the
same thing to us and the rest of the world.
Apparently the Anglo-American ruling elites and their instruments (such as the staffs of
these agencies) are utterly incapable of conceiving of, perceiving that other cultures exist
and that those cultural perspectives are *NOT* the same as ours, do not want to be exactly
like ours (rightly so). WE cannot, do not, are utterly unwilling, are incapable, lack the
imagination to try to walk in the footwear of another, very different culture. But for the
world's sake, we need to start doing so. Now.
Actually, the anti-Russian bias of the author is not clear at all. I surmise that Anne is
displeased by what he did not write. For example, there is a revolving door between academia
and CIA, and no field is more contaminated than Russian and East European studies. For
details, reading "Team B" at Wikipedia is a good start.
Skip Scott , November 27, 2019 at 13:52
How true. The CIA (Capitalism's Invisible Army) killed JFK when I was seven years old.
They've been in charge my whole life. Assassinating a sitting president isn't "political"? I
would think its way beyond "allowing your expertise to be tarnished by political
considerations". It is willful blindness to think there is any remnant of a "constitutional
republic" in the USA, especially from a former "intelligence" officer.
Reading Putin's speeches and interviews, it is plain to see that he is interested in the
welfare of his citizens, and maintaining sovereignty by refusing vassal status to Empire.
Imagine if we had a president truly committed to serving "We the People".
CharlieK , November 29, 2019 at 05:27
Yes, Anne, there is an uncontested, imperial mindset that seeps through the US body
politic. And a central part of that imperial mindset is the demonization of Russia, of
everything Russian, and anything that Russia might do. This has been ongoing for at least
over 100 years, since the revolution of 1917.
It is so ingrained into the lifeblood of this
country that to challenge it results in being condemned as a heretic. One perfect example is
the delusional version of events surrounding Crimea, which was a part of Russia for centuries
until Khrushchev "transferred" Crimea from the Russian SFSR to the Ukranian SFSR in 1954.
Who
even bothers with such historical facts! Moreover, it was incredible to watch the impeachment
hearings, as everyone in the room, Republican and Democrat, sat around and discussed Ukraine
as if it was ours to control. Imagine for one second if Russia (or China) were discussing
Mexico in the same terms, or if they had intervened in a similar fashion as the US National
Security State did to midwife the overthrow of the elected government in Ukraine. Under such
circumstances we would probably be ready to declare war.
All of our meddling in Ukraine is
for the sole purpose of solidifying US hegemony and undermining Russia. Would the US tolerate
Mexico joining a military bloc a la NATO that was a part of a Russian global military
alliance? To ask the question is itself heretical. Anne, your declaration that the US is
unwilling and genetically incapable of walking in the footwear of another, very different
culture is totally accurate. Unfortunately, there is no evidence whatsoever that this
imperial mindset is likely to change. And if history is any lesson, this kind of imperial
mindset never changes until it is forced to do so, as Germany and Japan learned as a result
of WWII.
Sally Snyder , November 27, 2019 at 08:03
As shown in this article, there is a key aspect to the entire anti-Russia/pro-Ukraine
story that has received no coverage by the mainstream media:
The West's blanket condemnation of Russia and its so-called annexation of the Crimean
peninsula in 2014 would suggest that more of us need to educate ourselves on the history of
Russia and Crimea in particular before we whole heartedly swallow the narrative that our
political leaders and media foist on us.
TimN , November 27, 2019 at 07:41
Just as I suspected, the CIA directly interfered in US politics. Great article, but why
the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, " yourself, Scott? And of course
"whistle-blower" should be in quotes throughout the article, no? His name is Eric
Ciaramella.
This is simply Russiagate 2.0, with the "Intelligence" agencies having run completely amok at
this point. Very disturbing, but not really surprising.
Jeff Davis , November 29, 2019 at 08:49
" why the coy insistence on not naming the "whistle-blower, "
Indeed, the universal coyness in the repetitive use of the term "the whistleblower",
beyond becoming now tedious and annoying, has so embedded the term in discussions of this
issue, that it has now become the default usage. To the point where writing Eric Ciaramella,
without explaining that he is the presumed "the whistleblower", would leave one wondering who
this Eric person is. To overcome this problem, I would suggest, at least as a temporary
measure, that the term "Eric Ciaramella a.k.a. 'the whistleblower' "be used instead.
Consortiumnews.com , November 29, 2019 at 16:48
From Scott Ritter:
The idea behind my not including the name of the Whistleblower, all the while providing a
documentary trail that clearly identifies the individual in question, was to highlight the
absurdity of the ongoing decision by Congress and the Whistleblower's legal counsel to
pretend that he enjoys a modicum of anonymity. Perhaps my approach was too sophisticated by
far, but with all due respect, it certainly did not lack for courage.
michael , November 27, 2019 at 06:36
Excellent detailed summary of the SNAFU of politicized national foreign policy that has
led to the unhinged continual neocon/ neolib invasions and coups and sanctions this
century.
The whistleblower's complaint was rejected as "not urgent" by the DNI with the government
lawyers' advice (rejected as most whistleblower's complaints are in government, for better or
worse).
"After considering the whistleblower's complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division
opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed."
When the whistleblower refused to accept this decision, and instead took his complaint to
Schiff, as a politicized weapon, he and anyone else involved should have been or now be
charged with Sedition. (Obama would have thrown the whistleblower's butt in jail as he did so
many others.)
The whole point of Electing a President is to change ineffective policies (in the new
President's view), particularly in foreign policy. Unelected expert advisers are only that.
While Ciaramella and Vindman may feel the consensus community foreign policy agendas are
sacrosanct and untouchable by any new President, their only recourse is to advise, make their
arguments, and as the constitution states, Heads of Departments can disagree in writing. Or
they can resign.
As Thomas Jefferson noted "the President is the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it is from him alone 'that foreign nations or their agents
are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'; that whatever he communicated as
such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the expression of the nation'; and that
no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or 'to interpose between him and any
other branch of government, under the pretext of either's transgressing their functions.'
There is a major difference between oversight by Congress and interfering in executive branch
functions (such as taking up a rejected whistleblower's complaint for political reasons.
Where were these people with Snowden's, and Manning and Assange's much more serious
complaints?).
Stephen Cohen has emphasized the essential ability of elected Presidents to meet in private
with foreign leaders, as every President since Kennedy has done (saving us from nuclear
destruction in JFK's case and leading to the fall of the Soviet Union in Reagan's). That's
where important deals are concluded and military, intelligence, and state members whose jobs
depend on warmongering advantages, cannot and should not be allowed access to sensitive
national security decisions.
As Chuck Schumer said ""Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have
six ways from Sunday at getting back at you". This is essentially the rotten core of American
government today. The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country
and its politics since 2016, which is much more dangerous than anything the Russians could
ever do.
Litchfield , November 27, 2019 at 21:16
Isn't there also something in the Constitution that prohibits anyone from conducting an
"independent" foreign policy? That is, the president and the State Department (part of the
executive branch) are the ones who make foreign policy. A senator, say, can't go off on his
or her own, travel to a foreign country, and advance different policies from those advanced
by the POTUS and State. In this respect McCain was way out of line. Maybe because he thought
he *should* have been the pres. He should have been punished publicly for his
transgression.
Looks like it it up to the Orange One to draw a line on these off-the-reservation
activities, whether by those in Congress or in the national security apparatus. They should
all be charged with sedition.
David Otness , November 27, 2019 at 23:41
"The intelligence community somehow has been empowered to run the country and its politics
since 2016 ."
If one truly studies such things -- seriously -- objectively -- that date will be determined
to be November 22, 1963.
"... The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. ..."
"... So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine instead ..."
"... You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU. ..."
The EU are, really, really pissed with the USA for making this happen. They had always
hoped to get a broken up Russia into the EU and now, instead, they will have to deal with a
Russia China economic union with strong defense ties and whole bunch of other countries
around the globe tied to it.
So the EU lost Russia and for the bobby prize they got the entirely corrupt Ukraine
instead, almost like the USA wanted to **** the EU up with the Ukraine on purpose (they just
wanted to **** over Russia and got way too greedy trying to pillage the Ukraine and turned
the entire mess into a real **** show, that only has one way forward for the Ukraine, grovelling back to Russia and Russia will make higher and higher demands of them because who
wants to deal with a entirely corrupt **** show).
You will know when the **** has well and truly hit the fan for the Ukraine, when the USA
finally uncovers some 'er' surprise evidence that the Ukraine government actually shot down
that Malaysian flight and hit them with across the board sanctions to well and truly cripple
it prior to trying to dump it back on Russia but the EU gets stuck with it for a while
longer, to become a festering den of organized crime in the EU.
Russia still says some nice things about the Ukraine but they are in no hurry to get them
back.
"... In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently. ..."
"... Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons. ..."
"... Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy. ..."
America Doesn't Need Another Weakling NATO Ally Macedonia is the latest nation invited into the alliance, but how does
that enhance America's (or Europe's) security?•
July 19,
2018
Utenriksdept /
cc At last week's NATO summit, President Donald
Trump denounced the allies for taking advantage of American taxpayers. Then he approved their latest subsidies. He even agreed to
invite a military weakling, Macedonia, to join NATO, which will add yet another nation to our military dole.
When George Washington warned Americans against forming a "passionate attachment" to other countries, he might have been thinking
of the Balkans. Indeed, a couple decades later, John Quincy Adams criticized proposals to aid Greece against the Ottoman Empire,
which then ruled that region. America "goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy," he intoned.
On into the 20th century, the Balkans were in turmoil. Germany's "Iron Chancellor," Otto von Bismarck, warned that "the great
European War would come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans." That's exactly what happened in 1914.
It took decades and two world wars for the Balkans to stabilize. But after the Cold War ended, Yugoslavia, which had emerged from
Europe's previous convulsions, broke apart. One of the smaller pieces was Macedonia.
The battles among the Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians were bloody and brutal. In contrast, Macedonia provided comic relief.
The small, mountainous, landlocked nation of two million people won its independence without a fight in 1991, though Athens launched
a verbal and economic war against Skopje over the latter's use of the name "Macedonia."
Perhaps modern Greeks feared that a resurrected Alexander the Great would lead the newly freed Macedonian hordes south and conquer
Greece. Skopje entered the United Nations under the provisional name Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, or FYROM. In June, after
only 27 years, the two governments agreed that Macedonia/FYROM would be called the Republic of North Macedonia -- though the decision
must still be ratified by the Macedonian people in a referendum.
More serious was the insurgency launched by ethnic Albanians who made up about a quarter of the nation's population. The battle
two decades ago over Kosovo inflamed ethnic relations in Macedonia, eventually resulting in a short-lived insurgency. Although the
fighters disarmed, Skopje's politics remained nationalist and difficult. Last year, a more liberal administration took over, but
the country's democratic institutions remain fragile.
Indeed, Freedom House only rates the nation "partly free." The group cites voter intimidation, political patronage networks, violent
protests, and problems with judicial impartiality and due process. Particularly serious were the threats against press freedom, which
led to a rating of "not free" in that area. While NATO's newer members tend to score lower than "Old Europe," as Donald Rumsfeld
once referred to the original allies, Macedonia is a step further down. Only Turkey, an incipient dictatorship, is worse: it almost
certainly would not be considered for membership today.
None of this mattered last week, however. After suffering Trump's many slings and arrows, alliance members approved an invitation
for Skopje to join NATO. Macedonian lawmaker Artan Grubi called it "our dream coming true. We have been in the waiting hall for too
long."
That's because Macedonia had hoped for an invite back in 2008 at the Bucharest summit, but was blocked by Athens over the name
dispute, and has wanted to join ever since. Macedonia's Defense Minister Radmila Sekerinska said, "With NATO membership, Macedonia
becomes part of the most powerful alliance. That enhances both our security and economic prosperity." Money and status are expected
to follow.
But how would this benefit the United States and other NATO members? James Ker-Lindsay at the London School of Economics made
the astonishing claim that "opening the way for the country to join NATO would be a big win for the organization at a crucial time
when concerns over Russian influence in the Western Balkans are growing in many capitals." As Skopje goes, so goes Europe? Not likely.
If Washington and Moscow are engaged in a new "great game," it is not a battle for Macedonia.
In fact, Macedonia is a security irrelevancy, destined to require American aid to create the pretense that its military is fit
for the transatlantic alliance. Skopje spent just $112 million on its armed forces last year, ahead of only one NATO member, Montenegro.
That was barely 1 percent of its GDP, putting Macedonia near the back of the NATO pack.
With an 8,000-man military, one is tempted to ask, why bother? But then one could similarly pose that query to several other NATO
members. Skopje's military is roughly the same size as Albania's, slightly bigger than Slovenia's, and about four times the size
of Montenegro's. None will be of much use in a conflict with the only conceivable threat, Russia.
So why bring Macedonia into NATO?
Some American policymakers see alliance membership as a means to socialize nations like Macedonia, helping them move towards democracy.
However, the European Union, which sets standards governing a range of domestic policies, has always been better suited to this task,
and EU membership imposes no security obligations on Washington. With the name controversy tentatively resolved, Skopje could begin
the EU accession process -- if the Europeans are willing. That is properly their -- not Washington's -- responsibility.
In contrast, the transatlantic alliance should advance American and European security. Absorbing former members of the Warsaw
Pact and Soviet Union, thereby pushing the alliance up to the Russian Federation's border, proved to be a foolish move because it
violated assurances made to Russian leaders. Despite being former KGB, Vladimir Putin never appeared to be ideologically antagonistic
toward America. However, when he perceived Washington's behavior as threatening -- including dismembering Serbia, backing revolutions
in Georgia and Ukraine, and promising to include both nations in NATO -- it encouraged him to respond violently.
The Balkans are peripheral even to Europe and matter little to America's defense. The states and peoples there tend to be more
disruptive and less democratic than their neighbors, reflecting the region's unstable history. (North) Macedonia's 8,000 troops aren't
likely to be reborn as the Spartan 300 and hold off invading Russians. So why should America threaten war on Skopje's behalf?
Admitting new members is never costless. Aid will be necessary to improve their militaries. Moreover, newer members sometimes
become the most demanding, like the Baltics and Poland, which insist that they are entitled to American bases and garrisons.
Expansion also complicates alliance decision-making. No doubt, Washington wishes its European allies would do what they're told:
spend more, shut up, and deploy where America wants them. That doesn't work out very well in practice, alas, as Trump has discovered
in Europe (though nations with smaller militaries are more likely to acquiesce than nations with bigger ones). An organization of
30 members, which NATO will become if Macedonia is added, is a more complex and less agile creature than one of 16, the number that
existed before NATO raced east.
Continuing expansion also reinforces the message that NATO is hostile toward Russia. That's the only country allies are joining
to oppose, after all. Obviously, there are plenty of other reasons Moscow should distrust the United States, but reinforcing negative
perceptions for no benefit at all is bad policy.
Finally, expanding the alliance is nonsensical in light of the president's criticisms of the Europeans. Hiking U.S. military spending,
increasing manpower and materiel deployments in Europe, and adding new members all contradict his demand that the allies do more
and signal that the president is not serious in his demands. That leaves the Europeans with little incentive to act, especially since
most of their peoples perceive few if any security threats.
Yet again President Trump has been exposed as a thoughtless blowhard. His rabid supporters have likely enjoyed his confrontational
rhetoric, but he has done nothing to turn it into policy. The Europeans need only wait for his attacks to ebb and then they can proceed
much the same as before. The status quo will continue to reign, impervious to change.
Montenegro always resembled the Duchy of Grand Fenwick from the delightful novel The Mouse that Roared . Macedonia is
the Duchy of North Grand Fenwick, a slightly larger neighboring state with similar features but additional problems. Neither is remotely
relevant to American security. America doesn't need yet another security black hole as an alliance partner.
"... With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. ..."
"... The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes, especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics, and there are many such aspects. ..."
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode.
This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded."
Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties (
https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
"... Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud fascists . Western media routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and was caught on an open phone line handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy." ..."
"... Representative Dennis Kucinich expressed outrage on Bill O'Reilly's TV show that the Obama Administration had aided this bloody, illegitimate coup. The head of the CIA-linked STRATFOR called Ukraine " the most blatant coup in history. " ..."
"... Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all. Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to. ..."
"... Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes. To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day. ..."
"... This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever to do with right and wrong. ..."
"... In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart. It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon . ..."
"... Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported coup there. ..."
"... Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the issue, but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid. ..."
"... What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new illegitimate junta. ..."
"... This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection! ..."
Did you know that Donald Trump had the State Department, USAID,
NED , and the CIA fund and train
Neo-Nazi, fascist militias to overthrow the government of Ukraine? These riot mobs, primarily
Svoboda and
Right Sector , stormed the capital, firebombed and shot the police, and destroyed democracy inside Ukraine. When the legitimately
elected president was forced out by the rioters, the population which had supported him in the east seceded from the country, tearing
the entire nation into pieces and sparking a civil war. The Ukraine civil war has cost the lives of
over 13,000 Ukrainians . There is so much blood on Donald Trump's hands.
Oh, wait a minute! That was Barack Obama . Change that paragraph, please.
Since 2014, it's been glaringly obvious to astute (and honest) observers that the Administration of Barack Obama and Joe Biden
supported the most vicious street mobs in Europe, people who considered themselves proud
fascists . Western media
routinely censored this part of the story. Obama's Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made deals with their leaders and
was caught on an open phone line
handpicking the next unelected leader of Ukraine, someone they could sell to the US public: "Yats is the guy."
America's proxy terrorists burned Kiev, seized power violently, and through the power of the purse strings, Obama's Administration
installed friendly-faced fascists, who immediately set about attacking their countrymen in the east, with a policy of mass murder
and indiscriminate bombings. Eastern provinces of
Crimea and
Donetsk , which notably had supported
the ousted president, held referenda. The people there voted overwhelmingly to secede from the illegitimate, unelected, foreign-sponsored
coup regime in Kiev.
The above is most certainly not the reason cited this week for Impeachment hearings.
Aiding and abetting fascist militias to violently siege a foreign capital is not considered a crime in Washington DC, at all.
Conversely, it is business as usual, as Bolivians and Venezuelans can attest to.
Woody Allen directed a film entitled "Crimes and Misdemeanors." That pretty much sums up the DC circus unfolding in
Congress. Everything above is completely true, and yet Barack Obama is heralded as someone in the neighborhood of saints and superheroes.
To the belligerent American empire, Obama was a star quarterback. Let's not even delve into Barack's
support for Al Qaeda in Syria , and another half-million dead there, or we'll be here all day.
Donald Trump made a phone call. In his phone call, he is said to have bullied the President of Ukraine a little. He may have even
delayed some weapons transfers to that country, which was engaged in a proxy war with nuclear-armed Russia and its separatist allies
in the east of Ukraine.
That's a crime? A real crime? In light of over thirteen thousand slaughtered and an illegal coup in broad daylight? Trump's telephone
call is the real crime?
Other Presidents haven't bullied other client-state puppet leaders, ever?
And why exactly is the President of the United States of America required to send lethal weapons to
foreign fascists at all? Has anyone located that section of the Constitution?
This farce is so laughable on its face and so irrelevant to the American people's interests, that it's difficult to overstate
the insanity -- and outrageous hypocrisy -- of the Democrats' contrived "Ukrainegate" case. This impeachment charge has nothing whatsoever
to do with right and wrong.
In 2014 , Barack Obama's White House, "refused to include weapons in an aid package for embattled Ukraine despite an impassioned
plea by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko for more military assistance." Obama didn't send any weapons at all, which would have
provoked Russia to an even greater degree, after overthrowing their legitimately elected next-door ally and tearing Ukraine apart.
It was obvious that Russia wasn't "invading" Ukraine, as propaganda memes claimed, but simply responding to these international crimes
and to the dangerous destabilization on its border. The US had already done quite enough damage, and they didn't need to escalate
a proxy war against Russia toward nuclear Armageddon .
Which brings us now to Donald Trump, who became interested in Joe Biden's obvious corruption inside Ukraine, installing his own
son on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma . Hunter Biden knew absolutely nothing about Ukraine or the natural gas
industry. The nepotism was glaring. This was clear graft, payback, kickback, corruption, parasites descending after the violent seizure
of the state. Biden the elder was in charge of US Ukraine policy, and specifically the big money spigot, after the illegal, US-supported
coup there.
Then -- as Joe will be Joe -- Biden bragged publicly about
getting Ukraine's top prosecutor fired to the strains of Washington insider laughter. The Ukrainian prosecutor had been investigating
that same company which Biden had arranged his son Hunter onto the board of. Biden's conflict of interest was so obvious that
Trump certainly believed he was onto something. Joe Biden, and media sympathetic to his claims, has predictably tried to cloud the
issue,
but the corruption is too obvious not to notice. This should, and may, have ended Joe Biden's 2020 presidential bid.
What happened in Ukraine was old-timey Smash & Grab , a reckless attack right on Russia's western border. Joe Biden
arrived to grab as much loot from Ukraine's gas sector as he possibly could through a cut-out, his son. Biden used his leverage over
Ukraine's international "loan guarantees" (which is money the coup leaders receive but don't have to pay back) to finance their new
illegitimate junta.
Biden's own quid pro quo , in his own words: "I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting
the money. Well, son of a bitch. He got fired." This is exactly the type of crime they now accuse Trump of perpetrating with his
telephone. The hypocrisy is comical.
The Obama Administration's corruption, along with a bloody war and thirteen-thousand corpses, is what a real crime looks like.
Hold onto that picture.
Democrats were allegedly the good guys vis a vis Ukraine?
Weren't these international war crimes breaching the UN Charter, which demands exclusively peaceful actions between states,
Article II?
All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security,
and justice, are not endangered.
-- United Nations Charter, a ratified Treaty, and the "Supreme Law of the Land"
Launching a proxy war on nuclear-armed Russia was a sane foreign policy? Sending even more arms to escalate that conflict was
allegedly such a glorious idea that any delay in weapons shipments becomes an impeachable offense?
This unserious charge leveled against Donald Trump distracts from all of his obvious corruption. Trump's
Emoluments violations have been impeachable for years, but
the Democrats weren't interested. Do Democrats long to cash in on the Office of the Presidency next time?
Multiple deaths of refugee children in US federal
custody at the southern border could be considered murders linked directly to official policies of harsh treatment and deliberate
neglect. Are Democrats afraid of exposing Obama's own
caging of immigrant children?
This current Ukrainegate impeachment charade appears to be motivated only by blind partisanship and the desire to insulate
corrupt insiders like Joe Biden from any scrutiny of their actions. The farce has gone so over-the-top that even as Democratic partisan
media heralded the testimony of Trump's Ukraine Ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, Donald Trump's allies have already used portions of
her testimony as a video advertisement for his reelection!
Are Democrats trying to hurt or to help Trump's reelection?
Joe Giambrone has written for WhoWhatWhy, Foreign Policy Journal, International Policy Digest, Counterpunch, GlobalResearch,
OpEdNews, and his fabulous new novel is DEMIGODS. Read
other articles by Joe .
Thus, a seventh reason is that major European countries, such as
Italy , have long wearied of the Crimea sanctions. One can only wonder how much more
healthy European economies might be today, including that of economic juggernaut
Germany , if Europe chose to drop these policies of deleterious economic distortion.
As an eighth reason, one can reasonably say that these hostile sanction policies are badly
dividing NATO, but also preventing the Alliance from acting against palpable security
threats, including terrorism and immigration-related to failed states on its periphery.
Then, a ninth reason is that the continuing festering of tensions over Crimea could, by
way of misperception, lead to an actual U.S.-Russia military
confrontation , which might well reach the nuclear level of conflict in short order.
As a tenth and most important point, one could very reasonably hope that Moscow would be
willing to compensate Kyiv for letting the peninsula go finally. This could take many forms,
ranging from favorable gas deals to halting aid to rebels in East Ukraine to allowing Ukraine
to join NATO without applying counter-measures.
Thus, American diplomats should perhaps turn their attention away from reciting tiresome
talking points and stirring up old Cold War tensions to actually negotiating a "grand
bargain" to set European security on a much more positive course. Such a bargain
is not that far-fetched, actually.
For now, Ukrainians and others in southeast Europe may be less worried about Washington's
impeachment spectacle and more about whether the
heat will remain on through this winter. Too bad that American LNG cannot be offloaded at
Odessa since the Turks long ago ruled that such vessels could not safely pass through the
Bosporus. In any case with U.S.-Turkish relations at nearly an all-time low, that decision is
not likely to be reversed any time soon. Still, American oilmen could be
pleased to see U.S. oil flowing into Ukraine for the first time -- though it's far from
clear that's either economically efficient or environmentally sound. Perhaps if President
Trump ends the war in Afghanistan, as promised, some of the dozens of billions saved could be
set aside for Kyiv to build even more wind turbines.
There is that small problem that this aid
seems to increase the very corruption it has been allocated to reduce. To hear American
diplomats and "Ukraine experts" wax eloquent on the supposedly grave threat to American
national security interests in Ukraine these days, it seems they will not be satisfied until
they've seen a video of American-made anti-tank missiles and sniper rifles delivering up
large numbers of casualties against Russian regulars in eastern Ukraine.
Fortunately, most Ukrainians are wiser and more realistic. They know that such battlefield
"successes" would likely be followed by devastating Russian air and missile attacks against
Ukraine. They also know well by now that neither Americans nor other Europeans are about to
come and save them from that sad fate.
Lyle J. Goldstein is Research Professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute
(CMSI) at the United States Naval War College in Newport, RI. In addition to Chinese, he also
speaks Russian and he is also an affiliate of the new Russia Maritime Studies Institute
(RMSI) at Naval War College. You can reach him at [email protected] . The opinions in his columns are entirely
his own and do not reflect the official assessments of the U.S. Navy or any other agency of
the U.S. government.
With it becoming ever more clear that the US government and media have been covering up
especially the Democratic Party's collusion with Ukraine's government in order to facilitate
the self-enrichment of DP leaders' family members, undermine the presidential candidacy and
presidency of Donald Trump (however unpresidential he may be) and foment liberal-socialist
revolutions globally, the participants are moving into high gear propaganda mode. A recent
piece from David Ignatius is a good place to begin to highlight the intensification. In a
recent article (People died while Trump played games with Ukraine's military aid, Washington
Post, November 13, 2019,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/people-died-while-trump-played-games-with-ukraines-military-aid/2019/11/12/a4cc18a6-0598-11ea-b17d-8b867891d39d_story.html
), Ignatius charges Trump with the responsibility for the continuation of the Donbass civil war
and its casualties for withholding military aid to Kyiv. This is apparently a move by the
Democratic establishment to escalate the confrontation with the White House by adding to the
charge that Trump held up financial assistance to Ukraine until Ukrainian President Volodomyr
Zelenskiy renewed Ukraine's investigation of the Bidens' corrupt activities the charge that
Trump also held military assistance hostage in return for an investigation of the Bidens.
Unfortunately, Ignatuis's 'narrative' falls flat on its face when it is understood, as former
US National Security Council Europe-Eurasia chief Fiona Hill testified to Congress in the
impeachment hearings that the hold up was part of a general delay caused by a broad policy
review conducted by the incoming Trump administration ( https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/FionaHill-compressed.pdf
, pp. 227-8).
Ignatius writes that while Trump fiddles, Ukraine burns, that Ukrainians died while, if not
because Trump withheld military aid to Kyiv:
"As Ukrainians were struggling with near-daily shellfire, Trump appeared to treat military
aid appropriated by Congress as a personal political tool." "Trump's Ukraine machinations have
yielded something like what we've seen in these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power
and a corresponding increase in Russia's military and diplomatic leverage." (Here he cites
Syria specifically.) "Russian diplomatic gains have also been evident in Ukraine. While Trump's
lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani was flitting around the country disparaging U.S. diplomats, Moscow
was seeking a deal to stabilize Ukraine on favorable terms. The Russians are now discussing an
agreement with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky – the man Trump importuned in his
infamous July 25 phone call for a 'favor' in investigating his political rivals in return for
military help." Ignatius hits this point again: "Zelensky has pressed ahead with his peace
efforts, and Ukrainian and Russian-backed forces have now disengaged at Zolote and two other
crossing points."
Ignatius blames several deaths on Trump's weapons' supply delay, as he tries to make the
debate over Ukraine policy, as he states explicitly, "more visceral" -- that is, emotional --
rather than rational. To achieve this effect, he closes his article with supposed dramatic
effect: "Here are some details from recent OSCE cease-fire monitoring reports: On Oct. 5, a man
and a woman died after a grenade exploded in their apartment in Kurakhove; on Oct. 24, a man
was injured by shrapnel near Luhansk; on Nov. 1, a man was injured by shelling in Spartak. As
you watch the impeachment hearings, remember this basic fact: While Trump was playing politics
on Ukraine, people who depended on U.S. military aid were getting killed and wounded." Like
Canadian Professor Paul Robinson, when I read this I immediately smelled a rat, but Prof.
Robinson beat me to the punch in exposing this falsehood. As it turns out, these casualties of
the civil war are all almost certainly to have been inflicted by the pro-Kyiv Madian forces and
not by the separatists. In the case of the grenade exploding in the apartment, neither of the
warring sides appears to be responsible, since a criminal was opened in the matter, suggesting,
no one fired or threw the grenade into the apartment, since a criminal case was opened. In all
cases, Ignatius's casualties occurred in areas controlled by the rebels, suggesting the
Ukrainian government forces fired on rebel territory, inflicting the casualties ( https://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2019/11/13/trump-is-killing-ukrainians/
). Whatever the case, Ignatius would have no way of knowing otherwise, but he wrote so as to
imply the rebels and, of course, Russia and its agent Trump are to blame. He likely assumed and
hoped the rebels and thus Russia and Trump 'were responsible', while failing to look deeper
into the OSCE report in the way Prof. Robinson studiously has. Nevertheless, Ignatius elsewhere
in the piece provides detailed OSCE statistics on ceasefire violations from such reports, but
somehow he missed the details on the locations of the casualties and under which side's control
they are under.
The most erroneous and deliberate omission in the piece is directly germane to the Trump's
delay of the arms supplies. That is, the Barack Obama administration had more than two years to
send such arms and did not do so. Moreover, this failure occurred at the height of the civil
war and relatively large-scale military operations, not during a shaky ceasefire. So again we
have partisan attacks masquerading as foreign policy analysis. This -- the American tendency to
distort the reality of foreign affairs and the nature of various foreign countries and regimes,
especially Russian and Ukraine today by both sides of the aisle in order to score points in the
domestic political competition -- is one of the most deleterious aspects of American politics,
and there are many such aspects.
Ignatius also implies that the Russian-backed Donbass separatists are the attackers, even
though it was Kyiv which declared and started the civil war, refusing to negotiate with the
separatists. The separatists have seceded and are preventing the Ukrainian government's forces
from seizing their breakaway regions and forcing them back into the Ukrainian fold without any
concessions. But Ignatius says: "Zelensky announced Oct. 1 that he had agreed to Russian calls
to implement a formula proposed in 2016 by then-German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier
that, in Zelensky's version, would provide withdrawal of Russian proxy forces followed by
elections in the separatist areas of the east." There is no 'Zelensky version' of the
Steinmeier plan. There is only the Steinmeier plan, which seeks to get both sides to withdraw
forces from the front line, not just 'Russian proxy forces.'
Oddly, Ignatius uses terms such as "Russian-backed forces" and "Russian proxy forces." He
never mentions the once falsely claimed tens of thousands of Russian troops occupying Ukraine.
What happened, Mr Ignatius? Tens of thousands turned out to be a few thousand who temporarily
intervened twice to save the Donbass rebels from encirclement and destruction.
Ignatius is at wit's end over Trump's lack of diplomatic action in the peace negotiations
and Russian "diplomatic gains," noting: "How is the United States shaping events as Ukraine is
rebalanced? America isn't really a player. Trump said in September while meeting Zelensky in
New York: 'I really hope that you and President Putin get together and can solve your
problem.'" Also: "Trump's Ukraine machinations have yielded something like what we've seen in
these other theaters: the diminution of U.S. power and a corresponding increase in Russia's
military and diplomatic leverage." However, it was the Barack Obama administration that: helped
spark the entire crisis with its revolution-promotion policies, stayed away from the talks
between eventually overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition
sponsored by the EU and Russia leading to the 20 February 2014 agreement that could have
averted all that followed (including the Donbass civil war), lied about who shot at protesters
on the Maidan on 20 February 2014 sparking the revolution and the agreement's burial, did
nothing to stop the new Maidan regime from starting the civil war, and did not participate in
the Minsk peace process. This is the reason America is not a player in the peace process, and
Russia and the EU, which have been participants from the beginning, are. Any US role under the
Trump administration in peace talks that involve Putin would be called by the likes of Ignatius
as appeasement of, and capitulation to the dictator Putin by his agent and colluder Trump.
Meaningful participation by Washington is now impossible given 'Russiagate' and 'Ukrainegate'.
While I am no admirer of President Trump or his foreign policy, as i have written several
times, There is little to no reason to place the onus for the American absence from diplomatic
action surrounding Ukraine on Trump's shoulders.
President Zelenskiy's 'critics' have descended on key front line sectors to prevent the
drawback of Ukrainian armed forces and ultranationalist-dominated 'volunteer battalions. These
radicals are so dangerous that Zelenskiy was forced a few weeks ago to visit them and appeal to
them to support his attempt to broker peace in Donbass. Afterwards, they issued a video
refusing to compromise and threatening Zelenskiy in an undefined way if he continued with his
peace efforts.
It is now important for every American to realize that he or she can get little to no
reliable news from the US mainstream media on Ukraine, Russia, or even the United States
itself. The inevitable confusion and apathy is particularly dangerous in a country with the
enormous responsibility of being the leader of the democratic community of states the U.S.
purports itself to be. It will allow political leaders with strong media support to manipulate
reality and lead the country down a dark alley from which there is no return.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., is an Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
www.cetisresearch.org . Dr. Hahn's
most recent book is Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the "New Cold War" . He
has authored three previous, well-received books: The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014), Russia's
Islamic Threat (Yale University Press, 2007), and Russia's Revolution From Above:
Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet Communist Regime, 1985-2000
(Transaction Publishers, 2002). He also has published numerous think tank reports, academic
articles, analyses, and commentaries in both English and Russian language media.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia and
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies, the Kennan Institute in Washington DC, and the Hoover Institution.
This doesn't even touch on the fact that Biden has been revealed as an incredibly corrupt sleazebag. That is, what Trump wanted
investigated, the Bidens scooping up cash (our cash ultimately, since we gave it to Ukraine) in the corrupt Ukraine. How they
think all the attention will be focused on Trump asking Zelensky to look into these shameful payoffs and not the payoffs themselves,
is beyond me.
Meddling in the 2016 US presidential election by Ukrainian politicians and government
agencies did indeed happen. No amount of denial is going to change that.
By Yasha Levine ####
Vis Fiona Hill (as ME & Mark referenced earlier), does she really think everyone else
is stupid?
Anyway, it's not what the partisan media reports that matters but what the American voter
thinks. If it's 'A pox on both your houses', then there will be plenty more shocks to the
body politik to come and hopefully, real change.
Thus the fierce struggle for regulation over the internet, and the flap about 'fake news' and
how critical it is that you cede control over what you can see so that you can be 'protected'
– it's all 'for your own safety'. A narrative can really only be driven home when the
audience is not exposed to conflicting stories or evidence which does not fit the
establishment tale.
"... Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races. ..."
"... 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'" ..."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has not been shy about
his disdain for the mainstream media. But the
Democratic presidential hopeful
has rarely, if ever, articulated it as bluntly as he did in an interview that aired on
MSNBC 's "
The Rachel Maddow Show " on Friday night. Sanders
called out the network for its corporate character in a novel exchange with host
Rachel Maddow .
"The American people are sick and tired of establishment politics and economics, and by the way, a little bit tired of corporate
media as well," Sanders told Maddow in an interview taped in Burlington, Vermont.
Maddow pressed Sanders for specifics on how he would change the media if he were president. "What's the solution to corporate
media?" she asked.
"We have got to think of ways the Democratic party, for a start, starts funding the equivalent of Fox television," Sanders
answered. Of course, MSNBC is a corporate media outlet that is widely seen as a Democratic version of Fox News because of the perceived
sympathies of many of its political talk shows.
Sanders went on to argue that "pressure has got to be put on media" to cover policy issues like income inequality and poverty
more heavily, instead of devoting attention to sensational campaign moments and the state of political horse races.
He then claimed that bringing that pressure to bear would be difficult, since corporate ownership makes it harder for news outlets
to cover issues in a way that conflicts with the interests of top executives. "MSNBC is owned by who?" Sanders asked. "Comcast, our
overlords," Maddow responded with a chuckle.
"All right, Comcast is not one of the most popular corporations in America, right?" Sanders said. "And I think the American people
are going to have to say to NBC and ABC and CBS and CNN, 'You know what, forget the political gossip. Politics is not a soap
opera. Talk about the real damn issues facing this country.'"
The list contains some (but not all) of the key participants of the 2014 coup d'état
against President Yanukovich. There are 13 names in the list: MPs Serhiy Leshchenko, Mustafa
Nayem, Svitlana Zalishchuk, Serhiy Berezenko, Serhiy Pashynsky; ex-Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk; ex-Head of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriya Hontareva; ex-First Deputy of the
National Security and Defense Council Oleg Hladkovsky; judge of the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine Makar Pasenyuk; candidate for presidency Anatoly Hrytsenko; singer Svyatoslav Vakarchuk;
journalist Dmytro Hordon and ex-Head of the Presidential Administration Borys Lozhkin.
Pashynsky was involved in Snipergate. Yatsenyuk was the marionette chosen by Nuland to head
the Provisional government after Yanukovich will be overthrown.
Almost all of these people from the list were involved in various sort of scandals during
the last five years. Particularly, Oleg Hladkovsky was recently dismissed from his post due to
the corruption scandal in the defense sphere. Serhiy Leshchenko became known for the purchase
of the flat for $275,253 and the number of information attacks at well-known politicians and
businessmen. Serhy Pashynsky was tied to the hostile takeover of a confectionary factory in
Zhytomyr.
In its turn, the U.S. Department of State stated that the
words of Lutsenko are not true and aims to tarnish the reputation of Ambassador
Yovanovitch. Thus, there are certain concerns that the actual list might be fake.
Dr Kyle Kopko , an associate professor of political science and director of the honours and
pre-law programmes at Elizabethtown College, noted that neither Taylor nor Kent's testimonies
had significantly changed the views of Congress or the public on the impeachment proceedings,
but it could change as the hearings continue:
"I think, at the very least, this is laying the groundwork to show that the president acted
with a political motivation to harm one of his potential campaign rivals", he said.
Dr Kopko also pointed out that there's still not enough evidence to get the impeachment
through.
"...I'm not convinced, yet, that there is enough evidence to result in a conviction in the
Senate", he explained.
"It may be the case that Democrats are using this as a means of damaging President Trump's
credibility as a leader going into the 2020 election, and I see that as being the most likely
outcome where they are able to severely damage his candidacy and reduce his likelihood of
re-election", he concluded.
The central impeachment mantra seems to be "Russian aggression." Look
how many times the witnesses mention this as their central motivation to countermand the
directions of their boss, the commander in chief. But meanwhile, war plans for Iran continue
with the support of both parties. Watch today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - The House is holding its second public hearing with former US envoy
to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch centring around her ouster which, according to her, is pertinent
to the impeachment probe against Trump. Former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch
flatly denied allegations that she circulated a list of potential corruption targets in Ukraine
that the United States did not want prosecuted, according to testimony at the opening of
hearings in the House impeachment probe of President Donald Trump on Friday.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a do not prosecute list
was a fabrication", Yovanovitch said. "Mr Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian prosecutor general
who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I did not tell Mr
Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not prosecute. Instead I
advocated the US position that rule of law should prevail."
US President Donald Trump in a series of tweets on Friday
criticised former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch's performance while she was
testifying in the impeachment hearing against him. He defended his decision to replace
Yovanovitch - appointed by his predecessor Barak Obama - as the US ambassador to Ukraine, where
she served from August 2016 until May 2019.
....They call it "serving at the pleasure of the President." The U.S. now has a very
strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is
called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for
Ukraine than O.
During Friday's Democrat-led impeachment inquiry hearing, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie Yovanovitch testified under oath that she did not give former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko a "do not prosecute list" in 2017. Yovanovitch also doubled-down on
left-wing disinformation saying that Lutsenko "acknowledged that the list never existed" in
April.
"I want to reiterate first that the allegation that I disseminated a "Do Not Prosecute" list
was a fabrication,"
Yovanovitch told the House Intelligence Committee . "Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian
prosecutor general who made that allegation, has acknowledged that the list never existed. I
did not tell Mr. Lutsenko or other Ukrainian officials who they should or should not
prosecute."
"That is such a lie," Glenn Beck said on Friday's show. "She should be held for
perjury."
During a three-part BlazeTV exposé on the Democrats' corruption in Ukraine, Glenn
debunked what he called "the most misleading fabrication I've ever seen by the mainstream
media."
Earlier this year, award-winning investigative journalist John
Solomon reported Lutsenko's claim that then-Ambassador Yovanovitch gave him a list of
"people whom we should not prosecute" during a meeting in 2016. Shortly after Solomon's article
was released, several news sources, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal,
reported that Lutsenko retracted his statement.
When Lutsenko said Yovanovitch "gave" him a list, he did not mean she actually handed him
anything in writing, but verbally conveyed the names of people he shouldn't prosecute.
"They never mentioned the fact that it was verbally dictated and he wrote the list down
himself -- are you kidding me?" Glenn exclaimed. "This is how the media is fact-checking and
debunking. They are playing with our republic and Ukraine's republic. They are planting
dynamite all around everything that we hold dear. How do they sleep at night? Everyone that
reads their stories actually thinks that there was a retraction of one of the most damning
parts of this entire case."
If you like what you see, use promo code GB20OFF to get $20 off a full year of BlazeTV . With a BlazeTV subscription, you're not just paying to watch
great pro-free speech, pro-America TV. Your subscription funds the intensive investigations
that let BlazeTV tell the stories
the liberal media wants to keep in the dark, giving you the unvarnished truth, showing you what
the media doesn't want you to see.
Read More
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told Hill.TV's John Solomon in an interview that
aired Wednesday that U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch gave him a do not prosecute
list during their first meeting.
"Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave
me a list of people whom we should not prosecute," Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told
Hill.TV last week.
"My response of that is it is inadmissible. Nobody in this country, neither our president
nor our parliament nor our ambassador, will stop me from prosecuting whether there is a crime,"
he continued.
The State Department called Lutsenko's claim of receiving a do not prosecute list, "an
outright fabrication."
"We have seen reports of the allegations," a department spokesperson told Hill.TV. "The
United States is not currently providing any assistance to the Prosecutor General's Office
(PGO), but did previously attempt to support fundamental justice sector reform, including in
the PGO, in the aftermath of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity. When the political will for
genuine reform by successive Prosecutors General proved lacking, we exercised our fiduciary
responsibility to the American taxpayer and redirected assistance to more productive
projects."
Hill.TV has reached out to the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine for comment.
Lutsenko also said that he has not received funds amounting to nearly $4 million that the
U.S. Embassy in Ukraine was supposed to allocate to his office, saying that "the situation was
actually rather strange" and pointing to the fact that the funds were designated, but "never
received."
"At that time we had a case for the embezzlement of the U.S. government technical assistance
worth 4 million U.S. dollars, and in that regard, we had this dialogue," he said. " At that
time, [Yovanovitch] thought that our interviews of Ukrainian citizens, of Ukrainian civil
servants, who were frequent visitors of the U.S. Embassy put a shadow on that anti-corruption
policy."
"Actually, we got the letter from the U.S. Embassy, from the ambassador, that the money that
we are speaking about [was] under full control of the U.S. Embassy, and that the U.S. Embassy
did not require our legal assessment of these facts," he said. "The situation was actually
rather strange because the funds we are talking about were designated for the prosecutor
general's office also and we told [them] we have never seen those, and the U.S. Embassy replied
there was no problem."
"The portion of the funds namely 4.4 million U.S. dollars were designated and were foreseen
for the recipient Prosecutor General's office. But we have never received it," he said.
Yovanovitch previously served as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia under former presidents
Obama and George W. Bush, as well as ambassador to Kyrgyzstan under Bush. She also served as
ambassador to Ukraine under Obama.
... More freedom in Ukraine (Thanks Obama):
"UKRAINIAN courts were today condemned for upholding a ban on the only newspaper opposing the
country's "oligarch-nazi regime."
"Founded in 1897, Rabochaya Gazeta was banned earlier this year under Ukraine's
reactionary anti-communist laws after it published articles quoting Karl Marx.
"The newspaper actively opposed the glorification of nazi war-criminals by the Ukrainian
government. It demanded an end to the civil war launched by Kiev in the Donbass after the
2014 military coup and the seizure of power by the country's neo-nazis, oligarchs and
organised criminals.
"The Communist Party of Ukraine (KPU) warned that the political course of the new
government had not changed, with a continued hatred of the newspaper for "telling the truth
to its readers."
"It said the ban was the precursor for legislation that would "completely destroy freedom
of speech and introduce total censorship of the media."
"... A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine. ..."
"... Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity. ..."
"... The Associated Press contributed to this report. ..."
Rudy Giuliani, the personal lawyer for President Donald Trump, eyed business deals in Ukraine as he sought
inquires into allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, according
to a report released Wednesday.
The
New York Times
said Giuliani begin negotiations with Yuri Lutsenko, Ukraine's leading prosecutor at the
time, to take him and the European country's Justice Ministry as clients earlier this year. According to the
Times
, Lutsenko was expected to compensate Giuliani and lawyers Joseph diGenova and Victoria Toensing $200,000
to "advise on Ukrainian claims for the recovery of sums of money in various financial institutions outside Ukraine."
Further, the newspaper reported that Ukraine's Justice Ministry and the Republic of Ukraine were supposed to pay
Giuliani's company $300,000. The deal was signed by the former New York City mayor, but not the Ukraine justice
minister.
In March, the Justice Ministry reportedly appeared to have negotiated an agreement to use the services of diGenova
and Toensing where the General Prosecutor's office, headed up by Lutsenko, but would pay $300,000 to Giuliani's firm.
Responding to allegations brought forth by the
Times
, Giuliani acknowledged that he weighed doing
business with Ukraine's government, but ultimately opted against the move. "I thought that would be too complicated,"
he told the
Times
, before adding: "I never received a penny." Ukraine's Justice Ministry confirmed to the
newspaper that it has never entered into any business agreements with the Trump lawyer.
The
Times'
report comes as federal prosecutors are
slated to meet with executives from Naftogaz -- the Ukraine energy giant at the center of a federal investigation
into Giuliani and two Soviet-born associates' dealings.
A lawyer for Andrew Favorov confirmed Tuesday that he is
scheduled to meet voluntarily with the U.S. Justice Department. Favorov is the director of the integrated gas
division at Naftogaz, the state-owned gas provider in Ukraine.
Federal prosecutors in New York are investigating the
business dealings of Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, including whether he failed to register as a
foreign agent, according to people familiar with the probe. The people were not authorized to discuss the
investigation publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Giuliani's close associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, were arrested last month at an airport outside
Washington while trying to board a flight to Europe with one-way tickets. They were later indicted by federal
prosecutors on charges of conspiracy, making false statements, and falsification of records.
Following an inquiry from The Associated Press, Favorov lawyer Lanny Breuer confirmed his client is set to meet
with prosecutors.
"The Department of Justice has requested an interview,"
Breuer said. "He has agreed and will voluntarily sit down with the government attorneys. At this time, it would
not be appropriate to comment further."
Breuer declined to say when or where Favorov, who has dual
U.S.-Russian citizenship and lives in Ukraine, will be meeting with prosecutors.
Jim Margolin, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in
the Southern District of New York, declined to comment.
According to a federal indictment filed last month, Parnas
and Fruman are alleged to have been key players in Giuliani's efforts earlier this year to spur the Ukrainian
government to launch an investigation of Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter.
According to the US Census there are 3031 counties in the US.
If we redirected the $3.8 billion plus the 500,000,000 for missile defense that we give
Israel to US counties budgets each county would receive about
$ 1.3 million.
If we included the $1.2 billion each we give to Egypt and Jordon for signing the Carter
peace treaty with Israel that figure increases to $2.3 million for each county.
While $2.3 million may be a small figure for counties with metro cities, it would be a
large amount for the majority of counties across the nation.
Since aid to Israel alone accounts for 50% of US foreign aid who would oppose this re
direct of taxpayers money...besides the politicians...and how would the politicians explain
their opposition to the districts they supposedly represent?
"... "There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president by doing something to support his brothers." ..."
"... DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'" ..."
Investigating the nature of Joe Biden's and Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine -- particularly with respect to energy
company Burisma -- is a legitimate endeavor, determined Joseph N. DiStefano, Philadelphia Inquirer staff writer and Nation
columnist, offering his remarks in a Tuesday interview on SiriusXM's Breitbart News Tonight with hosts Rebecca Mansour
and Joel Pollak.
DiStefano described a series of courtships from businesses targeting Joe Biden's family members, drawing on his latest Nation
column entitled, " Joe Biden's Friends and Backers Come Out on Top -- at the Expense of the Middle Class."
Joe Biden has been a beneficiary of "legal graft" via the "Delaware Way," DiStefano said -- a term defined as "politicians doing
favors for well-connected business owners in exchange for contributions after the fact."
"We go where the facts lead, DiStefano said. "In the case of the Bidens, they've been leading for a very long time. If you go
back to the early 1970s, ever since Joe Biden's been elected to the Senate, there has been a pretty unremitting series of business
transactions involving members of his family and companies that were interested for a large variety of reasons in getting access."
DiStefano recalled, "[Joe Biden] himself complained -- you might call it gaslighting, but he complained -- that his brother at
the age of 23 and his business partners were granted business loans by banks in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware -- loans that
were not paid -- to open
a discotheque right up the road from Wilmington."
DiStefano continued, "When it came time to pay those loans, the banks liened on Joe Biden, he complained to the Wilmington
News Journal -- that paper where I worked years ago -- at that time, and ever since then it's been just a series of his brothers
and his sons doing business with folks who came to them because they were Bidens, because Joe Biden was initially on the Banking
Committee and then a representative of the very powerful credit card banks that developed in Delaware, and eventually on the Judiciary
Committee."
"Of course, this is a very old American tradition," said DiStefano. "You can go back to Ben Franklin, and how he was pleased
to become Secretary of the Province of Pennsylvania, because it enabled him to take over the provincial printing business. His
son was ultimately governor of New Jersey, and there's an awful lot of that in American history.
Reviewing Joe Biden's political history reveals a pattern of businesses attempting to procure political influence via financial
relationships with Biden's brothers and sons, explained DiStefano.
"There is also a lot of hypocrisy," stated DiStefano, "People who claim that they are for the people -- that they are for
the middle class -- which has been Joe Biden's mantra, and yet there is deal after deal in which companies are attempting to enrich
themselves and members of the Biden family, and it has often been a way to open the door with the senator, [and] later vice president
by doing something to support his brothers."
DiStefano remarked, "Politics is very, very local, and the Bidens live in a very nice section of Delaware. The richest section
of Delaware -- eventually -- in Greenville. They went to some of the best schools, first in the state, and then in the country."
DiStefano went on, "Politics is very local here [in Delaware]. You can keep getting elected while being a person of modest means
if you make the networks, if you make the connections, if you do the work, if you are respected."
"There are many people in Delaware who respect Joe Biden for all those things, but it wasn't enough, because from the very beginning,
[Joe Biden was] building networks outside the state," added DiStefano. "There are people who credit or blame [Joe Biden] with corrupting
the [political] process [in Delaware] to the extent that a lot of out-of-state money came in and made him senator, and others senator
and governor after him. It really helped cement to the dominance of the Delaware Democratic Party."
"Delaware is one of those states, like Vermont, that consistently elects Democrats in recent years. Joe Biden and the money machine
he put together is a large part of that," DiStefano said. "It is a fact that he had those networks and he raised that money, and
there were a lot of trade-offs that happened as a result."
DiStefano continued, "One of the most obvious [trade-offs] was support that [Joe Biden] at first uniquely, and then very importantly
gave to the credit card banks in Delaware, in the fights that happened in Congress all through the 1970s, 80s, and 90s over just
how much power should these institutions have when a person can't pay their bills [and] what is protected and what it exposed to
the mercies of the creditors."
"Joe Biden was very consistently on the side of the credit card banks in limiting the assets that one could protect from bankruptcy,"
noted DiStefano.
Joe Biden was dubbed, "the Senator from MBNA" in 1998 by the American Spectator , recalled DiStefano.
Mansour and Pollak invited DiStefano's explanation of how Delaware came to be the home state of many national credit card companies.
"This came about when the Democrats controlled Washington back in late 1970s, after they had gotten Nixon out of the way and believed
that they would be the majority party indefinitely -- before Reagan put an end to that -- there was a period in which there was very
high inflation in this country and Democrats did not know what to do," recalled DiStefano.
DiStefano went on, "The Supreme Court and the Congress and President [Jimmy Carter] basically agreed to allow banks to export
interest rates [across state lines]. For many years, states could limit interest rates [and] how much you could charge on a loan.
The credit card industry was one of the first really national lending business, and there was an agreement in Congress -- after a
particular Supreme Court decision involving a bank in Omaha -- that it would now be possible for bank in a state with really liberalized
lending laws to export those lending laws to another state."
"Delaware was one of the very first states to take advantage of that," added DiStefano. " Now, by that point, [Joe Biden] was
in the U.S. Senate. He was not part of the initial bipartisan group in Delaware who rushed to make this happen. He had been on the
Senate Banking Committee during the debates and was on the conference committee that basically passed the bill that made all this
possible. What he did after that was to be very accommodating from Washington of the banks that immediately flocked to Delaware."
DiStefano explained, "Delaware got this early. Delaware understood that if they got rid of their usury law, if they got rid of
their consumer protections, if they reduced bank taxes to the point where they were actually regressive -- the more money you make
as a Delaware bank, the lower your tax rate is -- then the result was that the largest credit card companies reincorporated their
businesses in Delaware and began to lend from there."
Joe Biden assisted Republicans in blocking left-wing Democrats' efforts to increase state controls over the credit card industry,
noted DiStefano.
"That is what a lot of the liberals hold against Joe Biden," DiStefano said of the former vice president's opposition to increasing
government regulations over credit card companies' operations.
"[Joe Biden] really defended the interest of a very powerful group in his state, but you ought to consider that that was a lot
of jobs," added DiStefano. "That was literally tens of thousands of jobs at a time when the Dupont company was cutting back, the
auto plants were closing down, the oil refinery along the river was closing, and here were the banks, that's what they had, and that's
who gave Joe Biden money, and that is who his constituents, you know, were calling in [about] and saying, 'We need these jobs,' and
he was defending those jobs in Congress."
Joe Biden moved politically leftward after joining Barack Obama's presidential campaign as a vice presidential nominee, said DiStefano,
"[Joe Biden] was now on a national platform and he needed to run to the left, and that's where he moved."
"Joe Biden backed Obama's [and the] Democrats' attempt to socialize the [private lending industry], and make it so that anybody
who wants a loan for college can get one. no matter that it's a bad college program that doesn't help people get jobs, no matter
that it's a bad borrower who's not going to pay their loan," DiStefano explained. "That's why student lending is so expensive in
this country."
Bohai Harvest RST (BHR), a private equity firm founded by Hunter Biden,
procured
$1.5 billion in financing from the state-run Bank of China days after then-Vice President Joe Biden traveled to China as part
of an official extended trip to Asia.
DiStefano recalled BHR's involved in
purchasing "politically sensitive" assets and companies, including dual-use technology with military applications developed by
automotive parts manufacturer Henniges Automotive.
"They ended up buying the biggest copper and cobalt mine in Africa," said DiStefano of BHR's global acquisition. "They bought
a company in Detroit that did a lot of controls for vehicles, including military vehicles. They bought into a company in China hat
ended up designing a lot of technology used in the imprisonment of the Uighur population."
DiStefano added, "There are examples of companies that were close to the Bidens that did not make company, and one of those is
Hill International, a company in Philadelphia run by -- long ago -- a former felon that hired one of the Biden brothers as a vice
president of a group that was supposed to build housing in Iraq."
DiStefano went on, "That housing never got built, because the Obama administration policies in Iraq turned to, really, abandoning
a part of the country for a period of time, allowing ISIS to move in, and the plan to build all this housing was canceled. That same
company had a deal to build community colleges across Libya, and that plan got blown up when the [Obama] administration, against
the advice of many of our allies, decided to go in and blow up the Qaddafi government, leading to another period of anarchy and more
influence by ISIS. That company lost money in both of those cases, and they had very actively courted the Biden family."
Mansour invited DiStefano's comments on Biden's conflicts of interest given his former role as vice president and his son's foreign
businesses dealings.
"What would you do?" asked DiStefano. "I have six children, and a bunch of them have worked and had internships and then jobs
in corporate America, and I always tell them the same thing. I say, 'Don't tell me anything that's going on at the company you're
working at. As much as I'd love to know, and as a business reporter, I'm probably very interested, but don't tell me anything that
hasn't been published by your investor relations department or hasn't been [publicly disclosed] by the company, because you're going
to be working a lot longer than I have, and I don't want to put you in that position where you have a conflict of interest,' and
they understand that."
DiStefano added, "When my wife was a bank officer and I was a labor organizer -- way, way, way back, over 30 years ago, before
I was a reporter -- she had some sensitive information on companies I was very interested in, and she would not tell me. That's what
honorable people do. They separate it. They don't put themselves and their family members in these positions where there [are] conflicts
of interest."
"What we don't hear is denouncement [from Joe Biden]," observed DiStefano. "We hear the general abstract statement, 'I will never
put anybody in that position,' but then you see the fact of a deal in Ukraine right as the U.S. is backing Ukraine, and no apparent
attempt by the then-vice president to say, 'Well, don't do that. You shouldn't do that. I wish he wouldn't do that.' It's just, 'It's
all okay. It's my son, and what he does, I'm sure, is right,' and I just think that's an extra step that many of us try very hard
to avoid in our personal and business lives, and why should he not be setting an example?"
Mansour asked DiStefano about the President Donald Trump's inquiries into corruption in Ukraine, including possible corruption
on the part of Joe and Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma.
DiStefano determined, "Obviously the question should be asked, 'What were the Bidens' relations in the Ukraine? What were
they doing? What were they up to? Who was benefiting from that? Did it affect U.S. policy?'"
"What is [Hunter Biden] doing going on the board of an oil company that can obviously benefit if the U.S. backs Ukraine," asked
DiStefano.
"... Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. ..."
"... Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics ..."
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins.
Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being unreasonable -- those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to
boost Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort.
Jokes aside, however, I can only imagine how SVR
and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many "free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a
free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within the American administration. I couldn't
remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it
had been an American Admiral. I had no luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration.
It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose
to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe"
to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth
called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East -- and in D.C. -- certainly looked like a distant
but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy
agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the
respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the
crazy banner. Or, to put it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an outside
observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an extent American foreign policy has been
hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign policy has been uniformly deleterious.
And that from a long way back and no matter whether those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many
Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes
with neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of the United States - because that is
a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American
foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions
inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New World, with all its power and might,
steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen for half a century and more. But there
was a price few noticed. The New World might have stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a
most destructive freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was impossible to interest any of my old television
colleagues in the idea that one might go to Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my
editor, Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating anecdote about what one of his fellow
members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which
of his country's two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article Brzezinski published in the 'Financial
Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's fundamental belief that after all those
years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment -- to use Victoria Nuland's term -- it would finally 'knuckle under', and become
a quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site -- which
actually has some very useful material on matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language -- headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series -- Part I -- Renowned Russian Academic Sergey Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new thinkers', linked to it on his own website,
clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are essential features of an argument
can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few years -- doubly interesting, because
his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant
section of the Russian foreign policy élite -- may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central contentions of his writings might be
put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in 1989. But if in practice "by the people"
means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us 'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes"
running Western policy, a "real democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like Brzezinski
clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political systems, are actually "Eurasian":
a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples have to reckon, this gives us a very
real potential advantage over people in the West, who, like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one
path along which all of humanity must -- and can -- go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European -- simply that we cannot simply come to
Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well realise that their future does not lie
in an alliance with a coalition of people like Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism" -- and, in relation to some of the SJC
and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism gone bonkers" -- which Putin criticized in his interview with the "Financial Times"
back in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental Europeans see sense, then the coalition
of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalized, and indeed, on
the 'dustbin of history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was working in the 'Analysis' office,
back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to Britain and the United States.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from "white board" theorists with zero understanding
of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's
loyalties were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false, anti-Russian grievances. He
dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do
many, as you correctly stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of which Founding
Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I
argue constantly, utter destruction of the remnants of the Republic.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with Putin and Lavrov being personally
present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact
screams, volumes. You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost"
(quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia
Studies field in the West which was primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing a caricature. They succeeded and
Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as
I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as should be expected, maybe. They
were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out
of the door the next second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words, hard to read or to predict. Guess
one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress
Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista' Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to incorporate Galicia into the empire
he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles -- as also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg
-- could have gone back to their old habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is a land run by Galician zombies "
-- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security
positions such as ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks, the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
"... For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this conflict. ..."
James Carville observed that night in 2016, Democrats haven't been this weak for more than
half-a-century. Some Democrats learned the lesson and ran on 'just fix the damn roads' in
2018 and won. Impeachment is very, very likely to do what the ACA did to Dems in 2010.
Rather than build on the hard-won victories of 2018, Democrats have decided to pursue a
dead-end policy doomed to failure which will galvanize the GOP base and drive independents
months before the election. Even a week ago, I wasn't sure whether Trump will be elected. I'm
much, much more certain now. I warned in 2017 of the opportunity costs of looking for silver
stake solutions to what OW and Carville correctly understand as bad policy, poor candidates,
identity politics, and bad messaging.
So, Russia? My guess is that after the stomping that may very well fall upon the Dems, we
might very well see real reform in the Democratic party, just as we have in the GOP. Trump's
GOP protects businesses, individuals, Americans, opportunity, and social security. And all
the bad shit that both parties always support. Dems need to figure out that Trump has stolen
their message and is on the way to stealing their base. If minorities turn out for Trump (the
GOP wet-dream) Dems are going to face a nightmare scenario. And 34 percent of
African-Americans currently support Trump.
That's a very apt observation with one reservation: one major factor in 2018 success was
Mueller investigation. Now there will be backlash against it, which favors Trump.
Moon of Alabama has a very interesting discussion of the Catch 22 style situation "Full of
Schiff" Dems found themselves with "Pelosi impeachment gambit": in no way they can allow Senate
trial, and they can't allow just a censure, or they lose the face (Schiff career is probably
over at this point in any case)
-- If more Democratic swing-state representatives defect from the impeachment camp, which
seems likely, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will have a big problem. How can she proceed?
-- If the House votes down impeachment Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House holds no vote on the issue Donald Trump wins.
-- If the House votes for censure Donald Trump will have won on points and the issue will
be over.
-- If the House votes for impeachment the case goes to the Senate for trial.
The Republican led Senate has two choices:
-- It can decide to not open an impeachment trial by simply voting against impeachment.
Trump wins.
-- It can open a impeachment trial, use it to extensively hurt the Democrats and, in the
end, vote against impeachment. Trump wins big time.
A senate impeachment trial would be a disaster for the Dems as Joe & Hunter and Adam
Schiff get to testify under oath.
A censure means that Trump won on points and now can play victim in 2020 election. Situation
which he likes and exploiting which he is a great master (that's why he wants the Senate
trial). And which increases chances of his reelection. In the latter case that most probably
means the end of career (if not prosecution) for Vindman, Hill and other "accusers" (Pelosi
sacrificial pawns in this gambit)
My feeling is that Clinton democrats are doomed to be a failure in 2020. And that Democratic
Party needs to reform (which they failed to do after 2016 fiasco.)
For the Democrats to reform they need first to acknowledge that their alliance with Wall
Street is a dead end and that they need to oppose the absolute
rule of capital. At a minimum they should be capable of acknowledging the conflict that exists
between the interests of capital and the rest of the population (Warren); and of expressing a
principled determination to take the side of the majority of the population in this
conflict.
"... With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president. ..."
"... The math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts won by Trump in 2016. ..."
"... Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast their votes on articles of impeachment. ..."
"... Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it. ..."
"... In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away in an avalanche of partisan censure votes. ..."
"... The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss, some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their posteriors. ..."
At this point, Democrats appear to have dug themselves a rather deep impeachment
hole, and at least a few of them are now looking for a ladder. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
(D-CA) saw this coming but could not withstand the Trump-derangement tide. They do have a way
out, and at least a few of them – along with their surrogates in the media –
realize that censure, rather than impeachment, is their best option for dealing with President
Trump in a way that will not come back to bite their carefully guarded posteriors.
Nancy Pelosi
Regardless of what one may think of Pelosi's political bent, she has always been more
pragmatic than her more strident party colleagues. Sure, she will step in front of any camera
and talk about how Trump is spitting on the Constitution, crushing the souls of hard-working
Americans, and planning to detain all non-white people before our very eyes. But, for the most
part, she understands political realities.
With Republicans in control of the Senate, the California elder stateswoman always knew that
articles of impeachment would have to be based on crimes so egregious and beyond doubt that
even Republicans would have had no choice but to convict the president.
In their impeachment
inquiry , congressional Democrats have come nowhere near that standard. Worse still, they
may barely have the votes to advance articles of impeachment to the Senate. As the balance of
power in the House now stands, the majority Democrats can afford to lose no more than 16 votes
from their own caucus in order to impeach – assuming they get no Republican votes. The
math may not be on the Democrats' side, as they have 31 House members representing districts
won by Trump in 2016.
Pelosi simply cannot discount the fact that at least half – and maybe more – of
those Democrat representatives will consider their own chances of re-election as they cast
their votes on articles of impeachment.
Second Thoughts?
Rep. Brenda Lawrence (D-MI) is not one of those who represent a 2016 Trump-voting
district. In fact, her safe Democrat district encompasses part of eastern Detroit. Even so, Lawrence
has seen the writing on the wall: Among independent voters, enthusiasm for impeachment is
waning, and Lawrence – who previously supported the idea – is perhaps now thinking
beyond her own chances of re-election.
"I will tell you, sitting here knowing how divided this country is," Lawrence explained
Nov. 24 during a radio interview, "I don't see the value of taking [Trump] out of office, but
I do see the value of putting down a marker saying his behavior is not acceptable."
An editorial, published Nov. 23 by The Detroit News, suggests censure of the president
rather than impeachment, and The Chicago Tribune followed suit on Nov. 25. It is neither unfair
nor inaccurate to point out that the left-wing media rarely take up a political narrative not
preapproved by someone within the Democratic Party. So the sudden appearance of editorials
arguing for censure strongly suggests that Democrat strategists are leaning in that direction
or at least testing the waters.
What Is Censure?
Unlike impeachment, censure is not a constitutional measure. That is not to say that censure
is unconstitutional, but that it is simply a course of action devised by Congress and not
described in the nation's founding document. There is no mandatory consequence to censure, and
nobody would suggest that censure could lead to removal from the office of president. It has
been used most often to rebuke or reprimand members of Congress, though Trump, were he
censured, would not be the first commander in chief to have faced it.
In effect, censure is an act of disapproval. For a member of Congress, it may entail such
undesirable consequences as loss of committee memberships or even suspension; it comes with no
penalties when used against executive branch officials. And that is how it should be, or the
concepts of separation of powers and co-equal branches of government would likely be swept away
in an avalanche of partisan censure votes.
Both the Senate and the House have the power to censure or reprimand, and each chamber may
do it without the approval or involvement of the other. Censure requires only a simple
majority. At least some Democrats, surely, are considering how much easier than impeachment
censure will be. They also may be considering how a censure resolution will provide the
opportunity to pontificate at length – on live TV – about Trump's moral turpitude
and failings, both as a human being and as a president.
In 1834, Democrat President Andrew Jackson was censured by a Whig Senate for firing the
Treasury secretary. President John Tyler, a Democrat-turned-Whig who may have been even more of
a boat-rocking maverick than Trump, was reprimanded (another form of censure) in 1842 by the
House of Representatives. President James Polk was reprimanded in 1848 by the House. President
Abraham Lincoln was reprimanded by the Senate in 1864.
Some members of Congress argued for censuring, rather than impeaching, President Bill
Clinton, and that brings up an important point about impeachment: Attempting to remove a
president from office by any means other than a general election is, without a doubt, the
gravest and most consequential action the Congress can take. If the constitutional republic
– with its democratic method of choosing a president – is to be preserved, a
president should not be removed from office by Congress for anything less than an act that
directly endangers the American people or the U.S. government.
Jackson, Tyler, and Lincoln did nothing that justified such a measure. Polk took the country
to war without congressional approval – very much an impeachable offense, many would
argue. How about Clinton? He was not impeached for having sexual relations with a White House
intern but for lying about it to Congress.
If every politician were removed from office for lying, we would have no political
leadership at all. Clinton's lie did not jeopardize the security or stability of the United
States, and one could certainly argue that his was not an impeachable offense. At the time, the
American people appeared to agree.
The Founding Fathers proscribed impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. These are serious crimes – high crimes. Removing from office a duly elected
president for anything less is congressional tyranny. Perhaps, before they step into the abyss,
some Democrats are coming to that realization. Or perhaps they are simply guarding their
posteriors.
"... According to a Nov. 21 report by independent journalist Sara Carter, U.S. Attorney John Durham is questioning personnel in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA). ONA awarded about $1 million in contracts to FBI informant Stefan Halper, who appears to have played a key role in alleged U.S. intelligence agency spying on 2016 Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... In addition, however, a court filing indicates that ONA's director, James H. Baker, "is believed to be the person who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn's calls" to The Washington Post. ..."
"... The filing adds that Baker "was Halper's 'handler'" at ONA. Moreover, according to the court filing, the tasks assigned to "known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI" Halper "seem to have included slandering Mr. Flynn with accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian descent)." ..."
"... The filing notes that Flynn's defense team has requested phone records for then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , likewise in order to confirm contacts with Ignatius. The filing singles out records for Jan. 10, 2017, when, according to the filing, "Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of 'take the kill shot on Flynn.'" ..."
"... The Pentagon's current inspector general has already found that Baker's office "did not maintain documentation of the work performed by Professor Halper or any communication that ONA personnel had with Professor Halper." As a result, according to the inspector general, ONA staff "could not provide sufficient documentation that Professor Halper conducted all of his work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations." ..."
"... Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in November 2017 started an investigation into charges that Baker retaliated against a whistleblower who red-flagged "rigged" contracts, including Halper's. Another $11 million in contracts under scrutiny went to the Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), which is run by a schoolmate of Chelsea Clinton, whom she has referred to as her "best friend." ..."
"... The House Judiciary and Oversight committees -- which interviewed almost two dozen witnesses -- concluded in December 2018 that the Obama Justice Department treated Trump and Clinton unequally, affording Clinton and her associates extraordinary accommodations, while potentially abusing surveillance powers to investigate Trump's associates. ..."
The
Obama holdover heading the Pentagon office
reportedly under investigation by the U.S. attorney who is conducting the criminal probe of
the Trump -- Russia investigation was accused of leaking a classified document, in a recent
court filing for retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
The connection hasn't been previously reported.
According to a Nov. 21 report by independent journalist Sara Carter, U.S. Attorney John
Durham is questioning personnel in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (ONA). ONA awarded
about $1 million in contracts to FBI informant Stefan Halper, who appears to have played a key
role in alleged U.S. intelligence agency spying on 2016 Trump campaign advisers Carter Page and
George Papadopoulos.
In addition, however, a
court filing indicates that ONA's director, James H. Baker, "is believed to be the person
who illegally leaked the transcript of Mr. Flynn's calls" to The Washington Post.
Specifically, the filing states, "ONA Director Baker regularly lunched with Washington Post
Reporter David Ignatius."
The filing adds that Baker "was Halper's 'handler'" at ONA. Moreover, according to the
court filing, the tasks assigned to "known long-time operative for the CIA/FBI" Halper "seem to
have included slandering Mr. Flynn with
accusations of having an affair with a young professor (a British national of Russian
descent)."
Baker didn't respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times as of press time.
The filing notes that Flynn's defense team has requested phone records for
then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper , likewise in order to confirm
contacts with Ignatius. The filing singles out records for Jan. 10, 2017, when, according to
the filing, "Clapper told Ignatius in words to the effect of 'take the kill shot on
Flynn.'"
Clapper didn't respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times as of press time.
The Pentagon's current inspector general has already found that Baker's office "did not
maintain documentation of the work performed by Professor Halper or any communication that ONA
personnel had with Professor Halper." As a result, according to the inspector general, ONA
staff "could not provide sufficient documentation that Professor Halper conducted all of his
work in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."
Acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn A. Fine in November 2017 started an
investigation into charges that Baker retaliated against a whistleblower who red-flagged
"rigged" contracts, including Halper's. Another
$11 million in contracts under scrutiny went to the Long Term Strategy Group (LTSG), which
is run by a schoolmate
of Chelsea Clinton, whom she has referred to as her "best friend."
According to the whistleblower's attorney, "Baker's interest was his awareness of the
LTSG-Clinton connection; his presumptive desire to exploit that to his advantage in the event
of a Clinton election win; and the fact that contractors like LTSG served as a lucrative
landing pad for ONA retirees."
The attorney charged that Baker's claims about the whistleblower were "demonstrably false,"
calling Baker "partisan and highly vindictive."
At the time, Richard Perle, Ronald Reagan's former Assistant Secretary of Defense, called
Baker "a shallow and manipulative character that should have gone with the change in
administration." Perle further charged that the whistleblower "clearly was the target, for
political reasons, of an effort to push him out of government," saying "he's a Trump loyalist,
and it was launched and sustained by an Obama holdover."
That inquiry is being carried out by the inspector general's Investigations of Senior
Officials Directorate.
Raising additional questions, a 2016 report further revealed
that the ONA had failed to produce the top-secret net assessments the office was established to
conduct for more than 10 years, even with a yearly budget approaching $20 million.
Baker was named
as ONA director on May 14, 2015, during the Obama administration. A contemporaneous report
called his appointment "part of a wave of new Pentagon personnel moves in recent days,
senior-level officials who will outlast President Obama's final term in office." Baker
replaced Andrew W. Marshall, nicknamed "Yoda" for his "wizened appearance, fanatical
following in defense circles, and enigmatic nature." Obama Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in
selecting Baker, "passed over several of Marshall's acolytes who were in the running for the
position."
The House Judiciary and Oversight committees -- which interviewed almost two dozen
witnesses --
concluded in December 2018 that the Obama Justice Department treated Trump and Clinton
unequally, affording Clinton and her associates extraordinary accommodations, while potentially
abusing surveillance powers to investigate Trump's associates.
Jacqueline Deal, president of LTSG, wrote in an email to The Epoch Times: "My colleagues and
I began performing work in support of the Office of Net Assessment during the George W. Bush
administration, over a decade before the office's current director was appointed. None of the
awards received by LTSG from the Department of Defense resulted directly or indirectly from the
actions or influence of Secretary [Hillary] Clinton. Any statement or implication otherwise is
false."
Baker
replaced Andrew W. Marshall, nicknamed “Yoda” for his “wizened
appearance, fanatical following in defense circles, and enigmatic nature.” Obama
Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in selecting Baker, “passed over several of
Marshall’s acolytes who were in the running for the position.”
Holy ****...The replacement head of the Highlands Group..he may as well be that white
bearded guy in the matrix.. Hes the director of the MIC CIA NSA. ..the whole ball of
wax..puts it all together...only he is not Yoda like before him..like putting a restaurant
fast food manager in charge of the manhattan project. I know those acolytes must be really
pissed..and probably a potential source of leaks.
Investigations my eye! This has been going on since Moby **** was a minnow.
McCabe has been out there making money while under criminal referral.. That investigation
is DONE and still nothing happens.
The public information available on at least 50 of these double dealers is enough to send
them all up the river as of a few YEARS ago...but we have to have more
investigations...that's so they can figure out how to cover it all up.
Fire these creeps. Hire Sidney Powell.. They'll be swinging inside of six months.
"... and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders. that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating Trump. ..."
"... This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since 2014. ..."
"... Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits. ..."
"... A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs. ..."
"... Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election. And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block Trump's impeachment. ..."
"... That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point. Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats. ..."
"... I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate to Rape2Protect. ..."
"... If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop it into their pockets. ..."
"... The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of politicians, obviously. ..."
"... The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose. ..."
"... the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government, which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass. ..."
"... the Democrats won't want to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been discussed here. ..."
"... "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a "democracy." ..."
"... Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the 55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class ..."
"... The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment. ..."
"... He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election, Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads would explode and his base would love it. ..."
"... To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go as an independent either. ..."
"An impeachment trial in the Senate would be a disaster for the Democrats.
I can not see why the Democrats would want to fall into such a trap. House leader Nancy
Pelosi is experienced enough to not let that happen."
The real reason in my opinion that Pelosi went along with impeachment was that she saw
Bernies message getting through, and even though the DNC pushed all the conserva-dem
candidates they could into the race, Bernie is still doing well and gaining. An impeachment
trial would require Bernie to attend the hearings rather that campaigning. Also Wall Streets
best friend Obama has just stated that Bernie is not a Democrat and that would require Obama
to get on the speaking circuit to campaign against him - you know for the sake of the
corporations - and those 500k speaking thank you gigs. They would rather elect Trump than
Bernie - that is why I think Pelosi would go along with an impeachment trial in the Senate -
Bernie is the greater threat.
The idea to censure Trump and move on has been aired since mid 2017. The latest was
Forbes.com billwhalen 26 September 2019
Link
I ordered a truckload of pop corn to snack on during the trial in the Senate. Just imagine
Joe Biden under cross examination as he flips 'n flops! "Was that me in the Video, I can't
recall."
With interest (even among Democrats) in the impeachment process sliding, the House
Judiciary Committee is set to take over the impeachment probe of President Trump next week,
scheduling a Dec. 4 hearing.
As The Hill reports, behind Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the committee
will hear from legal scholars as Democrats weigh whether the evidence turned up in their
weeks-long impeachment inquiry warrants the drafting of articles aimed at removing the
president from office.
The hearing, scheduled for next Wednesday, will focus on the definition of an
impeachable offense and the formal application of the impeachment process. The panel
will invite White House lawyers to attend and participate.
Ahead of the hearing, Nadler wrote to Trump requesting his participation - or
that of White House counsel - as part of ensuring "a fair and informative process."[.]
Trump will take a page from the other president who campaigned on the "do nothing
congress"
and now Obama weighs in to warn against the real danger to the democrats, Bernie Sanders.
that's who they have to beat, and Gabbard. They don't give much of a damn about beating
Trump.
b, there seems to be a critical flaw in your analysis--you seem to base it on a premise that
the goal of the Democratic establishment is to win elections/gain power/govern. It's not,
it's to ensure the continuing enrichment of themselves and their oligarch peers, financial
industry, military, pharma, etc.
The question people like Pelosi (worth $100 million or so btw along with her husband whose
business she enriches via her position) are pondering isn't "Will doing x, y, z help Trump
win?" It's "Will doing x, y, z ensure Bernie Sanders doesn't win?"
This pretty much confirms my and many others here hypothesis that the Dems are
fighting a "war on two fronts": one against Trump nationalist capitalism and the other
against the "democratic socialists" who have been flocking to their party machine since
2014.
Of all the things that the Democrats could impeach President Trump over, the one thing they
seized upon was the issue that had the most potential to blow back on them and destroy Joe
Biden's chances of reaching the White House. Whoever had that brilliant idea and put it as
the long straw in a cylindrical prawn-chip can along with all the other straws for pulling
out, sure didn't think of all the consequences that could have arisen. That speaks for the
depth (or lack thereof) of the thinking among senior Democrats and their worker bee analysts,
along with a narrow-minded outlook, sheer hatred of a political outsider and a fanatical zeal
to match that hatred and outlook.
The folks who hatched that particular impeachment plan and pitched it to Nancy Pelosi must
have been the same idiots in the DNC who dreamt up the Russiagate scandal and also pursued
Paul Manafort to get him off DJT's election campaign team. Dmitri Alperovich / Crowdstrike,
Alexandra Chalupa: we're looking at you.
Impeachment takes Sanders out of the campaign and that opens things up for the
CIA/establishment's "Identity Politics Candidate #3" , Mayor Butt-gig.
That said, since "Everyone who doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable
misogynist!" didn't work as expected, I wonder what makes them think "Everyone who
doesn't vote for our candidate is a deplorable homophobe!" will work any better?
Lots of agreement here with the overall situation becoming clearer with Bloomberg's entrance
and the outing of Obama's plans. I just finished writing my response to Putin's speech before the annual
United Russia Party Congress on the Open Thread and suggest barflies take 10 minutes to
read it and compare what he espouses a political party's deeds & goals ought to be versus
those of the West and its vassals.
Clearly, the goal is to prevent the US Polity from clawing back power from the 10% and
enacting policies to their benefit. Meanwhile, a new form of Transnational Nationalism
continues to take shape that will soon present a serious threat to the Financialized
Globalizers and their Cult of Debt. Too many seem to laugh off the entire situation by
dismissing it as Kabuki Theatre, which I see as self-serving and shortsighted since there're
several very real crises we're in up to our collective armpits.
A full blown impeachment trial that exposes the entire
Russia-gate/Ukraine-gate/Whatever-gate sham is what this country needs.
Obviously, a sufficient number of secure Republican representatives are needed to vote in
favor of impeachment to allow this circus to continue to its bizarrely entertaining,
Democratic Party destroying end.
The MSM will declare Trump guilty - that is, he has earned impeachment for Ukrainegate.
There are Democrats still under the illusion that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the
election. Dems tell us that Trump *obstructed* the Mueller investigation thus Trump could not
be nailed, nonetheless Trump is guilty of collusion until proven innocent.
Back to Ukrainegate. Bet the MSM sells Ukrainegate this way: Trump is guilty in
Ukrainegate and should be impeached, but Democrats are moving on to focus on the election.
And besides, Dems will tell us, the dastardly Republicans in the Senate will corruptly block
Trump's impeachment.
Tulsi
Gabbard Tweet not specifically about impeachment but begs numerous questions:
"My personal commitment is to always treat you and all Americans with respect. Working
side-by-side, we can defeat the divisiveness of Donald Trump, and usher in a 21st century of
peace, human dignity, & true equality. Working side by side, we can make Dr. King's dream
our reality ." [My Emphasis]
Questions: Is Trump divisive, or is it the D-Party and Current Oligarchy that make him so;
and which is more important to defeat? Which party "usher[ed] in the 21st century" with
several wars and abetted the next two? How did Obama, Slick Willie or his wife advance "human
dignity & true equality"? How does her last sentence differ from "Hope you can believe
in"? Hasn't her D-Party worked tirelessly for decades to circumvent the goals she espouses?
Wouldn't Gabbard have a better chance running as an Enlightened Republican than as a Renegade
Democrat if her goal's to defeat Trump?
American Democracy is political professional wrestling, Kabuki Theater, and mediocre Reality
TV all rolled into. by: AK74 @ 4 <= binary divide <=conducted by the USA, is not about
America, Americans or making America great again, its about the welfare of [the few<=
which most Americans would not call fellow Americans].
Sasha.@ 23 I don't understand where you are coming from.. thank Korlof1 @18 for posting
that Putin talk alert. excerpts from the talk.. => The priority [of United Russia has
been] the protection of the people's interests, the interests of [the] Motherland, and
..responsible [approach] to ..country, its security, stability and people's lives in the
long-term perspective.
The party.. offered a unifying agenda based on freedom and well being, patriotism,
..traditional values, a strong civil society and a strong state. The key issue in the party's
work .being together with the people, Karlof1@18 <=this talk suggest change in Russian
leadership that are not congruent with your [Sasha] comment @23. I hope you will make more
clear what you spent sometime writing ( and for that effort I thank you) but it is not yet
clear what you mean.. .
Re: Brenda Lawrence talking about censure rather than impeachment:
That is what they call a "trial balloon." If there isn't too much of a freakout among
the true-believer base, and I don't think there is, it'll be an option they will at least
take seriously. Not that I'm encouraging anyone to bet on rational thinking at this point.
Anyway I agree it's the best move for congressional Democrats.
Yet another other option is to continue the investigation indefinitely. I'm going to say
it is their default move actually. In that case, the House Judiciary Committee would spend a
few weeks putting on their own show, then say they would like more evidence to be really
sure, returning matters to the House Intelligence Committee, and we repeat the cycle.
I am liking all the commenters here that understand that there is only one empire party
with two mythical faces. I think this kabuki is necessary if you don't have a major WAR to
keep the masses focused on or otherwise distracted from the underlying R2P which I translate
to Rape2Protect.
It is sad to see us all talking about which of the lesser of horrible evils will continue
the leadership of American faced empire.....I hope it crashes soon and takes the global elite
down with it.....how many barflies are ready to stand up and say NO to the owners of the
Super-Priority derivatives that will say they own the world because of their casino (no skin
in the game) bets that are currently "legal" in America when the crash comes?
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to -- if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get. That should tell you all you need to know about Americans.
If this show should teach people in the US anything (again), it is how both US parties
descend like vultures onto countries where they manage to take over the government. Five
billion poured into Ukraine with the requisite murder and mayhem, and who knows how many
billions come pouring back out. It's a real jackpot for those in the right positions to scoop
it into their pockets.
The average people in the US don't even have a genuine safety net. Important for all
those productive resources to go to pedophile islands and sinecures for coke head sons of
politicians, obviously.
Re: #3 Allen – well said. The GOP is the party of the rich. The Democrats are the
party the rich pay to keep the left at bay when the Republicans lose.
The problem with this prediction is that the MSM has been breathlessly pronouncing that THIS
IS EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE!!!! pretty much every day and after every witness testimony.
So if you are a member of the public who gets their "information" from the MSM (and, be
honest, that is most of the people in the USA) then you have been force-fed is that Trumps
defense against these allegations has already been shredded, and that his guilt has already
been established beyond any reasonable doubt.
How can those opinion-makers then turn around and say "Nah, it'll be fine" and settle for
a mere censure?
Wouldn't the Sheeple respond with a fully-justified "Hey, hang on! What gives?"
The Democrats has leapt on a Tiger. Nobody made them do it, but now they are there I don't
think they are going to be able to leap off.
Some of the first-term nobodies, maybe, but not the Schiffs and the Pelopis and the
Nadlers.
Hang on for dear life and hope for a miracle is probably their only option now.
And, who knows, that trio may be so incompetent that they actually think they are going to
win.
james, the deck is stacked even more against independents than it is against actual
mildly leftist candidates who run as democrats. there are a substantial number of people who
think the only way to change the country is to take over the democratic party. frankly, that
isn't going to happen, and nobody is going to win as an independent candidate with all the
procedural rules making it so hard to even get on the ballot, while the state government,
which is invariably controlled by one of the two parties, throws every roadblock, legal and
illegal, in the way. my gut feeling is things are going to have to get quite a bit worse
before the citizenry starts to explode, and there's no telling how that process will work
out, and no way to control it once it reaches critical mass.
The US is a one party State-- Pepsi _Pepsi Lite. Both parties are capitalist. It is rather
humorous the attention paid to a Dim vs Repug argument. Small thinking for small minds---
As I posted at the beginning of the impeachment process, the Dems would be foolish to hang it
all on the arcane shenanigans in Ukraine but rather should impeach Trump on the numerous more
serious breaches and crimes that he has committed. I also worried that the Democratic Party
leaders would blow the opportunity to demonstrate that Trump and the Republican Party are
rotten to the core and harmful to the country. And so they have blown it. What an inept pack
of asses.
I would think that even censure is still going to be a hot potato for the Democrats. Looking
at the procedure as far as wikipedia describes it, it hasn't done anything of significance
when it comes to being used against a president, especially as the Democrats won't want
to censure Trump for matters in which they themselves are equally complicit, as has been
discussed here.
That means they would be censuring on the same shaky grounds that they would have
impeached him, which only prolongs attention upon the dubious claims of the indictment. It
seems to me Trump will, rather than be shamed by the process, only be saying 'Make my day',
and hopefully have his Attorney General come forward with exonerating revelations on that
issue in the judicial proceeding that it was my contention the impeachment effort had been a
last ditch one to forestall such.
Wishful thinking on that, I know - but at least that probe has merit.
Thanks for your reply! And thanks for linking the Keen video! Made a comment on that
thread.
As I wrote when the possibility of Trump's impeachment arose almost as soon as he was
inaugurated, the entire charade reminds me of Slick Willie's impeachment, trial and
exoneration--the Articles of Impeachment utilized were such that he'd avoid conviction just
as they will be for Trump.
Allen @ 3 said; "The party's true function is thus largely theatrical. It doesn't exist
to fight for change, but only to pose as a force which one fine distant day might possibly
bestir itself to fight for change. Thus the whole magic of the Dem Party -- the essential
service it renders to the US power structure -- lies not in what it does, but in its mere
existence: by simply existing, and doing nothing, it pretends to be something it's not; and
this is enough to relieve despair & to let the system portray itself as a
"democracy."
With very few exceptions, you nailed it..Your description of the Dem. party is sad, but
true.....
Not having much time to watch the show trial it appears to me the Democrats still have a set
of very weak candidates. Anyone who knows Biden knows he in not now and never will be able to
handle a campaign against Trump.
Trump is up against an entrenched powerful bureaucracy and people who buy ink by the
55 gallon barrel. The democrats need to take a hard turn towards Mayor Pete and Tulsi. The
rank and file Democrats are tired of the elite political class in the same fashion that
the rank and file Republicans were tired of the political establishment which caused then to
turn to Trump.
Is the Democrat political establishment smart enough to take a few steps back and push
forward some outsiders? I doubt that but they would not lose much if they did. Any new
leaders would have the same stable of bureaucrats to pick from which will still be there long
after they are gone.
The real Trump move would be to hit the twitter right before the house impeachment vote
and announce that he has instructed the House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
He could lay out his story about how the American People never got to hear the full
story because of house dems, and how the Senate would fully investigate the 2016 election,
Russiagate, Ukraine, and whatever else they want. Maybe even make Hillary testify. Heads
would explode and his base would love it.
The...***The***...core takeaway, the battle at the heart of Russiagate/Ukrainegate, is that
it does not matter who the People elect as President and what platform he was elected on the
Deep State will decide foreign policy.
democrats republicans makes no difference both teams are managed by self serving scum who
refuse to allow "what the people want" to distract them from the big one. "what can I
steal?".
People meed to appreciate two things about both the dems and the rethugs. The first is
they supply a much-needed insight into: "How low can I go as a worthless hang off the wagon
by me fingernails, careerist. The second? That every hack must understand that eventually
every talking head is seen for the ugly sellout which they are.
There is no 'honourable way through this mess', one either quietly resigns pulling the pin
on the worst of us all, or one accepts the previously unacceptable, that we are most likely
both musically n functionally illiterate but it never matters what-u-say, what really counts
is what you do.
Whoever it was the Democrats should shun that person before it creates more damage to
their party.
I would disagree here. If the Democrats continue they will destroy themselves hopefully
leading to Mutually Assured Destruction as they would need to do something very drastic to
destroy the Republicans in return e.g. expose 9/11, Iraq etc, let the swamp / Deep State go
M.A.D. and from the political ashes parties and politicians can rise who are actually working
for the betterment of the USA and its people.
To the people here clamoring for Bernie Sanders to go independent: The American
electoral system is very unique. The two parties -- GOP and Dems -- are much more than mere
political parties: they are the American electoral machine itself. It is impossible to win
the presidency without being the candidate of one of the two, that's why Trump also didn't go
as an independent either.
Bernie Sanders is different from all other independent presidential candidates in American
History because he was the first to really want to win. That's why he penetrated the
Democratic machine, even though he became senator many times as an independent. He read the
conjuncture correctly and, you have to agree, he's been more influential over American
political-ideological landscape than all the other independents put together (not considering
Eugene Debs as an independent).
American "Democracy" is a mask for the American Empire and its capitalist
system--including especially the American Military and its Intelligence apparatus (aka The
Deep State). If the American people don't identify with these institutions, you would see
much greater hostility to--if not outright rebellion against--the American military and
spooks.
Instead, you see the very opposite: the American people saluting, glorifying, "thanking
for their service," and politically fellating the US military and spy agencies every chance
they get.
That should tell you all you need to know about Americans. by: AK74 @ 34
<= No not yet do I agree with you.. The American young people are forced into the
military in order to afford to be educated, and in order to have access to health care and
good-level workforce entry jobs especially the military is default for children of struggling
parents that cannot fund a college education or for the kids who are not yet ready to become
serious students.
The USA has not always discounted America or denied Americans. When I grew up, a college
education was very affordable, health care was available to even the most needy at whatever
they could afford, most of us could work our way through the education and find decent entry
level jobs if we were willing to dedicate ourselves to make the opportunity of a job into a
success (education, degrees, licenses were not needed, just performance was enough).
Unfortunately third party private mind control propaganda was used to extend into fake space,
the belief that the USA provides a valuable service to American interest. As time went on,
the USA had to hid its activities in top secret closets, it then had to learn to spy on
everyone, and it had to prosecute those (whistle blowers) who raised a question. Hence the
predicament of the awaken American dealing with friends that still believe the USA is good
for America.. Others hope the good times will return but the USA tolerance for descent is
dissipating. After the 16th amendment and the federal reserve act in 1913 the USA began to
edge America out in favor of international globalization.
Most of the really important parts of what made the USA great for Americans has been sold
off [privatized] and the protections and umpiring and refereeing that the USA used to provide
to keep the American economic space highly competitive and freely accessible to all
competitors has not only ceased, but now operates as a monopoly factory, churning out laws,
rules and establishing agencies that make the wealthy and their corporate empires wealthier,
richer and more monopolistic at the expense of everyday Americans.
The USA began to drop America from its sights after WWII. The USA moved its efforts and
activities from American domestic concerns to global concerns in 1948, neglected its advance
and protect American ideology; it imposed the continental shelf act in 1954 and the EPA act
in 1972, in order to force American industry out of America (the oil business to Saudi Arabia
and OPEC); by 1985-95 most businesses operating in America were either forced to close or
forced to move to a cheap third world labor force places.. .<=the purpose is now clear, it
was to separate Americans from their industrial and manufacturing know-how and to block
American access to evolving technology . At first most Americans did not notice.
Many Americans are only now waking to the possibility that things topside have changed and
some are realizing just how vulnerable the US constitution has made the USA to outside
influence. .. thanks to the USA very little of good ole America remains. but the humanity
first instinct most Americans are born with remains mostly unchanged, even though the
globalist have decimated religious organizations, most Americans still believe their maker
will not look favorably on those who deny justice, democracy or who abuse mankind. The USA
has moved on, it has become a global empire, operating in a global space unknown to most
Americans. The USA has created a world of its own, it no longer needs domestic America, it
can use the people and resources of anyone anywhere in the world for its conquest.
The last two political campaigns for President were "Change=Obama" and "Make America Great
Again=Trump"; neither of these two would have succeeded if Americans did not feel the
problem.
"... As Mark Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody elects an 'interagency consensus.'" ..."
"... The Washington Examiner ..."
"... Vindman's perspective "is a classic bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled interagency process: ..."
"... okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach Trump. ..."
Still, it is possible to look back at the hearings and assess what went wrong for Team
Impeach. In a nutshell, House Democrats gambled that a procession of witnesses, most of them
careerists -- or, if one prefers, foreign service and military officers, yet still careerists
-- would deliver a knockout blow to Trump. Yet what emerged from their testimony was that,
well, they were bureaucrats .
As Mark
Hemingway wrote for The Federalist, these people were mortified by the fact that Trump
administration policy was made by Trump. In the words of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman,
Trump's Ukraine policy was "inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" -- that
is, the interagency process of which Vindman was a part. Yet as Hemingway added tartly, "Nobody
elects an 'interagency consensus.'"
Indeed, as Byron
York of The Washington Examiner pointed out, Vindman's perspective "is a classic
bureaucrat's view of government and the world." York then added, speaking of the fabled
interagency process:
Needless to say, Trump does not do that sort of thing. The president is remarkably
freewheeling, unbureaucratic, and certainly not always consistent when it comes to making
policy. But he generally has a big goal in mind, and in any event, he is the president of the
United States. He, not the interagency, sets U.S. foreign policy.
In the words of Harry Truman, "The buck stops here ." Here, that is, at the desk of
the commander-in-chief, not in the cubicles of bureaucratic functionaries.
So now we begin to see how the Democrats made their mistake. Having gotten their inspiration
in the first place from that Deep State whistleblower, they then assumed they could carry on
their "investigation," relying on still more Deep Statists. But these individuals don't
typically make for good witnesses -- at least up to the level of convincing people to think,
okay, having heard these second- and third-hand allegations, I now agree we should impeach
Trump.
On November 25, Congressman Matt Gaetz poured
acid on the political effectiveness of the Democrats' chosen witnesses:
In the State Department people think there's only one way to do things. That they have to
do it through their precise diplomatic channels & only in the way they all learned going
to the same schools & working at the same think tanks.
Thus we can see a wide cleft here, between the delicate and precise culture of the
bureaucracy and the churning and heaving culture of the anti-bureaucracy, led by you-know-who.
For their part, the Democrats made the mistake of siding with the bureaucrats -- and when was
the last time a bureaucrat won an election, to say nothing of a national election?
In fact, if we peer down into that wide cleft, between bureaucratic super-ego and
presidential id, we see something even deeper than the Deep State -- we see the fundamental
workings of the human brain.
... ... ...
So lotsa luck, Democrats, if you pass impeachment in the House. That Senate trial, dominated
by Trumpy right-brained Republicans, won't be in the least bit woke, but it sure will be
lit.
James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a regular panelist on the
Fox "News Watch" show, the highest-rated media-critique show on television. He is a former
columnist for Newsday, and is the editor of SeriousMedicineStrategy.org. He has written for
publications ranging from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Post,
The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Review, The New Republic, Foreign Affairs, Fortune,
The Huffington Post , and The Jerusalem Post . He is the author of What Comes
Next: The End of Big Government--and the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He worked in
the White House domestic policy offices of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and in
the 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992 presidential campaigns. In 2008 he served as a senior adviser to
the Mike Huckabee for President Campaign. Married to the former Elizabeth Dial, he is a
graduate of Stanford University.
"... Authored by John Solomon via JohnSolomonReports.com, ..."
"... Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. ..."
"... State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre. ..."
"... The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to January
2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine. ..."
"... All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue a joint
project with Burisma Holdings. ..."
"... All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
..."
"... All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. ..."
"... All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social media
activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence on
the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts to publicize
allegations against Paul Manafort. ..."
"... All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra Chalupa
and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. ..."
There are still wide swaths of documentation kept under wraps inside government agencies like the State Department that could
substantially alter the public's understanding of what has happened in the U.S.-Ukraine relationships now at the heart of the impeachment
probe.
As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12
tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these
memos might answer.
Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship
with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies
about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary
Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine
corruption and U.S. foreign aid?
CNBC ,
Reuters and
The Wall Street
Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully
considered during the impeachment proceedings.
State Department memos detailing conversations between former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and former Ukrainian Prosecutor
General Yuriy Lutsenko . He says Yovanovitch raised the names of Ukrainians she did not want to see prosecuted during their first
meeting in 2016. She calls Lutsenko's account fiction. But State Department officials admit the U.S. embassy in Kiev did pressure
Ukrainian prosecutors not to target certain activists. Are there contemporaneous State Department memos detailing these conversations
and might they illuminate the dispute between Lutsenko and Yovanovitch that has become key to the impeachment hearings?
State Department memos on U.S. funding given to the George Soros-backed group the Anti-Corruption Action Centre.
There is documentary evidence that State provided funding to this group, that Ukrainian prosecutor sought to investigate whether
that aid was spent properly and that the U.S. embassy pressured Ukraine to stand down on that investigation. How much total did
State give to this group? Why was a federal agency giving money to a Soros-backed group? What did taxpayers get for their money
and were they any audits to ensure the money was spent properly? Were any of Ukrainian prosecutors' concerns legitimate?
The transcripts of Joe Biden's phone calls and meetings with Ukraine's president and prime minister from April 2014 to
January 2017 when Hunter Biden served on the board of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Did Burisma or Hunter Biden
ever come up in the calls? What did Biden say when he urged Ukraine to fire the prosecutor overseeing an investigation of Burisma?
Did any Ukrainian officials ever comment on Hunter Biden's role at the company? Was any official assessment done by U.S. agencies
to justify Biden's threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid if Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin wasn't fired?
All documents from an Office of Special Counsel whistleblower investigation into unusual energy transactions in Ukraine.
The U.S. government's main whistleblower office
is investigating allegations from a U.S Energy Department worker of possible wrongdoing in U.S.-supported Ukrainian energy
business. Who benefited in the United States and Ukraine from this alleged activity? Did Burisma gain any benefits from the conduct
described by the whistleblower?
OSC has concluded there is a "substantial likelihood of wrongdoing" involved in these activities.
All FBI, CIA, Treasury Department and State Department documents concerning possible wrongdoing at Burisma Holdings.
What did the U.S. know about allegations of corruption at the Ukrainian gas company and the efforts by the Ukrainian prosecutors
to investigate? Did U.S., Latvian, Cypriot or European financial authorities flag any suspicious transactions involving Burisma
or Americans during the time that Hunter Biden served on its board? Were any U.S. agencies monitoring, assisting or blocking the
various investigations? When Ukraine reopened the Burisma investigations in March 2019, what did U.S. officials do?
All documents from 2015-16 concerning the decision by the State Department's foreign aid funding arm, USAID, to pursue
a joint project with Burisma Holdings. State official
George Kent has testified he stopped this joint project because of concerns about Burisma's corruption reputation. Did Hunter
Biden or his American business partner Devon Archer have anything to do with seeking the project? What caused its abrupt end?
What issues did Kent identify as concerns and who did he alert in the White House, State or other agencies?
All cables, memos and documents showing State Department's dealings with Burisma Holding representatives in 2015 and 2016.
We now know that Ukrainian authorities escalated their investigation of Burisma Holdings in February 2016 by raiding the home
of the company's owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Soon after, Burisma's American representatives
were pressing the State Department to help end the corruption allegations against the gas firm, specifically invoking Hunter
Biden's name. What did State officials do after being pressured by Burisma? Did the U.S. embassy in Kiev assist Burisma's efforts
to settle the corruption case against it? Who else in the U.S. government was being kept apprised?
All contacts that the Energy Department, Justice Department or State Department had with Vice President Joe Biden's office
concerning Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden or business associate Devon Archer. We now know that multiple State Department
officials believed Hunter Biden's association with Burisma created the appearance of a conflict of interest for the vice president,
and at least one official tried to contact Joe Biden's office to raise those concerns. What, if anything, did these Cabinet agencies
tell Joe Biden's office about the appearance concerns or the state of the various Ukrainian investigations into Burisma?
All memos, emails and other documents concerning a possible U.S. embassy's request in spring 2019 to monitor the social
media activities and analytics of certain U.S. media personalities considered favorable to President Trump. Did any such
monitoring occur? Was it requested by the American embassy in Kiev? Who ordered it? Why did it stop? Were any legal concerns raised?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning efforts by individual Ukrainian government officials to exert influence
on the 2016 U.S. election, including an anti-Trump Op-Ed written in August 2016 by Ukraine's ambassador to Washington or efforts
to publicize allegations against Paul Manafort. What did U.S. officials know about these efforts in 2016, and how did they
react? What were these federal agencies' reactions to a Ukrainian court decision in December 2018 suggesting some Ukrainian officials
had improperly meddled in the 2016 election?
All State, CIA, FBI and DOJ documents concerning contacts with a Democratic National Committee contractor named Alexandra
Chalupa and her dealings with the Ukrainian embassy in Washington or other Ukrainian figures. Did anyone in these U.S. government
agencies interview or have contact with Chalupa during the time the Ukraine embassy in Washington says she was seeking dirt in
2016 on Trump and Manafort?
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of people became wise to what's been happening all along. ..."
"... Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions ..."
"... Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues ..."
"... An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society". There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as 'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not exist. ..."
From a big picture perspective, the largest rift in American politics is between those
willing to admit reality and those clinging to a dishonest perception of a past that never
actually existed. Ironically, those who most frequently use "post-truth" to describe our
current era tend to be those with the most distorted view of what was really happening during
the Clinton/Bush/Obama reign.
Despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary, such people now enthusiastically
whitewash the decades preceding Trump to turn it into a paragon of human liberty, justice and
economic wonder. You don't have to look deep to understand that resistance liberals are now
actually conservatives, brimming with nostalgia for the days before significant numbers of
people became wise to what's been happening all along.
They want to forget about the bipartisan coverup of Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11, all
the wars based on lies, and the indisputable imperial crimes disclosed by Wikileaks, Snowden
and others. They want to pretend Wall Street crooks weren't bailed out and made even more
powerful by the Bush/Obama tag team, despite ostensible ideological differences between the
two. They want to forget Epstein Didn't Kill Himself.
Lying to yourself about history is one of the most dangerous things you can do. If you can't
accept where we've been, and that Trump's election is a symptom of decades of rot as opposed to
year zero of a dangerous new world, you'll never come to any useful conclusions. As such, the
most meaningful fracture in American society today is between those who've accepted that we've
been lied to for a very long time, and those who think everything was perfectly fine before
Trump. There's no real room for a productive discussion between such groups because one of them
just wants to get rid of orange man, while the other is focused on what's to come. One side
actually believes a liberal world order existed in the recent past, while the other
fundamentally recognizes this was mostly propaganda based on myth.
Irrespective of what you think of Bernie Sanders and his policies, you can at least
appreciate the fact his supporters focus on policy and real issues. In contrast, resistance
liberals just desperately scramble to put up whoever they think can take us back to a
make-believe world of the recent past. This distinction is actually everything. It's the
difference between people who've at least rejected the status quo and those who want to rewind
history and perform a do-over of the past forty years.
A meaningful understanding that unites populists across the ideological spectrum is the
basic acceptance that the status quo is pernicious and unsalvageable, while the status
quo-promoting opposition focuses on Trump the man while conveniently ignoring the worst of his
policies because they're essentially just a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Obama. It's the most
shortsighted and destructive response to Trump imaginable. It's also why the Trump-era alliance
of corporate, imperialist Democrats and rightwing Bush-era neoconservatives makes perfect
sense, as twisted and deranged as it might seem at first. With some minor distinctions, these
people share nostalgia for the same thing.
This sort of political environment is extremely unhealthy because it places an intentional
and enormous pressure on everyone to choose between dedicating every fiber of your being to
removing Trump at all costs or supporting him. This anti-intellectualism promotes an ends
justifies the means attitude on all sides. In other words, it turns more and more people into
rhinoceroses.
Eugène Ionesco's masterpiece, Rhinoceros, is about a central European town where
the citizens turn, one by one, into rhinoceroses. Once changed, they do what rhinoceroses do,
which is rampage through the town, destroying everything in their path. People are a little
puzzled at first, what with their fellow citizens just turning into rampaging rhinos out of
the blue, but even that slight puzzlement fades quickly enough. Soon it's just the New
Normal. Soon it's just the way things are a good thing, even. Only one man resists the siren
call of rhinocerosness, and that choice brings nothing but pain and existential doubt, as he
is utterly profoundly alone.
A political environment where you're pressured to choose between some ridiculous binary of
"we must remove Trump at all costs" or go gung-ho MAGA, is a rhinoceros generating machine. The
only thing that happens when you channel your inner rhinoceros to defeat rhinoceroses, is you
get more rhinoceroses. And that's exactly what's happening.
The truth of the matter is the U.S. is an illiberal democracy in practice,
despite various myths to the contrary.
An illiberal democracy, also called a partial democracy, low intensity democracy, empty
democracy, hybrid regime or guided democracy, is a governing system in which although
elections take place, citizens are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who
exercise real power because of the lack of civil liberties; thus it is not an "open society".
There are many countries "that are categorized as neither 'free' nor 'not free', but as
'probably free', falling somewhere between democratic and nondemocratic regimes". This may be
because a constitution limiting government powers exists, but those in power ignore its
liberties, or because an adequate legal constitutional framework of liberties does not
exist.
It's not a new thing by any means, but it's getting worse by the day. Though many of us
remain in denial, the American response to various crises throughout the 21st century was
completely illiberal. As devastating as they were, the attacks of September 11, 2001 did
limited damage compared to the destruction caused by our insane response to them. Similarly,
any direct damage caused by the election and policies of Donald Trump pales in comparison to
the damage being done by the intelligence agency-led "resistance" to him.
So are we all rhinoceroses now?
We don't have to be. Turning into a rhinoceros happens easily if you're unaware of what's
happening and not grounded in principles, but ultimately it is a choice. The decision to
discard ethics and embrace dishonesty in order to achieve political ends is always a choice. As
such, the most daunting challenge we face now and in the chaotic years ahead is to become
better as others become worse. A new world is undoubtably on the horizon, but we don't yet know
what sort of world it'll be. It's either going to be a major improvement, or it'll go the other
way, but one thing's for certain -- it can't stay the way it is much longer.
If we embrace an ends justifies the means philosophy, it's going to be game over for a
generation. The moment you accept this tactic is the moment you stoop down to the level of your
adversaries and become just like them. It then becomes a free-for-all for tyrants where
everything is suddenly on the table and no deed is beyond the pale. It's happened many times
before and it can happen again. It's what happens when everyone turns into rhinoceroses.
* * *
If you enjoyed this, I suggest you check out the following 2017 posts. It's never been more
important to stay conscious and maintain a strong ethical framework.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all
you need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the front lines of a strategic competition
between the West and Vladimir Putin's revanchist Russia. Russia is a failing power, but it
is still a dangerous one. The United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight
Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko. The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a POTUS
kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins
– Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the
Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal
clear; and it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable
dereliction of duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger
about losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the
Donald from office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the
Deep State, which has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald
has declined to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He
thereby threatens the Empire's raison d'être to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and
impeachment inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in
office – and especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might
actually make peace with Russia and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine would
be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic
aid – a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence
peddling which ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election,
and, in return, incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that
has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
with virtually zero capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders NATO
an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's
imperial self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also
crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be
inadvertently sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads
they are dragging out of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons
– just maybe their utterly preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and
Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the somnolent American public to the absurdity of the
entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the
Donbas rather than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above
was reprinted in the New York Times or The Onion ?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and
Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete
chimera; and the notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer
against Russian aggression is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in
Alaska a decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is
just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a
multitude of nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of
wheat fields. That's not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war
machine capable of threatening the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be
erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar
purchasing terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared to
$2.2 trillion for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines
likely to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work
force. That's a problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age
population – even supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs
– is heading south as far into the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population
will be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is
already just a fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment
anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation
of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of
cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile
ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation
of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans"
among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently
calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and
trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable.
Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what
he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American
continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea
power projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist
of an armada of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics
warfare capability and the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart
weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500
personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air
wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and
attached logistics ships.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero
modern carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the
Israeli paper, Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the
Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a
long history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's
cold waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent
refueling and resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this
smoke belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at
all from the high tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the
Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in
the Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most
technologically advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have
numerical superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor
ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it
across thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing
fighter and attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700
transport and airlift aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous.
Russia is essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed,
for the world's only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat
from Moscow is a prime facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and
relationship with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and
the current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more
than that of Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with
Putin's Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the
tensions that do exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February
2014 were fomented by Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO
machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor,
NATO doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office
pointing out its buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing
up a storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke.
They are fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their
budgets or taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to mention
the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany. Vladimir Putin
isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army taking the Fuehrer-bunker
– but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly
willing to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43 billion on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion
GDP, which happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that
have emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own
book in behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the
final Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2
In Part 1 we dispatched UkraineGater Tim Morrison's preposterous suggestion that
Washington is helping Kiev subdue the Donbas so we won't have Russkies coming up the East
River.
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more
ludicrous. The actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from
Washington when it instigated, funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of
Kiev during February 2014, which illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on
the grounds that he was too friendly with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since Russia's military invasion in 2014. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine. Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of
global attention that they commanded .
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist
government with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea
and the Donbas – that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep. And
those interests included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at
Sevastopol in Crimea which had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries
under czars and commissars alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater
detail below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have
been paraded before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the
"invasion" quote cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of
Ambassador Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington
rendition of the Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that
dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was
so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he
tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence,
whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country
in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army
rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed
formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to
Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a
shred of truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate
military and economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of
neocon stooges took exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens
and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting
not the constitution and the rule of law, but the bipartisan political consensus on Capitol
Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her Wall Street Journal
platform to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a
military career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the
blunt-spoken American military men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned
Ukraine into a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks,
NGOs, foreign policy experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies
– from DOD through the State Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the
Board for International Broadcasting and countless more – which ply their trade in the
Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes;
they're apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as
they lead the nation to the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing
their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible
disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex
relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance
or the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely
consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's
sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story,
starting with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February
2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align
itself economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the
European Union and NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of
Ukraine then led by Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal
from Moscow than was being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of
Kiev reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the
east and Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine
during the 1930s and Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and
back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven
outbreak of Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March
2014 to formally re-affiliate with Mother Russia.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would
remind that Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the last
800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few
and far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals
with or surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks,
Muscovites, Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the
Kingdom of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light
yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars)
ceased their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas
of the map north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which
had emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map
also makes clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk
sharing common linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for
the administrative convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917
per the yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were
amalgamated by absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword
of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the
18th and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating Russian populations to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in
St. Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war
between the so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these
territories and elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist
rulers proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia
into one of its four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR)
– along with the Russian, Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the
infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto
the Red Army and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue
areas (Volhynia and parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated
into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession
struggle in 1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his
supporters in Kiev. That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given
that precious few Ukrainians actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist
Russia after it was purchased by Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers. The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending
Adam's Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial
integrity and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of
history's most despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of
Russian aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region
(yellow area with brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian
and ethnic Ukrainians who predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian,
Moldovan, Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev
in February 2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often
bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all
around to which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea
– have been intimately connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine
share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the
Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's
population and industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the
event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share
strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No
Russian leader of any stripe would survive as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to
be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from
Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there,
according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who
spearheaded much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant
effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation
residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct
cultures" causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea,
the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what
they consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its
Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the
national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded
to avoid a violent national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had
campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join
NATO was just plain nuts, as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
"... "US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg (foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure him? ..."
"... "Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable candidate in the Democratic Party field. ..."
"... Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected. ..."
"... It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further; two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I did", what or who made you think that you could do that? ..."
"Graham's conspiracy theory-based investigation is rooted in the
baseless allegation that Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor in 2016
as a way to protect Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, against a corruption probe. Biden's
son Hunter was previously a board member with Burisma until April this year.
There is no evidence to support allegations that Biden acted improperly in calling for the
prosecutor general in charge of the Burisma probe to be ousted, and both Ukrainian and U.S.
officials have said there is no merit to the claim. As many have since noted, the Burisma
investigation was in fact dormant when the prosecutor general was forced out on accusations
he was slow-walking corruption probes, among other things.
Trump brought up that debunked conspiracy during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden as well as a
baseless conspiracy involving the Democratic National Committee servers."
"Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality
of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?" " What
does it mean to say that we know something? ", and fundamentally "How do we know that we
know?"
~ wiki on epistemology
-------------
As in the example above from the "American Independent," the MSM and online projects like
the American Independent incessantly insist that the simple fact that Hunter Biden and his dear
old dad, a "Union Man," solicited money in Ukraine and in China for services not rendered
proves nothing, that nothing has been proven against them and that any mention of these
occurrences is evidence of harsh partisan rhetoric based on fantasy and equivalent to belief in
the Loch Ness Monster.
Well, pilgrims I want to know who and what investigation or investigations cleared the
Bidens of anything.
It is obvious that Hunter is qualified for employment as a bag man and not much else. He has
a law degree? So what? As in the matter of the qualifications of doctors, not all learn much in
medical or law school.
"US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg
(foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure
him?
"Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable
candidate in the Democratic Party field.
The article highlighted here, typically, is a lie. As documented in Moon of Alabama's
timeline (
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/a-timeline-of-joe-bidens-intervention-against-the-prosecutor-general-of-ukraine.html),
Shokin was actively investigating Zlochevsky in February 2016, when Shokin seized his luxury
car. Barely two weeks later, Biden was on the phone to Poroshenko demanding Shokin's firing.
While this doesn't prove that Biden was motivated primarily by a desire to protect his son's
employer, it is certainly consistent with that possibility.
John Solomon has been very much in the lead on reporting from Ukraine which furthers what the
MSM calls "conspiracy theories".
While he earlier reported, or opined, from The Hill,
now he evidently has been bumped (my opinion) from that perch,
and now has own blog John Solomon Report : https://johnsolomonreports.com/
It is tragic, IMO, how the MSM ignores the facts that Solomon documents in his
columns.
It is possible that JS is a mouthpiece for corrupt elements in Ukraine,
but I think his points deserve more attention than they have been getting.
There are two sides to this story, not only one as Col. Lang pointed out in his root
piece.
I recall that the Russiagate conspiracy theory was "proven" factual as well, and by many of
the same people who claim that Biden's corruption has been "debunked". Even though it was
absurd on its face and had been debunked numerous times, many people in fact continue to
insist otherwise.
Seriously....who would think Biden's son taking a highly paid position with a company in a
foreign country that Biden was representing the US in wasn't a conflict of interest? Even the
'appearance' of a conflict of interest should be avoided in such situations.
I find Biden and his political 'career', greased by his 'good old Joe act' disgusting in so
many ways it would take too long to describe them here.
The media really seems to be testing the limits of disinformation. More and more, the media
wants to convince people that black is white and up is down. Fortunately, I don't think their
plan is working all that well.
In the case of Hunter Biden, we are told that "There is no evidence to support allegations
that Biden acted improperly".
Okay, that's one way to look at things, but I have found that even among my liberal
friends, the fetid smell of corruption emitting from this case, is overpowering. And while
most people might have a hard time sinking their teeth into a "quid pro quo", they do have a
pretty good grasp of old fashioned influence peddling, which is what we are talking
about.
So why has the media chosen to defend the crooked goings-on of public officials who were
obviously up to no good? Don't they care about their credibility at all?
Was the American Independent quote lifted from The NY Times? It sure sounds like it!
For some time I've been wondering how exactly Biden got cleared. Was there any formal
investigation? Who conducted it? And how reliable are the facts when they come from a place
like Ukraine, where anything, including the 'truth,' can be laundered?
What's become painfully obvious is how eagerly America's major news outlets, including the
journals of record, participate in the laundering of truth.
Of course, that should have been obvious from the yellow journalism preceding the war in
Iraq.
What's really scary are reports that "intelligence" services get most of their 'facts'
from the very same truth laundering sources.
I always got the impression the "wild, debunked conspiracy theory pushed by right wing nuts"
was always referring to the Crowdstrike DNC computer investigation hoax that Trump tried to
re-open.
They would never specifically refer to the Crowdstrike favor Trump specifically asked for
in the phone call, instead they would substitute Trump asked about some "debunked, wild right
wing conspiracy".
So they never explained how the Crowdstrike investigation hoax was debunked either.
To me this is far more interesting missing debunked conspiracy link - since it shows
incredible coordination between the DNC, the "leak" of their DNC computer data, Ukrainian
Crowdstrike, and finally the Mueller Report who used the DNC Crowdstrike investigation
conclusoin hook line and sinker to reach their own official conclusions which is now "proven"
operating dogma. Without ever doing an independent investigation themselves. How often does
that happen?
To me the Crowdstrike connection begs further investigation - why would a Russian hating
Ukrainian who was running Crowdstrike point the finger at the Russians and claim they
"hacked" the DNC computers, but not let anyone else touch those same computers to corroborate
that conclusion?
And then parlay this into Trump supporting Russian interference in the 2016 election. All
too tidy for me. Feels like dark forces are still at work, and subverting language to achieve
their ends.
Whatever happened to Joe Biden's taped boast, at the Council on Foreign Relations, that he
gave President Poroshenko 6 hours to fire Prosecutor Shokin -- or else lose $1 Billion of US
aid ?
How was this taped confession of QUID-PRO-QUO debunked ?
The media (approx. 99% of them) have been in the tank for Democrats since at least the
Vietnam war.
Roger Ailes said why he didn't read the NY Times:
"You cover the bad news about America. You do. But you don't get up in the morning hating
your country."
Eight days later Joe Biden launched an intense pressure campaign to get rid of Shokin. He
personally calls Poroshenko on Feb 12, 18 and 19 to press for firing Shokin.
To think that this is unrelated is not reasonable.
The rest of the
timeline shows further Biden influence in the case.
(I should update that timeline as a lot of additional evidence of Burisma lobbying State
at that time has since come in.)
There are tons of additional dirt. The U.S. has control over the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and uses it to push all such investigations to its favor. NABU has
itself been involved in serious corruption.
There is also a USAID/Soros paid NGO that has a similar function and is equally corrupt.
These organizations are used as weapons to put all Ukrainian assets into the hands of
those that the U.S. embassy likes.
Lutsenko was the guy who was appointed as Prosecutor General after Biden got the previous
one fired. IOW Lutsenko owed his job to Biden.
Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and
embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as
their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been
bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing
Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected.
The only thing I can conclude is that Lutsenko is probably just trying to survive the
shifting tides in the Ukrainian swamp and will say or do whatever it takes.
"American Independent" is David Brock's Clinton / Soros linked Shareblue disinfo and troll
brigade rebranded. It will obviously tell every lie going to protect the corrupt Corporate Dem Establishment,
the Globalists and the Deep State. https://twitter.com/Ian56789/status/1198338991814250497
It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further;
two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian
prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I
did", what or who made you think that you could do that?
When I launched JFK Facts, a blog about
the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, in 2012, I was often asked by strangers, "So
who killed JFK?" "I don't know," I shrugged. "It's too early to tell." Given that the handsome
liberal president had been shot dead a half-century before, my answer was a lame joke based on
an
apocryphal story . Henry Kissinger once said that when he asked Zhou Enlai, "What was the
effect of the French Revolution on world history?" the Chinese statesmen replied, "It's too
early to tell."
True to Kissingerian form, the story turns out to be not exactly true. Zhou was actually
responding to a question about France's political convulsions in 1968, not 1789. But
Kissinger's spin on the anecdote struck me as perceptive. The meaning of a great historical
event might take a long time–a very long time–to become apparent. I didn't want to
jump to conclusions about the causes of JFK's murder in downtown Dallas on November 22,
1963.
It's still too early to tell. Fifty six years after the fact, historians and JFK researchers
do not have access to all of the CIA's files on the subject The 1964 Warren Commission report
exonerated the agency with its conclusion that Kennedy was killed by one man alone. But the
agency was subsequently the subject of five official JFK investigations, which cast doubt on
its findings.
The Senate's Church Committee investigation showed that the Warren Commission knew nothing
of CIA assassination operations in 1963. JFK records released in the last 20 years show the
Commission's attorneys had no real understanding the extensive counterintelligence monitoring
of Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK was killed. We now know that senior operations officers,
including counterintelligence chief James Angleton, paid far closer attention to the obscure
Oswald as he made his way to Dallas than the investigators were ever told.
To be sure, there is no proof of CIA complicity in JFK's death. And conspiracy theories
spouted by the likes of the Alex Jones and
James Fetzer deserve no attention. The fact remains some of the most astute power players of
1963–including Lyndon
Johnson , Charles DeGaulle,
Fidel Castro , and Jackie and Robert Kennedy–concluded that JFK was killed by his
enemies, and not by one man alone. Did these statesmen get it wrong, and the under-informed
Warren Commission get it right?
The new documentary,
Truth is the Only Client, says yes. The film, shown last month in the auditorium of the
U.S. Capitol, features interviews with numerous former Warren Commission staffers. Supreme
Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who served as a fact checker for the Commission in 1964, defends
the lone gunman conclusion, saying, "You have to look at the new evidence and when you do, I
come to the same conclusion."
Justice Breyer, oddly, passes judgment on evidence he has not seen. The record of the CIA's
role in the events leading JFK's assassination is far from complete. In 2013 I reported on JFK
Facts that Delores Nelson CIA's information coordinator had stated in a sworn affidavit filed
in federal court, that the agency retained 1,100
assassination-related records that had never been made public.
A small portion of this material was released in 2017, including new details about the
opening of the CIA's first Oswald file in October 1959.
Yet thousands of JFK files remain secret. According to the latest figures from the National
Archives, a total of 15,834 JFK files remain fully or
partially classified, most of them held by the CIA and FBI. Thanks to an
October 2017 order from President Trump, these documents will not be made public until
October 2021 , at the earliest.
The assumption of Justice Breyer and many others is that any and all unseen CIA material
must exonerate the agency. It's an odd conclusion. If the CIA has nothing to hide, why is it
hiding so much? While 95 percent of the still-secret files probably are trivial, the remaining
5 percent -- thousands of pages of material–are historically pregnant. If made public,
they could clarify key questions in the long-running controversy about JFK's death.
These questions have been raised most concisely by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a career CIA officer
who served in senior positions. Now a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center, Mowatt-Larssen
has implicated his former employer in the Dallas ambush. In a
presentation at Harvard last December, Mowatt-Larssen hypothesized that a plot to kill JFK
emanated from the CIA's station in Miami where disgruntled Cuban exiles and undercover officers
loathed JFK for his failure to overthrow Castro's government in Cuba.
Mowatt-Larssen has yet to publish his presentation and documentation, so I can't say if he's
right or wrong. But he asks the right question: "How can intelligence operational and
analytical modus operandi help unlock a conspiracy that has remained unsolved for 55 years?"
And he focuses on the right place to dig deeper: the CIA's Miami office, known as WAVE
station.
My own JFK questions involve George Joannides, a decorated undercover officer who served as
branch chief in the Miami station in 1963. He ran psychological warfare operations against
Cuba. In 2003, I sued the CIA for Joannides' files. The lawsuit ended 15 years later in July
2018, when Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in his last
opinion before ascending to the Supreme Court, tossed my case. Kavanaugh declared the
agency deserved "deference upon deference" in its handling of Freedom of Information Act
requests about JFK files.
Nonetheless, my lawsuit illuminated the extraordinary sensitivity of the psy-ops Joannides
ran out of WAVE station. As reported in the New York Times, Fox News, Associated
Press, and Politico
, Morley v. CIA forced disclosure of the fact Joannides had received the CIA's Career
Intelligence Medal in 1981. The honor came two years after he stonewalled the House Select
Committee on Assassination about what he knew of Oswald's contacts with pro-and anti-Castro
Cubans in the summer and fall of 1963.
I believe Joannides was honored because he concealed the existence of an authorized covert
operation involving Oswald that has never been publicly acknowledged. In CIA lingo, Joannides
protected the agency's "sources and methods" concerning Oswald. And he might have done more.
His actions may have also shielded other officers who knew of a scheme to kill the liberal
president and lay the blame on Cuba.
Never been seen by JFK investigators, they contain details about his Joannides' undercover
work in Miami in 1963, when he funded Oswald's antagonists among the anti-Castro Cuban exiles.
They also detail his work in 1978, when he duped chief
investigator Robert Blakey and the House Select Committee on Assassination. These records, the
agency says, cannot be released in 2019 without risk of "irreversible harm" to national
security.
It's a bizarre claim, at odds with the law. These ancient documents, all of them more than
40 years old, meet the statutory definition of "assassination-related," according to federal
judge John Tunheim. He chaired the Assassination Records Review Board which oversaw the
declassification of 4 million pages of JFK files between 1994 and 2017. In an interview,
Tunheim told me that, under the terms of the 1992 JFK Records Act, the Joannides files are
subject to mandatory review and release. "It's a no-brainer," he said.
Yet the files remain off-limits to the public. Thanks to the legal consensus, articulated by
Justices Kavanaugh and Breyer, the CIA enjoys "deference upon deference" when it comes to the
JFK assassination story. As a result, the JFK Records Act has been flouted. The public's
interest in full disclosure has been thwarted.
Yet legitimate questions persist: Did a plot to kill JFK originate in the agency's Miami
station as Mowatt-Larssen suggests? The fact that the CIA won't share the evidence that could
answer the CIA man's question is telling.
So these days, when people ask me who killed JFK, I say the Kennedy was probably victimized
by enemies in his own government, possibly including CIA officers involved in anti-Castro and
counterintelligence operations. I have no smoking gun, no theory. Just look at the suspicious
fact pattern, still shrouded in official secrecy, and it's easy to believe that JFK was, as
Mowatt-Larssen puts it, "marked for assassination." Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jefferson Morley
"... She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands. ..."
"... "In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests." ..."
"... government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr. Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. ..."
"... Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr. Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included election officials. ..."
"... In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies .. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin. ..."
"... Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in Kiev. ..."
"... Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race .. ..."
"... But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from engaging in one another's elections. ..."
"... While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the Ukrainian government. ..."
"... Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed, ..."
"... "In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire." ..."
"... On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the Ukrainian SSR . ..."
"... NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security. ..."
"... True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine, renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia. ..."
"... Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries. ..."
"... That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward. ..."
"... The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind. ..."
"... But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood. ..."
"... George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well. ..."
"... David Stockman was a two-term Congressman from Michigan. He was also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan. After leaving the White House, Stockman had a 20-year career on Wall Street. He's the author of three books, ..."
"... . He also is founder of David Stockman's Contra Corner and David Stockman's Bubble Finance Trader . ..."
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
The New York Times , in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
"... America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the 1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted. ..."
"... Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent, sensitive type would be concerned by it. ..."
"... America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over" as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened. ..."
"... Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington. ..."
"... Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even insist they do so. ..."
The motives for so many Western spies serving the Soviet Union – and in the 1940s and
1950s the Soviets had the best "humint" on earth – were rather idealistic. This was
largely true for the Cambridge Circle in Britain. They were concerned that America was going
to "lord it over" the Russians and everyone else.
America was feared by many intellectuals, both in the United States and Britain of the
1940s and 1950s, and their fears were not unwarranted.
Big, brawny America – its power establishment – very much was inclined
towards dominating the world after WWII. The whole tone of the American press and speeches of
major political figures in the period was actually quite frightening. Any highly intelligent,
sensitive type would be concerned by it.
You certainly did not have to be a communist to feel that way, but being one assisted with
access to important Soviet contacts. They sought you out.
America wanted a monopoly on nuclear weapons, so that it would be in an unassailable
position as it built its imperial apparatus after WWII, the time effectively it "took over"
as world imperial power with so many potential competitors flattened.
It made little secret of its desire to keep such a monopoly, so brilliant people like
Oppenheimer would be well aware of something they might well regard as ominous.
Later, the Pentagon actually planned things like an all-out first strike on the
Soviets – it did that more once as well as doing so later for China – so there
were indeed plenty of dark intentions in Washington.
A hugely important general like MacArthur was unblinkingly ready in 1950 to use atomic
weapons in the Korean War to destroy North Korea's connections with China.
I read several major biographies of Oppenheimer, and there is little to nothing concerning
Soviet intelligence work. When I came across the Sudoplatov book with its straightforward
declaration of Oppenheimer's assistance, it was difficult to know how to weigh the claim.
Spies and ex-spies often put disinformation into their books. Sometimes officials even
insist they do so.
Judging by what is suggested here, if Oppenheimer did help, it was in subtle ways like
letting Klaus Fuchs, a fellow scientist and a rather distinguished one (but a Soviet spy),
look at certain papers. But the scientific community always has some considerable tendency to
share information, a tendency having nothing to do with spying.
In general, it should be understood, that Oppenheimer, despite all his brilliance, was a
rather disturbed man all his life. Quite early on, as just one example, he attempted to
poison someone he did not like. Only pure luck prevented the man's eating a lethally-laced
apple. There were other disturbing behaviors too.
Later they believed that equality of superpower status for the Soviet Union would
contribute to world peace.
How dumb were these "scientists". Everyone knows that once Soviet Union fell, peace and
freedom and democracy are flowering all over the world and United States are not waging any
wars anymore.
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
"... It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion? ..."
"... The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine. ..."
"... Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. ..."
"... Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model. ..."
"... The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is not the issue. ..."
"... I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the most blatant coup in history". ..."
"... This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam. ..."
"... This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief. ..."
"... When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. ..."
he Wall Street Journal 's Peggy Noonan liked what she saw when U.S. diplomats George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr. went
before the House Intelligence Committee to give testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment drama. She saw them as "the old America
reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and command of their subject matter." They evinced "capability and integrity."
All true. Kent, with his bow tie and his family tradition of public service, appeared to be the very picture of the old-school
American foreign service official. And Taylor, with his exemplary West Point career, his Vietnam heroism, and his longtime national
service, seemed a throwback to the blunt-spoken American military men who gave us our World War II triumph and our rise to global
dominance.
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and dangerous. Perhaps no serious blame should accrue
to them, since it is the same geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy establishment,
of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing
America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither
gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or
the intensity of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of increasing U.S. meddling in
what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
Both Taylor and Kent declared that America's vital national interest is wrapped up in Ukraine, though neither sought to explain
why in any substantive way. Spin out all the potential scenarios of Ukraine's fate and then ask whether any of them would materially
affect America's vital interests. Any affirmative answer would require elaborate contortions.
It could be argued, perhaps, that an expansion of Russian influence in Ukraine could affect the vital interests of the rest of
Europe, though that would hardly be inevitable. But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that the EU has
a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18 trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6 trillion?
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates thinking within elite circles. Taylor's
rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided and selective as to amount to a falsehood. As he had it, Ukraine's turn to
the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an
extent that he tried to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests emerged in Kyiv
that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point
of Russian army rifles." Putin sent military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet governments."
And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment] controversy that we are discussing today."
In contrast to this misleading rendition, here are the facts, with appropriate context.
In 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification,
the West would not seek to exploit the situation through any eastward expansion -- not even by "one inch," as then-secretary of state
James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually
led right up to the Russian border.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the expansion countries lying east of Germany.
As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in
NATO either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the U.S. Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a 1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles
up against the soft underbelly of the Russian Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff
would be NATO forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and industrial capacity at
risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict." Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries
share strong economic, trade, cultural, ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive
as leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia, spent some $5 billion in a campaign to
gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded
much of this effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the domestic politics of a foreign
nation -- and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed part of the world.
But Ukraine is a tragically divided nation, with many of its people drawn to the West while others feel greater ties to Russia.
The late Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures." Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal
of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in
Crimea, the reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they consider their Russian heritage.
The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in 1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear
that the national leadership would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent national confrontation.)
In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of "unity with Russia."
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their elected president, Viktor Yanukovych,
to respond favorably to Western financial blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official status to the Russian language. These
actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations
aimed at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater economic ties to Russia, pro-Western
Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria
Nuland gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she
declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian
coup, she shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position, demonstrating the influence that
enables U.S. meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine
(the so-called Donbass in the country's east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated
a plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly the "sham referendum" described by
Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in the center of Eurasia -- the global "heartland,"
in the view of the famous British geographic scholar Halford Mackinder -- renders it always a potential threat. Its vulnerability
to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands. Its national temperament seems to include a natural
tendency towards authoritarianism. Any sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia, the Alliance has been the more aggressive
player -- aggressive when it pushed for NATO's eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the
U.S. government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the encirclement of Russia; aggressive
when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian
orbit with economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected Ukrainian government; and
aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze
Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues
and leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
American diplomacy is rather reminiscent of German diplomacy in 1917, in that expanding NATO into Ukraine and the Baltics is as
stupidly provocative to Moscow as the Zimmerman Telegram was to the US. Zimmerman's offer was incredibly stupid since it provoked
a US declaration of war but Germany had absolutely no way to provide Mexico any material assistance. Neither will NATO be providing
any real assistance to Ukraine or the Baltic states if the balloon goes up -- today's Bundeswehr is not your grandfathers Wehrmacht.
True. The stupidity of US policy toward Russia can only be defeated by stupidity of the limitrophus of Eastern Europe, like Poland
or the Baltic states. If "balloon goes up" they will be first to evaporate.
Thumbs up on the article - the valiant Ukraine facing perfidious Russia is a gross oversimplification. And as noted, the US is
involved in this mess up to its eyeballs. The first person to speak out publicly was the former diplomat (and godfather of "Containment")
George Kennan. In his last public comment, he wrote an op-ed in the New York Times warning against pushing NATO to the East as
a policy guaranteed to cause Russian fear and resentment. In the early years of the century, Mikhail Gorbachev - no friend of
Putin's - accused the West of trying to treat Russia like a third rate nation. It is sad that the "deep state" maneuvers against
Trump (up and running early enough to destroy Paul Manafort) derailed Trump's plans to talk openly with Putin and thus earn him
the blind hatred of John Brennan. The rest is history.
You need a foreign policy update. Ukraine and Europe are not longer our problems. They have grown ideologically distant and opposed
to US interests, which is self interest and transactional foreign policy now. The days of "altruistic" foreign policy are over
with. Marshall died long ago.
This is totally inaccurate. The current Russian system is not socialist, and it certainly has problems with corruption, but it
is opposed to the Western establishment and it is promoting a traditional Christian and nationalist outlook as opposed to the
liberal globalism of the Western elites. It is better than the alternative at the moment, and in a sense Putin, especially
his foreign policy , is executing the will of the people in Russia. Conservatives opposed Russia up until Trump because both
sides are controlled by the same Western establishment, which has been pursuing an anti-Russian agenda for a long time. They do
not want any resistance to their liberal world order.
"Democracy" is a lie and a fraud, Plato knew this 4,000 years ago, and "class consciousness" is only real in the sense that
the current situation in the West has an elite that is going against the interests of the people. I don't see how defending Russia
is "undermining class conscientious," actually arguing against the anti-Russian warmongering is a good thing. What "Russian state
attacks" are you talking about?
"To see US conservatives defending an autocracy reflects they have embraced those fascistic principles."
Do you even know how conservatism and the terms right and left wing originated? Conservatism and the right wing are terms that
are from the French Revolution, used to describe supporters of the Catholic French Monarchy of the Bourbons while the liberals
or the left were the revolutionaries. Historically Conservatives defended European Christian monarchies while the liberals always
wanted to overthrow throne and altar to replace them with secular democratic republics. In fact there is nothing more conservative
than autocracy, namely a Church-anointed monarchy. Americanism, or the ideology of the American founding fathers, was inherently
liberal. They were in revolt against the monarchy of their time. There is nothing conservative about democracy, it's quite to
the contrary. Autocracy is not "fascistic," that term is completely irrelevant in this historical context.
"Seeing similar headlines from opposite political poles exposes a 'horseshoe' phenomenon of left/right ideologies in which
the two poles are close together in significant contexts."
Are you really going to be so grug brained as to unironically bring up the horseshoe theory? Looks like we have a big brained
intellectual centrist over here. Not even worth giving an in depth analysis on this one.
Good comment. The Monarchists sat on the right side of the French assembly and the revolutionaries sat on the left. That is how
the modern spectrum morphed into Fascism (corporate state) on the right and Communism (revolutionary) on the left.
I've actually been to Russia, twice in the last year and a half, and I had a chance to meet and to converse with, and to hear
from, Russians of all sorts: academics, students, politicians, government employees, businessmen, environmentalists, scientists,
and journalists.
Based on what I saw and heard, I categorically reject your statement that Russians "are not all that free to express their
opinion."
I heard from people who are well known in Russia who disagree with Putin. I heard criticisms of the government from people
who are not well known, or who are just average people. People note that corruption is still a problem, at many levels of society
and government, but they did not seem at all reticent to make that point.
No one displayed any fear or reluctance to express his views. At the same time, Russians acknowledge a great deal of improvement
since the tragedy of the Yeltsin years.
And while there are people who criticize the government's domestic policies, they tend to be much more in support of what the
government under Putin has accomplished in terms of foreign policy. And that seems to me to be a very rational reaction.
First off I am Russian myself. Most people are in favour of an authoritarian government, nobody cares about or wants democracy.
Monarchist restoration would be ideal but Putin is good enough for now. Free press and elections are a fraud and a lie, as I said.
First of all, show me one single state on the planet today which is pro working class. Secondly, juxtaposing the concepts of working
class and fascism is just a demonstration of how badly you know the history. Suffice it to say that the set of political views
deriving from the ideas of Mussolini are called right-wing socialism. Hence, your ignorance of history logically begets that of
today's politics. No, Trump and Putin cannot be called truly pro working class. But they're at least are not so blatantly anti
working class as neolibs who oppose them.
Russia is associated with the image of the USSR which developed an alternative model to financial capitalism. Financial capitalism
is collapsing for objective and totally unavoidable reasons. The search for an alternative will continue drawing more attention
to Russia as a country that is, in principle, capable of offering an alternative development model.
Except that isn't what this is about. The disagreement IS over Ukraine policy, not this argument about what Trump may or may not
have done. DC is full of corruption of all kinds, including in foreign policy, but no one is ever punished. So we know that is
not the issue.
But we do know from the testimonies that they oppose Trump BECAUSE he changed Ukraine policy away from the policy of confrontation
with Russia, or tried to. They are all against that and against Trump doing that, as they said. The entire establishment has opposed
Trump on this since he got elected. So let's not be disingenuous. This charade has gone on long enough. The elites want their
proxy war with Russia.
1. From my perspective, the article is saying that our Ukraine policy is immoral, not that the impeachment is not founded.
2. Further to 1. above, your pizza analogy doesn't hold up. If pizza is bad for you, eating pizza harm nobody but the eater
and the eater's insurers.
By contrast, our Ukraine policy is the support of actual live Nazis and has resulted in the deaths of numerous innocents, not
to mention the economic destruction of Ukraine.
This is more like providing one pizza company weapons and support, knowing full well that they will use those weapons and cash
to murder rivals and customers who order from those rivals.
The good news is that the influence of apparatchiks like Mr. Kent and Mr. Taylor will be at an end within a few years. America
thought the blood of hundreds of thousands of foreign children was a "fair price" to pay for the dollar's continued role as a
reserve currency (Madeleine Albright's words) and cheaper gas at the pump. The effort was a bust. Endless trillion-dollar-a-year
deficits will come to an end quickly. There isn't that much liquidity in the private sphere to sop up at the price the U.S. Gov
can afford.
Americans have forgotten how much money a billion dollars is, much less a trillion: to wit, the Democrats future plans are
priced in dozens of trillions of dollars. Is it even possible to count that high (given that no one has any real idea how the
economy will react)?
Boomers destroyed the country. It only took one "me" generation to introduce such deep structural instability that there is
no recovery. Really, does anyone think a trillion dollars a year of demand can ever be pulled out of the economy? No. Does anyone
really think a trillion dollars a year will magically appear for free, from nowhere, for a decade or more? The intelligentsia
will reap the fruit of its effort within a few years. And it will be dried cat food for dinner. Bless them!
What "actual bloody invasion" of Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia attacked South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, and got a bloody nose
for their trouble. They didn't lose any territory however, which is odd, if Russia were the attacker.
If Russia had actually invaded Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army would be obliterated in days or hours. Note how there are
some 500 miles of open border between Donbass and Sumskaya Oblast - but no fighting? Do you think that the Russian military doesn't
know the geography of their own border?
Ukraine was already devided before it separated from USSR. People from western Ukraine called Russians and eastern Ukrainians
moskali. Eastern Ukraine spoke mostly Russian, western Ukraine spoke mostly Ukrainian. I believe tension escalated after Russia
was about to loose access to the Black Sea and its navy there. Sorry. That was a big mistake to even think that it would happen
easy. Russia annexed Crimea from Ottoman Empire in 18th century. Since then it was part of Russia. Khrushchev transferred it to
Ukrainian republic in 1954. You seriously believe that Russia would easy let it go after almost 2 centuries of its presence there?
Big chunk of Russian history associated with Black Sea Fleet.
The invasions were in response to them trying to acquire NATO memberships and NATO egging then on to do this and provoke Russia.
If they remain in the Russian sphere than that would not be a problem.
NATO goes where it was warned not to go, provokes the response it knew it would get, and claims that this is "aggression."
What a joke.
There was no "Russian meddling", that was debunked. There is no evidence that the DNC was hacked and the so called troll farm
had no connection to the Russian government and was merely a business marketing firm selling advertising space on their social
media pages.
Russia doesn't poison dissidents in foreign countries, if you are referring to the Skripal case, that narrative has fallen
apart, multiple journalists have written lengthy pieces about all of the inconsistencies and contradictions in the UK government's
narrative. Not to mention Yulia Skripal said she's still wants to go back to Russia, so clearly she doesn't think Russia poisoned
her.
We do have evidence to the show the opposite. The only ones who examined the DNC servers are a firm that was caught lying about
Russian hacking before and is owned by a Ukrainian millionaire that donated to the Clinton Foundation. Can't get more damning
than that.
What are you even talking about? The DNC refused to allow the server to be examined because they know there was no Russian hacking,
and why would Trump privately ask Zelensky to investigate Ukraine's role in all of this if he knew he were guilty? The point is
there is no evidence to prove Russian hacking, and the only claims come from a firm that is owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who
has been caught lying about Russian hacking before and donated millions to the Clinton Foundation.
How much mental gymnastics are you going to use to try to pretend like you don't understand?
Which is more aggressive, do you think -- invading one's neighbors, or "dangling the prospect of NATO membership" for them?
The US engineered and supported a coup in Ukraine to overthrow the constitutional government. Is this aggression? It seems
so to me. It certainly preceded any Russian response. As far as NATO membership for Ukraine, polls of Ukrainian opinion long before
the Maidan showed very strong feeling against Ukraine joining NATO.
I believe, when all facts fail, that the way through to some would be pointing out the absurdities of what they hear therefore
think. It might make them think twice before publicly embarassing themselves.
The Western actions are more aggressive, because they actually happened...
Russia's annexation of the Crimea was bloodless, and doubtless spared it the carnage that the regime in Kiev wrought in Donbass.
America's movements since the end of the Cold War have been consistently offensive in nature, and Russia's consistently defensive
in nature.
That defense has included counterattacks, feints, and opportunistic thrusts. In every 'attack' it made, Russia was reacting,
not taking the initiative.For their part the liberal hegemonists know what they're doing. Good PR is priceless, and they know it's essential for offensive
movements to not appear that way.
Problem is, you liberals are still unable to prove a single allegation of those you uttered in your comment.
How come the previous Ukrainian government didn't manage to beg one single satellite pic of, say, Russian tanks crossing their
border from the CIA or the DIA, given the purported "bloody invasion"? Russian armored vehicles have some cloaking devices or
what?
How come the Mueller's so-called "investigation" turned out to be such a pathetic juridical failure, given the purported "direct
meddling"?
What a naive poor dear one has to be to believe in poisonings with radioactive substances (as dangerous to the poisoner as
to his victim) in a world where poisons causing deaths looking like those from natural causes exist and are available to all secret
services (and even to private citizens having talents in chemistry)?
Plus, careful with (ab)using upper case. "Democratical countries" with a capital "D" reads like "countries, whose governments
are proxies of the Democratic Party". Blame Freud and his slips.
I love people like you. I mean since we were invaded by Germany, Napoleon, Charles the Tenth of Sweden, the Teutonic Knights,
the Golden Horde (Ghengis Khan started this), at the cost of countless millions of lives lost, I sense that we- as Americans-
have every need to push our frontiers to Russia's doorstep.
You demonstrate a phenomenal ignorance of Historical perspective: exactly the cannon fodder the establishment's looking for.
Nice and sober account. One detail that might be significant. Until 1954, Crimea was part of the Russian Federation (the Russian
State has wrestled that territory from the Tatars/Mongols and Ottomans more than 200 years before and fought for it against the
united Europe in 1850s). And Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian, had bestowed Crimea in an unsanctioned administrative decision to
the then Ukrainian Socialist Republic in 1954.
Ukraine as a state is pretty much a creation of Russia and instead of being grateful for their extensive statehood, elements
in Ukraine would rather bite the hand that made them.
Lots of people all over the world get up and go to work. They do it in democracies, autocracies, and countries that are somewhere
in between. In fact, the United States is losing its position as global economic hegemon in large part because the Chinese (no
democracy there) are harder working than Americans.
The United States currency has value for two reasons - inside the United States, it's the only way you can pay taxes. Outside
the United States, the gulfie tyrannies only accept dollars for international sales of oil.
$5 billion thrown down the Ukraine rat hole. It is too bad that the money wasn't spent providing better care for our wounded veterans.
Watch the video "Delay, Deny, Hope They Die". As one of the very few, perhaps only, commentater who has criticized Victoria Nuland's
role in the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, I have made many of the same points in recent days.
You know that is dishonest. This has nothing to do with what Trump tried to tell Zelensky, and anyway the US and Ukraine do in
fact have a treaty from 1998 that mandates them to cooperate on law enforcement matters. DC is full of corruption but none of
it is ever punished, so we know that is not the issue.
This is all about Trump's desire to end the proxy war with Russia. That is all this is about ultimately. Looking at the big
picture, that is a large part of the reason why the establishment wants to delegitimization him or remove Trump from office. This
phone call scandal is nothing more than the latest tactical move to get there. If you don't see that, and you genuinely think
that this is merely about Trump asking Zelensky to investigate something and get caught up in the minutiae of that, you are simply
naive and don't understand the true nature of politics. Think about the big picture.
A proxy war is nice cover for weapons smuggling. I've postulated for awhile now that Benghazi is the key to Deep State. Ask yourself
why the Obama administration allowed Stevens and his cohorts to die when there was ample air and naval power nearby. What did
he stumble upon? I think it was a vast smuggling operation designed to support Muslim Bros. and Al Shabbab-both of whom later
attacked US assets and who continue to worry the region with their raids of kidnappings, rapes and mass murders that go largely
unreported in the US press. There's a reason why so many liberals her and abroad claim to support open borders and it has nothing
to do with humanitarian goals and everything to do with an organized global crime group who is using sievelike borders to allow
drugs, fake licensed products, fake pharmaceuticals, weapons and even humans to become trade goods. People should really ask why
Democrats refuse to stop this. Europeans should ask who is getting rich off of unchecked migration of indigent people.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
I believe Stratfor, no friend of Russia and close to the neocon faction in American politics, described the 2014 coup as "the
most blatant coup in history".
Exactly. This article is very good in detail, but they could also add that the first Minister of Finance in Ukraine's post-Maidan
government was a literal US State Department official who was only then granted Ukrainian citizenship. Not surprisingly she also
made Ukraine accept IMF loans, getting Ukraine into the IMF predatory lending/austerity scam.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
This is true, all of this could have easily been avoided if the US stopped meddling and withdrew its troops from the former USSR.
People like Taylor and Kent show there is an agenda to start a war with Russia. Hopefully the upcoming Ukraine-Russia peace summit
can settle this conflict.
1. The military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify their exorbitant budgets.
2. The spooks need a Big Enemy to justify Big Brother and also their increasingly open interference in domestic politics.
3. The people who run things need a distraction, lest the masses start to demand the sorts of reforms that would take money
out of rich people's pockets. A Big Enemy does this just fine.
Russia makes a better Big Enemy than does China, for US business is already too intertwined with China and its supply chains
reach deeply into that country. Any disruption to those links would cost a lot of money.
TAC has been doing great work covering the Ukraine.
Even so-called conservatives play along with the mainstream media's and establishment's narrative, with the likes of NRO's
warmongering neocons, such as the Jay Nordlinger, constantly banging-on about poor little Ukraine being a "struggling democracy"
in need, rather than a deeply divided and failed state that perhaps should never have existed in its present borders as a "sovereign
nation." The best solution for the Ukraine would probably be to split it into two, with Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula
perhaps just becoming part of Greater Russia.
FYI, the advocates for intervening in the Ukraine are the ones accusing Pres Putin
1. with invading Crimea -- false
2. interfering with US elections -- sabotage an offense that certainly means war -- unfounded
3. that the Russians and the President operated in as collaborators in sabotaging US election also false
this president in response signed a document that the Russians did spy and further implemented the worst sanctions to date
against Russia despite the lack of evidence
as it is that Pres. Putin is certainly not being excused -- ;laugh - not even from things he has not been proved to have done
:Laugh ---
It's like when the police say you did something but can't prove it so they get some others to say you did it because they know
you did it
-even there's no evidence you did.
If you don't understand just review the SP Mueller investigation and the subsequent impeachment inquiry -- this is not new
game for anyone familiar with prosecutor methods.
That's a strawman and there's nothing to refute, the article is correct. Because the US government and CFR globalist thinkers
like Zbigniew Brzezinski, George Friedman, and George Soros have talked about the geopolitical importance of Ukraine since the
1990s -- read Brzezinski's Grand Chessboard from 1996, where talks about the need for the US to take control of Ukraine from Russia
to prevent Russia from becoming a great power that can challenge US global hegemony, or Soros' admission on a 60 Minutes interview
from 1998 that he has invested billions in Ukraine, particularly in the Ukrainian military. As Brzezinski says, the US was quick
to recognise the geopolitical importance of an independent Ukrainian state, and became one of Ukraine's strongest backers in the
1990s for this reason. Globalist plans for Ukraine go back many years.
Polls before the Maidan show most Ukrainians had a very positive image of Russia as well, and increasingly people in Ukraine
are getting tired of the war, which is why they voted massively for Zelensky over Poroshenko.
When I look at our foreign policy, before Trump, you have to go back to Reagan to have any semblance of policy based in reality.
While Trump is kinda of a bull in a china shop, at least he highlights some of the asinine policies the 'experts' have been pursuing.
Russia's objection to US and EU interference into Ukrainian politics makes as much sense as US objection. would if Russia were
in Mexico attempting to draw them into a confederation with Moscow.
He may be as immoral as hell. Most of them, R or D, are, in case you haven't noticed. The fact is, there's still no factual evidence
he committed any impeachable in this specific case.
So, if the employees of the government who are involved in international affairs do not agree with the President, the President
is accused of an impeachable offense? These two are not patriots in the usual sense. Nor are they public servants. They see themselves
as somehow above the Law. Above the Constitution. Applauded by those trying ever since the election to bring down a President.
Seditionists.
The last 30 years has been a complete disaster for US foreign diplomacy. We are being led by complete morons! Trump is a big step
in the right direction.
The fact is, it was a U.S. sponsored coup by the Obama administration that overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine.
Here is the Feb 2015 Obama CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria...note that Obama says 'Yanukovich fleeing AFTER we brokered a deal
to transition power in Ukraine'...incredible. Play
Hide
Why is it wrong and improper to know whether or not a presidential candidate's family was involved in corrupt dealings abroad?
But that's not even the question, because the issue of what Trump may or may not have done is not the real issue. DC is full of
corruption and none of it is ever punished, so we know that's not what they care about. What this is about is Trump's disagreement
with the establishment on Russia-Ukraine policy and the greater geopolitical picture. Thinking this is about some minutiae over
who said what on a phone call and what he mayor may not have really meant is naive and ignorant of the true nature of politics.
These situations are not compartmentalised, these have to be seen from the the big picture of geopolitics.
He sensible policy would be to Finlandize Ukraine and Byelorus. NATO would not have them as members and Russia would let them
pursue economic ties with Europe. This worked for Finland through put the Cold War and kept the region peaceful
This is the legacy of careerism within the Foreign Service. People get positions in which they live comfortably, attending all
the right parties and getting a sophisticated world view and seldom have any loyalty or accountability to the Commander in Chief.
That's a problem.
When Vindman claimed he was disturbed by what he heard, instead of following the chain of command, which he
invokes almost as often as his rank, he lawyers up. Why? Who is Vindman reporting to if not the President? Too many of these folks
act as if the change in administrations is merely a formality to which they can choose to embrace or not. Almost without exception,
we have seen testimony from people whose personal history is in the Russian/Ukraine theater and who have family and history there.
This is problematic. If anyone ever looked and sounded the part of a mole, it was Vindman today.
These maniacs are provoking nuclear war.
They fail to understand that, unlike 50 years ago when America had a decentralized industrial economy and banking system, 2
large nukes aimed at NYC and DC would destroy the country.
This is the only conservative site worth reading. I do love me some serious and deep analysis from Conservatives in important
geopolitical issues. God for a return to the days of Buckley. It would be glorious.
Fantastic analysis of the 3D chess game. But we are talking about Biden and Clinton so we need not overthink this. Obama gave
1 billion of taxpayer money to Ukraine. Ukraine gave Burisma some of that according the government of the UK. And once Burisma
was in receipt of our aid funds, millions flow through right back to the very same bad actors like Biden who directly controlled
the one billion in foreign aid. I wish this was more complicated. I wish it made Americans seem smarter. But to this old guy it
seems like a good old fashioned and very simple run of the mill scam . And in this scam the only person we know for fact cashed
the checks is Biden.
Come on Barr. It's time to do what we all know what needs to be done.
"But cannot Europe handle any such threat vis-a-vis Russia, given that
the EU has a population of 512 million and a GDP of $18
trillion -- compared to Russia's population of 145 million and GDP of $1.6
trillion?"
An excellent question. The cold war is over. We won. We don't need to keep fighting it. Russia is not that much of a threat
to us.
Think about it. Our State Department has been in operation for well over 100 years in some form or another. Are we ANY safer?
Fire them all. No pension for failure.
For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.
Putin is a serious strategist – on the premises of Russian history. Understanding US values and psychology are not his strong
suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point among US policymakers.
-- Henry A. Kissinger in 2014 at the start of the Ukraine crisis (writing in the Washington Post.)
I cannot believe that the State Department was unaware of the intertwined history of Russia and the Ukraine or rather given State's
rigid worldview I can believe it. The Russians knew perfectly well that the United States was pulling the strings of the so-called
Maidan revolution and that the end would be to plant Nato and the EU right on Russia's doorstep.
Previous attempts to push Nato into parts of the south of the former Soviet empire had been fought off. Nothing could be more
predictable than that the Kremlin would do everything it could to oppose what it saw as hostile interference in the Ukraine on
behalf of "reformers". The US plays by the same rules. Cuba and the earlier Monroe doctrine are prize exhibits.
Obama slotted temperamentally into the State Department worldview or maybe it was the other way round. It was a worldview that
got the Middle East profoundly wrong at every turn including misundertanding the Arab Spring, support for the deeply anti-Western
Muslim Brotherhood, the appeasement and promotion of Iran, the abandonment of the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran, the destruction
of Libya as a going concern and how to tackle Syria. If there was an opportunity to get something wrong, Obama and the bow ties
managed it. They left behind a trail of wreckage.
Worst of all, Obama, the great opponent of nuclear proliferation, turned out to be its greatest enabler but ensured that he
would be long out of office when it happened and the media started asking "who lost Iran?" If Obama achieved one thing, it was
finally to kill off nuclear non-proliferation as a viable ambition. A nuclear Iran isn't just a threat to its neighours. It is
a direct missile threat to the EU which has happily collaborated in advancing Iranian power.
Unsurprisingiy, Trump rejected all this and it is for this that he is vilified by the foreign police dinosaurs who try to delude
the nation into believing that even when what they do ends in manifest disaster, there is no alternative. There is hardly a word
leaked by the foreign policy to the willingly ignorant media that is not a lie. The mess is theirs and they hate Trump for wakening
Americans up to their self-serving, somnolent incompetence.
The usual response to posts like this is to accuse the writer of being a traitrous Putin lover. On the contrary, know thy enemy.
The maxim doesn't mean have a beer with him. It means understand him.
Excellent statement of the "Thucydides trap" argument for caution regarding Russia and its traditional sphere of concern. But
Merry leaves us with a cliffhanger: what is the sound US Russian policy given his concerns and cautions? Moreover, his rendition
is vulnerable to a counterargument, namely, that Putin's Russia has gone far beyond the seizure or control of "protective lands"
towards an encirclement or menacing of Europe. This can be seen unfolding in Russia's military presence on Syria's (and potentially
Libya's) Mediterranean coast, its sale of weapons to Turkey, its connivance with Iran's Middle Eastern proxy wars, and the potential
for petro-blackmail of its energy customers. Add to this the affirmative case for European interest in Poland, whose capital Warsaw
is exposed to attack from its eastern and southern flanks just as Moscow is immediately threatened from its western and southern
flanks. Perhaps all this just confirms how far down the path to the "Thucydides trap" the principal parties have traveled. Yet,
all the same, on what grounds do we rationalize Russian inroads into the Mediterranean? Free navigation of the seas?
I like this article but Russia is no longer a declining power technically. It's GDP is slowly rising again in the last few years.
They did take a hit from sanctions and low oil prices but they are staring to recover to some degree.
Russians like Putin because their economy is much better now than it was during the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The problem this country has with Russia is that they were a declining power and now are back on the rise. China is more of
a threat but the imbeciles in the establishment keep focusing on trying to undermine Russian security. They seem to really believe
Putin is their enemy without realizing the overwhelming majority of Russians have issues with our stupid foreign policy.
Google Russian GDP, especially through time, and you'll see what I mean.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such. Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at
the local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
One thing that few appreciate is that US actions in the Ukraine in 2013/14 prompted Russian retaliation in the 2016 election.
The Russians had been playing by our rules. (Party of the Regions won a free and fair election in the Ukraine) and then we supported
a violent extra-constitutional takeover.The Obama administration wanted to see a repeat of the performance in Kiev, in Moscow
with Putin playing the part of Yanukovych. The Russian response was to attack the fault lines in American Society. Their ultimate
goal is to see the kind of rioting in the US that we had supported in Kiev in the Winter of 14.
American diplomacy has become dangerously simplistic and one-dimensional in outlook. Turkey bad, Kurds good. Iran bad, Israel
good. Russia bad, Ukraine and NATO good. You try talking with Russia, Iran or Turkey you'll be crucified in domestic politics.
Russia on the other hand doesn't have this simplistic view. They wisely recognize that the world is varying shades of gray.
Excellent piece. Bottom line: the Ukraine is within Russia's "sphere of influence", not ours. Not our problem. The last time a
major power attempted to insert itself within another country's sphere of influence was in 1962. Anybody remember the Cuban Missile
Crisis?
Mr. Merry is entitled to his point of view, but I find his remarks to be out of touch -- sort of like another "Chicken Kiev" speech
with the date "2019" slapped on it. Perhaps he would benefit from a couple of tours of duty in Kyiv, like George Kent and Bill
Taylor. Then he would appreciate the fact that the United States does have real interests in preserving Ukrainian sovereignty,
along with the independence of all the former Soviet states who have split off from Russia. He should also not be so quick to
characterize Kent's and Taylor's testimony. They were in Congress not to express a policy position on Russia, but to act as fact
witnesses to the potentially impeachable actions of the President and his circle. So, let's not get into conspiracy theories about
what "elites" believe. It's one short step from that to muttering darkly about the 'Deep State" and Comet Pizza.
Is it any wonder that the old foreign service establishment "embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous"?
The foreign service exam of that era (probably no better today) tested substantially on ones knowledge of fiction: novels and
such.
Rather like choosing career foreign service officers based on a person's performance in the entertainment trivia night at the
local watering hole. It was a test of memory not logic or insightfulness or historical perspective. These folks are not latter-day
De Toquevilles or great historians, even if many came from colleges viewed as top drawer.
Agreed. However, an addendum, you seem to have forgotten to mention Russia's aggressive
training whales to spy on Norway, crickets to drive the US embassy in Cuba nuts, weaponizing
Masha and the bear, using Pokemon to sow the seeds of discord, contemplating on freezing up a
few states, any many others the mere thought of gets one wound up.
It's beginning to seem like an assault by the Zulu army of American politics – they
just never stop coming.
We are referring to the Russophobic neocon Deep Staters who have trooped before Adam's
Schiff Show to pillory POTUS for daring to look into the Ukrainian stench that engulfs the
Imperial City – a rank odor that is owing to their own arrogant meddling in the the
internal affairs of that woebegone country.
This time it was Dr. Fiona Hill who sanctimoniously advised the House committee that there
is nothing to see on the Ukraine front that involved any legitimate matter of state; it was
just the Donald and his tinfoil hat chums jeopardizing the serious business of protecting the
national security by injecting electioneering into relations with Ukraine.
She warned Republicans that legitimizing an unsubstantiated theory that Kyiv undertook
a concerted campaign to interfere in the election – a claim the president pushed
repeatedly for Ukraine to investigate – played into Russia's hands.
"In the course of this investigation," Dr. Hill testified before the House Intelligence
Committee's impeachment hearings, "I would ask that you please not promote politically
driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."
Folks, we are getting just plain sick and tired of this drumbeat of lies, misdirection and
smug condescension by Washington payrollers like Fiona Hill. No Ukrainian interference in the
2016 US election?
Exactly what hay wagon does she think we fell off from?
Or better still, ask Paul Manafort who will spend his golden years in the Big House owing
to an August 2016 leak to the New York Times about an alleged "black book"
which recorded payments he had received from his work as an advisor to the Ukrainian
political party of former president Yanakovych. As we have seen, the latter had been removed
from office by a Washington instigated coup in February 2014.
By its own admission, this story came from the Ukrainian government and the purpose was
clear as a bell: Namely, to undermine the Trump presidential campaign and force Manafort out
of his months-old role as campaign chairman – a role that had finally brought some
professional management to the Donald's helter-skelter campaign for the nation's highest
office.
In the event, this well-timed bombshell worked, and in short order Manafort resigned,
leaving the disheveled Trump campaign in the lurch:
government investigators examining secret records have found Manafort's name, as well
as companies he sought business with, as they try to untangle a corrupt network they say was
used to loot Ukrainian assets and influence elections during the administration of Mr.
Manafort's main client, former President Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012,
according to Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau . Investigators
assert that the disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients
also included election officials.
In addition, criminal prosecutors are investigating a group of offshore shell companies
.. Among the hundreds of murky transactions these companies engaged in was an $18 million
deal to sell Ukrainian cable television assets to a partnership put together by Mr. Manafort
and a Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, a close ally of President Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Manafort's involvement with moneyed interests in Russia and Ukraine had previously
come to light. But as American relationships there become a rising issue in the presidential
campaign – from Mr. Trump's favorable statements about Mr. Putin and his annexation
of Crimea to the suspected Russian hacking of Democrats' emails – an examination of
Mr. Manafort's activities offers new details of how he mixed politics and business out of
public view and benefited from powerful interests now under scrutiny by the new government in
Kiev.
The bolded lines in the NYT story above tell you exactly where this was coming
from. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau had been set up by an outfit called "AntAC", which
was jointly funded by George Soros and the Obama State Department. And there can be little
doubt that the Donald's accurate view at the time – that Crimea's reunification with
Mother Russia after a 60 year hiatus which had been ordered by the former Soviet Union's
Presidium – was unwelcome in Kiev and among the Washington puppeteers who had put it in
power.
For want of doubt that the Poroshenko government was in the tank for Hillary Clinton, the
liberal rag called Politico spilled the beans a few months later. In a January
11, 2017 story it revealed that the Ukrainian government had pulled out all the stops
attempting to help Clinton, whose protégés at the State Department had been the
masterminds of the coup which put them in office. Thus, Politico concluded,
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information
on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race ..
But Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
While it's not uncommon for outside operatives to serve as intermediaries between
governments and reporters, one of the more damaging Russia-related stories for the Trump
campaign – and certainly for Manafort – can be traced more directly to the
Ukrainian government.
Documents released by an independent Ukrainian government agency – and publicized
by a parliamentarian – appeared to show $12.7 million in cash payments that were
earmarked for Manafort by the Russia-aligned party of the deposed former president,
Yanukovych.
TheNew York Times, in the August story revealing the ledgers'
existence, reported that the payments earmarked for Manafort were "a focus" of an
investigation by Ukrainian anti-corruption officials, while CNN reported days later that the
FBI was pursuing an overlapping inquiry.
Yet Fiona Hill sat before a House committee and under oath insisted that all of the above
was a Trumpian conspiracy theory, thereby reminding us that the neocon Russophobes are so
unhinged that they are prepared to lie at the drop of a hat to keep their false narrative
about the Russian Threat and Putin's "invasion" of Ukraine alive.
Needless to say, Fiona Hill is among the worst of the neocon warmongers, and has made a
specialty of demonizing Russia and propagating over and over flat out lies about what
happened in Kiev during 2014 and after. Thus, in one recent attack she claimed,
Russia today poses a greater foreign policy and security challenge to the United States
and its Western allies than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Its annexation of
Crimea, war in Ukraine's Donbas region, and military intervention in Syria have upended
Western calculations from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. Russia's intervention in Syria,
in particular, is a stark reminder that Russia is a multi-regional power ..
There is not a single true assertion in that quotation, of course, but we cite it for a
very particular reason. Shifty Schiff & his impeachment tribunal have brought in Hill
– and Lt. Colonel Vindman, Ambassador Taylor, George Kent and Tim Morrison previously
– in order to created an echo chamber.
That's right. The Dems are parroting the neocon lies – whether they believe them or
not – in order to propagate the impression that the Donald is undermining national
security in his effort to take a different posture on Russia and Ukraine, and is actually
bordering on treason.
Thus, Adam Schiff repeated the false neocon narrative virtually word for word at the opening
of the public hearings:
"In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's
embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian
empire."
That's pure rubbish. It's based on the Big Lie that the overwhelming vote of the Russian
population of Crimea in March 2014 was done at the gun point of the Russian Army. And that
event, in turn, is the lynch-pin of the hoary canard that Putin is seeking to rebuild the
Soviet Empire.
So it is necessary to review the truth once again about how Russian Crimea had been
temporarily appended to the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times.
The allegedly "occupied" territory of Crimea, in fact, was actually purchased from the
Ottomans by Catherine the Great in 1783, thereby satisfying the longstanding quest of the
Russian Czars for a warm-water port. Over the ages Sevastopol then emerged as a great naval
base at the strategic tip of the Crimean peninsula, where it became home to the mighty Black
Sea Fleet of the Czars and then the Soviet Union, too.
For the next 171 years Crimea was an integral part of Russia (until 1954). That span
exceeds the 170 years that have elapsed since California was annexed by a similar thrust of
"Manifest Destiny" on this continent, thereby providing, incidentally, the United States Navy
with its own warm-water port in San Diego.
While no foreign forces subsequently invaded the California coasts, it was most definitely
not Ukrainian and Polish rifles, artillery and blood which famously annihilated The Charge Of
The Light Brigade at the Crimean city of Balaclava in 1854; they were Russians defending the
homeland from Turks, French and Brits.
And the portrait of the Russian "hero" hanging in Putin's office is that of Czar Nicholas
I – whose brutal 30-year reign brought the Russian Empire to its historical zenith. Yet
despite his cruelty, Nicholas I is revered in Russian hagiography as the defender of Crimea,
even as he lost the 1850s war to the Ottomans and Europeans.
At the end of the day, security of its historic port in Crimea is Russia's Red Line, not
Washington's. Unlike today's feather-headed Washington pols, even the enfeebled Franklin
Roosevelt at least knew that he was in Soviet Russia when he made port in the Crimean
city of Yalta in February 1945.
Maneuvering to cement his control of the Kremlin in the intrigue-ridden struggle for
succession after Stalin's death a few years later, Nikita Khrushchev allegedly spent 15
minutes reviewing his "gift" of Crimea to his subalterns in Kiev.
As it happened, therefore, Crimea became part of the Ukraine only by writ of one of the
most vicious and reprehensible states in human history – the former Soviet Union:
On April 26, 1954. The decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet
transferring the Crimea Oblast from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian
SSR ..Taking into account the integral character of the economy, the territorial
proximity and the close economic and cultural ties between the Crimea Province and the
Ukrainian SSR .
That's right. Washington's hypocritical and tendentious accusations against Russia's
re-absorption of Crimea imply that the dead-hand of the Soviet presidium must be defended at
all costs – as if the security of North Dakota depended upon it!
In fact, the brouhaha about "returning" Crimea is a naked case of the hegemonic arrogance
that has overtaken Imperial Washington since the 1991 Soviet demise.
After all, during the long decades of the Cold War, the West did nothing to liberate the
"captive nation" of Ukraine – with or without the Crimean appendage bestowed upon it in
1954. Nor did it draw any red lines in the mid-1990's when a financially desperate Ukraine
rented back Sevastopol and the strategic redoubts of the Crimea to an equally pauperized
Russia.
In short, in the era before we got our Pacific port in 1848, and even during the 170-year
interval since then, America's national security has depended not one whit on the status of
Russian-speaking Crimea. That the local population has now chosen fealty to the Grand Thief
in Moscow over the ruffians and rabble who have seized Kiev amounts to a giant: So what!
The truth is, when it comes to Ukraine there really isn't that much there, there. Its
boundaries have been morphing for centuries among the quarreling tribes, peoples, potentates,
Patriarchs and pretenders of a small region that is none of Washington's damn business..
Still, it was this final aggressive drive of Washington and NATO into the internal affairs
of Russia's historic neighbor and vassal, Ukraine, that largely accounts for the demonization
of Putin. Likewise, it is virtually the entire source of the false claim that Russia has
aggressive, expansionist designs on the former Warsaw Pact states in the Baltics, Poland and
beyond.
The latter is a nonsensical fabrication. In fact, it was the neocon meddlers from
Washington who crushed Ukraine's last semblance of civil governance when they enabled
ultra-nationalists and crypto-Nazis to gain government positions after the February 2014
putsch.
As we indicated above, in one fell swoop that inexcusable stupidity reopened Ukraine's
blood-soaked modern history. The latter incepted with Stalin's re-population of the eastern
Donbas region with "reliable" Russian workers after his genocidal liquidation of the kulaks
in the early 1930s.
It was subsequently exacerbated by the large-scale collaboration by Ukrainian nationalists
in the west with the Nazi Wehrmacht as it laid waste to Poles, Jews, gypsies and other
"undesirables" on its way to Stalingrad in 1942-43. Thereafter followed an equal and opposite
spree of barbaric revenge as the victorious Red Army marched back through Ukraine on its way
to Berlin.
So it may be fairly asked. What beltway lame brains did not chance to understand that
Washington's triggering of "regime change" in Kiev would reopen this entire bloody history of
sectarian and political strife?
Moreover, once they had opened Pandora's box, why was it so hard to see that an outright
partition of Ukraine with autonomy for the Donbas and Crimea, or even accession to the
Russian state from which these communities had originated, would have been a perfectly
reasonable resolution?
Certainly that would have been far preferable to dragging all of Europe into the lunacy of
the current anti-Putin sanctions and embroiling the Ukrainian factions in a suicidal civil
war. The alleged Russian threat to Europe, therefore, was manufactured in Imperial
Washington, not the Kremlin.
In fact, in 1989 and 1990, the George H. W. Bush administration assured Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev that if he accepted German unification, the West would not seek to exploit
the situation through any eastward expansion – not even by "one inch," as
then-secretary of state James Baker assured Gorbachev. But Bill Clinton reneged on that
commitment, moving to expand NATO on an eastward path that eventually led right up to the
Russian border.
So Robert Merry said it well in his excellent piece on the entire neocon Ukraine Scam that
is being paraded before the Schiff Show.
That is, what is being desperately defended on Capitol Hill is not the rule of law,
national security or fidelity to the Constitution of the United States., but a giant Neocon
Lie that is needed to keep the Empire in business, and the world moving ever closer to an
utterly unnecessary Cold War 2.0 between nation's each pointing enough nuclear warheads at
the other to destroy the planet.
NATO, with just 16 members in 1990, now includes 29 European states, with all of the
expansion countries lying east of Germany. As this was unfolding, Russian leaders issued
stern warnings about the consequences if America and the West sought to include in NATO
either Ukraine or Georgia. Both are considered as fundamental to Russian security.
True, many in western Ukraine have pushed for greater ties to the West and wanted their
elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, to respond favorably to Western financial
blandishments. But Yanukovych, tilting toward Russia, eschewed NATO membership for Ukraine,
renewed a long-term lease for the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol, and gave official
status to the Russian language. These actions eased tensions between Ukraine and Russia, but
they inflamed Ukraine's internal politics. And when Yanukovych abandoned negotiations aimed
at an association and free-trade agreement with the European Union in favor of greater
economic ties to Russia, pro-Western Ukrainians, including far-right provocateurs, staged
street protests that ultimately brought down Yanukovych's government. Victoria Nuland
gleefully egged on the protesters. The deposed president fled to Russia.
Nuland then set about determining who would be Ukraine's next prime minister, namely
Arseniy Yatsenyuk. "Yats is our guy," she declared to U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey
Pyatt. When Pyatt warned that many EU countries were uncomfortable with a Ukrainian coup, she
shot back, "Fuck the EU." She then got her man Yats into the prime minister position,
demonstrating the influence that enables US meddling in foreign countries.
That's when Putin rushed back to Moscow from the Winter Olympic Games at Sochi to
protect the more Russian-oriented areas of Ukraine (the so-called Donbass in the country's
east and Crimea in the south) from being swallowed up in this new drama. He orchestrated a
plebiscite in Crimea, which revealed strong sentiment for reunification with Russia (hardly
the "sham referendum" described by Taylor) and sent significant military support to Donbass
Ukrainians who didn't want to be pulled westward.
The West and America have always been, and must remain, wary of Russia. Its position in
the center of Eurasia – the global "heartland," in the view of the famous British
geographic scholar Halford Mackinder – renders it always a potential threat. Its
vulnerability to invasion stirs in Russian leaders an inevitable hunger for protective lands.
Its national temperament seems to include a natural tendency towards authoritarianism. Any
sound American foreign policy must keep these things in mind.
But in the increasingly tense relationship between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia,
the Alliance has been the more aggressive player – aggressive when it pushed for NATO's
eastward expansion despite promises to the contrary from the highest levels of the US
government; aggressive when it turned that policy into an even more provocative plan for the
encirclement of Russia; aggressive when it dangled the prospect of NATO membership for
Ukraine and Georgia; aggressive when it sought to lure Ukraine out of the Russian orbit with
economic incentives; aggressive when it helped foster the street coup against a duly elected
Ukrainian government; and aggressive in its continued refusal to appreciate or acknowledge
Russia's legitimate geopolitical interests in its own neighborhood.
George Kent and William B. Taylor Jr., in their testimony last week, personified this
aggressive outlook, designed to squeeze Russia into a geopolitical corner and trample upon
its regional interests in the name of Western universalism. If that outlook continues and
leads to ever greater tensions with Russia, it can't end well.
This is a replay of Vietnam Communist Domino Theory. May all those neocons rest in Eternal
Hell.
Notable quotes:
"... Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory against Russian aggression. ..."
"... I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put to use. ..."
"... Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to control Ukraine's leadership. ..."
"... She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding to be a part of Europe," she declared. ..."
"... Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday, saying: ..."
"... Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States ..."
"... Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard. ..."
"... Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in 1778 and 1779. ..."
"... If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with Russia. ..."
"... But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a congressional vote to authorize it? ..."
"... When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces," she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national security of the United States. ..."
"... "In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the east for five years " ..."
"... @wendy davis ..."
"... @jim p ..."
"... @lotlizard ..."
"... Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic Council ..."
' Who decided the US should fight a "hot war" with Russia? ', 23 November 2019 . Andre Damon,
wsws
"There is a saying attributed to the banker J.P. Morgan: " A man always has two reasons
for what he does -- a good one and the real one ."
If the alleged "organized crime shakedown" by Trump was the "good" reason for the
impeachment inquiry, the "real" reason has emerged over two weeks of public congressional
hearings. The hearings have lifted the lid on a massive US conspiracy to spend billions of
dollars to overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine in 2014 and foment a
civil war that has led to the deaths of thousands of people.
The impeachment drive is itself the product of efforts by sections of the intelligence
agencies and elements within the State Department to escalate Washington's conflict with
Russia, with potentially world-catastrophic consequences.
On Thursday, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell showed a photo of Ukrainian President
Zelensky in body armor on the "front lines" of the civil war in eastern Ukraine. He asked the
State Department witnesses "why it's so important that our hard-earned tax dollars help
President Zelensky and the men standing beside him fight Russia in this hot war?"
David Holmes, political counselor at the US embassy in Kiev, replied:
Now is not the time to retreat from our relationship with Ukraine, but rather to
double down on it. As we sit here, Ukrainians are fighting a hot war on Ukrainian territory
against Russian aggression.
Later in his testimony, Holmes pointed to the massive sums expended by the United States
and its European allies to fight this "hot war," saying the US had provided $5 billion and
its European allies $12 billion since 2014.
In her testimony last week, the former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovich recalled that
as ambassador:
I went to the front line approximately 10 times during a hot war sometimes literally
as we heard the impact of artillery, and to see how our assistance dollars were being put
to use.
She added:
Ukraine, with an enormous land mass and a large population, has the potential to be
a significant force multiplier on the security side And now Ukraine is a battleground for
great power competition with a hot war for the control of territory and a hybrid war to
control Ukraine's leadership.
She explained that the US-funded and fascist-led "Maidan Revolution" of 2014, which
she and other State Department officials absurdly called the "Revolution of Dignity," was
part of this conflict. "That's why they launched the Revolution of Dignity in 2014, demanding
to be a part of Europe," she declared.
Diplomat George Kent invoked the same theme in his testimony last Wednesday,
saying:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian
leadership to flee to Moscow. After that, Russia invaded Ukraine, occupying seven percent
of its territory, roughly equivalent to the size of Texas for the United States
Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression. American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard.
Kent subsequently compared the role of the United States in the Ukrainian civil war to
that of Spain and France in the American War of Independence. In that conflict, Spain and
France were officially at war with Great Britain, including formal declarations of war in
1778 and 1779.
If Kent's analogy is true, then the United States is in an undeclared war with
Russia.
But when has this war ever been discussed with the American people? Was there ever a
congressional vote to authorize it? Does anyone believe that if the question, "Do you
want to spend billions of dollars to help Ukraine fight a war with Russia," were posed to the
American public, the percentage answering yes would be anything more than minuscule? Of
course, that question was never asked." [snip]
"But in the congressional hearings this week, government officials declared that any
questioning of this aid is virtually treasonous. In her testimony on Thursday, former
National Security Council officer Fiona Hill accused anyone who questions that "Ukraine is a
valued partner" of the United States of advancing "Russian interests. "
" When we are consumed by partisan rancor, we cannot combat these external forces,"
she said, threatening the "president, or anyone else, [who] impedes or subverts the national
security of the United States. "
In 2017, Hill penned a blog post for the Brookings Institution calling Trump a
"Bolshevik," echoing statements made more than 60 years ago by John Birch Society leader
Robert W. Welch, who declared that President Eisenhower was a "communist."
Underlying the mad allegations of the Democrats that Trump is functioning as a "Russian
asset" is a very real content: The extremely dangerous drive by factions within the state for
a military confrontation between the United States and Russia, whose combined nuclear weapons
arsenals are capable of destroying all of humanity many times over.
There is no "peace" faction within the American political establishment. No credence can
be given to either one of the parties of US imperialism, which have, over the course of
decades, presided over the toppling of dozens of governments, the launching of countless wars
and the deaths of millions of people."
Patrick Martin from his Oct. 16, 2019 ' The Trump
impeachment and US policy in Ukraine '
"This utterly reactionary, pro-imperialist role was demonstrated Friday in the tribute
that Yovanovitch paid, in the course of her testimony, to Arsen Avakov, the Ukrainian
interior minister (head of the domestic police) under both the current president, Volodymyr
Zelensky, and his predecessor Petro Poroshenko. Avakov is a principal sponsor of fascist
militias such as the Azov Battalion , which glorify the Ukrainians who collaborated with the
Nazis during World War II against the Soviet Union. In other words, the State Department
officials being celebrated in the media for defending American democracy are actually working
with the fascists in Ukraine .
While Yovanovitch hailed Avakov, Kent cited as his heroes among immigrants who have
rallied to the defense of the United States Zbigniew Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, two of
the biggest war criminals of the second half of the twentieth century ." [snip]
""The connection between the impeachment drive and differences on foreign policy was spelled
out Friday on the front page of the New York Times, in an analysis by the newspaper's senior
foreign policy specialist, David Sanger, a frequent mouthpiece for the concerns of the CIA,
State Department and Pentagon, under the headline, " For President, Case of Policy vs.
Obsession." [snip]
But Sanger goes on to spell out, in remarkably blunt terms, the real foreign policy issues
at stake in the Trump impeachment. He writes,
"In an otherwise divided Washington, one of the few issues of bipartisan agreement for
the past six years has been countering Russian President Vladimir V. Putin's broad plan of
disruption. That effort starts in Ukraine, where there has been a hot war underway in the
east for five years "
Trump, according to Sanger, has betrayed the anti-Russia policy outlined by his own
administration in a Pentagon strategic assessment which declared that the "war on terror" had
been superseded as the top US priority by "great-power competition," particularly directed at
China and Russia. He sacrificed this policy to his own personal, electoral interests, as
expressed in the comment by the US ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland:
"President Trump cares more about the investigation of Biden" than about the military
conflict between Ukraine and Russia."
They'll bust both your kneecaps and then fit you with cement overshoes and toss you into
the ocean. Trump is finding out the hard way that entrenched interests in the US government
wield vast veto power over anything a president wants to do.
He's his own worst enemy with his self-sabotaging Twitter rants, endless character
assassinations, hastily burnt bridges, and conflicting statements that change based upon
the last person he talked to. Trump doesn't inspire loyalty in those who work for him and
around him. OTOH, that doesn't excuse the Deep State, an unelected cabal secretly running
our government and risking our lives with endless wars and Russia baiting. If impeachment
has shown nothing else, it's that the Deep State is real and usually gets its way.
almost all the casualties are Russian speakers in the East. Back in the early coup days
there were 37 claims that Russian troops invaded Ukraine. Which turned out to be none. I
still remember when Pravda in New York had a blurred photo they claimed to be a Russ
officer (and how do you get blurring in the digital age) which turned out to be a Ukranian
officer facebook photo. They never explained how that happened.
great context. kent's number 13,000, and yes, they were likely all Novoroosians
, if he hadn't pulled that figure out of his ass, anyway. photos of 'little green men' in
ancient soviet uniforms, old tanks left over from the days of yore.
was kent counting the dead inside the trade unions massacre in odessa petrol-bombed by
the neo-nazis?
in depth reads for later, and thank you, miz lizard. funny that the Atlantic council (at
least one version) had chosen Zelenskiy based on promises to end corruption (read: so
ukraine could have the lucre to enter Nato). and yet, he'd kept 9as per the photo caption)
Mykola Zlochevsky, former employer of Hunter Biden and current partner of the Atlantic
Council in hi cabinet, isn't it?
be encouraged to read your stockman links to his 'The Ukrainian Influence Peddling Rings
– A Microcosm of How Imperial Washington Rolls', David Stockman,
November 13, 2019 , i'll offer a few excerpts. i rarely (if ever) call anything a 'must
read', but even you, voice, might want to dig into this one (part I of II, if i get his
drift).
i'm assumming his historical narrative is correct, as all the pieces i do know about are
there are well, but what he writes i hadn't known is key, of course. his language is also
colorful as all giddy-up, which i like, and good on him. he's lost me a bit in some
sections, as he names names, lobbying firms, and so on, but that's on me, not stockman.
"The latest dispatch from the Wall Street Journal on the stench wafting westward from
Kiev reveals more about the rotten foundation of UkraineGate than its authors probably
understood.
Burisma Holdings' campaign to clean up its image in the West reached beyond the 2014
hiring of Hunter Biden, son of the then-U.S. vice president, to include other
well-connected operatives in Washington, according to officials in both countries and
government records.
The Ukrainian company, owned by tycoon Mykola Zlochevsky, also hired a lobbyist with
close ties to then-Secretary of State John Kerry, as well as a consulting group founded
by top officials in the Clinton administration that specialized in preparing former
Soviet-bloc countries to join NATO (Blue Star Strategies).
Soon the efforts bore fruit. With the help of a New York-based lawyer, Mr.
Zlochevsky's U.S. consultants argued to Ukrainian prosecutors that criminal cases
against the company should be closed because no laws had been broken.
Burisma later became a sponsor of a Washington think tank, the Atlantic Council,
whose experts are often cited on energy and security policy in the former Soviet
Union.
Simple translation: Zlochevsky was an ally, officeholder (minister of ecology and
natural resources) and inner-circle thief in the ousted government of Viktor Yanukovych.
He therefore needed to powder the pig fast and thoroughly in order to hold onto his
ill-gotten billions.""
[longish snip of a who's who involvement]...................
"Finally, the Clinton wing of the Washington racketeering system had to be covered,
too – hence the above mentioned Blue Star Strategies. And the bolded sentence from
the WSJ story quoted below tells you all you need to know about its business, which was
to " .help former Soviet countries prepare for NATO consideration".
That's right. With the Soviet Union gone, its 50,000 tanks on the central front
melted-down for scrap and the Warsaw Pact disbanded, the rational order of the day was to
declare "mission accomplished" for NATO and effect its own disbandment.
The great parachuter and then US president, George Bush the Elder, could have actually
made a jump right into the giant Ramstein Air Base in Germany to effect its closure. At
that point there was no justification for NATO's continued existence whatsoever.
But the Clinton Administration, under the baleful influence of Washington busybodies
like Strobe Talbot and Madeleine Albright, went in just the opposite direction. In
pursuit of Washington's post-1991 quest for global hegemony as the world's only
superpower and putative keeper of the peace, they prepared the way for the entirety of
the old Warsaw Pact to join NATO.
So doing, however, they also laid the planking for a revival of the cold war with the
Kremlin. As the father of containment and NATO during the late 1940s, Ambassador George
Kennan, observed at the time, the Clinton Administration's policy of expanding NATO to
the very doorstep of Russia was a colossal mistake." [longish snip]
...............................
"So that's how the Imperial City rolls. People make policies which extend the Empire
while in office – as did these Clintonistas with the NATO expansion project –
and then cash-in afterwards by peddling influence in the corridors of the beltway on
behalf of Washington's newly acquired vassals and supplicants.
In this case, all roads lead to the Atlantic Council, which is the semi-official
"think tank" of NATO in Washington and is infested with Russophobes and Clinton/Biden
operatives. The latter, of course, make a handsome living peddling anti-Putin propaganda
– the better to grease the Washington purse strings for unneeded military spending
and foreign aid, security assistance and weapons sales to the "front line" states
allegedly in the path of Kremlin aggression."
thank you, miz lizard. love this title of his on the sidebar: ' Democrats Empower a Pack
of Paranoid Neocon Morons '. ; )
i'll grab part II and read it greedily when i have more time.
putting them in the context of the region's deeper past. The first two parts of a
series.
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4] based
in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes, as
well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment itself, as
seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols used by the
German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9] In 2018, a
provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked military aid to
Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members of the regiment come
from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The Azov
Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014 in
Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine joined the
battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of the Verkhovna
Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and businessman Serhiy
Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training near Kiev by instructors
with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment and
enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it started
receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received funding from
the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed to be Ukrainian
oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire as
"appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov
Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in
their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training however was
withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an amendment blocking
any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its Neo-Nazi
background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House saying "I am
grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my amendments last night to
ensure that our military does not train members of the repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion,
along with my measures to keep the dangerous and easily trafficked MANPADs out of these
unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special weapons
operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30] including
people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America, Greece,
Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57] About 50
Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve in
Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status, its
foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to leave the
Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting, unlawful
detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that the
organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities by
Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and February
2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery (Slavic
Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a variation of the
swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover shrines for their
religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable
source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov fighters wearing helmets with
swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous black-uniformed elite corps".[73]
Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been considered to have connections with
neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS symbols and regalia and expressing
Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any training of
Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In previous years,
between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed amendments banning
support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the amendments were quietly
lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon Wiesenthal Center which stated
that the move highlights danger of Holocaust distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015,
the Canadian defence minister declared as well, that training by Canadian forces or
support would not be provided to Azov. [90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or white
supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of different
members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias drawn on
their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to plausibly deny any
neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
no more US training? dunno what to say to that. but i plugged '2018' into a bing search
of azov torchlight parades and found this from 2016 instead (although there were some
later, as well):
Ukrainian ultra-nationalist Azov battalion [as well as Right Sector' stages torch-lit
march in Kharkov (VIDEOS)], 12 Dec, 2016 , RT.com
really according to Eva
Bartlett who'd committed journalism in the donbass independent republics, zelenskiy
hasn't been able to control them (as promised) either.
it's a good time to remember all who'd invested in the ukraine who had interest in the
Maidan putsch, isn't it?
The Special Operations Detachment "Azov", often known as Azov Battalion, Azov
Regiment, or Azov Detachment, (Ukrainian: Полк
Азов) is a Ukrainian National Guard regiment,[1][2][3][4]
based in Mariupol in the Azov Sea coastal region.
In 2014, it gained notoriety after allegations emerged of torture and war crimes,
as well as neo-Nazi sympathies and usage of associated symbols by the regiment
itself, as seen in their logo featuring the Wolfsangel, one of the original symbols
used by the German Nazi Party. In 2014, around 10-20% of the unit were neo-Nazis.[9]
In 2018, a provision in an appropriations bill passed by the U.S. Congress blocked
military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white supremacist ideology. [10] Members
of the regiment come from 22 countries and are of various backgrounds.[11]
On 13 April 2014 Minister of Internal Affairs Arsen Avakov [nb 1] issued a decree
authorizing creating new paramilitary forces from civilians up to 12,000.[22] The
Azov Battalion (using "Eastern Corps" as its backbone[20]) was formed on 5 May 2014
in Berdiansk[23] by a white nationalist.[24] Many members of Patriot of Ukraine
joined the battalion.[20] Among the early patrons of the battalion were a member of
the Verkhovna Rada Oleh Lyashko, and an ultra-nationalist Dmytro Korchynsky and
businessman Serhiy Taruta and Avakov.[25][20] The battalion then received training
near Kiev by instructors with experience in the Georgian Armed Forces.[
In September 2014, the Azov battalion was expanded from a battalion to a regiment
and enrolled into the National Guard of Ukraine.[23][33] At about this time it
started receiving increased supplies of heavy arms.[33] The Azov battalion received
funding from the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine and other sources (believed
to be Ukrainian oligarchs).
As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov
Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire
as "appeasement".[33] In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the
Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army
troops in their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.[44][45] US training
however was withdrawn on 12 June 2015, as US House of Representatives passed an
amendment blocking any aid (including arms and training) to the battalion due to its
Neo-Nazi background.[46] After the vote Congressman John Conyers thanked the House
saying "I am grateful that the House of Representatives unanimously passed my
amendments last night to ensure that our military does not train members of the
repulsive neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, along with my measures to keep the dangerous and
easily trafficked MANPADs out of these unstable regions."[45]
Since 2015 Azov is organising summer camps where children and teenagers receive
practice in civil defense and military tactics mixed with lectures on Ukrainian
nationalism.[48][20]
Since 2015 the Battalion has been upgraded to Regimental status and "Azov" is now
officially called "Special Operations Regiment" , with combat duties focused on
reconnaissance, counter-reconnaissance, EOD disposal, interdiction and special
weapons operations.
Foreign membership [edit]
According to The Daily Telegraph, the Azov Battalion's extremist politics and
professional English social media pages have attracted foreign fighters,[30]
including people from Brazil, Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom, France, America,
Greece, Scandinavia,[2][30] Spain, Slovakia, Czech Republic and Russia. [2][56][57]
About 50 Russian nationals are members of the Azov regiment.[58]
According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve
in Ukraine's military:[66] since "Azov" Regiment was granted full military status,
its foreign volunteers were compelled either to take Ukrainian citizenship, or to
leave the Regiment.
Human rights violations and war crimes[edit]
Reports published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human
Rights (OHCHR) have connected the Azov Battalion to war crimes such as mass looting,
unlawful detention, and torture.[68][69] An OHCHR report from March 2016 stated that
the organisation had "collected detailed information about the conduct of hostilities
by Ukrainian armed forces and the Azov regiment in and around Shyrokyne (31km east of
Mariupol), from the summer of 2014 to date. Mass looting of civilian homes was
documented, as well as targeting of civilian areas between September 2014 and
February 2015".[68] Another OHCHR report documented an instance of rape and
torture
Rodnovery, symbolism and neo-Nazism [edit]
Emblem featuring a Wolfsangel and Black Sun
Most soldiers of Azov are followers of a Ukrainian nationalist type of Rodnovery
(Slavic Native Faith), wherefrom they derive some of their symbolism (such as a
variation of the swastika symbol kolovrat). They have also established Rodnover
shrines for their religious rites, including one in Mariupol dedicated to
Perun.[70][71][72][unreliable source] German ZDF television showed images of Azov
fighters wearing helmets with swastika symbols and "the SS runes of Hitler's infamous
black-uniformed elite corps".[73] Due to the use of such symbols, Azov has been
considered to have connections with neo-Nazism, with members wearing neo-Nazi and SS
symbols and regalia and expressing Neo-Nazi views.
The group's insignia features the Wolfsangel[78][79][80] and the Black
Sun,[78][81][82] two Nazi-era symbols adopted by neo-Nazi groups.
In 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a provision blocking any
training of Azov members by American forces, citing its neo-Nazi background. In
previous years, between 2014 and 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed
amendments banning support of Azov, but due to pressure from the Pentagon, the
amendments were quietly lifted.[87][88][89] This move has been protested by Simon
Wiesenthal Center which stated that the move highlights danger of Holocaust
distortion in Ukraine.[89] On 26 June 2015, the Canadian defence minister declared as
well, that training by Canadian forces or support would not be provided to Azov.
[90]
While Azov Battalion troops have denied that the organization has any neo-Nazi or
white supremacist beliefs, journalists stated that "numerous swastika tattoos of
different members and their tendency to go into battle with swastikas or SS insignias
drawn on their helmets make it very difficult for other members of the group to
plausibly deny any neo-Nazi affiliations" .[85]
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to them
to.... blehh!
yasha levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil Khasevych
nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but russian speaking,
ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the Iranaian
leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would speak at
length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe (then)
monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
It's great that Ukraine's revisionist far-right politics are at least getting some
attention in the press. But what you won't read in these reports is that the U.S.
government had recently sponsored a "cultural" exhibit that celebrated the Nazi
collaborator who is now getting his own street in Kiev. You can't make this stuff
up!
But we have to help the Nazis because Putin's Russia is invading and we owe it to
them to.... blehh!
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a loop.
But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr., Ford and lots
of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and of course the
banks..
Yasha Levine commits good journalism, there too! i'd never even heard of Nil
Khasevych nor his Kil the Jews wood block prints. zelenskiy is not only jewish, but
russian speaking, ukrainian is his second language as i understand it.
imagine now living on Khasevych; wouldn't you be proud? i'd been on yasha's account
recently looking for his take (if any) on the intercept/NYT collaboration on the
Iranaian leaks. i'd figured his link to the history if U S meddling at the bottom would
speak at length about Pierre Omidyar's investments (centre UA, USAID, etc.) and maybe
(then) monsanto/billy gates.
thank you; a whoosh -worthy exposé. do you get his newsletter,
snoop?
p.s. on edit: i tried to subscribe, but it costs money. oh, well...
especially with the editing. but it' like the game of telephone, isn't it? 'he told me
he overheard...', and someone told me s he heard..., yada, yada,
but just think if Pelosi hadn't limited the inquiry to One Phone call? 'as trump's
puppet, is zelenskiy's claiming 'no quid pro quo worth anything?'
There is lots of good info on Twitter about the Ukraine system and corruption. Bibi
didn't have any problems dealing with the neo Nazis there either which threw me for a
loop. But then it was people in our country that made Hitler's war chest. Bush Sr.,
Ford and lots of others thought Hitler's system should be implemented here. Oh yeah and
of course the banks..
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like they
wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media trying to
tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't been scrubbed
yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly
working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating
a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to
back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging
information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to
expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to
people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally
directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's the
but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved
the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S.
intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that
Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a
Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
said " I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to
interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in the
race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments refrain from
engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine government,
but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there was Hillary
hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't count. Why? Reasons
of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See? Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will regret
doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was always on
the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how people who
believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their beliefs intact
when there is so much information showing that what they believe is wrong or didn't happen
the way they think it did.
Nah not so much. Numerous websites wrote about it back when it happened just like
they wrote about Hunter Biden and Burisma. But now I'm seeing the main stream media
trying to tell us that it didn't happen that way. Well here's one article that hasn't
been scrubbed yet.
Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after
quietly working to boost Clinton.
Donald Trump wasn't the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by
officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump
by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents
implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the
matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies
research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation
found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National
Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort
to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according
to people with direct knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's
resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to
Ukraine's foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or
centrally directed than Russia's alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic
emails.
Ahh that good ole but. Yes what people in Ukraine did was bad, but.... and here's
the but.
Russia's effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
involved the country's military and foreign intelligence services, according
to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the
possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the
president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper said " I don't think we've ever encountered a
more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've
seen in this case."
There's little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers
suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the
country -- not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia -- would render it unable to
pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country's election. And
President Petro Poroshenko's administration, along with the Ukrainian Embassy in
Washington, insists that Ukraine stayed neutral in the race.
Yet Politico's investigation found evidence of Ukrainian government involvement in
the race that appears to strain diplomatic protocol dictating that governments
refrain from engaging in one another's elections.
Well there you have it. People in Ukraine were digging up dirt on people in Trump's
campaign whilst Vlad only placed a few ads on FB and most of them were placed after the
election was over. Badder Russia.
That Ukraine was trying to get Hillary elected was well known in the Ukraine
government, but sure let's just say it never happened like that. Then of course there
was Hillary hiring people in another country to dig up dirt too, but that doesn't
count. Why? Reasons of course and because it was Hillary and the DNC doing it. See?
Reasons.
Next paragraph starts with this.
Russia's meddling has sparked outrage from the American body politic. Lots of words
about how that outraged people here...and more blah blah blah stuff.
Next paragrap
Ukraine, on the other hand, has traditionally enjoyed strong relations with U.S.
administrations. Its officials worry that could change under Trump, whose team has
privately expressed sentiments ranging from ambivalence to deep skepticism about
Poroshenko's regime, while sounding unusually friendly notes about Putin's
regime.
Poroshenko is scrambling to alter that dynamic, recently signing a $50,000-a-month
contract with a well-connected GOP-linked Washington lobbying firm to set up meetings
with U.S. government officials "to strengthen U.S.-Ukrainian relations."
Hmm hint of a quid pro quo there?
BTW. Lindsay Graham wants to investigate Hunter Biden and Joe says that he will
regret doing that for the rest of his life. Stay tuned for the fireworks.
this morning intending to grab some of his quotes and links here: ' November
20, 2019 , Impeachment Circus - Today's Bombshell Is Another Dud one chris cilizza link
i'd given to linda wood to see if she or others might parse for me/us.
"The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid opening statement
from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was involved in diplomatic
efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let it all out:
'Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the
pressure campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link
between military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland
confirmed there was a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President
Trump and Ukraine's president.'
The
anti-Trump media see this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
Ahh yes Russia was the one that started that propaganda. Burisma and Biden was
always on the up and up so don't even think that they weren't. I really don't know how
people who believe everything about Russia Gate and now Ukraine Gate can keep their
beliefs intact when there is so much information showing that what they believe is
wrong or didn't happen the way they think it did.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie. Almost
everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His job
is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he loses to
Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And happening
fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
as with a hella busy 3-day weekend, i hadn't intended to, but what with the smoke
coming out of my ears and all...
i'd long claimed that i'd want to go out in a first strike as well, and here we are
just east of the shit-head capital of bumfuck, CO (h/t ed abbey).
now there are a number of NORAD
sites , but most nations as i understand it still have No First Strike Rules, but
the US no longer does, iirc (meaning: don't count on it). our daughter and her family
live in el paso county, CO home of one or two, one an alt-site under cheyenne
mountain.
i've often been a bit glib as to: 'Who will stop the US Empire? Those who can...and
must.'
but i dunno who that might end up being, nor how including with nukes. but at this
point, i guess it's all philosophical to me, as we're all living on borrowed time, and
Live in the Moment when possible.
i do so wish i could help you ease your fears, my friend.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format. but i
found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which part
(I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal Pence
gives me the shivers.
Almost everything Americans have ever been told about US foreign policy is a lie.
Almost everything we think we know is still a lie.
The Democrat's immediate goal is to install Mike Pence as President as soon as
possible.
Everything depends on this. Pence is the continuation of Obama's Neocon policies in
Ukraine and throughout the world. Biden is the premier Neocon on the 2020 ticket. His
job is to lie himself into the nomination and pick-up a Neocon Vice President. If he
loses to Pence, it doesn't matter. The CFR wins either way. And we're off to war with
Russia.
This is a must read for those who want to know what is happening to them. And
happening fast.
It will be hard to see the world the same way again.
i read the comments on the saker version, what was key was what zuesse hadn't written
(i.e. any mention of the CIA), and part IV at the duran,, withut elaborating, much of which
i disagreed with.
there's no way i can read anything that long, especially in the zero-hedge format.
but i found it at the duran, and an easier read on my eye-brain configuration
at the
saker . strategic culture usually carries his columns, but not this one...yet.
even scanning at the zero hedge version, i hadn't spotted pence's name. in which
part (I-IV) was it? zuesse has always needed a good editor, imo. but yeah, Pentecostal
Pence gives me the shivers.
@Pluto's Republic or New York for sure. There are a lot of other target rich areas
like Langley, the Silicon Valley area and certainly that big base in San Diego in
California, the possible list is long because this Country is littered with military
installations.
But I'd expect that if Russia had only two nukes to fire Washington DC and NY would be
the instant decision. DC is 'evil Central' to most of the world, and NY City's Wall Street
is its oxygen supply and without those two cities it's like chopping off the head of the
snake. (no offense to snakes intended)
It fills the soul with dread. There is no one left to fight the poisonous empire
from the inside. All have succumbed. They will be along soon enough to clean up these
fragments and send them down the memory hole. I'm going to dwell in the large-target
cities from now on. I intend to be vaporized in the first strike.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is most
important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid and
moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia in
Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's conventional
weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and air power, and
then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion of
military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current $750
billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in
America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth via
a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the
military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to go
mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the
extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the
North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts
and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's just
exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO. It's
defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether or not
he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our government has a
first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to eliminate a portion of
the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would be catastrophic, in order to
win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more credible"
in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be seen as "more
usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The fog
of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking could also
have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with limited nuclear
use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the use
of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of tens of
millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds of millions
and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural, economic, health,
and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side can
guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
and i agree: it's not the defense budget that matters. in this nation, the defense
industries are allowed to do 'cost over-runs', and russia's weapons of war and defensive
war are clearly superior. see how many are wanting russian man-pads missile defense, for
instance.
i'll take part two, but at anti-war.com to the café. commenter juliania loved
part I witless! i was sad to read that justin raimondo has already crossed over, may he
rest in power. one place i'd blogged for a time were outraged i tell you, Outraged, that a
libertarian wrote for antiwar.com. needless to say, i didn't last long at the
accursed dagblog.com.
are brilliant and vital to understanding the Ukraine situation. I think Part 2 is
most important, even though I disagree with him on one point. He establishes how stupid
and moronic the Democrats' impeachment witnesses are to suggest we have to fight Russia
in Ukraine so we don't have to fight them here. He shows how minuscule Russia's
conventional weapons systems are compared to ours, especially with respect to sea and
air power, and then he states,
... Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military
establishment anywhere near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its $61 billion
of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32 days of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland
security in America short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a
continuation of mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got
through 45-years of cold war when the Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy
committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time it had been armed to the teeth
via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to
the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the
country's anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and
populations of Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian
"stans" among others. Yet given those realities we are supposed to believe that the
self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs the Kremlin is going to
go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is
laughable. Not only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is
the extent of what he's got. That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force
to the North American continent is nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere
between nichts and nothing.
I agree with Stockman that in a conventional war with the U.S., we win. But that's
just exactly the problem. Russia can't have a conventional war with us or with NATO.
It's defense from us is ONLY nuclear assured destruction. So the problem is not whether
or not he's nuts. The problem is that we are nuts. Our government is nuts. Our
government has a first strike policy, meaning our government considers it rational to
eliminate a portion of the American people, which in our Nuclear Posture Review would
be catastrophic, in order to win a war with Russia.
... The NPR argues that additional low-yield options are "not intended to enable"
nuclear war-fighting "[n]or will it lower the nuclear threshold" (p. 54). But this
assertion ignores the fact that the stated purpose is to make their use "more
credible" in the eyes of U.S. adversaries , which means that they are meant to be
seen as "more usable."
The belief that a nuclear conflict could be controlled is dangerous thinking. The
fog of war is thick, the fog of nuclear war would be even thicker. Such thinking
could also have the perverse effect of convincing Russia that it could get away with
limited nuclear use without putting its survival at risk.
Many military targets are in or near urban areas. It has been estimated that the
use of even a fraction of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces could lead to the death of
tens of millions of people in each country. An all-out exchange would kill hundreds
of millions and produce catastrophic global consequences with adverse agricultural,
economic, health, and environmental consequences for billions of people.
No country should be preparing to wage a "limited nuclear war" that neither side
can guarantee would remain "limited." Rather, as Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail
Gorbachev declared in 1985, today's Russian and U.S. leaders should recognize that "a
nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
"... "Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount of influence over both parties." ..."
"... She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so serious about what's at stake here." ..."
"... Democratic presidential primary debate, Wednesday, Nov. 20, 2019, in Atlanta, via the AP. ..."
In a rare moment with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi
Gabbard explained why the leading figures in her party are war hawks. Far from days of the
Democrats feigning to have any semblance of an 'anti-war' platform (only convenient for Liberal
activism during the Bush years, but fizzling out under Obama), today's party attempts to
out-hawk Republicans at every turn.
"I'm looking at the Democratic establishment figures," Matthews introduced, "people I
normally like. John Kerry, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton. You go down the list. They all supported
the war in Iraq. Why were they hawks? " (Though we might ask, what do you mean, "
were ?"). "Why so many Democrats with a party that's not hawkish, why are so many of
their leaders hawks?" Matthews reiterated.
In the segment, Matthews heaps rare praise on Tulsi for being "out there all alone tonight
fighting against the neocons."
"Yeah," Tulsi answers. "I point to two things. One is you have the foreign policy
establishment and the military-industrial complex in Washington that carries such a huge amount
of influence over both parties."
She continues, "There are campaign contributions, the influence that these contractors
have in this pay-to-play culture , this corrupt culture in Washington, but you also just have
people who don't understand foreign policy and who lack the experience to make these critical
decisions that impact our lives and the safety and security of the American people. This is so
serious about what's at stake here."
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
The interview happened immediately after this week's fifth Democratic debate Wednesday night
in Atlanta, and after pundits have continued to complain that Gabbard is a 'single issue
candidate'.
However, is there any candidate in her party or in the GOP saying these things?
We find ourselves in a rare moment of agreement with MSNBC's Matthews: she is "out there all
alone tonight fighting against the neocons." Tags Politics
"... They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently. Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot more incriminating evidence and so does the public. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff, and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by impeachment?' ..."
"... It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been entirely shut out of the process ..."
"... More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters' central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. ..."
"... This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020. Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic, self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.' ..."
The most important thing to know about Democrats' impeachment inquiry is this: it is
not about removing President Trump now; it is about damaging him now so he can be
defeated next year.
Impeachment normally seeks to remove the president (or a federal judge) from office. A
successful House vote is only the first step. The Senate needs strong evidence to convict, and
House leaders try to provide it with their investigation and public hearings. That's what we
learned in seventh-grade civics.
But Nancy Pelosi is not in middle school. She is teaching postgraduate courses, and she
knows a Republican Senate is very unlikely to convict Donald Trump without a lot more evidence
than has been brought to light along with a groundswell of public support. So, the House
speaker has a more realistic goal, and it's a purely political one. Her aim is to prevent
Trump's reelection. To do it, she has exerted tight, unilateral control over the process and
handed day-to-day investigation to her California protégé, Adam Schiff, who heads
the committee on intelligence. His secret hearings are in sharp contrast to the open ones held
for Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton by the House Judiciary Committee.
Schiff's closed-door sessions, his refusal to allow Republicans to call witnesses, and his
prohibition of White House participation are all clear indications of Pelosi's strategy. She
and Schiff are using the investigation as publicly funded opposition research, complete with
subpoena power, much like the probe that resulted in the second volume of Robert Mueller's
report.
They don't need to convince activist Democrats that Trump needs to go. The most vocal
have demanded it since 2016, even before inauguration. Others have joined them more recently.
Polls show some independent voters are moving in their direction, fueled by an intense media
campaign. So far, however, the numbers are not nearly enough to isolate Trump (as Nixon was
isolated) or to convince two-thirds of the Senate to convict him. The upper chamber needs a lot
more incriminating evidence and so does the public.
The Democrats have promised that material before but failed to deliver. Last year, Schiff
claimed he had proof of Trump's malfeasance, but he couldn't deliver. Jerry Nadler, chair of
the Judiciary Committee, tried to find something -- anything -- but failed and turned his
committee into a partisan food fight. The Democrats and their media allies had counted on
Robert Mueller, but that didn't work out, either. None of these failures means the Democrats,
Washington Post , or New York Times won't find more compelling evidence this
time, but the track record is not encouraging.
So far, all they've got is a questionable phone call from the president to his Ukrainian
counterpart, a pause in aid to Ukraine (which Kyiv didn't know about and had no practical
effect), and a hyperbolic, second-hand complaint from an anonymous CIA operative. The spy, who
worked with then-Vice President Biden, claimed whistleblower protection under suspiciously new
rules and worked with Schiff's staff to report it. (Schiff lied about this contact.) We don't
know the name of the whistleblower or who else he may have spoken with, aside from his
attorneys. We don't know which CIA officers at the White House passed along the information or
whether they will seek whistleblower protection to cover their unauthorized disclosures of
classified information.
The whistleblower allegations and Rudy Giuliani's ties to now-indicted Ukrainians raise
serious questions about the president's conduct. Polls show the public is concerned. But
'concerned' does not mean 'convinced'. Voters want clear-cut evidence of high crimes before
removing a duly-elected president from office, especially since they get to vote on him next
year. They also want evidence that impeachment is bipartisan, that it seeks to protect our
country and not just one party.
Pelosi knows she cannot provide it. She is not counting on an avalanche of damning new
evidence or a collapse of Trump's Republican support in the House or Senate. Instead, she's
counting on the damage she can do to Trump's chances in 2020. It's a risky strategy, one that
could sink the president but could also endanger the Democrats' House majority.
The best way to understand the speaker's true aim is to ask 'how would Pelosi, Schiff,
and their allies act if their goal was really to remove Trump from office by
impeachment?'
The short answer is that they would bend over backwards to show the whole process is fair,
open, and deliberate. They would use that impartial process to forge a broad, bipartisan
consensus that the president had committed 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and should be
removed. That's exactly what Democrats did during the Nixon impeachment. It's not what they are
doing now.
It's not only that the current procedures are intensely partisan, that witnesses are
interviewed in secret, that Pelosi has set ad hoc rules by fiat, or that Republicans have been
entirely shut out of the process . Nor is it only that Pelosi and her allies are
determined to rush a foregone conclusion through committee and avoid going to court if Trump
refuses to provide documents or witnesses. (Normally, federal courts would settle such a
standoff between the legislative and executive branches.) Schiff and Pelosi have announced that
they won't litigate these issues or give the White House due process. Instead, they will count
any refusal as evidence of obstruction. Their reason is simple: speed is more important than
judicial legitimacy.
All these are important points, but there is a bigger one. These streamlined, partisan
procedures are proof that House Democrats are not trying to win bipartisan support for
impeachment or set the stage for Senate conviction. They are building a case against Trump to
defeat him at the ballot box.
Politically, that strategy makes sense. Republican officeholders won't abandon Trump unless
he is badly weakened. Until then, they fear his clout; he has proven he can defeat enemies in
party primaries. Just ask the governors of Florida and Georgia.
Pelosi understands this terrain and the choice it poses. She can either drop the endless
investigations and face the wrath of her party base, or she can plunge ahead, call it
impeachment, and hope to defeat Trump next year. She has chosen the latter.
This impeach-and-be-damned strategy is risky. It is already hurting vulnerable, centrist
Democrats, and the damage could mount. Ukraine is the only plausible issue for impeachment, but
that focus has already knee-capped the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. His son,
Hunter, earned big money from a Ukrainian energy company without any qualifications beyond his
DNA. The more Democrats focus on Ukraine, the worse for Biden.
More damage is coming if impeachment reaches a House vote. Pelosi holds the speaker's
gavel because centrists Democrats won in districts Trump carried three years ago. Their voters'
central message was to work with Republicans and get things done. These newly elected officials
couldn't accomplish that. The fault may not be theirs, but they still have nothing to show
voters back home. If they lose next year, Pelosi could lose her gavel. That's one reason
she has postponed a floor vote to authorize the inquiry. But she can't delay forever or deliver
on the centrists' promise to pass significant, bipartisan legislation.
This drama is building to a nasty climax: a dirty campaign from now until November 2020.
Trump and his allies will run on a strong economy and against a 'do nothing' Congress
controlled by 'radical socialists'. Democrats will run against a 'corrupt, erratic,
self-dealing Trump and his spineless supporters.'
Unless the Democrats can find a clean, competent, center-left candidate to lead them, they
face a difficult task. They will need to sell the public on unpopular, brutally expensive new
Washington programs. That agenda doesn't just split the country, it splits the Democrats. What
unifies them is hating Trump and everything he stands for.
Pelosi's impeachment strategy is not separate from this electoral calculation. It's central
to it.
Charles Lipson is the Peter B. Ritzma Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the
University of Chicago, where he founded the Program on International Politics, Economics, and
Security. This article was originally published on
RealClearPolitics .
"... Fiona Hill, a "respected Russia scholar" and former senior White House official, added a harsh critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it. ..."
"... In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair. ..."
"... The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016. ..."
"... Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation. ..."
"... Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment inquiry that does that. ..."
Fiona Hill, a respected Russia scholar and former senior White House official, added a harsh
critique during testimony on Thursday. She told some of Mr. Trump's fiercest defenders in
Congress that they were repeating "a fictional narrative." She said that it likely came from
a disinformation campaign by Russian security services, which also propagated it.
In a briefing that closely aligned with Dr. Hill's testimony, American intelligence
officials informed senators and their aides in recent weeks that Russia had engaged in a
yearslong campaign to essentially frame Ukraine as responsible for Moscow's own hacking of
the 2016 election, according to three American officials. The briefing came as Republicans
stepped up their defenses of Mr. Trump in the Ukraine affair.
...
The revelations demonstrate Russia's persistence in trying to sow discord among its
adversaries -- and show that the Kremlin apparently succeeded, as unfounded claims about
Ukrainian interference seeped into Republican talking points.
So there was no Ukrainian meddling, no Ukrainian interference. Claims thereof are
unfounded! But just a few sentences later the piece curiously says something different:
The accusations of a Ukrainian influence campaign center on actions by a handful of
Ukrainians who openly criticized or sought to damage Mr. Trump's candidacy in 2016.
Just keep in mind that those claims are unfounded. The 'handful' of Ukrainians managed, with help from the Democratic National Council, to push
Trump's campaign manager to resign. They even bragged about it. Ukrainians were also the biggest
foreign donors to Hillary Clinton's foundation.
However, because Putin once pointed that out, those claims must be unfounded. They must be
Russian disinformation:
During a news conference in February 2017, Mr. Putin accused the Ukrainian government of
supporting Hillary Clinton during the previous American election and funding her candidacy
with friendly oligarchs.
It is not clear when American intelligence agencies learned about Moscow's campaign or
when precisely it began.
...
One target was the leak of a secret ledger disclosed by a Ukrainian law enforcement agency
that appeared to show that Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's onetime campaign chairman, had taken
illicit payments from Ukrainian politicians who were close to Moscow. He was forced to step
down from the Trump campaign after the ledger became public in August 2016, and the Russians
have since been eager to cast doubt on its authenticity, the former official said.
Those are "unfounded claims about Ukrainian interference". Because Putin pointed them
out. However, let me assure you that neither the Times nor the CIA would ever make
unfounded claims of a Russian operation. It is Russia that is trying 'to sow discord'. It is not an unfounded Democratic impeachment
inquiry that does that.
Posted by b on November 23, 2019 at 18:08 UTC | Permalink
Maybe the CIA has decided that they need to make the claims more obtuse so that even the
mentally competent have trouble explaining the 11 dimensional chess involved.
After all, if Trump singlehanded, as he claims, kept Xi from sending the troops into HK
then Putin assuredly can influence American politics.....if Putin only could make it all go
away.....what a waste of time, energy and money that could be spent on improving the lot of
the poor, living on the streets in the US
When and how will the private finance empire circus end?
At least the US has Bernie and Tulsi calling out the coup in Bolivia for what it
is.....maybe there is hope.
Manafort was managing campaigns of pro-Russian political parties/candidates in Ukraine for
7 years or so before being hired by Trump. My understanding is that Manafort was warned that
his work was undermining USA efforts in Ukraine.
Why did America First Trump bring on Flynn?
Flynn was known to be hated by the intelligence community for having told the world that
the Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support the rise of ISIS.
Why did America First Trump make pleas for Putin to release Hillary's emails via
Wikileaks?
It was already known that some of the emails contained top secret information. AFAIK, USA
would consider any publication a crime.
These were set-ups.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Why was "independent", "socialist true believer", supposed man-of-integrity Sanders
sheepdogging for Hillary ("enough with your damn emails")?
Why did Hillary, a seasoned campaigner with virtually unlimited resources, make so many
grievous mistakes in the 2016 election? She snubbed Sanders and his supporters; took the
black vote for granted; insulted whites as "deplorables"; chose not to campaign in the THREE
STATES that she know would decided the election. Why didn't she pull out all the stops to
win? For her beloved establishment? For her own aspirations as first women President? If she
failed because she was "over confident" as some have suggested, then why did she pay for the
Steele dossier as "insurance"? There was no need for insurance if she knew she would win and
if she were unsure of winning she should have done everything possible to win (as any real
candidate would have).
Why did America First Trump use British company Cambridge Analytica? We later
learned that facebook provided the same info to dozens of other companies (debunking the
initial excuse that Cambridge Analytica had special access to facebook info). Was it because
the Russiagate disinfo and CIA election meddling campaign was located in UK?
Why did Trump initiate Ukrainegate by talking about investigating Biden on a diplomatic
call? He's smart enough to know that such political machinations are handled behind the
scenes.
This Reality Show Presidency is all about kayfabe as the Deep State restructures to meet
the challenge from China and Russia, and seeks to manufacture consent for a war with
Iran.
The take away quote
"
Defend American Democracy has spent six figures on television advertisements pressuring
Republican members of Congress to "hold the president accountable for abusing his office and
risking national security for his own gain." The group, which primarily targets
swing-district Republicans, prominently features military veterans in its ads and presents
itself as a veterans group to local media outlets.
........
The 501(c)(4) group is managed by Eric Kessler, a former Clinton administration official who
runs the philanthropic firm Arabella Advisors. The anonymously funded nonprofit was behind
several groups that ran "issue ads" to benefit Democrats during the 2018 midterms, as well as
Demand Justice, a group that spent millions of dollars on ads attacking Brett Kavanaugh
during his nomination to the Supreme Court. The Sixteen Thirty Fund and its sister 501(c)(3)
nonprofit, New Venture Fund, have fiscally sponsored at least 80 of their own groups,
bankrolling those entities in a way that leaves almost no paper trail.
"
The US has the best government Russian influence has not bought.
div> @b #3
I really think the twitter account is satire, judging from other tweets and the profile
pic.
So Russia hacked and attacked Hillary and DNC as Russia. (I believe that is still the
official left-Dem-media meme, despite investigation producing no evidence.) And they attacked
Trump disguised as Ukraine.
This sowing discord is a busy undertaking.
And rather unnecessary, considering the pre-existing state of discord in the nation and
politics, a duplicitous Dem party lost in the wilderness, as it searches a popular cry that
won't actually empower people, a Republican Party that was overwhelmed by a populist tide and
candidate not sanctioned by the leadership, and a legacy media that can crank up divisions on
command.
Maybe I should've posted my comment @6 on the "Impeachment Circus" thread instead.
It just struck me that neoMcCarthist smearing of Russia (which is ongoing, as proven by
b's post) was made possible via the kayfabe of Russiagate, which had it's origins in the 2016
election.
Fiona Hill...another bare faced liar whose name is not Hillary Clinton....I am no longer
astonished that this crap is actually publishable despite the evidence available to anyone
with at least two brain cells. Having followed on the Net the coup in Ukraine in 2014 from
2013 on via live blogs by Western corespondents who are not beholden to the MSM, I know what
lies that latter "journaille" gets away with.
Fiona Hill is an expert on Russophobic content. Like Condi Rice, a Soviet Scholar, she knows
nothing truthful about Russia. Else, why does she lie about Russia?
The think tanks, academia and State Dept. spew out the lies which the Media multiplies.
99% of Russian experts are Russophobes who possess little expertise, some practicing their
propaganda for decades. Many of them excrete books on regular schedules.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying. You either know that in 1954 Crimea was
unconstitutionally given to Ukraine by the Ukrainian Khruschev. It was illegal by USSR law.
2014 corrected that injustice. The experts who profess otherwise are lying.
And if anyone suggests that the Russians are aggressors, they are lying. If Russia was an
aggressor in Georgia or Ukraine, neither would have governments that are so anti-Russian or
militaries that could form a small parade, much less beg for inclusion in NATO.
Russia reacted to Georgian aggression and mass murder. In Ukraine, the Donbass is a Russian
assisted self-defense operation against an ethnic cleansing war. Russia's participation has
been to save 2.5 million Russian-speaking Ukrainians from slaughter ('filtration' is the Ukie
euphemism for killing the Donbass separatists who refuse Kiev's nazi regime).
Russian 'aggression' is a construct of propaganda. Taken in the context of NATO expansion
and encroachment right to the borders of Russia, there is nothing but lies tied to the
'aggression' canard.
We have had 28 years of demonization of the Russian Federation. Russophobia is centuries
old in some societies. Of late, it focuses on the attempts to separate away from Russia the
brother republics of the CIS region of Eurasia. Fed lies, distortion of history, linguistic
differences, religious issues and economic disadvantages, a mania against Russia has been
cultivated. It all is led by "the experts" like Fiona Hill.
We see the same dynamic used against China with Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang and
Inner Mongolia. Propaganda. Lies. Experts who mouth the Sinophobic fabrications are the
talking heads on Media and on Congressional sideshows.
Russophobia and Sinophobia are industries now. Fame, publishing riches, TV appearances,
YouTube videos abound with the 'expertise' of these haters.
Judge the output of these expert operatives. The content is always flawed. The truth is
always hidden. But lies fly fast and loose.
Some people actually do believe this stuff, dependent on their partisan world view.
The IG report, which will outline abuses of the FISA system which appears to have
authorized surveillance of Trump campaign by the FBI, is scheduled for release on December 9.
The degree to which it will be damaging to the Russian collusion/hacking/sowing discord
anti-Trump crowds was anticipated yesterday by the simultaneous publication by CNN and WaPo
of assurances by unnamed "officials" that the report will not find anything but minor
discrepancies. Getting out ahead of the story so obviously and more than a week in advance
likely means the report will be damaging - although that may be just a Russian talking
point.
But much as I enjoyed this, I still have to point out that if Ukrainian meddling was so
important and their US consorts so treasonous, then Russian meddling was so important and
*their* consorts so treasonous. You can't honestly have it both ways, either the Democrats'
excusing Ukrainians or the Trumpists excusing Russia. Actually, you can't even honestly say
you know either made any difference. No one sensible thinks either party meant to give aid
and comfort to enemies of the US---the constitutional* definition of treason---unless you
believe the US is justly in undeclared war with the rest of humanity. The only big difference
is that it was Trump who openly asked for foreign assistance in a public speech. The only
conclusion to draw from that is Trumpists are whiners who can dish it out but can't take
it.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty.
Why did the Hildabeast get the Steele Dossier as insurance if she was confident of
victory?
For the same reason that a healthy person in their 20's or 30's, someone not in the least
expecting to die for decades, purchases life insurance covering their family. Just "in case"
the wildly improbable does indeed happen.
I can't see anyone who has a realistic chance of being elected president, let alone with
the historic feat of being the first female president deliberately throwing all this
away.
No matter how often I'm brought to consider this, it still seems striking that 2 years and
$40 million in US law fare waged by the Special Prosecutor is not enough to see Fiona Hill
laughed out of chambers at her RussiaRussia harangue, whereas the NYT is able to establish an
equivalent lack of foundation to the Ukraine meddling thesis in a thrice, notwithstanding
rather substantial counter-evidence long in the public domain. Indeed the Grey Lady does not
even try to debunk these claims, allowing herself instead to refer to them debunked. If you
say so, apparently, or if you and your cohort say so often enough.
For any progressives still gaslighted by this, I invite you to consider a similar
full-court legal, media, IC / Deep State campaign featuring most of the same actors, engaging
next in the hobbling or destruction of a Bernie Sanders presidency.
Or the Steele Dossier was intended so much insurance as a cudgel to beat the fallen
Donald, post-election loser, while he was down. This was the man whose most stirring
electoral refrain was "lock her up." She and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him into the dirt after beating him.
Fiona Hill studied Russian history with Richard Pipes, the Evil Empire man. Pipes is and
was a laughingstock in academia. No one would study with him who had an actual interest in
the supposed field of study. Being his protegé was simply a roll of the dice for a
careerist. Hill also studied with a Ukrainian emigré named Szporlak. He was likely
closer to awake during class than Pipes, who really was a very old fool while supervising
Hill.
Condoleeza Rice notoriously wrote her dissertation about the postwar Czech military while
having minimal ability in Russian and less in Czech. More likely it was simply ghostwritten.
Full of egregious errors, placing Czech politicians at heart of action while they were
actually teaching at University of Chicago.
Sorry, oldhippie, Pipes wasn't and is not a laughingstock in academia. He merely should have
been. His son Daniel is doing the same in middle east studies and he's not a laughingstock
either. It is hard to underestimate how little effect adhering to the basic scholarly
standards can have in keeping out motivated reasoning, double standards, agendas, political
servitude, etc. It is quite likely that Pipes has a better reputation than Stephen Cohen, J.
Arch Getty or Sheila FitzPatrick. He certainly has a better reputation than a Mark Tauger.
Pipes' classes at Harvard in 70s were a spectator sport. Come and see the Cold War fossil.
Lectures routinely interrupted by gales of laughter. Yes, he had a comeback. No, no one has
ever taken him or his 'scholarship' seriously. He simply happens to be useful. Daniel is just
as bad.
Paul @ 22, wrote: "She [Harridan Hillary] and her masters would have had every reason to want
to grind him [Tweetie Bird] into the dirt after beating him."
I agree, but there was also the need to demonize Russia and V.V.Putin to lay the ground
for the war against Russia. The campaign against Trump began in January 2016, launched by
Brennan and the CIA, whose strumpet H.H. had been since back in Arkansas.
Already in July 2016, she was openly campaigning against V.V.P. There was ONE ( 1! )
foreign policy plank in her platform, and it was the no-fly zone over Syria. General Joseph
Dunford, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, testified before the United States Congress
in mid-September 2016, on which occasion he was asked about the no-fly zone. He responded,
promptly and unequivocally, that it would mean war with Russia.
If war with Russia had not been the objective, the Great Grey Whore would have used its
position in New York to investigate Tweetie Bird and publish to the world, indeed, hammer to
the world, the long grotesque story of his attempt to make a career in real estate, and the
fraud he engaged in from the start. His string of bankruptcies was the most spectacular in
the history of American business enterprise (this from somebody who has studied United States
economic and financial history) instead of letting him constantly blather on about what a
great businessman he was etc.
His father had him on the payroll when he was two, to the tune of $200,000, in order to
pass wealth on to him without paying the very high gift tax. By the time his father died, he
had made over to Tweetie Bird something in the neighborhood of $420 million. And Tweetie Bird
squandered it all, plus the fabulous real-estate empire that his father had left him -- all
gone...
In 2002, Tweetie Bird was over $3 billion (yes, BILLION) in debt to 72 banks in New York
and no New York bank would give him a credit line, which he desperately needed to keep up his
incessant refrain that money is no object for Donald Trump. So, he turned to the Russian
oligarchs for whom he had been laundering money to generate cash flow. They gave him a credit
line through the Cypriot banks that they controlled, and now they own him. They are his
Russian connection, not V.V.P., who has been fighting the oligarchs since he first took
office -- look at what V.V.P. did to Michail Khodokovski: ten years in the gulag (he's now
living in Switzerland reduced to scraping by on the ten or so billion that he had squirreled
away in Swiss banks).
Tweetie Bird owns NOTHING. Everything is in the name of the Trump Organization, to protect
it from confiscation when the reckoning comes. And, since the T.O. publishes NOTHING about
its affairs, it's reasonable to assume that he is in debt to his Cypriot banks, probably to
the tune of five or six billion at this point, and that they hold liens on every piece of
property he claims as his own.
Tweetie Bird is all about Tweetie Bird, exclusively. His pitch for détente with
Russia was a classic case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason, to wit he intended
to lift the sanctions if V.V.P. would round up the oligarchs who have Tweetie Bird over the
barrel and pack them off to the gulag. However, in August 2017, Congress pulled the rung out
from under him by reinforcing the sanctions and thus removing them from executive order
purview and placing them under Congressional authority.
Hilarious someone said. Really. The Russians would have to be superhuman geniuses to do half
of what US 'Intelligence' says about them. It is transparently true, OTOH, that CIA and etc.
are true clods and dolts. It's tautological really.
My understanding is that Manafort was warned that his work was undermining USA efforts in
Ukraine.
So what? Maybe Trump wanted to undermine the Washington Borg's efforts in Ukraine as they
were counter to his principle foreign policy - cordial relations with Russia. Since Trump was
very clear about this policy all through the election, he has every right to implement that
policy regardless of what anyone opposed to him might think or try to do. It's one of the
basic concepts of a democratic system (yeah, I am aware that the U.S. is a republic not a
democracy, etc.) that the successful candidate should be able to implement any legal policy
that was part of his manifesto.
As for Trump asking the Russians to look for Hillary Clinton's e-mails, it was a joke. Added
to which it was a reference to the 30,000 "personal" e-mails that that idiot, Hillary
Clinton, had managed to mislay and not the DNC and Podesta e-mails that were leaked by some
unknown party to Wikileaks.
These low brow knuckle draggers know how to spin lies. Their useless parade of irrelevant
nincompoops proves an ongoing campaign to demonize Russian people. We all see it here
constantly on other blogs and MSN reports. These people know very well who their match is and
cannot compete socially, on certain new military complexes, political maturity, etc. I offer
Sergey Lavrov as a person not matched by any other nation. All western parasites in
opposition pale in stature, political maturity, and brains. The Russians know what the deal
is with these western crybabies, and know they are dealing with premature juveniles. These
people show how weak they are by their actions and the Russians show patience. Oh, and that
kayfabe word, Trump ..."be fake."... has much experience with it from his wrestling exposure.
This farce has that written all over it, fake bullshit.
I have been watching the Trump impeachment hearings farce on television over the past weeks
and have heard enough BS by the so-called witnesses to fertilize the Sinai Desert. The real
reason behind the hearings is not 'quid pro quo,' but 'cui bono' (who benefits). The parade
of over-the-hill Cold War warriors has reinforced my belief that the impeachment hearings are
essentially an attempt by the old Cold War guard to retain their privileges and positions of
power in Washington. As for Ms. Fiona Hill, she is a prime example of the old dictum that
states, "A Brit with an upper class accent reading the phone book sounds smarter to most
Americans, than Abe Lincoln reading the Gettysburg Address.
Macabre Comedy is the only appropriate descriptive term IMO. Russia is a very busy nation,
every bit as busy as its leader VV Putin. Who within the Evil Outlaw US Empire's national
government is even close to being Putin's equivalent? The vast majority are mere
kindergarteners in comparison, Trump included. In case you've been asleep since 2007 or so,
Putin and all of Russia are working their tails off to improve their nation and their
comrades's wellbeing and in doing so have surpassed The Empire is qualitative military
equipment, nuclear engineering, and a host of other areas, along with building several
geoeconomic blocs of kindred nations to which the Empire can only answer with idiotic
accusations and factless BigLie Media items.
If anything tells us how low the Evil Outlaw US Empire has sunk, it's this attempt to
impeach a POTUS using bullshit for evidence. The would be emperor isn't the only one sans
clothes--the entire imperial edifice is revealed as a scrawny, emaciated, traumatized waif
that the curtain can no longer hide.
Headline: "How True Is the Story on Which the US Sanctions against Russia Are Based?"
Very good question!! Glad someone in the MSM is (finally) asking it . . .
"Mit seinen Aussagen zum Tod eines Whistleblowers brachte Bill Browder die Amerikaner gegen
Putin auf. Doch seine Darstellung ist voller Widersprüche. Von Benjamin Bidder "
With his statements regarding the death of a whistleblower [Magnitsky was no such thing]
Brill Browder [arch scumbag] stirred up the Americans against Putin. But his account is full
of contradictions [you don't say].
And at Bidder's website in addition:
"Washington based its sanctions on Browder's account of Magnitsky's death."
Unfortunately the Spiegel story is behind a paywall. Perhaps someone here has a sub.
People here may recall that a very good documentary about the whole affair, "Behind the
Scenes," made by Andrei Nekrasov, was buried in the USA but was available online. It is a
great explanation of the scurrilous Browder and his role in getting the balling rolling in DC
against Putin. Has great footage of Browder running away from cameras, men trying to serve
subpoenas, and, in front of the camera, squirming-and-sweating-while-lying.
So it seems to me like good news if questions about Browder and his tale are raised in Der
Spiegel---even though I haven't read the article.
I have no argument with constitutional executive powers. I do have many arguments against
Unitary Executive Theory. You can campaign on a policy and implement it once elected, but you
can't use executive power with corrupt intent and claim immunity.
I have been watching closely both the Trump and the Hillary misbehaviors for quite a
while. Your post up above is, I think, the first string of assertions about the pair of them
that I agree with without exception . As far as the activities that you covered in
that post are concerned, you've got each of them nailed to a "T".
I hope we'll see further comments from you, that will exhibit the same degree of
accuracy.
The degree of dishonesty and blatant manipulation by the MSM has reached ridiculous levels.
MSM journalists are not journalists, they are lying, evil peddlers of propaganda shilling for
the military industrial complex; they are as blood-stained as the psychopathic elite that
they so faithfully serve...they should be held responsible for their lies, up to and
including prosecution for war crimes:
There is an article on
telepolis (no paywall, in German) on the Spiegel piece, demasking the author Benjamin
Bidder as someone who belatedly jumps on the bandwagon that others have set in motion, first
and foremost the Russian filmmaker Andrej Nekrasov.
Really @ 33 Thanks for the reference to the Der Spiegel article questioning Magnitsky. Hij is
absolutely ground zero of the whole Russia paranoia and Ukraine obsession. The US has lost
all perspective: an insignificant place like Ukraine dominates its national and foreign
policies while its own people have to pay the price.
Thanks mk @ 37. Sure Nekrasov investigated the Magnitsky story but his film was available to
no one in the US and the EU in the standard outlets (TV, cinema, etc.). Der Spiegel is MSM as
any MSM can be and it is then significant that the publication prints this article, even if
Magnitsky and the anti-Russian mania he set in motion with the help of US politicians is
still enigmatic. How can one man recruit the whole US political system to protect his
personal wealth? Has a contributed to the campaign funds, Clinton Foundation, etc.?
Hillary Clinton: "We better get to the White House if most of us do not want to end up at the
lamp posts". O America, if you knew what these people are doing to the Americans----- after
they got rid of president Kennedy.
It is important to remember that Hillary Clinton as Sec of State transacted her entire
computer communications operation on an unsecured server in a closet at her home. It was
shared with the Clinton Foundation. It was never secured or in any way made available to the
US Government IT security team.
Likewise she used unsecured phones.
That is what the problem was as that server would have been accessed by a number of state
actors who would suspect some benefit might come their way if they peeked. A cinch for any
state actor let alone a clever hacker.
Hillary Clinton is guilty of the single extreme national security breach in US history.
And they are killing Assange to cover for her criminal treachery.
Mina @40: A beggars banquet. A festival of corruption. I wonder when it will dawn on those
needy greedheads that the Sauds are running on empty too ...
A minor point, true enough, but Fiona Hill does most definitely *not* have an ""upper
class English" accent. (As a former Brit of English and working class origin, that is as
apparent as could be.) Her accent is a much softened after many years away from her working
class family origins in North-Eastern England - specifically, County Durham, and as many
years trying to rid herself of those working class origins, taints there remains the local
lilt to her diction.
Regarding her rank, stinking Russophobia - I would suggest that its origins were *not*
from her background (her father was a coal miner) but rather from the fact that she spent her
late teens and early adulthood under the Thatcher the Snatcher government and its deliberate
ending of public ownership of basic services as it installed TINA - pure rapacious,
plundering, mammon and moloch worshipping corporate-capitalism allied to imperialism.
Add to these likely background effects, the desire among some of those of working class
origins who, on achieving a tertiary education have every intention of eschewing and
disparaging their backgrounds and adopting wholeheartedly the worldview of the ruling elites.
Not at all unusual, certainly in the UK.
Definitely totally distorted. Inaccurate (I doubt that she has ever spent much, if any,
time in Russia with ordinary, working class Russians - ho no, too far down the ladder) and
extremely partisan. Another Dem shill?
An aside: my late husband's friends are all highly educated and all (the American ones,
anyway) glued to the impeachment hearings and gung-ho for them.... Education isn't all it's
cracked up to be, clearly. (And For the record - I am very much anti-both parties.)
Really?? @ 33 : thanks for reminding us about Andrei Nekrasov's "Behind the Scenes". The
effort to bury it as well as the reaction (including -- especially? -- from among the
Congresscritters) was an outstanding example of groupthink -- everybody move in lock-step
with the prescribed belief and vilify, demonize those who dare to propose something different
that contradicts the groupthink
Antispin @ 35, thanks for the compliment. I keep trying...
Glad some of you appreciated the parody. We need such cleverness. It is at the opposite
end of the spectrum from groupthink, and it's a good antidote to the mind-numbing drivel of
mendacious mainstream media.
In reply to Karlof1 - absolutely agree about the abilities of V. Putin and his team. If ONLY
we had any government (had any akin to them over the past decades) as able, sensible,
concerned about their country as Putin and his team clearly are, we'd be a peaceful,
non-terroristic, economically more equal place. I would also include with V. Putin and his
team, Xi and his government and the Iranian elected government - and Khamenei. Our lot are
squealing, uneducated (in the true sense of the term) greedy, amoral children by comparison
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Education has both a very positive and a very negative dimension.
On the positive side is the socialization that puts one in touch with many people, most of
whom, ideally, one would mot meet otherwise (not the least of whom are great teachers at all
levels) and teaches one to get along with them. Also, on the positive side is learning: it
saves one from constantly reinventing the wheel, so to speak, and gives a personal touch to
imparted knowledge.
On the negative side is the lock-step conformity it can -- and more and more does --
impose on social mores. Also there is the transmission of the mindset and beliefs that Andrew
Carnegie splendidly called the gospel of wealth (he was gung-ho for it, of course -- God made
him rich because God wanted him to be rich...). Both of these are essential underpinnings to
groupthink (which, by the way, was studied in depth at Yale University in the 1960s, and
where it got it's name).
There's a movie called "Billy Elliot", which takes place in the 1980s UK, that tells this
story: the boy had a miner father and a miner older brother, with high class consciousness --
there's even a scene where they fight over one of the members who violated the strike and
went to work.
But none of that matters of little Billy, as he wants to be a ballet dancer. The riot
police, the strikes, all of that appears just as a background, the landscape, over which he
and his best friend talk about wanting to do ballet.
The figure of Billy Elliot represents the transition in the UK from an industrial economy
to a services one, and the transition of a social-democratic UK to a neoliberal UK.
Many assume that "education" involves learning true things. There is reason for this
assumption in engineering and math, as these actually involve logical proofs. However many
professionals, presumably "educated" are ignorant of the basic science necessary for
understanding and proving...pharmacists who are re-leaved of the obligation to, for example,
ever take a chemistry class, or chemistry test. Thus the assumption is, well, not always
valid. Other examples abound...look for a few. Ask, for example, the X-Ray technician a few
questions about the physics of his job...
However the assumption fails entirely when one enters the bizarre realm of canonical
myth...such as "history" or "political theory" or the Chicago School of Econ.
It is also often assumed that education involves teachers. I have not noticed that such
people are, generally, of any value. Rather, the profession of teaching serves to park people
who might upset matters in a place where they are under control and addicted to their
paychecks, and serve up propaganda according to the rule.
And it is assumed that it involves a forum dedicated to what they call education, when in
reality it is that forum where the process that binds takes place. The Toga, the Bath>
"Hence, too, a liking sprang up for our style of dress, and the "toga" became fashionable.
Step by step they were led to things which dispose to vice, the lounge, the bath, the elegant
banquet. All this in their ignorance, they called civilization, when it was but a part of
their servitude." (Tacitus)
Think jeans and Hollywood, and propaganda.
One particularly egregious difference 'tween education is the exclusion of any formal
study of Rhetoric and logic, with developed skill in these, as a basic prerequisite. Such
matters are now generally ignored, and have been in the canonical syllabus of US "education"
for, more or less, a century.
AnneR @ 46 wrote: "Education isn't all it's cracked up to be, clearly."
Like with food, deprivation is bad, but content, the manner of serving etc. can have a
variety of effects. Here we have an example of a narrower phenomenon, meritocracy. Somewhere
I read that the imperial government of China had European guest and advisors who informed
their host about certain advances in Europe like clock construction and improved cartography,
but who also brought back information about the Chinese method of selecting officials on the
basis of examinations. Initially, the English adopted civil service selected by examinations
to rule India, and that worked so well that the system was extended for the government of
England as well. Like in China, the key was to learn the wisdom of the classics. Of course,
Confucius was replaced with Plato, Horace etc. Back in China, Confucius seems to be replaced
by the study of the History of Chinese Communist Party -- obligatory regardless of the
major.
However, what is outright sinister is the coupling of "narrative building" performed for
intelligence/national security apparatus in USA and UK with academia. "Properly thinking"
luminaries from top institutions of learning were recruited for the purpose, with Fiona Hill
mentor being prime example. From what I understand, Richard Pipes left the position of the
head of Russian and Slavic Studies at Harvard to be CIA consultant where he lead Team B to
assess the intentions and capabilities of USSR. Unlike more realistic team A, Team B strongly
exaggerated both sinister plans of USSR, basically suggesting that without heeding the
constraints of MAD, they will attempt to subjugate the West, and the capabilities. Almost
hiilariously, his team postulated that the symptoms of economic stagnation in USSR were faked
to lull the West into complaisance. Recommendations of Team B were enthusiastically adopted
by Reagan administration to justify acceleration of defense spending. Check "Team B" in
Wikipedia. "I would say that all of it was fantasy. ... if you go through most of Team B's
specific allegations about weapons systems, and you just examine them one by one, they were
all wrong." Needless to say, the theory of faked economic decline was absurd.
Lamentably, Pipes did not abandoned his teaching duties, and while he toiled as the head
of Team B he was mentoring Ph. D. students including Fiona Hill.
*The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule. Of course they also pretend that impeachment reverses elections. The cherry on
top of this turd sundae? They would reject the 26th Amendment, which would have been invoked
against Reagan as well as Trump (and possibly his original, Nixon, as well.) Pence is not
even man enough to do his duty. by: steven t johnson @ 17 <=you might also be interested
to know that these same types want to take control of all of the resources, all of the
departments, all of the labor, and all of whatever else that exist in America so the USA can
use them to conduct continuous war and manage the grey zone.. read on..
The white paper "Russian Strategic Intentions"[ https://cryptome.org/2019/07/Pentagon-Russia.pdf],
caste its analysis of the future in terms of "competition and conflict" and presents, in its
preface, a long list of those associated to the claim that the USA should use "all of its
instruments of state power" in a comprehensive fashion, to manage grey area warfare, to
promote elite interest in far away places, and to impose aggression (in environment, in
economic activity, with influence campaigns, with paramilitary assault, with cyber intrusion,
and with political warfare) as a defense to Russian grey zone global activities. What bull
shit! no wonder Americans cannot understand Article II Presidents or the USA endangering
Americans and their quality of life because the USA is involved in bombing, destructing and
aggressing activities. The groups that wrote this report have decided they should decide for
the American public, what the USA policy should be? I wonder what Americans would say about
that?
Is it true that "Americans need go no further than think tanks and intelligence services
supporting USA aggression in foreign lands, to find their enemies and to discover the cause
of why their lot has been reduced to forth world peon status? Who in America allowed groups
of the type that wrote this paper to decide, or even to think about deciding, for Americans
what the USA should be doing? Why is not "war for ever, even when there is no war" the
narrative debated by USA politicians competing to govern America? Governed Americans and
governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the personnel in Russian and USA
governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services with uniforms, lock the two
opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off the national debt of all of
the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out to the last man, woman and
paper tiger warrior.
Consider this fascinating assumption or projection => "Russia believes..there is no
unacceptable or illegitimate form of deterrence, compellence, or escalation
management(Goure).. [<= I cannot find in real life the continuum of conflict this group
talks about?]. Like Russia's perception of its competition with the USA, its perception of
conflict is dichotomous: one is either at war or not at war." I had no idea Russia could
believe anything? Apparently think tanks supporting the USA; think Russia can think, and
have concluded, as a result of their thoughts, that war exist, even when: there is no war? My
USA cat jumped over the starry moon, while his Russian cow chased earthly rats? The so-called
Russian grand (balance of powers) strategy vs whole of USA government liberal order
management of the international grey zone => compels and escalates the USA, sez the
report, to maintain a continuous state of war?
.. "Countering Russian provocations [<=competition maybe, but not provocation?] requires
all instruments of USA national power, they say?" <=note: as long as not on American soil
who cares?
Piotr seems to agree with Walter. The general principle seems to be "We'll know our
disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false"
(Casey/ Honneger) and of course everyone must recall Clapper complaining about the Russians
finding "fissures in our [US/CIA] tapestry" (one never hears the word "tapestry" in US
English except, generally,in the phrase "tapestry of lies"...unless one is involved with
curtains or one sort, or another...the term "Eiserner Vorhang" popularized by
Churchill...that's a tapestry, ain't it?
If their lips move, they lie, friend. And do not look behind the green tapestry at the
mighty Wurlitzer...
Well, snake, the thalassocratic rule of the Anglosaxon diaspora into forward operating base
(former republic) USA has evidently failed, and "they" now follow not the republic's laws,
but the ukase of Imperial method. They have no other methods.
This was also the reason for England to start WW1. German industry and Ruski resources
would (will/is/has) integrate(d) Heartland and create(d) a tellurocratic reality those Fine
fella's down at the shop cannot abide.
Think of this as a loose connecting rod in a chevy motor...you know what's going to
happen, but it's the only way to go...so you pretend it's ok...
If US intelligence agencies are asserting that Ukraine meddling in the US election was a
Russian operation, when in fact Ukraine did indeed heavily meddle in the elections, isn't
that treason by the US intelligence agency officials concerned?
" deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral College on the fraudulent grounds that a
technicality matters more really are..."
The US, formerly a Republic and remaining approximately Republican in institutional
appearances and out-side form, has never been a democracy. It was not intended to be, though
it had some democratic forms. ("Democracy" is without semantic value as it is used these
days.)
That's not a trivial technical characteristic. It was intentional and basic. It's the lay
of the Basic Law of the US since 1789 or so, and perhaps less so in the actual Basic Law c
1776...some claim the 1778 Law was not properly ratified...a sound argument once, eclipsed
entirely by long custom, custom being the basis of all Law (and some Ukase).
Of course nowadays it's not even a Republic, more like an animated zombie largely under
the incompetent control of several elite clubs, including foreign and also zionist and also
financial clubs, which are in constant turmoil...because these clubs are running out of
options.
When you are in a conflict set and run out of options, then you almost always lose...since
everybody can see what you must do, and they themselves make plans to counter yours.
In this undertaking the Ruskis and the Chinese have preeminence.
It's already over... Soon they will realize that, and make deals.
............
BM, fair question about the Big T. It depends on who writes the History, curtain-makers
or... At the present time Big T cannot exist, but...one may assume that the Russian
Historians and the Chinese Historians will say "Big-T".
"The legalistic assholes who want to deny majority rule under shelter of the Electoral
College on the fraudulent grounds that a technicality matters more really are against
majority rule."
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion
is not necessarily a correct opinion?
Other important aspect of the Ukrainegate, which leads all the way to the Syriagate, of
utmost importance for European security, since we are made aware that matters of security are
directly in the hands of people strange, or in the way to be strange, to European interests
and organzitions, keeping all European institutions hostage of the NATO military
alliance´s interests, and which differs from the main point it is given here, that
related to the meddling in US elections, as if that were what most matter...when it is the
other way around, that the USUK complex meddles in each adn every aspect of Euroepan life,
interests, prospects and security, underminig them all...
I did watch that film when it was linked at an article about the whole affair at the Unz
Review (now I think the Bitchute link is once again neutered). Before seeing this article I
was virtually ignorant of the Magnitisky affair, scumbag Browder, and the putative affair's
influence on American policy. Here is the UNz Review article, by Israel Shamir: http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/?highlight=Browder
(sorry if not doing link properly)
It's a long story, which Shamir tells pretty clearly.
Kurz um, the American public was denied the chance to evaluate Browder's claims themselves by
viewing the film. Truly, censorship at its most naked.
Bidder may be jumping on a bandwagon (and, I don't know what he actually writes!!) but Der
Spiegel is 150% MSM, toeing the American line in most respects. So I do think even this
headline is worth noting.
However, I have read a large portion of the Telepolis article and it should be read by
anyone interested in Browder/Magnitsky. It is really a case study of an incredibly successful
disinformation campaign. Which are only possible with active and passive collusion of many
state and nonstate actors and of course the MSM media.
(Also, it looks as though Telepolis has been following this story in other articles that call
out news organizations and EU entities for their complicity in pushing Browder's narrative
and ignoring many counter-signs. Including canceling and otherwise burying Nekrasov's
excellent film.)
Actually, the larger topic in light of the Russiagate and impeachment circuses being
"clash of the titans' disinformation campaigns."
oldhippie@25 The anecdotes about what the insiders kept secret is instructive. The gales of
laughter did nothing to impair Pipes' academic reputation, nor were they meant to, I imagine.
Being a respected academic means also being respected in government and in the media, which
Pipes was. Team B and all that
Walter's babble about a Republic instead of a democracy is reactionary cant. The
Constitution originally read that the electors would be in fact the electors, interposing
against a majority to elect a responsible candidate, one determined to preserve the ruling
class. In those times, that meant slavers, of course. But, in Washington's elections,
Hamilton, concerned to prevent an inadvertent tie, intrigued to make sure John Adams got
fewer electoral votes than the popular voting of the time required. Adams was irate. In
Adams' own election, Hamilton supposedly tried to get the electors to switch votes so that a
Pinckney of South Carolina was elected. (Adams was honest in pecuniary matters and rather
intelligent, but he was something of a dingbat, which piety about the "Founding Fathers"
refuses to admit.) Adams was even more furious. And Jefferson made political capital,
swearing to all that his party's electors would vote the people's will. They did, and
promptly created a constitutional crisis when Jefferson and Burr tied, throwing the election
into the House. The intrigues aimed at overturning the people's will provoked talk of another
revolution or the break up of the union.
The principle that electors are not agents to actually elect the president but mere cogs
was established. It was affirmed by the incandescent fury of the Jacksonians at J.Q. Adams.
And it was further confirmed when the contested election of 1876 again was loud with talk
about uprisings. It was only the obscene withdrawal of troops from the South, protecting the
Klan etc., that pacified the uproar. It was not until the political degeneration of the later
years which lead the coward Gore to roll over. As mere agents of the popular vote, yes, the
EC is a mere technicality. My guess is that Walter personally would sneer at a criminal
defendant who relied on a technicality about their rights to get an acquittal. But the other
Walters want to use a technicality to take away people's rights. Then they are so shameless
as to pretend to virtue and wisdom.
As for the notion that the Electoral College is the enemy of the people's rights, instead
of the states' right? In this thread there are idiots ranting about treason because of email
server. If you want to see treason, look at the history of the Confederate States of America.
That's treason. We have a national government, it's part of the constitution (14th Amendment
is otherwise gibberish.) Thus, the Electoral College as a treaty compact between "sovereign"
(semi-sovereign is not really a thing!) is also dead. The EC is just a technicality. Walter
would implicitly have us believe that if the electors just picked someone else through
conspiracy among themselves, then the President chosen would be the President because that's
the Constitution, and that's just the way it is. Electors keeping faith with the people
instead of their parties would have voted for the person who won the vote. And Walter
wouldn't accept the result, no matter how much it followed the Constitution (which it would
have!) because reactionary scum like Walter are always liars.
Ant. seems to think the minority of the good people should overrule the common peoples,
aka the mob. It is doubtful Ant. would know the good people if they were in the same room.
The assumption that Ant. is one of the good people is simply slavish adoration. Also, the
only real meaning to "mob" is "collective noun for people rioting." An election is not a
riot. This is slander by some whose rancid contempt for humanity at large should be directed
first at Ant.
V. Putin said that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but... American journalists, of course,
are aware that this statement is unfounded, and, of course, is Russian disinformation.
Because V. Putin said this.
You seem to advocating the concept of mob rule. Do you understand that a popular opinion is
not necessarily a correct opinion?
Gee! And here I was under the impression that THE MAJORITY of the people equals democracy.
But because most Americans are nuts, Amerikkka, would be the exception to that rule.
By the same token, pretending the Electoral College equals democracy is also legitimizing
the fact that a few married cousin crazies and evangelized bible thumpers from sparsely
populated hicktowns and rednecks, and pretend gentry from the Confederacy have equal
representation to the most populated states in the Union.
Let me though make a precise evaluation: Crazytown U.S.A. imposed karma Trump on the
majority, because a big part of that majority betrayed liberal anti-war values to neoliberal
peace equals war Nobel drone Obama and neoliberal hawk Killary cackling like a shrew
at the Al-Qaeda gang slaughter of Gaddafi.
Now, Amerikka has a ZioCon for President that pardons and glorifies war criminals, that
arms a proxy war committing starvation genocide, that steals oil resources from Syria, that
wields economic tyranny against Venezuela and Iran for the purpose of regime change and
control of foreign energy riches, that is meddling in Lebannon, Iraq and Latin American
countries usurping the will of people, and who gives away territory in Syria and Palestine to
Zionists not to mention his fascist takeover of the Judiciary and and total ignorance of the
climate change threat.
So even though you're totally wrong on what democracy is, it doesn't matter, because
Amerikkka's majority is getting exactly what it deserves for having betrayed and surrendered
liberal values to Neocons like GWBush, Neolibs like Killary and all in service to Zionism and
Zionists like Kissinger and billionaires like Saban and Adelson and the corporate sheisters
on Wall Street.
Very few Americans have a mind of their own raised on the Zionist corporate media alphabet
soup that scrambles the brain. So you're right, the majority, deserve the Trump karma imposed
on them by the lowest crazy common denominator in Amerikkkan society promoted by the
Electoral College and who are the most useful idiots of Zionist supremacy.
And then everyone wonders about the growing desperation manifested by mass tent cities,
mass opiod consumption and mass incarceration. Amerikka is occupied and Trump is the enforcer
of the occupier.
Now try and find a more precise observation of the truth.
America is an insane asylum that masquerades as the "world's leading democracy."
This country is truly unhinged and lives in its own Orwellian reality. The
Ukraine/impeachment issue is only symptomatic of this broader pathology.
For the USA, it doesn't make a difference what actual reality is. What matters is that
America defines what counts as reality itself--not matter how ludicrous or fake it is.
As a former high-level Bush Regime openly admitted in an interview with journalist Ron
Suskind:
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're
studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new
realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's
actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This American mentality is most evident in the USA's sociocidal wars of aggression around
the world and the lies that America peddles to pimp for its wars--as well as its political
balkanization, regime change, or destabilization campaigns that it dresses up
as"pro-Democracy"(TM) movements:
Mythical Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq
The fake War on Terrorism
The bogus War on Drugs
Humanitarian Intervention, or the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine
Freedom and Democracy
All-American Lies....
Americans truly are the people of the Big Lie.
There should be a Cordon Sanitaire placed around the United States (and its crime
partners/allies) to prevent this American plague from infecting the rest of the word.
@54 snake "Governed Americans and governed Russians should build a stadium, outfit the
personnel in Russian and USA governments, their think tanks and their intelligence services
with uniforms, lock the two opposed teams in the stadium, and sell the TV rights to pay off
the national debt of all of the nations of the world as these two teams as they fight it out
to the last man, woman and paper tiger warrior."
That's awesome! I was just listening to Devo's 1981 New Traditionalists album the other
day, and while I put it on to listen to "Beautiful World" ("It's a beautiful world, for
you...not me!"), the following song is "Enough Said" and these are the great lyrics:
"Take all the leaders from around the world
Put them together in a great big ring
Televise it as the lowest show on earth
And let them fight like hell to see who's king
Gather up the pieces when the fight is done
Then you'll find out living really can be fun
Enough said!"
You can find in youtube - too apropos to not share.
Jackrabbit 6
"took the black vote for granted"
So very true. Team HRC must have thought they could flip states like Pennsylvania by taking
the cities just like BHO did. Instead the states "deplorables" were dismissed. BHO did the
same but he had the cities in his pocket. But in today's PC hypocrisy, you can't point to
race as being a major factor.
psychohistorian 7
These NGOs and other organizations have an added influence on our politics. For some reason
the MSM doesn't mention them much. It's like the White Helmets. Search for their history at
YouTube and you get the official obfuscation. But toss in Purpose and AVAAZ and you find
more.
@ STJ #63> who wrote, inter alia> "reactionary scum like Walter are always liars." et
sec
Many thanks, Friend. As no doubt all here are well-aware, the resort to ad hominem occurs
when the speaker has no actual argument.
I am obliged. Glad you agree with Walter, and also very glad you do not like that...your
inner-conflict may be part of the dialectic. I hope it works out for you, Steve.
see, if you like, McHenry,"The American Historical Review", vol. 11, 1906 p 618
Here's another bull's eye observation: it's more efficient and cunning to manipulate through
social media tech-savvy means and other localized machinations the really susceptible, dumb,
but important groups in swing states made powerful by the Electoral College than to tackle
the opinion of the urban majority with a few critical articles and the appearance of a
pay-off ledger. Besides, the entirety of Europe was critical of candidate Trump. The
criticism of Trump was not specfic to Ukraine alone. So either the meddling was based on a
vast conspiracy of criticism or it was based on a campaign of targeted populist propaganda
directed at the right and working class together with a perfectly-timed leak that the DNC was
sabotaging Sanders cleverly meant to turn part of the left base against the Dem Party. I say
the latter.
Now don't try to convince me that Ukraine would meddle to turn the left base of the
Democratic side against Hillary when Ukraine preferred her. That logic just don't fly.
The question to ask is. Who had the unlimited financial resources, political connections
and tech savvy to pull the meddling off? I'll give you some clues: it's the usual suspect,
starts with Z and it's mostly based in Israel, the U.S. AND in the Russian oligarchy.
Trump is the Chosen Zionist President and there's nothing more to look at here. The
Ukraine and Russia factors are superfluous and moot to that over-arching FACT.
The most important thing is to learn to read and write.
Rhetoric and logic are important to follow after.
The basis of my comment is that I am currently reading Frederick Law Olmstead's The Cotton
Kingdom.
Fascinating. Unvarnished look at the antebellum South. There was a lot of variation among
states and communities. but the basics remain the same (he covers a very wide territory, both
geog. and intellectually and makes very detailed observations of all that he
encountered).
A huge factor (per FLO) in the mental, psychological, intellectual, economic etc
impoverishment of the South was a lack of any cultural institutions, people lived too far
apart to hire any kind of teachers, of course the slaves were virtually all of them also
uneducated. but in, say, South Caroline 25% of the whites also could not read or write or do
elementary sums.
As adults we all have the responsibility to (continue to) educate ourselves. I get nervous
when I hear people putting a pox on education per se. There are no guarantees when human
beings invent or are given various types of tools. Trying to win the argument by withholding
the provision or preventing the acquisition of tools sounds akin to considering people
"uppity" for using the intellectual tools they possess.
@uncle tungsten | Nov 24 2019 11:58 utc | 44 (the email affair and server)
Assume that the Bruce-Partington Submarine plans (Y'all know yer Holmes?) are under
control of Billary Jones, a senior official in an Imperial State. Billary needs money and has
guilty secrets. He's being blackmailed by Oberstein, a spy.
Jones then accidentally leaves the plans where Oberstein sees and photographs them.
Hi there Stevie...conflict is debilitating, eh? Find the Franklin quote yet? He was there,
and you? But I assume you haven't even realized it wuz Bennie F. Best o' luck.
(apologies to Conan Doyle)
69 Shmoe
Sorry about link not working. Esp since it was so long.
I usually activiate Google translate from a Google hit. But
I think you can also activate Google translate from the original webpage. This link pasted
into a new window (the URL space) did get me to the translation: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
">https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search">https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Browder-und-das-Magnitski-Narrativ-Ende-einer-Desinformationskampagne-4595245.html&prev=search
In case that still does not work, type the title into your browser and then "translate."
If you use Google you should get a hit that shows the German title with "translate this page"
to the right.
Here is the title:
"Browder und das Magnitski-Narrativ: Ende einer Desinformationskampagne?"
Another way is to type "Google Translate German to English" into your browser. You get a
page with a box for German text on the left and English translation on the right.
There are 99 comments so far and a few posters are scratching their heads about what Der
Spiegel is up to with this apparent 180. So it might be interesting to paste a few of them
into Google translate. Here is one:
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
Google translate does make mistakes, beware. A typo can lead to absurdity.
Oh, and one more salient, obvious fact in the form of a question: Why would the biggest and
worst Neocon, Zionist shill in Congress, Lindsey Graham risk his dignity to such an extreme
to rescue Trump's ass if Trump were not the Chosen Zionist President??? ... I'm waiting...10,
9, 8...
Lindsey is the barometer of who and what Zionists want and because they want Trump over
Biden, Lindsey is now at war with his former Dem friend. Lindsey's a loyal subject of Zionism
that butters his bread and that's why he'll do anything to protect Trump.
Amazing really. Back some 3-4 years ago, the wiley Russians looked into the future to
understand that they needed to blame the Ukrainians for interfering in the election. They
predicted that deep state actors would reveal that Trump would in fact strong arm the
Ukrainians into revealing dirt on Joe Biden.
As for the teaching of classical Rhetoric and Logic. Absolutely. Give people the tools to
understand arguments and their validity. One of the best books I had and which I stupidly
lost was a compendium of rhetorical devices as labeled in the original Latin and Greek by
drunk monks of the Medieval Europe. It was just amazing how these rhetoricians drew up a
taxology of the various techniques and tropes--from honest to dishonest. A great toolkit.
"What is going on at the mirror (Spiegel)? Since the well-established narrative has been
cultivated about the mean Russians since the founding and has been shown to 100%
transatlantic loyalty, now suddenly something like that. Is this just an accidental slip of
reason or is there more behind it?"
@ Erelis | Nov 24 2019 19:32 utc | 79 There was once a defrocked Jesuit (with tenure at a
major university) who taught sodomy to the choir and rhetoric to his friends and those whom
he thought might be. He also favored snow... But...as you say, the original Latin and Greek.
A good man, but a pervert, and not a pederast. I liked the guy, and he knew his subject, ah,
the academic subject, to near perfection. He wrote speeches on the side for major political
figures, for cash. Thus in part did my own inability to suspend disbelief become cemented.
For money? Good thing they caught him...oh yeah, his popness also runs a cash an' carry,
don't he? Well, somebody said... (Like Martin Luther?)
Anyway the reason to study rhetoric is that it shall be used against you. Knowing the
Science and Art is your only safe defense, your only warning of true intent by rhetorical
analysis and logical deduction matching real events and actions. Without Rhetoric you are a
chump, a mark, a fool, and like sheep. Ewe! (haha) With it you can form reasoned ideas about
the future intention of any speaker. This may be useful.
The first test (since 2014) of any expert's credentials is his/her position on Crimea. The
next test is on Russian aggression.
If anyone suggests Crimea does not belong to Russia (most especially the federal district of
Sevastopol), then they are ignorant or lying.
Posted by: Red Ryder | Nov 23 2019 19:53 utc
I think that Red Rider is wrong here, starting from assumptions. One assumption is that
rather than status quo 1-5 years before the time we are making a judgment, we should look
back ca. 200 years etc. That could imply that India should belong to United Kingdom,
subsequent treaties notwithstanding.
Even more wrong is the hidden assumption that there should be some general principles that
guide "us" as to who owns what (they actually exist but wait) that hold regardless of
"Washington consensus". Perhaps using lower case in "us" was misleading. History explains the
ethnic and linguistic composition of Crimea etc. but really, everybody agrees the it is not
the only determinant. But let us consider some cases:
Annexation of Tuva and Sikkim. Somehow, nobody cares.
De-facto annexation of North Cyprus which now operates as a quasi-independent state fully
dependent on Turkey. Locals and Turks are satisfied, the rest of NATO and perhaps UN does not
recognize legality, but apart of Greek speaking countries, nobody makes a big deal out of it.
Sanctions? Hehe.
Annexation of Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Universal mild disapproval, except for USA
-- wholehearted approval there.
Crimea. Total need to apply severe sanction forever to maintain faith in "our"
principles.
Cynthia Chung invaded my brain and wrote the short essay that's been on the tip of my tongue
for some months now, "On
Churchill's 'Sinews of Peace'" . Within its body is linked two extremely important items,
the first being Elliott Roosevelt's book about his father Franklin As He Saw It (available limited
preview at link), and the second being an excerpt from that book of paramount
importance .
The more well known name of Churchill's "Sinews of Peace" speech is "The Iron Curtain
Speech" given at Fulton, Missouri on 5 March 1946, not quite 11 months after FDR's passing.
Here is the opening appetizer from that speech Chung bases the rest of her essay upon:
"This threatening message was not only meant for the Soviets, but was also directed to the
Americans and in between the lines Churchill stated ' Things are going to be very
different from now on. Your dead president cannot protect you any longer .' Some may be
surprised to hear such an aside comment, more likened to the outer ruminations of
Shakespeare's Iago." [My Emphasis]
Things did immediately become different. I consistently point out that the Evil Outlaw US
Empire immediately began violating the UN Charter and thus its own Constitution and Law of
the Land upon its coming into force; however, what I've neglected to point out until now is
that the UK also began violating it just as immediately as did France, although neither has
anything similar to the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause that might be used to curb illegal
behavior. I often point to historical What Ifs? as in this case regarding the coup made
against Henry Wallace, FDR, and the wholesale overturning of the reasons given for waging the
war and winning the peace. Ms. Chung does an excellent job of highlighting what those were,
how they were smashed, and why. I really can't stress the great importance of her essay
enough; its educational importance is second to none! Read it, save it, make sure its read by
your entire family, take it to your kid's teachers, share it with everyone you know and those
you don't. The only people I can conceive of who wouldn't want to know its contents are
racists/imperialists--dare I say fascists--like Churchill. Three generations of people were
subjected to a geopolitical power play that never should have occurred--the deaths,
destruction, and wasted opportunities likely total in the Quadrillions of Dollars. I must
admit some admiration for Chung's an optimist as she clearly shows in her conclusion; my
adding it here in no way diminishes her essay's power and importance:
"The intended policies by Franklin D. Roosevelt for the post war world are still waiting
to be implemented today.
"So what can we the people do about this? We can wake up to the fact that this has
occurred and recognise that the mainstream presentation of world dichotomy today is just
continuing this sickly narrative. That Russia and China are not some monstrous race and that
we should weigh what is currently being offered as an olive branch with great and serious
reflection. That is namely the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road which also
applies immensely to the US.
"Let us not continue to remain shackled in despair and inaction but rather realise that
there is a great opportunity still for the Century of the Common Man."
Walter confirms being a liar when paragraphs of argument are miscalled "inter alia," then
ignored. The snide insult by the way functions as a fallacious ad hominem, doubly confirms
thatif Walter knows rhetoric, then Walter is doubly a liar. Last and least citing a 1906
volume of American Historical Review to someone who doesn't have university library access is
a snob's rudeness. I'm defeated by the puzzle of what Walter thinks Walter has to be snobby
about. A collection of American Historical Review isn't exactly nothing, but to get snobby
over it? Really?
"... "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." ..."
"... Neocons resurrect tribal memories to fan the flames ..."
"... Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater. ..."
"... Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to. ..."
"... Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from), George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with exiles: ..."
"... Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100 politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy. ..."
"... This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually care about Atlantis. ..."
"... I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in the pay of foreign powers? ..."
"... Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of her campaign. ..."
"... Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests loom large. ..."
"... A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German invasion was an opportunity to settle scores. ..."
"... I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If "Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted. ..."
"... Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland, is a descendant. ..."
"... After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN. ..."
"... The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was Poland and the Jews. ..."
"... Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy? ..."
"... Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy. ..."
"... As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US politics. ..."
"... the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been unsuccessfully tried for centuries. ..."
"... The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended) and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland. ..."
"... I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits. ..."
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia." That aligns more readily with
neocons' (and their oligarch supporters') psychopathic obsession with power and control via
the state. Giraldi also illustrates another more recent period in history when the neocons
were not decidedly anti-Russian:
In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly
Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the
resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms
about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think
tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal
goal of his government to turn off the money tap.
There was no monolithic 'Jewish Oligarch' club cashing in on Yeltsin's Russia. In the
broadest sense, the western neocon-friendly Russian-Jewish oligarch group(s) were booted out
by Putin, while rival group(s) stayed in Russia and submitted to Putin's reforms (whatever
that means). Saker has written in the past about the various Jewish oligarch factions in
Russia. It's complicated and beyond me.
Israel Shamir attempts to untangle the contradictory views on Ukraine from the State of
Israel, Ukrainian-Jewish oligarchs, neocons and Jews from the US, Ukraine and Russia:
Summary: 'Tribal' oversimplifies - no unified opinion. It's complicated. Mr. Shamir's
views seem reasonable and go a long way to explaining the contradictions to me.
Giraldi suggests, "...it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are
merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia."
I have a great deal of respect for Phil Giraldi but he is wrong here--it has nothing to do
with "Bolshevism", whatever that means in the American context, but with settling accounts
with 1930s purges of largely, not exclusively, Jewish Trotskists from the party and a
consistent anti-Zionist position of USSR till the every end. Now, with Russia effectively
de-fanging Israel, they go apoplectic. Modern neocons have zero relation to Bolshevism and if
they dream about anything--it is mostly have Russia gone as such.
''A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. .... Or, do
these people see Russia as a plausible geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as
simple, or simpleminded as that.''
Jews have next to zero political control in Russia and I do think that the Zionist see
Russia, as the only other superpower, as a hindrance to their aims for one thing.
Also any state where Jews 'lost out' is subject to vilification and branded as evil.
Imo Vindman's testimony revealed a 'personal' grudge against Russia. Hill also
displayed a 'obsession' with Russia imo..... its interesting her Russian instructor at
Harvard was Richard Pipes, the supreme Russian hater.
As for the non Jewish Neos what would they do without a big scary enemy to fight?...they
might have to actually concentrate on doing things for America.
If anyone is interested here is a nice tool for following congressional bills and etc..
Mostly good for counting all the money they are giving away and the sanctions on countries
they are demanding....they aren't doing much of anything else in congress if you don't count
the kangaroo court circus.
How odd on PBS tonight - 'Secrets of Her Majesty's Secret Service" - an inside look at the
worlds only defense against Russia -a love letter to M16 and it nearly 100 year "special
relationship" with the US and CIA.
What strange timing for such a calculated PR piece for an extremely publicity shy Five
Eyes operation. Were they trying to get ahead of the coming Russiagate investigation reports
with this engaging documentary - we are in fact the James Bonds of the world and we know you
Americans love James Bond.
Anyone else see it or have I gotten aa sinister cabal derangement syndrome behind even PBS
"friendly" documentaries?
"A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia" Perhaps you should consider the influence of Ukrainian emigre groups/lobbies. They are
essentialy an extension of the Galician movement you refer to.
" Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals?" What's the evidence for this
persecution?
Essentially, when both 2 persons as contrary to each other as George Washington and
Niccolo Machiavelli agree on something, it behoves one well to listen.
Machiavelli warned repeatedly of the baleful results that listening to exiles gets you
into (specifically concerning attempts to reinstate some exiles in the place they came from),
George Washingtons farewell adress can be read in a similiar way. Here is the thing with
exiles:
Lets pretend that Atlantis exists, but 98% of Americans do not particularly care
about this country. Now something happens there that genereates exiles. If those exiles are
at least somewhat savy, they will passionately argue that the current atlantean government
is pure evil. Other then that, they will strive to make themselfs usefull to the host
nation. Now, lets pretend that you have 5 such atlantean exiles in a group of 100
politicians. The atlantean exiles would care primarily about condeming the atlantean
government, and may be in a position to deliver political points in other areas to anyone
who is asking. A normal "I dont care about Atlantis" politican will see a fairly simple
cost benefit thing, I condemn Atlantis, something about which I do not care at all, and in
return the exiles will back something I care about, like my health policy.
This is by no means a rapid development, but give it a couple of decades and the
exchange of many such small favors will essentially result in a large group of politicians
who will underwrite things like "Atlantis delenda est", mostly because they dont actually
care about Atlantis.
This is not a specifically US thing at all. My understanding is that Russias WW1 decision
to back Serbia was considerably influenced by a group of ethnically serbian/Montenegrin
advisors (who, one has to say were otherwise loyal to Russia, and had fought with distinction
in the Tsars wars, shedding their blood for Russia).
I don't know why this campaign against Russia was launched but at least part of it was
domestic political pressure from Clinton Dems towards Trump Reps. What better way to deflect
criticism about the foreign influences on the Clinton Dems (massive bribes from the usual
suspects, either direct or via the Clinton Fdn.) but by accusing your opponent of being in
the pay of foreign powers?
Hillary Clinton shrieking about "Russia Wikileaks" seems to me to be pure projection
and also rationalising a cause for her defeat other than the incompetence and corruption of
her campaign.
Also it seems to me that the Russian defeat of the regime change op in Syria (altho the
situation seems rather fluid at the moment...) is another motivation where Israel's interests
loom large.
It also seems to me to be stunningly stupid to have thrown away any potential alliance
with Russia in favor of promoting Wahabist scum. And forcing Russia into the arms of the
Chinese instead of recruiting them into the containment cordon.
Anyway, speaking as a denizen of Plato's cave, without direct knowledge of the reality of
the thing it's mostly educated guesses on my part...
A grandfather and great grandfather were in a Union regiment but that hardly is proof that
I am a Union man. Unusual family demographics to be sure but even then those Ukrainians
served in that SS unit over 70 years ago. I doubt they were even then motivated by National
Socialist ideology. Hatred of Russians was likely the primary motivation, as now. The German
invasion was an opportunity to settle scores.
I understand the hatred but not the application of "Nazi" to any Ukrainian thinking. If
"Nazi" merely connotes "thuggish" then perhaps that explains the Azov formations but I
suspect much more is at work. Additional inquiry is warranted.
Many of those in the Ukrainian SS units ended up in Canada after WW2, resulting in the
very pro Ukranian actions of the Canadian Government post 2014. Their FM, Christina Freeland,
is a descendant.
Folks like Freeland openly credit her SS grandfather for her ideology. When speaking in
public, she does then to conveniently omit his services to the national Socialist state.
Try Stephan Bandera, he was as bad of a figure as what the Russians accused him of being.
Bandera's legacy was that of a Nazi sympathizer and a real nut case too boot. He was one sick
twisted individual.
After the fall of the Former Soviet Union in 1991, saw a resurgence of the OUN.
These Russian hating individuals that composed the far-right Nazi resurgence in the Ukraine
government, started terrifying the Russian enclaves in the Crimea, and those enclaves in turn
called on their fellow Russian brothers in Russia for help, to which Putin and the Russian
military came to their aid and the annexation of the Crimea by Russia took place so as to
protect the Russian enclaves from further persecution by the Banderites. Bandera posters
became more and more prevalent. The Euromaidan protests turned more and more violent, the
wolfsangel that was formerly a symbol of the SS but was now taken up by the Azov Battalion
and other militias, the old OUN war cry of "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes" that was
now ubiquitous among anti-Yanukovych protesters.
Here's some further reading regarding Stephan Bandera:
The Ukrainian Nazi formations and political factions openly call themselves Nazis. For
that matter, everyone else called them Nazis too, at least before they became useful to the
neocons. I'll spare everyone an explanation of Ukrainian diaspora culture, but I will say
that, before WWII, the principal Ukrainian nationalist folk devil wasn't Russia. It was
Poland and the Jews.
That's a very interesting write up at Zerohedge. I believe we discussed the same conduct,
though not the depth of corruption of US politicians, here while that was happening. The borg
are starting to panic with the threat of a real investigation.
Thank you for the posting and thank all for the comments.
Some of us out here in The Middle can't really understand any of the behaviors of those
good and not-so-good Swamp dwellers (any more than we can understand the behaviors of the La
La Land Californian politicians.
I understand more about the issues involving our relationship with Ukraine by reading this
post and comments than I ever would have been able to since I simply don't have time to get
large books and many detailed published papers to read.
Could the anti Russia bias be as simple as the need to protect the empires of people in
State and Defence etc that would be no longer needed if Russia was a 'good' guy?
The US's 'independent' multi-national force NATO would clearly no longer be needed, so
many years after the Warsaw Pact dissolved. Whilst the US 'occupation' forces all over the
place, but especially in Europe, could return home to the US.
Then there is the MIC and the lobbying flows of money into Congress.Russia is far too
important to too many insiders to be anything but an enemy.
Indeed, its boom time as China related structures are expanding in parallel rather than
replacing those directed at Russia.
As pointed out earlier - the military industrial complex needs a Big Enemy to justify its
exorbitant budgets. The Deep State, the Borg, the Blob, whatever you want to call it, needs a
Big Enemy to justify its spying and increasingly blatant interference in domestic US
politics.
There are too many business ties with China, and our supply chains reach too deeply into
that country, for it to serve as a Big Enemy without causing serious disruption.
the reasons for the agreed upon antipathy towards Russia is imo not the actual reason for the
hostilities that have existed for at least the last 100 years and actually much longer.
the Russian nation is greatly under populated and owns a staggering per cent of the
planets natural resources of every description. envy by those look from the outside towards
russia is alone sufficient justification for wanting to grab it for themselves as has been
unsuccessfully tried for centuries.
why complicate matters when simple greed answers so many of the questions asked about WHY
the west hates russia.
The irony, of course, is that in Jewish folk memory, the most pig-headed (pun intended)
and virulent anti-Semites were the peasants of Galicia (western Ukraine) and Poland.
I also share your bafflement and not just with the political positions of the likes of
Victoria Nuland. What do US & UK hope to gain? I can't see any benefits.
The U.S. Pentagon and State Department have devised plans to supply Ukraine with antitank
missiles and other weaponry and are seeking White House approval, U.S. officials said, as
Kiev battles Russia-backed separatists and ties between Moscow and Washington fray.
American military officials and diplomats say the arms, which they characterized as
defensive, are meant to deter aggressive actions by Moscow, which the U.S. and others say has
provided tanks and other sophisticated armaments as well as military advisers to rebels
fighting the Kiev government.
Arming Ukraine remains a bad, foolish idea for all the reasons I have given before.
Advocates of sending weapons say that it will serve as a deterrent, but it will almost
certainly be perceived as a provocation by Moscow and could easily serve as a pretext for more
aggressive behavior from Russia and its proxies. Ukraine will not be made more secure by doing
this, and the U.S. has no obligation to help defend Ukraine in any case, but the bigger problem
with the proposal is that it has nothing to do with promoting U.S. or allied security. Some of
our most important European allies, including Germany and France, understand this, and have
opposed the same idea in the past.
Sending more weapons into Ukraine risks reigniting and escalating the conflict at the same
time that it deepens U.S. involvement in it. It would antagonize Russia while further
entangling the U.S. in a conflict in which we have no vital interests. If Russia responds in
kind or with an even more aggressive response, the U.S. can't credibly threaten to counter them
because Ukraine will always matter far more to them than it does to us. The White House should
reject the latest misguided proposal to send arms to Ukraine.
P.S. Leonid Bershidsky
spells out why sending weapons to Ukraine is also unnecessary:
Two years after both sides have largely kept to existing demarcation lines (minor
encroachments aside), it is militarily unnecessary to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons
unless the U.S. wants to encourage it to try to reclaim the "people's republics." That would
be a mistake. Though Russia doesn't have enough resources to take over and hold Ukraine while
still staying on the lookout for other military threats, it has plenty of money, firepower
and determination to defend the separatist statelets.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC , where he
also keeps a solo blog . He has been published in the New
York Times Book Review , Dallas Morning News , World Politics Review ,
Politico Magazine , Orthodox Life , Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and
Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week . He holds a PhD in history from the
University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter . email
'Did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything that resembled a quid pro quo?'
Former envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker: 'No.'
Devin Nunes to Tim Morrison, former NSC official: 'Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or
extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?'
'No.'
This follows the responses of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to the question of
whether he was offered a quid pro quo: US aid in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden's
corrupt dealings with the natural gas company Burisma: 'No.'
Ditto Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union: was there a quid pro quo: 'No.'
(Sondland's testimony has just begun at the time of writing: rest assured it will be more of
the same.)
Last week's hearings were preposterous, a disaster for the Democrats. This week's hearings
are shaping up to be even worse news for the partisans of the Adam Schiff Show.
Remember that old hippie slogan, ' suppose they gave a war
and nobody came? ' It's been updated and applied not to international conflicts but
partisan intramural sniping: suppose they gave a hearing and nobody came?
For that's the truth of the matter. The ratings for this reality TV show are in the tank.
During Watergate, during the Clinton impeachment, people were glued to the news. Now, despite
the screaming CNN chyrons, anti-Trump Washington Post and New York Times sermons,
nobody cares.
The Adam Schiff Show is playing to itself. Even the president has realized that it is 98.6
percent farce, 1.4 percent menace. Hence his little taunts. Some Dems say
Trump should testify , assuming the 'offer' will be brusquely ignored. But Trump calls
their bluff: 'Even though I did nothing wrong,' the president tweeted , 'and
don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order
to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!'
That was the last you'll hear about asking Trump to testify.
And now there are reports that Trump is actively supporting impeachment. You read
that right: 'The impeachment hearings have been thrown into chaos after President Trump
announced that he supports impeachment, forcing Democrats to oppose their own impeachment
inquiry.'
OK, that last is from the
Babylon Bee , a source that is only marginally more reliable than The New York
Times.
It is a mark of the way we live now that articles in the Babylon Bee are often
indistinguishable in terms of their credibility from articles in the supposedly mainstream
media.
The Adam Schiff Show's star witness yesterday was the pathetic Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman --
and that's
Lt. Col. not 'Mr', buddy, and don't you forget it!
Some news reports say that his testimony provided nuggets for the Dems as well as
exculpatory statements for Republicans. For example, the Lt. Col. said that he thought that
Trump's request that President Zelensky investigation local corruption was 'an implied "demand"
because of the "power disparity" between the two leaders.'
So its's come to this. Lt. Col. Vindman testified that the public transcript of the July
call between President Trump and President Zelensky was accurate; he confirmed that US aid was
being held up not because of a quid pro quo but because of an OMB review to be sure its was
consistent with administration policies; he confirmed, too, that he saw no evidence of
bribery.
And this was Adam Schiff Show's 'star witness', the modern major general -- well, Lt. Col.
-- who was going to drop the bombshell that would galvanize the Democratic case for
impeachment.
Not hardly.
But mention of 'bribery' reminds me of a fact that has been little remarked. Like many
organizations, the Adam Schiff Show has begun distributing pocket editions of the US
Constitution. There are some novelties about it, however. For example, in Article II, Section
4, most editions read:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high
Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
The Adam Schiff Show version is more capacious:
'The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be
removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, Mean Tweets,
Policies we do not approve of, Rogue Telephone Calls, being Elected without Our Permission, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'
I do not write in jest. You may not be able to find printed copies of the Adam Schiff Show
Constitution (including the Declaration of Dependency), but my transcription of the bit about
impeachment is an accurate transcription of the sentiment that informs it.
Lt. Col. Vindman loves his uniform -- all those medals and embroidery -- and he thought that
Donald Trump was contravening the policies endorsed by the National Security Council. That is
the essence of his complaint.
But that is just too bad for the Lt. Col. He does not set the policies. The president of the
United States does.
The president of the United States, it pains me to inform Lt. Col. Vindman, is Donald J.
Trump. He may not like that. He may think Donald is crude or wrong or ill-informed or out of
touch. That doesn't matter. He is the president. Lt. Col. Vindman's job is to carry out the
policies formulated by the president, to offer advice and counsel when asked, and otherwise to
get with the program or get out of government.
An unanswered question is why the Democrats are proceeding with this destructive farce, so
damaging to the authority of Congress and the national interest. Apart from the news rooms of
the anti-Trump press and the activist cells of 'The Resistance', it has become increasingly
clear over the past week that most of the country is either uninterested in the hearings or
actively hostile to the patent effort to smear a duly elected president.
It has been clear from the outset that the impeachment hearings are a desperate reprise of
the Russian Collusion Hoax -- an effort to stymie, distract, hamper, and ultimately to destroy
a political rival of whom the Democrats and the NeverTrump Right does not approve.
But in weaponizing the threat of impeachment -- an instrument of last resort intended by the
Founders to be a safety check against the most serious sorts of malfeasance -- by deploying
impeachment for nakedly partisan purposes because the president may (but on the evidence did
not) say something which, if interpreted with sufficient malice and hermeneutical ingenuity,
might just be construed to hint at a possibly (but probably not) inappropriate request for a
favor -- to deploy the awesome machinery of impeachment and spark such 'mighty contests from
trivial things' is a disgusting abuse of power and betrayal of the public trust.
The people understand this. Adam Schiff, drunk on his new-found celebrity and (quite
temporary) fund-raising prowess has so far failed to take it on board. The reckoning, however,
is just around the corner. The White House has slyly signaled its glee about how the farcical
impeachment hearings are proceeding. If he took his duties as a public servant to heart, Adam
Schiff would understand the peril he has brought upon his party and the disservice he has done
the country by transforming his tenure in Congress into a partisan freak show.
'If'. Well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The Adam Schiff Show is falling apart
before our eyes. Like a television franchise that has jumped the shark, the Democrats thought
they could transform this tawdry revenge fantasy into reality. It isn't working. The
interesting next episode will be all about damage control. How exactly the Democrats will move
to extricate themselves from this ill-advised plot is yet to be seen. But I predict that by the
New Year the impeachment frenzy of 2019 will be consigned to the rancid attic of misbegotten
partisan schemes. No Democrat will want to be reminded of it and poor Adam Schiff will take his
mad stare to those out-of-the-way, depopulated venues where embarrassing politicians go while
waiting to be swallowed up by oblivion.
Russian officials said Saturday that the U.S. decision to supply Ukraine with lethal weapons to
combat Russian-backed separatists will cause new bloodshed, as long-standing tensions between Washington and Moscow
escalated over the four-year-old conflict.
Moscow's admonition came shortly after the State Department announced Friday evening that the
United States will provide heavy armaments to Ukraine for the first time, a step up from the support equipment and
training offered so far. A statement by spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the weapons were defensive in nature, "as
part of our effort to help Ukraine build its long-term defense capacity, to defend its sovereignty and territorial
integrity, and to deter further aggression."
On Wednesday, Washington said it had approved an export license allowing the sale of light
weapons and small arms to Ukraine from commercial U.S. manufacturers.
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types zerohedge ..."
"... Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU." This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by neo-Nazis? ..."
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup
in Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in
the case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then .
Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types zerohedge
-----------------
Victoria Nuland is reported to have been overheard to say on a cell phone - "Fuck the EU."
This was evidently a response to European attempts to head off a coup by West Ukrainian sons
and grandsons of Galicians (west Ukrainians) who fought with Nazi Germany against the USSR in
WW2. Actually there was a Galician division (a lot of Galicians) in the Waffen SS. Some might
think that was not such a bad thing in itself but does the world really need a Ukraine run by
neo-Nazis?
There is the awkward issue of the Donbas industrial region in east Ukraine. The people there
are mostly Orthodox Christians in contrast to the Galicians who claim to be my
co-coreligionists in the embrace of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Well, they are
demographically that at least. The east Ukrainians prefer Russia, poor fools. The extent of
Russian government intervention in the east is unclear to me. It is likely that it extends to
equipment, ammunition and training, at least that.
A question for me is the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and
neocons toward Russia. There are a lot of Jews scattered among these groups. Is it a group
memory of Tsarist pograms that eats at them? Israel does not seem to have a special problem
with modern Russia. Is it Russia's relentless persecution of homosexuals? There are a lot of
LGBTQ supporters among the two groups. Or, do these people see Russia as a plausible
geopolitical rival for the US? Surely it cannot be as simple, or simpleminded as that. The
undying USSR as chimera? Perhaps it is that. pl
The dichotomy between the fairly good relations Russia has with Israel compared to the
States has long seemed peculiar. There are a lot of Russian Jewish ex-pats in Israel and
quite a few in the USA though I think most of those here arrived earlier than the ones in
Israel.
In spite of the wide perception here of official suppression of Jews in Russia reality
perhaps differs.
Amy Chua, in writing her book "World on Fire" recounts her Jewish husband's response when
she discovered 6 of the 7 principal oligarchs were Jewish. He raised an eyebrow and said:
"Only 6?"
The oligarchs were extremely unpopular in Russia. Some of these oligarchs have since been
purged while others re-aligned from Yeltsin to Putin.
The book is a good read about different economically dominant minorities around the
World.
Regarding the motivation behind the antipathy of the American neo-liberals and neocons toward
Russia, I think it might have something to do with all those Merkavas taken out by Kornets in
2006.
Well, there would be the mindset that gave rise to the Wolfowitz doctrine--a fear and
loathing of near-peer competitors. Rage at having had them down and a boot at their throats
under Yeltsin, only for them to get up off the mat. When you think of how much insulted
hubris goes into the rage against Iran after the humiliation of the Embassy takeover and
eviction. Then there is Putin's assertion of primacy over the West-aided pillage by Russia's
own oligarchs. His reading of the riot act to them, not few of whom were Jewish. Another
unforgivable sin. And perhaps more than anything the example he sets of patriotic resistance
to transnational oligarchy. And now they are beginning to hand out some diplomatic and
military ass-kickings, if war is an extension of policy, they seem to have established
military doctrine that actually serves to support diplomatic and political campaigns, rather
than the reverse. Anyway, a few thoughts...
A rabid neocon Max Boot view looks identical to Vindman views.
The article was written one year after the February 2014 coup. The logic is simple and flawed
anything that cause casualties for Russia is good for the USA. This WaPo chickenhawk "military
analyst" is simply incapable to ask a simple question: Why Russia stopped in seizing all southern
Ukraine just after the coup, when it has both the opportunities and the support of local
population to do do. They can easily for Ukrainian government in exile, who would ask for
military aid and provide this military aid on completely legitimate basis. Nobody in NATO would
even sqeek. And if Russia in interested in the preservation of the Ukrainian state, why to
antagonize it, which might prompt it to change its mind.
A distinguished group of former government officials, including former NATO commander Adm.
Jim Stavridis, Obama's former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy, Obama's former NATO
ambassador Ivo Daalder, and Clinton's former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, have
just issued a report calling for the provision of arms to Ukraine. They
write :
The U.S. government should provide Ukraine $1 billion in military assistance as soon as
possible in 2015, followed by additional tranches of $1billion in FY 2016 and FY 2017.
Additional non-lethal assistance should include: counterbattery radars, unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs),
electronic counter-measures for use against opposing UAVs, secure communications
capabilities, armored
Humvees and medical support equipment.
Lethal defensive military assistance should include light anti-armor missiles, given the
large numbers of armored vehicles that the Russians have deployed in Donetsk and Luhansk and
the abysmal condition of the Ukrainian military's light anti-armor weapons.
... ... ...
Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, is the author of the
forthcoming bookThe Road Not Taken: Edward Lansdale and the American Tragedy in
Vietnam(Liveright, 2018).
It does serves the interests of military-industrial complex. And this is all that matters.
Notable quotes:
"... IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic "Lebensraum" into xUSSR space. ..."
"... In this sense, Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor Cohen: ..."
While the discussion of this issue on emotional level is clearly fun, the key question here is: did the economic conditions
in the USA changed in a way that the majority of population from now on will consistently support a far right party (or a far
right faction within the Republican Party).
And to support far right (neofascist) ideas as a reaction to the process of sliding standard of living and the lack of job
opportunities in conditions of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and the associated process of de-legitimization of neoliberal
elite (Schiff)
Marxism used to teach us that the way people live define the way people think ;-)
I am also alarmed at the support of Ukrainegate among esteemed commentariat. When you consider "military assistance" as the
way to pressure the country, the first thing to discuss is whether this military assistance serves the USA national interests
or not. This was not done.
IMHO, in Ukraine the USA deviated from its longstanding policy of supporting constitutional order governance, allied with far
right nationalists and smashed the constitutional order installing marionette far right government ( Nulandgate ) . On the part
of the USA this was done to achieve geopolitical goals of weakening Russia. On the part of UE this was done for expanding EU economic
"Lebensraum" into xUSSR space.
This was the case, long before Trump, when the USA demonstrated clearly neofascist tendencies in foreign policy. In this sense,
Obama, and especially Obama's State Department, are a clear predecessors of Trump's turn to the right. See the discussion by Professor
Cohen:
"... The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week, confirmed by the government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition. ..."
"... To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large Donbass Batallion and a number of smaller and less formal groups based in various towns in the region. Some have already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences. ..."
"... It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. ..."
The following is a guest post from Barnard College, Columbia University, political scientist
Kimberly Marten.
*****
Last week the Democratic Party publicly split over the wisdom of sending lethal military assistance to Ukraine. The Obama administration
is reportedly sharing some intelligence and non-lethal equipment (like night-vision goggles and armored vehicles) with the Ukrainian
army, and is preparing to up its support for Ukrainian National Guard training. But Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl
Levin joined prominent Republicans in asking Obama to go further. He
called
for defensive weapons to be sent to Kiev , including ammunition and anti-aircraft missiles, after a closed-door briefing with
Pentagon officials.
Demands for U.S. weapons support will likely grow as Russia's troop buildup along the border continues and the threat of open
warfare between the two countries increases. Obama himself has
hinted that weapons might be sent if Russia invades Ukraine. Republican Sen. John McCain accused the Obama administration of
kowtowing to Moscow and being
"cowardly"
for not sending arms already in mid-July.
But the U.S. should think twice about sending weapons to Kiev. This has nothing to do with Russia -- and everything to do with
Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military is not a well-disciplined or cohesive force. Its troops have made amazing progress in the past several
months, taking back Slovyansk and other eastern territories from the rebels. They have begun shelling rebel strongholds in Donetsk,
one of the most important targets in the campaign to retake eastern Ukraine. But their tremendous battle achievements have come in
spite of weak preparation and professionalism. This means that the United States would find itself with little control over how its
weapons might be used on the ground.
The most recent evidence of this was the bizarre incident earlier this week,
confirmed by the
government in Kiev , where 311 Ukrainian troops of the 72 nd Army brigade laid down their arms and crossed the border
into Russia. Moscow's claim that they were trying to defect is suspect, especially since dozens of the troops have reportedly returned
to Ukraine. Kiev argues that the troops simply ran out of ammunition.
Whatever the correct explanation turns out to be, it is odd that large units, presumably commanded by at least mid-level officers,
would try to escape rebel fire by seeking protection on enemy territory. At best it indicates poor logistical and operational planning.
At worst it means that weapons sent by the United States to Ukraine might well end up in rebel or Russian hands. There are
conflicting reports
about whether the border-crossing troops destroyed their weapons, or instead left them on the field for rebels to pick up.
Beyond any question of poor decision-making by the Ukrainian troops involved in this particular event, many Western analysts believe
that
the Ukrainian military is penetrated by a web of Russian intelligence agents . Its roots as an institution date to the Soviet
era, and the sudden collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1991 was followed by a chaotic period where patriotism and even citizenship
were ill-defined across the post-Soviet space. Under the previous regime of Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich the
Russian and Ukrainian militaries cooperated in some areas, and the defense industries of the two countries co-produced some weapons.
It is not surprising that some members of the Ukrainian military organization would have ambiguous emotions or competing loyalties
in the current conflict. Indeed a number of Ukrainian officers defected to the Russian side during Vladimir Putin's seizure of Crimea
this past spring.
But the lack of discipline and professionalism goes further. There have been numerous cases, well documented by Western journalists,
of Ukrainian forces firing on civilians in recent months.
Human Rights Watch believes
that indiscriminate rocket fire used by Ukrainian or pro-Kiev forces in Donetsk has killed over a dozen civilians in violation
of international laws of war. The New York Times reports that
the Ukrainian army probably shelled
a Donetsk dental clinic by accident on Wednesday.
To complicate matters, the Ukrainian army is supported by private paramilitary groups, including both the large
Donbass Batallion and a number of
smaller and less formal groups
based in various towns in the region. Some have
already entered the heavily populated area around Donetsk. While their political sympathies lie with Kiev, these militias are
not under Kiev's command and control, and certainly have not undergone any professional unit training. U.S.-supplied weapons might
end up in their hands, as well, with unpredictable consequences.
It would be tragic if U.S.-supplied ammunition or armaments ended up killing the very Ukrainian civilians that Washington hopes
will be coaxed back into a unified Ukrainian state. Moscow would have a field day in its local propaganda war if that happened. And
if U.S. weapons ended up in the hands of pro-Kiev non-state militias, it would take away the moral authority that Washington has
in criticizing Moscow's supply of weapons to the anti-Kiev militias. The further strengthening of non-state violent actors in Ukraine
-- even those currently fighting on the side of the government -- boosts the likelihood that the state will ultimately fail in a
flurry of local warlordism.
Until the Ukrainian military achieves a higher degree of discipline and cohesion, the U.S. needs to concentrate on helping train
those troops, not arm them. A professional army, subservient to democratic civilian authority, is one of the best guarantees of a
strong Ukrainian state in the future. Defeating Russian incursions on to Ukrainian territory might bring a short-lived sense of victory
to the American public, but immediate military gains will be meaningless if Ukrainian state security forces cannot gain legitimacy
and trust in the areas they are now trying to recapture.
Should the United States be sending hundreds of millions of dollars in lethal weaponry to
Ukraine? That's not a policy discussion we've heard aired in the past two weeks. This seems
odd, because the provision of such lethal weaponry is at the center of the rapidly-unfolding
Trump/Ukraine/impeachment drama. Trump is accused of withholding 'aid' for the purpose of
'pressuring' Ukranian authorities to carry out investigations that advance his political
interests. At least at first blush, it's a valid matter for inquiry. But what about the 'aid'
itself?
First off, 'aid' is a strangely euphemistic term to
describe high-powered anti-tank missiles, grenade launchers, and sniper rifles to be used
for the express purpose of causing death and destruction, prolonging a Cold War-style proxy
conflict between the US and Russia. That's another layer of irony, because Trump spent the
first two-plus years of his presidency being maligned as a devious colluder with Putin. Yet
here he is dispatching state-of-the-art weapons systems directly into Russia's immediate sphere
of influence. (Despite the political consternation over how the 'aid' came to be sent,
it has in fact been sent .)
The Wall Street Journal notes that the 'aid' program 'enjoys strong support on both
sides of the aisle' -- which should automatically raise red flags. Typically when an issue
becomes safely ensconced in the realm of 'bipartisan consensus' it means something sinister is
afoot. Forgotten is the fact that Barack Obama repeatedly
refused to send 'aid' of this kind, much to his credit given the dangerous geopolitical
implications. But does that mean now that the previous president had an intolerable, fringe
position on the subject? You'd never know, because the policy substance has been entirely
obscured in favor of omni-directional partisan bluster. 'Progressives' now appear to view
arming Ukraine as an intrinsic good, and conservatives/libertarians have no intelligible view
except insofar as it casts Trump's behavior in the most favorable possible light. Meanwhile
Cold War 2.0 rages on and no one cares -- other than for how it affects the latest
impeachment-frenzied news cycle.
You want to accuse Trump of corruption? Fine. Take a look at his special envoy to Ukraine,
Kurt Volker, who resigned in the heat of the latest Trump/Zelensky phone call episode. That
Volker was ever appointed to that position is almost comically
corrupt . He's the executive director of the McCain Institute, which is funded by defense
contractor behemoth Raytheon, and a lobbyist for BGR Group, which is also of course
Raytheon-funded. In his capacity as 'special envoy' he advocated for the swift dispensation of
'aid' -- which just so happens to enrich Raytheon. But Volker is only considered noteworthy
because he's provided
salacious texts to Congress, not because he's emblematic of quintessential 'swamp-like'
corruption. That enterprise, after all, is wholly bipartisan and therefore of little
interest.
Sending large amounts of lethal weaponry into a hot war scenario on Russia's border
(presumably in perpetuity) has now been sanctified as conventional wisdom. Democrats love it
because it hamstrings Trump politically, and they can insinuate that his temporary withholding
of the 'aid' helped Russia. Republicans love it because it shows Trump is 'tough on Russia' and
'tough' in general, and very eager to do whatever's necessary to drive up defense industry
profits. The impeachment fracas will leave no room for any dispassionate evaluation of the
wisdom of this policy. Oh well.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been called "the most dangerous weapon ever" by critics of this insane policy. These
weapons, which can remove some of the inhibitions that mutually assured destruction would
normally give military commanders, have already been rolled off the assembly line.
2.
Arming Ukraine
Lost in the gibberish about Trump temporarily withholding military aide to supposedly
pressure a Ukrainian government who was never even aware of being
pressured is the fact that arming Ukraine against Russia is an entirely new policy that was
introduced by
the Trump administration in the first place. Even the Obama administration, which was
plenty hawkish toward Russia in its own right, refused to implement this extremely provocative escalation
against Moscow. It was not until Obama was replaced with the worst Putin puppet of all time
that this policy was put in place.
3. Bombing Syria
Another escalation Trump took against Russia which Obama wasn't hawkish enough to also do
was bombing the Syrian government, a longtime ally of Moscow. These airstrikes in April 2017 and
April 2018 were perpetrated in retaliation for chemical weapons use allegations that there
is
no legitimate reason to trust at this point.
4. Staging coup attempts in
Venezuela
Venezuela, another Russian ally, has been the subject of relentless coup attempts
from the Trump administration which persist unsuccessfully to this very day .
Trump's attempts to topple the Venezuelan government have been so violent and aggressive that
the starvation sanctions which he has implemented are believed to have
killed tens of thousands of Venezuelan civilians .
"Signals coming from certain capitals indicating the possibility of external military
interference look particularly disquieting," the Russian Foreign Ministry said. "We warn
against such reckless actions, which threaten catastrophic consequences."
5. Withdrawing
from the INF treaty
For a president who's "soft" on Russia, Trump has sure been eager to keep postures between
the two nations extremely aggressive in nature. This administration has withdrawn from the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, prompting UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres to
declare that
"the world lost an invaluable brake on nuclear war." It appears entirely possible that Trump
will continue to adhere to the John Bolton school of nuclear weapons treaties until they all
lie in tatters, with the administration strongly criticizing the crucial New START
Treaty which expires in early 2021.
Some particularly demented Russiagaters try to argue that Trump withdrawing from these
treaties benefits Russia in some way. These people either (A) believe that treaties only go one
way, (B) believe that a nation with an economy the size of South
Korea can compete with the U.S. in an arms race, (C) believe that Russians are immune to
nuclear radiation, or (D) all of the above. Withdrawing from these treaties benefits no one but
the military-industrial complex.
6. Ending the Open Skies Treaty
"The Trump administration has taken steps toward leaving a nearly three-decade-old agreement
designed to reduce the risk of war between Russia and the West by allowing both sides to
conduct reconnaissance flights over one another's territories," The Wall Street Journalreported last month , adding that the
administration has alleged that "Russia has interfered with American monitoring flights while
using its missions to gather intelligence in the US."
Again, if you subscribe to the bizarre belief that withdrawing from this treaty benefits
Russia, please think harder. Or ask the Russians themselves how they feel about it:
"US plans to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty lower the threshold for the use of nuclear
weapons and multiply the risks for the whole world, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai
Patrushev said," Sputnik
reports .
"All this negatively affects the predictability of the military-strategic situation and
lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which drastically increases the risks for
the whole humanity," Patrushev said.
"In general, it is becoming apparent that Washington intends to use its technological
leadership in order to maintain strategic dominance in the information space by actually
pursuing a policy of imposing its conditions on states that are lagging behind in digital
development," he added.
7. Selling Patriot missiles to Poland
"Poland signed the largest arms procurement deal in its history on Wednesday, agreeing with
the United States to buy Raytheon Co's Patriot missile defense system for $4.75 billion in a
major step to modernize its forces against a bolder Russia," Reuters
reported last year .
8. Occupying Syrian oil fields
The Trump administration has been open about
the fact that it is not only maintaining a military presence in Syria to control the
nation's oil, but that it is doing so in order to deprive the
nation's government of that financial resource. Syria's ally Russia strongly opposes this,
accusing the Trump administration of nothing short of "international state banditry".
"In a statement, Russia's defense ministry said Washington had no mandate under
international or US law to increase its military presence in Syria and said its plan was not
motivated by genuine security concerns in the region," Reutersreported last
month.
"Therefore Washington's current actions – capturing and maintaining military control
over oil fields in eastern Syria – is, simply put, international state banditry,"
Russia's defense ministry said.
9. Killing Russians in Syria
Reports have placed Russian casualties anywhere between a handful and
hundreds , but whatever the exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian
citizens as part of the Trump administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last
year.
exact number the U.S. military is known to have killed Russian citizens as part of the Trump
administration's ongoing Syria occupation in an altercation last year.
10. Tanks in
Estonia
Within weeks of taking office,
Trump was already sending Abrams battle tanks, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles and other
military hardware right up to Russia's border as part of a NATO operation.
"Atlantic Resolve is a demonstration of continued US commitment to collective security
through a series of actions designed to reassure NATO allies and partners of America's
dedication to enduring peace and stability in the region in light of the Russian intervention
in Ukraine," the Defense Department said in a statement.
11. War ships in the Black
Sea
12. Sanctions
Trump approved new sanctions against Russia on August 2017. CNN reports the following:
"US President Donald Trump approved fresh sanctions on Russia Wednesday after Congress
showed overwhelming bipartisan support for the new measures," CNN reported at
the time . "Congress passed the bill last week in response to Russia's interference in the
2016 US election, as well as its human rights violations, annexation of Crimea and military
operations in eastern Ukraine. The bill's passage drew ire from Moscow -- which responded by
stripping 755 staff members and two properties from US missions in the country -- all but
crushing any hope for the reset in US-Russian relations that Trump and Russian President
Vladimir Putin had called for."
"A full-fledged trade war has been declared on Russia," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev in
response.
13. More sanctions
"The United States imposed sanctions on five Russian individuals on Wednesday, including the
leader of the Republic of Chechnya, for alleged human rights abuses and involvement in criminal
conspiracies, a sign that the Trump administration is ratcheting up pressure on Russia," The
New York Timesreported in December
2017 .
14. Still more sanctions
"Trump just hit Russian oligarchs with the most aggressive sanctions yet," reads
a Vice headline from April of last year.
"The sanctions target seven oligarchs and 12 companies under their ownership or control, 17
senior Russian government officials, and a state-owned Russian weapons trading company and its
subsidiary, a Russian bank," Vice reports. "While the move is aimed, in part, at Russia's role
in the U.S. 2016 election, senior U.S. government officials also stressed that the new measures
seek to penalize Russia's recent bout of international troublemaking more broadly, including
its support for Syrian President Bashar Assad and military activity in eastern
Ukraine."
"The Trump administration on Thursday imposed new sanctions on a dozen individuals and
entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea," The Hill
reported in November of last year. "The group includes a company linked to Bank Rossiya and
Russian businessman Yuri Kovalchuk and others accused of operating in Crimea, which the U.S.
says Russia seized illegally in 2014."
17. Oh hey, more sanctions
"Today, the United States continues to take action in response to Russian attempts to
influence US democratic processes by imposing sanctions on four entities and seven individuals
associated with the Internet Research Agency and its financier, Yevgeniy Prigozhin. This action
increases pressure on Prigozhin by targeting his luxury assets, including three aircraft and a
vessel," reads
a statement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo from September of this year.
18.
Secondary sanctions
Secondary
sanctions are economic sanctions in which a third party is punished for breaching the
primary sanctions of the sanctioning body. The U.S. has leveled sanctions against both
China and
Turkey for
purchasing Russian S-400 air defense missiles, and it is
threatening to do so to India as well.
19. Forcing Russian media to register as
foreign agents
Both RT and
Sputnik have been forced to register as "foreign agents" by the Trump administration. This
classification forced the outlets to post a disclaimer on content, to report their activities
and funding sources to the Department of Justice twice a year, and could arguably place an unrealistic
burden on all their social media activities as it submits to DOJ micromanagement.
20.
Throwing out Russian diplomats
The Trump administration joined some 20 other nations in casting out scores of
Russian diplomats as an immediate response to the Skripal poisoning incident in the
U.K.
21. Training Polish and Latvian fighters "to resist Russian aggression"
"US Army Special Forces soldiers completed the first irregular and unconventional warfare
training iteration for members of the Polish Territorial Defense Forces and Latvian
Zemmessardze as a part of the Ridge Runner program in West Virginia, according to service
officials," Army Times
reported this past July.
"U.S. special operations forces have been training more with allies from the Baltic states
and other Eastern European nations in the wake of the annexation of Crimea by the Russian
Federation in 2014," Army Times writes. "A low-level conflict continues to simmer in
eastern Ukraine's Donbas region between Russian-backed separatists and government forces to
this day. The conflict spurred the Baltics into action, as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia
embraced the concepts of total defense and unconventional warfare, combining active-duty,
national guard and reserve-styled forces to each take on different missions to resist Russian
aggression and even occupation."
22. Refusal to recognize Crimea as part of the Russian
Federation
Key point: Trump agreed to send more forces to Poland to defend it against Russia.
What Happened: U.S. President Donald Trump agreed to deploy approximately 1,000 additional
U.S. troops to Poland during a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda on the sidelines of
the U.N. General Assembly in New York City, Reuters reported Sept. 23.
Why It Matters: The deal, which formalizes the United States' commitment to protecting
Poland from Russia, provides a diplomatic victory to Duda and his governing Law and Justice
ahead of November elections. The additional U.S. troops will likely prompt a reactive
military buildup from Moscow in places like neighboring Kaliningrad and, potentially,
Belarus.
24. Withdrawing from the Iran deal
Russia has been consistently opposed to Trump's destruction of the JCPOA. In a statement
after Trump killed the deal, the Russian Foreign Ministry said
it was "deeply disappointed by the decision of US President Donald Trump to unilaterally refuse
to carry out commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action", adding that this
administration's actions were "trampling on the norms of international law".
25.
Attacking Russian gas interests
Trump has been threatening Germany with sanctions and troop withdrawal if it continues to
support a gas pipeline from Russia called Nord Stream 2.
"Echoing previous threats about German support for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Trump said
he's looking at sanctions to block the project he's warned would leave Berlin 'captive' to
Moscow," Bloomberg
reports . "The US also hopes to export its own liquefied natural gas to Germany."
"We're protecting Germany from Russia, and Russia is getting billions and billions of
dollars in money from Germany" for its gas, Trump told the press.
I could have kept going, but that's my 25. The only reason anyone still believes Trump is
anything other than insanely hawkish toward Russia is because it doesn't benefit anyone's
partisanship or profit margins to call it like it really is. The facts are right here as plain
as can be, but there's a difference between facts and narrative. If they wanted to, the
political/media class could very easily use the facts I just laid out to weave the narrative
that this president is imperiling us all with dangerous new cold war provocations, but that's
how different narrative is from fact; there's almost no connection. Instead they use a light
sprinkling of fact to weave a narrative that has very little to do with reality. And meanwhile
the insane escalations continue.
In a cold war, it only takes one miscommunication or one defective piece of equipment to set
off a chain of events that can obliterate all life on earth. The more things escalate, the
greater the probability of that happening. We're rolling the dice on Armageddon every single
day, and with every escalation the number we need to beat gets a bit harder.
We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the U.S. and Russia
should stop and establish detente immediately. The fact that outlets like CNN would rather
diddle made-up Russiagate narratives than point to this obvious fact with truthful reporting is
in and of itself sufficient to discredit them all forever.
Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's, in which millions of Ukrainians were shot, raped, beaten and starved out, while
"ethnic Russians" moved in and took over. Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away, he simply
transferred the administration thereof to the Soviet Republic of "the" Ukraine (a term
Ukranians have always decried as a way to make it seem as if Ukraine had always been a part
of the USSR). The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put
them there. That argument is the same one Hitler used as his excuse to annex Poland, and Polk
used to annex Texas. It's true Russia's self-interest (and well-founded fears of foreign
betrayal) have been largely ignored, but it's also disingenuous to ignore their murderous
20th-century imperialism. Just because we're not the good guys doesn't mean they are
either.
anon4d2 , November 20, 2019 at 18:12
Perhaps you forgot that the USSR actions in eastern Europe after WWII were in direct
response to the murder of 20 million Russians in WWII by the Nazi forces, attacking through E
Europe just as Napoleon had done. All US casualties in all its wars are less than five
percent of that, and 95 percent of Nazi division-months were spent in the USSR. On that front
they had nearly all of the casualties and did nearly all of the fighting. No wonder they were
a bit uncomfortable afterward with leaving open the favorite attack route of the west. What
would the US have done if a hundred times its WWII casualties were caused by two invasions
through (for example) Mexico? Would we have left the door open? Such circumstances cannot be
ignored. Starting one's version of history after the world's greatest provocation cannot be
said to clarify the history.
Toby McCrossin , November 21, 2019 at 02:56
"Our historians here seem to be forgetting the brutal takeover of Ukraine by the USSR in
the 50's"
Nice alternative facts. Ukraine was one of the original constituent republics of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922!
" Kruschev didn't "give" Crimea away"
Huh? Crimea had been part of Russia since 1783. You know you can check this stuff yourself
using Google, right?
"The "ethnic Russians" wouldn't have been there at all if the Soviets hadn't put them
there."
Right, so the Soviets put the Russians in Crimea in 1783, 139 years before it was in
existence. I guess the Soviets mastered time travel.
I know reading's hard and all but you might wanna try it some time.
Jon Anderholm , November 20, 2019 at 02:22
An essential article by Caitlin .. Thanks so much .
Sam F , November 19, 2019 at 22:56
Another excellent article by Caitlin Johnstone.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 19:59
Given the laws of cause and effect, our nuclear missiles might as well be considered to be
pointed straight at ourselves. Like shooting at one's image in a mirror or joining in a
mutual suicide pact. Sheer insanity.
ranney , November 19, 2019 at 17:26
WONDERFUL article, Caitlin. You are so right! I agree with Alan Ross, you deserve an award
for this, and I hope this gets passed around for a wide readership.
Antonio Costa , November 19, 2019 at 15:14
When elected POTUS you are elected, no matter the campaign rhetoric, to take the reins of
the imperial empire.
Trump did that willingly, in fact to a fault given his "big mouth". He's no more nor less
dangerous than his predecessors. And like them, his is a mass of rhetorical contradictions.
Policy is all that should really matters. It is our only means of identifying some truth.
Trump knows what most here know regarding US invasions and assassinations. What he thinks
about any leader is anyone's guess (including his). For him it's all deal making as if it's
his private Trump Towers Enterprises. But in the end he's playing the chief gangsta role of
his like. (If you've ever listened to Sinatra at the Sands (the full concert), you'll hear
how Trump has mimicked the popular gangsta singer to the last "love ya baby ").
The media is not free. It is an arm of the national security state, with occasional
outages of truth telling, all the more to tell the big lies. It's purpose is to pacify and
repress any rebellions. Since the end of Vietnam it has succeeded. And here we are, never
knowing truth from lie. (I think of Obama as deceitful to the max, while Trump just tells
transparent lies so you don't know when he's actually telling a profound truth.)
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to
believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people
from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the
mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State."
-- Joseph Goebbels (was a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi
Germany from 1933 to 1945)
Mark Thomason , November 19, 2019 at 14:22
We can go one step further than to say that Trump was reckless toward Russia, "with zero
resistance from either party."
Both parties demanded it. They approved it as "Presidential" whenever he did it, and
attacked him for any effort to be less reckless. They'd done the same to Obama, but Trump
proved weaker and more malleable.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 14:14
Verra nice peroration. I have two objections. One, I doubt that the people of the Donbass
are Russian backed in the same sense that the "moderate" rebel scum in Syria is US backed
with weapons, intelligence, and training but the people of the Donbass are ethnic Russians.
With a steady stream of anti-Russian legislation coming out of Kiev, I imagine they're
looking for an out. Putin is trying to get it for them without starting a war with Ukraine.
The real question that Washington has yet to address is what are they going to do if the
people of Ukraine notice that since they signed on to the neo-liberal dictates of Washington
and Brussels they've become the poorest nation in Europe. I know that there are a number of
Ukrainians who think wistfully of the days when they were part of Mother Russia. But you
never know, the CIA is notorious for its subversion and the Ukrainians might prove to be
spectacularly stupid. After all, they weren't doing badly until they let the US and EU foment
a coup for them.
And, two, "We should not be rolling the dice on this. This is very, very wrong, and the
U.S. and Russia should stop and establish detente immediately." While I agree with the
sentiment, don't bring Russia into this. Everything that Russia has done has been a reaction
to what is usually an American violation of international law. Putin has been very clear that
he wants to back off this cold war but he has also been very clear that we started it and
we're going to have to be the ones to start backing off.
David Hamilton , November 20, 2019 at 02:11
I absolutely agree with your number two reaction to Caitlin's suggestion that Russia and
the U.S. should stop it and establish detente immediately. Everything Russia's leadership is
doing is a reaction to American imperial dares to defy their law violations. They exhibit
extreme and principled restraint to the Orwellian madness emanating from this place.
I think it is important that this be understood. Russians have been used and abused once
before by American largesse in the form of Clinton's puppet's assistance in the rape of the
former Soviet Union by the Harvard-sponsored project. That was the one during the nineties
that privatized national industries and created a dozen neoliberal oligarchs. The cost was a
huge increase in death rate that lowered life expectancy into the 50's from 70 years I think.
Cynical foreign policy, isn't it?
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:16
Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official
control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so
spectacularly is beyond depressing.
Many thanks to Caitlin Johnstone, Consortium News and all the others pushing back against
this system of perception management. I keep repeating it because it rings true. It's like
waking up in the Twilight Zone.
John Neal Spangler , November 19, 2019 at 12:44
She is right. CNN. MSNBC, NYT, and Wapo totally irresponsible. Fox not much better. So
many anti-Russian bigots in US
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:37
Thank you Caitlin. The neoliberals and neocons both desperately want a greatly intensified
cold war with Russia, but want it started by Trump ( because he is personally an
outsider).
This gives the Democrat and Republican donors contracts for the war machine. Ever since
Clinton administration moved NATO to the Russian border, the process has worked for the
oligarchs who control all US policies, foreign and domestic.
The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and
Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise
"Orwellian" media environment.
For anyone who has been waiting for the publication of reporter Udo Ulfkotte's best
selling book (in Germany), a book based on his experience as a well respected journalist
whose reporting was completely compromised by Western intelligence services and business
interests, it is finally available in an English language edition. The English language
edition has been quite obviously suppressed for the last several years and the book was
published in 9 languages BEFORE this English edition became available. It is a book that is
well worth reading to better understand why literally NOTHING written by MSM should be
believed at face value, ever:
See:
I would urge anyone interested in buying this book to get it directly from the publisher-
Progressive Press. Amazon and other mega monopolies are a big part of our problems. Take the
time to make a few extra clicks and boycott Jeff Bezos.
Noah Way , November 19, 2019 at 10:58
The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which
includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a
puppet. Nobel Peace Prize winner oBOMBa bombed 7 countries, overthrew Ukraine's democratic
government, invaded Syria, armed terrorists as proxy armies, authorized drone assassinations,
and bombed a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
The last president to resist the military complex? JFK
Caitlin Johnstone's list points to growing tensions with Russia. Failure of the political
and media establishment to see this makes the task of avoiding world war three all the more
difficult. In the West the end of the Cold War was seen as the dawn of peace. But the Cold
War was the peace, a post-world war environment: we are now in a pre-world war
environment.
Jimmy gates , November 19, 2019 at 12:45
The Democratic Party members have not " missed" anything that Trump has done. They will
not impeach him on those grounds, because they too are guilty of complicity in those war
crimes.
As Pelosi said regarding impeaching GWB for the torture program or invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan " it's off the table". Because she was complicit.
Lois Gagnon , November 19, 2019 at 13:23
Russia did not illegally annex Crimea. A referendum was held and 90% of the voters voted
to rejoin Russia. Most people in Crimea are ethnic Russians and speak Russian. They were
understandably scared to death of what their fate would be under the rule of the fascists the
US installed in Ukraine.
And frankly, Russia had every right to protect its only warm water port in Sevastopol that
would have been taken over by NATO if Crimea had remained part of Ukraine. Too many Americans
have been indoctrinated in the belief that Russia has no legitimate self interest to
defend.
michael , November 19, 2019 at 18:22
In addition to what Lois Gagnon points out, you have to realize that the re-patriation of
Crimea to Russia in March 2014 was the direct result of Obama, Biden, Nuland et al
overthrowing the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Yanukovych, in the Maidan coup
in February, 2014, and replacing him with a neoNAZI regime. Russian speech was outlawed,
which has been the language of the majority of Crimea since Catherine the Great.
The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the
Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita
median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from
the US.
Jeff G. , November 19, 2019 at 20:25
Crimeans have an absolute right of self-determination as a fundamental human right under
established international law, just as the Kosovars did when we were supporting the breakup
of Serbia when Clinton was president. Ethnic Russians voted in an overwhelming majority in a
free and fair plebiscite to rejoin Russia, which they had been part of for centuries, because
the neo-Nazi US coup government allied with Azov battalions in Kyiv terrified them and they
wanted nothing further to do with them. Crimea had every right to decide. Russia did nothing
to interfere, not a bullet was fired. Russia's troops were already stationed in Crimea by
treaty and did not invade. Russia warned NATO against the Kosovo precedent that it would come
back to bite them someday, and it was ignored. NATO is unhappy because it was denied an
illegitimate geostrategic advantage they thought they would gain. Crimea is happy, so what's
the problem?
DH Fabian , November 19, 2019 at 21:08
"We," who? Regardless, the issues you raise can't be understood outside of their
historical context, and Americans never try to understand the world within that historical
context.
anon , November 19, 2019 at 22:54
Crimea was part of Russia for roughly 200 years before the USSR premier (Kruschev?) gave
it to Ukraine, although its inhabitants were nearly all of Russian heritage and language,
like E Ukraine. So not surprising that they wanted to go back to being part of Russia.
dean 1000 , November 20, 2019 at 19:26
Couldn't agree more Lois Gagnon. Washington did an illegal coup. Russia did a legal
annexation.
btw – The Autonomous Republic of Sevastopol on SW Crimea is no longer the only
ice-free port of the Russian Navy. Kaliningrad (on the Baltic sea) has been part of Russia
since 1945. Its deep ice-free harbor is the home port of Russia's Baltic fleet according to
the 2012 world book DVD.
Good one Caitlin. Again
jdd , November 19, 2019 at 09:51
This article properly puts to rest the absurd notion that President Trump is a "tool of
Putin, " and correctly notes that it has created a potentially disastrous situation.
However,
let's put the blame squarely where it belongs: on the Anglo/American led forces arrayed
against Trump from the moment he announced his intention to run on a platform of "getting
along" with Russia and joining with Putin to defeat ISIS.
Failing impeachment, from the
attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of
Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort
to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of
the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the
current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish
testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment.
Nick , November 19, 2019 at 16:50
Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until
after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later.
Alan Ross , November 19, 2019 at 09:47
This article alone deserves an award for public service. And in a more sensibly run world
Caitlin Johnstone would have gotten at least fifty such awards for past articles.
He testified that the Iraq war would be "self financing" his reward for that brilliant bit of financial prediction was to be put
in charge of the World Bank. Can't say that the powers that be don't have a sense of humor.
"Next time, however, will be without the local allies we need."
Wolfowitz still doesn't get it, does he? There will be no "next time". Our so-called "local allies" will fight their own fights
using weapons they paid for themselves. We're going to stop squandering trillions on foreign messes and start fixing our own.
I remember that guy. I listened to him and his ilk in 2003.
Yeah, not doing that again. However I have to admire the cheek of him taking money to pretend to be an expert.
Wolfowitz and NYT: It cannot get much sicker and enraging than this but what more can one expect from the NYT.
Wolfowitz belongs back under a rock where he has been since the war crime of Iraq for which he is at least partially responsible.
The NYT, well leave it in the bottom of a bird cage where it has earned a historical place foreever. Absolutely no credibility
nor respect.
Peace with honor.
Remember that? I assume at the very bottom of it, keeping the war running is better to people like W. than to claim this kind of peace!
I completely agree.
The problem is bipartisan. There are a handful of principled antiwar politicians in both parties, but most are not. The Democrats
now oppose the war in Yemen, but as I predicted to myself ( possibly online somewhere under a different name) they would wait
a year or so until it was safe to pretend it was Trump's war. Well, it is his war now, but it didn't start that way.
I would love to see the day when a President would be impeached for participating in or supporting or starting an unjust war.
I would like to see State Department officials resigning in protest. Trump in my opinion is guilty of pressuring Ukraine and yes,
this is impeachable, but why are we arming them in the first place?
At risk of repeating myself:
Unless and until those responsible for the wars start facing very real and very personal consequences, nothing will change.
Mr. Larison is writing as if he appears to be taking seriously Mr. Wolfovitz. Attacking Iraq on fabricated pretenses, which everyone
at his level knew was fabrication is same as Hitler attacking Poland on the faked attack of a German border post by German soldiers
dressed in Polish uniforms.
By international law (if it were a higher power out there), Wolfowitz et. co. are war criminals and no attention should be
given to their utterances and be switched with the inmates at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely.
What needs to be investigated though is the purpose of these utterances, the narrative that it creates (which, to be honest,
Mr. Larison does). The narrative that comes across is the how exceptionally criminal the US Government (not the people!) in its
dealings with the outside world. And Mr. Wolfowitz has the gall to uphold this criminal behaviour as pace making. Doublespeak
through and through.
"The U.S. is never "sucked back in." Our government goes running back in at the first chance it gets. Sometimes this is driven
by threat inflation, sometimes it is driven by headlines that prompt calls for "action," sometimes it is driven by a misguided
need to show "leadership," and sometimes it is just old-fashioned "do-somethingism" where the U.S. intervenes because it can."
You forgot the wide range of black ops that are used to manipulate public opinion. I don't know why this shouldn't be acknowledged,
at least as a category if not in terms of specifics. The US institutionalized covert operations on a massive scale after WWII,
which has created a serious epistemological problem. Even if you aren't going to cite the OPCW reports doubting Assad's responsibility
for the use of chemical weapons within Syria or specifically mention CIA Operation Timber-Sycamore, it makes all the sense in
the world to acknowledge that covert operations, as a generic fact of life, really confuse how we should adjudicate responsibility
for acts of war. This is just prudence.
"... For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart. This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. ..."
"... If Ukraine falls into civil war, with Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment should be taken out of Ukrainian politics. ..."
"... Barry R. Posen is Ford International Professor of Political Science, MIT and Director of their Security Studies Program. He is the author of Restraint- A New Foundation for U.S. Grand Strategy . ..."
"If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have little impact on
the security of the United States."
Once, foreign policy experts talked about "vital interests." The term has fallen into
disuse, partly because there are no hard and fast rules for calculating what distinguishes the
"vital" from the merely "interesting." If advocates wanted their country to do a thing they
would call it a vital interest; if they did not, then they would not. But students of foreign
policy did seem to agree on one thing: vital interests were the things you were willing to have
your soldiers die for and kill for. By this measure, even the most hawkish politicians in the
United States, all of whom have eschewed any desire for a shooting match, have agreed that the
United States has no vital interests in Ukraine.
What would vital interests look like if they were present? Vital interests affect the
safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and power position of the United States, or indeed
of any country. If, in the worst case, all Ukraine were to "fall" to Russia, it would have
little impact on the security of the United States. Russia is no longer the strong country that
the USSR was: its GDP is dwarfed by that of the United States. Its non-nuclear military power
is woefully insufficient for the conquest of the major states of Eurasia. The possession of
Crimea, a grab for Ukraine's eastern provinces, or even the occupation of all Ukraine would not
change this. Indeed, the military conquest of Ukraine would be costly to Russia because as one
moves westward, one encounters ever-more-nationalistic Ukrainians, who have a historical
propensity to fight. Russian forces facing west would find themselves with a fifth column in
their rear.
Geography alone can sometimes create a vital interest. If Ukraine were Mexico, the United
States would have an interest in protecting it from Russia or anyone else. For Russia, Ukraine
is Mexico, and in their eyes, the United States and its Western allies have been inexorably
creeping in their direction since the end of the Cold War. Russian interests in Ukraine
probably exceed NATO's, which is why modest sanctions are unlikely to coerce Russia into
passivity. They do not want Western political, economic, and military power on their border. Of
course, the easternmost members
of NATO would not like Russian forces on their doorstep , but because they are all too weak
to defend themselves, or too confident in the United States to bother, their security depends
much more on whether the United States will make good on its alliance commitments than on
whether Russia shares a border.
The United States does have one security interest in Ukraine. Though it is not a vital
interest, the preservation of an independent
neutral zone between NATO and Russian military forces has been a stabilizing factor in
east-west relations. During the Cold War, especially in Germany, NATO and Soviet forces faced
each other head to head. Even their non-nuclear forces had powerful offensive capabilities --
thousands of tanks and aircraft that could strike deeply into the other's territory. The two
sides also possessed large numbers of nuclear weapons, and had the command, control and plans
in place to use them if necessary. This was a nervous relationship, fraught with the
possibility of escalation and mutual disaster. This is a world that neither we nor the Russians
should wish to recreate, even with the diminished forces Russia now possesses. The United
States and its allies succeeded in managing this for forty years, and we could do it again if
we had to. So preventing this is "nice to have" but not "need to have." Indeed, trying to
prevent it by force brings on the very thing we should wish to avoid. But maintaining a wide
military buffer zone is a real security interest, and the only one worth pursuing in
Ukraine.
For the last twenty years Ukraine and Belarus have kept NATO and Russian forces far apart.
This was an underappreciated benefit. NATO's flirtation with admitting Ukraine into the
alliance simply ignored the new risks that would be assumed. If Russia were to occupy all of
Ukraine, we would return to this unhappy standoff. If NATO forces were to help Ukraine resist
Russia militarily, we would also return to this situation. This is neither in Russia's
interests, nor in ours. It is far better to negotiate a mutual "hands off Ukraine" agreement.
Diplomacy, sanctions (and the threat of more), and economic assistance (bribes) to Ukraine are
the tools that the West should use to restore the status quo ante.
Western liberals will be quick to decry any security agreement reached over the heads of the
Ukrainians. The crisis in Ukraine, however, is a direct consequence of the fact that Ukrainians
do not agree on the extent to which they should be associated with the West or with Russia.
This disagreement threatens to tear the country apart. If Ukraine falls into civil war, with
Russia and the West aiding their respective favorites, the risk of a direct NATO-Russia clash
also rises. To ensure peace between Russia and the West, the question of foreign alignment
should be taken out of Ukrainian politics.
The deep state and associated political forces of neocons/neolibs is a serious problem that
threatens the USA national security. Weapons send to Ukraine can go anywhere. Risk of WWIII and
total wipeout of both the USA and Russia (and well as NATO countries in Europe) from the face of
Earth also increase.
Notable quotes:
"... All about welfare for the military industrial complex and fomenting war. ..."
Aaron Mate's Pushback show is probably one of the best shows on US and world politics out
there: my only complaint is that there are not more episodes.
Keeping the masses poor through military spending, and focused on an external bogeyman is
just a strategy the morbidly rich employ to prevent a more equitable and rational
distribution of wealth at home
"... Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the cause of the truth ..."
"... Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists" elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is of no benefit to any person or nation. ..."
"... America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace makers..." ..."
"... An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders." ..."
"In a Time of Universal Deceit -- Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act" is a well
known quotation (but probably not of George Orwell). And in telling the truth about Russia
and that the current "war of nerves" is not in the interests of either the American People or
national security, Professor Cohen in this book has in fact done a revolutionary act.
Like a denizen of Plato's cave, or being in the film the Matrix, most people have no idea
what the truth is. And the questions raised by Professor Cohen are a great service in the
cause of the truth. As Professor Cohen writes in his introduction To His Readers:
"My scholarly work -- my biography of Nikolai Bukharin and essays collected in Rethinking
the Soviet Experience and Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives, for example -- has always been
controversial because it has been what scholars term "revisionist" -- reconsiderations, based
on new research and perspectives, of prevailing interpretations of Soviet and post-Soviet
Russian history. But the "controversy" surrounding me since 2014, mostly in reaction to the
contents of this book, has been different -- inspired by usually vacuous, defamatory assaults
on me as "Putin's No. 1 American Apologist," "Best Friend," and the like. I never respond
specifically to these slurs because they offer no truly substantive criticism of my
arguments, only ad hominem attacks. Instead, I argue, as readers will see in the first
section, that I am a patriot of American national security, that the orthodox policies my
assailants promote are gravely endangering our security, and that therefore we -- I and
others they assail -- are patriotic heretics. Here too readers can judge."
Cohen, Stephen F.. War with Russia (Kindle Locations 131-139). Hot Books. Kindle
Edition.
Professor Cohen is indeed a patriot of the highest order. The American and "Globalists"
elites, particularly the dysfunctional United Kingdom, are engaging in a war of nerves with
Russia. This war, which could turn nuclear for reasons discussed in this important book, is
of no benefit to any person or nation.
Indeed, with the hysteria on "climate change" isn't it odd that other than Professor
Cohen's voice, there are no prominent figures warning of the devastation that nuclear war
would bring?
If you are a viewer of one of the legacy media outlets, be it Cable Television networks,
with the exception of Tucker Carlson on Fox who has Professor Cohen as a frequent guest, or
newspapers such as The New York Times, you have been exposed to falsehoods by remarkably
ignorant individuals; ignorant of history, of the true nature of Russia (which defeated the
Nazis in Europe at a loss of millions of lives) and most important, of actual military
experience. America is neither an invincible or exceptional nation. And for those familiar
with terminology of ancient history, it appears the so-called elites are suffering from
hubris.
I cannot recommend Professor Cohen's work with sufficient superlatives; his arguments are
erudite, clearly stated, supported by the facts and ultimately irrefutable. If enough people
find Professor Cohen's work and raise their voices to their oblivious politicians and
profiteers from war to stop further confrontation between Russia and America, then this book
has served a noble purpose.
If nothing else, educate yourself by reading this work to discover what the *truth* is.
And the truth is something sacred.
America and the world owe Professor Cohen a great debt. "Blessed are the peace
makers..."
I have followed Stephen Cohen for a while and read all his books. This is undoubtedly my
favorite, it has a good balance between history and current events. If you are interested in
current events and want to get informed about Russia, which seems to be on the mind of
everyone right now, buy this book. Read more
Stephen Cohen is a well respected scholar who has studied Russia and the Soviet Union for
over 50 years. He provides facts often neglected in today's agenda driven media.
An interesting quote found in the book from a surprising source, Henry Kissinger: "The
demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy. It is an alibi for not having one." And then
notes Cohen, "But Kissinger was also wrong. Washington has made many policies strongly
influenced by the demonizing of Putin -- a personal vilification far exceeding any ever
applied to Soviet Russia's latter-day Communist leaders."
Cohen's calm reasoned analysis regarding Russia is sadly all too uncommon. It is difficult to
overstate the importance of his work
On the planet I live on, detente was a tactical strategy adopted by Nixon and Kissinger in
a moment of weakness after the US defeat in the Vietnam War. With two equally powerful
superpowers on the globe capable of mutually-assured destruction, detente was based on the
idea that the USSR wasn't inherently evil and worthy of active opposition. Detente was
abandoned by Carter after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, detente is as appropriate a strategy today as it was in the 1970s.
Only the situation is now vastly different: The former Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern
Europe have switched sides and joined NATO Half of the former USSR is now independent from
Russia. Cohen believes that detente remains the appropriate strategy for the last 50 years no
matter what Russian has done. Abandoning detente in the wake of Afghanistan and Crimea is the
wrong strategy, even though the former led to the US's greatest foreign policy success since
WWII.
On Mr. Cohen's planet, an aggressive trade pact offered by the EU prompted Mr.
Yanukovich's downfall. On my planet, Mr. Yanukovich backed out of a highly popular trade deal
negotiated over five years with two Ukrainian administrations. He backed out three days
before signing. Since much of the public believed the deal offered a route to greater
economic prosperity and less corruption, peaceful occupation of the Euromaidan began
immediately. The situation was initially very similar to the peaceful Orange Revolution of
2004-5, that began after Yanukovich was declared a winner (by 3%) despite exit polling
showing him losing by 11%. Only in 2013-2014, the government's efforts to remove the
demonstrators turned violent. Mr Putin claims the demonstrators (500,000 on Dec 8) were
merely hirelings of the CIA and Mr. Cohen doesn't challenge this claim. As the violence grew
worse, the US and EU negotiated a settlement between Mr. Yanukovich and his political
opponents, but by then it was too late. When publicly informed of the agreement by opposition
leaders, the demonstrators (a coalition of many groups who had seen 50 killed the previous
day) unanimously rejected the settlement and warned Yanukovich they would be coming for him
tomorrow. The police had melted away, many officials had resigned and no one left was willing
to protect Yanukovich. He fled to Russia that night. The next day Parliament voted 338-0 to
declare the Presidency vacant (17 votes short of the constitutional 3/4), appointed an
interim government and scheduled elections. Ignoring Yanukowich's complete lack of internal
support and his flight, Cohen calls this a "coup" (p17). The same night Yanukovich fled,
Putin launched the operation to seize Crimea and annexed it less than 1 month later. The US
has recently undertaken questionable military operations in a number of countries beginning
with Kosovo, but never without first taking the time to attempt to negotiate a peaceful
settlement.
In my world, Ukraine, Russia, the US and the UK signed the Budapest Memorandum pledging to
respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in return for decommission Ukraine's nuclear
forces. This agreement isn't found in the index of Cohen's book.
On my planet, the evidence linking Putin to the assassination of Litvinecko, Nemtsov, and
Politkovskaya and the attempt on the Skripals is strong and consistent with spending his
formative years in the KGB. The naive view from Cohen's planet is presented on p 6 and
170.
The worst sins in this book arise from its structure. The first 10 pages of the book
comprise an overview, and the remaining 200 pages are paste ups of talks, articles and blog
posts since 2014, and mostly since 2016. In most cases, these articles consist of Cohen
defending Putin's position in response to breaking news. For example, we get Cohen's initial
12/15/16 response to reports that Russia hacked the DNC on p74-75, but we aren't told about
the large amount of information collected since then, including reports that the Dutch had
hacked into the Russian operation that hacked the DNC. Mueller has indicted several dozens
Russians in connection with the break in. Cohen is supposed to be an important scholar and
historian. He knows that biased first impressions from breaking news do not constitute
history.
This "scholarly work" was published to some organization called Hot Books, whose website
was non-functional at the time of this review. The book covers contain only one ambiguous
comment from a reviewer I don't recognize. The remaining comments are refer to Cohen's
previous books. Praise from that Russia scholar Tucker Carlson is mentioned at Amazon.
Cohen's previous books were publisher by major publishers. Apparently they agree with me that
Cohen is the one living on a different planet.
I bought this book hoping to hear a different perspective on our deteriorating
relationship with Russia. I had doubts about the expansion of NATO into countries with large
numbers of ethnic Russians - countries that need to reach compromises with their powerful
neighbor. The Ukraine is a classic example. It has maintained a marginally separate national
identity and language, but the east is predominantly Russian. Western Ukraine contains the
Polish territory Hitler gave to Stalin and is anti-Russian. The Ukrainians twice drove the
Red Army from Kiev during the civil war that followed the overthrow of the tsar. Millions of
Ukrainians saw Hitler as a potential liberator of the Ukrainian people and Nazism is a
powerful force in some areas. I was hoping to hear some nuanced and realistic information
about these issues, not an apologist for Putin.
This is the same domino theory that led to Vietnam war.
Notable quotes:
"... The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task. ..."
"... And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent crimes based on nonexistent evidence. ..."
"... Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit. But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory ..."
"... That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world. ..."
"... I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously. ..."
| One-time U.S. presidential advisor on Russia and Europe to the White House National Security Council Timothy Morrison testified
in his opening
statement
to the House Intelligence Committee Tuesday afternoon that "the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia
over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here."
This is another example of what I have been saying about this, that while the impeachment stuff is boring the geopolitical takes
from these neocons in the government are telling. They show exactly why nothing changes on foreign policy no matter who gets elected
President. They have an agenda, such as the anti-Russian agenda, and they see their job to pursue this no matter what happens.
This is what the opposition to Trump from the establishment is largely about, that he is going against their foreign policy interests,
such as the current US-Russia proxy war.
They want to spread globalism/liberalism to the entire world, including Russia. Russia does not accept this and is defending
itself. The current crisis was caused entirely by the US, everything Russia has done has been in a defensive and very restrained
response.
The impeachment is about . . . Uuuhhh, hmmmm . . let's see how to take on Russia.
I suspect that the shift here is the direct result of all the evidence concerning how the US was involved in a violent revolution
that has brought Ukraine or "the Ukraine" to the brink if not actual civil war.
That in the wake of that violence Sec Clinton's bid for the WH failed and that in turn has upended the push for a forceful
confrontation with Russia in which a women would be seen as tough and capable --- utterly missing the point of how and why we
select our government leaders.
Notwithstanding this same leader gas a history of failed foreign policy prescriptions:
Now certainly she was not alone in these endeavors. But I find it interesting that the democrats are besides themselves over
her loss given the record. Nevermind how all of that now suggests that she underminded the president she served whose policies
were to tamp down against aggressive foreign policy that created needless tensions. Her tenure was anything but realistic and
tempered.
Her domestic policy was comprised of two agendas: healthcare, supporting WS, using the Clinton Foundation as a pay to play
gatekeeping operation to influence and power , protecting her uranium Russia deal, and calling her fellow citizens names as well
as importing as many foreigners to fill the coffers of big tech companies and democratic party numbers . . .
That name calling included accusations that the president was acting in accord with the Russians to overthrow US elections
and at the enter of these allegations is a company responsible for securing the Sec's computer system who just happens to be owned
by ----
a Ukrainian.
The same company and Ukrainians that refused the FBI access and from whom the FBI has failed to obtain a warrant for that system
to investigate threats to the nation's national security -- excuse me but that strangely like "obstruction of justice" yet according
to some commenters here -- the FBI is just too incompetent to conduct such a technically difficult task.
And for more than three years the democrats have been leading the country down a road of impeachment for imagined --- nonexistent
crimes based on nonexistent evidence.
Only thing more astonishing than the democratic investigations is that half of the population actually thinks there's merit.
But when Vice President Biden brazenly boasts about coercing the the Ukrainian government to stop a criminal investigation and
that boast is on tale for all to hear --- it's not a fact -- it's a made up conspiracy theory
If the policy geniuses that created these messes for the Ukraine and the US had an ounce of courage they simply would have
on their own accord sent US troops into the Ukraine en mass and that would include the Crimea. Given their depth of power, it
seems that they could have done rather easily. Good grief why bother with a messy revolution and all the trappings of multiple
interest groups -- just do it ourselves.
""the United States aids Ukraine and her people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia over here.""
That sounds like the kind of delusional remark one might here from somebody with a severe mental illness. Frightening to
think that the person who said it is a mover and shaker in the foreign policy world.
I agree with the other posters that this impeachment is a textbook play by play narrative of entrenched interests lobbying
to maintain the status quo as well as foreign lobbyists pursuing their own interest I personally find the comment of fighting
Russia in Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia here a sign of imbecility if they weren't speaking seriously.
1) There is more evidence of Chinese PLA buying off politicians in the US, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Europe, Australia, etc
2) There is more evidence of leftists whether they be Chinese communists, Israeli leftists, George Soros globalists on college
campus's than students sympathetic to Russia. China's PLA have Chinese students and Chinese Émigré communities under surveillance
for any anti-Chinese sentiment. Infact, newspapers in Chinese Émigré communities are owned by the PLA.
2a) Our college campus's have become crucibles for civil war. US college campus are rife with anti-American protests, anti-while
protests, anti-male protests, anti-Christian protests, anti-citizenship protests,....etc. Furthermore our college campus's have
become centers denying freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, etc (even though these
students stand for every pillar and foundation of our nation...no students are ever expelled even when they commit threats, harassment,
violence and property damage).
3) China takes US retirement funds (civil service and military), offers higher yields and uses the money to buy research and new
leading technology companies. moves the businesses to China where the technology can be shared between the civilian sector and
the military sector.
4) The Chinese have infiltrated our nuclear labs, our defense weapons labs, our R&D labs
5) At the same time this is going on China is militarizing the South China Sea, China is using North Korea to test fire missiles
over South Korea and Japan, as well as threaten Guam and Hawaii.
NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND IF RUSSIA WAS AMONG A GROUP OF NATIONS INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS AND OUR DOMESTIC AND OUR FOREIGN POLICY
BUT IT STRIKES ME AS BOTH SUSPICIOUS AND SINISTER THAT ALL THE FOCUS IS ON RUSSIA WHILE OTHER NATIONS WITH MUCH STRONGER CASES
OF INFLUENCING OUR ELECTIONS, DOMESTIC ESPIONAGE AND SUBVERSION ARE IGNORED. ACCORDING TO VOLTAIRE'S LOGIC THEY WOULD BE
EXCLUDED FROM SCRUTINY AND VISIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE STRONGER AND INFLUENCING US THE MOST WHILE RUSSIA WOULD BE TARGETED BECAUSE
THEY ARE INFLUENCING US THE LEAST.
"... their ground on which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President Trump. ..."
"... Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me. ..."
"... These matters are likelier to be publicly discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February 2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public. ..."
"... Without understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but of different types. ..."
"... Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions. Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been. ..."
"... A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet, even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing for it was "The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." ..."
"... Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and lies in this key passage from her]: ..."
...the American public should have been far more skeptical about the Ukrainegate
narrative than they were, because, at first, Democrats were trying to use, as their ground on
which to impeach Trump -- and thereby to install the current Vice President Mike Pence as being
America's President -- Trump's having colluded with Russia in order to win the 2016 election
against Hillary Clinton, but that effort failed because it was false and was based on highly
questionable evidence, supplied largely through a firm, Crowdstrike, that the Democratic
National Committee had hired in order to find dirt against then-candidate and now-President
Trump. Now the Democrats' ground, for replacing President Donald Trump by his Vice President
Mike Pence, is that in Trump's 25 July 2019 phone-call to Ukraine's new President Volodmyr
Zelensky, Trump supposedly pressured Zelensky to have Joe Biden investigated.
One of the first signs of a liar is that the person switches his story -- changes to a new
and different reason for 'justifying' his actions (in this case, impeachment) -- and this
clearly is being done now by the Democrats and the 'news'-media, in order to replace President
Donald Trump by his Vice President Mike Pence. Consequently: Americans are insufficiently
suspicious against the present impeachment hearings. Americans need to examine carefully beyond
the mere surface -- much deeper. The links here are provided in order to facilitate the
reader's direct access to the highest quality (i.e., most trustworthy) evidence in the case, so
that the reader may see, on one's own , what the 'news'-media do not report.
25 September 2019 was when
a clear and copyable version of the transcript of that complete July 25th phone
conversation finally became published, online, by Rhode Island's Providence Journal; and
here is the only passage in the complete transcript where Trump mentioned Biden (three times,
in fact -- the only three times that the word "Biden" appears in the entire transcript):
Rudy [Giuliani] very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you
could speak to him, that would be great. The former ambassador [to Ukraine] from the United
States, the woman [Marie Yovanovitch] , was bad news and the people she was dealing with in
the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot
of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to
find out about that so whatever you can do with the [U.S.] Attorney General [William Barr]
would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can
look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.
What "prosecution," of whom, for what, and why? The media ignore those questions. when they
aren't simply assuming an answer to them. But no such answer ought to be assumed. Nor should
these important questions be ignored. Here, the answers to those questions will be
documented.
Furthermore, elsewhere in that conversation, Trump said:
I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and
Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole
situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people.
The server, they say Ukraine has it.
Zelensky responded by asserting that "the next prosecutor general [in Ukraine] will be 100%
my person" and that "he or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company
[Crowdstrike] that you mentioned in this issue." Nothing at all was said by Zelensky about any
Biden, at any point in the entire phone-call. It wasn't mainly about the Bidens such as the
press alleges to be the case.
In fact: the "favor" that Trump was asking about wasn't concerning the Bidens, but it
instead concerned the investigation that Trump's Attorney General (referenced here when Trump
said "whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great") is now heading, into the
question of why Obama's FBI and entire intelligence community had proceeded with the highly
suspect Christopher Steele and Crowdstrike report that the Democratic National Committee had
hired under Obama in order to come up with allegations to use against Trump, and why the Obama
Administration never demanded to inspect the DNC's own server in order to examine the key
physical evidence in the alleged Russiagate case against Trump -- much less, what testimony and
evidence Julian Assange might have in the alleged Russiagate case . What did Trump mean when he
said "The server, they say Ukraine has it"? Did Trump actually think that Zelensky could supply
that physical evidence? What did he mean? What was he asking of Zelensky when Trump said, "The
server, they say Ukraine has it"?
One can't understand the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump unless one understands
accurately what was happening in Ukraine and what the motivations were of the persons who were
involved in U.S.-Ukraine policy, first under U.S. President Barack Obama, and then under his
successor Donald Trump. Information will be presented here, about those matters, which probably
won't come up in the House impeachment hearings. These matters are likelier to be publicly
discussed afterward, when the case goes to the Senate, but might be too 'sensitive' to be
brought up even there -- especially if they make both Democratic and Republican officials look
bad, such as, for example, if both Democrats and Republicans had participated in a February
2014 coup against, and overthrowing, Ukraine's democratically elected Government, and -- if
that happened, as we will show it did -- how this fact might affect Trump's relationship with Zelensky. So: a lot is to be shown here, and this will be information that the 'news'-media
have been hiding from the public, not reporting to the public.
There are many instances of U.S. coups that the Government lied about and that afterward had
negative blowback. The 1953 U.S. coup against Iran's democratically elected Government wasn't
revealed to the American public until decades after it had happened. It had long been alleged to have been a
'democratic revolution' in Iran . Our Government and media have been lying to us for a long
time, and not only about 'WMD in Iraq'. We shall be documenting here that that 1953 coup in
Iran (and other similar instances by the U.S. Government) is being repeated (yet again) in the
case of the February 2014 U.S. coup that occurred in Ukraine. The regime is very effective at lying , at deceiving , at manipulating , its public, no less now than it was then . Without
understanding the reality of Obama's coup in Ukraine , there is no way of
honestly explaining Ukrainegate. The 1953 Iran coup produced, as blowback, the Islamic
Revolution in Iran in 1979. Obama's 2014 coup in Ukraine likewise is having its blowbacks, but
of different types.
PART TWO: TRUMP'S PURPOSE IN THE 25 JULY
2019 CALL TO ZELENSKY
The argument to be presented here is that Trump, in this phone-call, and generally, was
trying not only to obtain help with evidence-gathering in the "Crowdstrike" matter (which A.G.
Barr is now investigating, and which also is the reason why Trump specifically mentioned
"Crowdstrike" at the only instance in the phone-call where he was requesting a "favor" from
Zelensky), but to change the policy toward Ukraine that had been established by Obama (via
Obama's coup and its aftermath). This is a fact, which will be documented here. Far more than
politics was involved here; ideology was actually very much involved. Trump was considering a
basic change in U.S. foreign policies. He was considering to replace policies that had been
established under, and personnel who had been appointed by, his immediate predecessor, Barack
Obama. Democrats are extremely opposed to any such changes. This is one of the reasons for the
renewed impeachment-effort by Democrats. They don't want to let go of Obama's worst policies.
But changing U.S. foreign policy is within a President's Constitutional authority to do.
Trump fired the flaming neoconservative John Bolton on 10 September 2019. This culminated a
growing rejection by Trump of neoconservatism -- something that he had never thought much about
but had largely continued from the Obama Administration, which invaded and destroyed Libya in
2011, Syria in 2012-, Yemen in 2015-, and more -- possibly out-doing even George W. Bush, who
likewise was a flaming neocon. Trump's gradual turn away from neoconservatism wasn't just
political; it was instead a reflection, on his part, that maybe, just maybe, he had actually
been wrong and needed to change his foreign policies, in some important ways. (He evidently
still hasn't yet figured out precisely what those changes should be.)
For example, on 15 November 2019, the impeachment focus was on the testimony of Marie
Yovanovitch, whom Trump had recently (
in May 2019 ) fired as the Ambassador to Ukraine. Democrats presented her as having been
the paradigm of professionalism and nonpartisanship in America's foreign service. She was
actually a neoconservative who had been appointed as an Ambassador first by President George W.
Bush on 20 November 2004, after her having received an M.S. from the National War College in
2001. Obama appointed her, on 18 May 2016, to replace Geoff Pyatt ( shown and heard in this video confidentially
receiving instructions from Obama's agent controlling Ukraine-policy, Victoria Nuland ) as
the Ambassador to Ukraine. Obama had selected Yovanovitch because he knew that (just like
Pyatt) she supported his polices regarding Ukraine and would adhere to his instructions.
Yovanovitch was part of Obama's team, just as she had previously been part of George W. Bush's
team. All three of them were staunch neoconservatives, just as Ambassador Pyatt had been, and
just as Victoria Nuland had been, and just as Joe Biden had been.
A neoconservative believes in the rightfulness of American empire over this entire planet,
even over the borders of the other nuclear superpower, Russia. Obama's standard phrase arguing
for it was "The United States is and remains
the one indispensable nation" , meaning that all other nations are "dispensable." This
imperialistic belief was an extension of Yale's 'pacifist' pro-Nazi America
First movement , which was supported by Wall Street's Dulles brothers in the
early 1940s , and which pro-Nazi movement Trump himself has prominently praised. Unlike the
progressive U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had planned the U.N. in order to be
the anti -imperialist emerging first-ever global world government of nations, which would
democratically set and ultimately enforce international laws of a new global federation of
nations -- a global democratic federation of sovereign republics -- neoconservatives are U.S.
imperialists, who want instead to destroy the U.N., and to extend American power over the
entire world, make America not only the policeman to the world but the lawmaker for the world,
and the judge jury and executioner of the world, the global dictator. The U.N. would be
weakened to insignificance. This has gradually been occurring. It continued even after what had
been thought to have been the 1991 end of the Cold War, and after Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize
in 2009 for his deceptive rhetoric. Yale's John
Bolton was the leading current proponent of the America First viewpoint, much more straightforward in his advocacy of
it than the far wilier Obama was; and, until recently, Trump supported that unhedged
advocacy for the neoconservative viewpoint: U.S. imperialism. Regarding the campaign to take
over Russia, however, he no longer does -- he has broken with Bolton on that central
neoconservative goal, and he is trying to reverse that policy, which had been even more extreme
than Obama's policy towards Russia was (which policy had, in fact , produced the coup in Ukraine).
When the Cold War had supposedly ended in 1991, it ended actually only on the Russian side, but secretly it continued and continues on
as policy on the American imperialists' side . The neoconservative side, which controlled
the U.S. Government by that time (FDR's vision having been destroyed when Ronald Reagan entered
the White House in 1981), has no respect whatsoever for Russia's sovereignty over its own land,
and certainly not over the land of Russia's neighbors, such as Ukraine, which has a 1,625-mile
border with Russia. Neoconservatives want U.S. missiles to be pointed at Moscow all along
Russia's border. That would be as if Russia had wanted to position Russian missiles all along
Canada's and Mexico's borders with the U.S.; it would disgust any decent person, anywhere, but
neoconservatives aren't decent people. Neoconservatives (U.S. imperialists) seek for all of
Russia's neighbors to become part of the U.S. empire, so as to isolate Russia and then become
able to gobble it up. All neoconservatives want this ultimately to happen. Their grasp for
power is truly limitless. Only in the tactical issues do they differ from one-another.
In her testimony behind closed doors to Senators, on
11 October 2019 , Yovanovich stated her views regarding what America's policies toward
Ukraine should be, and these were Obama's policies, too; these views are the neoconservative
outlook [and my own comments in brackets here will indicate her most egregious distortions and
lies in this key passage from her]:
Because of Ukraine's geostrategic position bordering Russia on its east, the warm waters
of the oil-rich Black Sea to its south, and four NATO allies to its west, it is critical to
the security of the United States [this is like saying that Mexico and Canada are crucial to
the security of Russia -- it's a lie] that Ukraine remain free and democratic [meaning, to
neoconservatives, under U.S. control] , and that it continue to resist Russian expansionism
[like Russia cares about U.S. expansionism over all of the Western Hemisphere? Really? Is
that actually what this is about? It's about extending U.S. imperialism on and across
Russia's border into Russia itself] Russia's purported annexation of Crimea [but, actually,
"Clear and
convincing evidence will be presented here that, under U.S. President Barack Obama, the U.S.
Government had a detailed plan, which was already active in June 2013, to take over Russia's
main naval base, which is in Sevastopol in Crimea, and to turn it into a U.S. naval
base." ] , its invasion of Eastern Ukraine, and its defacto control over the Sea of Azov,
make clear Russia's malign intentions towards Ukraine [not make clear Russia's determination
not to be surrounded by enemies -- by U.S.-stooge regimes. For Russia to avoid that is
'malign', she says] . If we allow Russia's actions to stand, we will set a precedent that the
United States will regret for decades to come. So, supporting Ukraine's integration into
Europe and combating Russia' s efforts to destabilize Ukraine [Oh, America didn't do that destabilization ?]
have anchored our policy since the Ukrainian people protested on the Maidan in 2014 and
demanded to be a part of Europe and live according to the rule of law [But Ukrainians before
Obama's takeover of Ukraine in February 2014 didn't actually want to be part of the EU nor of
NATO, and they considered NATO to be a threat to Ukraine. "In 2010,
Gallup found that whereas 17% of Ukrainians considered NATO to mean 'protection of your
country,' 40% said it's 'a threat to your country'." ] That was U.S. policy when I became
ambassador in August 2016 [after Obama's successful coup there took over its
media and turned Ukrainian opinion strongly against Russia] , and it was reaffirmed as that
policy as the policy of the current administration in early 2017. [Yes, that's correct,
finally a truthful assertion from her. When Trump first came into office, he was a
neoconservative, too.] The Revolution of Dignity [ you'll see here the 'dignity' of it ]
and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption forced the new Ukrainian Government to
take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated that country's political
and economic systems [and that still do, and perhaps more now than even before] .
That's just one example -- it's about the role of Ambassador Yovanovitch. But the focus of
Ukrainegate isn't really that. It's not Yovanovitch. It is what Trump was trying to do, and
what Joe Biden was trying to do, and what Obama had actually done. It is also about Joe Biden's
son Hunter, because this is also about contending dynasties, and not only about contending
individuals. Trump isn't certain, now, that he wants to continue being a full-fledged
neoconservative, and to continue extending Obama's neoconservative policies regarding Ukraine.
So: this is largely about what those policies actually were. And here is how Joe Biden comes
into the picture, because Democrats, in trying to replace President Donald Trump by a President
Mike Pence, are trying to restore, actually, Barack Obama's policy in Ukraine, a policy of
which the Bidens themselves were very much Obama's agents, and Mike Pence would be expected to
continue and extend those policies. Here will be necessary to document some personal and
business relationships that the U.S. news-media have consistently been hiding and even lying
about, and which might not come up even in the expected subsequent Senate hearings about
whether to replace Trump by Pence:
PART THREE: THE CENTRALITY OF UKRAINIAN OLIGARCH IHOR
KOLOMOYSKY
The real person who was the benefactor to, and the boss of, Vice President Joe Biden's son,
Hunter Biden, at the Ukrainian gas-exploration company Burisma Holdings, was not the person
that the American press says was, Mykola Zlochevsky, who had been part of the Ukrainian
Government until Ukraine's President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in February 2014, but it
was instead Ihor Kolomoysky, who was part of the newly installed Ukrainian Government, which
the Obama Administration itself had actually just installed in Ukraine (and that
phone-conversation appointing Ukraine's new leader is explained here ), in what the head of the "private CIA" firm Stratfor has
correctly called "the most blatant coup in
history." ( Here's more
explanation of that coup which was done by Obama. )
One cannot even begin accurately to understand the impeachment proceedings against America's
current President Donald Trump ("Ukrainegate"), unless one first knows and understands
accurately what the relationships were between Trump and the current Government of Ukraine, and
the role that the Obama Administration had played in forming that Government (installing it),
and the role that Hunter Biden had been hired to perform for his actual boss at Burisma,
Kolomoysky, soon after Obama (via Obama's agent Victoria Nuland) had installed Ukraine's new
Government.
As I had written on
28 September 2019 , "In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky
doesn't want the dirt about Joe Biden to become public, one needs to know that Hunter Biden's
boss and benefactor at Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor
until Zelensky became Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms
which could place that former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places
."
That article, at the phrase "
dug up in 2012," discussed and linked to a careful 2012 study of Burisma which had actually
been done in Ukraine by an investigative nonprofit (Antac)
funded by America's billionaire George Soros (who was another major funder of the 2014 Ukrainian coup , as well as of Barack
Obama's political career itself) in order to help to bring down Yanukovych. However, what this
study found was not the incriminating evidence against Zlochevsky which had been hoped.
It
found instead that the person who owned the controlling interest in Burisma was not really the Yanukovych-supporter Mykola Zlochevsky; it was, in fact, the Ukrainian billionaire Ihor
Kolomoysky, who supported Yanukovych's overthrow. Kolomoysky, shortly after the coup, became
appointed as the governor in a region of Ukraine, by the Obama Administration's post-coup
Ukrainian Government. Obama's financial backer Soros knew, or should have known, that
Zlochevsky had sold almost all of his Burisma holdings to Kolomoysky in 2011, but Obama's
Administration was nonetheless trying to get the newly installed Ukrainian Government to
prosecute Zlochevsky because Zlochevsky was associated with the Ukrainian President whom Obama
had just overthrown. Hunter Biden's function was to help to protect Mr. Kolomoysky against
being targeted by the newly installed Government in the anti-corruption campaign that the Obama
Administration and the EU were pressing upon that new Ukrainian Government. Hunter Biden was to
serve as a U.S. fixer for his new boss Kolomoysky, to deflect the anti-corruption campaign away
from Kolomoysky as a target and toward Zlochevsky as a target. And Hunter's father, Joe Biden,
followed through on that, by demanding that Ukraine prosecute Zlochevsky, not Kolomoysky.
Soros isn't really against corruption; he is against corruption by countries that he wants to
take over, and that he uses the U.S. Government in order to take over. Neoconservatism is
simply imperialism, which has always been the foreign-affairs ideology of aristocrats and of
billionaires. (In America's case, that includes both Democratic and Republican billionaires.)
So, it's just imperialism in America. All billionaires who care at all about international
relations are imperialists; and, in America, that's called "neoconservative." The American
issue regarding Ukraine was never actually Ukraine's corruption. Corruption is standard and
accepted throughout the U.S.-and-allied countries; but against countries they want to take over
it becomes a PR point in order to win acceptance by the gulls, of their own country's
imperialism and its own associated corruption. "Our country's corruption is acceptable, but
yours is not," is the view. That's the standard imperialist view. Neoconservatism --
imperialism anywhere, actually -- is always based on lies. Imperialism, in fact, is part of
nationalism, but it is excluded by patriotism; and no nationalist is a patriot. No patriot is a
nationalist. Whereas a nationalist supports his country's billionaires, a patriot supports his
country's residents -- all of them, his countrymen, on a democratic basis, everyone having
equal rights, not the richest of the residents having the majority or all of the rights. A
nationalist is one-dollar-one-vote; a patriot is one resident one vote. The only people who are
intelligently nationalist are billionaires and the agents they employ. All other nationalists
are their gulls. Everyone else is a patriot. Ordinarily, there are far more gulls than
patriots.
Information hasn't yet been published regarding what Trump's agent Rudolph Giuliani has
found regarding Burisma, but the links in the present article link through to the evidence that
I am aware of, and it's evidence which contradicts what the U.S.-and-allied press have been
reporting about the Bidens' involvement in Ukraine. So: this information might be what Trump's
team intend to reveal after the Democratic-Party-controlled House of Representatives indicts
Trump (send to the Republican Senate a recommendation to replace him by Mike Pence as America's
President), if they will do that; but, regardless, this is what I have found, which
U.S.-and-allied news-media have conspicuously been not only ignoring but blatantly
contradicting -- contradicting the facts that are being documented by the evidence that is
presented here . Consequently, the links in this article prove the systematic lying by
America's press, regarding Ukrainegate.
After the Soros-funded Antac had discovered in 2012 that Kolomoysky ruled Burisma, the great
independent Australian investigative journalist who has lived for 30 years in and reported from
Moscow, John Helmer , headlined on 19
February 2015 one of his blockbuster news-reports,
"THE HUNT FOR BURISMA, PART II -- WHAT ROLE FOR IGOR KOLOMOISKY, WHAT LONDON MISSED, WHAT
WASHINGTON DOESN'T WANT TO SEE" , and he linked there not only to Ukrainian Government
records but also to UK Government records, and also to corporate records in Cyprus, Panama, and
elsewhere, to document that, indeed, Kolomoysky controlled Burisma. So, all of the
U.S.-and-allied 'news'-reporting, which merely assumes that Zlochevsky controlled this firm
when Hunter Biden became appointed to its board, are clearly false. (See
this, for example, from Britain's Guardian , two years later, on 12 April 2017, simply
ignoring both the Antac report and the even-more-detailed Helmer report, and presenting
Zlochevsky -- Kolomoysky's decoy -- as the appropriate target to be investigated for Burisma's
alleged corruption.) So: when Joe Biden demanded that Ukraine's Government prosecute
Zlochevsky, Biden was not, as he claims he was, demanding a foreign Government to act against
corruption; he was instead demanding that foreign Government (Ukraine) to carry out his own
boss, Barack Obama's, agenda, to smear as much as he could Viktor Yanukovych -- the Ukrainian
President whom Obama had overthrown. This isn't to say that Yanukovych was not corrupt; every
post-Soviet Ukrainian President, and probably Prime Minister too, has been corrupt. Ukraine is
famous for being corrupt. But, this doesn't necessarily mean that Zlochevsky was corrupt.
However, Kolomoysky is regarded, in Ukraine, as being perhaps the most corrupt of all
Ukrainians.
Perhaps Kolomoysky's major competitor has been Victor Pinchuk, who has long been famous in
Washington for donating heavily to Bill and Hillary Clintons' causes. For example, on 11 March
2018, the independent investigative journalist Jeff Carlson, bannered "Victor
Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections" and he reported that
He is the founder of Interpipe, a steel pipe manufacturer. He also owns Credit Dnipro
Bank, some ferroalloy plants and a media empire.
He is married to Elena Pinchuk, the daughter of former Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma.
Pinchuk's been accused of profiting immensely from the purchase of state-owned assets at
severely below-market prices through political favoritism.
Pinchuk used his media empire to deflect blame from his father-in-law, Kuchma, for the
September 16, 2000 murder of journalist Georgiy Gongadze. Kuchma was never charged but is
widely believed to have ordered the murder. A series of recordings would seem to back
up this assertion.
On April 4 through April 12 2016, Ukrainian Parliamentarian Olga Bielkov had
four meetings – with Samuel Charap (International Institute for Strategic Studies),
Liz Zentos (National Security Council), Michael Kimmage (State Dept) and David Kramer (McCain
Institute).
Doug Schoen filed FARA documents
showing that he was paid $40,000 a month by Victor Pinchuk (page 5) – in part to
arrange these meetings.
Schoen attempted to arrange another 72 meetings with Congressmen and media (page 10). It
is unknown how many meetings took place.
Schoen has worked for both Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Schoen helped Pinchuk establish ties with the Clinton Foundation. The Wall Street Journal
reported
how Schoen connected Pinchuk with senior Clinton State Department staffers in order to
pressure former Ukrainian President Yanukovych to release Yulia Tymoshenko – a
political rival of Yanukovych – from jail.
The relationship between Pinchuk and the Clintons continued.
A large network of collaborators, all connected to NATO's PR agency the Atlantic Council,
were also discussed and linked to; and, in one of the video clips, Victoria Nuland headed a
panel discussion in Munich Germany at which numerous leading Democratic Party neoconservatives,
and neoconservative foreign leaders, discussed how wonderful the "Deep State" is, and praised
the Republican neocon John McCain, who had helped Victoria Nuland to install the fascist
Government of Ukraine.
Joe Biden's campaign for president, as well as his defence against charges of corrupt
influence peddling and political collusion in the Ukraine, are being promoted in Washington
by the Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk through the New York lobbyist, candidate adviser and
pollster, Douglas Schoen (left).
This follows several years of attempts by Pinchuk and Schoen to buy influence with Donald
Trump, first as a candidate and then as president; with Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani; and
with John Bolton, Trump's National Security Adviser in 2018 and 2019. Their attempts
failed.
Pinchuk has been paying Schoen more than $40,000 every month for eight years. The amount
of money is substantially greater than Biden's son Hunter Biden was paid by Pinchuk's
Ukrainian rival Igor Kolomoisky through the oil company Burisma and Rosemont Seneca Bohai,
Biden's New York front company.
Pinchuk's message for the Democratic candidates and US media, according to Schoen's Fox
News [4] broadcast in August, is: "Stop killing your own, stop beating up on your own
frontrunner, Joe Biden."
On November 12th, the New York Times headlined "Ukraine's President Seeks Face-to-Face Meeting With Putin" and
reported that Zelensky is now sufficiently disturbed at the declining level of the EU's and
Trump Administration's continuing support for Ukraine's Government, so that Zelensky is
desperately trying to restore friendly relations with Russia. The next day, that newspaper
bannered "A Ukrainian Billionaire Fought
Russia. Now He's Ready to Embrace It." This report said: "Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as
Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently
elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time,
he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and
turn back toward Russia ." Kolomoysky, in other words, who had been on Obama's team in
Ukraine, no longer is on the U.S. team under Trump. A reasonable inference would be that
Kolomoysky increasingly fears the possibility of being prosecuted. Continuation of the Obama
plan for Ukraine seems increasingly unlikely.
Here are some crimes for which Kolomoysky might be prosecuted:
Allegedly, Kolomoysky, on 20 March 2015,
brought to a board meeting of Ukraine's gas-distribution company UkrTransNafta, of which
Kolomoysky was a minority shareholder, his hired thugs armed with guns , in an
unsuccessful attempt to intimidate the rest of the board to impose Kolomoysky's choice to
lead the company. Ukraine's President, Petro Poroshenko, soon thereafter, yielded to the
pressure from Ukraine's bondholders to fire
Kolomoysky as a regional governor, and then nationalized Ukraine's biggest bank,
PrivatBank, which had looted billions of dollars from depositors' accounts and secreted the
proceeds in untraceable offshore accounts, so that the bank had to be bailed out by Ukraine's
taxpayers. (Otherwise, there would have been huge riots against Poroshenko.)
Zelensky is squeezed between his funder and his public, and so dithers. For example, on 10
September 2019, the Financial Times reported
that "The IMF has warned Ukraine that backsliding on Privatbank's nationalisation would
jeopardise its $3.9bn standby programme and that officials expect Ukraine to push for recovery
of the $5.5bn spent on rescuing the bank." Stealing $5.5B is a big crime, and this was Obama's
Ukrainian Government. Will it also be Trump's?
There are others, but those could be starters.
So, both Kolomoysky and Zelensky are evidently now considering to seek Moscow's protection,
though Kolomoysky had previously been a huge backer of, and helped to fund, killing of the
Donbassers who rejected the Obama-imposed Russia-hating Ukrainian regime.
Any such prosecutions could open up, to international scrutiny, Obama's entire Ukrainian
operation. That, in turn, would expose Obama's command-complicity in the ethnic cleansing operation , which Kolomoysky's co-planner
of the 2 May 2014 massacre inside the Odessa Trade Unions Building, Arsen Avakov,
euphemistically labelled the "Anti Terrorist Operation" or "ATO," to eliminate as many as possible of the residents in the former
Donbass region of Ukraine, where over 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych.
PART FOUR: TRUMP'S MANY POLICY-DILEMMAS REGARDING UKRAINE
If Putin offers no helping hand to Zelensky, what will happen to Ukraine, and to Ukrainians?
Might Trump finally campaign for the United States to become one of the "States Parties" to the
International Criminal Court , so that Obama, Nuland, Soros, and others who had overthrown
Ukraine's
democratically elected Government could be tried there? How would Trump be able to immunize
himself for such
crimes as his own 14 April 2018 unprovoked missile-attack against Syria ? How likely is it
that he would ever actually become a supporter of international law, instead of an imperialist
(such as he has always been) and therefore opponent of international law? He, after all, is
himself a billionaire, and no billionaire has ever fought for international law except in an
instance where he benefited from it -- never for international law itself . Trump isn't likely
to be the first. But here's how it could happen:
Donald Trump has surrounded himself with neoconservatives. There's not much distance between
his policies toward Ukraine versus Barack Obama's and Joe Biden's. However, after Trump becomes
impeached in the House (if that happens) and the impeachment trial starts in the Republican
U.S. Senate, there will then be a perfect opportunity for Trump to embarrass the Democratic
Party profoundly by exposing not only Joe Biden but Biden's boss Obama as having
caused the war in Ukraine . In order for him to do that, however, he'd also need to expose
the rot of neoconservatism. Nobody in Washington does that, except, perhaps the rebelling
Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard, and she's
rejected in the national polls now by the public within her own Party . Neoconservatism is
the uniform foreign-policy ideology of America's billionaires, both Republican and Democratic,
and this is why Washington is virtually 100% neocon. In America, wealth certainly doesn't
trickle down, but ideology apparently does -- and that's not merely neoliberalism but also its
international-affairs extension: neoconservatism. Nonetheless, if a Trump re-election ticket
were Trump for President, and Gabbard for Vice President, it might be able to beat anything
that the Democrats could put up against it, because Trump would then head a ticket which would
remain attractive to Republicans and yet draw many independents and even the perhaps 5% of
Democrats who like her. Only Sanders, if he becomes the Democratic nominee (and who is the
least-neoconservative member of the U.S. Senate), would attract some of Gabbard's supporters,
but he wouldn't be getting any money from the 607 people who mainly fund American politics. The
2020 U.S. Presidential contest could just go hog-wild. However, America's billionaires probably
won't let that happen. Though there are only 607 of therm, they have enormous powers over the
Government, far more than do all other Americans put together. The U.S. Supreme Court made it
this way, such as by the 1976 Buckley decision , and the 2010 Citizens United
decision .
So: while justice in this impeachment matter (and in the 2020 elections) is conceivable, it
is extremely unlikely. The public are too deceived -- by America's Big-Money
people.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
And you know, I'll say this to President Trump. You want to investigate Joe Biden? You
want to investigate Hunter Biden? Go at it. Do it. Do it hard. Do it dirty. Do it the way you
do, do it. Just don't do it by asking a foreign leader to help you in your campaign. That's
your job, it's not his.
My goal in these hearings is two things. One is to get an answer to Colonel Vindman's
question ["Is it improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign
government investigate a United States citizen and political opponent?"] . And the second
coming out of this is for us as a Congress to return to the Ukraine policy that Nancy Pelosi
and Kevin McCarthy both support, it's not investigations, it's the restoration of democracy
in Ukraine and the resistance of Russian aggression.
He wants a return to Obama's anti-Russian Ukraine-policy. Though Zelensky had won Ukraine's
Presidency by a record-shattering 73% because he had promised to end the war (which the U.S.
had started), America's Deep State are refusing to allow that -- they want to force him to
accept more U.S.-made weapons and more U.S. training of Ukraine's troops in how to use them
against its next-door neighbor Russia.
Furthermore, in some respects, Trump is even more neoconservative than Obama was. Trump
single-handedly nullified Obama's only effective and good achievement, the Iran nuclear deal.
Against Iran, Trump is considerably more of a neocon than was Obama. Trump has squeezed
Iranians so hard with his sanctions as to block other countries from buying from and selling to
Iran; and this blockade has greatly impoverished Iranians, who now are rioting against their
Government. Trump wants them to overthrow their Government. His plan might succeed. Trump's
biggest donor, Sheldon
Adelson , hates Iranians, and Trump is his man. On Iran, Trump remains a super-neocon.
Perhaps Adelson doesn't require him to hate Russians too.
Furthermore, on November 17th, the same day when riots broke out in Iran against Iran's
Government, Abdullah Muradoğlu headlined in Turkey's newspaper Yeni Safak ,
"Bolivia's Morales was overthrown by a Western coup just like Iran's Mosaddeg" , and he
presented strong circumstantial evidence that that coup, too -- which had occurred on November
10th -- had been a U.S. operation. How could Trump criticize Obama for the coup against Ukraine
when Trump's own coup against Bolivia is in the news? America is now a two-Party fascist
dictatorship. One criminal U.S. President won't publicly expose the crimes of another criminal
U.S. President who was his predecessor.
The next much-discussed witness that the Democrats brought forth to testify against Trump
was America's Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, on November 20th. Sondland was a hotels
and real-estate tycoon like Trump. Prior to Trump's becoming President, Sondland had had no
experience in diplomacy. At the start of 2017, "four companies registered to Sondland
donated $1 million to the Donald Trump inaugural committee" ; and, then, a year later,
Trump appointed him to this Ambassadorial post. Sondland evasively responded to the aggressive
questioning by Senate Democrats trying to get him to say that Trump had been trying to "bribe"
Zelensky. Then, the Lawfare Blog of the staunchly neoconservative Brookings Institution's
Benjamin Wittes headlined "Gordon Sondland
Accuses the President of Bribery" and Wittes asserted that "today, Amb. Gordon Sondland,
testifying before the House in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, offered a crystal clear account
of how President Trump engaged in bribery." But Sondland provided no evidence except his
opinion, which can be seen online at "Opening Statement before
the United States House of Representatives" , when he said:
Fourth, as I testified previously, Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for
arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make
a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr.
Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that
these investigations were important to the President.
I asked the President, what do you want from Ukraine? The President responded, nothing.
There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro. No quid pro quo multiple times.
This was a very short call. And I recall that the President was really in a bad mood. I tried
hard to address Ambassador Taylor's concerns because he is valuable and [an] effective
diplomat, and I took very seriously the issues he raised. I did not want Ambassador Taylor to
leave his post and generate even more turnover in the Ukraine Mission."
The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and
was therefore extremely hostile toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on
the front line of America's war to conquer
Russia . Trump might be too stupid to understand anything about ideology or geostrategy,
but only if a person accepts neoconservatism is the anger that these subordinates of his
express toward him for his being viewed by them as placing other concerns (whether his own, or
else America's for withdrawing America from Obama's war against Russia) suitable reason for
Congress to force Trump out of office. Given that Trump, even in Sondland's account, did say
"The President responded, nothing. There is no quid pro. The President repeated, no quid pro.
No quid pro quo multiple times," there is nothing that's even close to a "beyond a reasonable
doubt" standard which is provided by their personal feelings that Trump had a quid-pro-quo
about anything regarding Ukraine -- a policy of Obama's that Trump should instead firmly have
abandoned and denounced as soon as he became President. Testimony from his own enemies, whom
Trump had been stupid enough to have appointed, when he hadn't simply extended Obama's
neoconservative policies and personnel regarding Ukraine, falls far short of impeachable. But
right and wrong won't determine the outcome here anyway, because America has become a
two-party, one-ideology, dictatorship.
This is what happens when billionaires control a
country . It produces the type of foreign policies the country's billionaires want, rather
than what the public actually need. This is America's Government, today. It's drastically
different than what America's Founders had hoped. Instead of its representing the states
equally with two Senators for each, and instead of representing the citizens equally, with
proportional per-capita representation in the U.S. House, and instead of yet a third system of
the Electoral College for choosing the Government's Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief, it
has become thoroughly corrupted to being, in effect, just one-dollar-one-vote -- an aristocracy
of wealth controlling the entire Government -- exactly what the Founders had waged the
Revolution in order to overthrow and prevent from ever recurring: a dictatorial aristocracy, as
constituting our Government, today.
* * *
PS: Though I oppose almost everything that the hearings' Ranking Minority Member, the
neoconservative (and, of course, also neoliberal) Republican Devin Nunes , stands for, I close here with
his superb summary of the hearings, on November 21st , in which he validly described the
Democrats' scandalously trashy Ukrainegate case against Trump (even though he refused to look
deeper to the issues I raise in this article -- he dealt here merely with how "shoddy" the case
the Democrats had presented was):
Throughout these bizarre hearings, the Democrats have struggled to make the case that
President Trump committed some impeachable offense on his phone call with Ukrainian president
Zelensky. The offense itself changes depending on the day ranging from quid pro quo to
extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo. It's clear why
the Democrats have been forced onto this carousel of accusations. President Trump had good
reason to be wary of Ukrainian election meddling against his campaign and of widespread
corruption in that country. President Zelensky, who didn't even know aid to Ukraine had been
paused at the time of the call, has repeatedly said there was nothing wrong with the
conversation. The aid was resumed without the Ukrainians taking the actions they were
supposedly being coerced into doing.
Aid to Ukraine under President Trump has been much more robust than it was under President
Obama, thanks to the provision of Javelin anti-tank weapons. As numerous witnesses have
testified, temporary holds on foreign aid occur fairly frequently for many different reasons.
So how do we have an impeachable offense here when there's no actual misdeed and no one even
claiming to be a victim? The Democrats have tried to solve this dilemma with a simple slogan,
"he got caught." President Trump, we are to believe, was just about to do something wrong and
getting caught was the only reason he backed down from whatever nefarious thought crime the
Democrats are accusing him of almost committing.
I once again urge Americans to continue to consider the credibility of the Democrats on
this Committee, who are now hurling these charges for the last three years. It's not
president Trump who got caught, it's the Democrats who got caught. They got caught falsely
claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to hack
the 2016 election. They got caught orchestrating this entire farce with the whistleblower and
lying about their secret meetings with him. They got caught defending the false allegations
of the Steele dossier, which was paid for by them. They got caught breaking their promise
that impeachment would only go forward with bipartisan support because of how damaging it is
to the American people.
They got caught running a sham impeachment process between secret depositions, hidden
transcripts, and an unending flood of Democrat leaks to the media. They got caught trying to
obtain nude photos of President Trump from Russian pranksters pretending to be Ukrainians,
and they got caught covering up for Alexandra Chalupa, a Democratic National Committee
operative, who colluded with Ukrainian officials to smear the Trump campaign by improperly
redacting her name from deposition transcripts, and refusing to let Americans hear her
testimony as a witness in these proceedings. That is the Democrats pitiful legacy in recent
years. They got caught.
Meanwhile, their supposed star witness testified that he was guessing that President Trump
was tying Ukrainian aid to investigations despite no one telling him that was true, and the
president himself explicitly telling him the opposite, that he wanted nothing from Ukraine.
Ladies and gentlemen, unless the Democrats once again scramble their kangaroo court rules,
today's hearing marks the merciful end of this spectacle in the Impeachment Committee,
formerly known as the Intelligence Committee. Whether the Democrats reap the political
benefit they want from this impeachment remains to be seen, but the damage they have done to
this country will be long lasting. Will this wrenching attempt to overthrow the president?
They have pitted Americans against one another and poison the mind of fanatics who actually
believe the entire galaxy of bizarre accusations they have levelled against the president
since the day the American people elected him.
I sincerely hope the Democrats in this affair [end this] as quickly as possible so our
nation can begin to heal the many wounds it has inflicted on us. The people's faith in
government and their belief that their vote counts for something has been shaken. From the
Russia hoax to this shoddy Ukrainian sequel, the Democrats got caught. Let's hope they
finally learn a lesson, give their conspiracy theories a rest, and focus on governing for a
change. In addition, Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1), the Republican
members transmit a request to convene a minority day of hearings. Today you have blocked key
witnesses that we have requested from testifying in this partisan impeachment inquiry. This
rule was not displaced by H.Res.660, and therefore under House Rule 11 clause 1(a), it
applies to the Democrats impeachment inquiry. We look forward to the chair promptly
scheduling an agreed upon time for the minority day of hearings so that we can hear from key
witnesses that you have continually blocked from testifying.
I'd also like to take a quick moment on an assertion Ms. Hill made in the statement that
she submitted to this Committee, in which she claimed that some Committee members deny that
Russia meddled in the 2016 election. As I noted in my opening statement on Wednesday, but in
March, 2018, Intelligence Committee Republicans published the results of a year long
investigation into Russian meddling. The 240 page report analyzed 2016 Russian meddling
campaign, the US government reaction to it, Russian campaigns in other countries and provided
specific recommendations to improve American election security. I would [have] asked my staff
to hand these reports to our two witnesses today just so I can have a recollection of their
memory. As America may or may not know, Democrats refused to sign on to the Republican
report. Instead, they decided to adopt minority views, filled with collusion conspiracy
theories. Needless to say, it is entirely possible for two separate nations to engage in
election meddling at the same time, and Republicans believe we should take meddling seriously
by all foreign countries regardless of which campaign is the target.
The latest (2019) Reuters international survey in which over 2,000 people in each one of 38
countries were asked whether they agree that "You
can trust most news most of the time" shows that the United States scores #32 out of the
38, at the very top of the bottom 16% of all of the 38 countries surveyed, regarding trust in
the news-media. Reuters had previously found, in their
2018 edition , that, among Americans, "those who identify on the left (49%) have almost
three times as much trust in the news as those on the right (17%). The left gave their support
to newspapers like the Washington Post and New York Times while the right's alienation from
mainstream media has become ever more entrenched." In the 2019 edition, what had been 49% in
America rose now to 53%, and what had been 17% sank now to 9%: the billionaires' (i.e.,
mainstream) media are trusted almost only by liberals here. What the media report is considered
trustworthy almost only by liberals, in today's America. By 53% to only 9% -- an almost 6 to 1
ratio -- the skeptics of the billionaires' press are Republicans. Of course, if the media are
distrusted, then the nation can't be functioning as a democracy. But the media will be
distrusted if they lie as much as America's do. Untrusted 'news'-media are a sure indication
that the nation is a dictatorship (such as it is if the billionaires control the media) . In
America, only liberals think that America is a democracy and therefore might possess the basic
qualification (democracy) to decide what nations need to be regime-changed (such as America did
to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Honduras, Bolivia, and is still trying to do to Venezuela, Cuba,
Nicaragua, Iran again, Syria, and Yemen; but not to -- for examples -- Saudi Arabia, UAE, and
Israel); and which ones don't (such as America's governmentally-annointed 'allies', including
some barbaric dictatorships). Liberals trust America's dictatorship as if it were instead a democracy.
Conservatives do not; nor, of course, do progressives. FDR's vision, of a United Nations which
would set and enforce the rules for international relations (neither the U.S. nor any other
country would do that), is now even more rejected by the Democratic Party than it is by the
Republican Party. And the politically topsy-turvy result is Democrats trying to impeach the
Republican Trump for his trying to cut back on Obama's imperialistic ( anti -FDR) agenda.
Trump, after all, didn't do the coup to Ukraine; Obama did
.
The same reason they give it to most countries - there is no oversight once the funds are transferred, then have kickbacks
funnelled into private accounts that belong to the very politicians who argue for the aid. That's one way these scumbag career
pols become multimillionaires.
The "NATO crowd" (aka neocon sh*t bags, aka 'the war party') is always still fighting the last war. NATO is totally obsolete
agents irrelevant. Wars are no longer fought with arms bombs & bullets. The NATO crowd are all fascists wearing american colors.....
they don't really care about america or her values. They only care about power; their bankrupt vision. They don't care what uniform
their SS storm troopers wear as long as they can be the chess players moving the pieces
The meaning of the events in Ukraine in 2014 is very simple. In 2014, a group of Ukrainian oligarchs of Jewish nationality
(Poroshenko-Valtsman, Kolomoisky, Rabinovich, ... + the entire Rada of 2014, consisting mainly of ethnic Jews) carried out a coup
(read - treason), violated the Constitution, overthrew the democratically elected president , made a provocation in the form of
murder (with the assistance of hired Polish, Georgian, American snipers) people on the Maidan from both sides, declared Russian-speaking
Ukrainians in the east of the country as second-class people + arranged terror with the help of Nazis from Galicia and Volhynia,
hired by Kolomoisky's money and obeying him (the Nazis obey a *** - a "funny" fact), they burned 297 people alive in Odessa (3
of them children and 1 and a pregnant woman), and then ~ 300 more people were killed on the streets (in total ~ 600 people were
killed that day in Odessa).
The beautiful Jewish boy (Zelensky), who portrays the president of Ukraine, is a protege of Kolomoisky (like Obama was the
protege of Chicago bankers), Ukraine's gold reserves in New York, gas transit from Russia is lost, relations with Russians are
completely lost, the United States got into the "Ukrainian swamp like a pigs in the mud".
Bottom line: Only Zionist Jews won in the United States and the former Ukraine, all the rest lost.
People will judge the Zionists as the German National Socialists for their crimes in the international trebunal, because
now according to the methods of doing business, American Zionism is no different from German National Socialism. If our American
and Israeli Jewish friends do not like this, what can I say? These are your problems, for crimes against humanity you will be
responsible and you will not get out of this.
"The testimony of all of these people was entirely in keeping with their neoconservatism and was therefore extremely hostile
toward anything but preparing Ukraine to join NATO and serve on the front line of
America's war to conquer Russia ."
And THIS is exactly what its all about.
Liberals supporting this insanity are now imperialist boot lickers. When war on Russia comes, every Dem voter should be immediately
sent to Ukraine to fight on the front lines.
Democrats get away with this because for 8 years MSM and the political elite white washed or were silent on Obama war crimes.
The sheep know not what they do and if they do: **** THEM
The entire history of man has been centered around the politic class skimming money off the working class. Although the current
exposition may phrase some particular politic, the virus at large is incurable.
Eric Ciamarella has close ties with Joe Biden and obviously knows all about his corruption
and collaboration with Ukraine's Nazis. He is a registered Dem.
Ciaramella travelled with Biden to Kiev and was invited by Biden to lunch at the White
House, a very unusual event for a low level CIA "analyst" indicating Ciamarella has political
connections above his CIA rank.
Ciaramella also has close links to John Brennan - the primary pusher of the Russiagate Hoax
from within the Obama Regime in 2016.
Brennan set up a CIA Task Force in late 2015 or early 2016 to target Trump and prevent him
winning the election, in what has become known as "Spygate".
Brennan conspired with the FBI, British Intelligence (MI6/MI5) and GCHQ to illegally spy on
Trump and members of his campaign.
This also involved entrapment operations and attempted smears against General Michael Flynn,
George Papadopoulos and Trump himself using long time CIA asset Stefan Halper (who was paid $1m
by Obama), MI6/MI5 asset Joseph Mifsud and long term FBI/CIA informer (since ~1999) and loose
Trump associate Felix Sater.
There was also of course MI6 agent Christopher Steele's Fake "Dossier". Nothing in the
Steele dossier is true, except for Carter Page's visit to an oil investment conference in
Moscow in mid 2016, as part of his job as an Oil Investment Consultant. This information has
always been freely available on the net and was known to the CIA and the FBI at the time.
Carter Page was regular debriefed by, and freely cooperated with, U.S. Intelligence after each
of his regular visits to Russia
The above is the REAL Foreign Meddling in the 2016 election.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever of any Russian government meddling in the 2016 US
election (see below).
The CFR is the leading Globalist organization funded by Big Banks, large Multinationals and
Oligarchs and works directly against the best interests of the 99% of ordinary Americans (and
everyone else on the planet).
Ciaramella also has close links with Dem Operative Alexandra Chalupa who went to the Ukraine
Embassy in DC in early 2016, asking for them to dig up any dirt they could find on Manafort or
Trump.
Ray raised interesting question: was Fiona Hill on the list on Brennan experts who created 17 intelligence agencies.
Notable quotes:
"... Fiona Hill's "Russian-expert" testimony Thursday and her deposition on Oct. 14 to the impeachment inquiry showed that her antennae are acutely tuned to what Russian intelligence services may be up to but, sadly, also displayed a striking naiveté about the machinations of U.S. intelligence. ..."
"... Hill's education on Russia came at the knee of the late Professor Richard Pipes, her Harvard mentor and archdeacon of Russophobia. I do not dispute her sincerity in attributing all manner of evil to what President Ronald Reagan called the "Evil Empire." But, like so many other glib "Russia experts" with access to Establishment media, she seems three decades out of date. ..."
"... I have been studying the U.S.S.R. and Russia for twice as long as Hill, was chief of CIA's Soviet Foreign Policy Branch during the 1970s, and watched the "Evil Empire" fall apart. She seems to have missed the falling apart part. ..."
"... Hill has been conditioned to believe Russian President Vladimir Putin and especially his security services are capable of anything, and thus sees a Russian under every rock -- as we used to say of smart know-nothings like former CIA Director William Casey and the malleable "Soviet experts" who bubbled up to the top during his reign (1981 – 1987). Recall that at the very first meeting of Reagan's cabinet, Casey openly told the president and other cabinet officials: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." Were Casey still alive, he would be very pleased and proud of Hill's performance. ..."
"... "The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified." [Emphasis added.] ..."
"... A modicum of intellectual curiosity and rudimentary due diligence would have prompted her to look into who was in charge of preparing the (misnomered) "Intelligence Community Assessment" published on Jan. 6, 2017, which provided the lusted-after fodder for the "mainstream" media and others wanting to blame Hillary Clinton's defeat on the Russians. ..."
"... President Barack Obama gave the task to his National Intelligence Director James Clapper, whom he had allowed to stay in that job for three and a half years after he had to apologize to Congress for what he later admitted was a "clearly erroneous" response, under oath, to a question from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) on NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... Just eight weeks after she joined the National Security Council staff, Clapper, during an NBC interview on May 28, 2017, recalled "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." Later he added, "It's in their DNA." Clapper has claimed that "what the Russians did had a profound impact on the outcome of the election." ..."
"... As for the "Intelligence Community Assessment," the banner headline atop The New York Times on Jan. 7, 2017 set the tone for the next couple of years: "Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says." During my career as a CIA analyst, as deputy national intelligence officer chairing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), and working on the Intelligence Production Review Board, I had not seen so shabby a piece of faux analysis as the ICA. The writers themselves seemed to be holding their noses. They saw fit to embed in the ICA itself this derriere-covering note : "High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong ..."
"... "According to several current and former intelligence officers who must remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the issue," as the Times says when it prints made-up stuff, there were only two "handpicked analysts." Clapper picked Brennan; and Brennan picked Clapper. That would help explain the grossly subpar quality of the ICA. ..."
"... The general problem IMHO, to state obvious, is that there is no truth in the public discourse, only lies which support the narrative. And there is no penalty for the continuous lies, certainly not from what is called the press these days. ..."
"... I remember Phil Giraldi's comment months ago. He had worked for the CIA and now heads the Council for the National interest. He noted his surprise at how many within the CIA still clung to the cold war view of the Russians, ready to accept almost anything bad about the evil Russians. ..."
"... And it does seem the Russian haters still are living in the past and many have a huge impact on public policy and public opinion. It is a very dangerous affliction for the rest of the world. ..."
"... The greatest nation ever's permanent war system requires much deception & permanent enemies to keep the our economy going strong & the people distracted from the real issues. If everyone knew the truth, the world's biggest racket ever would fall apart and world peace would break out. ..."
"... American "intelligence" agencies will do exactly what "intelligence" agencies have done since time immemorial – they will perpetuate their position and power. The fact that that strips you of some of your freedom is a feature, not a bug. ..."
"... Hill's career advancement and access to the MSM depends on her faith in our "intelligence" agencies. And I doubt very much that Durham will be allowed to do his job probing the origins of RussiaGate. The evil ones will stop at nothing to keep control of the narrative. ..."
"... "It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." Mark Twain ..."
Like so many other glib "Russia experts" with access to Establishment media, Fiona Hill, who
testified Thursday in the impeachment probe, seems three decades out of date.
Special to Consortium News
Fiona Hill's "Russian-expert" testimony Thursday and her deposition
on Oct. 14 to the impeachment inquiry showed that her antennae are acutely tuned to what
Russian intelligence services may be up to but, sadly, also displayed a striking naiveté
about the machinations of U.S. intelligence.
Hill's education on Russia came at the knee of the late Professor Richard Pipes, her Harvard
mentor and archdeacon of Russophobia. I do not dispute her sincerity in attributing all manner
of evil to what President Ronald Reagan called the "Evil Empire." But, like so many other glib
"Russia experts" with access to Establishment media, she seems three decades out of date.
I have been studying the U.S.S.R. and Russia for twice as long as Hill, was chief of CIA's
Soviet Foreign Policy Branch during the 1970s, and watched the "Evil Empire" fall apart. She
seems to have missed the falling apart part.
Selective Suspicion
Are the Russian intelligence services still very active? Of course. But there is no evidence
-- other than Hill's bias -- for her extraordinary claim that they were behind the infamous
"Steele Dossier," for example, or that they were the prime mover of Ukraine-gate in an attempt
to shift the blame for Russian "meddling" in the 2016 U.S. election onto Ukraine. In recent
weeks U.S. intelligence officials were spreading this same tale,
lapped up and faithfully reported Friday by The New York Times.
Hill has been conditioned to believe Russian President Vladimir Putin and especially his
security services are capable of anything, and thus sees a Russian under every rock -- as we
used to say of smart know-nothings like former CIA Director William Casey and the malleable
"Soviet experts" who bubbled up to the top during his reign (1981 – 1987). Recall that at
the very first meeting of Reagan's cabinet, Casey openly told the president and other
cabinet officials: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the
American public believes is false." Were Casey still alive, he would be very pleased and proud
of Hill's performance.
Beyond Dispute?
On Thursday Hill testified:
"The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our
democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence
agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some
of the underlying details must remain classified." [Emphasis added.]
Ah, yes. "The public conclusion of our intelligence agencies": the same ones who reported
that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union would never surrender power peaceably; the same
ones who told Secretary of State Colin Powell he could assure the UN Security Council that the
WMD evidence given him by our intelligence agencies was "irrefutable and undeniable." Only
Richard-Pipeline-type Russophobia can account for the blinders on someone as smart as Hill and
prompt her to take as gospel "the public conclusions of our intelligence agencies."
A modicum of intellectual curiosity and rudimentary due diligence would have prompted her to
look into who was in charge of preparing the (misnomered) "Intelligence Community Assessment"
published on Jan. 6, 2017, which provided the lusted-after fodder for the "mainstream" media
and others wanting to blame Hillary Clinton's defeat on the Russians.
Jim, Do a Job on the Russians
President Barack Obama with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, 2011. (White
House/ Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama gave the task to his National Intelligence Director James Clapper,
whom he had allowed to stay in that job for three and a half years after he had to apologize to
Congress for what he later admitted was a "clearly erroneous" response, under oath, to a
question from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) on NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens.
And when Clapper
published his memoir last year, Hill would have learned that, as Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld's handpicked appointee to run satellite imagery analysis, Clapper places the blame for
the consequential "failure" to find the (non-existent) WMD "where it belongs -- squarely on the
shoulders of the administration members who were pushing a narrative of a rogue WMD program in
Iraq and on the intelligence officers, including me, who were so eager to help that we found
what wasn't really there." [Emphasis added.]
But for Hill, Clapper was a kindred soul: Just eight weeks after she joined the National
Security Council staff, Clapper, during an NBC interview on May 28, 2017, recalled "the
historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt,
penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." Later he added, "It's
in their DNA." Clapper has claimed that "what the Russians did had a profound impact on the
outcome of the election."
As for the "Intelligence Community Assessment," the banner headline atop The New York
Times on Jan. 7, 2017 set the tone for the next couple of years: "Putin Led Scheme to Aid
Trump, Report Says." During my career as a CIA analyst, as deputy national intelligence officer
chairing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), and working on the Intelligence Production
Review Board, I had not seen so shabby a piece of faux analysis as the ICA. The writers
themselves seemed to be holding their noses. They saw fit to embed in the ICA itself this
derriere-covering
note : "High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a
certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
Not a Problem
With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan, were able
to pretend that the ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed
by Clinton, with Rep. Jim Himes, D-CT, repeating that canard Thursday, alas "without
objection)." Himes, too should do his homework. The bogus "all 17 intelligence agencies" claim
lasted only a few months before Clapper decided to fess up. With striking naiveté,
Clapper asserted that ICA preparers were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA and NSA.
The criteria Clapper et al. used are not hard to divine. In government as in industry, when you
can handpick the analysts, you can handpick the conclusions.
Maybe a Problem After All
"According to several current and former intelligence officers who must remain anonymous
because of the sensitivity of the issue," as the Times says when it prints made-up
stuff, there were only two "handpicked analysts." Clapper picked Brennan; and Brennan picked
Clapper. That would help explain the grossly subpar quality of the ICA.
If U.S. Attorney John Durham is allowed to do his job probing the origins of Russiagate, and
succeeds in getting access to the "handpicked analysts" -- whether there were just two, or more
-- Hill's faith in "our intelligence agencies," may well be dented if not altogether
shattered.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word , a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. After earning an M.A. in Russian Studies and serving as
an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer, he worked as a CIA analyst, then branch chief, of Soviet
foreign policy; then as a Deputy National Intelligence Officer, and finally as a morning
briefer of the President's Daily Brief .
The general problem IMHO, to state obvious, is that there is no truth in the public
discourse, only lies which support the narrative. And there is no penalty for the continuous
lies, certainly not from what is called the press these days.
Great takedown Ray I managed a few minutes listening to her bloviation, even that was too
much! Fascists always need an enemy even if they have to fictionalize one.
I remember Phil Giraldi's comment months ago. He had worked for the CIA and now heads the
Council for the National interest. He noted his surprise at how many within the CIA still
clung to the cold war view of the Russians, ready to accept almost anything bad about the
evil Russians. Given the history since the dissolution of the USSR, it surprised Mister
Giraldi as I recall. And it does seem the Russian haters still are living in the past and
many have a huge impact on public policy and public opinion. It is a very dangerous
affliction for the rest of the world.
Hard to forget Mueller (not a spook) when he announced that there was no collusion but
vehemently stated that the Russians had interfered in the 2016 election and are a threat to
do so in the future. That Russian might have interfered is not surprising since others
countries do it far more and more effectively. That we do it far, far more often would seem
to put a damper on the Russian narrative but it doesn't because the whole thing about Russia
is crazy.
Another John , November 22, 2019 at 20:27
The greatest nation ever's permanent war system requires much deception & permanent
enemies to keep the our economy going strong & the people distracted from the real
issues. If everyone knew the truth, the world's biggest racket ever would fall apart and
world peace would break out.
Jeff Harrison , November 22, 2019 at 20:08
American "intelligence" agencies will do exactly what "intelligence" agencies have done
since time immemorial – they will perpetuate their position and power. The fact that
that strips you of some of your freedom is a feature, not a bug.
Skip Scott , November 22, 2019 at 17:44
Hill's career advancement and access to the MSM depends on her faith in our "intelligence"
agencies. And I doubt very much that Durham will be allowed to do his job probing the origins
of RussiaGate. The evil ones will stop at nothing to keep control of the narrative.
"It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled." Mark Twain
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first public protests against Zelenskiy. ..."
"... Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in light of this domestic opposition. ..."
"... Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia, France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future. ..."
"... The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the government's program of domestic reform for 2020 could change this. ..."
"... At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The return from self-imposed exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This power struggle further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised. ..."
"... A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another mass protest movement. ..."
"... Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of competitive influence seeking between Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood. ..."
"... For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47 percent trust his parliamentary faction. ..."
"... Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests, like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia. ..."
"... The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea. ..."
"... But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!) and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig. ..."
"... Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future. ..."
"... How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border? ..."
"... His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against him and the Ukraine citizens. ..."
The country's new president faces a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical, to the
events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan, write Stefan Wolff and Tatyana Malyarenko.
It's been six years since the start of the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine, which led to the
ousting of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. By the time his successor Petro Poroshenko
was elected in May 2014, the domestic political scene in Ukraine and the geopolitical dynamics in the contested EU-Russia neighbourhood
surrounding it had fundamentally altered
.
Today, the country's new president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, who
replaced Poroshenko in April 2019, is now facing a series of domestic and foreign policy challenges reminiscent, though not identical,
to the events that preceded the 2013 Euromaidan.
Presidential and parliamentary elections in Ukraine in April and July 2019 created a political situation in Ukraine with an unprecedented
concentration of political power. Zelenskiy and his Servant of the People party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's
parliament, and so complete control over
the appointment of the government . The president also
separately
appointed the prosecutor general, the minister of foreign affairs and the minister of defence.
This unique situation gave Zelenskiy and his team the opportunity to kick-start an ambitious programme of policy and law-making
in both domestic and foreign affairs. But rather than sustaining popular enthusiasm for his new approach to politics, the so-called
turbo-regime of rapid policy and legislative change has already had a sobering effect on the Ukrainian public and triggered the first
public protests against Zelenskiy.
Foreign Policy Controversy
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to
accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern Ukraine
resulted in an outcry
from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively
short-lived, but prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became
more remote
in light of this domestic opposition.
Ukraine, Russia, and the separatists
also disagreed over who needed to fulfill which preconditions for negotiations, when and in what sequence.
Since then, Zelenskiy has reiterated his commitment to achieving a deal, visiting the disengagement zone and
ordering those war veterans who actively oppose the
agreed withdrawal to disarm. In another sign of progress, government and rebel forces
have also started withdrawing from the village of Petrivske. If this direction of travel continues, a meeting of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany in the so-called Normandy format of negotiations
could be back on the agenda and Donbas could be set for elections. However, a
recent survey in the east indicates a deep divide remains on what people want for the region's future.
Opinion polls from September show that 23 percent of Ukrainians support military confrontation in eastern Ukraine, up from 17
percent a few months previously. As the prospects of reintegration increase under Zelenskiy's administration, so does domestic opposition
to it.
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary factions, European Solidarity and Voice,
whose supporters are predominantly located in western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary
groups composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
The initial motivation of these veterans to protest may have been what they saw as Zelenskiy's
alleged surrender by entering into direct talks with Russia. Zelenskiy has directly confronted them now by ordering them to withdraw
from the disengagement zone, but their opposition to the president's plans
continues .
Domestic Dissatisfaction
What might prove particularly dangerous for Zelenskiy is a possible convergence of so far distinct political camps that oppose
different policies of the new government. If the veterans who are at odds with Zelenskiy over his foreign policy choices were to
join forces with those who oppose him over a number of controversial domestic policies, the potential for destabilisation would significantly
increase.
The high public trust that Zelenskiy still enjoys as president and the hopes that a majority of Ukrainians still have for
positive changes under his administration have so far prevented more and growing mass protests. However, the
government's program of domestic reform
for 2020 could change this.
Proposed budget cuts will particularly
affect public spending on healthcare, education, social security, and local governance.
New labor laws will curtail the rights of employees. A land
privatization bill, also planned for 2020, has proved
highly
unpopular as people fear a repeat of the highly corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in the 1990s when criminal groups (some
of them linked to current oligarchs) managed to capture the main Soviet industrial assets at the expense of the population at large.
In our view, these measures may, in the long term, contribute to turning Ukraine into a more stable and better functioning state.
However, their short-term consequences include decreasing social standards, higher unemployment, and a
continuation of Ukraine's brain and skills drain.
About 1m people leave Ukraine every year.
At the same time, "de-oligarchisation" is proceeding slowly. The
return from self-imposed
exile of Igor Kolomoyskiy, Zelenskiy's principal backer in the presidential campaign, has intensified oligarchic turf wars, pitting
Kolomoyskiy against another businessman Rinat Akhmetov, and his increasing power base in the east. This
power struggle
further contributes to continuing instability in Ukraine and decreases the near-term prospects of the political clean up and
economic recovery that Zelenskiy had promised.
A deteriorating socio-economic situation and lack of visible and tangible progress on "de-oligarchisation" will not only
affect already radicalised veterans but could also galvanise a much larger cross-section of Ukraine's population into yet another
mass protest movement.
Geopolitical Reset?
Ukraine's continuing domestic instability is, in part, driven by the larger geopolitical game of
competitive influence seeking between
Russia and the West in the contested post-Soviet neighbourhood.
By being drawn
into the domestic politics of the U.S. and the ongoing impeachment
inquiry of Donald Trump , Zelenskiy has exposed Ukraine's vulnerability to external pressure, including from its Western partners.
Add to this Trump's personal antipathy to Ukraine (allegedly
describing it
as a "corrupt country full of terrible people") and the willingness of European leaders
to reset relations with Russia, and Ukraine's room for manoeuvre
appears even more diminished.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues
to depend heavily, including for
the implementation of much-needed domestic reforms.
For the time being, Zelenskiy still enjoys very high levels of public support of around 70 percent of respondents in
one survey published in early October. Worryingly, however, only 42 percent of these respondents trust his government and 47
percent trust his parliamentary faction.
Zelenskiy's own approval ratings also dropped from their previous high of around 80 percent by 10 percent in early September after
he secured a prisoner exchange with Russia. This indicates
that political capital may be ebbing away from the reform project with which he is identified because
popular expectations of fast and painless change cannot be met by Ukraine's new political class.
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which
drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's continuing instability:
Russia.
The views expressed are solely those of the authors and may or may not reflect those of Consortium News.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry's Comment Policy . Allegations unsupported by
facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers
will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security reasons,
please refrain from inserting links in your comments.
The U.S.A. and the D.O.D. should not have American military trainers and advisors stationed in Ukraine nor should our government
be providing war material (some of it lethal) to the government of Ukraine. This military aid threatens the stability of the entire
region. The flagrant aggression of the U.S. A., Great Britain, and NATO into Ukraine's domestic affairs is a textbook example
of blatant balance-of-power geopolitics. As usual, this aggression is being directed and driven by such think tanks as the Atlantic
Council, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and its junior American partner, the Council on Foreign relations. This
is a dangerous game that these two leading NATO countries are playing.
The Maidan coup was staged and orchestrated largely by the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), USAID, and
the U.S. Department of State with the likely assistance of the British Secret Service. The staged Maidan Revolution and coup against
a democratically-elected president was the real aggression in Ukraine; the Russians naturally reacted to this aggression by protecting
their self-interest and their defensively strategic warm-water flank, Crimea.
Ukraine has an extremely diverse set of cultures and ethnicities within its borders. It has never been a truly independent
and unified nation. Throughout is long history that stretches back into antiquity it has been a battleground and a highway for
invading armies in both directions. NATO's gradual buildup in Ukraine follows in the footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler. Stephen
F. Cohen's new edition of "War with Russia?" is coming out in January 2020. Whether you agree with Professor Cohen's premises
for his argument it is worth taking a look at this gentleman's argument.
The U.S. military should depart immediately from Ukraine and the USG should stop funding Ukraine's government with any military
aid and assistance. Ukraine is looking a lot like the early pre-war stages in Vietnam. Nevertheless, Ukraine's governing system
is far more corrupt than the governing system of South Vietnam ever was.
Eugenie Basile , November 21, 2019 at 05:20
It is true that the only winner of the first Maidan was Russia. It got rid of a totally corrupt and financially broke snake
pit called Ukraine, while managing to secure Crimea and the strategic military port of Sevastopol. Now it is up to the EU and
US revolution organisers to keep on distributing cookies in order to prevent a total collapse of what is left of a divided country.
If a second Maidan occurs that would be a way for the West to get out of there in a hurry. The West has more to win than Russia,
this time.
Jimmy gates , November 21, 2019 at 01:19
CN live coverage of this, coupled with Oliver Stones two films "Ukraine on Fire " and "Revealing Ukraine " should help clear
up the confusion and crap that has been ladled on the public for over five years.
What we are seeing is not only a coup in Ukraine, but the destabilization of both the US and Russia in the stages of coup.
Crazily, the possibles for peace might be the collapse of the impeachment hoax and exposure of the plot that went haywire: that
two game show hosts were elected, in the US and Ukraine. The gods must be crazy.
Bob , November 22, 2019 at 03:20
Question; What happens now with Gazprom's offer to extend for another year the present contract due to lapse soon? Will the
new Prez be allowed to accept or even negotiate the offer?
Anonymot , November 20, 2019 at 22:16
The very small, but vigorous group who object loudly and the small, but vicious group that want to go to war over the Russian
province are probably the same crowd who were paid by our corrupt and one-eyed backers of the coup in the first place. Permanent
war is not desired by any citizenry anywhere, just those who sit in offices and decide by hocus pocus that it's a good idea. Our
one-eyed people (yes, there are some blood thirsty women at the top, too) need a pair of one-eye-correcting glasses. One-eyedness
causes a loss, not of vision so much as perspective.
Either they have made a brainless mess and lost everywhere they have initiated war since Korea or else endless wars and permanent
conflict are their policies. The latter is as stupid as the former. In each case, there is nothing realistically to be done to
stop it. It is ingrained into the way our entire political parties think as well as into the entire class of decision-makers in
each and every one of Washington's agencies. It's a mindset, not a few people. It was just as much both Clintons and Obama as
it was the Bush and Cheney gang. Trump is a wee bit special, because he has that mindset, but he's also foul and intellectually
retarded.
Note that those we prefer, Sanders, Warren, have not even whispered beyond a platitude here and there about foreign policy,
foreign affairs or foreign wars. The sole person who is running with a presidential mindset is strangely enough, a woman warrior,
Tulsi Gabbard! And her platform is to break up that mindset and deal with competitors with all of the strength this country has
left via diplomacy – and with peace as a goal. She also has her own progressive, but realistic domestic platform.
But Gabbard has been dumped on daily since she announced she was running, by who? Hillary the Billionaire (yes! billionaire!)
and the NYT that she controls policy-wise via a little clutch of her billionaire intimates and NYT stockholders and power brokers
from Ariadne Getty to Barry Diller. They are super-rich militants from NY and Hollywood and Wall Street, primarily backing Buttigeig.
The kind of intelligence, thoughtfulness, and independence that Gabbard has is anathema to The Bushes and Clintons, the Deep
State folks.
Otherwise there will be and endless supply of think tankers and one-eyed profs to stir up pots like Kiev and Zelenskis ad infinitum.
Robert Carl Miller , November 20, 2019 at 20:29
The US orchestrated the coup of 2014 using the fascists already in Ukraine and Ukrainian Americans (and children and grandchildren)
who were OUN-B and were brought to the US under the Crusade For Freedom. The first generation were stone-cold fascists who fought
alongside the Nazis during their invasion of the USSR. The current DNC/CIA alliance has planned for Ukraine to heat up the cold
war with Russia.
The problem is that the Ukrainian army is broken and aside from the fascist units most average Ukrainians don't want to fight
the Russians or their brothers in Donbas. The US is calculating that its military aid and some unmentioned US troops will be able
to overcome the Donbas by force. If the US and Ukraine somehow draw Russia into this fight, which is exactly what the US militarists
want, there will be one of two outcomes: Either Ukraine will be wiped out quickly by Russian forces or there will be a nuclear
war.
As Russia finishes its Nord Stream 2 and with multiple other gas pipelines in the works to feed Europe's energy needs the US
energy industry, which constructed LNG terminals along the Atlantic Coast, has seen its dreams dashed. No longer does selling
LNG to Europe make any economic sense for.
Wait! We spent 5 Billion on regime change, a color revolution that succeeded only because we hired neo-Nazi shock troops to
spearhead the ouster of Yanukovych, a duly elected oligarch. Months later, after Ukraine's public sector had crumbled, in came
Biden with Burisma and Cargill with its GMO, which highlighted the neoliberal intentions behind the Western coup sponsorship.
Fortunes were made in the energy and agricultural sector, during the same winter that many Ukrainians were without enough heat
and food. But, that 's neoliberalism for you. Their suffering was just what we intended.
The civil unrest began only when Yanukovych rejected the EU-IMF austerity package in the November preceding the February coup
d'etat. That package required that Ukraine assist NATO militarily, buy weapons from US defense contractors, cut pensions, cut
social services, and slash the already tattered safety net while privatizing commonly held state assets. But, interestingly enough,
it required Ukraine to increase its military spending
The world bankers were intent upon squeezing the last bit of juice left in the Ukrainian turnip, In other words, we wanted
Yanukovych to become as pliant as the drunken Yeltsin was in the hands of Bill Clinton in 1993, which marked the beginning of
a disastrous and deadly decade for the Russian Federation.
Instead, Yanukovych, sounding the death knell for his own regime, rejected the EU -IMF austerity package, compounding this
mortal sin by signing an energy deal with the Russian Federation, which agreed to finance Ukrainian debt at 5% when international
bankers were charging 12% to finance this crippled country's loan. Putin was actually nicer to this basket case than we were,
though his motives are not altruistic, though perhaps not as draped in pretext as our own.
All the above is true and verifiable, but no one in the Lamestream Corporate Media, which includes MSNBC as well as FOX, will
report the current Ukrainian crisis in the context of the above facts. Those who master the world economy, having already mastered
the politicians and the media, can dominate and set the parameters of the debate without notice or without drawing attention to
themselves and their agendas.
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 12:28
John: Very good to remind us of these facts. I too remember that as Ukraine floundered in bankruptcy both Russia and the EU/US
proffered competing $15b rescue packages. Thanks for revealing the contrasting details of those offerings, which I wasn't fully
aware of.
As many here have already noted, how does it favor Russia to have a broken, unstable neighbor on its border? Even before these
authors served up that closing bon motte, their claim that the usual austerity cruelty measures of the IMF, WB, etc. will "in
the end" help Ukraine, was a dead giveaway.
And I am head-scratchingly curious why CN would post a piece such as this. To give us some light entertainment, like shooting
ducks in a barrel? I do agree with one of the authors' assertions though, that Zelenskiy's situation is precarious, as is anyone,
anywhere the US is intent on spreading its tentacles.
So Zelenskiy wins an election by 70% on a platform to normalize relations with Russia and in addition his Servant of the People
party have a majority in the Verkhovna Rada. What is the threat he faces? What "challenge"? Is the writer thinking of the extremists
from western Ukraine rising again to produce a new anti-Russia hate-fest on Maidan, supported by the usual western meddlers? Not
many of the comments seem very convinced.
Mark Thomason , November 20, 2019 at 15:48
The Maidan events were protest against specific problems. None of those problems have changed. They have not even been addressed.
It has just been revolving abusers, "new boss same as the old boss."
Overlaid on that has been war, and all that entails, draining what remained of Ukraine's hopes.
The West has seen in that only what it wanted to see, which has little to do with what motivated the Maidan events. Those were
used, manipulated by the West, not addressed or helped.
The new guy could do better, perhaps only because he could hardly do worse. However, to say it might all blow up on him is
only to say that pressure has been building since failure of the last effort, and someday it is likely to blow.
Anna , November 20, 2019 at 12:34
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well there will only be one winner
from Ukraine's continuing instability: Russia." By Stefan Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham
and Tatyana Malyarenko, a professor of international relations at the National University Odesa Law Academy.
Why does the tenor of this article bring to mind the Integrity Initiative? See: mintpressnews.com/the-integrity-initiative-and-the-uks-scandalous-information-war/253014/
"The Integrity Initiative claims that it is "counter[ing] Russian disinformation and malign influence," and indeed, the main players
behind it appear intent on hyping the Russian threat to justify ramped up military budgets and a long-term war footing."
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 12:31
The deep state will continue to milk this Ukraine nightmare for their continuous mfg.of weapons and creating animosities between
the West and Russia. The deep divisions within Ukraine will play into the hands of the nefarious ones that crave chaos, the destroyers
of nations.
TimN , November 20, 2019 at 08:20
I see I'm not the person who was flummoxed by the conclusion of the article. The biggest outside obstacle to peace and stability
is the "West," of course. The "West?" You mean the US. Say that, not the euphemism.
Guy , November 20, 2019 at 13:11
I know what you mean and I hear you, as I am just as guilty of using the term "West" .It is the US which is driving this nightmare
and not the total of Western nations either .Both the Democrats and the Republicans are really not in control of the governance
of the United States .That control of the corrupted system as I see it ,is politically and judicially .The recently disclosed
Epstein pedophilia affair which is now clear that it had/has CIA and Mossad connections leads me to believe most of the politicians
and the legal system apparatus is deeply compromised and therefore have lost all control of good and fair governance if ever there
was such a thing .
Good point though ,it has become a habit to blame the West when in reality just certain factors of the West .I would certainly
include the UK in with the US as both being very compromised .
Donald Duck , November 20, 2019 at 05:45
The present situation in Ukraine is just how the US/EU wanted it. A permanent irritant on Russia's western borders. Unfortunately
this means that Ukraine is a malfunctioning state – the poorest in Europe – which is literally bleeding people at the rate described.
As a failed state Ukraine is going deeper into a hole of poverty and misery which will eventually lead to a national disintegration
as the various oblasts decided to go their own way.
Hans Zandvliet , November 19, 2019 at 21:49
It sounds to me like a rather russophobic article, like very many Ukranians are. I find it quite srtiking that the authors
are still using the term Maidan Revolution, while Stratfor's CEO George Friedman called it "the most blatant coup in history".
Anyone who still has doubts that it was a coup should watch Oliver Stone's documentary "Ukraine on Fire"
Russia is not even a signatory of the Minsk Agreements. Russia, just like France and Germany were only mediators in the negotiations
between the ethnic Russians of the Donbas region and the fascist regime in Kiev. Russia has absolutely nothing to "win" from a
divided and failed Ukrainian state on its borders. To Russia it's just a pain in the arse, which is what the military industrial
complex in Washington has gained by their Ukrainian coup.
John A , November 20, 2019 at 10:37
Exactly. As a rule of thumb, if an article uses 'Kyiv', a recent Ukrainianisation of the long accepted 'Kiev' in English, it
is going to be anti-Russia.
Eventually, there is going to have to be a negotiated settlement between the breakaway republics and whichever puppet is
the president in Kiev. The longer the wait till such negotiations start, the worse conditions will get in rump Ukraine. Russia
has no advantage in whether negotiations start this year, next year or some distant point in the future.
Alan MacDonald , November 19, 2019 at 21:47
Promising situation for new alignment of interests
DavidH , November 19, 2019 at 20:58
Something doesn't seem right.
If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West on whose support it continues to depend heavily, including for the implementation of
much-needed domestic reforms.
If the majority elected him to end the war, why would it play well domestically? There seems to be a wave of this, and then
a wave of that. Sort of same picture in Bolivia too.
Thanks to CN and the writers for news we never hear (though we certainly should). Great embeds too. How's the new prosecutor
doing? And how is the war in the east presently being fought? I think I heard remarks on these things on Loud&Clear. But
I switched to a "hotspot" in August. Was thinking then that all Loud&Clear shows were "saveable" and also that "CN Live!" was
saveable the former aren't, the latter only a few. And turns out I don't always feel like going out after work seeking free YiFi
to stream all this stuff while I'm sit'n in a joint like I imagined I would. So, for me for the most part it's gotta be in "print."
It would be nice if yall could do like Nader's Radio Hour, and make all the old CN Lives saveable.
Consortiumnews.com , November 19, 2019 at 22:05
Every minute of every episode of CN Live! can be found on our YouTube page.
Personanongrata , November 19, 2019 at 19:27
Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well, a new wave of protests,
like those which drove the Maidan Revolution, may yet be possible. If that happens, there will only be one winner from Ukraine's
continuing instability: Russia.
How does Russia win with an unstable Ukraine on it's western border?
AnneR , November 20, 2019 at 08:17
You have pointed out to me – thank you – another crystal clear indicator that these two authors are anti-Russian, profoundly
so.
It absolutely does not favor Russia to have an unstable, chaotic, fascist and US supported, instigated, militarized Ukraine
on its border. That is utter baloney, and they have to know that.
After all, that was one of the reasons for Soviet Russia spreading beyond its national borders after WWII – to create a buffer
zone against any more invasions from the west, to stop western nations killing Russians by the millions, to stop any attempt by
the west to grab Russian resources (still on NATO's cards).
Russia wants a peaceful, friendly neighbor, borderland country – not a virulent, dangerous chaotic mess one.
jo6pac , November 19, 2019 at 19:07
"Unless Zelenskiy and his Western partners spend the president's remaining political capital well"
His western partners the cia and soros ngos are his problem, I do hope he can succeed but the powers to be are against
him and the Ukraine citizens.
RJB , November 19, 2019 at 18:01
What does Russia gain by Ukraine's continued instability?
luke , November 19, 2019 at 16:35
Poor analysis. Am I as a working class lad seriously that much more informed than a professor whos life should be dedicated
to studying this?
No mention of the US involvement in the coup. No mention of the word coup. No mention of fascists, the term used to describe
US armed autonomous fascist battalions was 'right wing militias'. Top it off with the opinion that neoliberal budget cuts will
eventually help things, because a quick look at the history books tells us no such thing.
Makes me think of a professor I know who told me how proud he was that the US has the freedom to make a film documenting Cheney's
war crimes.
I responded that it made me sick that he could watch such films and still be a pathetic apologist.
He shrugged it off and went back to his overpaid position poisoning the youth. If he had the opinions I have, he wouldn't be
a professor though would he?
vinnieoh , November 21, 2019 at 11:54
luke: You are my father.
Remember all the hokum and "experts" paraded on the MSM during W's assault on Iraq? There was one ever-present talking head
from the ME (I've forgotten his name) that was so obviously a US boot-licker that he made me nauseous each time I saw him.
Very good observations and comment.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 15:59
Thank you for this overview. It is good that the corruption and economic disaster are pointed out – as they have been in polls
as the biggest problem in the minds of the citizens. 1 million emigrants per year is a catastrophe.
You write:
"If Kyiv does resist negotiations with Russia over Donbas this will play well domestically, but it could further strain relations
with Ukraine's main backers in the West "
As you explain, this would please the far right (fascist) paramilitary groups and extreme nationalists from Galicia and Volhynia,
quite a small minority.
How about the Russian-speaking half or more of Ukrainians and the Russian ethnic group, making up a majority? Those who share
most of their culture with citizens of Russia? That have lots of ties there?
Because of this and also common sense, wouldn't many think that peace and stability with Russia would benefit Ukraine?
What do you see that Russia stands to gain from continued problems in Ukraine? Surely, Russia (and Ukraine) would be much better
off with peace, safety, stability and close ties and trade between these very close sibling nations.
This concluding remark lacks argument, is reasonably unfounded and quite simply silly.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 19, 2019 at 16:02
To clarify: with "This concluding remark", I mean the concluding remark in the article, that only Russia stands to win.
Jeff Harrison , November 19, 2019 at 15:43
In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
This is another remnant for Bush neocon team, a protégé of Bolton. Trump probably voluntarily appointed this rabid neocon, a
chickenhawk who would shine in Hillary State Department.
Interestingly she came from working class background. So much about Marx theory of class struggle. Brown, David (March 4, 2017).
"Miner's daughter
tipped as Trump adviser on Russia" . The Times.
She also illustrate level pf corruption of academic science, because she got
PhD in history from Harvard in 1998 under Richard
Pipes, Akira Iriye, and
Roman Szporluk. But at least this was history, not
languages like in case of Ciaramella.
Such appointment by Trump is difficult to describe with normal words as he understood what he is buying. So he is himself to blame for his current troubles and his inability
to behave in a diplomatic way when there was important to him question about role of CrowdStrike in 2016 election and creation of Russiagate
witch hunt.
There is something in the USA that creates conditions for producing rabid female neocons, some elevator that brings ruthless female
careerists with sharp elbows them to the establishment. She sounds like a person to the right of Madeline Albright, which is an achievement
With such books It is unclear whether she is different from Max Boot. She buys official Skripal story like hook and sinker. The
list of her book looks like produced in UK by Luke Harding
Being miner daughter raised in poverty we can also talk about betrayal of her class and upbringing.
This also rises wisdom of appointing emigrants to the Administration and the extent they pursue policies beneficial for their
native countries.
She testified in public before the same body on November 21, 2019. [12] While being
questioned by Steve Castor , the counsel for the House Intelligence
Committee's Republican minority, Hill commented on Gordon
Sondland 's involvement in the Ukraine matter: "It struck me when (Wednesday), when you put up on the screen Ambassador Sondland's
emails, and who was on these emails, and he said these are the people who need to know, that he was absolutely right," she said.
"Because he was being involved in a domestic political errand, and we were being involved in national security foreign policy. And
those two things had just diverged." [13] In response
to a question from that committee's chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff
, Hill stated: "The Russians' interests are frankly to delegitimize our entire presidency. The goal of the Russians [in 2016]
was really to put whoever became the president -- by trying to tip their hands on one side of the scale -- under a cloud."
[
"... JFK's assassination made possible the acquisition of nuclear arsenal by Israel and the unhindered growth of the most important foreign lobby such as AIPAC. On the cui bono question Israel is a perfect match. Israel gained everything form the JFK's death ..."
"... Was Johnson having an affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim? Did LBJ have reason to fear he was liable to be dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1964 because of the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals? Why did Richard Nixon lie about his own presence in Dallas when Kennedy was killed? Why was George HW Bush for a long time unable to remember his whereabouts on Nov. 22? ..."
"... All available evidence points to the CIA and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, as the murderers of President Kennedy. ..."
"... It is well documented that JFK wanted to break down the power of the Central Intelligence Agency. Could this have had dire consequences and let to his untimely death? Let's have a look! ..."
"... This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. This I base on an assertion in Douglass's book JFK and the Unspeakable that men with Secret Service and FBI credentials immediately began the cover up operation. ..."
"... Fullbright who publicly denounced Israel and their control of the US Congress on National TV and the fact that Kennedy wanted him as Secretary of State must have also riled the Jews. Fullbright was also against the Vietnam War. ..."
"... Of course, I know the speculation it was Israelis who were behind it (Dimona), but I don't find it persuasive. There are other means to avoid US inspection, and Kennedy was not adamant about it at all. These are things politicians toy with all the time, and while not a "friend" of Israel, Kennedy was not an enemy -- one could consider Eisenhower, if we judge him by his actions during Suez canal crisis- to be an "enemy" of Israel (of course this too is simplistic, politics is a rough business). ..."
"... The Warren Commission hogwash was almost as ridiculous as the official 911 nonsense, and Mark Lane's 1966 book "Rush to Judgment" helped fuel broad public disbelief in the official story. ..."
"... Talk about quid pro quo to the nth degree, as that hideous snake LBJ gave the MIC and its financiers their wars, etc., in exchange for the Presidency and for keeping his sorry ass out of jail for the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals. Sure, the Israelis benefitted, and were likely a cog in the conspiratorial wheel, but the CIA, Secret Service, and various military agents were the movers and shakers, with LBJ their guarantor. ..."
"... Like any good gumshoe worth his salt, the first question he asks himself after arriving at the crime scene is Cui bono, who benefits? In the case of the JFK assassination, there was clearly one very large beneficiary that stood out above the rest, Israel. By Nov 1963, JFK had two big strikes against him ..."
"... "Mr. Trump has been prevented from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do so." IIRC, it was Trump doing all of the preventing. ..."
"... This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. ..."
"... The Mossad and the CIA were part of the same "team"–the CIA handled and continues to handle the ongoing domestic coverup operations as needed (including Mockingbird mass media activities). ..."
"... Connelly is a _very_ interesting figure, and his background prior to the day of the assassination is not very well understood. I was stunned to read that he was a key actor in the Korean War "setup" ..."
"... Remember, Kennedy had just buggered up the CIA's Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was threatening to pull out of the CIA's war in Vietnam. With a nod from LBJ the CIA could kill Kennedy and be sure of top-down cover from the moment Kennedy's heart stopped beating, cover which, according to the doctors who attended on Kennedy at Parklands Hospital, was promptly given. ..."
"... Then there's the deathbed confession of CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, which provides a tenuous connection with Richard Nixon, who hired Hunt and Frank Sturgis (both believed to have been among the tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination) to. among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party headquarters at the Watergate Building in Washington, DC. ..."
"... I think Oswald the CIA agent who agreed to go to Russia on a fake defector mission for the agency with no way of knowing what would happen to him, would have been an insanely extreme patriot. Such an Oswald might be willing to do anything he was ordered to I suppose. The trouble is Oswald seems to have been anti establishment right back into his teens. He was an immature 17 year old when he joined the Marines, and though he toughened up considerably they evidence of him ever being an anti communist fanatic is just lacking. ..."
"... Be sure and dive into all of the data supporting link's located at the bottom of this web page. November 23, 2019 JFK, MLK, RFK, 50 Years of Suppressed History: New Evidence on Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Failures to Confront the Unspeakable, and The Way Ahead. Part I
"... It is a documented fact that during all past official visits, President Kennedy's motorcade comprised a open-top lorry, driving ahead of the Presidents' limousine, and carrying journalists sat backward on graded tiers, who would film the President and the crowd cheering on him. ..."
"... At Dallas, the journalists' truck got cancelled, and the way paved for the sole Abraham Zapruder to document the circumstances of the JFK assassination. Just another complete coincidence, obviously. ..."
In my view, summarized
here
, John Kennedy was assassinated by Israel for three major reasons:
Dimona:
President
Kennedy, who had made nuclear disarmament his grand mission on the international level, and was on the way
to achieve it with Khrushchev (as shown by James Douglass in
JFK and the Unspeakable
), was determined to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb.
According to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's
interpretation
, it was to plunge into the Israeli deep state and supervise Kennedy's assassination that
Ben-Gurion resigned in July 1963 before receiving Kennedy's ultimatum letter demanding inspections of
Dimona.
American Zionist Council:
John Kennedy and his Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had infuriated Zionist leaders by supporting an
investigation led by Senator William Fulbright (whom Kennedy had been prevented to name as Secretary of
State) aimed at registering the American Zionist Council as a "foreign agent" subject to the obligations
defined by the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which would have rendered its lobbying division, the
AIPAC, near powerless. On October 11, 1963, the AZC received a formal demand from RFK's office to register
within 72 hours (details
here
).
To these reasons for assassinating
Kennedy, we must add the opposite reasons for putting Johnson instead in the Oval Office, for Johnson buried
both the Dimona and the AZC proceedings, and cut U.S. support for Nasser's in order to boost support to
Israel. In 1967, he would commit high treason against his own country by allowing and covering-up Israel's
failed false-flag attack on the USS Liberty. No wonder Israel loved Johnson as much as they hated Kennedy.
Zionists had reasons to fear that
Joseph Kennedy did "inject some poisonous drops of anti-Semitism in the minds of his children, including his
son John's" (as printed in September 1960 by the
Herut,
Menachem Begin's political party).
[6]
Alan
Hart,
Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews
, vol. 2:
David Becomes Goliath,
Clarity Press, 2013,
p. 252.
In 1940, John had published a book titled
Why England Slept,
adapted from his
Harvard thesis which was, as the title alluded, a response to Churchill's 1938 book
While England Slept,
and a veiled support for his father's pro-appeasement views. In his Pulitzer prize-winning book
Profiles in Courage
(1956), Kennedy had declared his admiration for Senator Robert Taft, who by calling
the Nuremberg trials a shameful parody of justice had sacrificed his political career, including his chances
for the presidency, rather than build it on hypocrisy. Although Zionists probably didn't know it until
recently, in 1945, JFK had written the following in his diary, as quoted
here
by Abigail Abrams:
The Kennedys were a family of strong
traditions and strong convictions. They had to be destroyed, politically as had Charles Lindbergh
(1902-1974), and if necessary physically, before they extirpate America from Zionists' clutches.
Dallas was an Israeli coup, ordered from
Tel Aviv with Johnson's support, and supervised by the local B'nai B'rith under the cover of the Dallas
Citizens Council, who was sponsoring Kennedy's visit, and of whom Abraham Zapruder himself was a member
(watch his satisfaction when interviewed two hours after JFK's assassination in the History Channel
documentary
JFK – 3 Shots That Changed America
, at 43:34).
When trying to make sense of Dallas'
Umbrella Man, we are faced with a dilemma: should we believe Witt's explanation of his strange behavior (as
does Josiah Thompson), or should we consider him an accomplice to the assassination (as does Russ Baker)?
Only in the framework of the Israeli theory pioneered by Michael Collins Piper is it possible to surmount
the dilemma.
Let's recap what we know for certain.
Fact number 1: on the sunny day of November 22, 1963, one man was standing on the President's motorcade
route with an open umbrella, at the precise moment and place when JFK was shot. To assume that the Umbrella
Man's strange behavior and JFK's assassination are unrelated is unreasonable. The coincidence is just too
improbable.
Fact number 2: In 1978, Louie Steven
Witt claimed in front of the HSCA that he was the Umbrella Man and explained that he wanted to heckle JFK
about his father's policy of appeasement of Hitler in 1938.
Although Thompson and Baker disagree
about everything else, they agree that there can be no connection between John Kennedy's assassination and
Joseph Kennedy's appeasement policy. That is where they are both wrong.
Was Louie Steven Witt a Zionist agent, a
sayan
? Not necessarily. Operations like the JFK assassination are planned on a strict need-to-know
basis: no one knows more than he needs to know. Witt
declared to the HSCA
that he belonged to no organization whatsoever. He summarized his motivation for
his "bad joke" in these words:
"In a coffee break conversation
someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a
conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a
little heckling."
What would be interesting to know is:
who inspired Witt during his coffee break? Did the coffee break take place in the office of Witt's Jewish
boss, director of the Rio Grande National Life insurance Co. in Dallas? Did Witt have insurmountable debts,
like Jacob Rubenstein, aka Jack Ruby? Russ Baker mentions that the company wrote a lot of insurance for the
military and was located in the same building that housed the local office of the highly negligent Secret
Service.
Mr Witt, would you kindly come forward
again and answer a few questions?
I looked at 43:34 of the documentary posted with Zupruder being interviewed shortly after the assassination;
and what I see is a man aghast and at a loss for words, not "satisfied" as you supposed.
There is no better theory of JFK assassination than outlined by the author. JFK's assassination made
possible the acquisition of nuclear arsenal by Israel and the unhindered growth of the most important
foreign lobby such as AIPAC. On the
cui bono
question Israel is a perfect match. Israel gained
everything form the JFK's death
I am absolutely certain that the murder of JFK was the work of a group of conspirators rather than an
individual. The umbrella man is not new to me. I never gave him much thought though I have read work by
others who factor him as a key role in the assassination. The interview of Josiah Thompson was most thought
provoking in that it showed how someone on the periphery of a big event can be implicated theoretically yet
really it appeared to be nothing more than happenstance.
The takeaway from this is that we should never
take for granted the basic tenet of our justice system that presumes innocence. The burden of proof of guilt
lies with those making the accusation. Was the umbrella man a participant in that homicide? I don't know and
there is really no evidence proving otherwise.
Let's keep our eye on the ball. Sadly no one will ever be held to account for that murder. That is not to
say that the truth will never be known. One day we will know exactly what happened and who was responsible.
The lesson here is to not get immersed in that which can not be proven but can also detract from those who
were really responsible.
I'm quite happy to believe that Jews killed JFK, but things like this are a very thin reed to hang anything
on;
Dallas was an Israeli coup, ordered from Tel Aviv with Johnson's support, and supervised by the local
B'nai B'rith under the cover of the Dallas Citizens Council, who was sponsoring Kennedy's visit, and of
whom Abraham Zapruder himself was a member (watch his satisfaction when interviewed two hours after JFK's
assassination in the History Channel documentary JFK – 3 Shots That Changed America , at 43:34).
Zapruder's expression is totally equivocal. His strange momentary smile could be the natural reaction of
someone who is suddenly embarrassed to be on the point of tears. You can't make history out of 'testimony'
this weak.
Dimona: President Kennedy, who had made nuclear disarmament his grand mission on the international
level, and was on the way to achieve it with Khrushchev (as shown by James Douglass in JFK and the
Unspeakable), was determined to stop Israel developing its own nuclear bomb.
This is the same James Douglass who was incapable of spotting the obvious difference between Oswald's
wide head and Billy Nolan Lovelady's narrow head, thereby establishing himself as someone who is unreliable
with
any
evidence.
@Germanicus
Exactly what I thought when I realized the webpage of
Jewish Life
that I screenshot was taken away,
like the one from the
5 Towns Jewish Times
saying "Our First Jewish President Lyndon Johnson?" (of
which I didn't get a screenshot). So I've just save the screenshot of the page of the Jewish Telegraphic
Agency that you mention, titled: "Lyndon Johnson: no better friend"
the article says:
"Johnson was the most emotionally committed to Israel of any American president -- a fact that is not
popularly known but is clear from his background," Dennis Ross, a veteran Middle East negotiator in
Republican and Democratic administrations, said last year at a symposium of the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy, where he is counselor.
Johnson was the first president to invite an Israeli prime minister, Levi Eshkol, on a state visit. They
got along so well -- both men were farmers -- that Johnson paid Eshkol the rare compliment of inviting him
to his ranch.
LBJ soon abandoned pressure on Israel to come clean about the Dimona reactor. He increased arms sales to
Israel and in 1968, after Israel's primary supplier, France, imposed an embargo as a means of cultivating
ties in the Arab world, the United States became Israel's main supplier of weapons, notably launching the
talks that would lead to the sale of Phantom fighter jets to Israel.
Johnson wanted to commit more forcefully to Israel's cause in the lead-up to the 1967 Six-Day War, but he
felt constrained from a dramatic show of military might because of the failures of the war in Vietnam
then dogging his presidency. Nonetheless, during the war, he ordered warships to within 50 miles of
Syria's coast as a warning to the Soviets not to interfere.
In a speech in the war's immediate aftermath, Johnson effectively nipped in the bud any speculation that
the United States would pressure Israel to unilaterally give up the lands it had captured. He laid down
not only the "land for peace" formula that would inform subsequent U.N. Security Council resolutions, but
made it clear that any formula had to ensure Jewish access to Jerusalem's Old City.
@Daniel Rich
They donated half that money to a police charity on behalf of officers killed/wounded that day to be fair.
And by Kennedy wanting Israel nuke free is more than enough to prompt his assassination even though he was
hated by the entire military industrial complex.
If this was straight
assasination why go to so much trouble. The CIA had at the time developed weapons that could assasinate by
giving heart attacks or cancer and were discussed in the church committee investigation into the CIA. It
would have been very easy for someone to assasinte kennedy for instance when he was viting Marilyn Monroe or
his many mistresses. An affair is a good excuse for a heart attack.
No the murder of kennedy was not just about getting rid of him. It was a highly symbolic , even ritualistic
act.
It showed ultimately the power of the conspirators. It showed the impotence of the public. Its about
immobilizing effective resistance to the elite. Conspiracy theories become part of the psychological control
that they hold over the mass mind. The umbrella man is part of that symbolic control
"No wonder Israel loved Johnson as much as they hated Kennedy."
Y
ou should have written:
No wonder Johnson hated Kennedy as much as he loved Israel.
Was Johnson having an affair with Israeli agent Mathilde Krim? Did LBJ have reason to fear he was liable
to be dumped from the Democratic ticket in 1964 because of the Bobby Baker and Billy Sol Estes scandals? Why
did Richard Nixon lie about his own presence in Dallas when Kennedy was killed? Why was George HW Bush for a
long time unable to remember his whereabouts on Nov. 22?
With previous assassination plots in Chicago and Tampa, and the JBS handing out these posters in Dallas,
it was dereliction of duty for the Secret Service to have failed to clear high rise buildings in Dallas on
the motorcade route. Indeed, it was against their own regulations for Kennedy's limousine to have made those
sharp, slow-speed turns that took it through Dealey Plaza, and it was nothing short of being an accomplice
to murder for Secret Service driver William Greer to have allowed JFK's limousine to slow to a stop in the
killing zone when shots rang out.
With all that, I see umbrella man as nothing but a big red herring.
OK, but that was just on the side: I'm not building anything on that. This whole article is just an
anecdotic appendix to my main Kennedy article.
This is the same James Douglass who was incapable of
Yes, I am aware of the many shortcomings of Douglass, including his many blind spots (never heard of
Dimona, believes Johnson was such a good guy that, having failed to prevent the assassination of his beloved
president, he at least prevented the invasion of Cuba that it was meant to trigger, etc.). Nevertheless, his
book opened my eyes to Kennedy's determination to disarm the world and end the Cold War.
@PeterMX
It is also amazing that, 56 years after the terrible event that ruined America, Mr. Trump has been prevented
from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do so.
"Just days before he was
assassinated, JFK confided to his secretary that he wanted to replace his vp when he ran for reelection – he
didn't think LBJ was fit for president."
Later in the piece: Looking straight ahead and without hesitating he replied, "At this time I am thinking
about Gov. Terry Sanford of NC. But it will not be Lyndon."
Jack didn't want LBJ as his vp in the first place, but thought that the only way he could win was to put
that evil SOB on the ticket. He probably was right, as LBJ delivered Texas. Given the decades long national
trauma, from which the country has never recovered, it would have been far better if Nixon had won.
Oliver Stone's JFK blames the CIA, the military, and LBJ, makes no mention of Israel, and treats Ruby and
Zapruder sympathetically. No doubt explained by the fact that the movie was funded and produced by Israeli
superagent Arnon Milchan.
The movie is a limited hangout made to ensure that those who cannot swallow the
obvious lies of the Warren Commission will direct their anger otherwise than at Israel.
It showed ultimately the power of the conspirators. It showed the impotence of the public. Its about
immobilizing effective resistance to the elite. Conspiracy theories become part of the psychological
control that they hold over the mass mind. The umbrella man is part of that symbolic control
You nailed it. Also note this was an "Event", where hit men from all over the world (many of whom worked
as contractors for various intelligence agencies) converged in one place to honor their craft. A select few
participated in the actual execution, the rest were there to confuse any future investigators with false
leads.
This was a modern ritual sacrifice–think of it as alchemy in action.
September 24, 2019 The Coverup of President John F. Kennedy's Assassination Is Wearing Thin. All available
evidence points to the CIA and the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the cooperation of the Secret Service, as
the murderers of President Kennedy.
It is well documented that JFK wanted to break down the power of the Central Intelligence Agency. Could
this have had dire consequences and let to his untimely death? Let's have a look!
Jan 21, 2019 Celebs and relatives of Martin Luther King Jr. call for new probe into his death ahead of
his public holiday as they claim his assassination and JFK, RFK and Malcolm X's killing were conspiracies
covered up by the government
A group of at least 60 US citizens including journalists, lawyers and historians are calling for new
investigations into four history-making assassinations
Nov 23, 2016 53 YEARS AFTER JFK ASSASSINATION CIA ADMITS THIS CONSPIRACY THEORY IS ACTUALLY FACT
Shortly
after noon on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated as he rode in a motorcade
through Dealey Plaza in downtown Dallas, Texas. It's been 53 years since the assassination. Since that
fateful November day, conspiracy theories have abounded. However, when we sift through the disinformation
and look at only verifiable facts, we find no need for theories -- as the conspiracy was a fact.
Israeli PM David Ben-Gurion ordered the murder of JFK, because Kennedy had stood up to that maniac regarding
Israel getting nukes.
Mossad And The JFK Assassination
Their motive? Israel's much touted Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion, who ruled that country from its
inception in 1948 until he resigned on June 16, 1963, was so enraged at John F. Kennedy for not allowing
Israel to become a nuclear power that, Collins asserts, in his final days in office he commanded the
Mossad to become involved in a plot to kill America's president.
Ben-Gurion was so convinced that Israel's very survival was in dire jeopardy that in one of his final
letters to JFK he said,
"Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, and this existence is in
danger."
In the days leading up to Ben-Gurion's resignation from office, he and JFK had been involved in an
unpublicized, contentious debate over the possibility of Israel getting nuclear capabilities. Their
disagreement eventually escalated into a full-fledged war of words that was virtually ignored in the
press. Ethan Bronner wrote about this secret battle between JFK and Ben-Gurion years later in a New York
Times article on October 31, 1998, calling it a "fiercely hidden subject." In fact, the
Kennedy/Ben-Gurion conversations are still classified by the United States Government. Maybe this is the
case because Ben-Gurion's rage and frustration became so intense – and his power so great within Israel –
that Piper contends it was at the center of the conspiracy to kill John Kennedy. This stance is supported
by New York banker Abe Feinberg, who describes the situation as such:
"Ben-Gurion could be vicious,
and he had such a hatred of the old man [Joe Kennedy, Sr., JFK's father]."
Ben-Gurion despised Joe
Kennedy because he felt that not only was he an anti-Semite, but that he had also sided with Hitler
during the 1930's and 40's. [We will touch upon this aspect of the story in an upcoming article entitled
The CIA and Organized Crime: Two Sides of the Same Coin].
Anyway, Ben-Gurion was convinced that Israel needed nuclear weapons to insure its survival, while
Kennedy was dead-set against it.
This inability to reach an agreement caused obvious problems.
One
of them revolved around Kennedy's decision that he would make America his top priority in regard to
foreign policy, and not Israel!
Kennedy planned to honor the 1950 Tripartite Declaration which said
that the United States would retaliate against any nation in the Middle East that attacked any other
country. Ben-Gurion, on the other hand, wanted the Kennedy Administration to sell them offensive weapons,
particularly Hawk missiles.
.Gerald Posner, in his 1993 book Case Closed, posited that the errant first shot was fired at Z 160,
which put the entire shooting sequence at 8.4 seconds. (8) In the 13 years since Posner's book, several
highly respected students of the assassination have weighed in with reputable analyses of the first
shot's timing. Their estimates lead to total elapsed times of around 8.8, 8.4, and 8.6 seconds .
@ThreeCranes
Dr.Charles Crenshaw was one of the surgeons who treated JFK when he was brought into Parkland Hospital
stated that he " considered the throat wound to be an entrance wound and the large head wound (at the right
rear of JFK's head ) to be an exit wound Along with many of my Parkland colleagues I believed at the time
that the President had been hit twice from the front ."
"Every doctor who was in the trauma room had his own reasons for not refuting the official line .whatever
was happening was larger than any of us anyone who went as far to eliminate the President of the United
States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor ."
Charles Crenshaw , " JFK Conspiracy of Silence " 1992
Fyi, in David Lifton's important & scientific book, "Best Evidence," he turned to a
fundamental example as to why JFK's head projected backward & a brain matter fell upon the limo's trunk.
Based upon physics,
Mr.
Lifton offered the kiddie example at a town carnival, & the act of shooting at plastic ducks. He emphasized
that wounded plastic duckies fall backward, not forward.
P.S.: David Lifton concluded unequivocally that a Secret Service role was critical to allow JFK's murder
& subsequent cover-up.
@LondonBob
Maybe so. Perhaps Baker is right: the Umbrella Man was a signal man, and Witt is not the Umbrella Man. But
then, fact number 2 become even more significant: why would someone come forward to make a declaration to
the HSCA that had the effect of connecting in the public psyche JFK's public assassination to the Kennedys'
anti-Semitism, and therefore, implicitly, to Jewish vengeance?
(I should have included that paragraph).
This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and
eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government. This I base on an assertion in Douglass's book JFK
and the Unspeakable that men with Secret Service and FBI credentials immediately began the cover up
operation.
Douglass pointed to this as proof that a group of CIA insiders, no doubt loyal to Dulles, were
the orchestrators. How else to get real credentials for fake agents? That still makes sense to me though M.
Guyenot's writings make it clear that the Israelis would have been happy to lend an assist.
JFK's public assassination to the Kennedys' anti-Semitism,
Laurent Guyenot, I have already posted – my agreement with your well written analysis.
However, (please pay attention),
John F. Kennedy was not an 'anti-Semite,' he liked Arabs.
Semites are Peoples from the Middle East. The overwhelming majority of Jews are NOT Semites. They hail
from Europe, or from America-by route of Europe.
I would recommend
Arthur Koestler's Thirteenth Tribe
, as the first read – of many to understand &
correctly use the term "Semite."
The term Semite is cynically used as a misdirection tool.
The Jewish Oligarch claim to be Semites,
is a deceitful way of laying claim to land in the Middle East. The worst anti-Semites are Jews, who are busy
Ethnically Cleansing Palestinian Arabs, stealing their lands & wealth, and, additionally, attempting to
conquer all of the Middle East, and Remove, or Exterminate the indigenous Semites.
Orwell
exposed the manipulation of Language, in his
1984
, as the key tool of oppressors to
reduce their subjects to slavery.
A couple of years ago I finally fulfilled a promise I made to my self back in November 22nd 1963 as I sat in
Edinburgh Scotland on that fateful Friday night,that I would one day visit Dealey plaza Dallas and see for
my self.
As I drove into the plaza up W Commerce street what struck me immediately was how small it all felt and as I
walked around the compact size of Dealey plaza was reinforced. I had been viewing the unfolding events all
these years through the lens of a narrow angle press camera and Zapruders home movie wide angle lens, which
to me made the place look far more expansive than it is when you are there in person. I have been unable for
some time to come up or read anyone else's theory which explained satisfactorily the shallow back wound in
Kennedy the throat wound with just a tiny knick in the tie , the wounding of Connelly, the Teague face hit,
the damage to the windscreen and the chrome strip of the car and the shot which hit the grass.
who claimed that umbrella man had fired a poison paralysing dart at Kennedy at about z189. I took this
with a pinch of salt when I first read it. The plaza looked to big for this to have been likely and the
distance from the kerb side to the car would be to large to have a realistic chance of success from an
umbrella, but having visited the plaza and seeing how close he actually was, far fetched though it seems,
it's a good theory that fits what you see happening in the Z film.
So I think Richard E. Sprague is pretty much right , first Umbrella man opens his umbrella the coloured
man stands in front of him with his hand in the air and umbrella man fires his flechette hitting Kennedy in
the throat. Then Kennedy's hands go to his throat and he is quickly parallalized. The radio man passes the
message to start shooting. The first shot comes in , it misses but hits the street lamp standard or the tree
and fragments, one of the fragment hits Kennedy in the back and one fragment hits Teague in the face along
with bits hitting the car chrome strip and windscreen. A second shot comes in and hits Connelly in the chest
and Connelly starts screaming "they are going to kill us all". The third shot hits Kennedy in the head as
Z313 as he sits stiff and ridged slightly angled but upright in the car. There may have been a 4th shot from
the grassy knoll which was a head shot also and a possible 5th shot , the one hit the grass in Dealey Plaza.
With a sixth and possible second shot hit on Connelly. Since we now have multiple shooters and Umbrella man
the timing of shots is no longer a factor not if they are coming in close together can we determine exactly
how many.
Ok but here is my justification's for his theory. First you need to read Richard E. Sprague and his
appendages .
We have confirmation that such a weapon existed from Col Prouty.
We have the appearance at the congressional hearing of the Umbrella man Mr Witt in 1978 himself showing the
alleged umbrella he carried that day , which would be rather odd if he had turned up with the real umbrella
and said this is the weapon, so he is an unreliable witness with no evidence chain to this or any umbrella,
so to me he is CIA disinformation.
e said he was putting the umbrella up and down as a protest against Joe Kennedy and Jack Kennedy as
appeasers with some comment about Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement policies in WW2. Sorry Mr Umbrella
man , Mr Chamberlain had died of cancer before America entered WW2 replaced by Churchill in May 1940.
Secondly Mr Chamberlin was an alleged appeaser of Germany not the Soviet Union who were our supposed allies,
while Jack was being accused of Soviet-Cuban appeasement over the Bay of Pigs I assume. It's also safe to
say that in the 30's most middle class people in London wore a bowler hat carried an umbrella and a brief
case.
The lack of reaction from Mr Kennedy as his hands fall to his side when Connelly is crying out and being
pulled into his wife's arms as Jack is frozen in inaction and falling slightly to the side.
The inability of any theory other than the preposterous "magic bullet theory" to explain the lack of
penetration observed with the back wound bullet and the small size of the throat wound would , making it
difficult to be an entrance wound and impossible to be an exit wound favours the explanation of the dart
theory and a bullet fragment causing the back wound. The inexperienced, doctors under great external
pressure would have been looking for a wound with the associated damage that would have been caused by a
whole bullet and none would have heard of the Flechette weapon .
The back wound bullet travelling downwards if it did suddenly deflect and exit the throat so cleanly ,
without significantly damaging the tie is unlikely to hit Connelly also, from its upwards trajectory.
As Mr Holmes would say when you have eliminated the impossible , the magic bullet is one impossible, there
was only 3 bullets is the second impossible, another solution to the small non exiting back wound , and the
small throat wound is another impossible, that Kennedy would have not thrown himself to the floor of the car
after the being hit in the back is another impossible, that Kennedy made not a sound on that day is another
impossible, when Connelly is yelling blue murder.
Did the Jews and the CIA do it , we will never know but it surely was not Oswald.
More on Oliver Stone, taken from the excellent "Final Judgment" by Michael Collins Piper.
THE MOSSAD CONNECTION
David Ben-Gurion – Prime Minister of Israel; resigned his post in disgust with JFK's stance toward
Israel. in April of 1963; Said JFK's position threatened Israel's very survival.
Yitzhak Shamir – A long-time Mossad officer (based largely at the Mossad's chief European office in
Paris), Shamir headed the Mossad's assassination squad at the time of the JFK assassination. A former
French intelligence officer has charged that Shamir himself arranged the hiring of JFK's actual assassins
through a close ally in French intelligence.
Menachem Begin – In 1963, Begin (later prime minister of Israel) was a roving Israeli diplomat; prior to
JFK's assassination he was overheard conspiring with Meyer Lansky's California henchman, Mickey Cohen, in
a conversation that suggested hostile intentions by Israel against the American president.
Luis Kutner – Although known largely as a "mob lawyer," (who was long and closely associated with Jack
Ruby, a sometime-client) Kutner also doubled as an international intelligence operative and functioned as
an advisor to an ad hoc pro-Israel lobby group in the United States.
A. L. Botnick – Head of the New Orleans office of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith, an
intelligence and propaganda arm for Israel's Mossad; a close associate of New Orleans-based CIA contract
operative Guy Banister who helped create Lee Harvey Oswald's preassassination profile as a "pro-Castro"
agitator. Evidence suggests that Banister's manipulation of Oswald may have been carried out under the
guise of an ADL "fact-finding" operation.
Arnon Milchan – Israel's biggest arms dealer, Milchan was "executive producer" (i.e. chief financial
angel) of Oliver Stone's Hollywood fantasy
about the JFK assassination-a fact which may explain
Stone's aversion to exploring the Israeli connection to the affair.
Maurice Tempeisman – The international diamond merchant and Mossad operative who became the lover of
Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and used his connections to double-perhaps triple-her substantial fortune,
thereby co-opting the Kennedy family forever.
It makes sense to me that an order was given to the various independent snipers that Kennedy was to be
shot at the precise moment when the presidential limousine drew level with the man holding an open
umbrella.
W
hy not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
Why would the snipers need a signal to begin shooting anyway, when they themselves could see their target
entering the predetermined kill zone? Does the hunter need a signal that this the buck, or a matador a
signal that this is the bull? Killing JFK within that kill zone ensured that the patsy could be framed, so
there was no need for any signal for the assassins to know when to begin firing. If a signal was really
needed, the first shot would have done it.
@Laurent Guyenot
I also heard of the supposed invitation of Lindbergh but didn't believe it because I thought it was
nonsense. Wow! Former ex military that I have known were also partial to the idea that Israel and the Jewish
lobby played a role in his assassination.
Supposedly, Kennedy basically insulted someone from one of the
Jewish Groups and they didn't take kindly to it because he was adamant that these groups would register as
foreign agents. Fullbright who publicly denounced Israel and their control of the US Congress on National TV
and the fact that Kennedy wanted him as Secretary of State must have also riled the Jews. Fullbright was
also against the Vietnam War.
If you look at what's happening to Trump right now with this Ukraine
nonsense all the witnesses are Jews. From Epstein to Trump and so forth this shows that Israel and the Jews
will do anything for control of the world and makes their possible input into the Kennedy's death more
plausible.
@follyofwar
"Given the decades long national trauma, from which the country has never recovered, it would have been far
better if Nixon had won."
There is more than anecdotal evidence to suggest that Nixon SHOULD have won.
C.f., "Chicago", "Mayor Daley" etc. If Nixon had won then maybe there wouldn't have been a Watergate. Who
knows? And, no, this country never recovered. Indeed, 11/22/1963 was the beginning of the slow, steady
unraveling of American society which continues apace.
The Abraham Zapruder heirs did not need an umbrella, when in 1999, the US government rained down $16 million
for the film.
Fyi, according to Dishonest Abe's granddaughter's book, instead of forking over the film to either Dallas
cops or FBI, he made a copy and gave the Secret Service custody of the original.
Well, I'll admit I've never looked into this "Umbrella Man" issue, nor have more than glanced over this long
comment-thread. But frankly, I'm pretty skeptical of this particular "conspiracy analysis."
It's important
to remember the public issues of the early 1960s, especially with regard to JFK. A very large one was that
rightwingers widely regarded JFK as "soft on Communism," especially after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion.
Put another way, they accused him of "appeasing the Communists" much like Neville Chamberlain and Joseph
Kennedy had been vilified by the MSM for "appeasing Hitler."
So it seems perfectly plausible to me that some Texas rightwinger who felt that way might have gone to
the scene displaying an umbrella as a symbol of Munich-style appeasement, though this time towards
Communism. Maybe a little eccentric, but that seems vastly more plausible than e.g. the Umbrella guy being a
shot-signaler for the JFK snipers. Why would professional snipers need a signaler? And for him to have been
working with the assassins in providing some mystical/symbolic attack on JFK seems totally ridiculous.
And for those interested in my own analysis of the JFK Assassination itself, here are the links to a
couple of articles I published last year:
There might not be a better introduction to the Kennedy Assassination than this documentary, "The Men Who
Killed Kennedy'. I would estimate it's accuracy at around 90%.
Joseph Kennedy was right. The "Jews" did win the war, but they did so along with the US and UK Masonic
establishments. It likely all came down to their power through money and influence. Kennedy was a Catholic
and after the success of the communist revolution in Russia and the spread throughout the 1920's, the RC
Church and nations like Germany were besieged by the movement everywhere. It was mostly spawned by the Anglo
Masonic and Zionist cabal which went on to "win" WWII.
Fascism in Italy, Spain and Germany was a direct reaction to the threat of communism. Mussolini in the
1920's nipped it in the bud, but it continued to spread and the source was the same. By the time of the 1932
election in Germany, a number of Germany cities had voted in communist governments. The threat to freedom of
religion was very real based on what had happened in Russia. Whether the communist ideology was based on
Marx, Lenin or Stalin in that nation, Christians in particular were severely persecuted. When the Christian
Democrats in Germany in that election failed to win a majority, coming in third behind the communists and
the Nazis, then in many places in the following 1933 election, the churches threw their weight behind Hitler
in order to keep the communists from taking over. Like in the US today, it was a matter of the lesser of
evils.
When the war ended with Germany, the USSR which had been supplied and supported by the US throughout the
war, continued to occupy the eastern European nations with the consent of the US and the UK. These were
nations with relatively large Catholic and Protestant populations and the people of those religions were
severely persecuted by the communists regimes. (You can read about what they did to Jewish convert and
Lutheran pastor, Richard Wurmbrand, in order to get an idea of the severity.) When the US army took
possession of Rome in June 1944, in effect it was huge victory over the RC Church for the Masons. At least
since 1958 the ame cabal has been extremely influential in determining Church polices, and controlling
Church finances, and it is from then on that the Vatican has been used to push the so-called "new world
order". From my observations over the years, based on of the various deconstruction polices at work in the
Church, it is clear that the Vatican is essentially a Masonic/Zionist instrument. The same forces are
presently working to deconstruct out nations for their new order.
The deep state in the US is made up of a number of factions, which are always at each other's throats.
Oligarchic families have largely made their initial fortunes outside of the law, or if not then in any case
they all believe they are above the law. The "made" Italian, Irish, and Jewish crime families and dons, all
throughout North America are controlled by establishment oligarchs and government agencies. Vices are
legalised mainly for profit and to give more legitimacy to the money flows. Huge power struggles go on
behind the scenes where despite the information on the independent internet we know little about. The entire
system is rotten to the core.
a declaration [..] that had the effect of connecting in the public psyche JFK's public assassination
[..] to Jewish vengeance?
Thanks for yet another first-class article, and thanks even more for bringing up President Kennedy's
memory on the day anniversary of his cruel and untimely passing.
It is very credible that the Chamberlain symbol story was retrospectively deliberately devised to taunt
and threaten the Kennedy family and their supporters, and remind them of Jewish vengeance.
But "Umbrella Man" cannot be dissociated from another suspicious character, "Signal Man", also called
"Dark Complected Man", who was standing close to him at all times and was filmed raising his arm while the
presidential limousine was approaching.
In Frame 226 of the Zapruder Film, the arm of Dark Complected Man can be seen up with its fist closed, which
in military hand signs means "hold" or "stop".
There were many testimonies that JFK's limousine came to a total halt for many seconds for the final,
murderous headshots; his driver was part of the conspiracy.
What is even more unbelievable and strikingly odd is "Umbrella Man" and "Dark Complected Man" sat next to
each other, on the curb, seconds after the shooting, while everybody else is taking shelter from the shooter
at the Grassy Knoll.
Of course, these were not gay lovers comforting each other, but two perpetrators probably sharing the same
walkie-talkie. A walkie-talkie whose shape could be guessed in the right hand of "Dark Complected Man":
@Jefferson Temple
To the question why US government agents would facilitate the cover up, you find the straight answer in
Michael Collins Pipers book. They had themselves organized their own action, likely a fake assassination
attempt to be blamed on Cuba (that would have been Oswalds part), and they had seriously let down the
defenses of the president when the assassination went real.
Many people had to be afraid of being held to account, so the necessary officials to order the cover up
were easily persuaded. Also note, that Johnson was certainly in on the plot. He would order any serious
investigation to be derailed.
Why not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
A marksman doesn't operate alone. He's assisted by a spotter and [when needed, in combat situations. fe]
a 3rd man for general protection. So, we have at least two, 2-men teams [at a minimum]. 1 team [of 2 men]
was spotted on the Grassy Knoll, behind a picket fence, and at the spot the bullet had to be fired from, to
make JFK's head slam back and to the left.
Then triangulate the target and fire.
Am not saying umbrella man did give a signal, but logically, the opening of fire had to be synchronized
to have maximum effect.
The driver not hitting the pedal to the metal when the first shot/s rang out remains a mystery to me,
because the man actually slows down the limo and then JFK's brain is blown to smithereens.
@Sparkon
Good questions. I would suggest that there were multiple shooters in multiple locations and all were
completely unaware of each other.
Why not just use the Stemmons freeway sign, or some other physical landmarks in Dealey Plaza to
delineate the kill zone, rather than some doofus with an umbrella who might draw the attention of the
authorities, and be hauled in for questioning?
Using the freeway sign or any other fixed and inanimate object would mean that each shooter would have to
be contacted separately should the hit need to be called off for any reason. That person would thus know far
too much and pose a high risk of exposing the plotters if caught. The stakes were high indeed!
The umbrella man would know nothing more than where to stand and when to open his umbrella so that him
being called in for questioning would reveal nothing.
Killing JFK within that kill zone ensured that the patsy could be framed, so there was no need for any
signal for the assassins to know when to begin firing.
As I stated, the justification for attempting to synchronise the shots is so that they can all be blamed
on just one "crazed" patsy later.
If a signal was really needed, the first shot would have done it.
Snipers need plenty of time and the exact range to take the kill shot.
It makes sense to me that an order was given to the various independent snipers that Kennedy was to be
shot at the precise moment when the presidential limousine drew level with the man holding an open
umbrella,
Completely agree, dear Nosey, with just a quibble.
The men who shot President Kennedy were hired guns, hit men from the Chicago mob. Their job was, always
is, to
shoot the "target" in the head.
There was at least 3 of them in action, positioned to create a triangulated crossfire.
However, the intention was from the onset to blame it on the patsy Oswald, so it was very important that
the headshot to JFK was taken from behind. The best shooter was positioned behind the limousine, in the
Dal-Tex building, and was in charge with taking the head shot.
When he failed to hit President Kennedy at the head, Plan B was put in action and a headshot taken from
the Grassy Knoll.
So the presence of Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man next to the limit where a successful headshot
from behind becomes unlikely is very easy to understand:
– Umbrella Man is close from the limousine. He sees that the President's head is intact and opens his
umbrella to tell the Grassy Knoll sniper to shoot.
– His accomplice , Dark Complected Man, raises his arm with a closed fist, a military sign telling JFK/s
driver to stop the limousine to facilitate the execution. This stop of many seconds was recounted by the
witnesses present.
It is so simple and logical. People just don't want to accept the idea because it implies that there was
a vast conspiracy with a large number of people involved.
The movie is a limited hangout made to ensure that those who cannot swallow the obvious lies of the
Warren Commission will direct their anger otherwise than at Israel.
That observation is just as valid for the largest part of the yearly anniversary articles on the Kennedy
assasination: Take the time and scan the articles on your favorite sites, how many of them only just mention
Voldemort country in that context. If only just to refute the idea or to proclaim that only sickos believe
it. It cannot have past by the numerous authors over the years that that theory at least exists.
Instead, you are treated to a steady stream of philosophizing on the deep state, Vietnam, the CIA and the
like. Take note and evaluate your reading matter.
@Ron Unz
I remember my father made a comment long after JFK's asssassination in which he felt JFK was soft on
communism. He also felt Khruschev was a tougher and smarter negotiator. It was only a few sentences, but not
everyone loved JFK. But being German, I think he might have had a soft spot for JFK, if we knew then what we
know now, with his diaries published. Of course, today's Germans no longer think like that. I do not recall
any discussion of JFK's father's views on WW II. That was kept quiet and the media did not make it a public
issue. Those were pre "Holocaust Industry" days in which according to Norman Finkelstein, Jews became bolder
and [even] more outspoken with Israel being perceived as a valuable ally after winning the 1967 war. This,
according to Finkelstein.
I recall JFK being very popular, well liked and people thought "Jackie" was beautiful and thought they
had a beautiful family. I think they were also perceived as having "class", probably because that is what
the media said. I think it was after his assassination that the knowledge of his extramarital affairs (and
Bobby's too) became public and then Jackie married the Greek multi-millionaire Onassis. For my mother, that
took all the class out of Jackie that the media always had said she had. I think they were very popular with
the media. By contrast, JFK's opponent in the 1960 election was Richard Nixon, not as good looking as JFK,
remembered for his tough stance on communism and that probably made him more popular with the right and less
popular with the media and the left.
It would be interesting how this would play out if JFK was still alive and his diaries became public
while he was alive. I have a feeling he may have been tougher than people like my father perceived him to be
and maybe he just held the views he had, but maybe not out of any weakness.
The Kennedys were knocked off with major input from Zionists. I think that almost certainly includes John Jr
(if that were an accident and had been avoided, and John John had failed to get 100% behind both Liberal and
Neocon Jews, then they would have killed him). But true Blue WASPs on both sides if the Atlantic also wanted
the Kennedys destroyed. And the WASP hatred of Irish Catholics has been what has been most used, and used
most effectively, in leading non-Catholic white Middle Americans away from recognizing the Kennedys as the
most important murder victims in the march of the Deep State to make serfs of us all.
It all goes back to
the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, most specifically to archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell's direct
deal with Jews, opening England to be directed, and eventually owned, by Jewish bankers. There has been a
Brit WASP Deep State since at least the Restoration of the monarchy, and it revealed its total power no
later than the 'Glorious Revolution.' And the Brit WASP Deep State then was tied inextricably to Jewish
bankers.
It is almost as if you either
must
play nice and fair, respectfully and equally, with Celts and
white Catholics or else get made a serf by a Jewish-owned WASP Deep State.
Of course, I know the speculation it was Israelis who were behind it (Dimona), but I don't
find it persuasive. There are other means to avoid US inspection, and Kennedy was not adamant about it at
all. These are things politicians toy with all the time, and while not a "friend" of Israel, Kennedy was not
an enemy -- one could consider Eisenhower, if we judge him by his actions during Suez canal crisis- to be an
"enemy" of Israel (of course this too is simplistic, politics is a rough business).
To illustrate the "rough" side of politics, let's see the following. Let's see Henry Kissinger, with his
publicly suppressed answer to Nixon re Soviet Jews:
Just- they deleted Kissinger's original statement, which can be seen in this leftist guy's clip
(comedienne Sarah Silverman reads Kissinger's words, at 2:06):
"The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy. And if they
put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian
concern."
Maybe..maaaybe maaaybe.
..
This remark can be read only in the papers, because "it was taken out of context.
Taken "out of context"? I say:
So, it can be read only in 2-3 places, and not seen in a video
Nothing, I just wanted to point that media manipulations have no limits; that American Jews are not
nearly as monolithic; that one should be aware that talk or statements are not something too reliable; that
one can construct from scratches a huge conspiracy.
Who says that Witt was actually the "umbrella man"? Why was he identified only 15 years after the event?
And even if he was that man- what kind of silly gesture would it be, because who in his right mind would
think that JFK would have noticed anyone in this situation & mentally process this like: umbrella >
Chamberlain > my dad > huh, I'm guilty .
JFK had, I think, a Jewish mistress whom he intended to marry (prior to his marriage) & was dissuaded by
his family; he was not anti-Jewish; Israel, as virtually all American Jews, was horrified by his
assassination, which can be seen from Golda Meir's behavior (she seems to have thought that JFK
assassination was a right-wing coup):
@Iris
"People just don't want to accept the idea because it implies that there was a vast conspiracy with a large
number of people involved."
The primary reason for that is for such a large conspiracy to be tried, much
of the WASP establishment had to have been on board, and most of the rest had to have been known to being
the type easily coerced afterwards to remain silent.
It took WASPs and Zionists to plan it and execute and cover it up, and then spread endless propaganda,
including playing hard on WASP hatreds of Irish Catholics to keep culturally conservative and/or
anti-imperialist Protestant Middle Americans from looking at the evidence of cover up.
@Fred Baggins
I suspect that it was Jewish influence which made the capitalists and communists alllies. They played a
leading role in the USSR, Great Britain and the USA, and they are the only ones that could see the benefit
of these otherwise ideological enemies being allies. Except for the USA (separated from the fighting by two
oceans), no one else benefitted from WW II. If Winston Churchill had been more concerned about his beloved
empire than his own reputation and had not accepted bribes from wealthy Jews when he was in financial need,
Europe and Great Britain would still be great. They would still lead the world. And Jews would have a
fraction of the power they have today. Yes, Jews won that war and were its major beneficiaries, despite
being told the direct opposite. They made it into a world war and they brought the suffering to all Europe,
but particularly to their German enemy, and themselves.
@Emblematic
Robert David Steele's Blog review of " Tavistock Institute : Social Engineering the masses " by Daniel
Estulin – "The deep state playbook " :
"Although I have read and heard over the years of CIA and KGB Freemasons collaborating in betrayal of their
countries and organizations by order of the Freemasons we have to deal with the fact that the President
and everyone of consequence in Congress , Justice and the FBI is a high ranking Freemason . "
"Sir Knight
Earl Warren " By Sir Knight Dr. Ivan M. Tribe (Knightstemplar.org ):
"In 1938 he( Earl Warren ) served as Master of Rose Croix and in 1945 presiding office of the Lodge of
Perfection . By that time he had already been coroneted with the 33rd degree "
Gerald McKnight " Breach of Trust : How the Warren Commission failed the Nation and Why " :
"The records of the Commission disclose that the commission's pre-structured task was to support the FBI's
conclusions : Oswald was the assassin and that he acted alone ."
@PeterMX
" and then Jackie married the Greek multi-millionaire Onassis " – The then was after RFK's assassination:
"If they're killing Kennedys, then my children are targets I want to get out of this country"
So the deal was to offer some safety but you are correct that her marriage to Onassiss "took all the
class out of Jackie that the media always had said she had." But this was the price which the forces that
pushed her in this direction wanted her to pay to diminish and tarnish the legend of JFK. The safety was not
coming form the wealth of Onassis but from the tarnished image and marginalization by marrying the rich
Greek creep.
The primary reason for that is for such a large conspiracy to be tried, much of the WASP establishment
had to have been on board
It was much simpler than that: JFK's assassination was a criminal Zionist conspiracy within a more benign
WASP conspiracy.
A secret mission was organised by the loyal Security apparatus to abort an assassination attempt against
President Kennedy at Dallas.
The abort mission would have resulted in unmasking and arresting criminal elements within the
establishment. Oswald the patsy was part of the abort mission, as was Agent Bouck, the head of the WH Secret
Service. And Robert Kennedy was involved too.
But more powerful parties within the Zionist Deep State were at play: they took control of the situation
and turned it into a real assassination, killing two birds with one stone:
– They executed the independent and principled President who stood up to them.
– They compromised the WASP establishment, including RFK, with the murky and failed abort mission that was
turned into a real assassination, making their responsibility undistinguishable.
Finally, Kennedy had enough, and in a personal letter dated May 18, 1963, the president warned that
unless American inspectors were allowed into Dimona (meaning the end of any military activities), Israel
would find itself totally isolated. Rather than answering, Ben-Gurion abruptly resigned.
Ben-Gurion's successor, Levi Eshkol received Kennedy's next letter, which upped the pressure, warning
that the American commitment and support of Israel "could be seriously jeopardized."
And then there was RFK as Attorney General demanding Israel lobbyist to be registered as foreign lobbyist
and how it was undone after RFK was forced to resign by LBJ year or so later after JFK assassination.
http://www.israellobby.org/azcdoj/
"Judge Rifkind then made a plea for no registration, stating it was the opinion of most of the persons
affiliated with the Council that such registration would be so publicized by the American Council on
Judaism that it would eventually destroy the Zionist movement he did not believe his clients would file
any papers or sign any papers indicating that the organization was an agent of a foreign principal. I
told him that any such information or material that is supplied on that basis would be made part of the
Department's public files available for inspection by the public "
In DOJ internal memo on 4/30/1964 before replacing RFK as AG with Nicholas Katzenbach the following was
stated: "This is the most blatant stall we have encountered. Do you mind suggesting what we do next because
all of us here would call their records before a grand jury." RFK resigns as AG in September 1964. When
Katzenbach became acting AG and then AG exchanges between Jewish lobby and DOJ continued but no action was
taken by DOJ. Eventually on n 11/27/1967, four years and five days after JFK's death AIPAC applies for a
federal tax exemption. The lobby has won.
The Warren Commission hogwash was almost as ridiculous as the official 911 nonsense, and Mark Lane's 1966
book "Rush to Judgment" helped fuel broad public disbelief in the official story.
Talk about quid pro quo
to the nth degree, as that hideous snake LBJ gave the MIC and its financiers their wars, etc., in exchange
for the Presidency and for keeping his sorry ass out of jail for the Billy Sol Estes and Bobby Baker
scandals. Sure, the Israelis benefitted, and were likely a cog in the conspiratorial wheel, but the CIA,
Secret Service, and various military agents were the movers and shakers, with LBJ their guarantor.
Much of the conspiratorial framework is exposed in David Lifton's absolutely must-read book "Best
Evidence" which clearly shows that the body was altered before autopsy in an attempt to make the physical
evidence conform to the Oswald-as-shooter narrative. The conspirators left a wide trail of evidence that
only the highest-level actors could suppress, as in the 911 crimes.
There were many testimonies that JFK's limousine came to a total halt for many seconds for the final,
murderous headshots
There is another film of the assasination, taken from the distance across the Plaza (maybe, someone can
link it? It must have been in the comment section of some earlier article). That film clearly shows, how the
police motorcycles continue while the limosine falls back and nearly comes to a hold. If the driver had done
his job he would have speeded of at the first second of realizing something was going on. These people are
trained for nothing else but exactly such situations. The driver and several other people around the
president must have been in on the plot to varying degrees.
Comparing that film with the Zapruder film also shows that the Zapruder film was severly tempered with
before release – anyone believes that Oliver Stone and his team as Hollywood professionals who based their
plot on that film didn't realize that?
In Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, he mentions that when LBJ was running against Kennedy for the
Democrat nomination in 1960 he attacked Kennedy for his father's appeasement, saying "I was never a
Chamberlain umbrella man."
Weakness, Johnson had seen in three decades in Washington, was never rewarded. When he said of
Vietnam, "We're not going to have any men with any umbrellas," a pointed reference to the hapless
Chamberlain, the message was clear: America would stand up to Ho Chi Minh and the Vietcong in a way that
Chamberlain had not stood up to Hitler and the Nazi regime.
So it seems perfectly plausible to me that some Texas rightwinger who felt that way might have gone to
the scene displaying an umbrella as a symbol of Munich-style appeasement, though this time towards
Communism.
The whole appeasement thing is bunk.
Chamberlain surely didn't give a damn about appeasing Hitler, except as a manipulative stratagem.
But for Britain, in the late thirties, going to war with Germany would have been insane. Britain had at
most four, and possibly only two, deployable army divisions versus Germany's 40 plus. The threat posed by a
rapidly rearming and aggressive Germany was thus best dealt with by bringing Germany into confrontation with
Russia.
By sacrificing Czechoslovakia to Germany, Chamberlain greatly added to Hitler's military resources, which
were then far smaller than Russia's.
Encouraging Polish obduracy in the matter of Danzig, brought German forces directly to the Russian
frontier. Then it was a matter of waiting for these old adversaries to clash in accordance with the plan von
Ribbentrop had shown Winston Churchill during a visit to England in 1937. (Asked by Ribbentrop what he
thought of the plan for German Eastward expansion, Churchill is said to have replied "We don't like the
Russians, but we don't hate them that much.")
Meantime, the British economy had been placed on a war footing, and was turning out more military
aircraft than Germany.
Once the struggle between Germany and Russia had begun, Britain's only major concerns were to protect her
overseas possession, particularly the ME oil fields, which she did successfully, and to prepare a backstop
with massive American participation (Operation Overlord), on the Western front for the time when a greatly
weakened victor of the Russso-German conflict was in a position to turn West with a view to crushing Britain
and achieving a trans-European empire.
This is the original version. It' s actually 9 plus hours. This is cut to 4hours 33 minutes. Sometime during
the past two years this doc has been cut and revised – and loaded back onto YT with unoriginal content.
I find it hard to explain that this is the same Josiah Thompson who published in 1967 a book titled
Six Seconds in Dallas: a micro-study of the Kennedy assassination proving that three gunmen murdered the
President, for which he studied the Zapruder film and interviewed eyewitnesses in order to come up with a
plausible line of fire, and the conclusion of a conspiracy and government cover-up. What happened to
Josiah in between?
This is a great remark within an already so rich article; it introduces the concept of "Controlled
Conspiracy Theory".
At the time (1967) Josiah Thompson published his book, much courageous research on the JFK cover-up had
been produced, of which the most perilous for the perpetrators was the legal crusade undertaken by
New-Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison.
Thompson's book concluded that the hit men were at the Texas School Book Depository, Dallas County Record
and Grassy Knoll.
Of all possible places, he managed to exonerate the DalTex Building, a building entirely owned and run by
the Dallas Zionist community, in which Zapruder had his offices.
The DalTex Building had the best, shortest and most direct line of fire to JFK's limousine; it was the
principal "sniper nest" of the conspiracy.
The concept of "Controlled Conspiracy Theory" nicely applies to Mr Josiah Thompson.
@refl
The driver of JFK's limousine was William Greer, a Protestant from Ulster who in his youth in Northern
Ireland had been a member of the Orange Order. One of the other two drivers in the presidential detail had
died of an untimely heart attack shortly before Dallas.
Israel, as virtually all American Jews, was horrified by his assassination, which can be seen from Golda
Meir's behavior
Why shouldn't they? I am sure that a significant section of American and Israeli Jews are horrified by the
every day action of the IDF. They were horrified by the assassination of Yitzak Rabin.
It must be horrifying to be tied to maniacal leadership, who will sacrifice you any time in the name of the
fulfillment of their sick plan. So if you are a good Christian or Muslim, Buddhist, Pastafari or whatever,
pray for these poor fellows.
Like any good gumshoe worth his salt, the first question he asks himself after arriving at the crime scene is
Cui bono, who benefits?
In the case of the JFK assassination, there was clearly one very large beneficiary
that stood out above the rest, Israel.
By Nov 1963, JFK had two big strikes against him:
1. In 1963 President Kennedy demanded that Ben-Gurion end Israel's nuclear deterrent program. Kennedy warned
in a letter dated May 18, 1963, that unless American inspectors were allowed into Israel's Dimona facility,
Israel would find itself totally isolated. "We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world stability
which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel It is because of our
preoccupation with this problem that my Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona."
As it turned out, his following reassurance fell on deaf ears "As I made clear in my press conference of May 8,
we have a deep commitment to the security of Israel."
2. In 1963 President Kennedy demanded that the American Zionist Council register under FARA as a foreign
agent. In a letter dated October 17, 1963 (one month before JFK's assassination), Judge Rifkind (a
representative of the AZC), responded to the Kennedy Administration's demand: " it was the opinion of most of
the persons affiliated with the Council that
such registration
would be so publicized by the American
Council on Judaism that it
would eventually destroy the Zionist movement.
"
Along with the quote by AZC Representative Judge Rifkind, here is the infamous quote by Jack Ruby's (born
Jacob Rubinstein) rabbi, Hillel Silverman:
"I was shocked," said Silverman. "I visited him the next day in jail, and I said, 'Why, Jack, why?' He
said, 'I did it for the American people.'"
I interrupted Silverman, pointing out that other reports had Ruby saying he did it "to show that Jews had
guts." The rabbi sighed.
"Yes, he mentioned that," Silverman said. "But I don't like to mention it. I think he said, 'I did it
for the Jewish people.' But I've tried to wipe that statement from my mind."
@CanSpeccy
"If Israel assassinated JFK, who assassinated RFK and John, Jr.?"
– That Israel did them would be a very
conservative conclusion, don't you think?
Picking Sirhan Sirhan as a Palestinian patsy who was upset with RFK's alleged love for Israel was a master
stroke. JFK Jr. who can't stop himself from beating around the bush of the topics of assassinations like
picking Woody Harrelson (*) for the December 1996 cover of his magazine or then digging into Yitzach Rabin
conspiracy and then rumors that he will run for Senate
Joseph Chagra later testified during Harrelson's trial that Harrelson claimed to have shot Kennedy and drew
maps to show where he was hiding during the assassination. Chagra said that he did not believe Harrelson's
claim, and the AP reported that the FBI "apparently discounted any involvement by Harrelson in the Kennedy
assassination."[25] According to Jim Marrs in 1989's Crossfire, Harrelson is believed to be the youngest and
tallest of the "three tramps" by many conspiracy theorists.[22] Marrs stated that Harrelson was involved "with
criminals connected to intelligence agencies and the military" and suggested that he was connected to Jack Ruby
through Russell Douglas Matthews, a third party with links to organized crime who was known to both Harrelson
and Ruby.[23] Lois Gibson, a well-known forensic artist, matched photographs of Harrelson to the photographs of
the youngest-looking of the three "tramps".
"Mr. Trump has been prevented from releasing the rest of the "top secret" files, in spite of his promise to do
so."
IIRC, it was Trump doing all of the preventing.
This "Israel did it" theory doesn't quite answer the question of how physical evidence was destroyed and
eyewitnesses intimidated by agents of the US government.
This has been discussed in depth here in this case and the 911 case.
The Mossad and the CIA were part of the same "team"–the CIA handled and continues to handle the ongoing
domestic coverup operations as needed (including Mockingbird mass media activities).
Connelly is a _very_ interesting figure, and his background prior to the day of the assassination is not very
well understood.
I was stunned to read that he was a key actor in the Korean War "setup":
Isn't it significant that the patsy set up to take the blame for the RFK assassination was a Palestinian?
If the CIA did it, they would naturally have arranged to put the blame elsewhere. Is that not why Sirhan
Sirhan remains incarcerated to this day. Given freedom, the fall guy might give the CIA a headache.
Remember, Kennedy had just buggered up the CIA's Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and was threatening to pull
out of the CIA's war in Vietnam. With
a nod from LBJ
the CIA could kill Kennedy and be sure of top-down cover from the moment Kennedy's heart
stopped beating, cover which, according to the doctors who attended on Kennedy at Parklands Hospital, was
promptly given.
Then there's the deathbed confession of CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, which provides a tenuous connection with
Richard Nixon, who hired Hunt and Frank Sturgis (both believed to have been among the tramps arrested in Dealey
Plaza in the immediate aftermath of the assassination) to. among other things, burglarize the Democratic Party
headquarters at the Watergate Building in Washington, DC.
That's Mary Pinchot Meyer.
Wife of Cord Meyer, of the CIA.
Sister-in-law of Ben Bradlee.
Lover of JFK, to whom he confided his vision for major peaceful change in the US of A and the world.
Kissinger made himself quit clear more than once about Jewish influence in US policy.
Kissinger was more German than Jew he had the typical 'Germanic manner ' .
German Jews in general were more assimilated than the less educated and more tribal Jews of Poland, Hungary,
etc.. If you look up the origins of the Fifth Column Jews in the Us most of them came thru Poland , where
militant Zionism had a stronghold way before WWII.
Kissinger .
""If it were not for the accident of my birth, I would be anti-Semitic," he once quipped, and "any people
who has been persecuted for two thousand years must be doing something wrong."
Another time, he told a friend, "I was born Jewish, but the truth is that has no significance for me. America
has given me everything."
On Israel .
"On the other hand, we can not make our policy hostage to the Israelis, because our interests, while
parallel in respect to that I have outlined, are not identical in overall terms. From an Israeli point of view,
it is no disaster to have the whole Arab world radicalized and anti-American, because this guarantees our
continued support. From an American point of view this is a disaster."
Jewish disloyalty
Kissinger also went as far as
accusing American Jews of behaving traitorously
for supporting the
Jackson-Vanik Amendment that ruined his and Nixon's effort on a détente agreement with Russia.
@Skeptikal
Yes, Skeptical, and 'thanks" for the reiteration as to who and what was the murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer.
I trust Laurent Guyenot knows about Mary's intense love affair with President JFK,
and after his barbaric & election overturning murder, how she knew about CIA's Counterintelligence & Israel
friendly, James Jesus Angleton's, passion
for
Jack's last nightmatish ride on Elm Street.
P.S.: Mary's remains rest in her great-grandfather, Gifford Pinchot's, Milford, Pa-based estate, which I
have visited. Fyi, it's a tourist spot now where her historical relationship with President JFK is unspoken.
What if it were raining and there were numerous people with umbrellas?
P
recisely.
Despite all the special pleading going on here by people who've read too many men's adventure novels, or
watched too many episodes of "Charlie's Angels," this Rube Goldbergian umbrella signalling scheme would never
get off the ground. It is a unnecessary complication with built-in failure modes.
The go-ahead for the operation was likely given the night before. The die was cast. There was no turning
back, and why would they?
If it had kept raining in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, would it have changed history? Several books and
articles have pondered this question. President John F Kennedy greeted a crowd on a misty morning rain in
Fort Worth at 8:45 a.m. central standard time. The weather in Dallas had been rainy, but the sun came out
before the president's plane had landed.
@Pheasant
The donation could have been sincere, or it could have been a gesture to make them seem concerned patriots, or
it could have been money laundering a payoff to certain members of the Dallas PD for their silence in the
operation. Who knows? I never take any Jewish action at face value.
@Stonehands
Right. I only bought the official story at the time and for a few years after, as a very young kid, but the
idea of Oswald as nothing but a patsy never appealed to me.
@Duke84
I try to avoid the self-certainty that seems to be a bias in the reasoning behind the LHO didn't do it because
he couldn't crowd. On paper the odds against him succeeding increased with every miss and chance for the agents
and cops to fire at him and/or the limo driver to swerve and accelerate. An important point is the chance for
him to get away would decline precipitously too. By my way of thinking the most important factor would have
been single mindedness. He would have had to have been committed to succeed irrespective of the consequences.
We don't know Oswald had no help of encouragement, he may have been talking to Cubans and Soviets about his
intentions and they maybe just listened which he may have interpreted them as having approved. The fact he was
talking to the Cubans and KGB was considered worth keeping secret for several decades, and there is supposed to
be more along the same lines that has still not been declassified.
Even with a miss or two, hitting a moving head from 265 feet would have been workmanlike marksmanship. In
the circumstances that he might have been spotted and shot at any second it was nicely done, but it might have
been a fluke. On the other hand the limo was following a straight track, the driver seems to have brought it to
a near halt before the head shot, and Kennedy was quite exposed. It would depend on the determination of the
shooter not just his skill, but the circumstances and enormity of killing a president are so unique, plus
getting out the area would be so uncertain that it would require someone of formidable resolution.
My feeling is a professional would not even try, and he would understand he'd know too much afterwards
anyway. A loner would not have that problem. Oswald fits the profile better than any CIA agent I think. For the
shooting, you cannot exclude that he may have just got lucky. Whoever did it, they were risking a lot so it
would have to be tremendously meaningful to them.
Oswald seemed such a insignificant person to kill the great man that contingency was ruled out. I think
Oswald the CIA agent who agreed to go to Russia on a fake defector mission for the agency with no way of
knowing what would happen to him, would have been an insanely extreme patriot. Such an Oswald might be willing
to do anything he was ordered to I suppose. The trouble is Oswald seems to have been anti establishment right
back into his teens. He was an immature 17 year old when he joined the Marines, and though he toughened up
considerably they evidence of him ever being an anti communist fanatic is just lacking.
Here is a 60 year old man at 230 yards with a .45 pistol.
@Ted Heath
Once again, let's try to put the "Kennedy wanted to end the FED" myth to bed.
President Kennedy was not assassinated for being anti-Fed. I don't know how much more clearly that can be
said. His death on November 22nd, 1963 was a sad tragedy, but it had nothing to do with any stupid and
baseless Executive Order silver certificate conspiracy.
The claim is not borne out by the facts. First, E.O. 11110 had nothing to do with United States Notes,
and did not affect any section of law referring to them. Second, E.O. 11110 did not anywhere mention any
quantity of money; wherever the $4 billion-plus figure came from, it was not E.O. 11110. Third, The
President had no authority to issue such an edict. Even utilizing the provisions of the Agricultural
Adjustment Act of 1933, the most the President could issue without statutory authorization was $3 billion.
What E.O. 11110 did was to modify previous Executive Order 10289, delegating to the Secretary of the
Treasury various powers of the President. To these delegated powers, E.O. 11110 added the power to alter the
supply of Silver Certificates in circulation. Executive Order 11110, therefore, did not create any new
authority for the Treasury to issue notes; it only affected who could give the order, the Secretary or the
President.
Be sure and dive into all of the data supporting link's located at the bottom of this web page.
November 23,
2019 JFK, MLK, RFK, 50 Years of Suppressed History: New Evidence on Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Martin
Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Failures to Confront the Unspeakable, and The Way Ahead. Part I
Today November 22, 2019, we commemorate the passing of JFK. November 22, 1963, the assassination of JFK in
Dallas, Texas. Fifty-six years ago. January 21, 2019. Martin Luther King Day
What is even more unbelievable and strikingly odd is "Umbrella Man" and "Dark Complected Man" sat next to
each other, on the curb, seconds after the shooting, while everybody else is taking shelter from the shooter
at the Grassy Knoll.
Questions concerning 3rd photo from the top: Why are the two camera men in this photo filming the couple on
the ground, who themselves are looking directly at the camera men? Why is no one ducking and running for cover,
for as many as 8 shots were supposedly just fired? Why is Abraham Zapruder missing from his lofty post, which
he was said to be filming from at that precise moment?
JFK "signed" his death warrant as soon as he selected LBJ as his running mate . LBJ was ruthless and likely
murdered his way to his leadership role in Congress . Johnson was determined to become President and it is
reported that his fixer , Bobby Baker , at Kennedy's inauguration turned to an associate and stated that
Kennedy would never complete his term of office .
LBJ was determined to have Earl Warren (33rd degree Freemason )lead the commission to investigate Kennedy's
assassination .
Warren refused LBJ 's requests several times and finally agreed to do so . LBJ recounted to his mentor Senator
Richard Russell how he summoned Warren to the Oval Office and informed him of " what Hoover had told him about
a little incident in Mexico City " whereupon Warren began to cry and told LBJ " I won't turn you down , I'll
just do whatever you say ." Excerpted from History Matters Archive -LBJ-Russell .
@Germanicus
You are making my point. Taking away the presumption of innocence has resulted in the holocaust narrative and
many other crimes against individuals and civilized societies.
If you read Laurent's book "Yahweh to Zion" you'll see he's under no illusions about whether he's real or
not. It's likely the most thorough dissection of the sect you'll ever come across.
Indeed. Laurent Guyenot is an outstanding intellectual. It is a immense privilege to read his works, and the UR is doing an equally great favour to its readers by
publishing him. Thanks to all, including the commentators, for the fascinating discussion.
JFK died mysteriously after being hit by four bullets, one in rear cranium, rear shoulder, front throat and
fragmentary bullet to right front temple. Connelly was hit by a zigzag magic bullet, three bystanders were hit
by Elm Street curb bullet splatter and the limousine front windshield were all hit by a lone gunman. LHO, MLK &
RFK were also killed by lone gunmen, and if you do not believe that you will be persecuted.
I thought it had been rather well established that a sharpshooter had been brought in from the
French/Corsican mob.
Lucien Sarti's involvement is possible, but is a red herring. He might have been approached and brought to Dallas to add to the confusion, as the Kennedy assassination
was a sophisticated "smoke and mirrors" operation, with many deliberate false leads.
The people who shot President Kenned were hired guns, members of the Chicago mob: Charles "Chuck" Nicoletti,
Marshall Caifano, Johnny Roselli and James Sutton Files.
President Kennedy was shot at the head twice, almost instantaneously, first by Charles Nicoletti firing from
the Dal-Tex Building, then by James Files taking a shot from the Grassy Knoll.
James Files used a very powerful round, a frangible bullet.
This is why, on the Z film, the President's head is shown first slightly projected forward, then very
powerfully projected backwards and to the left, when the more powerful bullet hit his right temple.
Thanks for the link to the remarkable History Channel JFK documentary.
For the so called 'progressive'
Anglosphere establishment, in both it's 'right' and 'left' manifestations, the 'Chamberlain umbrella' is most
certainly a hated symbol of weakness, appeasement, and ultimate failure. Whether it's prominent presence at
Dealey Plaza that day was a deliberately placed symbolic 'pičce de résistance' to top off a carefully
choreographed assassination or just a quirk of history is something we may never know.
As for Abraham Zapruder, his family, and their profiting from the famous film he took, there are aspects of
it that are remindful of Larry Silverstein and his profiting from 911 and the destruction of the Twin
Towers/Building 7.
In addition to Zapruder's making about a million dollars in today's money by selling rights to it in the
days following the assassination to Life magazine (the head of which, Charles Douglas Jackson, had extensive
experience in psy-ops work for the US government), the Zapruder family in 1999 would win 16 million dollars in
arbitration with the United States over it's ownership, the government having seized ownership of the film from
them. Time Life had sold the film back to the Zapruders years before for $1.
Arbitration had been decided upon to determine the value of the Zapruder film with the film being compared
to Leonardo da Vinci's Codex.
One of the three arbitrators was Kenneth Feinberg, who besides being US senator Ted Kennedy's chief of staff
for five years, was also the Chairman of the Board of Directors for the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation.
In addition Feinberg headed up the 7 billion dollar 911 victims compensation fund.
Ironically, July 16, 1999, the day the arbitration panel made it's decision that the US government pay 16
million to the Zapruder family for the JFK assassination film, would also be the very day John F Kennedy Jr
would die in a plane crash:
Zapruder Film Nets $16 Million
The other expert compared the six-foot strip of film, climaxed by the horrific head shot that killed the
president, to the Codex of Leonardo da Vinci, for which billionaire Bill Gates recently paid $30 million.
Adams and Feinberg said that "25 years ago, few if any, could predict the value of the Zapruder film as a
unique historical item of unprecedented worth." They also noted that "items associated with President Kennedy
and his family have been increasing in value."..
..The arbitration panel actually made its decision on July 16, the same day John F. Kennedy Jr. died in a
plane crash, but delayed the announcement in the wake of the tragedy.
@Ron Unz
That's a possibility, of course. In my mind, it is a matter of probabilities. And I find it very improbable
that this guy just happened to do his little protest at this precise spot and seconds. But alos, reading his
testimony to the HSCA, he doesn't mention Kennedy being soft on communism at all. Excerp:
Mr. GENZMAN. Could you elaborate further as to the type of symbol you thought you were applying?
Mr. WITT. I just knew it was a sore spot with the Kennedys; I just knew the vague generalities of it. It had
something to do with something that happened years ago with the senior Joe Kennedy when he was Ambassador to
England.
In fact, when asked if his gesture had anything to do with the Kennedys being soft on communism, he denied:
Mr. Fauntroy. I wonder if you would care to tell us a little more about your understanding of the
significance of the umbrella, and why you felt that it would heckle the president to raise the umbrella?
Mr. WITT. I know the generalities of the thing. It had something to do with the–when the senior Mr. Kennedy
was Ambassador or England, and the Prime Minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The
umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the
British people. by association, it got transferred to the Kennedy family, and, as I understood, it was a
sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think
it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tucson or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some
place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that
they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind.
Mr. FAUNTROY. Is it true that what you felt was that Mr. Kennedy would be sensitive because of the
appeasement image of the umbrella as related to his father?
Mr. WITT. Not the appeasement thing. It was just–excuse me–I just understood that it was sort of a sore
spot, with them and this was just one thing. I personally never thought too much of liberal politics in
general. In this case the Kennedy family just happened to be in office.
Mr. FAUNTROY. I see. And it had no relationship in your own thinking between Mr. Kennedy's posture with;
say, the Russians?
@Laurent Guyenot
Yes, Laurent, and I can confess to busting your balls," * and indeed, Mary Pinchot Meyer's is "a really moving
story. I once called her JFK's Mary Madgalene."
Nonetheless, for the rather affectionate part of Mary
Magdalene's legacy, she got stoned by crazy & self righteous Jews.
In contrast, the bright & adulterous peacenik, Mary Pinchot Meyer, got murdered on a Georgetown canal trail,
and to date, her's is an Unsolved Case Mystery,
which never appeared on the popular American TV series.
* A lyric from Pink Floyd's song, "Mother."
Thanks for another terrific learning experience, Laurent, and fyi, am saddened how Ron Unz rained acid upon
the fascinating "Umbrella Man."
This author blames the CIA for
obstruction suppression and distortion of the facts findings and accuses it of misrepresentation with powerful
people on board like supreme court justice . Also mentions the suspicions of conspiracy raised by LBG ( out of
all people !) de Gaulle , Robert Kennedy and Fidel Castro.
All of them are dead So is Soviet and most of Cuban dissidents are possibly dead as well
So what is preventing the investigation at the manner the previous investigation was carried out with open
visible fatal flaws and biases .
@Truth3
I believe that the presidential motorcade's route was changed at the last minute, ostensibly to bypass the huge
crowds lined up to see JFK, and hurry him off to the Dallas Trade Mart for his speech. This meant bypassing the
TV cameras, so none would be able to film the assassination in live time (just a cohenincidence, I am sure),
but if this is so, it begs the question of why Zapruder and the Babushka Lady were there with their home movie
cameras to capture what the TV networks would miss.
Lover of JFK, to whom he confided his vision for major peaceful change in the US of A and the world.
I really think the vast JFK hagiography that occupies the minds of many JFK conspiracy people, including
some of the most respectable ones, hardly enhances their credibility. Lots of them seem to believe that JFK was
about to establish world peace and was killed by the CIA for that reason. Frankly, I find the whole framework
totally ludicrous.
For example, Seymour Hersh's book on JFK certainly provides lots of very negative details of his activities.
But JFK conspiracy people always discount Hersh, claiming that he's a JFK hater.
Okay, but what about Michael Collins Piper, whose JFK assassination book has certainly been one of the most
important. He provides some reasonable evidence that JFK had been planning to launch an unprovoked "sneak
attack" against China just before he died:
Offhand, it seems to be that an early 1960s American attack against China would have probably had far worse
and more significant long-term geopolitical consequences than e.g. Bush's attack against Iraq or a possible
Trump attack against Iran.
`Ironically, July 16, 1999, the day the arbitration panel made it's decision that the US government pay
16 million to the Zapruder family for the JFK assassination film, would also be the very day John F Kennedy
Jr would die in a plane crash.
Thanks, very interesting comment.
Just a quibble: JFK Jr did not die in a plane crash; he most probably got killed when his plane was shot
down (by a missile?).
At the time of his death, JFK Jr had acquired a piece of hard evidence that would have allowed him to
re-open the investigation into his father's assassination.
This piece of evidence was a Cartier wristwatch that the President was wearing when he was shot. It got
covered in brain matter and mercury from the frangible bullet that hit JFK.
It was kept for a while by RFK, and finally ended up in John John's possession, accompanied with sworn
affidavits proving its chain of possession.
Indeed, the fact that he voluntarily came forward 15 years later and revealed his identity would
certainly seem to suggest the contrary. Why would he do that if he had been part of the conspiracy?
I think that you misunderstand the nature and purpose of the successive official reviews of JFK
assassination records (ARRB, etc..).
These official reviews were not meant at finding the truth, but at finding the evidence that could lead to
the truth and then destroy it to perpetuate the cover-up.
Many honest researchers involved in these reviews have quit in disgust; the fact is well documented and
should be a conscience call. Best.
In politics, one must not play around. John F. Kennedy understood that 1960 was his time. He had to win
then, or lose forever. As a loser, he would have had much less of a chance to become President in 1964, or
1968.
I highly recommend a reading of his "Profiles in Courage" – a great series of essays, with a message for all
Americans.
Kennedy, a brilliant scholar, and Man of action, had on his agenda important things that had to be done, (or
at least begun), in 1960.
JFK as President:
1. 1st President to insist on Legal Equality of all Americans. (Who was his Atty Gen?)?
2. Unravel French & British Empires (arrange independence for 40 African Nations- including South Africa).
3. De Nuclearize the Zionist Land Thieves.
4. Maintain the Sovereignty of the USA.
5. Ensure Prosperity – Employment, stop Inflation, for American workers.
6. Prevent outbreak of Nuclear Conflict with USSR.
7. You continue this list.
Kennedy could not wait, and, therefore, had to choose L B Johnson as his Vice Presidential running mate
(even though he was well warned of the risks involved – including the danger to his life, as it would place a
Zionist Mafioso only a heartbeat from the Presidency).
Kennedy was on a Mission to save the Republic (our American Republic), which had been weakened and was in
great danger. His brother Robert, was with JFK, all the way. They were idealists, and wanted to save the world.
*Yes, Ron Unz, not one of your other writers have made these points. I am available to flesh these points
out – no charge.
We Americans lost everything on November 22, 1963. We have not yet begun to fight back!
@bluedog
Humility means one does not have to choose this truth or that. Anything is possible. There were once very many
people who thought a conspiracy likely. In the last 50 years, there has been a shift away from thinking a
conspiracy was behind the assassination. While this is only the balance of opinion, it should still carry some
weight against 'who benefits' arguments .
This meant bypassing the TV cameras, so none would be able to film the assassination in live time (just a
coincidence, I am sure).
It is very interesting that you bring this topic.
It is a documented fact that during all past official visits, President Kennedy's motorcade comprised a
open-top lorry, driving ahead of the Presidents' limousine, and carrying journalists sat backward on graded
tiers, who would film the President and the crowd cheering on him.
At Dallas, the journalists' truck got cancelled, and the way paved for the sole Abraham Zapruder to document
the circumstances of the JFK assassination. Just another complete coincidence, obviously.
This article was first published on November 21, 2013.
Today November 22, 2019 is the 56th anniversary of the assassination of JFK
Why was he assassinated?
He favored peace over war.
The normalization of relations with the Soviet Union.
... ... ...
To briefly review, the facts are conclusive that JFK was on terrible terms with the CIA and
the Joint Chiefs. He had refused to support the CIA organized Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. He
had rejected the Joint Chiefs' "Operation Northwoods," a plan to commit real and faked acts of
violence against Americans, blame Castro and use the false flag events to bring regime change
to Cuba. He had rejected the Joint Chiefs case that the Soviet Union should be attacked while
the US held the advantage and before the Soviets could develop delivery systems for nuclear
weapons. He had indicated that after his reelection he was going to pull US troops out of
Vietnam and that he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces. He had aroused suspicion
by working behind the scenes with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis, leading to
claims that he was "soft on communism." The CIA and Joint Chiefs' belief that JFK was an
unreliable ally in the war against communism spread into the Secret Service.
It has been established that the original autopsy of JFK's fatal head wound was discarded
and a faked one substituted in order to support the official story that Oswald shot JFK from
behind. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover and President Johnson knew that Oswald was the CIA's
patsy, but they also understood, as did members of the Warren Commission, that to let the true
story out would cause Americans to lose confidence in their own government at the height of the
Cold War.
Robert Kennedy knew what had happened. He was on his way to being elected president and to
holding the plotters accountable for the murder of his brother when the CIA assassinated him. A
distinguished journalist, who was standing behind Robert Kennedy at the time of his
assassination, told me that the killing shots came from behind past his ear. He submitted his
report to the FBI and was never contacted.
Acoustic experts have conclusively demonstrated that more shots were fired than can be
accounted for by Sirhan Sirhan's pistol and that the sounds indicate two different calibers of
firearms.
I never cease to be amazed by the gullibility of Americans, who know nothing about either
event, but who confidently dismiss the factual evidence provided by experts and historians on
the basis of their naive belief that "the government wouldn't lie about such important events"
or "someone would have talked." What good would it do if someone talked when the gullible won't
believe hard evidence?
True to Kissingerian form, the story turns out to be not exactly true. Zhou was actually
responding to a question about France's political convulsions in 1968, not 1789.
But Kissinger's spin on the anecdote struck me as perceptive.
The meaning of a great historical event might take a long time–a very long
time–to become apparent. I didn't want to jump to conclusions about the causes of JFK's
murder in downtown Dallas on November 22, 1963.
It's still too early to tell. Fifty six years after the fact, historians and JFK researchers
do not have access to all of the CIA's files on the subject The 1964 Warren Commission report
exonerated the agency with its conclusion that Kennedy was killed by one man alone. But the
agency was subsequently the subject of five official JFK investigations, which cast doubt on
its findings.
The Senate's Church Committee investigation showed that the Warren Commission knew nothing
of CIA assassination operations in 1963. JFK records released in the last 20 years show the
Commission's attorneys had no real understanding the extensive counterintelligence monitoring
of Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK was killed. We now know that senior operations officers,
including counterintelligence chief James Angleton, paid far closer attention to the obscure
Oswald as he made his way to Dallas than the investigators were ever told.
To be sure, there is no proof of CIA complicity in JFK's death. And conspiracy theories
spouted by the likes of the Alex Jones and James Fetzer deserve no attention. The fact remains
some of the most astute power players of 1963–including Lyndon
Johnson , Charles DeGaulle,
Fidel Castro , and Jackie and Robert Kennedy–concluded that JFK was killed by his
enemies, and not by one man alone. Did these statesmen get it wrong, and the under-informed
Warren Commission get it right?
The new documentary,
Truth is the Only Client, says yes. The film, shown last month in the auditorium of the
U.S. Capitol, features interviews with numerous former Warren Commission staffers. Supreme
Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who served as a fact checker for the Commission in 1964, defends
the lone gunman conclusion, saying, "You have to look at the new evidence and when you do, I
come to the same conclusion."
Justice Breyer, oddly, passes judgment on evidence he has not seen. The record of the CIA's
role in the events leading JFK's assassination is far from complete. In 2013 I reported on JFK
Facts that Delores Nelson CIA's information coordinator had stated in a sworn affidavit filed
in federal court, that the agency retained 1,100
assassination-related records that had never been made public.
A small portion of this material was released in 2017, including new details about the
opening of the CIA's first Oswald file in October 1959.
Yet thousands of JFK files remain secret. According to the latest figures from the National
Archives, a total of 15,834 JFK files remain fully or
partially classified, most of them held by the CIA and FBI. Thanks to an
October 2017 order from President Trump, these documents will not be made public until
October 2021 , at the earliest.
The assumption of Justice Breyer and many others is that any and all unseen CIA material
must exonerate the agency. It's an odd conclusion. If the CIA has nothing to hide, why is it
hiding so much? While 95 percent of the still-secret files probably are trivial, the remaining
5 percent -- thousands of pages of material–are historically pregnant. If made public,
they could clarify key questions in the long-running controversy about JFK's death.
These questions have been raised most concisely by Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, a career CIA officer
who served in senior positions. Now a senior fellow at Harvard's Belfer Center, Mowatt-Larssen
has implicated his former employer in the Dallas ambush. In a
presentation at Harvard last December, Mowatt-Larssen hypothesized that a plot to kill JFK
emanated from the CIA's station in Miami where disgruntled Cuban exiles and undercover officers
loathed JFK for his failure to overthrow Castro's government in Cuba.
Mowatt-Larssen has yet to publish his presentation and documentation, so I can't say if he's
right or wrong. But he asks the right question: "How can intelligence operational and
analytical modus operandi help unlock a conspiracy that has remained unsolved for 55 years?"
And he focuses on the right place to dig deeper: the CIA's Miami office, known as WAVE
station.
My own JFK questions involve George Joannides, a decorated undercover officer who served as
branch chief in the Miami station in 1963. He ran psychological warfare operations against
Cuba. In 2003, I sued the CIA for Joannides' files. The lawsuit ended 15 years later in July
2018, when Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in his last
opinion before ascending to the Supreme Court, tossed my case. Kavanaugh declared the
agency deserved "deference upon deference" in its handling of Freedom of Information Act
requests about JFK files.
Nonetheless, my lawsuit illuminated the extraordinary sensitivity of the psy-ops Joannides
ran out of WAVE station. As reported in the New York Times, Fox News, Associated
Press, and Politico
, Morley v. CIA forced disclosure of the fact Joannides had received the CIA's Career
Intelligence Medal in 1981. The honor came two years after he stonewalled the House Select
Committee on Assassination about what he knew of Oswald's contacts with pro-and anti-Castro
Cubans in the summer and fall of 1963.
I believe Joannides was honored because he concealed the existence of an authorized covert
operation involving Oswald that has never been publicly acknowledged. In CIA lingo, Joannides
protected the agency's "sources and methods" concerning Oswald. And he might have done more.
His actions may have also shielded other officers who knew of a scheme to kill the liberal
president and lay the blame on Cuba. Never been seen by JFK investigators, they contain details
about his Joannides' undercover work in Miami in 1963, when he funded Oswald's antagonists
among the anti-Castro Cuban exiles. They also detail his work in 1978, when he duped
chief investigator Robert Blakey and the House Select Committee on Assassination. These
records, the agency says, cannot be released in 2019 without risk of "irreversible harm" to
national security.
It's a bizarre claim, at odds with the law. These ancient documents, all of them more than
40 years old, meet the statutory definition of "assassination-related," according to federal
judge John Tunheim. He chaired the Assassination Records Review Board which oversaw the
declassification of 4 million pages of JFK files between 1994 and 2017. In an interview,
Tunheim told me that, under the terms of the 1992 JFK Records Act, the Joannides files are
subject to mandatory review and release. "It's a no-brainer," he said.
Yet the files remain off-limits to the public. Thanks to the legal consensus, articulated by
Justices Kavanaugh and Breyer, the CIA enjoys "deference upon deference" when it comes to the
JFK assassination story. As a result, the JFK Records Act has been flouted. The public's
interest in full disclosure has been thwarted.
Yet legitimate questions persist: Did a plot to kill JFK originate in the agency's Miami
station as Mowatt-Larssen suggests? The fact that the CIA won't share the evidence that could
answer the CIA man's question is telling.
So these days, when people ask me who killed JFK, I say the Kennedy was probably victimized
by enemies in his own government, possibly including CIA officers involved in anti-Castro and
counterintelligence operations. I have no smoking gun, no theory. Just look at the suspicious
fact pattern, still shrouded in official secrecy, and it's easy to believe that JFK was, as
Mowatt-Larssen puts it, "marked for assassination."
56 years later, thousands of CIA documents still withheld. None of the principals/agents/
players in the assassination are alive. So the excuse that documents are withheld to protect
individuals no longer holds water. The documents are being withheld to protect the agency
itself (and other organizations) from revealing the roles they played in overthrowing an
elected President of the US.
To be sure, there is no proof of CIA complicity in JFK's death . . . er, not quite see
Russ Baker, Parrott Memo:
[DATE: November 22, 1963]
At 1:45 p.m. Mr. GEORGE H.W. BUSH, President of the Zapata Off-shore Drilling Company,
Houston, Texas, residence 5525 Briar, Houston, telephonically furnished the following
information to writer by long distance telephone call from Tyler, Texas.
BUSH stated that he wanted to be kept confidential but wanted to furnish hearsay that he
recalled hearing in recent weeks, the day and source unknown. He stated that one JAMES
PARROTT has been talking of killing the president when he comes to Houston.
BUSH stated that PARROTT is possibly a student at the University of Houston and is active
in political matters in this area. He stated that he felt MRS FAWLEY, telephone number SU
2-5239, or ARLENE SMITH, telephone number JA 9-9194 of the Harris County Republican
Headquarters would be able to furnish additional information regarding the identity of
PARROTT.
BUSH stated that he was proceeding to Dallas, Texas, would remain in the Sheraton-Dallas
Hotel and return to his residence on 11-23-63. His office telephone Number is CA 2-0395.
According to Nixon, "Jack Rubenstein is LBJ's boy" and although Nixon damn sure wanted to
be President, he "wasn't willing to kill for it."
But LBJ was.
And when a reasonable person wonders why LBJ would twice call back the jets as the Liberty
was being destroyed, it's not difficult to see why. Israel knows the blackmail game well.
With all the explainations out there, I'll put my money on Nixon.
Ordinary people don't want to believe the worst about their leaders, even a slime-bucket
like LBJ, but Larry didn't really have a dentist appointment on 9-11, and 3000 people were
murdered with the consent of some of our dearest leaders.
The facade that the elite hide behind can't fall fast enough, but it's definately falling.
You can only be so naive.
LBJ was actually kind of a "patsy", too, being used by the REAL power brokers... Recall
that he DUCKED down in his limo just before the shots rang out because, while he was let in
on the plot, he really wasn't sure that "they" might not want to take him out too!.... Tragic
as it all was (& still is), it's quite a fascinating story...
Definitely fascinating, and whatever the details, he was certainly in on it. Everything he
did in Dallas indicated that. Cruel guy. Hillary-like, for lack of a better term.
Well Mr Kennedy made his Fortune bootlegging thru Prohibition and that relates Mob ties
!
Shipping Seagrams across the Great Lakes from Canada by Swift Boats that then was
hotshotted across the nation combined with moonshiners that later becoming NASCAR Racers
!
You may be correct, I just think to a lesser extent, Joseph P Kennedy Sr. did tell JFK how
many Votes do you want to Win Election by !
Release of the documents wouldn't pose any threat to the average American. When they claim
National security, they actually mean Deep/Dark state shadow government security. Revealing
the actions of an invisible and very powerful global force operating inside the US government
is their fear.
The Kill shot came from man inside storm drain that Assassin stood inside with Kennedy's
driver car slowdown ( edited out of Car slowdown ) Forcing President John Kennedy 's head
back and to the Left blowing much of his Skull off !
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people
inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret
proceedings...
Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing
around the globe...no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting
a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been
more clear and its presence has never been more imminent...
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies
primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration
instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free
choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building
of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic,
intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are
concealed, not published.
Its mistakes are buried, not headlined.
Its dissenters are silenced, not praised.
No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
Change playback time to 0.25X. Watch the guy with wide girth standing on the curb to the
left of the car, watch his right arm rise up, pull back, fall down to his right side and toss
a black shiny object to the ground. This is Jack Ruby, The owner and operator of a titty bar.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ruby4.htm
"liberal president"--NOT! In Chris Matthews book, Kennedy and Nixon, it paints a picture
of DNC Dem candidates at each others' throats in the DNC smoke filled room. LBJ, Humphrey,
JFK, the Usual Suspects were in front of the committee. JFK horrified all of the prospective
nominees. He stated,"If I don't get the nomination, my old man is going to back NIXON!" There
you have it: was it Oswald or was it LBJ? You choose which it was: Lone Wolf or the VP who
wanted to be POTUS. The "liberal president" was actually quite close to Nixon until 1960.
As the deep state relentlessly tries to take Trump down, maybe he should go scorched earth
and declassify the files implicating the CIA. Can a former President go into witness
protection? Ha.
"... Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others. ..."
"... Trump repeated the claim that the hacked DNC server was given to Crowdstrike, "a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian." ..."
Bring It On! Trump Wants Senate Trial 'Of Some Length' If House Impeaches by Tyler Durden Fri, 11/22/2019 -
10:40 0 SHARES
After two weeks of public testimony revealed that Democrats' impeachment case against
President Donald Trump is largely made up of hurt feelings and foreign policy disagreements ,
the White House and allies say Trump is looking forward to a 'trial of some length' in the
Senate if the House votes to impeach so he can expose what a flimsy case has been built against
him.
"He wants to be able to bring up witnesses like Adam Schiff, like the whistleblower, like
Hunter Biden, like Joe Biden, " said Hogan Gidley, principal deputy press secretary for the
White House.
Trump spent much of Thursday and Friday tweeting highlights from recent impeachment
testimony:
On Thursday morning, a group of Republican senators met with White House counsel Pat
Cipollone, Kellyanne Conway, Jared Kushner and acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to discuss
strategy for a potential Senate trial which would likely take place in January, according to
Politico .
Two attendees said that the White House wants the Senate to hold a trial of some length
and not immediately dismiss any articles of impeachment with the GOP's majority, as some
Republicans have suggested.
The White House and Trump's GOP allies decided instead "they want some kind of factual
affirmative defense on the merits , " said one attendee.
One attendee noted that the White House wants to show a commitment to due process,
particularly since Republicans have criticized House Democrats for how they've conducted
their impeachment proceedings.
... ... ...
A White House official said the meeting "wasn't so much about the details, it was about
the Democrats' weak case and we want to show just how weak it is ." -
Politico
President Trump, meanwhile, has been tweeting and retweeting highlights from the last week -
and spent nearly an hour with Fox and Friends on Friday where he said he knows "exactly" who
the
Ukraine whistleblower is . Trump also said that he wants Schiff to testify more than
Hunter Biden , and repeated his claim that former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "not
an angel" and that she was speaking poorly of him to others.
Trump also praised Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) for her performance during the public
impeachment hearings (23:40 in video above), as well as Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) - tweeting and
retweeting clips related to Schiff's hearings.
"... Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance. ..."
"... NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. ..."
"... For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. ..."
"... After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister ..."
"... After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp ..."
"... There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. ..."
Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe, with a 1400 mile land border with Russia. The U.S. government under administrations
since Bill Clinton's has sought to integrate Ukraine into the anti-Russian NATO military alliance.
NATO is an artifact of the early Cold War and the Truman Doctrine, vowing any means necessary to stop the spread of Communism.
Founded in 1949, when the U.S. ruled most of the world, it included most of the countries of Europe except for those liberated
from Nazism by the Soviets, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania, and Yugoslavia and Albania where
anti-fascist partisans seized power.
After the dissolution of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact (a defense alliance formed in 1956 after West Germany was included in
NATO) in 1990, and the full restoration of capitalism to the countries of the former Soviet Union, there was no ideological east-west
conflict or another rationale to maintain the NATO alliance. It gradually redefined its mission as "maintaining stability" in
the post-Soviet era, in the wake of ethnic conflicts across Eurasia, and "counter-terrorism." Later "humanitarian" missions were
added.
In 1989 President George W. Bush promised Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev that, following the reunification of
Germany with Moscow's assent, NATO would not "move one inch" eastwards. But while Bill Clinton was president in 1999, Poland,
Hungary and Czechoslovakia joined the alliance. Under Bush's son, in 2004, the list grew: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia all joined. NATO now bordered Russia itself. Obama added Albania and Croatia. Under Trump, Montenegro
joined and North Macedonian entry is in the cards. The U.S. is obviously trying to incorporate every European nation possible
into an anti-Russian coalition for future deployment.
NATO forces were never deployed against Soviet or Warsaw Pact forces during the Cold War. But Clinton (prompted by bellicose
Hillary) used them to pound Serbian positions in Bosnia in the 1990s and to bomb Belgrade during the 1999 war to sever Kosovo
from Serbia and convert it into a NATO base. (In both instances Clinton claimed "humanitarian" motives.) They were used too
in Afghanistan and Libya, far away from the North Atlantic, at U.S. direction to topple the Taliban, thereby producing an ongoing
insurgency, and to destroy Gadhafi's modern state of Libya. They are not a force of good in the world.
Russia has responded, angrily but cautiously, to NATO's incessant, inexplicable expansion. The three crucial moments have
been in 1999, when Russian troops rushed to Pristina Airport in Kosovo to preserve some national pride following the expansion
of NATO and the U.S. humiliation of the Serbs; in 2008 when Russia briefly invaded Georgia to punish it for attacks on South Ossetia
(and its just announced pursuit of NATO membership); and in 2014 when in response to the U.S.-backed Kiev putsch Moscow moved
to secure ongoing control of the Crimean Peninsula. These were obviously moves to discourage NATO expansion.
For NATO strategists and supporters, Ukraine is the ultimate prize. (Thereafter only Belarus and Georgia need absorption.)
It is still slated for NATO membership; this year its Secretary General Jens Soltenberg reiterated this commitment in Kiev. It
remains the position of the U.S. that both Ukraine and Georgia should join NATO. The German government on the other hand, far
more sensitive to the historical issues involved, notes that Ukrainian or Georgian membership would "cross a red line" with Russia.
The Ukrainian people are divided on the issue. It is good if the Germans and others can block bloc expansion.
From February 2010 to February 2014, Ukraine was headed by a democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, who opposed
NATO membership . He had been elected despite routine U.S. election meddling. He has been depicted in the U.S. press as "pro-Russian"
and opposed to Ukraine's membership in the European Union. In fact, he sought entry into the EU, using his U.S. aide Paul Manafort
towards that end, and backed out of an agreement after realizing the political costs of the austerity program required. He was
"pro-Russian" in that he is ethnic Russian in a multi-ethnic country, and was while in power inclined to maintain good relations
with the northern neighbor. He was targeted by Hillary Clinton appointee Victoria Nuland (wife of neocon warmonger Robert Kagan)
for removal. He was charged with denying the Ukrainian people's "European aspirations" -- meaning, he was resisting an association
with the EU (and NATO).
He was indeed overthrown, succeeded by an new regime that provoked revolt among the ethnic Russians in the east from the outset.
The U.S. attempt to install a regime that could quickly align with the west, joining the EU and NATO as the usual package, resulted
in civil conflict and the Russian re-annexation of Crimea. Finally, the NATO effort to dominate Eurasia met a snag when the Russians
said: No way we'll concede to you the base port of the Black Sea Fleet since Empress Catherine's time, in 1785.
After the coup of February 18-21, 2014, Aseniy Yatsenyuk, handpicked by Nuland, became prime minister. Russia refused
to recognize the government he headed, stacked with NATO supporters. Only when Ukraine held a presidential election, and a candidate
acceptable to Moscow, Petro Poroshenko, was elected, did the Russians actively engage in diplomacy with Kiev. The result is the
Minsk Accords and an ongoing process of negotiations between Kiev, the Donbas separatists, Moscow, Germany and France. The key
issue of Donbas autonomy as a precondition for peace has met with opposition in the parliament but since the election of Volodomir
Zelensky, there have been concrete moves towards peace. Not that there has been much heavy fighting since 2015. Russia and Ukraine
are working with Europe to find a solution. It would be good for the U.S. to avoid interfering.
After the February 2014 coup (depicted in the western press as a "revolution" toppling a "pro-Russian" leader), Ukraine
informally joined the U.S. imperialist camp. There is, in fact, no formal alliance, but Ukraine is now depicted as an
ally, indeed one in desperate need of U.S. arms to resist the Russian invasion. But there has been no real Russian invasion,
just lots of hype; nowadays the talking heads refer to "Russian-backed" forces in Ukraine, referring to ethnic Russian-Ukrainians;
they exploit the general ignorance of people in this country about history and geography and fudge Russians with Russian-Ukrainians
(or sometimes any Slavs). And the annexation of Crimea was bloodless and popularly supported. The provision of $ 380 million in
Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is unlikely to contribute to a settlement of the Donbas problem.
***
Amidst all the attention to detail, to phone calls and transcripts and secret visits, those pressing for Trump's impeachment (on
bribery grounds) never discuss the context of this little scandal.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please enter a valid
email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh and try again.
The fact that Ukraine has been hopelessly corrupt since it became independent with the dissolution of the USSR in 1991;
the fact that the U.S. underwrote the 2014 coup;
the fact that Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma Holdings two months after the coup (while his father was the Obama team's
point man on Ukrainian corruption) and served to April 2019;
and most of all, the fact that the U.S. wants to get Ukraine into NATO, surrounding European Russia and grabbing Crimea for
itself.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition. But providing arms to stoke a conflict ignited by U.S. interference in Ukraine is worse. Had the U.S. not spent $
5 billion (Nuland's figure) to "support the Ukrainian people's European aspirations;" had John McCain and Lesley Graham not passed
out cookies with Nuland in Maidan; had NATO not declared its intention to include Kiev in the alliance, the east would be quiet as
usual. The coup and immediate rescinding of the law respecting Russian speakers' linguistic rights provoked rebellion.
The Ukraine scandal could be a teaching opportunity: this is where U.S. aggression leads. You provoke Russia again and again,
with each new admission into NATO. At some point, Russia has to take action. It cannot let a Texas-size country on its southern flank
join a military alliance directed at itself. Especially it cannot accept loss of control of the Crimean Peninsula.
That Nuland in the days before the planned coup did not anticipate this Russian reaction is puzzling. Did she really think the
conquest of Ukraine would be so easy? Or did she expect the Russian counter-moves, thinking that once Ukraine was in NATO Russia
would have to back off? Is that still the dominant assumption in the State Department?
Now a president with zero concern about Ukraine and its people is accused of a shocking reluctance to deliver weapons to a country
invaded by Russia, "our greatest adversary" according to cable anchors.
May he be impeached, of course! But if he falls, replaced by leadership more bent on provoking Russia by NATO expansion, the world
will be more dangerous than it is now under Trump.
When wall in Berlin felt down in 1989 some regions in USSR took step ahead and asked Highest soviet to be recognized as autonomous
region (oblast) of USSR instead of being homogenous part of Soviet Republics: Crimea, Karabakh, S Osetia, Podnestria. Reason for
it was that in those regions lived mostly Russians as USSR was developing since 1917. For example Poroshenko's dady was head of
steel mill in Podnestria.
Everything went smooth even thru transformation of USSR to CIS. Belovezha accord was dealing with this issue and all agreed
that they will recognize current status of those regions as Autono omous oblast of USSR until referendum in those regions about
selfdeclaration where they want to be.
But all this were just sweet words that later turned into conflicts because those guys did not keep their words.
As A US citizen who spends about half his time in Ukraine (and I was there during the fictitious "Russian Invasion" of Lugansk
in April 2014) I can attest that every point made in this article is true.
"Massive Pay-For-Play" Soros-Ukraine Scheme Facilitated By US Diplomats
They took all the corruption cases away from the prosecutor general, they gave it to the anti-corruption bureau, and they got
rid of all the cases that offended Soros, and they included all the cases against Soros' enemies
All plans were cooked under obama and continue under hillary. Never thought The Donald will win and nothing but troubles to
the easy massive wealth coming.
This impeachment is becoming a blessing to expose the mob corruption.
7. Ukraine is the ultimate prize...because it allows the spoiled children of Pelosi and Biden and Kerry to redirect US "Aid"
back into the financial interests of their families.
Otherwise, Ukraine is of negative value. Hence, Macron has ruled out Ukraine being brought into the EU until such time as the
EU has solved all of its many issues (ie never).
When actually seeing the historical crime line of the giant octopus absorbtion of countries into NATO..... The conspricy "
theory is fact.
Proof positive of the restructuring of a one world military not ruled by souverign countries but a conglomerate of " untied
Nations" run by ..... Ummmm hold, hold, hold ... Drum roll....
INTERNATIONAL BANKERS:
Who are the ONLY ones who profit from war or "maintaining stabilizers" who stir the pot on both sides for perpetual arms deals
( while urging individual non gun legislatiin for citizens) and weapons manufacturing and of course cyber internet control by
Google search engines.
Author glosses over the UKR Separatists' Declarations of Independence as LNR, DNR, and the Republic of Crimea; and the 3 Breakaway
States' requests to Join the Russian Federation.
Author also forgets to mention Crimea being of Russia until Kruschev's Reassignment; and Clarifying Sevastopolis always being
a Naval Base and City for Moscow.
RUS Annexation of Crimea occured AFTER the Secession and Reunification Votes by Resident Crimeans.
*****Conclusion:
**** Troll Article written by an USA/NATO/EU/UKR Apologist.
The provision of $ 380 million in Javelin anti-tank missiles and other weaponry to the Kiev government is
..likely to lead to Javelin atms and other ending up enriching corrupt Ukrainians and their partners Stateside and in the hands
of 3rd world dictators and or America's Muslim Jihadist legions anywhere there's an uncooperative government.
Trying to acquire dirt on the Bidens by strong-arming a foreign leader, threatening an arms supply cut-off, is bad I suppose,
by definition.
I stopped reading right there.
Biden admitted to threatening Ukraine with his own damn mouth. Four (4) DNC hacks have kids getting insane paychecks from Ukraine
for basically nothing more than a skim/bribery flowchart.
Hunter Biden is a crackhead, his father is useless but thinks he will be the next President. What a joke..
No mention, because it has now become irrelevant. Nordstream 2 and Turkstream will deprive the Ukranian government of the several
billion dollars per year in revenue. Of course, the American taxpayer will be asked to make that money up. Dead weight.
And by the way, if they had any gas reserves, they wouldn't be depending on the Russian Federation to pay them transit fees.
They've got that black, productive soil. I'll give them that. But France has pretty productive soil too. No mention of the French
farmer's protest on not being able to sell their crops to the Russian Federation, either.
On November 6, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted a link to a
Breitbart article about Ciaramella and wrote, "Because of course he did!!! Alleged
'Whistleblower' Eric Ciaramella Worked Closely with Anti-Trump Dossier Hoaxer." The tweet led
to anger and the president's son responded, "The entire media is #Triggered that I (a private
citizen) tweeted out a story naming the alleged whistleblower. Are they going to pretend that
his name hasn't been in the public domain for weeks now? Numerous people & news outlets
including Real Clear Politics already ID'd him."
Ciaramella could not be reached for comment by Heavy. The whistleblower's attorneys issued a
statement saying they neither confirm nor deny Ciarmella is the whistleblower. Ciaramella's
father told Real Clear Investigations he doubts his son is the whistleblower, saying, "He
didn't have that kind of access to that kind of information. He's just a guy going to work
every day."
The whistleblower's attorneys and Democrats have fought to keep his identity concealed,
while Trump and his Republican allies have called for him to be identified publicly, saying he
should be questioned about why he came forward and possible political bias because of his
background. The existence of whistleblower complaint regarding Trump's conduct with Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky was first revealed in September.
After Real Clear Investigation's report, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, whose
nationally syndicated show reaches millions of listeners, named Ciaramella on air.
While Fox News has banned its hosts and contributors from mentioning Ciaramella's name,
according to CNN,
one of the network's guests, syndicated radio host Lars Larson, said the name during a segment
on November 7 on "Outnumbered Overtime" with Harris Faulkner. She did not respond or mention
his use of Ciaramella's name.
Mark Zaid and
Andrew Bakaj , the
attorneys who are representing the whistleblower, issued a statement about Ciaramella being
identified as possibly being their client, "Our client is legally entitled to anonymity.
Disclosure of the name of any person who may be suspected to be the whistleblower places that
individual and their family in great physical danger. Any physical harm the individual and/or
their family suffers as a result of disclosure means that the individuals and publications
reporting such names will be personally liable for that harm. Such behavior is at the pinnacle
of irresponsibility and is intentionally reckless."
Zaid and Bakaj issued an additional statement after Trump Jr.'s tweet, saying, "We will
note, however, that publication or promotion of a name shows the desperation to deflect from
the substance of the whistleblower complaint. It will not relieve the president of the need to
address the substantive allegations, all of which have been substantially proven to be
true."
According to the Washington Examiner , Ciaramella is currently detailed by the CIA to the
National Intelligence Committee, where he works as a deputy national intelligence officer for
Russia and Eurasia. He reports to Trump's acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire . He likely
works closely with Alexander Vindman, the impeachment inquiry witness who is now Ukraine
director for the NSC, Ciaramella's former role.
A former Trump official told the Examiner, "It is close to a mathematical certainty that
(Vindman and the whistleblower) know one another and that (the whistleblower) is being used to
provide analytical support to the National Security Council on the topics of Russia and
Ukraine. And that is where they would have crossed paths. They would know who one another are."
Another former Trump official said Vindman and Ciaramella both spent time at the U.S. Embassy
in Ukraine during the Obama administration. And they have both been working on Ukraine issues
for several years.
Vindman said during his Congressional deposition, "I want the committee to know I am not the
whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee's attention. I do not know
who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of
the whistleblower." Vindman testified that he listened in on the July 25 call at question in
the impeachment inquiry and was concerned. ""I was concerned by the call. I did not think it
was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried
about the implications for the U.S. government's support of Ukraine," he testified.
Here's what you need to know about Eric Ciaramella:
1. Ciaramella Is a Ukraine Expert for the CIA Whose Background Matches Details About the
Whistleblower Previously Reported by The New York Times
Eric Ciaramella, 33, is a Ukraine expert and his background matches the biographical details
reported
by The New York Times and other media outlets about the whistleblower. According to The
Times, the whistleblower is a CIA officer who was detailed to work at the White House before
returning to the CIA. The Times wrote, "His complaint suggested he was an analyst by training
and made clear he was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe,
demonstrating a sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge
of the law."
The whistleblower raised concerns that Trump had asked Zelensky during a July 2019 phone
call to investigate former Vice President and current Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden , and his son,
Hunter Biden . Trump
is accused of forcing a quid pro quo in which aid to Ukraine would only be released if an
investigation was launched.
In September, after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment, a redacted
version of the whistleblower's complaint and a summary of Trump's call with Zelensky were made
public. The complaint revealed that the whistleblower was not on the call, but learned of
concerning information from others with direct knowledge about it.
"The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had
transpired in the phone call. They told me that there was already a 'discussion ongoing' with
White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials'
retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal gain," the
whistleblower wrote.
In the weeks since, several current and former State Department and other government
officials have testified behind closed doors before House committees, with many providing
verification of the whistleblower's claims, according to multiple reports. Sources told Real
Clear Investigations that Ciaramella's name has been mentioned as the whistleblower during the
closed-door testimony.
Ciaramella has worked for the Central Intelligence Agency for several years and was assigned
to the White House during the end of the Obama administration. He worked closely with Biden in
his role as an expert on Ukraine. Ciaramella also has ties to Sean Misko, a former NSC
co-worker who now works for Representative Adam Schiff and the Intelligence Committee.
According to
The New York Times , the whistleblower first went to a CIA lawyer and then to an unnamed
Schiff aide before filing the whistleblower complaint. The aide told the whistleblower to
follow the formal process, but conveyed some of the information he learned from him to Schiff,
without revealing his name, The Times reported.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," said
Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, told The Times.
The whistleblower's ties to Democrats, including Biden, Schiff, former CIA Director John
Brennan, former Director of Intelligence James Clapper and former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice, have created controversy, with Trump and Republicans using his past work with them
in an attempt to discredit him. Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert told a local radio station in his
home state of Texas that many in Washington D.C. knew the whistleblower's identity, calling him
a "staunch Democrat," and former "point person on Ukraine," who never called out corruption in
the Eastern European country.
Ciaramella has been in the crosshairs of Republicans previously, after some on the far right
tied him to the Obama-associated "deep state" in 2017, accusing him of undermining Trump while
he was working in the White House.
The whistleblower's attorneys have received more than $220,000 in donations to a
GoFundMe campaign set up by the group Whistleblower Aid in support of his attorneys, Mark
Zaid and Andrew Bakaj.
"A U.S. intelligence officer who filed an urgent report of government misconduct needs your
help. This brave individual took an oath to protect and defend our Constitution. We're working
with the whistleblower and launched a crowdfunding effort to support the whistleblower's
lawyers," the GoFundMe states. "These whistleblowers took great personal risks, not for
politics or personal gain, but to defend our democracy. We need to have their backs."
The GoFundMe adds, "If we raise more than we need, Whistleblower Aid will use the money to
help more brave whistleblowers stand up to executive overreach."
2. Eric Ciaramella Grew Up in Connecticut,
Eric Ciaramella.
Eric Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time
attending Woodland Regional High School in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from
Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the prep school's
alumni magazine.
After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008 as a Russian and
East European studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale Macmillan Center
for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural Italian
residents."
While at Yale, Ciaramella, who speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, led a protest over the
departure of an Arabic department professor, according
to the Yale Daily News. The student newspaper wrote, "Students convened outside Silliman at
9 a.m., all dressed in white to symbolize their future goal of bridging the gap between the
United States and the Middle East through the use of the Arab language, said Eric Ciaramella
'08, one of the students who led the protest."
Ciaramella also studied at Harvard University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central
Asia, according to the school's website. He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three
Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia; Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella
was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics and wrote a
paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."
Ciaramella worked at the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World
Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is
listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research. On a
now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty
Reduction/Economic Management" at World Bank. Ciaramella also deleted his Facebook profile page
and does not appear to have any other social media.
Public records show that Ciaramella was a registered Democrat while he lived in Connecticut.
According
to CNN , the inspector general for the intelligence committee mentioned and dismissed
concerns about political bias because the whistleblower is registered as a Democrat.
Inspector General Michael Atkinson wrote, "Further although the ICIG's preliminary reviewed
identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in
favor of a rival political candidate, such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review."
Mark Zaid, an attorney for the whistleblower tweeted in response to the story, "We won't
comment on identifying info but if true, give me a break! Bias? Seriously? Most (people) are."
Another attorney for the whistleblower, Andrew Bakaj, told CNN that the whistleblower had
"contact with presidential candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials --
not as candidates," and said the whistleblower "has never worked for or advised a political
candidate, campaign or party.
3. Ciaramella Was Detailed to the National Security Council at the White House in 2015 After
Joining the CIA as an Analyst Focusing on Ukraine & Russia
Eric Ciaramella joined the Central Intelligence Agency at some point during President
Obama's second term. According to reports by The Washington Post and The New York Times about
the whistleblower, prior to Ciaramella being named, and online records, Ciaramella was detailed
to the White House to serve as a Ukraine expert with the National Security Council in 2015. He
worked under National Security Advisor Susan Rice. The NSC is made up of analysts and staffers
from various intelligence agencies, including the CIA, who are detailed to the White House for
a period of time, before eventually returning to their parent agencies.
During his time with the National Security Council, Ciaramella also worked with then-Vice
President Biden, who was working closely on Ukraine issues at the end of Obama's time in
office. Ciaramella is also
listed as a guest at a 2016 luncheon to honor the prime minister of Italy, along with
Biden.
In November 2015, Ciaramella is named as one of
the officials who attended a White House meeting with Ukrainian religious leaders, along
with his boss, Charles Kupchan . The Ukrainian religious
leaders delivered a letter appealing to President Obama for aid for their country. Ciaramella
is listed as the "NSC Director for Ukraine." That position is now held by Alexander Vindman , a key witness
in the impeachment inquiry, who listened to the call between President Trump and President
Zelensky.
Ciaramella also has ties to former Democratic National Committee operative and opposition
researcher Alexandra Chalupa , a
Ukrainian-American who has been targeted by some conservatives as being behind an effort to
accuse the Trump campaign of Russian collusion. Chalupa, then with the National Democratic
Ethnic Coordinating Committee, was also in attendance at the November 2015 meeting with
Ukrainian religious leaders, according to public records.
While Republicans have accused Chalupa of being a leader of a conspiracy to bring down Trump
with false accusations of collusion with Russia, Democrats have said Chalupa was among the
first to bring forward credible information about wrongdoing by Paul Manafort and the Trump
campaign and say she has been smeared because of that.
4. Ciaramella Remained at the NSC During the Earlier Months of the Trump Administration
& an Email Ciaramella Sent While He Was Still Assigned to NSC Was Cited in the
Getty National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster speaks during a briefing at the White House
on May 16, 2017.
Eric Ciaramella did not leave the National Security Council at the end of the Obama
administration. He remained in place during the first few months of the Trump White House. The
NSC staff was at a barebones level at the time after the resignation of Lt. General Michael
Flynn, who had been Trump's first National Security Adviser. Ciaramella worked on Eastern
European issues along with another Obama administration holdover, Fiona Hil l.
When Lt. General
H.R. McMaster was named Trump's new national security adviser, Ciaramella served as
McMaster's personal aide. In the summer of 2017, Ciaramella returned to the CIA, where he is
still an active employee.
An email sent by Ciaramella while he was still assigned to the NSC was cited as a footnote in
Robert Mueller's report on the Trump investigation. The email was titled "(5/10/17 Email,
Ciaramella to Kelly et al.)," but details of the email are not included in the redacted
report.
Officials who worked with Ciaramella told Foreign Policy he is known for his professionalism
and taking a nonpartisan stance, telling Foreign Policy he is a "seasoned pro" and "one of the
best that the civil service has." His former boss, Charles Kupchan,
told Foreign Policy , Ciaramella is one of the, "worker bees of the federal government.
They want to serve the nation, and they care deeply about the issues they're working on."
Kupchan said Ciaramella was brought in to work on Ukraine, but, "He did such an impressive
job, I asked him to help share the burden on the counter-ISIL portfolio."
Trump administration officials also praised Ciaramella, telling Foreign Policy,""H.R.
thought he did a good job. Everybody was happy with his performance. He wouldn't have been
there if he weren't trusted."
Ciaramella is no stranger to drawing the ire of Trump supporters. He was named by the
far-right as a supposed member of the "deep state" in 2017 and was the subject of baseless
accusations accusing him of leaking information to the media, simply because of his ties to
former members of the Obama administration, including ex-National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
who has often been accused of trying to undermine Trump.
His ties to Rice, Brennan, Clapper and Obama made him an easy target for the right. He was
accused of leaking information to the media about Michael Flynn's conversations with Russian
Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, without any evidence.
Ciaramella was also accused of being a major leaker while working with McMaster. Several
far-right personalities waged an open war on social media and on pro-Trump websites
against McMaster during his time as national security adviser, constantly claiming he was
undermining Trump and had too many former Obama aides on his team. McMaster also worked with
Abigail Grace and Sean Misko, both also Obama holdovers. Grace and Misko are now aides to Rep.
Schiff. McMaster's staffers were frequently accused of being behind
leaks of embarrassing details about Trump's calls to foreign leaders. None of those
accusations were ever proven.
According to a March 2019 article in Politico:
Trump political appointees were believed to frequently talk to journalists who worked for
conservative media outlets. For months, those outlets published names of career Civil and
Foreign Service officers in the NSC and other government agencies whose loyalties they deemed
suspect. Career staffers who had joined the U.S. government many years, sometimes decades,
earlier were suddenly cast as Obama loyalists determined to derail Trump's agenda as part of
a "deep state." The people targeted included a State Department civil servant of Iranian
descent who'd joined the government under the George W. Bush administration; a highly
respected Foreign Service officer who dealt with Israeli issues; and an NSC staffer who dealt
with European and Russian issues. The latter, Eric Ciaramella, reportedly left the NSC after
receiving death threats.
Ciaramella was outed in a Medium article by the far-right figure Mike Cernovich in June
2017, claiming that the former Obama aide wanted to "sabotage" Trump. Foreign Policy
wrote in 2017 , "The piece described Eric Ciaramella as 'pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia' and
alleged, with no evidence, that he was possibly responsible for high-level leaks. Cernovich
wrote, "Nothing in his résumé indicates that Ciaramella will put America First.
His entire life arc indicates he will sabotage Trump and leak information to the press whenever
possible."
The response to the piece included online threats of violence against Ciaramella, which
contributed to his decision to leave his job at the National Security Council a few weeks
early, according to two sources familiar with the situation."
Charles Kupchan, who was the senior director for European Affairs on the NSC, was
Ciaramella's boss for two years during the Obama administration. Kupchan, a key Obama adviser,
told Foreign Policy the alt-right led an "unprecedented" attack on civil servants, calling the
"systematic hostility" against the "deep state" as "misplaced" and "dangerous."
As speculation about whether Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower spreads online and in
conservative media and circles, elected Republican officials are calling for his identity to be
revealed.
"Well, as far as that particular person, regardless of whether or not he's a whistleblower,
he apparently worked for [former CIA Director John] Brennan. He worked for H.R. McMaster. He
worked for Biden. He was tasked to the National Security Council on Ukraine," Texas Republican
Rep. Louie Gohmert
told the Washington Examiner . "And, gee, sounds like he's got bigger problems than being a
whistleblower, regardless of whether he is or not."
Gohmert mentioned Ciaramella's name, out of the blue, during an open House hearing on
unrelated issues on October 22.
Gohmert was questioning Natalie Jaresko, who is the executive director of a fiscal board
that oversees Puerto Rico's debt, during a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. Jaresko
was previously Ukraine's finance minister. Gohmert asked Jaresko, if, in her previous role, she
was, aware of "Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko dispatching Olga Bielkova or any other
Ukrainian official to the U.S. in order to conduct an influence campaign on the 2016 election
here in the United States?" He then asked, "Are you aware of Ukrainian parliamentarian
Bielkova's April 12 meetings with Liz Zentos and Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National Security
Council?"
North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows told reporters, "I can't tell you what happens in the
depositions, but I can tell you there's one person in one's group of staff members who know who
the whistleblower is and that is Adam Schiff, and so you need to ask him whether this guy is
the real deal."
Senator Rand Paul tweeted, "It is being reported that the whistleblower was Joe Biden's
point man on Ukraine. It is imperative the whistleblower is subpoenaed and asked under oath
about Hunter Biden and corruption."
Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst and the former chief of staff for the National Security
Council, told Real Clear Investigations, "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington
Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president
knows who he is. They're hiding him. They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Democrats have sought to keep the name concealed and have criticized efforts by Republicans
to name the whistleblower. Democratic Rep. David Cicilline, of Rhode Island, tweeted, "If you
spent part of today Tweeting the name of a person you think is the whistleblower, you probably
need to re-evaluate your life."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters it would be "unpatriotic" to reveal the
whistleblower's identity:
Renato Mariotti, a former federal prosecutor turned CNN legal analyst, tweeted, "Today
Trump's allies spread the name of a man they believe is the whistleblower. Some call for his
prosecution. They're ruining the life of a public servant who may not be the right guy. Plus
there's no evidence he did anything wrong. This is so desperate and irresponsible."
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
This is ******* brilliant. Trump is daring the loser Democrats to impeach him so the
Republicans in charge of the senate can hold their own propaganda filled media campaign.
This one will have 2 huge differences from the senate.
Trump knows more about politics than all of the Democrats and Republicans combined. Who
else could have
Won the presidency while being outspent over 2 to 1
Prospered while the Deep State and Democrats throw a myriad of smears against him.
Prospered while MSM has 90% coverage against him.
It's the Democrats who know nothing about politics. Otherwise they would have never
started the impeachment nonsense which has only energized Trumps base and ensured his
landslide victory in 2020.
Sometimes you need to call a spade a spade, and Tuesday's testimony before Adam's Schiff
Show by former NSC official Tim Morrison is just such an occasion. In spades!
In his opening statement, this paranoid moron uttered the following lunacy, and it's all you
need to know about what is really going on down in the Imperial City.
"I continue to believe Ukraine is on the
front lines
of a strategic
competition between the West and Vladimir Putin's
revanchist Russia
. Russia is
a failing power, but it is still a dangerous one.
The United States aids Ukraine and her
people so they can fight Russia over there and we don't have to fight Russia here.
Folks, that just plain whacko.
The Trump-hating Dems are so feverishly set on a
POTUS kill that they have enlisted a veritable posse of Russophobic, right-wing neocon cretins –
Morrison, Taylor, Kent, Vindman, among others – to finish off the Donald.
But in so doing they have made official Washington's real beef against Trump crystal clear; and
it's not about the rule of law or abuse of presidential power or an impeachable dereliction of
duty.
To be sure, foolish politicians like Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Clintonista
apparatus at the center of the Dem party are so overcome with inconsolable grief and anger about
losing the 2016 election to Trump that their sole purpose in life is to drive the Donald from
office. But that just makes them "useful idiots" or compliant handmaids of the Deep State, which
has a far more encompassing and consequential motivation.
To wit, whether out of naiveté, contrariness or just plain common sense, the Donald has declined
to embrace the War Party's Russian bogeyman and demonization of Putin. He thereby threatens the
Empire's raison d'ętre to the very core.
Indeed, that's the real reason for the whole concerted attack on Trump from the Russian
Collusion hoax, through the Mueller Investigation farce to the present UkraineGate and impeachment
inquisition. The Deep State deeply and profoundly fears that if Trump remains in office – and
especially if he is elected with a new mandate in 2020 – he might actually make peace with Russia
and Putin.
So in Part 1 we advert to the basics. Without the demonization of Russia, Ukraine
would be the no count failed state and cesspool of corruption it actually is, and not a purported
"front line" buffer against Russian aggression.
Likewise, it would not have been a recipient of vast US and western military and economic aid –
a condition that turned it into a honeypot for the kind of Washington influence peddling which
ensnared the Bidens, induced its officials to meddle in the 2016 US election, and, in return,
incited Trump's justifiable quest to get to the bottom of the malignancy that has ensued.
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic
state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy with virtually zero
capacity to project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders.
That truth, of course, shatters the whole foundation of the Warfare State. It renders
NATO an obsolete relic and eviscerates the case for America's absurd $900 billion defense and
national security budget. And with the latter's demise, the fairest part of Washington's imperial
self-importance and unseemly national security spending-based prosperity would also crumble.
But in their frenzied pursuit of the Donald's political scalp, the Dems may be inadvertently
sabotaging their Deep State masters. That's because the neocon knuckleheads they are dragging out
of the NSC and State Department woodwork are such bellicose simpletons – just maybe their utterly
preposterous testimony about the Russkie threat and Ukrainian "front line" will wake up the
somnolent American public to the absurdity of the entire Cold War 2.0 campaign.
Indeed, you almost have to ask whether the bit about fighting the Russkies in the Donbas rather
than on the shores of New Jersey from Morrison's opening statement quoted above was reprinted in
the
New York Times
or
The
Onion
?
The fact is, the fearsome Russian bogeyman cited by Morrison yesterday – and Ambassador
Taylor, George Kent and Lt. Colonel Vindman previously – is a complete chimera;
and the
notion that the cesspool of corruption in Ukraine is a strategic buffer against Russian aggression
is just plain idiocy.
Russia is actually an economic and industrial midget transformed beyond recognition by
relentless Warfare State propaganda. It is actually no more threatening to America's homeland
security than the Siberian land mass that Sarah Palin once espied from her front porch in Alaska a
decade ago.
After all, how could it be? The the GDP of the New York City metro area alone is about $1.8
trillion, which is well more than Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion. And that, in turn, is just
8% of America's total GDP of $21.5 trillion.
Moreover, Russia' dwarf economy is composed largely of a vast oil and gas patch; a multitude of
nickel, copper, bauxite and vanadium mines; and some very large swatches of wheat fields. That's
not exactly the kind of high tech industrial platform on which a war machine capable of threatening
the good folks in Lincoln NE or Worchester MA is likely to be erected.
And especially not when the Russian economy has been heading sharply south in dollar purchasing
terms for several years running.
GDP of Russia In Millions of USD
Indeed, in terms of manufacturing output, the comparison is just as stark. Russia's annual
manufacturing value added is currently about
$200 billion
compared to
$2.2
trillion
for the US economy.
And that's not the half of it. Not only are Russia's vast hydrocarbon deposits and mines likely
to give out in the years ahead, but so are the livers of its Vodka-chugging work force. That's a
problem because according to a recent Brookings study, Russia's working age population – even
supplemented by substantial in-migration and guest worker programs – is heading south as far into
the future as the eye can see.
Even in the Brookings medium case projection shown below, Russia's working age population will
be nearly 20% smaller than today by 2050. Yet today's figure of about 85 million is already just a
fraction of the US working age population of 255 million.
Russia's Shrinking Work Force
Not surprisingly, Russia's pint-sized economy can not support a military establishment anywhere
near to that of Imperial Washington. To wit, its
$61 billion
of military
outlays in 2018 amounted to less than
32 days
of Washington's current
$750 billion of expenditures for defense.
Indeed, it might well be asked how Russia could remotely threaten homeland security in America
short of what would be a suicidal nuclear first strike.
That's because the 1,600 deployed nuclear weapons on each side represent a continuation of
mutual deterrence (MAD) – the arrangement by which we we got through 45-years of cold war when the
Kremlin was run by a totalitarian oligarchy committed to a hostile ideology; and during which time
it had been armed to the teeth via a forced-draft allocation of upwards of 40% of the GDP of the
Soviet empire to the military.
By comparison, the Russian defense budget currently amounts to less than 4% of the country's
anemic present day economy – one shorn of the vast territories and populations of Belarus, Ukraine,
Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and all the Asian "stans" among others. Yet given those realities
we are supposed to believe that the self-evidently calculating and cautious kleptomaniac who runs
the Kremlin is going to go mad, defy MAD and trigger a nuclear Armageddon?
Indeed, the idea that Russia presents a national security threat to America is laughable. Not
only would Putin never risk nuclear suicide, but even that fantasy is the extent of what he's got.
That is, Russia's conventional capacity to project force to the North American continent is
nonexistent – or at best, lies somewhere between nichts and nothing.
For example, in today's world you do not invade any foreign continent without massive sea power
projection capacity in the form of aircraft carrier strike groups. These units consist of an armada
of lethal escort ships, a fleet of aircraft, massive suites of electronics warfare capability and
the ability to launch hundreds of cruise missiles and other smart weapons.
Each US aircraft carrier based strike group, in fact, is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at
least one cruiser, a squadron of destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70
aircraft. A carrier strike group also sometimes includes submarines and attached logistics ships.
The US has
eleven
such carrier strike groups. Russia has
zero
modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier that the Israeli paper,
Haaretz, described as follows when it recently entered the Mediterranean:
Russia's only aircraft carrier, a leftover from the days of Soviet power, carries a long
history of mishaps, at sea and in port, and diesel engines which were built for Russia's cold
waters – as shown by the column of black smoke raising above it. It needs frequent refueling and
resupplies and has never been operationally tested.
Indeed, from our 19th floor apartment on the East River in NYC, even we could see this smoke
belcher coming up Long Island Sound with an unaided eye – with no help needed at all from the high
tech spyware of the nation's $80 billion intelligence apparatus.
Yet Morrison had the audacity to say before a committee of the U.S. House that we are
aiding Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russians on the banks of the East River or the Potomac!
For want of doubt, just compare the above image of the Admiral Kuznetsov belching smoke in the
Mediterranean with that of the Gerald R. Ford CVN 48 next below.
The latter is the US Navy's new $13 billion aircraft carrier and is the most technologically
advanced warship ever built.
The contrast shown below serves as a proxy for the vastly inferior capability of the
limited number of ships and planes in Russia's conventional force. What it does have numerical
superiority in is tanks – but alas they are not amphibious nor ocean-capable!
Likewise, nobody invades anybody without massive airpower and the ability to project it across
thousands of miles of oceans via vast logistics and air-refueling capabilities.
On that score, the US has 6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and
attack aircraft versus Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift
aircraft compared to just 1,100 for Russia.
In short, the idea that Russia is a military threat to the US homeland is ludicrous. Russia is
essentially a landlocked military shadow of the former Soviet war machine. Indeed, for the world's
only globe-spanning imperial power to remonstrate about an aggressive threat from Moscow is a prime
facie case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Moreover, the canard that Washington's massive conventional armada is needed to defend
Europe is risible nonsense. Europe can and should take care of its own security and relationship
with its neighbor on the Eurasian continent.
After all, the GDP of NATO Europe is $18 trillion or 12X greater than that of Russia, and the
current military budgets of European NATO members total about $280 billion or 4X more than that of
Russia.
More importantly, the European nations and people really do not have any quarrel with Putin's
Russia, nor is their security and safety threatened by the latter. All of the tensions that do
exist and have come to a head since the illegal coup in Kiev in February 2014 were fomented by
Imperial Washington and its European subalterns in the NATO machinery.
Then again, the latter is absolutely the most useless, obsolete, wasteful and dangerous
multilateral institution in the present world. But like the proverbial clothes-less emperor, NATO
doesn't dare risk having the purportedly "uninformed" amateur in the Oval Office pointing out its
buck naked behind.
So the NATO subservient think tanks and establishment policy apparatchiks are harrumphing up a
storm, but for crying out loud most of Europe's elected politicians are in on the joke. They are
fiscally swamped paying for their Welfare States and are not about to squeeze their budgets or
taxpayers to fund military muscle against a nonexistent threat.
Finally an American president has woken up to the fact that World War II, not to
mention the cold war, is over: there's no need for US troops to occupy Germany.
Vladimir Putin isn't going to march into Berlin in a reenactment of the Red Army
taking the Fuehrer-bunker – but even if he were so inclined, why won't Germany defend itself?
Exactly. If their history proves anything, Germans are not a nation of pacifists, meekly willing
to bend-over in the face of real aggressors. Yet they spent the paltry sum of
$43
billion
on defense during 2018, or barely 1.1% of Germany's $4.0 trillion GDP, which
happens to be roughly three times bigger than Russia's.
In short, the policy action of the German government tells you they don't think Putin is
about to invade the Rhineland or retake the Brandenburg Gate.
And this live action testimonial also trumps, as it were, all of the risible alarms that have
emanated from the beltway think tanks and the 4,000 NATO bureaucrats talking their own book in
behalf of their plush Brussels sinecures.
And as we will outline in Part 2, that's what Washington's Ukraine intervention is all
about, and why the Donald's efforts to get to the bottom of that cesspool has brought on the final
Deep State assault against his presidency.
Part 2 -
Democrats Empower a Pack of Paranoid Neocon Morons
Yet his related claim that Ukraine is a victim of Russian aggression is even more ludicrous. The
actual aggression in that godforsaken corner of the planet came from Washington when it instigated,
funded, engineered and recognized the putsch on the streets of Kiev during February 2014, which
illegally overthrew the duly elected President of Ukraine on the grounds that he was too friendly
with Moscow.
Thus, Morrison risibly asserted that,
Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty has been a bipartisan
objective since
Russia's military invasion in 2014
. It must continue to be.
The fact is, when the Maidan uprising occurred in February that year there were no
uninvited Russian troops anywhere in Ukraine.
Putin was actually sitting in his box on the
viewing stand, presiding over the Winter Olympics in Sochi and basking in the limelight of global
attention that they commanded.
It was only weeks later – when the Washington-installed ultra-nationalist government
with its neo-Nazi vanguard threatened the Russian-speaking populations of Crimea and the Donbas –
that Putin moved to defend Russian interests on his own doorstep.
And those interests
included Russia's primary national security asset – the naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea which
had been the homeport of the Russian Black Sea Fleet for centuries under czars and commissars
alike, and on which Russia had a long-term lease.
We untangle the truth of the crucial events which surrounded the Kiev putsch in greater detail
below, but suffice it here to note the whole gang of neocon apparatchiks which have been paraded
before the Schiff Show have proffered the same Big Lie as did Morrison in the "invasion" quote
cited above.
As the ever perspicacious Robert Merry observed regarding the previous testimony of Ambassador
Bill Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent, the Washington rendition of the
Maidan coup and its aftermath amounts to a blatant falsehood:
The Taylor/Kent outlook stems from the widespread demonization of Russia that dominates
thinking within elite circles. Taylor's rendition of recent events in Ukraine was so one-sided
and
selective as to amount to a falsehood.
As he had it, Ukraine's turn to the West after 2009 (when he left the country after his
first diplomatic tour there) threatened Russia's Vladimir Putin to such an extent that he tried
to "bribe" Ukraine's president with inducements to resist Western influence, whereupon protests
emerged in Kyiv that drove the Ukrainian president to flee the country in 2014. Then Putin
invaded Crimea, holding a "sham referendum at the point of Russian army rifles." Putin sent
military forces into eastern Ukraine "to generate illegal armed formations and puppet
governments." And so the West extended military assistance to Ukraine.
"It is this security assistance," he said, "that is at the heart of the [impeachment]
controversy that we are discussing today."
Taylor's right that this narrative is at the center of UkraineGate, but there is not a shred of
truth to it. Nevertheless, defense of this false narrative, and the inappropriate military and
economic aid to Ukraine which flowed from it, is the real reason this posse of neocon stooges took
exception to the Donald's legitimate interest in investigating the Bidens and the events of 2016.
As Morrison put it Tuesday and Vindman said last week, their interest was in protecting not the
constitution and the rule of law, but the
bipartisan political consensus
on
Capitol Hill in favor of their proxy war on Putin and the Ukraine aid package through which it was
being prosecuted.
As I stated during my deposition, I feared at the time of the call on July 25 how its
disclosure would play in Washington's political climate. My fears have been realized.
Not surprisingly, the entire Washington establishment has been sucked into this scam. For
instance, the insufferably sanctimonious Peggy Noonan used her
Wall Street Journal
platform
to idolize these liars.
As she portrayed it, bow-tie bedecked George P. Kent appeared to be the very picture of
the old-school American foreign service official. And West Pointer Bill Taylor – with a military
career going back to (dubious) Vietnam heroism – was redolent of the blunt-spoken American military
men who won WW II and the cold war which followed.
As Robert Merry further noted,
She saw them as "the old America reasserting itself." They demonstrated "stature and
command of their subject matter."
They evinced "capability and integrity."
Oh, puleeze!
What they evinced was nothing more than the self-serving groupthink that has turned Ukraine into
a beltway goldmine. That is, a cornucopia of funding for all the think tanks, NGOs, foreign policy
experts, national security contractors and Warfare State agencies – from DOD through the State
Department, AID, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Board for International Broadcasting and
countless more – which ply their trade in the Imperial City.
But Robert Merry got it right. These cats are not noble public servants and heroes; they're
apparatchiks and payrollers aggrandizing their own power and pelf – even as they lead the nation to
the brink of disaster:
But these men embrace a geopolitical outlook that is simplistic, foolhardy, and
dangerous.
Perhaps no serious blame should accrue to them, since it is the same
geopolitical outlook embraced and enforced by pretty much the entire foreign policy
establishment, of which these men are mere loyal apparatchiks. And yet they are playing their
part in pushing a foreign policy that is directing America towards a very possible disaster.
Neither man manifested even an inkling of an understanding of what kind of game the
United States in playing with Ukraine. Neither gave even a nod to the long, complex relationship
between Ukraine and Russia. Neither seemed to understand either the substance or the intensity
of Russia's geopolitical interests along its own borders or the likely consequences of
increasing U.S. meddling in what for centuries has been part of Russia's sphere of influence.
They obviously didn't get it, but we must. So let us summarize the true Ukraine story, starting
with the utterly stupid and historically ignorant reason for Washington's February 2014 coup.
Namely, it objected to the decision of Ukraine's prior government in late 2013 to align itself
economically and politically with its historic hegemon in Moscow rather than the European Union and
NATO. Yet the fairly elected and constitutionally legitimate government of Ukraine then led by
Viktor Yanukovych had gone that route mainly because it got a better deal from Moscow than was
being demanded by the fiscal torture artists of the IMF.
Needless to say, the ensuing US sponsored putsch arising from the mobs on the street of Kiev
reopened deep national wounds. Ukraine's bitter divide between Russian-speakers in the east and
Ukrainian nationalists elsewhere dates back to Stalin's brutal rein in Ukraine during the 1930s and
Ukrainian collusion with Hitler's Wehrmacht on its way to Stalingrad and back during the 1940s.
It was the memory of the latter nightmare, in fact, which triggered the fear-driven outbreak of
Russian separatism in the Donbas and the 96% referendum vote in Crimea in March 2014 to formally
re-affiliate
with Mother Russia.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of
must-read stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try
again.
In this context, even a passing familiarity with Russian history and geography would remind that
Ukraine and Crimea are Moscow's business, not Washington's.
In the first place, there is nothing at stake in the Ukraine that matters. During the
last 800 years it has been a meandering set of borders in search of a country.
In fact, the intervals in which the Ukraine existed as an independent nation have been few and
far between. Invariably, its rulers, petty potentates and corrupt politicians made deals with or
surrendered to every outside power that came along.
These included the Lithuanians, Poles, Ruthenians (eastern Slavs), Tartars, Turks, Muscovites,
Austrians and Czars, among manifold others.
At the beginning of the 16th century, for instance, the territory of today's Ukraine was
scattered largely among the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ruthenia (light brown area), the Kingdom
of Poland (dark brown area), Muscovy (bright yellow area) the Crimean Khanate (light yellow area).
The latter was the entity which emerged when some clans of the Golden Horde (Tartars) ceased
their nomadic life on the Asian steppes and occupied the light yellow stripped areas of the map
north of the Black Sea as their Yurt (homeland).
From that cold start, the tiny Cossack principality of Ukraine (blue area below), which had
emerged by 1654, grew significantly over the subsequent three centuries. But as the map also makes
clear, this did not reflect the organic congealment of a nation of kindred volk sharing common
linguistic and ethnic roots, but the machinations of Czars and Commissars for the administrative
convenience of efficiently ruling their conquests and vassals.
Thus, much of modern Ukraine was incorporated by the Russian Czars between 1654 and 1917 per the
yellow area of the map and functioned as vassal states. These territories were amalgamated by
absolute monarchs who ruled by the mandate of God and the often brutal sword of their own armies.
In particular, much of the purple area was known as "Novo Russia" (Novorossiya) during the 18th
and 19th century owing to the Czarist policy of relocating
Russian populations
to
the north of the Black Sea as a bulwark against the Ottomans. But after Lenin seized power in St.
Petersburg in November 1917 amidst the wreckage of Czarist Russia, an ensuing civil war between the
so-called White Russians and the Red Bolsheviks raged for several years in these territories and
elsewhere in the chaotic regions of the former western Russian Empire.
At length, Lenin won the civil war as the French, British, Polish and American contingents
vacated the postwar struggle for power in Russia. Accordingly, in 1922 the new Communist rulers
proclaimed the Union of Soviet Social Republics (USSR) and incorporated Novo Russia into one of its
four constituent units as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (SSR) – along with the Russian,
Belarus and Transcaucasian SSRs.
Thereafter the border and political status of Ukraine remained unchanged until the infamous
Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Pursuant thereto the Red Army
and Nazi Germany invaded and dismembered Poland, with Stalin getting the blue areas (Volhynia and
parts of Galicia) as consolation prizes, which where then incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR.
Finally, when Uncle Joe Stalin died and Nikita Khrushchev won the bloody succession struggle in
1954, he transferred Crimea (red area) to the Ukraine SSR as a reward to his supporters in Kiev.
That, of course, was the arbitrary writ of the Soviet Presidium, given that precious few Ukrainians
actually lived in what had been a integral part of Czarist Russia after it was purchased by
Catherine the Great from the Turks in 1783.
In a word, the borders of modern Ukraine are the handiwork of Czarist emperors and
Communist butchers.
The so-called international rule of law had absolutely nothing to
do with its gestation and upbringing.
It's a pity, therefore, that none of the so-called conservative Republicans attending Adam's
Schiff Show saw fit to ask young Tim Morrison the obvious question.
To wit, exactly why is he (and most of the Washington foreign policy establishment) so
keen on expending American treasure, weapons and even blood in behalf of the "territorial integrity
and sovereignty" of this happenstance amalgamation of people subdued by some of history's most
despicable tyrants?
Needless to say, owing to this very history, the linguistic/ethnic composition of today's
Ukraine does not reflect the congealment of a "nation" in the historic sense.
To the contrary, central and western Ukraine is populated by ethnic Ukrainians who speak
Ukrainian (dark red area), whereas the two parts of the country allegedly the victim of Russian
aggression and occupation – Crimea (brown area) and the eastern Donbas region (yellow area with
brown strips) – are comprised of ethnic Russians who speak Russian and ethnic Ukrainians who
predominately speak-Russian, respectively.
And much of the rest of the territory consists of admixtures and various Romanian, Moldovan,
Hungarian and Bulgarian minorities.
Did the Washington neocons – led by Senator McCain and Assistant Secretary Victoria
Nuland – who triggered the Ukrainian civil war with their coup on the streets of Kiev in February
2014 consider the implications of the map below and its embedded, and often bloody, history?
Quite surely, they did not.
Nor did they consider the rest of the map. That is, the enveloping Russian state all around to
which the parts and pieces of Ukraine – especially the Donbas and Crimea – have been intimately
connected for centuries. Robert Merry thus further noted,
As Nikolas K. Gvosdev of the US Naval War College has written, Russia and Ukraine share a
1,500-mile border where Ukraine "nestles up against the soft underbelly of the Russian
Federation." Gvosdev elaborates: "The worst nightmare of the Russian General Staff would be NATO
forces deployed all along this frontier, which would put the core of Russia's population and
industrial capacity at risk of being quickly and suddenly overrun in the event of any conflict."
Beyond that crucial strategic concern, the two countries share strong economic, trade, cultural,
ethnic, and language ties going back centuries. No Russian leader of any stripe would survive as
leader if he or she were to allow Ukraine to be wrested fully from Russia's sphere of influence.
And yet America, in furtherance of the ultimate aim of pulling Ukraine away from Russia,
spent some $5 billion in a campaign to gin up pro-Western sentiment there, according to former
assistant secretary of state for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who spearheaded much of this
effort during the Obama administration. It was clearly a blatant effort to interfere in the
domestic politics of a foreign nation – and a nation residing in a delicate and easily inflamed
part of the world.
Indeed, Ukraine is a tragically divided country and fissured simulacrum of a nation.
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard called Ukraine "a cleft country, with two distinct cultures"
causing Robert Merry to rightly observe that,
Contrary to Taylor's false portrayal of an aggressive Russia trampling on eastern
Ukrainians by setting up puppet governments and manufacturing a bogus referendum in Crimea, the
reality is that large numbers of Ukrainians there favor Russia and feel loyalty to what they
consider their Russian heritage. The Crimean public is 70 percent Russian, and its Parliament in
1992 actually voted to declare independence from Ukraine for fear that the national leadership
would nudge the country toward the West. (The vote was later rescinded to avoid a violent
national confrontation.) In 1994, Crimea elected a president who had campaigned on a platform of
"unity with Russia."
In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an integral part of Mother Russia,
serving as its breadbasket and iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and aggressively induced to join NATO
was just plain nuts,
as we will amplify further in Part 3 (to come).
Tags
"In short, in modern times Ukraine largely functioned as an
integral part of Mother Russia, serving as its breadbasket and
iron and steel crucible under czars and commissars alike.
Given
this history, the idea that Ukraine should be actively and
aggressively induced to join NATO was just plain nuts,
as we
will amplify further in Part 3 (to come)."
This seemed like a sensible column until I got to this:
"... identify Russia for what it actually is: Namely, a
kleptocratic state sitting atop an aging, Vodka-chugging
population and third-rate economy with virtually zero capacity to
project 21st century offensive military power beyond its own
borders."
So the starting point is to identify Russia for what it
actually is: Namely, a kleptocratic state sitting atop an
aging, Vodka-chugging population and third-rate economy
Maybe the Russians are normal, intelligent people just trying
to improve themselves and their country. And are interested in
commerce not conquest no matter what their GDP.
Agree with Stockman that the Russian "threat" is a red herring.
But it's not because Russia is the pathological, bankrupt society
that he claims it to be.
Stockman is leftover reaganomics and we all know what that ****
turned out along with Thatcherite **** and Pinochet ****.
Trickle down economics.....but blood and not oligarch's piss
for the thirsting masses that clowns like Stockman and co.
despises..
Deluded as ever imaginging that USSA isn't burned
to the bone.
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual"
is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall
provide" is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will
take care of you" is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take
care of you" is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity"
is lost.
Stockman writes the Russia has "virtually zero capacity to project
21st century offensive military power beyond its own borders."
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated head
choppers in Syria.
Tell that to the tens of thousands of dead and defeated
head choppers in Syria.
The "head choppers" in Syria were Sunni jihadist lunatics
funded by the United States. The U.S. shoveled thousands of
tons of weapons to those cutthroats. For Washington, regime
change trumped the "collateral damage" slaughter of the Shia,
Alawite, Christian, Druze and Kurdish populations in Syria by
the U.S. proxy Sunni goons.
Here are some Christian communities in Syria celebrating
their holy days after they had been liberated from the U.S.
backed terrorists by the Syrian Army and the Russians:
The Russians are accustomed to survive, they went through too
many wars, their weapons are created for war and to kill. They
are nationalists (although not like the Chinese - without
extremes) and are very attached to their country. Mother Russia
- says a lot. The Americans suffered the last time in
1861-1865, in United States now clan-corporate "capitalism"
with the suppression of free markets and the dominance of
lobbyists whose interests do not coincide with the national
interests of the United States. That's why I stopped respecting
Americans. The irony of fate is that Russians are capitalists
now, and the Americans are now ******* USSR version 2.0.
To which the hunt for the bogeyman will bankrupt us whether it
be Putin, Xi, Kim, Assad buying all these toys many of which
haven't proven to be as reliable as the Russian stuff. Looking
at the Russian GDP cart you see the big fall after the seizure
of Crimea and the subsequent sanctions. Russian as now turned
inward and produces a lot of what was imported from Europe and
those markets will never return to the Europeans. Merkel's
business people are SCREAMING to lift the sanctions as their
economy flounders. Same with many other countries. The trade
war with China has irrevocably hurt our farmers. Russia and
their Jon Deere look-a like combines are now cranking out food
for the world.
The don't have to be huge, they have to be
within budget. Trust me, Russia hasn't found half the minerals
in their lands.
Israel's Secret Plan for a
Second Israel in Ukraine
A secret report provided to the Israeli government by a select
panel of scholars of Jewish history drawn from academia and other
research centers, concluded that that European Jews are in fact
descended from Khazars - Datelined Jerusalem and Zhitomir,
Ukraine, March 16, 2014
One of the main reasons why Ukrainian Jewish billionaire tycoon
Ihor
Kolomoisky
[Zelenskiy's main sponsor], the governor of
Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk province and citizen of Ukraine, Israel,
and Cyprus, is spending tens of millions of dollars on the
recruitment of right-wing Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis
from other parts of Europe to fight against the Russian-speaking
majority in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine, is a fear that
plans to turn Ukraine into a second Israel
will be
derailed.
Russia's protective measures for the Donbass, as well as its
incorporation by referendum of Crimea, the latter prized by the
resurgent Khazarian Jewish nationalists, threaten the
transformation of Ukraine into a second homeland for Ashkenazi
Jews who are finding their hold on Israel prime tenuous, at best."
The Russian economy is based on the ruble, not the dollar.
Therefore, at purchasing power parity, IMF data, 2017 USD
1 PRC 23208
2 USA 19485
3 India 9474
4 Japan 5443
5 Germany 4199
6 Russia 4016
7 Indonesia 3250
8 Brazil 3247
9 United Kingdom 2925 As a result, the growth of the US economy
by 3% is 600 mln. dollars., and debt 1,2trl. dale so what is
growing in an economy like the US?
When I am in Australia, my weekly shopping for food costs me
US$150. In Ukraine or Russia, it is more like US$40. That suggests
that the GDP figures above should be multiplied by 3-5.
I want to remind you of Bill Barr's speech to the Federalist Society a week ago. He made a
specific point about the plot to sabotage
Donald Trump's Presidency :
Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called "The
Resistance," and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver
available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, "resistance" is the language
used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously
connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed
incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means
is that, instead of viewing themselves as the "loyal opposition," as opposing parties have done
in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means
necessary, a duly elected government.
I believe that Bill Barr intentionally signaled that the sedition by the intelligence
community, the FBI and the Department of Justice will not be allowed to slide. But he is going
to do everything to punish them according to the law. He is committed to a rule of law and
enforcing the laws of this country.
In the late 1990s, Durham was tapped by Bill Clinton's justice department to investigate
Boston police and FBI agents' connections with infamous gangster James "Whitey" Bulger. That
investigation ultimately identified corrupt law enforcement officials who had given the killer
information he then used to kill informants and eventually became a part of the case that led
to Bulger's conviction.
Durham's investigation implicated Robert Mueller. According to knowledgeable sources, the
Clinton Justice Department would not allow Durham to
bring charges against Mueller :
In the 1980's, while Mr. Connolly was working with Whitey Bulger, Mr. Mueller was assistant
United States attorney in Boston in charge of the criminal division and for a period was the
acting United States attorney here, presiding over Mr. Connolly and Mr. Bulger as a
''top-echelon informant.'' Officials of the Massachusetts state police and the Boston Police
Department had long wondered why their investigations of Mr. Bulger were always compromised
before they could gather evidence against him, and they suspected that the F.B.I. was
protecting him.
Law enforcement officials also have said they wondered why the United States attorney's
office seemed to give Mr. Bulger impunity. But hearings by United States District Judge Mark
Wolf in 1998 found that Mr. Connolly had not told his bosses in the United States attorney's
office about his work with Mr. Bulger. In general, Judge Wolf found what he described as a
culture of secrecy in the F.B.I.'s handling of its informants that sometimes subverted the
purpose of the program.
I do not believe that Bill Barr is going to prevent John Durham from following the evidence
and charging those culpable with crimes. I suspect that this fact is weighing heavily on Jim
Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennab, Jim Clapper and others in the FBI, DOJ and intelligence
community. We will know more in a month.
The most important outcome is transparency, where the public gets to see the breadth &
depth of the activities including the collusion with the media to shape the narrative and the
use of Congressional committees to further the narrative.
The public needs to be able to read about the entire plot and all the sub-plots and the
cast of characters with the roles each played.
We need this to be able to comprehend the extent of violence to the rule of law by those
entrusted with enforcement of the law and the operation of the nations' intelligence
agencies.
We can judge when Durham is done if Barr's speech to the Federalist Society was just
rhetorical or if he really meant it.
Yes. Agree. Informing the public about the true scale of the operation would be very helpful.
That's the acid question: What will Barr deliver?
Of course if he does that the propaganda organs will unleash their vitriol on him and
claim he is Trump's bag carrier. It's not gonna change the minds of any NeverTrumper. It's
value will be a record for posterity.
It is worth pondering, what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up? After
all he is one of them. Bill & Hillary attended his wedding to Melania. He has been
photographed at parties with Epstein and moved in celebrity social circles. He's been more
zionist than others before him and he's fed the MIC handsomely. He's not reformed the
surveillance state one iota. It remains at least as secretive and powerful as before. He's
allowed multinational US corporations to repatriate overseas profits to buyback stock that
financially rewards the managerial class. He's done nothing that attacks elite interests. Is
it just that he beat them at their own game and their egos are bruised? In his first run for
public office he wins the biggest prize by defeating the Bush dynasty and Senators and
Governors long in Republican Party leadership and then the Most sure thing, the so entitled
Clinton machine.
You see similar smear operations on Tulsi too. At least with her one can argue that she
has never been a club member.
"what about Trump has got so many of the elites so riled up?"
I don't think it's that hard to figure out: he's too orange, he's too much of an outsider,
he broke Hillary's dream.
But the real crime was saying that the US should try to get along with Russia.
If he had never said the word "Russia" or "Putin" they'd still hate him but we'd be on the
level of psychiatrists speculating that Twitter makes you crazy or something. And it would
the the dims and their tame presstitutes saying that without the (powerful) back up of the
deepstate/borg/blob
You can't run much of an impeachment circus on POTUS's choice of hair product, but Russia
Russia Russia, that keeps going. He colluded with Putin; OK we can't prove that but he wasn't
exonerated; he weakened brave little Ukraine in its fight against Putin. That's all they've
got.
I did hear Barr's definition of "The Resistance" and was so happy that someone finally
explained how evil that idea is in our Democratic Republic. I was so sick of those smug
people I have met who proudly proclaim their allegiance to "The Resistance," as if they count
themselves equal to the French Resistance in WWII against the Nazis.
My wish is that any of the "Resistance" who have made their living on tax-funded salaries
are ripped out of those positions and placed in tax-funded prison cells. And this time, I
would like it if they would be properly guarded so that they can't escape their shame and
punishment through what will be judged as suicide.
In fact, I might enjoy it if the Smithsonian's National Zoo would add displays of the
Resistors right next to any sort of display of venomous snakes.
(There, I've vented my frustration about how long this process for justice has taken and
for the hours and hours of Adam Schiff on television screens. I am not usually a bitter
person, but this whole episode has taken its toll on many of us who are just mere citizens
and tax payers.)
Among the questions that Larry's contribution begs here, is whether branches of this
investigative trail lead back to Mueller himself. If we believe Durham will follow it to
Whitey Bulger and Mueller's potential involvement in enabling murder, then why not to Uranium
One, and his role in the approval of the sale, the (non)investigation of the bags of cash
changing hands, the contributions to the Clinton Foundation and the Bill Clinton speech in
Moscow for $500,000.
And if there, then why not to Mueller's role in the lead up, and follow up to 911?
"... No, it was not suicide Mr. Barr, it was a well orchestrated operation that terminated a man who could embarrass many elites and other people who did not want to be embarrassed. It strikes at the heart of what the populace expects from government an expectation of "fairness." ..."
"... If anyone was truly interested in investigating Epstein his banking and communication records would have been secured. All of the people who interacted with him on a daily basis would have been interviewed. This did not happen and it will not happen because too many people just want him to be forgotten. ..."
I thought I liked Mr. Barr but I do not buy his opinion.
The usual investigation and takedown process was not followed in this case and someone
should answer: why not?
Big planning had to be made to lure Epstein back to Teterboro and take him into custody
immediately on deplaning.
He was immediately kept in isolation but no search and seizure warrants were executed with
his takedown. Why would the crime scenes be left unsecured unless there was a plan?
Proper take down plans are prepared in minute detail. Don't tell us this was not well
planned.
Well, there was a plan. Delay of the official investigation allowed the scenes to be
sanitized before "official" search warrants were requested. No serious law enforcement plan
would allow this process. What was the plan Mr. Barr and who was behind it? Can we have names
please?
When the official search warrants were executed the most damaging evidence was gone.
Everything else was for show.
Then Epstein was kept on ice in that "short of money" jail where cameras malfunctioned and
were known to malfunction.
Mix in a few useful idiots for guards and Epstein was finished. He could not relocate his
blackmail evidence after his takedown and because he was isolated he could not parlay his
information to secure his release. He was done.
No, it was not suicide Mr. Barr, it was a well orchestrated operation that terminated
a man who could embarrass many elites and other people who did not want to be embarrassed. It
strikes at the heart of what the populace expects from government an expectation of
"fairness."
If anyone was truly interested in investigating Epstein his banking and communication
records would have been secured. All of the people who interacted with him on a daily basis
would have been interviewed. This did not happen and it will not happen because too many
people just want him to be forgotten.
Our government caters to the special interest. Unfortunately I hoped for fairness.
Just as important, where is the proof the Russians hacked the DNC computers (hat tip always
to LJ) - since Roger Stone was banned from getting this information by the judge who just
sent him away for life.
CROWDSTRIKE's role in the Democrat impeachment smokescreen needs to keep moving forward
because, it is not going away. Democrats refusal to even mention it, let alone their
obsession trying to relentless label nameless CROWDSTRIKE as a loony, right wing conspiracy
theory simply does not pass the smell test.
Particularly since Schiff does his very best to deep six even mention of Trump's requested
Ukraine CROWDSTRIKE investigation. https://illicitinfo.com/?p=13576
Deep state CROWDSTRIKE collusion is starting to walk like a duck, quack like a duck and
look like a duck.
My bet is that the impeachment circus was started by those Dems who want to get rid of Biden.
So they start a circus where Biden's corruption case is a major issue. Moreover, this forces
Trump to open the evidence against Biden already during the impeachment process, and not only
after Biden winning the primaries.
Great analysis as usual. My comment is on your last line:
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
This is not necessarily about bringing Trump down via impeachment because though almost
certain to be impeached, he is almost as certain to be acquited in the Senate where a 2/3
majority is needed and even if some GOP Senators vote for conviction joining all Dem
Senators, reaching 67 is a tall order.
What then is all this about? It's obviously about the 2020 election and not just the
Presidency but the House and the 35 Senate seats (23 GOP and 12 Dem) up for grabs. This is
for all the marbles. The Dems/anti-Trump GOP have a formidable base made up of the powerful
coastal elites, establishment media and as importantly the so-called deep state in DC, the
bureaucrats in the State Dept/CIA/FBI/DOJ and the courts to back them. The Dems are
struggling to unify against a theme but the impeachment is one thing that's a clear litmus
test and what they will rally around in 2020.
That Trump will be impeached is a near certainty as much as that his conviction in the
Senate will fail. Look for:
- How many Dem Reps vote for impeachment or if those in GOP states flip.
- If any GOP Reps flip to impeachment.
- If any GOP Senators support conviction (almost certainly there are 4 including Mitt
Romney)
Meanwhile the GOP has tricks of its own and the upcoming FISA report due Dec 9 which
apparently will in-effect accuse the Obama admin of 2016 election meddling will be taken up
in the GOP controlled Senate.
Both these dramas will serve as the backdrop for the countdown to the 2020 election in
less than 12 months on Nov 3, 2020.
"... She looked to be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd been a victim of. ..."
"... I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be provocateurs. "Gosh." ..."
"... And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he does. ..."
"... Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on. Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a return to normalcy? ..."
"... Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings. ..."
... She seems to live alone, alone with her work. She tried living with her 88 year old mother
three years ago but that did not last. What would the old girl have done with herself in Kiev
with her daughter working all the time?
So, the maman went home to the States. Marie is still employed as a Career Ambassador
(a high rank) in the Foreign Service of of the United States She is currently assigned at
Georgetown U.
That's the first time I've seen "winsome" used with an edge.
I watched her for some time and didn't know what on earth to make of her. She looked to
be a most convincing and dignified victim but it was difficult to work out quite what she'd
been a victim of.
I think our closest equivalent over here would be Lady Ashton, who headed up the
pre-coup European negotiations with the Ukraine. It was Lady Ashton who gave the most famous
diplomatic response in modern history, when she was told that the snipers might be
provocateurs. "Gosh."
A very safe pair of hands, is what would be said of both and almost certainly often
is.
I did know what to make of the histrionics just before the recess. They looked false. That
man wasn't really crying. And Chairman Schiff looked as scary as usual. If I could open my
eyes that wide I'd make a fortune in horror movies. Which I suppose is more or less what he
does.
EO,
Zelensky did not like her and suggested that she was involved with corrupt people and
undermining the President. I don't understand how Trump gets all of the blame for her being
relieved of her position.
Marie IMO was always the second best looking girl in the class but maybe teacher's pet,
and has never had anyone take anything away from her before. "Gosh." She doesn't look like
someone you could safely make a pass at unless you had an awful lot of rank.
Colonel, your description of Ambassador Yovanovitch as "a secular nun" is spot on.
Congratulations ! On the other hand, why is a nun continuing a civil war with 1% predatory
oligarchs and Bandera thugs on our side, versus 99% of un-armed local nobodies who want a
return to normalcy?
Then again, since when does a Presidential emissary not only criticize him and the
President of her host country, but also instruct local law enforcement on which oligarchs he
may investigate and which oligarch's (admittedly ours) he may not.
Lastly, note that Representative Stefanik caught Ambassador Marie in a lie about Hunter
Biden and Burisma. Marie claimed under oath that she had never encountered the issue
pre-arrival in the Ukraine, while she had admitted earlier that Obama staff coached her about
Hunter / Burisma responses for her Senate Confirmation Hearings.
To take your cue, Ambassador Marie is a secular nun with very bad ideas, who wandered to a
profession she is not at all suited.
"... Senator Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot. ..."
"... "Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website Rare . ..."
"... "Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his previous job," Paul notes in his piece. ..."
"... Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and holding office in the National Security Council. ..."
"... It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join him at the State Department. ..."
Senator
Rand Paul has urged President Trump to shut out neoconservative war hawks from the State
Department, as it has emerged that Elliott Abrams , a senior fellow at the
Council on Foreign Relations, could be appointed to serve in the number two spot.
"Elliott Abrams is a neoconservative too long in the tooth to change his spots, and the
president should have no reason to trust that he would carry out a Trump agenda rather than a
neocon agenda," Paul writes in an opinion piece for the libertarian website
Rare .
Abrams was intimately tied in with the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, and was even
convicted of withholding information from Congress about covert government activities in
Nicaragua and El Salvador. He was later pardoned by President George H. W. Bush.
"Congress has good reason not to trust him -- he was convicted of lying to Congress in his
previous job," Paul notes in his piece.
Abrams is also believed to have been involved in approving the attempted Venezuelan coup
against Hugo Chávez in 2002 while serving as Special Assistant to the President and
holding office in the National Security Council.
Senator Paul urges Trump not to appoint Abrams, adding that his "neocon agenda trumps his
fidelity to the rule of law."
Paul points out that during the election, Abrams publicly spoke out against Trump's
intention to withdraw from policing the world.
"He is a loud voice for nation building and when asked about the president's opposition to
nation building, Abrams said that Trump was absolutely wrong; and during the election he was
unequivocal in his opposition to Donald Trump, going so far as to say, 'the chair in which
Washington and Lincoln sat, he is not fit to sit,'" Paul writes.
It is believed that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is the one pushing for Abrams to join
him at the State Department.
Paul, a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, hopes Tillerson "will continue the
search for expert assistance from experienced, non-convicted diplomats who understand the
mistakes of the past and the challenges ahead."
The State (War) Department is really the neocons viper nest
Notable quotes:
"... Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold. They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public this week. ..."
"... Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth. ..."
Listening to our "world's best diplomats" convinced me that the deep state is real. These
people think they, not elected officials, make policy. Plus, they are sneaky and conniving
in trying to establish and protect their own little fiefdoms. They have never seen a
foreign aid budget that in their humble yet expert opinion shouldn't be increased tenfold.
They are political but pretend otherwise. And, their sanctimony is unbearable. Let's just
say that I don't think that Foggy Bottom made a good impression with the general public
this week.
Straight fire out of Peter Van Buren. The State is the "The Blob." They're the ones who
want to promote a policy of interventionism and nation-building. The military actually
prefers to stay out of wars and don't want to pursue nation-building.
Oh, please. Every time it looks like we might actually pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan or
Syria, the generals pop up on the TV talk shows and in the Op-Ed pages warning of the dire
consequences and pleading for more time. The neo-cons used to pull this "OMG, the military
is the most competent part of the federal government" stuff back in the build-up to the
invasion of Iraq, and TAC is not the only publication that has blown up that myth.
"The ICA's blockbuster finding was presented to the public as the consensus view of the
nation's intelligence community. As events have unfolded, however, it now seems apparent that
the report was largely the work of one agency, the CIA, and overseen by one man, then-Director
John Brennan, who closely directed its drafting and publication with a small group of
hand-picked analysts.
Nearly three years later, as the public awaits answers from two Justice Department inquiries
into the Trump-Russia probe's origins, and as impeachment hearings catalyzed by a Brennan-hired
anti-Trump CIA analyst unfold in Congress, it is clear that Brennan's role in propagating the
collusion narrative went far beyond his work on the ICA. A close review of facts that have
slowly come to light reveals that he was a central architect and promoter of the conspiracy
theory from its inception. The record shows that:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
Leveraging his close proximity to President Obama, Brennan sounded the alarm about
alleged Russian interference to the White House, and was tasked with managing the U.S.
intelligence community's response.
While some FBI officials expressed skepticism about the Trump/Russia narrative as they
hunted down investigative leads, Brennan stood out for insisting on its veracity.
To substantiate his claims, Brennan relied on a Kremlin informant who was later found to
be a mid-level official with limited access to Putin's inner circle.
Circumventing normal protocol for congressional briefings, Brennan supplied then-Senate
Minority Leader Harry Reid with incendiary Trump-Russia innuendo that Reid amplified in a
pair of public letters late in the election campaign.
After Trump's unexpected victory, Brennan oversaw the hasty production of the tenuous
Intelligence Community Assessment.
Departing from his predecessors' usual practice of staying above the political fray after
leaving office, Brennan has worked as a prominent analyst for MSNBC, where he has used his
authority as a former guardian of the nation's top secrets to launch vitriolic attacks on a
sitting president, accusing Trump of "treasonous" conduct."
realclearinvestigations
----------------
I know that Horowitz can't indict but he can forward recommendations to a prosecutor with
indictment authority. Would a Grand Jury in the Democratic Party stronghold of Washington, DC
actually indict Obama era conspirators? I doubt it.
The process should be moved to other venues.
I have a side bet with a friend. I no longer believe that the duopoly of parties in the US
will indict anyone over the matter of this article.
Here are transcripts by NSC personal where LTC Vindman 'judgement' is seriously
questioned. Was Vindman the NSC unauthorized/illegal leak? Will DoD take appropriate UCMJ
action against Vindman?
They sure got Flynn Cohen Manifort and Stone quickly.Giuliani associates were indicted to
open up another front.
Pity people that desperately need to be held accountable wil not be so.
That is how the rule of law fails.
Sorry to post twice, but, on a related note, George Elliason appears to show that the
so-called whistleblower inside information, upon which the impeachment is progressing, is
based on not even hearsay, but a Tweet:
Well, I am certainly saddened by this state of affairs.
It appears that the barn doors have been left totally opened for a complete free for all
for anyone who wants to to and has the money, the un-elected position, and the friends to
take over the workings of the U.S. government. Rule of law and rule of reason be damned.
Let's hope that by some miracle this coming election will be such that the people
recognize what has happened and will provide a strong message to those who feel they have a
right to rule from the offices of their unelected positions.
It'd sure be nice if we could get some MAGA candidates for congress going. Right now, Trump's
all alone in Washington; not much hope of getting any part of his agenda passed.
Any GOP candidate facing down the well-honed Democrat mean machine is a daunting prospect.
The well-calculated legacy of the Democrat ginned-up Kavanaugh hearings - we will do and
say anything to smear you, taint you and bring you down. Don't even think of going against us
because we will do the exact same thing to anyone Trump wants to bring on, or run in support
of his administration.
We see the Democrat mean machine in action a lot in California to the point we now have
increasingly "bye elections" where there is no opposition so the candidate does not even have
to face the voters and risk even a write-in opposition vote.
The system is rigged to quickly become a one-party hegemony. They say trends start in
California, so beware of the tricks they pulled out here and got away with it:
(1) term limits;
(2) jungle primaries;
(3) district elections and mandatory protected minority-majority districts;
(4) counting illegals as district resident numbers;
(5) bye election not facing a ballot;
(6) vote by mail lengthening the campaign season beyond all human endurance;
(7) vote- harvesting;
(8) same day voter registration;
(9) outlawing voter ID..
William Butler Yeats (1865-1939)
THE SECOND COMING
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
.........
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is
to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I included the following to make clear what is the above link is about..
@ Circe It would be a fair assumption that nothing on the internet is what it appears. When
it matters, it is controlled. Internet like media is source of information and manipulation.
One cannot rely on any single source. Everyone is lying much of the time. by: jared @ 55
Weapons of mass deception (WMDs)
Wireless weapons of mind control (WWMC_.
You will know when your government has begun to move in response to those that it governs
when it:==>
1. quits spying on you
2. makes infecting UR computer with spyware, malware, and viri not only criminally illegal
with 10 years automatic no early time release jail time but also makes actionable as a tort,
victim recovery from the perpetrator Jury trials to establish damages.
3. amends the constitution to make it a life time in jail offence to conduct the affairs of
government in secret or to classify any document as secret from anyone who is a citizen of
America and is also a citizen of the Untied States of America.
4. has a budget for domestic needs at least 4x the size of the armament budget.
5. transitions power generation from grid to place of use and transitions from fossil fuel,
nuclear fuel to solar and wind energy
6. gives free education and medical services at the highest level to all comers without
regard to prior qualification.
7. recognizes all people of all race and all religion as one in the same person
8. puts news fakers and propagandist under the jail
9. admits pearl harbor, 9/11 and
10. allows the masses to determine not only the candidates for offices in the USA but also
allows the masses to determine which candidate will serve the USA
11. allows any member of the governed masses to indite any sitting member of a government at
any level, in the independent of the civil government, court of human rights, and allows that
court of human rights to immediately remove the accused person from his or her position in
government until a verdict can be rendered, and if that verdict is guilty, allows to and
assist with enforcing the penalty assessed by the the human rights court for the human rights
violation while in office or as a result of the power of the office.
12. makes it illegal to be a member of government at any level if that persons holds any
citizenship but American and USA.
Just watching "the hate Russia circus" on MSM. If DJT wasn't such a greedy MF, this circus
wouldn't be going on.
Let's be clear, Russia, and every other nation on earth, has the absolute right to defend
itself, and it's people,
from being exploited by the U$A's corporate empire. The empire's record over time is
clear, if it wants something you have, they'll take it.
DJT has no problem following the empire's dictates, but when he deviates and pursues his
own personal enrichment at the expense of the empire's overall goals, things like the D.C.
circus ensues.
I'll say this again, Russia, and all countries on earth have the RIGHT to defend
themselves from our latest empires attacks, no matter in what form they appear..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
"... According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR? ..."
You know that saying, "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world
he didn't exist." The Democratic Party have been doing their best to keep his existence from
the American people. But they can only hold him back for so long before he shows his face and
only a face a mother can love. And that face is Adam Schiff or I like to call him Mr. Mackey,
m'kay!
According to Deep State Bill Nye, the "Territorial integrity of Ukraine including Crimea
and Donbas has been the goal of US foreign policy for 75 years" Crimea didn't begin that
period as part of Ukraine though...are you saying the State Department convinced Stalin to
transfer it to the Ukrainian SSR?
The farting dems pretend to be scared of Russia, so how many of the illegal people that
they bring into our nation from the southern border that are murderers, rapists, drug
dealers, thieves, etc. are Russians ? Christians love Russian people, dems are filled with
hatred, they are Russiaphobes !
enderer-text" role="article"> When you take the red envelope from the fed and the
globalists, you must dance to their tunes. Schiff dances as if his and the lives of his loved
ones is at stake!! Russia has borders with China, the middle east etc. How many lost lives
from that war, a war that has always lit up the eyes of the white house and the EU until
Trump Governments no longer care about the lives of citizens, its all about the benjamins
people but NOT YOURS!
Both sides of my family came here from Russia in the early 1900's. My entire life Russia
has been the big scary enemy (which was difficult going to school and putting up with fear
and hatred for Russia). Anyway...I'm tired of it..
Great parallel to Dems saying that the Ukrainian border is of vital importance for our
national security, yet they also say that our own border is not.
The aristocratic morons in the Sate Department are totally appalled that Trump wants to
actually scrutinize problems and fix them using common sense, thereby disrupting their cushy,
do-nothing diplomatic corps jobs and lives.
The impeachment circus continued today with a refreshingly candid
opening statement from Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the EU. Sondland was
involved in diplomatic efforts in Ukraine. Instead of stonewalling Sondland just let
it all out :
Gordon D. Sondland testified that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo signed off on the pressure
campaign, and that he told Vice President Mike Pence about an apparent link between
military aid for Ukraine and investigations of Democrats. Mr. Sondland confirmed there was
a "clear quid pro quo" for a White House meeting between President Trump and Ukraine's
president.
The anti-Trump media see
this as another "bombshell" that will hurt him.
But it is more likely that Sondland's testimony will help President Trump and those
involved on his side.
The President of the United States thought it to be in the interest of the United States
to press Ukraine's government into publicly announcing investigations into two issues:
The
evident intervention by then Vice President Biden into Ukrainian politics to the
benefit of the owner of a company that paid his son more than $50,000 per month.
Sondland and other U.S. officials were negotiating with the Ukrainians about these
demands. There were two potential points that they could use to pressure the Ukrainians into
announcing investigations:
The Ukrainian request for a visit by President Zelensky to the White House.
The Ukrainian desire to receive military aid that Congress had allocated for that
purpose.
It is not clear at all that Trump wanted those issues to be used to pressure Ukraine.
Trump never told Sondland that these issues were connected:
Posted by b at 20:08
UTC |
Comments (105) b- I suspect the reason the Dems have thrown themselves into this
impeachment circus is because they knew this investigation was in the works and possibly
others as well:www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukrainian
I shortened the link, if anyone has a problem with it please refer to zerohedge.com
This Ukraine investigation will take down Biden, Hunter, Kerry, Kerry's stepson and probably
Pelosi and her son. Although their scam is via a different Ukraine energy company. The link
mentions several other people from the Obama admin, Obama himself may be at the bottom of
this well.
From Jim Stone:
"The CEO of Burisma in Ukraine was arrested. He started talking. As it turns out, Biden's
kid, Hunter, was not getting paid $50, 000 a month, his base salary was closer to $200, 000 a
month, and now that someone is talking, Hunter received several payments "in the millions"
totaling $16.5million OUTSIDE of his regular pay.
Here is a quote from the original source at CD media
"In our extensive discussions with Onyshchenko, CD Media can report that he confirmed
Hunter Biden took 'off the books' payments totally millions from Burisma.
"There were 'official' and 'unofficial' payments to the Biden family, " Onyshchenko
stated.
Onyshchenko also confirmed that former FBI agent Karen Greenaway, who oversaw the Obama
administration's anti-corruption efforts in Eastern Europe, directed the coverup of the Biden
scandal at the time, in concert with the U.S. embassy in Kyiv, and other Deep State American
government assets 'in-country'.
In Onyshchenko's former oversight role over Ukrainian energy security, he was in a unique
position to acquire information on Burisma and their dealings with the Biden family.
My comment: The impeachment hearing is not going well. They keep chugging along with
absolute blowouts that should end their trip down the road to lunacy, but keep on going like
criminal nut cases that have nothing to lose, hoping the cops never catch up despite all the
flat tires, among which this report was a serious one. It is shocking that this report
relates directly to one of their guys they have in the race against Trump. It does not seem
to matter to them at all if they get revealed time after time after time for what they are,
it is becoming evident that the only thing that will stop them in their impeachment efforts
is a long overdue arrest."
And recall Guliani said that Romania and China pay to play deals are far worse than what
happened in Ukraine
In a riff on the D's line of questioning, they're trying to carry out their end of a quid pro
quo with their sponsors in the MIC. That idea came as a result of comments made during the
Keiser
Report I linked to on the open thread, that the D-Party is the War Party doing the
MIC's bidding against Trump's move from being militantly Geopolitical to wanting to resume
being the dominant Geoeconomic power the Evil Outlaw US Empire was once. As I suggested
earlier, listen twice to the entire show.
IMO, the change in direction/emphasis on what needs to be the basis of the Evil Outlaw US
Empire's power is what's driving the schism between the factions in the Current Oligarchy and
thus the Duopoly. One can also see the rationale for Gabbard and Sanders's political-economic
positions in
the materials I've linked to that justify my line of reasoning.
Why has Trump done the stupid things that have contributed to Russiagate and
Ukrainegate?
Russiagate
'America First' Trump hired Manafort as campaign manager of his 2016 Presidential election -
despite Manafort having been working in Ukraine for many years (thus having little, if
any, recent experience with US politics) , and despite Manafort's having been warned (by
people that were likely connected to CIA) that Manafort's political work for pro-Russia
parties was not appreciated.
Aside: IMO Deep State wanted to settle scores with Manafort, Flynn, and
Assange.
Ukrainegate
Trump made an issue of Biden on the phone call with Zelinsky. The fact that Trump sought no
quid pro quo is irrelevant. It's Trump's inadvisable mentioning of Biden that got
Ukrainegate started.
Lastly, in the Spring, Pelosi and Hillary had both come out strongly against impeachment
hearings, saying that an election was near and impeachment would be counter-productive. But
they both support impeachment hearings now - over the nonsensical Ukrainegate allegations
that lead nowhere except to a Democratic loss in 2020 after these 'witch hunt' hearings.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
Kayfabe
It's Deep State orchestrated kayfabe. USA hates whistle-blowers. They don't get the benefit
of the doubt, like this one has.
Trump - Biden conflict helps Biden to get elected, just as Hillary's attack on Tulsi has
helped to keep Tulsi in the race. This "meddling" is consistent with previous political
manipulations:
In December 2018, Trump invites Pelosi to the White House to discuss his "Wall" - which
helps her to get elected Speaker of the House.
In 2016 Sanders is Hillary's sheep-dog and Hillary makes crucial mistakes that lead to
Trump's election (and the start of Russiagate's neo-McCarthyism).
"... I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here, will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop the fagot pile. ..."
You don't get it. IMO the present impeachment inquiry is illegal because the
whistleblower's complaint should not have bben allowed under the statute. If an impeachment
arrives in the senate it can be thrown out on that basis.
I do get your point, and agree, however the the legislation is deficient in that while the
whistle-blower can, and should, highlight questionable behaviour in his/her department it
does not seem to offer adequate cover against retribution from said department.
viz.
"ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure"
In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act.
If your, or my, government is breaking its own laws I would like to see a clear route for
those in the know to report same to some body with the authority to act. They should be
independent of the department, have the power to investigate and protect the source. Better
that then dump it on Wikileaks and hope to stay anonymous.
On a separate point, is or should there be any restrictions on IGIC's authority to change the
scope of evidence to include hearsay, given the evidently limited intent of the whistleblower
legislation / directives?
You are referring to the change in the complaint form where the prior form required the
whistleblower to have direct knowledge of the issue complained about while the latest version
allows the whistleblower to blow the whistle using information obtained from someone else
(hearsay). The statute itself neither allowed not disallowed hearsay information. I believe
that the prior form should not have excluded hearsay. For example, if a foreign agent said
"I'm a foreign agent and taking photos of this top secret information" to a DNI employee,
that is a hearsay statement and could not be reported to the IG using the prior form. To me,
that's wrong.
Exactly right. Here is a link to the statute, 50 USC section 3033. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/3033
The statute allows for the appointment of an Inspector General who reports to and has the
authority to investigate any activity that falls under the authority of the Director of
National Intelligence.
While I agree that Trump's phone call does not fall under the definition of an urgent
matter that can be reported to Congress, what's worse is that because the President's
activities cannot be investigated under this statute because the President is not under the
authority of nor supervised by the DNI. Thus, the intelligence Inspector General has no
authority to consider the complaint against Trump. Congress created the IG statute and placed
the IG under the supervision of the DNI because under the law the IG is to investigate only
problems that the DNI has the ability to rectify.
As the President of the United States is not supervised by the DNI, the IG has no
authority under this law to investigate the President's activities under this statute. The
complaint and the involvement of the IG in this matter was illegal from the start.
Never forget this particular "whistleblower" statute was changed at the 11th hour to suddenly
allow 2nd hand reports instead of the prior first hand report requirement.
It stunk from day one. Throw the book at the whole pack because they did not take out the
penalty part of the statute for filing false reports. Go get 'em FBI.
Right. The entire purpose of the phony and improper IG complaint was to manufacture an excuse
to have the matter reported to Congress where it would then be leaked to the public. It never
was a proper IG complaint, but the bell cannot be unrung.
Only way out is to call for the impeachment, have a vote and either lick their wounds if
they lose (mainly Schiff and Nadler get sacrificed - Fancy Nancy has been dancing on a tight
rope so she gets a pass); or vote to pass articles of impeachment and finally send this
turkey on to the senate.
Wild card, how many Democrats not engaged in this blatant publicity stunt also want no
part in it. What will be the FBI investigation of Ciaramella - there are penalties for filing
false complaints and it appears he was acting well out side the confines of the
whistle-blower law.
Ergo, the FBI is duty bound to hold Ciaramella accountable for filing a false complaint. Only
if charges get filed can his action under this law be deemed irrelevant.
Otherwise, all you have are the opening opinion statements in tonights DNC debate, sneered
out by Rachael Maddow, picked up with even more sneers by Kamala Harris and echoed by every
single DNC candidate as already a fait accompli.
The unocntested party line tonight is this "whistle blower" busted Trump wide open as a
crook and a self-confessed crook at that.
That political message flowing from this "irrelevant complaint "is hard to overcome as the
DNC debate crowd cheered, unless the perpetrator is brought to justice under the relevance of
this law. We shall wait patiently for that moment. As the Democrats all stated tonight - 2020
election is all about JUSTICE AND NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.
I do, which is what I meant by
"In this case his/her gripe does not fall within the scope of the act."
The point I was making is that, as drafted, there is in adequate redress/protection for
those who witness acts which are clearly covered. This is not conducive to keeping government
on the straight and narrow. The reliability of the Steele document seems to have been
massively oversold to the FISA court. Had someone in the know acted as Whistle-blower and
saved us all that has followed they should not get crucified for it, it is part of their job
isn't it?
The complaint was a vehicle to carry out the Democrats politics of personal destruction.
While all on the DNC debate stage tonight, each candidate asked (without a hint of irony)
to be the one candidate who can "bring the country together again" after Trump alone has torn
it asunder.
Exactly right. If I were Trump, I would have fired this guy for accepting a whistleblower
complaint that was not allowed under the statute because it did not concern an intelligence
activity or anything else supervised by the DNI as the statute requires.
Conceptually, it is the same as the Intelligence IG accepting and investigating complaints
about slow mail service, mine safety, or TSA agents stealing when they inspect luggage at the
airport. His jurisdiction is limited and he grossly exceeded it.
The Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) is Michael K Atkinson. ICIG Atkinson is
the official who accepted the ridiculous premise of a hearsay 'whistle-blower' complaint; an
intelligence whistleblower who was "blowing-the-whistle" based on second hand information of
a phone call without any direct personal knowledge, ie 'hearsay'.
The center of the Lawfare Alliance influence was/is the Department of Justice National
Security Division, DOJ-NSD. It was the DOJ-NSD running the Main Justice side of the 2016
operations to support Operation Crossfire Hurricane and FBI agent Peter Strzok. It was also
the DOJ-NSD where the sketchy legal theories around FARA violations (Sec. 901)
originated.
Michael K Atkinson was previously the Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General of
the National Security Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ-NSD) in 2016. That makes
Atkinson senior legal counsel to John Carlin and Mary McCord who were the former heads of the
DOJ-NSD in 2016 when the stop Trump operation was underway.
Michael Atkinson was the lawyer for the same DOJ-NSD players who: (1) lied to the FISA
court (Judge Rosemary Collyer) about the 80% non compliant NSA database abuse using FBI
contractors; (2) filed the FISA application against Carter Page; and (3) used FARA violations
as tools for political surveillance and political targeting.
Yes, that means Michael Atkinson was Senior Counsel for the DOJ-NSD, at the very epicenter
of the political weaponization and FISA abuse.
It seems to me that if Trump is serious about taking on the swamp, now might be a good time
to strike. Surely in this whole mess, there has to be one clear cut case that he could use an
excuse for strong action. Something so egregious, so requiring, dare I say, a righteous
response- one involving a highly public perp walk or something similar.
It is time to put the fear of a jury finding followed by a certain and just punishment,
perhaps a stay at Epstein's prison as a starter while awaiting a no bail trial.
I believe we are talking about the "Fruit of the poisonous tree" objection. That evidence
obtained illegally cannot be used and anything gained (the "fruit") from it is tainted as
well.
Two questions: Was the whistle blower action illegal or just "improper"?
And if illegal, does the "attenuation doctrine" apply here?
"For example, a witness who freely and voluntarily testifies is enough of an independent
intervening factor to sufficiently "attenuate" the connection between the government's
illegal discovery of the witness and the witness's voluntary testimony itself. (United States
v. Ceccolini, 435 U.S. 268 (1978))"
Most likely, if this case were being heard in a court of law, it would be thrown out as fruit
of the poisoned tree doctrine. However, the problem here is there are no judges with the
authority to issue a ruling ordering Congress to stop these hearings.
However, it is certain that if Congress votes for impeachment, the Senate, same as the
House, can also do what it wants and the GOP majority may vote to throw the case out on the
grounds of fruit of the poisoned tree. However, I believe a full trial with witnesses
favorable to the president testifying and focusing on Biden corruption would show the
American people the impeachment process was bogus from the beginning and thus be more
favorable to Trump. In any event, it is highly unlikely that the GOP majority Senate will
provide the 67 votes necessary for impeachment.. So, at then end of the day, this is one big
show trial where the end result will be Trump serving out his elected term or terms.
I tend to agree and suspect Team Trump is keeping its powder dry for a potential/inevitable
Senate trial. The patent illegality of the original complaint, as accurately described here,
will be just one of many bombshells dropped I expect. Trump is a master at giving his enemies
enough rope to hang themselves and the Pelosi-Schiff show appears to me to be a classic
example. My hope is the fire is lit while the witch hunters are still busying themselves atop
the fagot pile.
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
what exactly, to the extend I recall, could the Ukraine contribute the the DNC's server/"fake
malware" troubles? Beyond, that I seem to vaguely recall, the supposed malware was
distributed via an Ukrainan address.
On the other hand, there seems to be the (consensus here?) argument there was no malware
breach at all, simply an insider copying files on a USB stick.
If people discovered there had been a leak, it would perfectly natural that in order to
give 'resilience' to their cover-up strategies, they could have organised a planting of
evidence on the servers, in conjunction with elements in Ukraine.
So far at least I cannot rule out the possibility that that this could have involved an
actual 'false flag' hack. A possible calculation would have been that this could have made it
easier for Alperovitch and 'CrowdStrike', if more people had asked serious questions about
the evidence they claimed supported the 'narrative' of GRU responsibility.
The issues involved become all the more important, in the light of the progress of Ty
Clevenger's attempts to exploit the clear contradiction between the claims by the FBI, in
response to FOIA requests, to have no evidence relating to Seth Rich, and the remarks by Ms.
Deborah Sines quoted by Michael Isikoff.
What she suggested was that the FBI had found evidence, after his death, of a hack of
Rich's laptop, designed as part of a 'false flag' operation.
On this, see his 8 October, 'Motion for Discovery and Motion to Accept Supplemental
Evidence' in Clevenger's own case against the DOJ, document 44 on the relevant
'Courtlistener' pages, and his 'Unopposed Motion for Stay', document 48.
Both are short, and available without a 'PACER' subscription, and should be compulsory
reading for anyone seriously interested in ascertaining the truth about 'Russiagate.'
It is eminently possible that Ms. Hines has simply made an 'unforced error.'
However, I do not – yet – feel able totally to discount the possibility that
what is actually at issue is a 'ruse', produced as a contingency plan to ensure that if it
becomes impossible to maintain the cover-up over Rich's involvement in its original form, his
laptop shows 'evidence' compatible with the 'Russiagate' narrative.
And here, is is also material that he may have had more than one laptop, that 'hard
drives' can be changed, and that the level of computer skills that can be found throughout
the former Soviet Union is very high.
Another matter of some importance is that Ed Butowsky's 'Debunking Rod Wheeler's Claims'
site is back up online.
Looking at it from the perspective of an old television current affairs hack, I do think
that, while it is very helpful to have some key material available in a single place, it
would useful if more attention was paid to presentation.
In particular, it would be a most helpful 'teaching aid', if a full and accurate
transcript was made of the conversation with Seymour Hersh which Ed Butowsky covertly
recorded.
What seems clear is that both these figures ended up in very difficult positions, and that
the latter clearly engaged in 'sleight of hand' in relation to his dealings with the
former.
That said, the fact that Butowsky's claims about his grounds for believing that Hersh's
FBI informant was Andrew McCabe are clearly disingenuous does not justify the conclusion that
he is wrong.
It is absolutely clear to me – despite what 'TTG', following that 'Grub Street' hack
Folkenflik, claimed – that when Hersh talked to Butowsky, he believed he had been given
accurate information.
Indeed, I have difficulty seeing how anyone whose eyes were not hopelessly blinded by
prejudice, a\nd possibly fear of where a quest for the truth might lead, could not see that,
in this conversation, both men were telling the truth, as they saw it.
However, all of us, including the finest and most honourable of journalists can, from time
to time, fall for disinformation. (If anyone says they can always spot when they are being
played, all I can say is, if you're right, you're clearly Superman, but it is more likely
that you are a fool or knave, if not both.)
The question of whether the 'timeline' produced by Hersh's FBI informant was accurate, or
a deliberate attempt to disguise the fact that all kinds of people were well aware of Rich's
involvement before his murder, and well aware of the fact of a leak before he was identified
as its source, is absolutely central to how one interprets 'Russiagate.'
1. Why did Crowdstrike conclude it was a "Russian breach", when other evidence does show
it was an internal download. What was Crowdstrike's method and motivation to reach the
"Russian" conclusion instead.Why has that methodology been sealed?
2. Why did Mueller wholly accept the Crowdstrike Russian conclusion, with no further or
independent investigation and prominently put this Crowdstrike generated conclusion in his
Russiagate report? Which also included the conclusion the "Russians" wanted to help Trump and
harm Clinton. Heavy stuff, based upon a DNC proprietary investigation of their own and
unavailable computers.
3. What were the relationships between Crowdstrike, DNC, FBI and the Meuller team that
conspired to reach this Russian conclusion.
4. Why did the Roger Stone judge, who just sent Stone away for life, refuse Stone's
evidentiary demand to ascertain how exactly Crowdstrike reached its Russsian hacking
conclusion, that the court then linked to Stone allegedly lying about this Russian link.
5. Indeed, let's set out with full transparency the Ukraine -Crowsdtrike player links and
loyalties to see if there are any smoking guns yet undisclosed. Trump was asking for more
information about Crowdstrike like a good lawyer - never ask a question when you don't
already know the right answer. Crowdstrike is owned by a Ukrainian by birth.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
At the same time it was probably pre-emptive strike against Barr investigation (especially
Crowstryke portion of it) and newly acquired election strategy.
'UkraineGate' is potentially deathly to the Dems, so all / any issues are brandished..
I posted long ago. 2009. Hunter Biden and Christopher Heinz (John Kerry's son) form an
International Private Equity firm, Rosemont Seneca. Devon Archer was the 'managing
partner.'
I wrote it was perhaps ? money laundering (as gas. cos don't have those kinds of sums on
hand .. to bribe .. for what?) I didn't know about Paul Pelosi at the time.
This is pure speculation, but it is beginning to look like the Obama Régime
was engaged in financial transfers a coy way of putting it - ex. Aid to Ukraine
(Russia 3x!) which was partly kicked back, through fronts like Burisma, to those who
organised the aid in the first place! -- Care of the US taxpayer of course.
The IMF was involved as well (in some role.. ?) Obiman delegated all that to Joe Biden and
pretended to ignore it, imho he knew but distanced himself.
To the point. The blared MSM and social media discourse of Intl. Geo-politics was: Ukraine
to join the EU, NATO, evil enemy Russia, a new age, are cover-ups and distractions for
Mafia-style Mega-Finance World Moves, run by a narrow clique of 'Capos.'
Following on (again, speculation ++, one angle only..), Yanukovitch for ex. was not
dislodged by "Maidan," a hapless victim of illegit-agit-prop, the usual régime-change
actions instigated by the US, supposedly successful in this case, but fell foul of some
corrupt plans/ppl, as he himself was corrupt. Ex. The story about how he suddenly realised
that 'joining the EU' would be detrimental to Ukr. and he needed to keep ties with Russia was
total BS right from day one.
@76 I was just going to post a link to Solomon's Ukrainian Timeline. It's an outstanding
piece filled with supporting documents that helps to bring greater focus to Ukraine and the
Obama team. Bookmark it.
As for the line in b's post that 'Trump is a crook' is baseless innuendo. Did he swim in a
pool of crooks and sharks while cutting real estate deals in dirty NYC and NJ? Of course he
did. Only through such association can one tag him with being a 'crook' yet neither he nor
his businesses have had any criminal charges brought forward during decades of doing
business.
Also according to the Dem's own focus group data, Dem's aren't buying into their Party's
impeachment circus - "Almost nobody in the groups said they are intentionally following
impeachment news. Several are avoiding it. There was a great deal of ambivalence about
impeachment and apparently more support for dropping it than pursuing it. The proceeding is
seen [as] a dominating the Democrats' agenda. At least one person in each group could clearly
articulate the charge against Trump and Ukraine. No one thought the charges were related to
Russia...So, the question in their minds was whether the significance of this rises to the
level of impeachment and whether this process will dominate the government's work. The
inherent sense of corruption of all politicians allowed space for many to believe that what
Trump did was commonplace, and ultimately several were ready to let Trump off the proverbial
hook by characterizing the charges as "politics" without digging deeper to determine [if] of
the charges were impeachable or not. Few called it a crime although some mentioned he abused
his power."
So, if conservatives/republicans/independents and now democrats aren't buying into the
fable then what's it really all about? This new info on Templeton, the DNC and the Atlantic
Council has a lot to do with answering the why. Just like the roll out of RussiaGate, time
will tell. Then, we had no idea how abused the entirety of the FISA system was. We have some
facts at hand such as Collyer and Boasberg's reports, however, Horowitz's pending report is
said to fill in the gaps. I'm hopeful the same process will unfold around
Ukraine/Burisma/Bidens/Obama/Soros/The Atlantic Council/State and many more. The sun is only
just now rising...
Aaron
Mate's thread notes the long public acknowledgement of Ukrainian meddling:
"Ukrainian officials bragged about it in August 2016 {link at original] & then came to
regret it after Trump won [link at original] It's fine if you reject Trump's Crowdstrike
theory, but to deny Ukrainian meddling is to deny a documented fact."
Mate notes furthermore:
"What's also funny is that Ukraine's meddling is similar to what Russia is accused of:
releasing dos [sic] that expose corruption in a presidential campaign. Ukraine's docs alleged
that Manafort received secret payments. Russia is often accused of an 'act of war.' How about
Ukraine?"
As I opined upthread, this circus is all about getting Warren the POTUS nomination, but
this article notes she must be seen as radioactive despite her
continuing attempts to portray herself as a frontstage populist, using the Clinton gambit
of telling her Big Donors it's all an act behind closed doors.
Rather than being amazed an appalled at behavior of the would be empire -
we chose sides and join the fray.
Consider that in the U.S. we (pretty much) literally have only two choices to select from
for any elected position and
in many cases one of those choices is certain to fail (run as a formality). This is
"democracy".
The "nation" is now overtly criminal on the international stage and this is now accepted
behavior.
Hang on. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly the Ukraine managed to influence the US
presidential campaign.
Wasn't it Russia? That's what we've all been told, left right and centre, without a shred
of evidence. Unless you uncritically believe Adam Schiff... or Fraudbook...
Now, what, it was Zelenski? Not Porky Poroshenko? Or Arseniy Yatsenyuik? Or Igor
Koloimenski? Or Arseniy Avekov?
Whose money do you wish to believe?
pogohere , Nov 21 2019 18:42 utc |
86c1ue , Nov 21 2019 18:52 utc |
87
@Ant #84
The oligarch most known for pouring money into US politicians is Victor Pinchuk.
He's put money into the Clinton Global Initiative, paid for both Clintons' to speechify,
supports Brookings and the Atlantic Council, has a full time registered lobbyist in
Washington, etc.
"A former top White House Russia expert testified Thursday that the 'fictional narrative'
embraced by President Donald Trump that Ukraine meddled in the US elections was fabricated by
Russia to wreak havoc in US politics."
So reports one of NATO's BigLie Media outlets. FYI, as I wrote in 2016, no outside nation
needs to "wreak havoc in US politics" as there're numerous home grown domestic sources
already doing that in an ongoing manner since the 1850s. Isn't it a felony to lie to
Congress?
Hill, in advanced testimony Thursday, warned lawmakers against believing a "fictional
narrative" that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election.
"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian
security services themselves," Hill said in prepared remarks.
"The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked
our democratic institutions in 2016 . This is the public conclusion of our intelligence
agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some
of the underlying details must remain classified."
Hill emphasized that she is a nonpartisan foreign policy expert, who has served under three
different Republican and Democratic presidents and that she has "no interest in advancing the
outcome of your inquiry in any particular direction, except toward the truth."
She warned that U.S. national security has been harmed by the politicization of support for
Ukraine.
"The Russian government's goal is to weaken our country -- to diminish America's global
role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests," she said.
"President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy
objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and
economic dominance."
Hill added, "I respect the work that this Congress does in carrying out its constitutional
responsibilities, including in this inquiry, and I am here to help you to the best of my
ability. I f the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the
United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than
worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending
ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm."
Holmes testified behind closed doors earlier this month that he heard U.S. Ambassador to the
European Union Gordon Sondland telling President Trump over a phone conversation that Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky "loves your ass."
As an open-minded, astute observer, I'd say the Dems already had their impeachment
narrative in place before the hearings, then used the hearings to build supportive evidence
of conjecture, hearsay and supposition to come to their "guilty" conclusion.
What happens when 90% of the media is controlled/owned by (6) corporations?
What happens when those same corporations are operated and controlled by a political
ideology?
What happens when the news is no longer free from bias?
What happens when the news is no longer reliable and independent?
What happens when the news is no longer trustworthy?
What happens when the news simply becomes an extension/arm of a political party?
Fact becomes fiction?
Fiction becomes fact?
When does news become propaganda?
Identity creation?
How does the average person, who is under constant financial stress (by design), find time to
research and discern fact v fiction?
Majority of people more prone to believe someone in power sitting behind a big brand 'news'
name?
Do people [human psyche] tend to follow the 'majority/mainstream viewpoint' in fear of being
isolated and/or shunned?
'Mainstream' is used for a reason [dominate trend in opinion] .
[If majority of people believe 'x' then 'x' must be validated / true]
Why do 'mainstream' media heads, within different orgs, always use the same keywords and/or
catch phrases?
Coordinated? By who? Outside entity providing instructions?
Do they count on the fact that people [human psyche] are more prone to believe something if
heard over-and-over again by different 'trusted' sources?
Do 'echo chamber' tactics provide validation / credibility to the topic/point being
discussed?
Threat to intellectual freedom?
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Read again – digest.
Would control over [of] these institutions/organizations allow for the mass control of a
populations viewpoint re: a desired topic?
Logical thinking.
Why, after the election of 2016, did [D] 's and media corps jumpstart a [coordinated &
planned] divisive blitz intended to create falsehoods re: illegitimacy of election, character
assassination of POTUS through sexism, racism, every other 'ism'?
Pre/post 2016 election?
Why were violent [masked] terror orgs such as Antifa immediately created/funded?
Why were these orgs tasked w/ immediate intimidation/shut down of any pro-POTUS rally [s]
and/or events?
Why were marches immediately organized to counter and silence pro-POTUS rally [s] and/or
events?
Why were marches immediately organized which divided people into sex/gender, race, [ism]
?
When you control the levers of news dissemination, you control the narrative.
Control of the narrative = power
When you are blind, what do you see?
They want you divided.
Divided by religion.
Divided by sex.
Divided by political affiliation.
Divided by class.
When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not
those responsible [controllers] .
Divided you are weak.
Divided you pose no threat to their control.
When 'non-dogmatic' information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those
who attempt to control the narrative and/or stable [livestock kept – sheep] .
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable ('group-think' collective), and
have 'free thought'.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should
be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition,
revelation, or dogma.
Q
Money quote: "I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill
of beans in The Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then
mountains of BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public
buying into the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers. "
"The Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998 ,
[1] amending the Central Intelligence Agency
Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978
, sets forth a procedure for employees and contractors of specified federal intelligence
agencies to report complaints or information to Congress about serious problems involving
intelligence activities.
Under the ICWPA, an intelligence employee or contractor who intends to report to Congress a
complaint or information of "urgent concern" involving an intelligence activity may report the
complaint or information to their agency's inspector general or the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG). Within a 14-day period, the IG must determine
"whether the complaint or information appears credible," and upon finding the information to be
credible, thereafter transfer the information to the head of the agency. The law then requires
the DNI (or the relevant agency head) to forward the complaint to the congressional
intelligence committees, along with any comments he wishes to make about the complaint, within
seven days. If the IG does not deem the complaint or information to be credible or does not
transmit the information to the head of the agency, the employee may provide the information
directly to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. However, the employee must first
inform the IG of his or her intention to contact the intelligence committees directly and must
follow the procedures specified in the Act.
The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:
[2]
a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order , or
deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity
involving classified
information , but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy
matters;
A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of
material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence
activity; or
An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's
reporting an urgent concern.
ICWPA doesn't prohibit employment-related retaliation and it provides no mechanism, such as
access to a court or administrative body, for challenging retaliation that may occur as a
result of having made a disclosure.
[3] In 2006 Thomas Gimble, Acting Inspector General, Department of Defense ,
stated before the House Committee on
Government Reform that the ICWPA is a ' misnomer ' and that more properly the Act protects
the communication of classified information to Congress .
[4] According to Michael German with the Brennan Center for Justice , the
ICWPA, "provides a right to report internally but no remedy when that right is infringed, which
means that there is no right at all."
[3]
According to the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence , from 1999-2009, 10 complaints/disclosures were filed under this
law, four of which were found to be credible by the relevant Inspector General. In three of
these ten cases the whistleblower claimed that s/he was retaliated against: two CIA cases and one
DOJ case. Subsequent
investigations by the CIA and DOJ failed to find evidence of retaliation in any of these cases.
[3]
[5]
This law provides an intelligence official with a legal means within which to report
misdeeds in the world of intelligence operation, funding, etc. It has nothing to do with
government activities that are not intelligence activities. There was nothing in the now famous
25 July call between Trump and Zelensky that was intelligence business. None. Remember - the
two presidents ARE NOT intelligence officials.
IMO the complaint was and is invalid and should not have been entertained at all by the IC
IG. The original opinion by DoJ on this matter was correct. pl
Jack ,
Sir,
The Democrats are intent on impeaching Trump. As they have shown with the vote to launch
the impeachment inquiry, they're quite happy to do it on a purely partisan party line vote.
And they have the full support of the mainstream media and many in the bureaucracy including
serving officers in the military. The only question IMO, is how many Republican senators will
either abstain or vote to convict in the Senate trial?
The Resistance as Barr has called them are so blind with hatred for Trump that they can't
see beyond their nose. They will now create a precedent where a House majority of one party
can impeach at will the President of the opposing party while using a kangaroo court inquiry.
This must lead to complete chaos for our political system that each of our adversaries would
love. IMO, only the American voter can change this by stopping to vote the lesser evil and
electing candidates outside the duopoly. Of course that ain't happening in my life time as
most Americans are consumed with partisan warfare on the side of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle
Dum.
prawnik ,
The law doesn't matter. The IC and courts will interpret the laws however they wish.
This is the flip side of the fundamental problem in Sir Thomas More's famous formulation
of the law in "A Man for All Seasons". The laws of England or any other law are of no
protection to anyone if he cannot enforce them.
Similarly, even if the laws clearly condemn a action, even if the action is wrongful, that
is of no matter, if the people with power have decided that the law is to protect that action
regardless of what is written.
Moral: there is no such thing as law. There is only context.
K -> prawnik... ,
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take (and I always appreciate a Thomas More
reference). However, I think where there is a widespread agreement amongst the population
that the law is just and that it is generally applied fairly to all--in that society you
empower leading voices to defend the law against would-be attackers (from either top or
bottom). But today we do not have that consensus in popular opinion, not all of us believe
the law is fair or evenly applied, and voices shouting for it to be abrogated are loud and
growing bolder.
Now, your moral is properly situated in its historical context.
Factotum ,
The favor was for Ukraine to investigate Crowdstrike and the 2016 DNC computer breach.
Reliance on Crowdstrike to investigate the DNC computer, and not an independent FBI
investigation, was tied very closely to the years long anti-Trump Russiagate hoax and waste
of US taxpayer time and money.
Why is this issue ignored by both the media and the Democrats. The ladies doth protest far
too much.
Isn't the ICIG another swamp careerist?
These swamp creatures are of one ilk (NOT a big deer):
They live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to the same schools, they go to the same
Delaware beaches.
They will NEVER seriously investigate, much less bring down, a fellow swamp creature.
I am now convinced that laws, justice, truth and honor don't amount to a hill of beans in The
Swamp. It's all wanton and vicious politics and power plays all the time. Then mountains of
BS, shoveled out by an allied scurrilous media machine to try to keep the public buying into
the Machiavellian machinations of the Swamp dwellers.
Members of the "in crowd" can do whatever they want without repercussion. If any of them
ever faces consequences it's because they fell from favor for secret reasons as opposed to
the publicly announced reason, or they got sleepy and were gunned down by a newer more
ambitious usurper.
The deep state exists to perpetuate itself. When 95% of all 2016 political contributions from
the deep state went to Clinton, trump's election created and existential crisis.
Trump promised he would expose and cleag out the deep state - look at his major2016
campaign video speech. Those were his very first words.
Deep state was put on notice even before the was elected. Apoplectic can be their only
response. Frog brains were engaged and we have these three long awful years of deep state
inflicted chaos.
Deep state = Democrats = big public sector unions How can you have $800 billion tax
dollars going to teachers union members nationwide without the teachers union deep state
doing all they can to bring Trump down. Including using K-12 students as front line storm
troopers.
Is that all you got? Smearing witnesses? Witnesses who happen to be offering sworn
testimony that nobody really is contesting. (Although, you know, the three amigos, Rudi,
etc could testify if they wanted to and rebut). In the meantime Lt. Col.
Vindman is now under 24-hour protection from the Army.
Careerists there (Vindman, Yovanovitch) and folks with little-to-no experience (Sondland
-- who, btw, was praised to the high heavens by Trump last month) are all saying the same
thing. And, really, as a veteran of State, surely you must agree that Rudi Giuliani
shouldn't have been inter-meddling (did i mention he's under FBI investigation and his two
side-kick cronies were indicted?).
This is corrupt mess through and through. Anybody who cares about even moderately clean
government should be appalled.
Rep. David Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, questioned Lt.
Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works for the National Security Council, and
Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as
part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
In his line of questioning, Nunes attempted to glean more information that House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff said could lead to revealing the identity of
the whistleblower. Vindman told Nunes that his counsel suggested that he not answer questions
or "provide specifics" about members of the intelligence community. Vindman's counsel spoke up
saying he was following the rules set by Schiff and the committee.
Schiff interjected during Nunes' questioning to say, "These proceedings will not be used to
out the whistleblower." Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which
Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential
candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
They just confirmed that the other person he spoke with was the "whistleblower" and that
Schiff lied when he said he doesn't know who the "whistleblower" is. Why else would Schiff
stop the questioning when he asked who the other individual is and said that he is trying to
out the "whistleblower". Also if Schiff didn't know who the "whistleblower" is then why would
he stop the questioning claiming that it is meant to out the "whistleblower"?
I'm surprised anyone would believe this guy because he has "YES MAN" all over his face! He
would do or say anything to get ahead ! A WEASEL, ROSENBRUG IS ONE, along with SCHIFF. Easily
lead to do anything to please if they let him do what he loves to do. CAN BE LEAD BY THE NOSE
KIND OF PERSON! SICKENING!
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. questioned Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, an Army officer who works
for the National Security Council, and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence,
on Nov. 19, in a public hearing as part of the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Vindman and Williams both listened in on a July phone call in which Trump asked the president
of Ukraine to investigate former vice president
What I do not understand is what will DemoRats get if Senate starts the trial.
Notable quotes:
"... "The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump. ..."
"... "Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not able to fire Vindman." ..."
"... The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO. ..."
"... It was not clear to the negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?". ..."
"... According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing." ..."
"... That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide, might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up. Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they can. ..."
"... Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep things going. ..."
"... This is from Saint Marie's statement: ..."
"... "Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts by Russia to expand its territory and influence." ..."
"... In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror! ..."
"... The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this day. ..."
"... The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the Middle East. ..."
"... Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $ flowing. ..."
This article is really helpful. https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2019/11/04
Again I have shortened the link, the article states: "Intelligence sources in Kyiv have
informed CD Media that the 'witness' narrative of LT COL Alexander Vindman was created by
corrupt U.S. State Department officials in Kyiv, Ukraine.
According to our sources, "Alexander Vindman [recent witness in favor of Trump
impeachment], Gordon Sondland [US ambassador to the EU and Trump supporter] and Oleksandr
Danilyuk [Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine from late May
until 30 September 2019 before being fired] had a meeting in July 2019. Sondland asked
Danilyuk as head of National Security Bureau of Ukraine to investigate Biden, Burisma, and
Manafort related investigations.
Apparently, Sondland didnt know that Danilyuk is Soros' agent and supplies info to
Democrats. This was the second leak to the Deep State.
The first leak was made by Danilyuk because he was the only person in the room with fluent
English when Zelenskiy and Trump had a phone call conversation. Zelenskiy speaks English on
very intermediate level, loses the context and emotional sense also, Yermak Andrei, the 2d
Advisor to Zelenskiy is, allegedly, on the hook of FSB. Thus, it was Danilyuk who passed
information to the Deep State to attack Trump.
"The Democrats waited for better timing of blowing the allegations it came when
Zelenskiy visited Washington and blew it in UN plus, met Trump.
"Danilyuk was present at the Zelinskiy + Trump conversation, he told about the matters
of the conversation to Alexander Vindman. Zelinskiy administration fired Danilyuk but is not
able to fire Vindman."
The article continues with info on Schiff's staffers meeting in Ukraine, it has the
agenda, who attended, etc. There are other related articles too, worth review IMO.
(1) b is not being clear that Sondland drew a definite line between the White House
meeting and the stalled military aid, in terms of how he thought they were linked to Zelensky
making the desired announcement of investigations: While Sondland said he merely "presumed"
the linkage to the military aid, he asserts the linkage to the White House meeting was made
explicit to him (albeit via Giuliani).
(2) The "well documented Ukraininan interference" that actually occurred (ostensible dirt
on Manafort) bears only a vague relationship to what has lodged in Trump's shriveled lima
bean brain (the DNC server spirited away to Kiev). Of course, since neither the Dems nor the
Repubs are interested in noting this fact, it will be ignored.
thanks b.... the way i see it, usa and everyone loses in the present set up.. you can't get
down and grovel in the swamp with the usa or ukraine, as youre going to get a lot of mud on
you and some of it is going to stick.. the info that comes out of the dynamic between these 2
countries is toxic, no matter which way you look... of course dems naively think they are
going to use it to get rid of trump, but they are dredging up some toxic stuff with a lot of
their own ckeletons in the closet... they are hoping none of it comes out and the focus
remains on - as @5 jackrabbit notes - trump mentioning biden and how this is not allowed.. i
can't see them gaining from this myself as the whole thing is a political theatre where we
mostly know the final outcome... and, it's not just the ammo that trump can throw out here,
but the accidental info such as what @1/2 frances points to as well... lots of ugliness can
come out of this that is going to stick on everyone...
@3 taffyboy.. that is old footage repackaged in a new link... thanks anyway.. it is fairly
clear though and something that the dems think others are going to miss or something.. i
don't get that part.. the dems want to keep the focus on how trump was going after a 2020
rival but i think once anyone starts looking at this, they are going to see a lot more then
they want to see.. mind you, maybe the usa media will be successful in guiding the narrative
for the war party which on some level seem unhappy with trump.. i don't know that it is
eroding trumps fan base though.. maybe.. but as b says - trump is a crook.. everyone knew
this before he got in power.. however, he has slowed down the military agenda some relative
to obama, which is really ironic.. i think it is because trump doesn't profit off the
military industrial complex as he does other stuff.. either way they are all first class
kleptomaniacs all vying for the front of the trough...
The negotiations around the Ukraine issues were going slow. It was not clear to the
negotiators what Trump actually wanted. Sondland said that at one point he called up Trump
and asked an open questions: "What do you want from Ukraine?".
According to Sondland Trump responded: "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no
quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing."
Trump is a crook. It is fair to presume that he wanted his aides to use all potential
pressure points to deliver the desired results from the Ukrainians. But Trump is also a
smart enough crook to never say that.
Is it possible that, just for once, Trump really did want nothing from Zelensky other than
to find out what Joe Biden stood to gain from pressuring the Ukrainians to sack Viktor Shokin
as Prosecutor General and what Hunter Biden's role as Board Director of a shell energy
company in Ukraine really amounted to?
That Gordon Sondland and his fellow negotiators were flabbergasted that Trump did not
tie money for military weapons to the Biden revelations, and that Sondland himself made the
assumption that Trump would make the aid money conditional on what Ukraine could provide,
might tell us more about the huckster mindset that prevails among the Washington political
and bureaucratic elite than it does about Trump's own worldview and psycholoical make-up.
Trump may be obsessed with making the Deal of the Century but the people surrounding him in
the White House are obsessed with extracting as much blood out of a stone as they
can.
If this ever gets to the Senate, a full trial will result, which will cause who knows how
many skeletons fall out of various Democrat/"Resistance" closets.
What do you think the odds are that, just somehow, nothing goes to the Senate in the
end?
>Nothing goes to Senate, I bet, but also no indictments from Barr.
> How's that for a quid pro quo?
> Posted by: casey | Nov 20 2019 21:54 utc | 13
For a kleptocracy, that almost sounds like a reasonable resolution, so no, that can not be
allowed. Trump is not being a team player, plus the retreat from northern Syria under fire
from potatoes was an unforgivable humiliation. Someone must pay for that, even if it brings
down the whole rotten house, a real possibility. Trump has how many millions of Twitter
followers? If he ever calls them out to the street, even if only 1% respond, and they show up
with guns...
Trump is unpredictable and dangerous. How does one disarm a drunk with a gun at a party?
Very, very carefully. But brain-dead big-dick Dear Leaders don't do carefully. It's Obey Or
Regarding the possibility of a Senate trail, just look at the two major papers. They are
pushing impeachment with all they have, including awarding sainthood to some who do not
deserve it, e.g. Vindman. If the Beltway echo chamber has the desired affect, Shiff will keep
things going.
This is from Saint Marie's statement:
"Supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. It is also the smart thing to do. If
Russia prevails and Ukraine falls to Russian dominion, we can expect to see other attempts
by Russia to expand its territory and influence."
In other words, trotting out the old Dominoes Theory, first it will be Ukraine, then
Belarus, Poland, the Baltics. Oh the horror!
Margaret Kimberley of Black Agenda Report is always on the money
'https://www.blackagendareport.com/freedom-rider-ukrainegate-farce
She explains that "The Democrats are hoping that Ukrainegate will succeed where Russiagate
failed and they can win the presidency without helping their voters.
"This spectacle is a get out the vote effort that doubles as anti-Russian propaganda."
In other words this is a battle to ensure that the Democratic Party does not do what it
has done a couple of times before in history and become aligned with the people against the
oligarchs.
The last to manage that were FDR in 1936 (though Huey Long didn't think so) and WJ Bryan
in 1896. He came very close to winning in his challenge to the financiers, Wall St and the
rich.
There is a real chance this year that Sanders will win the Primaries and in doing so break
the hold that the corporate machines have over the Democratic Party.
To win Sanders will have, first of all, to win the support of the black voters who have
become the most reliable and malleable vote bank in the party. This would break the hold of
the Black Misleadership Class which exists to ensure that class politics do not develop. The
great fear of the oligarchy and their paid agents in the black community is that voters will
stop thinking in racial terms and start judging politicians by their policies.
If that should happen, and 'Every Man become a King', the Few might as well emigrate to
Brazil or Colombia, and take the political class, the media and the 'intelligentsia' with
them.
The impeachment hearings will never touch the basic underlying fact that Obama/Biden
Administration restarted the Cold War by supporting the Maidan Coup and greenlighting the
seizing of the ethnic Russian Donbass region. The trench warfare there continues to this
day.
The same Corporate Democrats together with the Five-Eyes Intelligence Community have
conducted a continuous campaign to defeat and then remove Donald Trump. But they are so
incompetent that he is still in the White House but he is under pressure, all alone,
frustrated and angry, with only his daughter and Kellyanne Conway for support.
Yesterday, the USS Carrier Abraham Lincoln entered Persian Gulf after 6 months nearby;
Carrier Harry Truman is back at sea, ahead of relieving the Lincoln. US National Guard
armored units deployed to eastern Syria to keep the oil. The September drone attack shows
that Aramco's oil production facilities can be taken out at any time. A bad day and the
global economy crashes.
The only conclusion is that the hatred between globalist oligarchs and nationalists is
so deep and powerful that the consequences of a World War are ignored. The 2020 election is
pointless. The Republic is dead. The Empire shutters from internal conflict. If the Battle of
Carrhae replays once again, the war with Iran will force any survivors to retreat from the
Middle East.
Pelosi is driving this impeachment bus to a trial in the Senate next year at the height of
the primaries. The goal is to keep Warren and Bernie locked up in the Senate chamber, giving
Mayor Pete and Biden ( and maybe Bloomberg) a chance to gain ground and win some state races.
The Democrats don't care if they lose to Trump. They will do anything to make sure a
progressive doesn't win to protect their corporate paymasters.
It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this.
Of course they don't. The whole thing is a massive cover up. The idea is to bore the world on
Ukraine, sacrifice Biden and prevent Giulani from digging deeper. There is so much dirt over
Ukraine that just allowing a normal investigation would be suicide for the whole dems, not
just Kerry/Biden/Hillary.
The same thing happened with Russia/Mueller. There was never an attempt to get Trump, just
to distract from Fisa inquiries and the blatant Trump spying. The Durham investigation could
crucify many from Brennan to Hillary to probably Obama.
Bore the world with b/s investigations, hope Trump doesn't have time to do his own
homework. It will never work. Giulani has a ton of dirt to reveal if he wants. And in anycase
Trump won last time by ignoring the mudfight and concentrating on slogans that showed he had
listened to what voters are saying. Working class jobs and pay, and then every time a Dem
calls for "protect the immigrants", Transwomen's rights, better universities or attack
Trump's climate change record they lose a thousand votes.
Dem outrage at Trump is just the best thing for him to win marginal working class votes.
BTW - there seems to be this thing nowadays where you can't say the facts point one way
without claiming to hate the victor. Trump is a crook. Assad is an evil person but. China is
a dreadful place but.
Trump didn't go to Washington until 3 years ago. He is probably the most honest man in the
state.
"It is beyond me why the Democrats think they can bring Trump down over this."
Really, it's the Blue wing of the Quigley Party which, for obvious reasons, must run the
anterior assault with passive assistance from the Red wing. Schiff's role was to do a better
job of simulating substance, if the real stuff couldn't be found.
The RINOs need an optical rope-bridge, allowing them to embark on a
principled/Constitutional and oh-so-difficult moral traverse that they can be seen
reluctantly rising to for the benefit of taking the edge off incensed MAGAs. At this point,
the plan of necessity is to weather the civil insurrection because Trump simply has to
go.
Alas Schiff is not delivering much. Nonetheless I suspect that after trying everything and
the kitchen sink to get Trump, reluctant Senators' own dirty (NSA) dossiers will play key
roles. There has never been in the 70-year post WW2 era a more compulsory vote than this. All
swan-divers will be well cared for.
Those who focus on MERIT and SUBSTANCE forget that the real kingmaker is PROCESS. Article
1 Section 3 requires only 'present' Senators need vote on conviction. Thus a lot of games can
be played in the gap and particularly vulnerable RINOs might be allowed a form of sick-day
(e.g. a 20-Senator panel of Dems & Repubs).
It is hard to imagine Trump surviving Mitch's Star Chamber after heaven and earth has been
moved for three years to maneuver him to this point. The singular criticality of the Senate
well only grows as Trump's re-election appears increasingly assured.
T=Of course the less plausible the Schiff findings, the more 'process gerrymandering' will
be relied upon to carry the weight. Again, some level of civil unrest is unavoidable. However
five more years of Trump is a nonstarter.
"Trump is a crook."
I'm confounded by the persisting refusal to draw a qualitative distinction between Trump
and the system he's so clearly at odds with. Not a panacea of course. This is about power.
But distinction enough to rationalize the Herculean efforts being expended to oust
him.
Come on b, do the algebra! Something's lop-sided. Trump could save everyone a lot of
trouble if he simply fell back into the arms of his confederates. Surely at a minimum there's
a material schism in the elites. A schism means daylight in the Panopticon's ceiling. Why
isn't this cheered more?
If Trump swims in crookedness, why does the entire impeachment process hinge on two
ridiculously banal phone calls after over three years of FISA microscopy? Why, in the course
of his 'mock-defense' has he been allowed to turn back the sheets on the existential levels
of Ukraine corruption? Has the Deep State become masochistic in its old age?
And why hasn't the system found his price? Every crook has one. $50 billion would be a
reasonable opening gambit. Does anyone still think this is some kind of false-dialectic
kabuki? If it is, the stage managers deserve the world, or already have it. That, and an
Oscar. Bravo!
Copeland @ 33 said; "It seems like the primary role of the investigation, so far, is to
advance the national security narrative that portrays Russia as the perpetual enemy of the
US." Yes, it "seems" like it, because it is. The corporate empire needs enemies to keep the $
flowing.
Confrontation is much more profitable than peace...
I love the title of Rick Wilson's book "Everything Trump Touches Dies". The man is completely
beshitting the presidency and the USA brand. This is not to say it wasn't foul before he laid
his tiny hands on it. He is a symptom as another commenter here points out of the failure of
the system that produced him.
Impeachment will not solve the problem even though impeachment is fully justified on the
basis of his illegal maneuvers in Ukraine. He should be removed from his command for looting
Syria's oil, or for simply entering upon Syrian territory without being invited. Bush should
be in prison for the Iraq war, for that matter. But he's another symptom.
The clear and present danger is Trump who has thrown a monkey wrench into the global
system and disunited the nations. He's wrecked trade relations with China. He's exacerbated
problems in the ME and assisted Israel in the further destruction of the Palestinian people.
He's attempting to dismantle the lawful regulatory function of government and convert it to a
lawless fascist fortress America with only contempt for international law. His ignorance of
environmental problems is vast.
If this man is not removed from office this nation will die. Sooner than it would
otherwise. It is already very sick. This spectacle of impeachment is a weak remedy. We have
no alternative.
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been approached
countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It would be a
shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial of "quid pro
quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That will hardly
save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree with others, is
not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And it's not some
murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of Bolton in all
this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then he will come
out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who have been
leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor, Kent, et
al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony Soprano.
Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the constitutional
meaning of bribery.
tintorelli , Nov 21 2019 3:29 utc | 42
Trump is not a crook. He approached the situation with Z no doubt as he has been
approached countless times by the Mob and the Cops in NYC. "Nice country you got here. It
would be a shame if anything were to happen to it." If you sincerely believe Trump's denial
of "quid pro quo" and his handwritten notes, you might be the only one on the planet. That
will hardly save him from impeachment but not enough to get him tossed out (which I agree
with others, is not the Dems objective). Remember too, this did not start with the Dems. And
it's not some murky Deep State. I am surprised you have not focused on the obvious role of
Bolton in all this. He's hiding behind Kupperman now, waiting for everybody to testify, then
he will come out. He obviously has first hand info on all of this, and it's his cadre who
have been leading the charge, and his allies who have been beating the war drums (V, Taylor,
Kent, et al) with Russia. Finally, whatever the Biden boys were up to, Trump went full Tony
Soprano. Not a good look for an empire in decline. It's a textbook example of the
constitutional meaning of bribery.
Slightly off topic: I have been reluctantly listening to the hearings in front of the Star
Chamber of the House. A thing I didn't know (but should have) and learned from the hearings:
Ambassador Volker finds it totally unremarkable that a Ukrainian official would come to him
for editing and approval of a public statement by the Ukrainian government. I think the
foreign service needs a similar cleaning of the Augean Stables.
"
Lang cites numerous examples of "incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17
agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation," to include the
examples cited above plus the failure to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the
domestic front, he cites his personal observation of efforts by the Department of Justice and
the FBI to corruptly "frame" people tried in federal courts on national security issues as well
as the intelligence/law enforcement community conspiracy to "get Trump."
Colonel Lang asks "Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we
pay the leaders of these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men
and women. Let us send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work
hard for whatever money they earn." He then recommends stripping CIA of its responsibility for
being the lead agency in spying as well as in covert action, which is a legacy of the Cold War
and the area in which it has demonstrated a particular incompetence. As for the FBI, it was
created by J. Edgar Hoover to maintain dossiers on politicians and it is time that it be
replaced by a body that operates in a fashion "more reflective of our collective nation[al]
values."" Giraldi
On Tuesday, Congressional impeachment hearings exposed an
interesting facet of the
current battle
between Donald Trump and the so-called deep state: namely, that
many government bureaucrats now fancy themselves as superior
to the elected civilian
government.
In an exchange between Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Alexander Vindman, a US Army Lt. Colonel,
Vindman insisted that Nunes address him by his rank.
After being addressed as "Mr. Vindman," Vindman
retorted
"Ranking
Member, it's Lt. Col. Vindman, please."
Throughout social media, anti-Trump forces, who have apparently now become pro-military
partisans, sang Vindman's praises, applauding him for putting Nunes in his place.
In a properly functioning government -- with a proper view of military power -- however, no one
would tolerate a military officer lecturing a civilian on how to address him "correctly."
It is not even clear that Nunes was trying to "dis" Vindman,
given that junior
officers have historically been referred to as "Mister" in a wide variety of times and place. It is
true that higher-ranking offers like Vindman are rarely referred to as "Mister," but even if Nunes
was
trying
to insult Vindman, the question remains: so what?
Military modes of address are for the use of
military
personnel, and no one
else.
Indeed, Vindman was
forced
to retreat on this point
when later asked by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT) if he always insists on
civilians calling him by his rank. Vindman blubbered that since he was wearing his uniform (
for
no good reason, mind you
) he figured civilians ought to refer to him by his rank.
Of course, my position on this should not be construed as a demand that people give greater
respect to members of Congress.
If a private citizen wants to go before Congress and refer
to Nunes or any other member as "hey you," that's perfectly fine with me.
But the
important issue here is we're talking about
private citizens
-- i.e., the people who pay
the bills -- and not military officers who must be held as subordinate to the civilian government at
all times.
After all,
there's a reason that the framers of the US Constitution went to great pains
to ensure the military powers remained subject to the will of the civilian government.
Eighteenth and nineteenth century Americans regarded a standing army as a threat to their freedoms.
Federal military personnel
were
treated accordingly.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "to raise
and support Armies " and "to provide and maintain a Navy." Article II, Section 2 states, "The
President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the
Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The authors of the constitution were careful to divide up civilian power of the
military, and one thing was clear:
the military was to have no autonomy in policymaking
.
Unfortunately, early Americans did not anticipate the rise of America's secret police in
the form of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other "intelligence" agencies. Had they, it is likely the
anti-federalists would have written more into the Bill of Rights to prevent organizations like the
NSA from shredding the fourth amendment, as has been the case.
The inversion of the civilian-military relationship that is increasingly on display
in Washington is just another symptom of the growing power of often-secret and unaccountable
branches of military agencies and intelligence agencies that exercise so much power both in
Washington and around the world.
"... Morrison also testified that the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid , and a "concern that Ukrainians were not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the view that Ukraine has a significant corruption problem ." ..."
"... "I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment . Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled. ..."
"... When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said "It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that he did [have access to things he was not supposed to see] ." ..."
A former top national security adviser to President Trump told a secret impeachment panel that he
believed nothing improper occurred during a July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
president Volodomyr Zelensky,
according to a
transcript
released over the weekend.
NSC official Tim Morrison, who was on that phone call, expressed this narrative-killing opinion
to the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee
last month
- which would have
undermined recent public testimony by several US officials who said that President Trump abused his
office when he asked Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden and matters related to the 2016 US
election.
That said, Morrison also testified that US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, was involved
in an effort to encourage Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden - though he could not say whether Trump
was involved in those efforts.
He was uncertain of Trump's involvement in Sondland's efforts. "
I'm still not
completely certain that this was coming from the President
," Morrison testified to
House Democrats. "I'm only getting this from Ambassador Sondland."
During a closed-door deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Morrison was asked,
"
In your view, there was nothing improper that occurred during the call?
"
"
Correct
," he answered as he was testifying under oath. -
Epoch
Times
Morrison replaced former NSC official Fiona Hill, who resigned from her position on July 19,
days before the infamous Trump-Zelensky call. He says that the word "Burisma" never came up during
that call, referring to the Ukrainian natural gas company which employed Hunter Biden on its board
while Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to have a prosecutor fired who was
investigating the company.
Trump asked Zelensky to investigate this, as well as allegations that Ukraine was involved with
the hacked DNC server as well as the only firm allowed to look at it, Crowdstrike.
Morrison also testified that
the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine
due to Trump's general skepticism toward foreign aid
, and a "concern that Ukrainians were
not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the
view that
Ukraine has a significant corruption problem
."
Morrison was asked more about the phone call.
"
You were on the call. Do you remember whether the name Burisma came up on the call?"
"No, I don't believe it did,
" he said.
The answer is significant, as a junior NSC official, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified to
the House Intelligence Committee that Zelensky brought up the word "Burisma." However,
Morrison said that he has the "final clearing authority" on the July 25 call transcript
.
"Do you remember whether anyone suggested edits adding the word Burisma to the [memorandum of
conversation]?" Morrison was asked. "
I do not
," he responded. Vindman testified
that he suggested to edit in the word "Burisma."
But when asked about Vindman's suggestions,
Morrison said he approved all of them
.
"Had I recalled or had it in my notes that was mentioned, yes, I would have agreed to the
edit," he said of the word "Burisma." -
Epoch
Times
Morrison also told Congressional investigators that
he questioned Vindman's judgement
and that other NSC officials shared those concerns.
"I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman's judgment
. Among the
discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and
its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex's judgment," he recalled.
"I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what."
When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said
"It was brought to my attention that some had -- some of my personnel had concerns that
he did
[have access to things he was not supposed to see]
."
Following closely on the heels of sanctions and freeze orders by
the European Union and the United States, the primary objectives of
UFAR include facilitating international cooperation for the early
tracing of assets and identifying specific capacity building needs
for Ukraine. US Attorney General Eric Holder announced at the
conference that the Department of Justice would be placing a Justice
Department attorney in Kyiv to work exclusively on asset recovery and
mutual legal assistance. He also announced the formation of a
dedicated kleptocracy squad within the FBI.
UFAR's organizers, the United States and the United Kingdom, have
long been the most aggressive in recovering and repatriating assets
of corrupt officials and have formed units specifically to address
the issue since the entry into force of the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption, which, among other international commitments,
contains a critical chapter on the return of the proceeds of
corruption to countries of origin.
"The key character we should be
talking about is Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney General.
No one has commented on the
chutzpah
of the Obama
administration demanding Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, its top
prosecutor, for failing to prosecute Ukraine's most elite
criminals that had corrupted the entire system. Goldberg
explains:
"Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up
the system and blocking corruption cases," a former official in
Barack Obama's administration told me. Vice President Joe Biden
eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin's ouster.
"We weren't pressing Ukraine to get rid of a tough
prosecutor, we were pursuing Ukraine to replace a weak
prosecutor who wouldn't do his job," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Volker in his deposition defended Mr. Biden's work in
Ukraine and pointed out that the prosecutor was corrupt and
worked to shield favored people from prosecution, rather than
go after wrongdoers, according to the person familiar with his
testimony.
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became
prosecutor general in February 2015, began months before Biden
stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as
a foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant
secretary of defense, with a focus on Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia,
the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up
Ukraine's corruption, they focused on Shokin's leadership of
the Prosecutor General's Office.
"Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in
the Ukrainian system," said Carpenter, who traveled with Biden
to Ukraine in 2015. "He never went after any corrupt
individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of
corruption."
That demonstrated that Poroshenko's administration was not
sincere about tackling corruption and building strong,
independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley,
director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, a Washington-based foreign policy think
tank.
I have not found any article that points out the obvious
hypocrisy of the Obama administration demanding that a nation's
top prosecutor be fired for failing to prosecute the nation's most
powerful, corrupt, and destructive elite financial criminals. The
hypocrisy of Obama praising Holder while demanding Shokin's 'head'
was epic. To fix a problem one must first admit it and resolve to
fix it. Instead, Holder and Obama went with the preposterous lie
that there were no fraudulent elite bankers, so they brought no
prosecutions of the elite bankers whose frauds drove the GFC"
So basically, Corruptocrats want to impeach Trump, because he held up
foriegn aid to Ukraine, that was being money laundered back to the
curruptocrats like Joe Bidens son, and also because Trump wanted the
corruption investigated?....
And then the American news media
declares Trump is the criminal in all this?...
And in William Barrs grand jury room the chirping crickets are the
jury.....
Why do I get the feeling that D.C. is heading for one big reset
from a lot of pissed off people?.....
And let's not forget that Vindman
is (((Ukrainian))). So we have an un-elected Ukrainian by birth
working actively to, at best, replace his Commander-In-Chief's
judgment with his own and, at worst, actively subvert
his Commander-In-Chief's policy decisions and have him removed
from office.
Are there any military codes that might address such a
situation?
Read the transcript of his testimony. Ratcliffe gets him to
basically admit he advised his Uke counterparts to ignore
Trumps directions. The follow up is hysterical and his attorney
has to jump in and save his ***. A classic beat-down, complete
with stammering and and "holier than thou" comments from his
attorney, "if you want to go this direction, God be with you"
1.
Mr. Morrison did not believe anything improper
occurred on the July 25 call.
(p. 60)
2.
Mr. Morrison testified that the memorandum of
conversation (a phrase used to describe the call transcript) of
the July 25 call was complete and accurate.
(p. 60)
3. Mr. Morrison, who listened to the July 25 call, testified
that he was not concerned about the substance of what was
discussed on the call – only that the transcript might leak.
(p. 46-47)
4. Mr. Morrison was told by National Security Council lawyer
John Eisenberg that the July 25 call record mistakenly ended up
on the highly classified system, debunking the Democrats'
allegations of an attempted "cover up."
5.
Mr. Morrison repeatedly testified that he purposefully
kept Lt. Col. Vindman out of the loop on this matter because he
had concerns about Vindman's judgment, which were also raised
to him by Fiona Hill and others.
6. Mr. Morrison testified that, as the final clearing
authority for any edits made to the 7/25 call package, he
accepted all of Lt. Col. Vindman's proposed edits. (p. 61-62)
7. Mr. Morrison testified that he does not believe Burisma
came up on the call or that anyone suggested edits to the mem-con
to include the word Burisma. (p. 64)
8. Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman relayed two
concerns to him about the July 25 call: that the call did not
get into the subject matter they had hoped, and the fidelity of
the translation. (p. 72-73)
9.
Mr. Morrison testified that Lt. Col. Vindman never
reported to Morrison any of the "light queries" that he
received from Ukrainian officials in August regarding the hold
on aid.
(p. 93)
10. Mr. Morrison confirmed that President Trump generally
does not like foreign aid generally, and specifically held
concerns that corruption in Ukraine may cause U.S. aid to be
"misused."
This should end the Democrat impeachment proceedings. There
is no crime. There was no crime. And Democrats continue to lie to
the American people about their secret sham investigation!
when news of hunter came out, I investigated a bit. I dont want to
blame an innocent person..So I went to leftist news and browsed...An
article on a msm website defended hunter, saying "many top officials
were concerned about corruption in burisma..Had nothing to do with
hunter. Hunter just worked there...So, I am not a ******* like the
left, and let them have the benefit of the doubt. Not enough proof to
beat up hunter is what I thought...but now, they twisted their lies
again and go after trump. unbelievable, I even researched and gave
hunter the benefit of the doubt, and that wasnt enough, now the left
commies are fibbing ovver their own fibs...unbelievable....burisma
was/is a corrupt entity and many top officials asked for them to be
investigated...even the left commies put out articles about it...dear
jesus
No one would argue that Ukraine isn't a cesspool of corruption,
but here's the rub. If trump was really concerned about that he
could suspend ALL US financial aid until ...umm...they adhered
to American standards of "sound and responsible money management a
fiscal responsibility'
:))
You know, like how the Pentagon accounts for it's trillions..
snicker.
Ok seriously now, the corruption he was interested in was
Burisma and the Biden connection? There's the takeaway right
there.
At the core of the Ukraine problem is this, simply put. The
regime change project has produced little to no dividends for
Corporate America and all the uniparty is willing to spare to
maintain the status quo is chump change in the great scheme of
things. Thus weakening their grip and influence. Kolomoiski,
having returned from exile is now talking about going back with
the Russians..It's a black hole, and all that trump was after was
dirt.
Taylor is a neocon and he is against detente with Russia. So he is part of State Department
nest of neocon vipers.
Taylor was very evasive. but he is a trained diplomat. Taylor will definitely regret his role
( and may be already started to regret ) but he has nothing to lose; he is old enough to
retire.
Notable quotes:
"... I love how CBS completely edited out Nunes first part of his speech about all the lowlife activities the left pulled. ..."
"... My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he was talking about the United States. ..."
My favorite part was at 25:40 where Castro says "And at
the heart of this corruption is this oligarchical system." .... for a second, I thought he
was talking about the United States.
I have learned to HATE everything the Democrats, their deep state and MSM stand for. It's
beyond comprehension that they have hijacked the greatest nation on earth and subverted the
constitution for personal power and gain! A government takeover by the citizens is not far
off, and the only people who will be safe are a few Republicans in government.
Now this amounts to the impeachment of The President of the United States, for "shaking
the confidence of a close partner for our reliability" Ambassador Taylor. 21:21
18:40 - 19:50 Turner gives a
confused explanation of the "6th Amendment" - right of criminal defendant to “to be
confronted with the witnesses against him” versus The Hearsay Rule - which is evidence
(statements made outside court setting) that may or may not be admissible at trial. Which, in
part, why Judges are present to rule on whether exceptions, exclusions to the Hearsay Rule
apply.
He obviously had his script written before this hearing and didn't listen to what was
actually said. He referenced things that were never even brought up but were talking points
for the Democrats.
...What a blinder and hypocrisy in the highest echelons of power. What a little petty
thinking....Democrats are clearly communists. Do you Americans know what this mean? Obviously
not.
Democrat lunacy on parade Taylor was about as clear as mud and so where his he said, they
said, or i heard someone say something, are we really taking these people seriously.?
Do these republicans not realize that the Ukrainian President is going to say whatever
trump tells him to say so he gets his money and weapons....he’s got a war going on and
must have those resources...what else is he going to say?
If Giuliani seeking information in Ukraine is such an abnormal thing as to cause alarm
then please explain DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa and the years she has spent in Ukraine
performing opposition research along with maintaining close ties with the NSCand the Obama
whitehouse.
There is no evidence against Trump and Taylor was so tongue-tied that he couldn't answer
some of those questions. I loved Jordan asking all those questions and putting those two
witnesses in place. In the court of law they WILL NOT TAKE HEARSAY because I worked for the
courts and lawyers so I know what the Judge would say. this is nothing but a scham and when
Trump gets to be President again I hope he puts Schiff in prison!!!!!!!
After House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) took time out of today's impeachment testimony to
rebuke President Trump for "witness intimidation," President Trump hit back.
During testimony from former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Trump took aim at her over
Twitter, saying "
Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad
. She started off in
Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke
unfavorably about her..."
Following Trump's tweet, Schiff dramatically interrupted questioning from his staff counsel to read
Trump's tweet aloud - asking Yovanovitch what effect Trump's tweet might have on future witnesses, to
which she replied that it would be "very intimidating.
Trump's tweet was so troubling that former Media Matters employee Paul Waldman wrote in the
Washington Post
that Trump "talks and acts like a Mafioso" in an article entitled
"Yovanovitch hearing confirms that
Trump is running a thugocracy
."
Following Schiff's dramatic exchange, Trump was asked whether his words can be intimidating, to
which he said "I don't think so at all."
"
I have the right to speak. I have freedom of speech just like other people do
,"
Trump told White House reporters following remarks on a health care initiative, adding that he's
"allowed to speak up" and defend himself.
It's remarkable how tone deaf the Beltway Bubble has made these
bureaucrats and their clingers. The United States elected Donald
Trump, to get rid of people like Marie Yovanovitch. If anything, he
needs to speed things up.
We are at a turning point in our history. The Dems and
their Deep State agents have once again proven that they will go to
any lengths to destroy the constitution, upend the rule of law, lie,
cheat, steal and twist words to accomplish any goal.
I pretty much stopped having an ounce of sympathy for Trump this
week. On day two of his presidency he should have locked up Hillary,
and he didn't. He then has the ******* balls to tell us that "they"
meaning the Clintons "are good people". Are you ******* kidding me ?
? ?
For more than six months now, EVERYONE on planet Earth has
known about the Deep State, Obama, Biden, Pelosy, Brennan, Comey,
McCabe Stzrok, Page, Lynch, Rice ,Powers, Misfud, Fusion GPS ,Halper,
Neuland, Schiff, Nadler, Wray, Rosenstein, the entire Mainstream
Media and three dozen other ******* treasonous assholes tearing this
country apart.
And what exactly has Trump done to bring these people to justice
for treason and seditious conspiracy ? Jack ******* squat !
Epstein allegedly gets murdered in his cell/disapears, and all
Barr does is ******* shrug his shoulders like Schultz and says "I
know nothing". Assange is slowly being murdered in his cell while
Trump claims " I never heard of Wikileaks". Snowden and Manning are
enemies of the state, and nobody seems to care.
Meanwhile the entire country is being overrun up to our eyeballs
with illegals, the mentally ill are walking around like a zombie
apocalypse and the rule of law is totally dead.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for
such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes
vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to
repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and
thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."-
Joseph Goebbels
"... In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank? ..."
"... John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. ..."
"... In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports? ..."
"... Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country? ..."
"... If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate? ..."
"... At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky? ..."
The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the
former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's
insistence.
It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this
impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an
investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.
Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely
will be an important fact witness.
After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could
be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance
to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma
Holdings or the Bidens?
What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence
or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and
his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the
IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained
influence over Ukraine's national bank?
Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in
testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action
Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also
known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to
reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in
funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the
perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent
millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you
just rely on press reports?
Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House
Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the
Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials.
These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an
investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about
certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and
NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and
did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign
diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under
Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few
days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal
personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might
raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with
Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or
an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State
Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and
were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of
these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did
anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State
resources might be improper or illegal?
Sputnik is reporting that the US has spent $6.4 Trillion fighting wars that have killed
800,000 since Sept 11/01, that number is unbelievable, at least 1,500,000 dead in Iraq,
250,000 in Afghanistan, 750,000 in Syria.
The US military budget alone has averaged about 650 billion since then, plus the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan were funded separately (around 200 million a year), plus CIA/ blackbook
projects - 7 or 8 trillion is a more likely number.
When things get blown up, no one really knows what was actually bought and existed and
what was just a phantom piece of equipment War has always been the ideal cover for
corruption
"... "In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to Ukraine. ..."
"... But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such? ..."
"... And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay. ..."
"... The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col. Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is the duly elected president who does that. ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn back toward Russia. ..."
"... "They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for it." ..."
"... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets. ..."
"... Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He predicted that the trauma of war will pass. ..."
"... Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received nearly 73% of all votes. ..."
"... Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They are joined in this with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup: ..."
"... Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25% of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won 5.8%. ..."
"... on Yovanovitch, She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States." ..."
"... She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. . .Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is injured in the knee ..."
NBC News
is not impressed by the first day of the Democrats' impeachment circus. But it fails to
note what the conflict is really about:
It was substantive, but it wasn't dramatic.
In the reserved manner of veteran diplomats with Harvard degrees, Bill Taylor and George
Kent opened the public phase of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump on
Wednesday by bearing witness to a scheme they described as not only wildly unorthodox but
also in direct contravention of U.S. interests.
"It is clearly in our national interest to deter further Russian aggression," Taylor, the
acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, said in explaining why
Trump's decision to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to the most immediate target of
Russian expansionism didn't align with U.S. policy.
But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor
of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall or
backfire, the first round felt more like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act play than
the opening night of a hit Broadway musical.
"In direct contravention of U.S. interests" says the NBC and quotes a member of the
permanent state who declares "it is clearly in our national interest" to give weapons to
Ukraine.
But is that really in the national U.S. interest? Who defined it as such?
President Obama was against giving weapons to Ukraine and never transferred any to Ukraine
despite pressure from certain circles. Was Obama's decision against U.S. national interest?
Where are the Democrats or deep state members accusing him of that?
Which brings us to the really critical point of the whole issue. Who defines what is in the
"national interest" with regards to foreign policy? Here is a point where for once I agree with
the right-wingers at the National Review where Andrew McCarthy writes :
[O]n the critical matter of America's interests in the Russia/Ukraine dynamic, I think the
policy community is right, and President Trump is wrong. If I were president, while I would
resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly associate myself with the delusion that
stable friendship is possible (or, frankly, desirable) with Putin's anti-American
dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia family and is acting on its revanchist
ambitions.
But you see, much like the policy community, I am not president. Donald Trump is.
And that's where the policy community and I part company. It is the president, not the
bureaucracy, who was elected by the American people. That puts him -- not the National
Security Council, the State Department, the intelligence community, the military, and their
assorted subject-matter experts -- in charge of making policy. If we're to remain a
constitutional republic, that's how it has to stay.
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
The president does not like how the 'American policy' on Russia was built. He rightly
believes that he was elected to change it. He had stated his opinion on Russia during his
campaign and won the election. It is not 'malign influence' that makes him try to have good
relations with Russia. It is his own conviction and legitimized by the voters.
...
[I]t is the president who sets the policies. The drones around him who serve "at his
pleasure" are there to implement them.
There is another point that has to be made about the NBC's assertions. It is not in
the interest of Ukraine to be a proxy for U.S. deep state antagonism towards Russia. Robber
baron Igor Kolomoisky, who after the Maidan coup
had financed the west-Ukrainian fascists who fought against east-Ukraine, says so directly in
his
recent NYT interview :
Mr. Kolomoisky, widely seen as Ukraine's most powerful figure outside government, given his
role as the patron of the recently elected President Volodymyr Zelensky, has experienced a
remarkable change of heart: It is time, he said, for Ukraine to give up on the West and turn
back toward Russia.
"They're stronger anyway. We have to improve our relations," he said, comparing Russia's
power to that of Ukraine. "People want peace, a good life, they don't want to be at war. And
you" -- America -- "are forcing us to be at war , and not even giving us the money for
it."
... Mr. Kolomoisky [..] told The Times in a profanity-laced discussion, the West has failed
Ukraine, not providing enough money or sufficiently opening its markets.
Instead, he said, the United States is simply using Ukraine to try to weaken its
geopolitical rival. "War against Russia," he said, "to the last Ukrainian." Rebuilding ties
with Russia has become necessary for Ukraine's economic survival, Mr. Kolomoisky argued. He
predicted that the trauma of war will pass.
...
Mr. Kolomoisky said he was feverishly working out how to end the war, but he refused to
divulge details because the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way."
Kolomoisky's interview is obviously a trial balloon for the policies Zelensky wants to
pursue. He has, like Trump, campaigned on working for better relations with Russia. He received
nearly 73% of all votes.
Ambassador Taylor and the other participants of yesterday's clown show would certainly "mess
it up and get in the way" if Zelensky openly pursues the policy he promised to his voters. They
are joined in this
with the west-Ukrainian fascists they have used to arrange the Maidan coup:
Zelenskiy's decision in early October to accept talks with Russia on the future of eastern
Ukraine resulted in an outcry from a relatively small but very vocal minority of Ukrainians
opposed to any deal-making with Russia. The protests were relatively short-lived, but
prospects for a negotiated end to the war in the eastern Donbas region became more remote in
light of this domestic opposition.
...
The supporters for war with Russia are ex-president Poroshenko and two parliamentary
factions, European Solidarity and Voice, whose supporters are predominantly located in
western Ukraine. Crucially, however, they can also rely on right-wing paramilitary groups
composed of veterans from the hottest phase of the war in Donbas in 2014-5.
Only some 20% of the Ukrainians are in favour of continuing the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports. During the presidential election Poroshenko received just 25%
of the votes. His party European Solidarity won 8.1% of the parliamentary election. Voice won
5.8%.
By pursuing further conflict with Russia the deep state of the United States wants to ignore
the wishes not only of the U.S. voters but also those of the Ukrainian electorate. That
undemocratic mindset is another point that unites them with the Ukrainian fascists.
Zelensky should ignore the warmongers in the U.S. embassy in Kiev and sue for immediate
peace with Russia. (He should also investigate
Biden's undue influence .) Reengaging with Russia is also the easiest and most efficient
step the Ukraine can take to lift its desolate economy.
It is in the national interest of both, the Ukraine and the United States.
Posted by b on November 14, 2019 at 18:23 UTC |
Permalink
next page " agree with mccarthy about who conducts foreign policy, disagree about who
the aggressor is; it's the USA, trying to weaken Russia, which is the aggressor.
thanks b... typo - immediate piece with Russia - 'peace' is the spelling here...
the comments from Kolomoisky in the recent nyt interview are very telling.. aside from
being a first rate kleptomaniac who will willingly play both sides if he can profit from it,
he is also speaking a moment of truth..for him Ukraine is available to the highest bidder...
he could give a rats ass about Ukraine or the people... but still, it is refreshing that the
NYT published his comments in this regard..
the quote "the Americans "will mess it up and get in the way." is very true... it was true
before kolomisky picked a side too.. this guy is very shrewd.. i wonder if his own country is
able to see thru him?
national interest.... yes, trump gets to decide and he won on the idea of having closer
relations with russia, but the cia-msm has been lambasting him and anyone else associated
with him since before the election over the clinton e mails... they have painted a scenario
that it is all russias fault and have been relentless in this portrayal... hoping trump is
going to turn this around is like hoping someone is going to turn the titanic around from
hitting a giant iceberg... the usa is too far gone and will be hitting the iceberg.. they are
in fact...
From NYT about Kolomo???? (spelling in English is highly variable)
George D. Kent, a senior State Department official, said he had told Mr. Zelensky that his
willingness to break with Mr. Kolomoisky -- "somebody who had such a bad reputation" -- would
be a litmus test for his independence. [If is good to be independent, i.e. to do what we
want.]
And William Taylor, the acting ambassador in Kiev, said he had warned Mr. Zelensky: "He,
Mr. Kolomoisky, is increasing his influence in your government, which could cause you to
fail." [La Paz is a fresh reminder for Kiev?]
Well the thing about Zelensky is he's still there, and he is making changes in Donbass.
Kolomoisky was interested in the fracked gas in Donbass, the completion of NordStream II
has made a mess of that idea. It is good that he has seen the light, as it means Zelensky
will have support in his attempts to adapt to reality. But Kolomoisky is still a crook no
doubt.
My immediate reaction was that Kolomoisky realises he has to act - the Ukrainian oligarchs
have got too close to America. I agree with James that he is a extremely clever man.
Ukraine's traditional business is playing both ends against the middle and sending the
proceeds to Switzerland (or the Caribbean in Porosyonok's case). Since 1990 a few of these
robber barons have made a very good business winding up the west against Russia, it could go
on ever - why spoil it by lifting the rock and seeing all the insects scurrying around in the
light?
Another rock that has been lifted is in Washington, where the khokhol diaspora are
desperately trying to get Uncle Sam to right the wrongs of a century ago.
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners oif the world and they run the world they
own.
... @ b -- "Only some 20% of the Ukrainians favor to continue the war against the eastern
separatists who Russia supports."
The are not 'separatists', but rather Ukrainians who want to stay in a federated Ukraine
as 'provinces' with powers to pass their regional laws, similar to those in Canada.
The segment of empire in the US that are against Russia act so because it was Russia that
stymied them in Syria and continues to be in their way of expanding the control from that
part of empire...the US segment.
I still believe that the global private finance core segment of empire is behind Trump and
throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The cult of global
private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role in the new
multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyones heads to make it ongoing.
I don't believe that strategy will work but as long as they can be fronted by a MAD player
of some sort (Occupied Palestine comes to mind) they can be bully players in international
matters.
As the world economies grind to a "halt" there will be lots of pressure everywhere and
very little clarity about the key civilization war over public/private finance, IMO
For a military dictatorship, diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means. The US has
been at war with Russia since the right-wing coup at the Democratic convention of 1944. All
presidents have been servants of the military, which includes the police/intel/security
apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead role were "dealt with."
Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state bureaucrats are shocked
and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US foreign policy for 75
years!
Wow! The depth of delusion on display is as breathtaking as its complete projection of the
intentions and actions of the Evil Outlaw US Empire! Oh so many saying I'm displaying four
fingers instead of two. Too bad there isn't a padded cell big enough to contain all the
lunatics. I recall the pre- and post-coup discussions from 2014--that Russia was going to
make NATO own Ukraine until it was forced to concede it has no business being there; that
Russia would teach the would-be leaders of Ukraine a serious lesson in where their national
interests lay. NATO is ready to cede and the lesson's been learned.
IMO, two referendums must be held. The first within Russia: Will you accept portions of
Ukraine wanting to merge with Russia: Yes/No? Second to be given within Ukraine provided Yes
wins in #1: Do you wish to join Russia or remain in Ukraine? IMO, this is a very longstanding
unresolved issue of consequence for the people involved. The political leaders of Russia and
Ukraine might both be against such a vote, but IMO that merely kicks the can further down the
road and opens the door for more mischief making by the Evil Outlaw US Empire. Assuming a Yes
from Russia and some from Ukraine, a strategic threat to Russia and Europe would be
mitigated. Additional questions about those parts of Ukraine not wanting to join Russia could
be solved via additional referenda in the Ukraine and neighboring nations that might prove
willing to absorb the remnants and their people. Such action would of course negate the Minsk
Agreements.
Given the ideological passions of those living in Western and Northern Ukraine, I don't
see any hope for the continuation of the Ukrainian state as currently arranged, thus the
proposed referenda. However, if Russia says Nyet, then Minsk must be implemented.
"Democracy" is not about letting the people as a whole have a say in how the country is
governed. That would be fascist, and racist, and populist, and LITERALLY HITLER. Letting the
people decide on things like foreign policy, is literally anti-democratic.
No, "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing responsibility. The elites get
to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take responsibility when things go wrong.
Because you see, we are a "Democracy."
Breaking off long established economic and cultural ties with a large neighbouring country,
virtually overnight, is a rash act, and certain to create dislocation and hardship. The
craziness of the idea was only achievable through the traumatizing psy-op of the sniper
event, leading directly to the coup and the state of war. The EU and the US were clearly
malevolent in orchestrating the Association agreement with its ridiculous terms and the
corresponding Maidan pressures.
The fools in Hong Kong, after protester-sponsored screenings of the World On Fire
documentary, were actually quoted as presuming the Maidan protests had "won" and expressed
their hopes that they too could "win". Good luck to them.
Kolomoisky and Zelensky know what needs to be done, but they fear the blood that will flow
with Nazi-Banderist scum! Zelinski's balls are not that big, and has no options left after
compromising his position from day one. Who will make the first move, I fear not him? Russia
has time, and patience, which is sorely lacking in the west who feel they have to push the
envelope.
The Minsk II protocol was agreed to on 12 February 2015 by the leaders of Ukraine, Russia,
France, and Germany, It included provisions for a halt in the fighting, the withdrawal of
foreign forces, new constitution to allow special status for Donbass, and election in Donbass
for local self governance. Control of the present border of Ukraine would be restored to the
Ukraine government. Donbass would continue to be in Ukraine with some autonomy here (scroll down).
There are many such autonomous zones in the world, and in Europe, seen here .
The problem in Ukraine is that the neo-Nazi factions promoted by the US don't want to see a
resolution, and will fight it with US support.
Kolomoysky is obviously a master thief and general scumbag...but he is no fool...
I think the writing on the wall became obvious with the Nordstream 2 finalization, where,
it is noted, Denmark came in just under the wire in terms of not disrupting the
timetable...
Obviously the interests of German business have prevailed...and rightly so in this
case...
And what of the famous EU line about 'protecting' Ukraine as a gas transit
corridor...?
LOLOLOL...that is in the same category of nothingburger as the EU noises about 'alternate
payment' mechanisms for trade with Iran...
As soon as the Denmark story broke, Gazprom and Russian energy analysts talked openly
about the tiny volumes that Ukraine could expect to see transiting its territory...as part of
a new agreement to replace the one that has expired...
It works out to a small fraction of the several billion dollars in transit fees the
Ukraine was getting...
Also considering that the IMF appears to be finally shutting off the tap of loans to this
failed gangster state...and that the promises from the EU in 2013 were just so much fairy
tales...hard-nosed operators like Kolomoysky are recalculating...
The chaos and national ruin has really cost these gangster capitalists nothing [in fact
they have profited wildly]...so it is easy for them to reverse course and come begging back
to Russia...
Bryan MacDonald has a good piece about this today in RT...
So, here we are, almost six years since the first "EuroMaidan" protests in Kiev, and
Ukraine's most prominent oligarch has finally voiced the unmentionable: the project has
failed.
As for Kolomoysky...like Trump, there is something to like about dirtballs who speak their
minds openly...LOL
Quite a turnaround by Kolomoisky. Wasn't he once caught on a tapped phone call admitting
while chuckling about Ukrainian complicity in shooting down MH-17? i.e. NOT Donbas rebels and
NOT Russia.
@12 karlof1... a referendum... as if the usa would agree to that, lol.... look how they
processed the one in crimea...
@18 flankerbandit... last line is true, but it pales in relation to the ugliness these 2
exhibit 99% of the time, although the 1% when they don't it's refreshing! ukraine will
continue to be used as a tool by the west..
forget about any referendum.. that makes too much sense and won't be allowed..
Nordstream 2 will come online in less than 2 months and the Ukrainian gas exports at that
time will cease (I.e. no oil for the Oligarchs to steal), no matter what the US says they
can't replace the Russian oil exports in terms of money & support to Ukraine, so the
Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in order for the Russians to keep
even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets
It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot.
But now the Ukrainian thieves are beginning to realize that the Western thieves are going
to steal the very ground from under their feet, so there will be no more Ukraine to steal
from. That's not a very good business model. Plus they're no doubt seeing how the US treats
its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere, and realize they could easily find themselves
the next meal for the US beast. Pretty easy to see why the smarter ones are getting
nervous.
they need to make peace with Russia or they will be left out in the cold, literally. They
seemed to have previously bought into some insane lie that they'd be a part of the EU and
NATO if theyd do Washington's bidding. The Deep state vastly underestimated Putin's resolve
when it became clear to the Russians that Washington may try and turn Crimea into a NATO port
one day. The game is over. Ukraine needs to find a way forward now for itself or it will be a
failed state in the near future. It's clear Merkel and Europe want no part of this headache
I don't think Russians want to 'own' any part of Ukraine...at least that is the nearly
unanimous opinion of my own contacts and colleagues in Russia...so I don't think any
referenda will be on the table...
What I do think is possible is what Yanukovich and Russia agreed to in terms of a trade
and economic deal...which was a lot more practical [not to mention generous] than the EU
'either or' nonsense...
Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they are selling vast tracts of
agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally dispossessing themselves of
their own food security...
At the time of the Soviet dissolution, Ukraine had the highest living standards and some
of the world's prime industry and technology...including for instance the Yuzhnoye design
bureau [rocket engines and spacecraft] and many more such cutting edge aerospace
concerns...
For years these crucial enterprises were able to keep going due to the Russian
market...that all ended in 2014 [and in fact was tapering off even before due to the massive
corruption]...
Now the Chinese are looking to scoop up these gems at firesale prices...
It is really quite unbelievable that the nutcases in the Ukraine would be willing to cut
off their own arm just to bleed on Russia's shirt...
Why did the Ukraine never recover from the gangster capitalism like Russia did...because
no Putin ever came along to reign in the oligarchy...[It could be argued Putin hasn't done
nearly enough in this regard].
The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own future...as the
unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to extract maximal
wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on the verge of
toppling...
Kolomoisky is talking his book and helping USA to make the case that Nordstream is a NATO
security issue. To pretend that he's serious about a rapproachment with Russia just plays
into that effort.
And b ignores my comment on the prior thread that he references (about Trump being
Constitutionally charged with foreign policy). Repeating: the "Imperial Presidency" has flung
off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing the need to get Congressional
approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and
black budgets.
While for practical reasons the Executive Branch of USA government has the power to
negotiate treaties and manage foreign relations, Constitutionally he does so for the
sovereign (the American people) and his efforts are subject to review and approval of the
people's representatives via the power of the purse.
Ignoring how the "Imperial Presidency" has usurped power leads to faulty analysis that
supports that power grab.
Ukrainegate IS a farce, but for other reasons. Chief among them being the inherent fakery
of 'managed democracy' which manifests as kayfabe.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government.
There is one and only one Western Empire and its deep state spreads throughout Western
governments and society. They are the owners of the world and they run the world they
own.
Nicely put:- that is the reality. Thanks b for your intrepid reports.
Paul Craig Roberts has a deeply aggrieved rant at zero hedge if barflies want a chuckle.
What a shitshow.
Crimea?
It has been part of Russia about as long as the USA has been a country.
9 out of 10 residents are of Russian origin, and Russian is the spoken language.
I guess it could be returned to the 10%-- but out of fairness, we must turn the USA over to
its original occupants.
If you live in the USA, get your ass ready to leave.
One of the problems that the anti-nazis face in Ukraine is that there are occupying armies in
the country. Armies which cannot be trusted to obey instructions which are not agreed upon by
NATO warmongers.
One such army is Canadian, commanded I believe by a descendant of the Ukrainian SS refugees
and reporting to the Foreign Minister in Ottawa, a Russophobe with a family background of
nazi collaboration.
The actual political situation is much more delicate than media reports suggest: what are
called elections feature, in the Washington approved fashion, the banning of socialist and
communist candidates. Bans which are enforced by a combination of fascist commanded police
forces and, even less responsible, private nazi militias. Opponents of the Maidan regime are
driven into exile, jailed or murdered.
Those who wonder as Jackrabbit, in a rare essay into rationality, does above, about the
nature of the US Constitution after decades of the erosion of checks and balances thanks to
the Imperial Presidency, will recognise that a dialectic is at work here. Washington's
support for fascism abroad has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the
installation of fascist regimes abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US
intervenes it leaves a fascist regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind
it.
And what this means is that, among other things, the ability of the population to effect
political change is cancelled: there is no way that the people of Ukraine can decide what
they want because the decisions have been taken for them, in weird cult like gatherings of SS
worshiping Bandera supporters in Toronto and Chicago. It is no accident that most of the
'Ukrainians' being wheeled out by the Democrats to testify against Trump are actually greedy
expatriates who have never really lived in Ukraine.
There was a moment, not long ago, when it looked as if the Minsk accords promised a path to
peace and reconciliation. Unfortunately the plain people of Ukraine, the poorest in Europe
though living in one of the richest countries, Washington, Ottawa and NATO didn't like the
sound of Minsk. Nor did the fascists in the Baltic states and Poland, for whom, for
centuries, Ukraine has been a cow to milk, its people slaves to be exploited and its rich
resources too tempting to ignore.
As Thomas Jefferson explained the President's role in foreign affairs in 1790, and the lack
of advisors' policy making decisions: ''as the President was the only channel of
communication between the United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that
foreign nations or their agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation';
that whatever he communicated as such, they had a right and were bound to consider 'as the
expression of the nation'; and that no foreign agent could be 'allowed to question it,' or
'to interpose between him and any other branch of government, under the pretext of either's
transgressing their functions.' Mr. Jefferson therefore declined to enter into any discussion
of the question as to whether it belonged to the President under the Constitution to admit or
exclude foreign agents. 'I inform you of the fact,' he said, 'by authority from the
President.'
Might also be worth yesterdays hero's asking if dear Mr Kolomoisky, joint Uki/Israeli
national, took a part in authorising the shoot down of MH17 as a news cover for Operation
Protective Edge. Heave ho zionist USA ....et al.
1.The decisions to with hold and release aid have nothing to do with the President making
foreign policy but with his campaign. Saying it was about foreign policy is a damned lie.
2.Trump as president is supposed to lead foreign policy, which means actually setting a
policy. Military aid to Ukraine, yes, except no, except yes, personal handling without asking
anybody with experience how to achieve the national goal desired, national agenda kept secret
from the people who have to carry it out, abuse of officials, demands for dubiously legal
actions without rationale...Saying it was about the president's executive role is a damned
lie.
3.Trump has not made even a tweet that questions US support for fascists. That not even a
issue for Trump. Saying this is about support for fascism is a damned lie.
4.Kolomoyskiy is a bankroller of fascists. It is not impossible even a billionaire might get
frightened by the genie he's let out of the bottle, even if he's Jewish and rich enough to
run away. But actually undoing the fascist regime means taming the paramilitaries and this is
not even on the horizon. Given the rivalry between Poroshenko and Kolomoyskiy it's not even
certain it's a real change of heart or just soothing words for the non-fascist people. Nor is
it even clear the Zelensky will follow even the Steinmeier formula. If he does, good, but
until something actually happens? Saying it's about the antifascist turn is a damned lie.
The only thing that isn't a lie is that Trump was not committing treasons, "merely" a
campaign violation. But then, Clinton never did either. The crybabies who dished it out but
can't take it deserve zero respect, and zero time.
Curious to know how Kolomoisky is working "feverishly" to end the war in the Donbass region.
Wonder if he is planning to come clean on what he knows of the Malaysia Airlines MH17
shootdown and crash in an area not far from Slavyansk and near where his Privat Group's
subsidiary company Burisma Holdings holds a licence to drill for oil and natural gas. What
does he know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control personnel's direction to MH17
to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000 metres above as the flight crew
had requested? He had been governor of Dnepropetrovsk region at the time.
Somewhere I read it alleged that the actual owner of Burisma was or is Kolomoiski.
Anything to this?
And via John Helmer (via Checkpointasia and dances with bears) comes the perspective that
it's not so much Kolomoiski floating trial balloons (though that may also be true) but that K
is being given space in the NYT to build his credentials as the new Borg villain, thereby
making it still harder for Zelensky to reconcile with Russia.
fb @ 25 said;"The Ukraine is actually a preview of what we can expect to see in our own
future...as the unleashed oligarchy similarly runs everything into the ground in order to
extract maximal wealth for a parasite elite...already we are nothing but a Ponzi Scheme on
the verge of toppling..."
Yup, aided and abetted by our current regime, while pretending not to...
@23
"It's a tough balancing act, being a Ukrainian oligarch. For two decades they stole what they
could from the Ukraine (and from perverting the various sweetheart deals Russia was
providing). Once the industry and energy money was stripped, and Russia started closing the
spigots, they managed to get the West to pump in ungodly amounts of cash so long as they
would agree to talk mean about Russia, and didn't mind the US machine taking its cut of the
loot."
This is it in a nutshell. The Russians were fed up with Ukraine stealing gas. Hence, Nord
Stream 2. That was always the plan. Whether the Yanks truly grasped the rationale here
---Russia is cutting off gas to Ukraine, simple---has never been clear to me. Although it is
a fairly simple plot. The Russians had decades of shenanigans with the Ukes and said Basta.
By not overreacting to the Ukrainian-USA freakout and keeping their eyes on the prize (Nord
Stream and disengaging, gas-wise, from Uk), they have managed to reach their goal of getting
Nord Stream 2 online.
Kolomoiski is the bankroller and commander of the Azov Battalion. Has close arrangements with
other paramilitaries. And is the current principal of Burisma. And is Privatbank, the only
bank left in Ukraine. He gets a cut of all the action.
When Trump queries Zelensky, all that Zelensky is thinking is this guy does not know the
score. This guy does not know who's on first. He wants me to investigate the boss? Let him
talk to the boss. And who does Z talk to in D.C.? Pointless getting into detail with
Trump.
Trump has no team. No one in D.C. is on his side. He's unable to finish anything.
1) Say the fantasy happens and the US/Russia become BFFs like US/UK...
- Say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss?
- Tough to answer, many unknowns- Russia may act different once its on top, actors may
derail schemes, Deep State temper tantrum, etc...
In general, governments are the order-providing solution for chaos and problems that only
first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over others.
Kolomoiski is a U.S. asset. His interview with the NYTimes proves it.
His threats are meant to mobilize NATO and Russia haters in general; because Trump and
most of his cadre care nothing for Ukraine.
Does anyone think Russia will give Kolomoiski 100 million dollars? Why was he given an
opportunity to threaten the USA? For no reason? Something else is afoot but Russia still
won't take the bait because they are winning.
Russia is quite happy with the status quo. The war in Ukraine keeps the war against Russia
on a level which is easy to manipulate and therefore geostrategically beneficial. Kolomoiski
will get nothing.
Thank you, b, for that snippet from NY Interview with Kolomoisky . I had glanced the headline
on RT but didn't read it because of RT's usual clumsy writing.
Kolomoiski is taunting the empire: investigate my crimes and
ukraine will seek reconciliation and alliance with russia.
Russia won't fall for it. They want kolomoiski's scalp even
more than the empire. From the statements putin has made, maybe
the only concession russia would accept is the dissolution of
ukraine as a sovereign entity and reintegration with russia, minus galicia.
Putin has remarked that they are not one people but one state. Ukraine
already knows that its domestic industry is only viable in competition
with the eu industrial powerhouses if it is integrated with russia.
What does [Kolomoysky] know about Kiev and Dnepropetrovsk air traffic control
personnel's direction to MH17 to fly at 10,000 metres in the warzone and not an extra 1,000
metres above as the flight crew had requested?
Okay..so an interesting can of worms here...
First is the fact that Kolomoysky was the governor of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast at the
time...
Now as to the flight and Dnipro Radar [the regional air traffic control facility that
controls a very big chunk of airspace over eastern Ukraine]...
First the issue of the airplane cruising altitude...the crew had filed their flight plan
to climb from flight level 330 [33,000 ft] to FL350 after passing a certain waypoint in
eastern Ukraine...
Now the controllers did instruct the crew to go ahead and climb to their planned altitude,
but the crew declined the clearance and opted to stay at FL330...this was done very
likely because the atmospheric conditions at that height were better for fuel economy...
[To be even more specific...the Boeing manual gave an optimum flight altitude of 33,800
ft, but flying eastward you only have odd numbered flight levels to choose from, so the crew
figured they would be better off staying at 33 than climbing to 35...]
BUT...there are a couple of very curious things here...
First is the fact that Dnipro controllers deviated the airplane from its flight
plan just before it went down...ostensibly due to other traffic...
We can see this in the following map, which is what's called a high altitude en route
chart, which is used by pilots to plan and execute their flight...
You will note a couple of things here...the airplane is flying on the L980 airway
[basically a highway in the sky] when it is turned south by controllers to the RND waypoint,
which is in Russian territory...
This is NOT the route filed by the crew...which can be seen here...
They were supposed to continue flying on L980 right to the TAMAK waypoint, which is
visible on the previous chart and is right on the border with Russia...
They would have continued on the A87 airway to their next waypoint in Russia which is
TIKNA...
Now here is the thing...right after they were turned south, they got shot down...
According to the radio transcripts, the crew acknowledged the course change, but did not
object...however, usually these kinds of course changes aren't appreciated on the flight deck
because the crew is trying to minimize wasted time and wasted fuel on course
deviations...
Most times you will just not bother to complain to controllers...but for sure there will
always be chatter between the captain and copilot about being yanked around like that...
No mention is made in the Dutch Safety Board report about such chatter from the cockpit
voice recorder, which I find very odd...
Also odd is the fact that Dnipro ATC primary radar was down, and only the so-called
'secondary' was working which uses the transponder signals from the airplane...
This is very busy airspace because a lot of flights from western Europe to South Asia
traverse this territory...the plan is always to fly what's called a 'great circle route'
which is basically a straight line, if you flattened out the globe...
Plus considering that you have a war going on underneath...it's very unusual to have your
PRIMARY radar inoperable...
This is significant also because military aircraft will not be using transponders and so
will not be visible to the secondary surveillance...
The Russian primary radar did pick up two other aircraft very nearby MH17...but the Dutch
have made some kind of excuse about that data not being in 'raw' form and thus not
usable...
So we see some very suspicious anomalies here...
The Ukrainian authorities did have a NOTAM [notice to airmen] in effect up to FL320
[32,000 ft] so commercial traffic could not fly under that height...but clearly they should
have closed the airspace over the hot conflict area...
They didn't do that...and Kolomoysky was in charge...
The Deep State's view on the members' God given right to make foreign policy decisions (it
must be the God who has give it to them, because the people certainly have not) just reminds
the of the general attitude of the Government's bureaucracy. Give any fartbag a position in
the government and he/she becomes "a prince/princes over the people", give him or her a
monopoly over violence and you got yourself a king/queen. All these police and military kings
& queens milling around and lording over us. "Deep State" is such a totally natural
consequence of the government bureaucracy corrupted by power that it appropriated.
Pillaging taxes from the sheeple (and taking young maidens like Sheriff of
Nottingham/Epstein) could have never ever been enough. Did you seriously think that the Deep
Staters would constrain themselves to only stealing your money, taking your children for
their pleasure and to die in their wars of conquest, and putting you into a totally unsafe
airplanes to die for their profit? Constrain themselves when there is a whole globe out there
to be lorded over, like Bidens over Ukraine? It is the poor people of Ukraine who just have
too much money, thus had to give it through the gas monopoly to the Biden gang, which
selflessly brought them "democracy" at $5B in US taxpayers' expense. Therefore, it is the
Deep State which has been chosen by God, or someone just like that, to make the decisions
about the imperialist/globalist foreign policy and have billions of dollars thrown by the
grateful natives into their own pockets, as consulting fees:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-bank-records-confirm-burisma-biden-payments-morgan-stanley-account
So far the only clear-cut globalization is that one of crime, which has become
global.
What is the US National Interest b asks? Who defines it as such?
Ome magazine that might know is none other than The National Interest. Hopefully I won't
get attacked for quoting from what seems like a fairly sane article to me....
"The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to. Ukraine is a debt-ridden state
and only five years beyond an extralegal revolution. Should the government collapse again,
then American weapons could end up in the possession of any number of dubious paramilitary
groups.
It wouldn't be the first time. In the 2000s, CIA operatives were forced to repurchase
Stinger missiles that had fallen into the hands of Afghani warlords -- at a markup.
Originally offered to the Mujahideen in the 1980s, the Stingers came to threaten American
forces in the region. Similarly, many weapons provided with US authorization to Libyan rebels
in 2011 ended up in the possession of jihadists."
It's difficult to find clean information on happenings within Ukraine and those involving
Russia. The Ministry of Foreign affairs has this page
dedicated to the "Situation Around Ukraine." Of the three most recent listings,
this one --"Comment by Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova on the NATO
Council's visit to Ukraine"--from 1 November is quite important as it deals with the reality
on the ground versus the circus happening thousands of miles away, although it's clear the
delusions in Washington and Brussels are the same and "continue to be guided by the Cold War
logic of exaggerating the nonexistent 'threat from the East' rather than the interests of
pan-European security."
In the
second most recent listing --"Remarks by Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to the OSCE Vladimir Zheglov at the OSCE Permanent Council meeting on the
situation in Ukraine and the need to implement the Minsk Agreements, Vienna, October 31,
2019"--the following was noted:
"There's more to it. The odious site Myrotvorets continues to function using servers
located in the United States. The UN has repeatedly stated that this violates the presumption
of innocence and the right to privacy. Recently, Deputy Head of the UN Human Rights
Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, Benjamin Moreau, reiterated the recommendation to shut down
this website. A similar demand was made by other representatives of the international
community, including the German government. The problem was brought to the attention of the
European Court of Human Rights. The other day, the representative of Ukraine at the ECHR was
made aware of the groundlessness of the Ukrainian government's excuses saying that it
allegedly 'has no influence' on the above website.
"In closing, recent opinion polls in Ukraine indicate that its residents are expecting the
government to do more to bring peace to Donbas. The path to a settlement is well known, that
is, the full implementation of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, that was
approved by the UN Security Council."
Clearly, Zelensky's government is much like Poroschenko's when it comes to listening to
those who empowered it, the above citation is one of several from the overall report.
The latest report deals with an ongoing case at the International Court of Justice at The
Hague that reveals some of the anti-Russian bias there. It has no bearing on this discussion,
although it does provide evidence of the contextual background against which the entire
affair, including the circus in Washington, operates.
MoA consensus is Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords they continue to oppose
to implement despite their promise to do so. Clearly an excellent example of not being
agreement capable that hasn't changed since 2015.
If the Republicans had any brains, they'd turn the Ukrainian aspect of the hearings into
an indictment against Obama/Biden for illegally overthrowing Kiev and trying to obtain their
piece-of-the-action, but then that would be the logical thing to do and thus isn't an option.
The prospect of each day providing similar spectacle is mind numbing as it airs the sordid,
unwashed underwear if the Evil Outlaw US Empire.
I normally do not reply to trolls, but I make an exception for you. Pedo-dollar? Do you have
any more such crap to dilute the valid points discussed here?
i liked what @ 32 tod said - "he's just doing the old Jewish threatening/begging
dance!
"And you are forcing us to be at war, and not even giving us the money for it." Wink!
Wink!"
stating the obvious is one remedy for any possible confusion here..
@54 karlof1... i don't believe trump is allowed to shine any light on the usas illegal
actions as that would be sacrilege to all the americans who see their country in such a
great, exceptional-ist light... how would trumps MAGA concept swallow that? it wouldn't, so
it won't happen...
You are a bit off on that story. NS2 pipeline will increase the capacity not transitioning
via Ukraine and reduce the price banditry by the Ukrainian & US gangs, but it will not
make gas transit via Ukraine unnecessary. The planned switch off of the German nuclear and
coal power plants will gradually increase the German demand for gas, that is the Russian gas
by so much that NS1 and NS2 will not be enough. Primarily, NS2 is a signal to the Ukrainian
& US Democrat gangs that if they try excessive transit fees and stealing of gas again,
that they will be circumvented within a few years by NS 3,4,5 ...
BTW, the globalized pillaging of the population is clearly not an invention of the DNC
crime gang only. For example, the 737Max is a product of primarily Republican activity on
deregulating what should have never been deregulated and subjugation to the Wall Street (aka
financialization). The pillaging of the World is strictly bipartisan, just differently
packaged:
1) R - packaging the deregulation to steal & kill as "freedom" or
2) D - packaging the regime change as responsibility to protect R2P (such regime change and
stuffing of own pockets later).
karlof1 @54 - "Minsk backed NATO and its Ukrainian minions into a corner from which
there's only one way out, which is the implementation of the Accords"
Yes. As you well know, and as we have well discussed, Minsk was in its very essence the
surrender terms dictated to the US by NAF and Russia in return for letting the NATO
contractors go free and secretly out of the Debaltsevo cauldron. Either actually or
poetically, this was the basis. The US lost against NAF. The only way to prevent Donbass
incursion into the rest of Ukraine was to freeze the situation. The US had no choice, and
surrendered.
Out of the heat and fog of warfare came a simple document made of words which, even so,
illustrated perfectly just how elegantly the Kremlin had the entire situation both war-gamed
and peace-gamed. Minsk from that day until forever has locked the Ukraine play into a lost
war of attrition for the US sponsors, with zero gain - except for thieves.
To attempt to parse Ukraine in terms of statecraft is to miss the point that Ukraine can
only be parsed in terms of thievery. This is not cynicism, simply truth.
Now they sell their land because this is all there is left to sell. Kolomoisky proposes
selling the entire country to Russia for $100 billion but not only will Russia not bite, the
country isn't worth even a fraction of that - because of Minsk, it can cause zero harm to
Russia. But this ploy raises the perceived value (Kolomoisky hopes) in the eyes of the west,
and starts the bidding.
In Russia the people see all this very clearly, including on their TV. Yakov Kedmi in this
Vesti News clip of
Vladimir Soloviev's hugely popular talk show, discusses the situation. He baits Soloviev by
saying that the Ukrainian thieves are only doing what the Russian thieves did in the 1990's -
and one must filter through this badinage to take out the nuggets he supplies. Here are
three:
1. Zelensky has no security apparatus that follows his command, therefore how can he be
considered the leader of the country?
2. There is no power in Ukraine, only forces that contend over the scraps of plunder.
3. These forces are creating the only law there is, which is the sacred nature of private
property for the rich - the only thing the US holds sacred.
Therefore sell the very soil.
~~
The Minsk agreement is a sheer wall of ice reaching to the sky. No force imaginable can
scale it or break it. Against that ultimate, immovable wall the US pounds futilely, with
Ukraine caught in the middle, while Russia waits for Ukraine to devolve into whatever it
can.
And the Russian people and government regard the people of the Ukraine as brothers and
sisters. But until the west has worn itself down, and either gone away or changed the
equation through a weakening of its own position in some significant way, nothing can be done
by Russia except to wait.
What Tod @32 described is spot-on, "the old Jewish threatening/begging dance". It is not that
the Russians do not know this about Kolomoyskyi. They will play along not expecting anything
from the Zelo-on-a-String and his master. The Russians like to let those scumbags (Erdo comes
to mind) huff & puff and embarrass themselves by flips. They know - it could always be
worse if those did something intelligent. Kolomoyskyi is vile but he ain't no genius, not any
more than Erdo.
Sure Cheeza...everybody's a 'bit off' except you...
Gazprom is talking about 10 bcm a year through Ukraine for the new 10 year deal, as
opposed to the 60 bcm [billion cubic meters] that Ukraine is hoping for...
"Deep state" is misleading and actually a false construction.
There is an Imperial State (the ruling faction/)which consists of imperial apparatchiks
placed in every key position in government. Babyl-on @ 8
? before I begin , how do you measure the political and economic power of money
as opposed to the political and economic power of the intentions and needs of the masses.
Does $1 control a 100 people? A million dollars control 100,000,000 people? How do we measure
the comparative values between money power and people power? I think the divisions of
economics and the binaries of politics established by the nation state system means that the
measurement function (political and economic values) varies as a function of the total wealth
vs the total population in each nation state. If true, become obvious how it is that: foreign
investments displaces the existing homeostatis in any particular nation state, the smaller
the poorer the nation state, the more impact foreign wealth can have; in other words outside
wealth can completely destroy the homeostatis of an existing nation state. I think it is this
fact which makes globalization so attractive to the ruling interest (RI) and so damning to
the poorest of the poor.
Change by amendment is impossible There is one and only one Western Empire but
there is also an Eastern Empire, a southern empire, and a Northern Empire and I believe the
ruling interest (faction) manipulate all nations through these empires. In fact, they can do
this in any nation they wish. The world has been divided into containers of humans and
propaganda and culture have highly polarized the humans in one container against the humans
in other containers. <=divide, polarize, then exploit: its like pry the window, and gain
access to the residence, then exploit. It is obvious that the strength of the resistance to
ruling class exploitation is a function of common cause among the masses. But money allows to
control both the division of power and the polarization of the masses. The persons who have
the powers described in Article II of the US Constitution since Lincoln was murdered can be
controlled (Epstein, MSM directed propaganda, impeachment, assassination, to accomplish the
objects of the ruling interest (faction). Article II of the USA constitution removes foreign
activity of the USA from domestic view of the governed at home Americans. Article II makes it
possible for the POTUS to use American assets and resources to assist his/her feudal lords in
exploiting foreign nations almost at will and there is no way governed Americans can control
who the ruling interest place in the Article II position.
A little History Immigration to NYC from Eastern (the poor) and Western (the
rich) Europe transitioned NYC and other cities from Irish majority to a Jewish majority; and
the wealthy interest used the Jewish majorities in key cities to take control over both
Article I and Article II constitutional powers by electing field effect controlled
politicians (political puppets are elected that can be reprogrammed while they are in office
to suit the ruling interest. The source code is called rule of law, and money buys the
programmers who write the code. So the ruling interest can reprogram in field effect fashion,
any POTUS they wish. Out of sight use of the resources of America in foreign lands is nothing
new, it was established when the constitution was written in Philadelphia in 1787 and
ratified in 1788.
Propaganda targeted to the Jewish Immigrants allowed the wealthy interest to
control the outcome of the 1912 election. That election allowed to destroy Article I,
Section 9, paragraph 4 " No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid unless in
Proportion to the Census of enumeration herein before directed to be taken". and to enact a
law which privatized the USA monopoly on money into the hands of private bankers (the federal
reserve act of 1913)
What was the grand design Highly competitive, independent too strong economic
Germany was interfering with Western hegemony and the oil was in the lands controlled by the
Ottomans. It took two wars, but Germany was destroyed, and the Ottoman empire (basically the
entire Middle East) became the war gained property of the British (Palestine), the French
(Syria) and the USA (Israel). Since then, the ruling interest have used their (field effect
devices to align governments so the wealthy could pillage victim societies the world over.
Field effect programming allows wealth interest to use the leaders of governments to use such
governments to enable pillage in foreign places. The global rich and powerful, and their
corporations are the ruling interest.
psychohistorian says it well "..the global private finance core segment of empire is
behind Trump and throwing America(ns) under the bus as the world turns more multilateral. The
cult of global private finance intends on still having some overarching super-national role
in the new multilateral world and holding debt guns to everyone's heads to make it
ongoing..." by psychochistorian @ 10
NOBITs @ 11 says it also "All presidents have been servants of the military, which includes
the police/intel/security apparatus; the few who did not entirely accept their figurehead
role were "dealt with." Kennedy, Nixon, Carter and now Trump. The Washington permanent state
bureaucrats are shocked and understandably offended; they have after all, been running US
foreign policy for 75 years!" by: NOBTS @ 11
According to TG @ 13 "Democracy" is about privatizing power and socializing
responsibility. The elites get to set the policy, but the public at large gets to take
responsibility when things go wrong. Because you see, we are a "Democracy."by: TG @ 13 <=
absolutely not.. the constitution isolates governed Americans from the USA, because the USA
is a republic and republics are about privatizing power and socializing responsibility;
worse, there ain't nothing you can do about it.
Vonu @ 19 says "According to Kevin Shipp, the National Security Council really runs the
executive branch, not the president. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=XHbrOg092GA"
by: Vonu @ 19 <=but it is by the authority of Ariicle II that the NSC has the power to run
the executive branch?
KAdath @ 22 says "the Oligarchs are now positioning themselves to abandon the US in
order for the Russians to keep even a tiny bit of oil flowing into their pockets by: Kadath @
22" <=exactly.. but really its not abandoning the USA, its abandoning the oligarchs local
to the pillaged nation..
J Swift @ 23 says "the US treats its partners in crime in Syria and elsewhere,"
[poorly] but its not the USA per say, because only one person has the power to deal in
foreign places. Its that the POTUS, or those who control the Article II powers vested in the
POTUS, have or has been reprogrammed.. J. Switft @23>>
flankerbandit @ 25 says " Ukraine has run itself into the ground, literally...now they
are selling vast tracts of agricultural land to huge Euro agribusiness concerns...literally
dispossessing themselves of their own food security..." flankerbandit @ 25 <=Not really
the wealthy (investor interest) have pushed the pillage at will button.. since there is no
resistance remaining, the wealthy will take it all for a song..
Jackrabbit @ 26 says "Trump [is].. Constitutionally charged with foreign policy. Repeating:
the "Imperial Presidency" has flung off Constitutional checks and balances by circumventing
the need to get Congressional approval for spending. Wars (like Syria) are now be funded by
Gulf Monarchies, black ops, and black budgets.by Jackrabbit @ 26 <== Trumps orders
military to take 4 million day from Syria in oil?
your observation that the money has circumvented Article I of the COUS explains why the
democraps are so upset.. the wealthy democrap interest has been left to rot? Your comment
suggest s mafia is in charge?
Tod @ 32 says "As soon as some money goes his way, he'll discover democracy again.
Sorry to burst you bubbles." by: Tod @ 32" <==understatement of the day.. thanks.
Bevin @ 32 says "a dialectic is at work here. Washington's support for fascism abroad
has instituted fascism at home which has led in turn to the installation of fascist regimes
abroad, not just occasionally but routinely. Wherever the US intervenes it leaves a fascist
regime, in which socialists are banned and persecuted, behind it. this means.. the ability of
the population to effect political change is cancelled" by bevin @ 33 <= yes but there is
really no difference in a republic and its rule of law, and a fascist government and its
military police both rule without any influential input from the governed.
michael @ 34 reaffirms "The President was the only channel of communication between the
United States and foreign nations, it was from him alone 'that foreign nations or their
agents are to learn what is or has been the will of the nation'" michael @ 34 well known to
barflies, the design of national constitutions is at the heart of the global problem. Until
constitutional powers are placed in control of the governed there will never be a change in
how the constitutional powers ( in case of the USA Article II powers) are used and
abused.
OutofThinAir @45 says "In general, governments are the order-providing solution for
chaos and problems that only first existed inside the minds of those seeking power over
others.by: OutOfThinAir @ 45" <+governments are the tools of wealth interest and the
governors their hired hands.
by: War is Peace @48 " Trump is a moron, groomed by Jewish parents ( Mother was Jewish,
Father buried at biggest Jewish cementary in NYC ) to be a non-Jew worked for the mob under
Cohen ( lawyer for 1950's McCarthy ); Became the 'Goyim Fool" real estate developer as a
cover for laundering mob money. So that it didn't appear that it was Jewish Mafia Money, so
they could work with the Italian Mafia. Trump went on for his greatest role ever to be the
"fool in Chief" of the USA for AIPAC. What better way to murder people, than send out a fool,
it causes people to drop their guard. by War is Peace @48 <= yes this is my take, What
does it mean. com suggest the global wealth interest may be planning to reprogram Trump to
better protect the interest of the global wealthy.
Kiza @ 51 the reason for globalization is explained see above=> response to Babyl-on @
8
dh @ 53 says ""The US should consider whom they are giving weapons to." by dh @53 <
the USA cannot consider anything, if its foreign the POTUS (Article II) makes all decisions
because Art II gives the POTUS a monopoly on talking to, and dealing with, foreign
governments.
Deagel @ 56 says "The American people don't care, they're all drugged out, and shitting
on the side-walks all over the USA, and sleeping in their own shit. This is the best time in
USA history for the Zionists to do anything they wish." by: Deagel @ 56 <= I think you
under estimate the value Americans place on democracy and human rights, until recently
governed Americans believed the third party privately produced MSM delivered propaganda that
nearly all overseas operations by the USA were to separate the people in those places from
their despotic leaders, and to help those displaced people install Democracy.. many Americans
have come to understand such is far from the case.. the situation in the Ukraine has been an
eye opener for many Americans. thoughts are sizzling, talk is happening, and people are
trying to shut google out of their lives. that is why i think Trump is about to be
reprogrammed from elected leader to .. God in charge
I watched that Soloviev segment with Kedmi the other day...always interesting to say the
least...
Btw...I'm not really up to speed on that whole Debaltsevo cauldron thing...I've heard
snippets here and there...[there is a guy, Auslander, who comments on the Saker blog that
seems to have excellent first hand info, but I've only caught snippets here and there]...
I hadn't heard this part of the story before about Nato contractors as bargaining
chips...if you care to shed a bit more light I will be grateful...
I suggest going to The Saker Blog and
enter Debaltsevo Cauldron into the site's search box and click Submit where you'll be greeted
with numerous results.
Grieved @62--
Thanks for your reply and excellent recap. As I recall, Putin wants Donbass to remain in
Ukraine and Ukraine to remain a whole state, although I haven't read his thoughts on the
matter for quite some months as everything has revolved around implementing Minsk. The items
at the Foreign Ministry I linked to are also concerned with Minsk.
The circus act in DC is trying to avoid any mention of Minsk, the coup or anything
material to the gross imperial meddling done there to enrich the criminal elite, which
includes Biden, Clinton, other DNC members--a whole suite of actors that omits Trump in this
case, although they're trying to pin something on him. The issue being studiously ignored is
Obama/Biden needed to be busted for their actions at the time, but in time-honored fashion
weren't. And the huge rotted sewer of corruption related to that action and ALL that came
before is the real problem at issue.
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person as evidenced by The New Yorker 737Max article
in the previous thread. This good article could only be measured by how much it agrees with
your own opinion that MCAS was put in to mimic the pilots' usual fly-stick feel. If anyone
does his home work, such as the journalist of this article, then he must agree with you,
right? With experts such as you out there, why would anyone dare apply common sense and say
that it would be an unimaginably stupid idea to put in ANY AUTOMATED SYSTEM which pushes
the plane's nose down during ascent (the most risky phase of a civilian flight, when almost
desperately trying to get up and up and up) for any DUMBLY POSSIBLE REASON !? What could
ever go wrong with such an absolutely dumbly initiated system relying on one sensor? Maybe it
was a similar idea to putting a cigarette lighter right next to the car's gas tank because it
lights up cigarettes better when there are gasoline vapors around. Or maybe an idea of
testing the self-driving lithium battery (exploding & flammable) cars near kindergartens
(of some other people's children)!?
An intelligent person would have said - whatever the reason was to put in MCAS it was a
terribly dumb idea, instead of congratulating himself on understanding the "true reason".
"If I were president, while I would resist gratuitous provocations, I would not publicly
associate myself with the delusion that stable friendship is possible (or, frankly,
desirable) with Putin's anti-American dictatorship, which runs its country like a Mafia
family and is acting on its revanchist ambitions."
Really?
From what have gleaned from the alternative media available on the internet ,of which MOA is
an important part. Putin and Lavrov are the two most moral and diplomatic statesmen on the
world stage today Compared to Trump, Johnson, Macron, Merkel, Stoltenberg, Pompeo, Bolton and
whoever else blights the international scene these days these two are colossi.
To describe
them as like a Mafia family seems to me to be 180 degrees wrong. Maybe Putin overreacted, in
his early days in power, to the Chechen conflict but look at the situation today.
Look at how
Gorbachev and Yeltsin were played by the west. I appreciate you did not write the words
quoted above but you said you agree with them and I find that startling given I am usually
very admiring of your insight and knowledge of geopolitical events.
According to the Impeachniks, it is Schiff's staff who decides how Schiff votes and his
policies. It would be illegal for Schiff to make decisions. But Schiff's recommendation will
make or break the careers of his staff, so elected Schiff has some influence. That's not true
for elected Trump, because those in his service already have made careers and/or a host of
outsiders looking to place them.
Although, he didn't get impeached for it Obama did get criticized for not sending the aid to
Ukraine. He was also criticized when he did intervene, but not fast enough for the deep
state. Remember "leading from behind" in response to Libya. Obama was much more popular and
circumspect than Trump, which protected him from possible impeachment when he went off the
deep state's script.
Discussion of the USC and the responsibilities assigned therein is probably a foolish and
merely moot exercise, as law is, ultimately simply custom over time, and since '45 or so the
custom has become dissociated from the documents' provisions, particularly with regard to
war-making and the "licensed" import and sale of dangerous drugs, dope. The custom in place
is essentially ukase - rule by decree. Many decree are secret.
I do not object, simply pointing to the obvious.
This is a public secret anybody can know. Inter alia see The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia (McCoy)
...........
Custom includes also permitted theft, blackmail, trafficking children and so forth.
...........
zerohedge put up some documents tying TGM Hunter B to the money from Ukraine...
................
I would not worry about the name of the person called president. The real sitrep is more
like watching rape and murder from the dirty windows of a runaway train.
Upon the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine was left with the fifth-largest nuclear arsenal in
the world. In exchange for financial assistance in the costs of removing all the nukes, the
West guaranteed to defend Ukraine's territorial integrity.
In the meantime, Russia has annexed the Crimea and rebels have taken control of parts of
Eastern Ukraine. The West has not provided any direct military assistance to restore those
territorial infringements.
Since the West has reneged on its end of the deal, would it not only be fair to return
Ukraine's nukes so it can defend itself like the Big Boys do, namely with threat of nuclear
annihilation?
I hate this trope. The Russian Fed. is not launching offensive operations to capture
Kharkov or Kiev. Western Ukraine is shelling ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine. What would
U.S. Congressman say if these were Jews? (I would condemn that as well).
The next time someone pontificates, 'Ukrainians are dying because Trump held up aid' ask
them how many. The number is ZERO. Javelins are not being used on the front line.
Mr. Kolomoisky is spot on, i.e. when he says that the Americans will only use Ukrainians as
their little bitches to fight and die for America's gain against Russia. Just like the
Americans fucked over the Kurds in Syria, using them as proxy fighters to do USA/Israel's
dirty work. Wherever the USA shows up and starts interfering, everything turns into shit:
Iraq...Afghanistan...Venezuela...Bolivia...Ukraine...Libya...Yemen...Nicaragua...Ecuador...the
list is quite long. It remains to be seen if Mr. Kolomoisky can bring about rapprochement
with Russia. He'd better watch his back.
"Wow. My opinion of Kolomoisky has just improved ... somewhat." --Seamus Padraig @73
Yes, Kolomoisky has moved up a notch in my estimation as well; from the low of
"monstrously inhuman spawn of satan" all the way up to "rabid dog" . That's
quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
I am very glad to see you back, Grieved, and your 'wall of ice' metaphor is indeed accurate.
To me, the promising signs in Ukraine were even as here in the US when voters fought back
against what b calls Deep State, which I am sure in my heart was even more of an overwhelming
surge than registered - the best the corrupters of the system could do was make it close
enough to be a barely legitimate win for their side, and they didn't succeed. Maybe somewhere
along their line of shenanigans a small cog in the wheel got religion and didn't do their
'job'. An unsung hero who will sing when it's safe.
I hope, dearly hope, it gets safe in Ukraine very soon. They are us only further down the
line than we are, but we will get there if we can't totally remove the cancer in our midst.
That's our job; I wish Ukraine all the best in removing theirs.
Jen...I should have made clear that the two aircraft picked up by Russian PRIMARY RADAR were
unidentified...
The two commercial flights you mention were in the area and were known to both Russian and
Ukrainian controllers by means of the SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR, which picks up the
aircraft transponder signals...
However, secondary WILL NOT pick up military craft that have their transponders
off...which is normal operating procedure for military craft...
So the airspace situation was this...you can see this from one of the illustrations I
provided from the DSB prelim report...
You had MH17...you had that other flight coming from the opposite direction [flying
west]...and you had that airplane that overtook the MH17 from behind [they were in a hurry
and were going faster, so when MH17 decided to stay at FL330, they were cleared to climb to
FL350 so they could safely overtake with the necessary vertical separation...]
Those three aircraft were all picked up on the Ukrainian SECONDARY [transponder]
surveillance...as well as the Russians...on both their PRIMARY AND SECONDARY...
But what the Russians picked up were two craft ONLY ON THEIR PRIMARY...those would have
been military aircraft flying with their transponders off [they're allowed to do that and do
that most of the time in fact]...
That's why those two DIDN'T SHOW UP ON THE SECONDARY DATA HANDED OVER TO THE INVESTIGATORS
BY THE UKRAINIANS...
Only primary radar would pick those up...and, very conveniently, the Dnipro primary was
inop at the time...[so the data handed to investigators by the Ukrainians would have no trace
of any military aircraft nearby]...
But with the Russian primary radar data, there is in fact evidence that there were
military aircraft in the air at the time...just that the Dutch investigators simply decided
to exclude the very vital Russian radar data on some stupid technicality...
[Really this is a very poorly done report, both prelim and final, and I've read many over
the years...]
The other thing I should have emphasized more clearly is about that course deviation that
controllers steered MH17 to, just seconds before it was hit...
The known traffic was those three commercial aircraft, as shown on the chart...here it is
again...
Those three commercial flights are clearly labeled...and the big question is... why was
MH17 DIVERTED SOUTH...OFF ITS PLANNED ROUTE...?
We can see the deviation track by the dotted red line...
Clearly there was no 'other traffic' that required MH17 to be vectored south by the
controllers...
In fact we see that there was a FOURTH commercial flight [another B777] that was flying
south exactly to that same waypoint that MH17 was diverted to...we see this airplane is
flying west on the M70 airway and is heading to the RND waypoint...
This does not make sense...why would you divert MH17 from going to TAMAK as flight
planned...in order to go south toward RND where another airplane is heading...
If nothing else this is very bad controller practice right there...yet again, the DSB
[Dutch Safety Board] does not even raise this question...
Like I said, leaving aside any guesswork, these are the simple facts and they raise
serious questions...both about the competence of the Dutch report, and the way the
controllers handled that flight...
Ukrainian think tank Ukrainian Institute of the Future and Ukrainian media outlet Zerkalo
Nedeli (both anti-Russian, but slightly more intellectual than typical Ukrainian outlets)
have contracted a Kharkov-based pollster to conduct a poll among DNR/LNR residents from
October 7 to October 31 (method: face-to-face interviews at the homes of the respondents,
sample size: 806 respondents in DNR and 800 respondents in LNR, margin of error: 3.2%) and
published its results in an article: Тест
на сумісність
[Compatibility Test] (in Ukrainian).
It's a long and rambling article, interspersed with
Ukrainian propagandistic clichés (perhaps to placate Ukrainian nationalists), but the
numbers look solid, so I've extracted the numbers I consider important and put them in a
table format. Here they are:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Gender 46.5% male 53.5% female
Age 8.3% <25 years old 91.7% ≥25 years old
Education 31.5% no vocational training or higher education 45.2% vocational training 23.3% higher education
Religion 57% marry and baptize their children in Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) 31% believe in God, but do not go to any church 12% other churches, other religions, atheists
Political activity 3% are members of parties 97% are not members of parties
Language 90% speak Russian at home 10% speak other languages at home
Nationality 55.4% consider themselves Ukrainians 44.6% do not consider themselves Ukrainians
ECONOMY
Opinion about the labor market 24.3% there are almost no jobs 39.3% high unemployment, but it's possible to find a job 15.7% there are jobs, even if temporary 17.1% key enterprises are working, those who want to work can find a job 2.9% there are not enough employees
Personal financial situation 4.9% are saving on food 36.4% enough money to buy food, but have to save money to buy clothing 43.6% enough money to buy food and clothing, but have to save money to buy a suit, a mobile
phone, or a vacuum cleaner 12% enough money to buy food, clothing, and other goods, but have to save money to buy
expensive goods (e.g. consumer electronics) 2.7% enough money to buy food, clothing, and expensive goods, but have to save money to buy a
car or an apartment 0.4% enough money to buy anything
Personal financial situation compared to the previous year 28.4% worsened 57.3% stayed the same 14.2% improved
Personal financial situation expectations for the next year 21% will worsen 58.6% will stay the same 18.7% will improve
Opinion on the Ukraine's (sans DNR/LNR) economic situation compared to the previous
year 50.3% worsened 41.4% stayed the same 6.3% improved
CITIZENSHIP
Consider themselves citizens of 57.8% the Ukraine 34.8% DNR/LNR 6.8% Russia
Russian citizenship 42.9% never thought about obtaining it 15.5% don't want to obtain it 34.2% would like to obtain it 7.4% already obtained it
Considered leaving DNR/LNR for 5.2% the Ukraine 11.1% Russia 2.9% other country 80.8% never considered leaving
Visits to the Ukraine over the past year 35.1% across the DNR/LNR–Ukraine border (overwhelming majority of them -- 32.2% of all
respondents -- are pensioners who visit the Ukraine to receive their pensions) 2.6% across the Russia–Ukraine border 62.3% have not visited the Ukraine
WAR
Is the war in Donbass an internal Ukrainian conflict? 35.6% completely agree 40.5% tend to agree 14.1% tend to disagree 9.3% completely disagree
Was the war started by Moscow and pro-Russian groups? 3.1% completely agree 6.4% tend to agree 45.1% tend to disagree 44.9% completely disagree
Who must pay to rebuild DNR/LNR? (multiple answers) 63.6% the Ukraine 29.3% Ukrainian oligarchs 18.5% DNR/LNR themselves 17% the U.S. 16.5% the EU 16% Russia 13% all of the above
ZELENSKIY
Opinion about Zelenskiy 1.9% very positive 17.2% positive 49.6% negative 29.3% very negative
Has your opinion about Zelenskiy changed over the past months? 2.7% significantly improved 7.9% somewhat improved 44.8% stayed the same 22.9% somewhat worsened 20.5% significantly worsened
Will Zelenskiy be able to improve the Ukraine's economy? 1.4% highly likely 13.3% likely 55.3% unlikely 30% highly unlikely
Will Zelenskiy be able to bring peace to the region? 1.7% highly likely 12.5% likely 59% unlikely 26.5% highly unlikely
MEDIA
Where do you get your information on politics? (multiple answers) 84.3% TV 60.6% social networks 50.9% relatives, friends 45.9% websites 17.4% co-workers 10% radio 7.4% newspapers and magazines
What social networks do you use? (multiple answers) 70.7% YouTube 61% VK 52.3% Odnoklassniki 49.8% Viber 27.1% Facebook 21.4% Instagram 12.4% Twitter 11.1% Telegram
FUTURE
Desired status of DNR/LNR 5.1% part of the Ukraine 13.4% part of the Ukraine with a special status 16.2% independent state 13.4% part of Russia with a special status 50.9% part of Russia
Desired status of entire Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts 8.4% part of the Ukraine 10.8% part of the Ukraine with a special status 14.4% independent state 13.3% part of Russia with a special status 49.6% part of Russia
Just listening to a bit of the testimony of the ex-ambassador to Ukraine.
It is all BS hearsay!
Also, this lady doesn't seem to grasp that as an employee of the State Department, she
answers to Trump. Trump is her boss.
The questioning is full of leading questions that contains allegations and unproved
premises built into them. I can't imagine that such questioning would be allowed in a normal
court of justice in the USA.
Sure, Trump is a boor. But he is still the boss and he gets to pull out ambassadors if he
wants to.
This is total grandstanding.
Also, a lot of emotional stuff like "I was devastated. I was shocked. Color drained from
my face as I read the telephone transcript . . . "
This is BS!
IIRC the Russian radar showed that the two mystery planes in questions were flying in
MH17's blindspot . That's way too close to be half an hour away. Also, the fact that
the two planes were flying over a war zone with their transponders turned off (which is why
they couldn't be conclusively identified) strongly suggests that they were military.
@ Posted by: ralphieboy | Nov 15 2019 11:24 utc | 71
When the US launched a coup in Kiev, wasn't that a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty
too?
@ Posted by: Christian J Chuba | Nov 15 2019 12:36 utc | 72
You know the real reason why they have yet to deliver the javelins to Ukraine? It's
because they're afraid that they'll be sold on the black market and end up in the ME
somewhere targeting US tanks. That's why.
@ Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 15 2019 13:30 utc | 75
That's quite the dramatic improvement, I must admit.
on Yovanovitch,
She added: "If our chief representative is kneecapped, it limits our effectiveness to
safeguard the vital national security interests of the United States."
She wasn't fired, she was kneecapped, and Ukraine is a US vital national security
interest, especially after it installed a new government with neo-fascism support.. .
.Kneecapping is a form of malicious wounding, often as torture, in which the victim is
injured in the knee
Cheeza decides to launch a personal attack...also completely off topic...
Typical reaction of a zelf-zentered person [sic]...With experts such as you out there,
why would anyone dare apply common sense...an intelligent person would have said...blah
blah blah...
Look man...I'm not going to take up a lot of space on this thread because it's not about
the MAX...
BUT...I need to set the record straight because you are accusing me here of somehow
muddying the waters on the MAX issue...
That is a complete inversion of the truth...I have been very explicit in my [professional]
comments about the MAX...and it is the exact opposite of what you are trying to tar me with
here...
Yes, it is important to understand these things...which is why I have made the effort to
explain the issue more clearly for the layman audience...
Your pathetic attack here shows you have no shame, nor self-respect...
Let's rewind the tape here...I said that Gazprom is looking to cut supplies to Ukraine in
the new 10 year deal that comes up for negotiation in January...and that they are going to be
pumping much less gas through Ukraine because NS2 now allows to bypass Ukraine...
You took a run at this comment, calling it wrong, and putting up a bunch of your own
hypothesizing...
I responded by linking to the
Russian news report quoting officials saying exactly that...that gas to Ukraine will be
greatly reduced...
Instead of responding to that by admitting you were full of shit...you decide to attack me
on the MAX issue...everybody here knows my [professional] position on the MAX...and that I
have said repeatedly THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED...[which is also why I have offered detailed
technical explanations...]
I'm not going to let you screw with my integrity here...everything you attributed to me
on the MAX is completely FALSE and in fact turning the truth on its head...
As Kiza #55 noted - Nordstream 1 and 2, combined, only equal half of Ukraine's transit
capacity.
The primary impact is that Ukraine can't hold far Western European customer gas hostage
anymore with its gas transit "negotiations" as Nordstream allows Russia to sell directly to
Germany.
There can still be Russian gas sold via Ukraine, but this will be mostly to near-Ukraine
neighbors: Romania, Slovakia, Austria, Czech as well as Ukraine itself.
Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania can transit from Turk Stream, but there are potential Turk (and
Bulgarian) issues.
Poland is already committing to LNG in order to not be dependent on Russian gas transiting
Ukraine - a double whammy.
The ultimate effect is to remove Ukraine's stranglehold position over Russian gas exports,
which in turn severely undercuts Ukraine's ability to both get really cheap Russian gas and
additional transit fees - a major blow to their economy.
Therefore, the continuation of gas transit via Ukraine in volumes greater than the 26 bcm/y
suggested above will depend on the European Commission and European gas importers, and
their insistence that gas transit via Ukraine continues.
Otherwise, gas transit via Ukraine will be reduced to delivering limited volumes for
European storage re-fills in the 'off-peak' summer months...
This prospect will undoubtedly complicate any negotiations between Gazprom and its
Ukrainian counterparty over a new contract to govern the transit of Russian gas via
Ukraine, once the existing contract expires at the end of December 2019.
...Gazprom may be willing to commit to only limited annual transit volumes...
European gas importers don't give a shit about Ukraine...and they have the final
word...they care only about getting the gas they need from Russia in a reliable way and at a
good price...
The news report I linked to makes it perfectly clear that the Europeans are demanding that
the Ukranians get their act together on the gas issue, or they will be dropped
altogether...
You know...FOOL...it really makes me wonder how fools like you decide to make statements
here with a very authoritative tone...when it is quite clear you are talking out your rear
end...
Nobody needs that kind of bullshit here...if you don't know a subject sufficiently well,
then maybe you should keep quiet...or when making a statement, phrase it as your own OPINION
and nothing more...
"... In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained influence over Ukraine's national bank? ..."
"... John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. ..."
"... In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record, videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target. Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you just rely on press reports? ..."
"... Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials. These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country? ..."
"... If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate? ..."
"... At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky? ..."
The next big witness for the House Democrats' impeachment hearings is Marie Yovanovitch, the
former American ambassador to Ukraine who was recalled last spring at President Trump's
insistence.
It is unclear what firsthand knowledge she will offer about the core allegation of this
impeachment: that Trump delayed foreign aid assistance to Ukraine in hopes of getting an
investigation of Joe Biden and Democrats started.
Nonetheless, she did deal with the Ukrainians going back to the summer of 2016 and likely
will be an important fact witness.
After nearly two years of reporting on Ukraine issues, here are 15 questions I think could
be most illuminating to every day Americans if the ambassador answered them.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, at any time while you served in Ukraine did any officials in Kiev
ever express concern to you that President Trump might be withholding foreign aid assistance
to get political investigations started? Did President Trump ever ask you as America's top
representative in Kiev to pressure Ukrainians to start an investigation about Burisma
Holdings or the Bidens?
What was the Ukrainians' perception of President Trump after he allowed lethal aid to go
to Ukraine in 2018?
In the spring and summer of 2019, did you ever become aware of any U.S. intelligence
or U.S. treasury concerns raised about incoming Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and
his affiliation or proximity to certain oligarchs? Did any of those concerns involve what the
IMF might do if a certain oligarch who supported Zelensky returned to power and regained
influence over Ukraine's national bank?
Back in May 2018, then-House Rules Committee chairman Pete Sessions wrote a letter to
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo suggesting you might have made comments unflattering or
unsupportive of the president and should be recalled. Setting aside that Sessions is a
Republican and might even have donors interested in Ukraine policy, were you ever questioned
about his concerns? At any time have you or your embassy staff made comments that could be
viewed as unsupportive or critical of President Trump and his policies?
John Solomon reported at The Hill and your colleagues have since confirmed in
testimony that the State Department helped fund a nonprofit called the Anti-Corruption Action
Centre of Ukraine that also was funded by George Soros' main charity. That nonprofit, also
known as AnTac, was identified in a 2014 Soros foundation strategy document as critical to
reshaping Ukraine to Mr. Soros' vision. Can you explain what role your embassy played in
funding this group and why State funds would flow to it? And did any one consider the
perception of mingling tax dollars with those donated by Soros, a liberal ideologue who spent
millions in 2016 trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump?
In March 2019, Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuriy Lutsenko gave an on-the-record,
videotaped interview to The Hill alleging that during a 2016 meeting you discussed a list of
names of Ukrainian nationals and groups you did not want to see Ukrainian prosecutors target.
Your supporters have since suggested he recanted that story. Did you or your staff ever do
anything to confirm he had recanted or changed his story, such as talk to him, or did you
just rely on press reports?
Now that both the New York Times and The Hill have confirmed that Lutsenko stands by his
account and has not recanted, how do you respond to his concerns? And setting aide the use of
the word "list," is it possible that during that 2016 meeting with Mr. Lutsenko you discussed
the names of certain Ukrainians you did not want to see prosecuted, investigated or
harassed?
Your colleagues, in particular Mr. George Kent, have confirmed to the House
Intelligence Committee that the U.S. embassy in Kiev did, in fact, exert pressure on the
Ukrainian prosecutors office not to prosecute certain Ukrainian activists and officials.
These efforts included a letter Mr. Kent signed urging Ukrainian prosecutors to back off an
investigation of the aforementioned group AnTac as well as engaged in conversations about
certain Ukrainians like Parliamentary member Sergey Leschenko, journalist Vitali Shabunin and
NABU director Artem Sytnyk. Why was the US. Embassy involved in exerting such pressure and
did any of these actions run afoul of the Geneva Convention's requirement that foreign
diplomats avoid becoming involved in the internal affairs of their host country?
On March 5 of this year, you gave a speech in which you called for the replacement of
Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor. That speech occurred in the middle of the Ukrainian
presidential election and obviously raised concerns among some Ukrainians of internal
interference prohibited by the Geneva Convention. In fact, one of your bosses, Under
Secretary David Hale, got questioned about those concerns when he arrived in country a few
days later. Why did you think it was appropriate to give advice to Ukrainians on an internal
personnel matter and did you consider then or now the potential concerns your comments might
raise about meddling in the Ukrainian election or the country's internal affairs?
If the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States suddenly urged us to fire Attorney
General Bill Bar or our FBI director, would you think that was appropriate?
At any time since December 2015, did you or your embassy ever have any contact with
Vice President Joe Biden, his office or his son Hunter Biden concerning Burisma Holdings or
an investigation into its owner Mykola Zlochevsky?
At any time since you were appointed ambassador to Ukraine, did you or your embassy have
any contact with the following Burisma figures: Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, lawyer John
Buretta, Blue Star strategies representatives Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, or former
Ukrainian embassy official Andrii Telizhenko?
John Solomon obtained documents showing Burisma representatives were pressuring the State
Department in February 2016 to help end the corruption allegations against the company and
were invoking Hunter Biden's name as part of their effort. Did you ever subsequently learn of
these contacts and did any one at State -- including but not limited to Secretary Kerry,
Undersecretary Novelli, Deputy Secretary Blinken or Assistant Secretary Nuland -- ever raise
Burisma with you?
What was your embassy's assessment of the corruption allegations around Burisma and why
the company may have hired Hunter Biden as a board member in 2014?
In spring 2019 your embassy reportedly began monitoring briefly the social media
communications of certain people viewed as supportive of President Trump and gathering
analytics about them. Who were those people? Why was this done? Why did it stop? And did
anyone in the State Department chain of command ever suggest targeting Americans with State
resources might be improper or illegal?
"... To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam. If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart person. ..."
"... Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college degree. Not making this up. ..."
"... The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival. ..."
"... Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the troglodytes who will be asking her questions. ..."
"... You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able to do your job better and go home each night ..."
"... It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve." ..."
14 November 2019Understanding the Foreign Service Officer Nerd Behavior by Larry C Johnson
A group of lions is called a "pride." A group of crows is called a "murder." A group of
geese is called a "gaggle." So what do you call a group of Ambassadors? A pomposity (that term
was coined by Colonel Lang when the two of us were working on an exercise on Iran and there
were three Ambassadors huddled in a corner scheming--brilliant).
There are two types of Ambassadors--political appointees and Foreign Service Officers who
have made their way to the top of the Foreign Service mountain. The two fellows testifying at
the opening of the House Impeachment inquiry -- Kent and Taylor -- are Foreign Service
Officers. They are a strange lot. There are some exceptions who are normal people, such as
Ambassador Morris (Buzz) Busby and Ambassador Anthony Quainton. I worked for Buzz and dealt
with Ambassador Quainton on a variety of policy issues.
I conducted training for U.S. military Special Ops forces for several years in the aftermath
of 9-11. My task was to teach them how to understand the culture of the Foreign Service
Officers and offer tips on how to interact. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks,
U.S. SpecOps personnel were deployed to U.S. Embassies around the world and were having some
trouble interacting with the so-called diplomats.
To become a Foreign Service Officer you must take a written and an oral exam. If you pass
these exams then you win the golden ticket granting you entrance into the FSO club. FSOs have
convinced themselves that only the smartest, the brightest, the most able can pass this exam.
If you have not taken the exam and passed it then you are by definition not a very smart
person.
Many FSOs looked down their nose at these knuckle dragging gorillas masquerading as Special
Operations forces at U.S. They assumed they were barely literate. Imagine their shock when the
FSOs discovered that a member of the elite U.S. Army CT unit or a member of the SEALS could
actually speak a foreign language, had read some real literature and held an advanced college
degree. Not making this up.
The Foreign Service contains many officers who take arrogance and prickishness to new
heights. You make a fatal error if you believe that because they tend to be soft spoken and
non-confrontational that they are not dangerous and devious. Au contraire. Many that rise in
the Foreign Service have a knack for sticking a knife in the back of a perceived rival.
Let me give you a personal example. A female Ambassador who was a Deputy in the Office of
the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism had a blow up when I helped a Navy SEAL Commander, who
was detailed to State, revamp a memo she had already approved because an important overseas
asset deployed for responding to a international terrorist incident had been inadvertently left
out of the memo. When my SEAL buddy went in to brief her on the change she started screaming at
him, broke her lamp and threw a bottle of hand lotion at him. If she had been a man my friend
would have physically retaliated. Instead, my SEAL buddy walked out of the office and recounted
the incident to a Civil Service employee in the office. That employee happened to be the
neighbor of Ambassador A. Peter Burleigh, who was in charge of S/CT during that time.
When Ambassador Burleigh learned of her outburst he called her to his office and read her
the riot act. What did she do? She assumed I was the one (I was not) who had ratted on her to
Ambassador Burleigh. She set out to destroy me. My boss at the time was a retired Marine Corps
Colonel, Dominick "Dick" Gannon. What a gentleman. I counted him as a mentor and a second
father. Hard as woodpecker lips and a man who lived by a code of honor.
Dick prepared my fitness report and submitted it to his supervisor, the crazy female FSO.
She demanded he change it to trash me and he refused. So she waited. Dick went overseas on a
diplomatic mission and the female Ambassador snuck upstairs to the 7th floor (i.e., the
Secretary of State's suite). She filed a complaint against Dick accusing him of failing to do
the evaluation in a timely manner. Fortunately, the admin person she talked to, Joanne Graves,
looked it over, saw that Dick had signed and informed the female FSO that the person who had
failed to act in a timely manner was her. She was furious but beaten.
Just another day in the life of a Pomposity. From what I have seen of tomorrow's
witness, Marie Yovanovitch, an FSO, is the same kind of person I encountered in the Office of
Counter Terrorism. Arrogant and aggrieved and convinced that she is so much smarter than the
troglodytes who will be asking her questions.
I am not saying that all FSOs are like this. But a large number are. You will be seeing
another one of these critters in Friday's testimony.
Ah, troglodytes ... a decade ago I was told that I was one too. Because I can ... count.
As a student I worked in a marketing company that sold US credit cards. My part of the job
was more honourable: I was tasked with administering the phone numbers called to do that.
It's like that with these numbers: You call someone and he sais " Never ever call me
again, never ever, you a**hole " the number is blocked to be recalled for 6 weeks and was
then called again. If the person agrees to appointment with a seller, the number is blocked
for a year etc pp.
The point is, the more you call the less numbers you have left. Call in a city for a week,
starting with 5000 numbers - after a week you're left with, say, 300 (mostly crap).
To make after that many or any more appointments then is simply impossible or requires a
lot of luck or, much worse, to re-use the numbers by nullifying all blockings (= burning
resources).
It's that simple: To make fried eggs you need eggs, a stove and a pan (or a really hot
engine hood), to make bricks you need clay, if you want to drive from Europe to Vladivostok
you need ... a visum, money, time, food, good weather, a warm jacket, to know russian, have a
robust car and a lot of fuel etc pp.
One day another employee (nice ties, glued hair and IMO seriously business study damaged)
negotiated a new contract with the credit card company with very ambitious goals, without
asking whether we had the resources (phone numbers) to achieve that.
And we didn't have what was needed and the bosses decided and chose not to buy more
numbers. So I told the unfortunate guy tasked with achieving the demanded sales that, with
the numbers left, we simply couldn't do it.
I was then wildly insulted to be a ... troglodyte, wicked, mean, illoyal, evil, that I
would lie and some more of that sort. I was fired 15 minutes later, which annoyed as hell
but, on the plus side, with luck led me to a three times better paid much better job
elsewhere.
The part more entertaining me was that I was absolutely correct, which I learned a few
months later from a former colleague:
The company was bankrupt eight weeks later, and the guy who fired me had a burnout or
mental breakdown three weeks later. One of the bosses went from having been a millionaire to
work as a waiter. The contract partner simply chose another "executor" (who was amusingly
employing the same salesmen).
So, I was right, and what did it give me? Not much but a bad experience and, with luck,
something much better elsewhere. Alas, and good riddance.
Yes, it's not often that someone who is right first gets the credit. It's true in business,
educational organizations--well everywhere I ever worked. I just got used to someone else
getting credit for things I had put in place first.
You get to the point of not caring if you don't get the credit. You just want to be able
to do your job better and go home each night.
It's common for females in almost every work situation I held. Pompous men getting the
credit for what a whole office of females actually did -- sometimes doing things and making
decisions they just didn't ask the boss to "approve."
I am struck by the fact that a woman mentioned above actually threw a bottle of hand
lotion at a SEAL who came to Main State to brief her. Much the same thing happened to me with
a male FSO who was DCM in an embassy in which I was DATT.
I had drafted a lengthy report to DIA that described the local armed forces as inept and difficult to train. The embassy had
the right to append remarks to my report but not to change it or block it without my
agreement. The DCM tried for half an hour to pressure me into changing my report to make it
more favorable to the local forces.
When I refused repeatedly to do so he threw the fifteen
page message form across the room at me. I got up and left, leaving it where it fell. After
talking to the ambassador the man apologized and the embassy sent my message.
Someone's ox is getting slowly and methodically gored. Solomon's reporting on Ukraine and
the State Department has been spot on and backed up by solid evidence.
Dems skillfully changed the narrative from Biden's Corruption to Trump actions against his potential Presidential candidate
(which is actually much less dangerous to Trump then Warren or Sanders; it is optimal for Trump variation of Hilary 2.0 theme )
The issue of supplying Ukraine arm to destabilize the region (with the USA on the receiving end of the potential Russia
retaliation incase of escalation of the conflict ) was changed in "withholding the aid from the ally". Real propaganda
professionals.
Looks like George Kent is dyed-in-the-wool neocon and belongs to the neocon vipers nest in the State Department as
Nuland. He is
actually extremely damaging for the USA foreign policy person. Another crazy USA supremacist, believer in "Full Spectrum
Domination" doctrine
Notable quotes:
"... I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.) ..."
"... Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs some bones ..."
"... If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged) in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated??? ..."
"... The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked. The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn mid-flight. ..."
"... These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are* Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war between factions of Ukrainians. ..."
"... The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West. ..."
"... The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance toward Russia. ..."
"... The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became "aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect. ..."
"... Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging the president so badly making his unelectable. ..."
"... Demonstrating the worst attributes of a prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place -- they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless that no evidence supports the accusation. ..."
"... If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no strings attached? ..."
"... Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION ..."
"... Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine -- the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ---- political rival or not that confession is a fact. ..."
"... -- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you need ..."
Choking on the Democrats' Ukraine Fantasy Narrative
Officials and media delivered enough untruths and distortions yesterday to cause us all
heartburn. State Department deputy assistant secretary, George Kent, left, and acting U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine, William B. Taylor, right, appear for a House Intelligence Committee
impeachment hearing Wednesday November 13, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Matt McClain/The
Washington Post via Getty Images)
A top U.S. State Department official began his testimony before the House impeachment
inquiry with eye-popping analogies comparing patriotic Ukrainians to the Minutemen of the
American revolution. His narrative went unchallenged, as all of Washington appears to have
suddenly fallen in love with the poor, defenseless, disadvantaged Ukraine that President Trump
tried to deny arms to.
George Kent, a U.S. State Department official who served under five presidents, told the
House Intelligence Committee Wednesday morning that after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014,
occupying seven percent of its territory, "Ukraine's state institutions were on the verge of
collapse" until "the 21st century Ukrainian equivalent of our own Minutemen in 1776" bought
"time for the regular army to reconstitute."
"Since then, more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their
territorial integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent. "American support in
Ukraine's own de facto war of independence has been critical in this regard." Here's more:
"By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British imperial might
without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of Lafayette's organized
assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul Jones' navy, Congress
has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five years in desperately needed
train and equip security assistance to Ukraine . Similar to von Steuben training colonials at
Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv
near the Polish border, and elsewhere. They help rewrite military education for Ukraine's
next generation, as von Steuben did for America's first."
One would think, listening to this, that the U.S. had always provided arms to Ukraine, and
that Ukraine has relied on this aid for years. But this is completely untrue, and the
Washington blob knows it.
Back in 2014, when Russia annexed a large swath of Ukraine, the Obama administration
declined to arm Ukraine, fearing that adding American weapons to the conflict would spark a hot
war between the U.S. and Russia. At the time, Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain argued
vociferously against Obama's policy.
"The Obama Administration's policy in Ukraine effectively amounts to an arms embargo on
victims of aggression," Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain said in a joint statement. "The
United States and the European Union must provide Ukraine with the arms and related military
and intelligence support that its leaders have consistently sought and desperately need."
Russian President Vladimir Putin's aggression "demands more than additional empty rhetoric
and threats of lowest-common-denominator sanctions," they wrote. "That has been the extent of
the world's response to Putin's slow-motion dismemberment of Ukraine, and it has consistently
failed to deter new acts of aggression."
Even as NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned of a "serious military buildup" by
Russian forces inside Ukraine, the Obama administration still declined to provide Ukraine with
lethal aid.
"We don't think the answer to the crisis in Ukraine is simply to inject more weapons and
engage in tit-for-tat," White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told CNN.
State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki stressed that the US didn't want to "get into a proxy
war with Russia."
So instead, the U.S. responded to Russian aggression with sanctions and kicking them out of
the G-8 (now G-7.) Instead of providing arms,Washington provided Ukraine with non-lethal aid
and with military advisers and continued to engage in joint training exercises together with
several other countries.
Back when a Democrat occupied the White House, foreign policy experts were comfortable with
an unarmed Ukraine.
Foreign Policy magazine published an article called "Don't Poke the Russian
Bear" just after the Russian incursion into Ukraine. Providing arms to Ukraine would be a
needless escalation of a conflict with Moscow, the piece argues.
Where are all these foreign policy experts and their fears about conflict with Russia now?
Did they all suddenly change their minds now that Donald Trump occupies the Oval Office?
Obama's opinion on arming Ukraine never wavered. Even as late as 2016, he argued to
The Atlantic that Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one.
"The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to
military domination by Russia no matter what we do," said Obama.
Thus, the Trump administration decision to provide Ukraine with weapons was a significant
departure from previous US policy. In August 2017, then-U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis
said the Trump administration was "actively reviewing" the question of whether to provide
lethal assistance to Ukraine. Then in 2018, the State Department approved the sale of 210
Javelin portable anti-tank missiles, as well as launchers, associated equipment, and training,
at a total estimated cost of $47 million.
The media appears to be deliberately blurring the timeline to obscure this fact.
From Politico:
The U.S. has provided about $1.5 billion in military support to Kiev between 2014 and this
past June, according to an updated analysis
by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. And Trump's temporary cut off of the aid
represented a significant setback for the country.
But here's what that CRS report Politico links to actually says: "During the Obama
administration, arguments against the provision of lethal assistance centered on Russia's
ability and willingness to steadily escalate conflict in response," says the report. But things
changed significantly under the Trump administration which "has provided major defensive lethal
weaponry to Ukraine."
The U.S. has only approved the sale of weapons to Ukraine last year! But now, weapons
Obama refused to provide are "a lifeline."
Obscuring the timeline advances the narrative that Ukraine relied on military assistance
which Trump suddenly precipitously withdrew. But the truth is that Ukraine did not even have
this assistance until Trump came into office. How can a country rely on something that was only
authorized last year? about the author Barbara Boland is TAC's foreign policy and
national security reporter. Previously, she worked as an editor for the Washington
Examiner and for CNS News. She is the author of Patton Uncovered , a book about
General George Patton in World War II, and her work has appeared on Fox News, The Hill ,
UK Spectator , and elsewhere. Boland is graduate from Immaculata University in
Pennsylvania. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC .
I really wish that TAC writers would stop offering concessions to the neocons in an effort
to appear "serious" and "reasonable". It's disingenuous, counterfactual, and it does not
work. Russia did not invade Ukraine. (You could say that about Crimea, but if you were to do
so, you should also admit that the locals welcomed the "invaders" as liberators.)
If Russia were to invade Ukraine, the Ukrainian clown army, "minuteman patriots(tm)" and
all, would be wiped out in days or hours.
Conservatives are basically wimps, that is why they feel they have to throw the neocon dogs
some bones. It also is why they tend to be history's biggest losers.
If his domestic political opponents have been engaged (or even suspected of being engaged)
in corrupt dealings with foreign governments, why should they not be investigated???
Maybe you think that senior US officials should be immune from investigation, or that
laws don't apply to them?
more than 13,000 Ukrainians have died on Ukrainian soil defending their territorial
integrity and sovereignty from Russian aggression," said Kent.
The UN has estimated that the total number killed in Ukraine's war since the Maidan is
13,000. This figure includes casualties in the Donbass region, fighters and civilians,
killed by the armed forces of Kiev. Mr. Kent is enlisting these dead into a cause they died
resisting. Is there no limit to Washington's cynicism?
1. And most of those pro-Kiev soldiers died because they rushed into reckless and poorly
planned offensives and got slaughtered as a result. When they stay on their own side of the
contact line, they don't get killed.
2. The civilians killed are almost all on the Donbass side of the line (as a result of
Ukrainian terror attacks). The civilians on the other side of the line are not attacked.
The Ukrainian line is that the Novorussians are shelling themselves, but that would require
them, among other absurdities, to invent artillery shells that can do a 180 degree turn
mid-flight.
The fact that the Obama administration did not give lethal aid to Ukraine came up at the
impeachment hearing yesterday and was confirmed by the two bureaucrats. A republican asked
about it.
These foreign policy experts ignore the fact that a large percentage of Ukrainians *are*
Russians and proud of their heritage but do not want to join the Russian Federation and
support a united Ukraine. I was a relentless critic of Obama but the more I read about
Euromaiden and the subsequent Russian invasion/annexation the more I agree with his policy
or not rushing in to supply arms in what was a confusing situation that was part civil war
between factions of Ukrainians.
Congress disagreed and passed the Ukraine Freedom Act which
mandated sanctions and authorized arms shipments. Obama signed it in December of 2014 but
in his signing statement wrote that wasn't going to implement sanctions or ship arms. Back
then ignoring the will of Congress wasn't an impeachable offense but obviously times change.
The 13,000 Ukrainian deaths could probably have been avoided had the US had stayed out of
Ukraine's internal affairs and not encouraged the overthrow of its elected government back
in 2014, however corrupt it was. It was naive of the US State Department and specifically
Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary for East European Affairs (who served in this role
under both Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) to think that Russia would not respond to a
shift in Ukrainian foreign policy in favor of the West.
Russia was never going to allow
Sevastopol (in Crimea), its only warm water to become a future NATO base and Ms. Nuland
should have understood that. Crimea had been captured from the Ottoman Empire in Catherine
the Great's time (c. 1783). Nikita Khrushchev had transferred administrative control of
Crimea from Russia to Ukraine at a time (1954) when there was no land link from Crimea to
Russia and no one expected the USSR to break up.
At the time the Soviet Union gave its consent to the peaceful reunification of East and
West Germany in 1990, it was with the understanding that NATO would not expand eastward
beyond its then existing sphere of influence. But NATO and the US violated this
understanding as new member states from the old Soviet block countries were admitted to
NATO starting in 1999.
As the US continues to meddle in the internal affairs of foreign countries and to hand
out billions of dollars in military foreign aid money every year, the medical care our own
veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan is being short changed. Watch the documentary
"Delay, Deny and Hope You Die" (free if you have an Amazon Prime Membership).
The Deep State lies about the Ukraine and US involvement in political and economic
corruption there are just astounding, but not surprising. The US and NATO bear a huge
portion of the blame for destabilizing an already unstable "nation," being largely
responsible for the coup that ousted the rightful President Yanukovich in 2014 (whom they
also helped deny election in 2004). NATO itself should have been disbanded after the Warsaw
Pact was disbanded. Instead it has taken an ever more expansionist and aggressive stance
toward Russia.
Ukraine is a largely artificial country, parts of which (The Crimea and eastern Ukraine)
really should just be part of greater Russia (the Russian nation's very roots, after all,
are in mediaeval Kievan Rus). It had never been a sovereign nation-state before 1991, and
its current borders are arbitrary and unworkable demographically. The US line that Ukraine
is a vital national security interest in garbage - they just want to join the oligarchs in
fleecing the country and using it as a proxy in their bizarro-world where Russian bogeymen
are everywhere.
What Congress ought to be investigating is how Joe Biden's son ended up on the board of
one of the most corrupt Ukraine oil companies shortly after own visit to the country while
he was VP. That's where the real corruption is.
The US drove forward with NATO until this inevitably happened. Then resistance became
"aggression." It was imagined that NATO would station its ships in former Russian Black Sea bases of
the Crimea, and so lock down Russia's north-south river system as completely as someone
allowed to capture New Orleans and close the Mississippi river system. That attempt had to
produce a war of some sort. Russia just had to resist that. The US did it anyway, guys like
George Kennan in his last years protesting without effect.
The US did this to Ukraine. It rightly ought to be rather like Austria, Yugoslavia, and
Finland of the Cold War era, a safe space between playing off each against the other.
Instead, it got thrown into NATO's aggression.
Here is the basic question: Did Donald Trump attempt to extort the Ukrainian government to get dirt on Biden? It's a basic
yes or no question. And assuming that he did extort the Ukrainian government, is it enough of a crime and abuse of power for
him to be impeached. Every thing else is irrelevant.
No. He didn't.
Even if you think he did, his behaviour could be considered inappropriate, but that
doesn't make it a criminal offense, no matter how much you hate the man.
Like it or not, Trump WON a legal and constitutionally held election, run according to
electoral college procedures. That doesn't change because he wants to know what REALLY
happened when Biden demanded the Ukr sack its corruption investigator (and then bragged
about it) when the investigator started sniffing around the gas company that Hunter Biden
and been installed in by daddy and his pals.
Readers, don't be fooled by her focus on "arms."
Here's what the report says:
"Since independence, Ukraine has been a leading recipient of U.S. foreign and military
aid in
Europe and Eurasia. In the 1990s (FY1992-FY2000), the U.S. government provided almost
$2.6 billion in total aid to Ukraine ($287 million a year, on average).146 In the 2000s
(FY2001 to
FY2009), total aid to Ukraine amounted to almost $1.8 billion ($199 million a year, on
average).147 In the five years before Russia's 2014 invasion of Ukraine (FY2010 to
FY2014),
State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) assistance
(including
foreign military financing) totaled about $105 million a year, on average.
Separate
nonproliferation and threat reduction assistance administered by the Departments of Energy
and
Defense amounted to an average of over $130 million a year in obligated funds."
It's true that Obama didn't want to stumble into a proxy war with Russia. It's also true
that Trump tried to strong-arm Ukraine into investigating a political rival.
Blame the media!
Another example of the right's love of Trump. Grab 'em by the truth!
My week started nice. I has been setting dates to take an entire week off to give my body
a rest from exercise, but after but two and half days I couldn't do it. My mind could not
let iot rest. It plagued and nagged with all of those self deprecating thoughts press
against a change of pace or of course. I found myself trying to cram a weeks worth of
exercise into three days without a break . . it was nuts. Passing my quota was not enough
and i have not let it go to this moment, despite what damage i may do to my body.
I guess the democrats are that way. Refusing to consider what it was about themselves or
their agenda for why they lost the election, Unable, or unwilling to allow a change of
course they set about an entire process for revenge. Refusing to take this time to reassess
themselves, their candidates or their agenda they have chosen instead to plow ahead in
their attempts to overturn the election. by impeachment and conviction or at least damaging
the president so badly making his unelectable.
Demonstrating the worst attributes of a
prosecution: a case with no evidence to the charge, manufacturing evidence, open admissions
that the witnesses saw a crime or we even in the room when the alleged crime took place --
they are showing how the system works and why government cannot be trusted, maybe the
public probably too busy trying to earn a living to attend to the details explains why half
of them actually believe that Russia infiltrated the US to sabotage an election, regardless
that no evidence supports the accusation.
Maybe, just maybe enough of them will see this for what it is an abuse of the our system
worthy of condemnation and maybe the next election will be a second dose of shock and awe.
. Sadly should that be the case the message that democrats will here is that they need to
redouble their efforts potential opponents, even if means destroying the republic they
supposedly seek to save.
I see nothing in this article but deflection and whataboutism. Instead, answer the question
these hearings are actually about: Did Donald Trump withhold or threaten to withhold aid or
support from a foreign ally in return for a personal benefit? If so, that's extortion and
abuse of power and an impeachable offense. It's really that simple.
If it is an impeachable offense, then just about every administration that has been around
since I have been alive should have been nailed. Do you think we don't make deals with no
strings attached?
Those string attached are for the benefit of the US. NOT for the benefit of particular
persons. Strings attached to official aid to benefit particulars is called CORRUPTION
According to "Defense News," the millions of dollars in U.S. security assistance provided
to Ukraine during the Obama administration was "...aimed at helping Ukraine monitor and
secure its borders, deploy its forces more safely and effectively, and make progress toward
NATO interoperability." It was also militarily significant. For example, "After Ukraine
received 20 Lockheed Martin AN/TPQ-53 radar systems that track incoming mortar and
short-range artillery fire in 2015, the casualty rate for units equipped with those systems
went from 47 percent to about 18 percent..."
A year after Trump took office, the U.S.added lethal aid to the mix, as authorized in
the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. According to Defense News, these weapons
included "anti-armor weapon systems, mortars, crew-served weapons and ammunition, grenade
launchers and ammunition, and small arms and ammunition ― but also unspecified
'cyber' and 'electronic warfare' capabilities."
Ms. Boland's article seems to ignore the amount and the helpfulness of the previous
administration's security aid. It also blithely minimizes the harm of holding up the latest
tranche of enhanced security aid (an action that was done for no discernible reason that
anyone but several impeachment witnesses and Mick Mulvaney seems able to explain).
Agree with you that is interesting that those deep state bureaucrats who think that they
make all the policy and the they run the country did lie, and lie quite often.
But I think you're wrong that they planned anything for years. The deep state just wanted
to get Trump out via any means possible and thought they could just come up with anything.
Only useful idiots (and media) believe their lies. Clearly, you are not one of these useful
idiots.
I am hopeful that Kent is educated enough not to take seriously the analogy between the
Ukraine and the 13 colonies and that this was directed to the ignorant boobocracy that is
fixated on their TV screens watching this dreck unfold and whose knowledge of history is
virtually nonexistent.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong and Kent himself is one of them.
You might want to have some facts that are related to the charges --
"Congressional approved funding would be withheld until Ukraine officials agreed to
investigate (or at least publicly announce an investigation) into the President's political
rival."
Not a criminal act and you have your facts wrong. The president referenced CrowdStrike
at the center of the collusion and Russian hack accusations) and given the circumstances of
the VP's son and the VP conduct regarding an investigation in progress in the Ukraine --
the suspicions are entirely reasonable and the VP openly speaks about what he did ----
political rival or not that confession is a fact.
You do realize there are currently investigations underway in the US on these
issues.
-- Trump did, in fact, do exactly what he was accused of doing
-- you shouldn't whine like a baby when "only" seven percent of your territory is
militarily annexed by a hostile foreign power
-- Lindsay Graham pushed for the very aid Trump held up, but that was different because
that was Obama then and anyway can't you see how Democrats are the unprincipled
hyper-partisans here?
-- non-lethal military aid including military advisors is not military aid because
something something Obama something something mainstream media something Obama
-- it's metaphysically impossible to desperately need something unless you are already
receiving that same thing; or if someone else once said you didn't need the thing; or wrote
an op-ed saying you needed the thing but we shouldn't be the ones to provide the thing you
need
This is how filthy neocon fifth column typically works: "The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of
military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting
President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain." Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless
it was directly from Trump it's just a hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever.
"It’s absolutely insane that neoconservatism is still a thing, let alone still a thing that mainstream America tends to regard
as a perfectly legitimate set of opinions for a human being to have. As what Dr. Paul Craig Roberts rightly
calls “the most dangerous ideology that has ever
existed,” neoconservatism has used its nonpartisan bloodlust to work with the Democratic party for the purpose of escalating tensions
with Russia on multiple fronts, bringing our species to the brink of what could very well end up being a
world war with a nuclear superpower and its allies."
This is not okay. Being a neoconservative should receive at least as much vitriolic societal rejection as being a Ku Klux Klan member
or a child molester, but neocon pundits are routinely invited on mainstream television outlets to share their depraved perspectives.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, saying: " I think
it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign. "
To which Sondland replies " Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal
clear no quid pro quo's of any kind, " adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
On Tuesday, Mr. Taylor directly addressed accusations surrounding Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and Burisma, a Ukrainian
gas company that employed Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., one of the leading Democratic candidates
for president.
He "drew a very direct line in the series of events he described between President Trump's decision to withhold funds and refuse
a meeting with Zelensky unless there was a public pronouncement by him of investigations of Burisma and the so-called 2016 election
conspiracy theories," Ms. Wasserman Schultz said. -
New York Times
As the
Washington
Post notes, Taylor said "By mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelenskyy wanted was conditioned
on the investigations of Burisma," the Ukrainian gas firm which employed Hunter Biden, "and alleged Ukrainian interference in the
2016 U.S. elections."
He's a Liar. There's no QPQ. We have the transcript of the call. No QPQ. This Frail looking Douche Bag is lying. He's obviously
on the Ukrainian-Take like the rest of them. DNC kept Servers in the Ukraine. Why would they do that??? (wink, wink)
Democrats have called the testimony the most damaging account yet, as Taylor provided an "excruciatingly detailed" opening
statement, according to the
New York Times .
Taylor was a democratic appointee from the Obama administration...shocker. And he was the only one suggesting this was politically
motivated. Sondland corrected him immediately. Nobody else, including the Ukrainians, agree with his "interpretation".
Schiff's bitch said it like he was told to. Nothing to see folks.
Bobzilla. Do not piss him off , 12 minutes ago
link
Wasn't creepy uncle joe doing a quid pro quo when he said no billion $ unless you fir the prosecutor?? Seems the demonrats
have two sets of rules. ******* hypocrites.
That's right, I followed everything Ukraine in detail in 2013, so did my Mom who is 81. She knows more Ukraine than any of
my dirtbag Democrat friends. Hunter Biden corruption old news.
First of all Ukraine had already started to investigate Biden and Burisma in March, second of all the aid was turned over to
them already and there is no resolution to the investigation yet. Third, the Ukrainians have gone on the record saying there was
no pressure. Last, the president has a responsibility to look into corruption even if it was a Demonrat.
Tandem of CIA and the State Department against Trump ?
Notable quotes:
"... Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios ..."
"... Last month, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her out for having an anti-Trump agenda. ..."
"... McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic political objectives. ..."
On Monday, the House committees conducting impeachment inquiries into President Trump released transcripts of testimony from several
witnesses, including former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and career diplomat and former senior adviser to Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo, Michael McKinley.
Yovanovitch, who was removed from her post in May, testified that President Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani led a campaign to
oust her as ambassador over unsubstantiated allegations that she badmouthed the president and was seeking to stop Ukraine from opening
an investigation into Joe Biden and his son. -Axios
Yovanovitch, who left her position in May, testified that she "assumed" Trump's lack of support for her stemmed from a "partnership"
between Giuliani and Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko .
Last month, Deputy Secretary of State
John Sullivan reportedly told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Trump recalled Yovanovitch after Giuliani singled her
out for having an anti-Trump agenda.
McKinley testified to impeachment investigators that he resigned over the State Department's unwillingness to support foreign
service officers caught up in the Ukraine scandal and the apparent "utilization of our ambassadors overseas to advance domestic
political objectives." -Axios
"... Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty". ..."
"... There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary. ..."
"... The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes. The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM. ..."
"... No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality ! ..."
"... The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor. ..."
"... By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects. ..."
"... I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the 5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner. ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or
factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan
spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples
through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry
into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently
remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy
up & keep her out of the public eye, forever
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if, you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child. Talk about obnoxious
and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less
than $50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it
may seem in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message. In
the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together. Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in
the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said,
" when a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.) They are a law unto themselves and completely
free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK. "We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains. They also murder people,
at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein. They plant bombs and blow people up. Many of the "terrorist atrocities"
from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies with Gladio on the continent and
the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots
to stage a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead. The more recent
Skripal Hoax. The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets. They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if
they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage
and smear his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele. This is highly
dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other
cheek. We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people
are poor servants and terrible masters. We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question
– who runs this country, you or the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and
even suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests. He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep
any of his promises. Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible,
fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies,
and they were home and dry. Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging
down every rabbit hole they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was
paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years. And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree. And you never even mentioned HQ.Intel. inside.Israel,
today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries' with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on everything-everything
& any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors, like Promis & Prism,
liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet)
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would sell
their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction. What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule
& intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father
of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering
arses are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of
the security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages. Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on
multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
"... Ukraine cancels arrest warrant against Zlochevsky and closes the case against him. ..."
"... Ukraine's prosecutor closes the case against Burisma after the company agrees to pay UAH 180 millions of tax liabilities. ..."
"... Burisma announces a donation of between $100,000 and 249,999 to the Atlantic Council ..."
"... U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) closes its case against Zlochevsky ..."
"... Joe Biden brags publicly how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing Shokin. ..."
"... When put this way it is difficult to not ..."
"... Biden son's case is more than demonstrated right now and, in itself, is not even that impressive: it's just bread & butter patronage corruption, which happens all the time in Western Democracies, at all countries, at all levels. What's really impressive here is the scale, because an entire country was destroyed overnight. I mean, if a man as powerful as a vice-POTUS is willing to destroy entire nations just to give his son a sinecure, then no country is safe. ..."
"... A discussion to be followed by prison terms. ..."
"... "Here is to hoping that both sides continue the battle until the whole treasonous house of cards collapses." ..."
"... I agree with previous posters that the real crime was the 2014 coup, and people like Hillary, Victoria Noland and Biden are the greater criminals. But let's not make this a Dem vs Rep thing. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war in Iraq to steal their oil. Both war parties supported Poroshenko and unending anti-Russian invective. It is from that mindset that they argue over whether conditioning military aid to Ukraine constitutes quid pro quo. ..."
"... We've gone through a lot of news sources to see if we couldn't figure out what is going on in Ukraine as to why the Democrats, led by Jewish congressional representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) who leads the impeachment committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is on the Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Eliot Engel (D-New York) along with 21 other Jewish Democratic congressional representatives all calling for the impeachment of President Trump because of his phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. ..."
"... As I wrote in April 2015, there are very strong indications that Foreign Affairs Representative for the EU Catherine Ashton, IMF boss Christine Lagarde and Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland provided the united US/EU media front for the Ukraine coup, with Biden, Kerry and John McCain too publicity hungry to remain in the background like they were almost certainly supposed to. https://bryanhemming.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/double-double-toil-and-trouble-the-cauldron-of-kiev/ ..."
"... It is like a virtual country that wants to impose a distorted view of itself. Just imagine for a minute if California became independent and all of the sudden the official language is Spanish, all relations at schools, hospitals, state centers, banks, etc. etc. are to be held in Spanish only. Well, that's happening in that new "liberated" for democracy country, the priceless work of Nulands, Bidens et al, plus all the killing, that goes without saying. ..."
"... when a corrupt system lies to itself about its corruption there is some hope. ..."
"... We desperately need a bringer of light. Could it be Tulsi Gabbard? Perhaps, if she has the guts to turn away from Indian and Israeli nationalism and if the people choose to support her truth telling. It's a long shot, but she might be our last hope. ..."
by then-Vice President Joe Biden against the
then-General Prosecutor of Ukraine, Viktor Shokin. Shokin was investigating Mykola Zlochevsky,
the owner of the gas company Burisma Holdings which paid Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden at least
$50,000 per month for being on its board.
We used
that timeline to show that Biden's intervention reached its height shortly after the
prosecutor confiscated Zlochevsky houses.
A new report by John Solomon, based on released State Department emails,
supports the suspicion that Joe Biden and others intervened against Shokin on behalf of
Burisma and on request of his son:
Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State
Department during the 2016 election cycle, including one just a month before Vice President
Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating his son's company for
corruption, newly released memos show.
During that February 2016 contact, a U.S. representative for Burisma Holdings sought a
meeting with Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli to discuss ending the corruption
allegations against the Ukrainian firm where Hunter Biden worked as a board member, according
to memos obtained under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Just three weeks before Burisma's overture to State, Ukrainian authorities raided the home
of the oligarch who owned the gas firm and employed Hunter Biden, a signal the long-running
corruption probe was escalating in the middle of the U.S. presidential election.
Solomon points to the same Interfax-Ukraine report about
the prosecutor's action against Burisma owner Zlochevsky that we have used to make our case
against Biden. Other media have so far
ignored that report and several have falsely claimed that the case against Burisma was
"dormant" when Biden intervened to get the Prosecutor General fired.
Below is an integrated timeline which combines the one
WaPo provided with the new
dates from Solomon's reporting and from additional sources. It is intended as a working
reference that can be updated when new details come to light.
Jul 2010 - Apr 2012 Mykola Zlochevsky heads the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources in Ukraine. Several oil and gas
companies owned by Zlochevsky receive lucrative special drilling permits. Feb 23 2014 The U.S.
supported Maidan 'regime change' coup overthrows the elected government of Ukraine. Mar 2014
The EU blocks funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky's.
RFERL
Mar 11 2014 Britain blocks the transfer of $23 million owned by Mykola Zlochevsky companies and
opens an investigation against him.
Guardian
Spring 2014 Burisma hires Devon Archer and Hunter Biden as members of its board.
Archer and Biden together own a firm called Rosemont Seneca Partners.
Guardian
May 2014 Rosemont Seneca Partners starts to receive monthly checks of $166,000
from Burisma.
JS
Nov 24 2014 U.S. government organ RFERL publishes a video report showing one of
Zlochevsky's palaces near Kiev. It notes the Hunter Biden connection.
RFERL
Dec 2 2014 Unknown
Ukrainian prosecutor writes letter saying that Zlochevsky is not under suspicion.
Guardian
Late 2014 Zlochevsky is put on Ukraine's most-wanted list for alleged economic
crimes. RFERL
Jan 21 2015 Referring to the
letter by the unknown Ukrainian prosecutor a British court orders the closure of the British
case against Zlochevsky and to release the $23m.
Guardian
Feb 10 2015 Victor Shokin nominated as Prosecutor General of Ukraine
Interfax
Mar 2015 EU
lifts blocking of funds of several Ukrainian oligarchs including Zlochevsky
RFERL
May 27 2015 Hunter Biden meets then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a former national
security adviser to Joe Biden who was promoted to the No. 2 job at State under then-Secretary
John Kerry.
JS
July 22 2015 Hunter Biden against meets with the State Department No. 2 Tony Blinken.
JS
July 31 2015 Ukraine's prosecutor general issues an arrest warrant against Zlochevsky.
RFERL
Sep 2015
Referring to the closed British case then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt gives a
speech urging Ukrainian prosecutors to do more against corruption.
Guardian
Oct 8 2015 Then-Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland
testifies in Congress: "The Prosecutor General's Office has to be reinvented as an institution
that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off."
WaPo
Oct 17 2015 Shokin announces a joint investigation with Britain of the Zlochevsky
case. Interfax
Dec 7 2015 Joe Biden holds a
press conference in Kiev and announces $190 million to "fight corruption in law enforcement and
reform the justice sector."
WaPo
Dec 7/8 2015 According to his then-National Security Advisor Colin Kahl VP Biden
withholds the announcement of a $1 billion loan guarantee Ukraine was supposed to receive.
WaPo
Dec 8 2015 Joe Biden speaks in the Ukrainian parliament and decried the "cancer of
corruption" in the country. "The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform," he
noted.
WaPo
End of 2015 Shokin hands one case on Zlochevsky to the U.S. supported National
Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) Interfax
Jan 20 2016 Biden meets
Poroshenko in Davos, Switzerland, when he also presses "the need to continue to move forward on
Ukraine's anti-corruption agenda," according to a White House statement. Kahl said Biden at
that meeting reinforced the linkage between the loan guarantee and the necessary reforms.
WaPo
Feb 2 2016 Shokin confiscates several large properties and a Rolls-Royce Phantom owned
by Zlochevsky. Interfax
Feb 4 2016 First public
announcement of the confiscation of Zlochevsky's properties.
Interfax
Feb 4 2016 Hunter Biden
starts following Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken on Twitter.
JS
Feb 12 2016 Biden speaks to Poroshenko by phone. "The two leaders agreed on the
importance of unity among Ukrainian political forces to quickly pass reforms in line with the
commitments in its IMF program, including measures focused on rooting out corruption," the
White House said.
WaPo
Feb 16 2016 Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says that he had advised Shokin to
step down. Interfax
Feb 16 2016 Poroshenko
announced he had asked Shokin to resign.
WaPo
Feb 18 2016 Another call
takes place between Biden and Poroshenko.
WaPo
Feb 19 2016 The presidential press secretary Sviatoslav Tseholko says that Shokin's
letter of resignation had arrived at the presidential administration. On the same day,
Poroshenko tables a motion in parliament to dismiss Shokin.
Interfax
Feb 19 2016 Poroshenko
announces he has received Shokin's resignation letter. It still required parliamentary
approval, and Shokin did not go away quietly.
WaPo
Feb 19 2016 Biden speaks separately with Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk.
WaPo
Feb 22/23 2016 Karen Tramontano of Blue Star Strategies, a U.S. representative for
Burisma Holdings, seeks a meeting with then-Undersecretary of State Catherine A. Novelli who
oversees international energy issues to discuss ending the corruption allegations against
Burisma.
JS
Feb 24 2016 A State Department email exchange under the subject line "Burisma" notes
that Karen Tramontano especially mentioned Hunter Biden while she tried to get the meeting.
JS
Mar 1 2016 Tramontano is scheduled to meet Novelli and that State Department officials
are scrambling to get answers ahead of time from the U.S. embassy in Kiev.
JS
Mar 2 2016 Hunter Biden's fellow board member at Burisma, Devon Archer, has a meeting
with Secretary of State John Kerry. Secretary Kerry's stepson, Christopher Heinz, had earlier
been a business partner with both Archer and Hunter Biden at the Rosemont Seneca investment
firm.
JS
Mar 16 2016 Reports emerged
that Shokin was back at work after having been on vacation.
WaPo
Mar 22 2016 Biden and Poroshenko speak again by phone.
WaPo
Mar 29 2016 The Ukrainian parliament, in a 289-to-6 vote, approves Shokin's dismissal.
WaPo
undated "Mr. Zlochevsky's allies were relieved by the dismissal of Mr. Shokin, the
prosecutor whose ouster Mr. Biden had sought, according to people familiar with the situation."
NYT
Mar 31 2016
Poroshenko meets with Biden during a trip to Washington, and Biden emphasizes that the loan
guarantee was contingent on further reform progress beyond Shokin's removal.
WaPo
Apr 14 2016 Biden and Poroshenko have another call. Biden congratulates the president
on his new cabinet and "stressed the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General.
WaPo
May 12 2016 Poroshenko nominated Yuriy Lutsenko as the new prosecutor general.
WaPo
May 13 2016 In a phone call, Biden told Poroshenko he welcomed Lutsenko's appointment.
WaPo
Undated "Mr. Zlochevsky's representatives were pleased by the choice, concluding they
could work with Mr. Lutsenko to resolve the oligarch's legal issues, according to the people
familiar with the situation."
NYT
Jun 2016
Hunter Biden joins Zlochevsky at a Burisma organized event in Morocco.
Guardian
Aug 22 2016 Joe Biden tells the Atlantic how he blackmailed Poroshenko into
firing the "corrupt" Shokin.
Atlantic
Sep 2016Ukraine cancels arrest warrant against Zlochevsky and closes the case against him.Guardian
Jan 12 2017Ukraine's prosecutor closes the case against Burisma after the company
agrees to pay UAH 180 millions of tax liabilities.
Interfax
Jan 19 2017Burisma
announces a donation of between $100,000 and 249,999 to the Atlantic CouncilGuardian
Aug 2017U.S. supported National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) closes
its case against ZlochevskyInterfax
Oct 27 2017 Zlochevsky is estimated to have $535 million in assets, more than double than a year earlier.
Interfax
Jan 23 2018Joe Biden brags publicly how he blackmailed Poroshenko into firing Shokin.CFR
Feb 1 2018 After more than three years abroad Zlochevsky returns to Ukraine.
Interfax
May 14 2019 Ukrainian
Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko says that the Zlochevsky case was reopened "several months
ago". Interfax
Jul 2019 Shokin maintains
his suspicions about the vice president's motives, accusing Biden of promoting his dismissal
for personal reasons. He insists he had "no doubt" Biden wanted him gone in an effort to
protect his son's new employer.
ABCNews
Posted by b on November 5, 2019 at 20:13 UTC |
Permalink
Considering the deep peril the legitimacy of the Outlaw US Empire's electoral system enjoys
as Elizabeth Vos
reports, why put forth the effort to prize then reveal the truth of Ukrainegate or
Russiagate.
The DNC will forward whomever it chooses to face Trump in 2020 -- the court
determined that whomever the people choose through the primary and convention exercises
doesn't matter as DNC can legally negate that choice.
Now I don't mean to belittle the
great amount of effort b's done on those issues, but IMO the message within Vos's essay is
what must be addressed.
When put this way it is difficult to not see the corruption. How is Trump asking
Ukraine's new president to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the
corruption that Trump is asking to be investigated? That will take some mental gymnastics for
the establishment's spinmeisters to explain.
Totally agree, but want to add one more important point: How is Trump's melding his
legitimate and personal interests together in a phone call also more serious than the
original war crime of overthrowing the legal Ukrainian government in an armed coup? Biden's
corruption is obvious upon logical review of the known facts, but along with ignoring this,
the US elites also completely ignore the serious crime of otherthrowing a government
(because, such things are not discussed in polite company, one supposes).
William Gruff | Nov 5 2019 20:45 utc | 2. Says "How is Trump asking Ukraine's new president
to investigate this obvious corruption more of a crime than the crime itself?"
No problem for the TDS afflicted sheeple. Not much different than the position of the
sheeple that the exposure of DNC machinations is the crime rather than the crimes of DNC
themselves.
thanks b... as far as crimes go, biden corrupt is small potatoes and ditto trumps.. the big
enchilada is the dynamic leading up to the coup of feb 23 2014.... that is what needs to be
examined and of course it won't be, as that would highlight just how corrupt the whole usa
system is here... that said, i agree with @1 karolf1 and @ 2 william gruffs comments.. in the
greater scheme of things though - meddling in a foreign country, whether it be an election or
outright war and everything in between is what the usa has excelled at for as long as i can
remember - 60's forward... they are one bullshite country with a bullshite msm completing the
propaganda loop that is on display 24/7... i am not sure what it takes to break it.. your
work certainly helps!
Biden son's case is more than demonstrated right now and, in itself, is not even that
impressive: it's just bread & butter patronage corruption, which happens all the time in
Western Democracies, at all countries, at all levels.
What's really impressive here is the scale, because an entire country was destroyed
overnight. I mean, if a man as powerful as a vice-POTUS is willing to destroy entire nations
just to give his son a sinecure, then no country is safe.
My thinking on the matter is that the Washington establishment is panicking over this
relatively small issue because, like pulling a loose end of yarn on a sweater, they fear the
whole cover story on the Ukraine covert actions will unravel if the Biden corruption
investigation continues.
The obvious explanation, for the way that the democrats have used all their energies to
ensure that the entirety of this sordid scandal is made known to the world is that the John
Birch Society entrists, such as the Clintons, are about ready to withdraw from the Democrats
altogether and so, like good arsonists, they have poured flammable, explosive material
everywhere, confident that a spark will ignite it.
In any case arguing that 'black is white' and 'up is down' is easy compared to convincing the
world that Biden, his son, Kerry and all are not totally corrupt.
According to Wikipedia, Vitaly Yarema was the Ukrainian Prosecutor
General from 19 June 2014 to 10 February 2015. He was nominated to the position by President
Petro Poroshenko.
A list of Prosecutor General title-holders is here at
this link if you need to refer to it. The odd thing though is that while Yarema was Prosecutor General, he was all very much for
bring Mykola Zlochevsky to justice in the London court (depending on who you
read , of course).
The U.K. asked Ukraine to investigate whether Burisma's founder had benefited from criminal
dealings with Sergei Kurchenko, a shadowy billionaire who acted as the alleged frontman for
the money of Viktor Yanukovych and his older son, Oleksander Yanukovych. Prosecutor General
Vityaly Yarema ordered Zlochevsky brought to court, which put him on what Ukrainians call
their "wanted list."
According to that Daily Beast source, Zlochevsky was on the "wanted list" in January
2015.
On reading that Guardian article which you cite, the thought occurred to me that
someone other than Yarema must have written and signed that letter sent from the
Prosecutor General's office to the UK court, which then ordered the case against Zlochevsky
to be dropped. That in itself would be worth an article, as the timeline seems to be a bit
confused: did Zlochevsky go on the "wanted list" before the letter was sent to the UK and the
money released or did he go on the "wanted list" AFTER the UK court dropped the case against
him and ordered the release of the $23 million?
I agree about the Voss article, but there is nothing new in it is there? The DNC 'defence'
has been in the public domain ever since it was first annunciated. As to the absolute scandal
of the disenfranchiement of 100,000 Democrats in Bernie's hometown, it was obvious on the
night that it was this which allowed HC to steal the New York Primary.
The problem was that the Sanders campaign seems to have done nothing about it- it is hard to
believe that, back in 2016, they were thinking of 2020 and running Sanders again.
Were not the White primaries, a DNC favourite at the time, banned on just these grounds that
public money and resources could not be used to disenfranchise large numbers of people?
You are right that the story, which reminds us that it was the democrats who invented dirty
tricks and the NY Democrats, who used to meet at Tammany Hall, were on the cutting edge of
electoral corruption, is one that cannot be too widely discussed. A discussion to be followed
by prison terms.
Once again this Ukraine story shows that its not the government, its not the structure of the
government, its not even the functions of the government, but instead its is the actors
that run the government and the actors that benefit from the government being run by the
actors-in-charge that make a strong case that an independent non governmental auditor is
needed (one paid from a % of the taxes collected but one that answers only to the HR courts).
So the government would not pay the auditors any salaries since the auditors are the
governed. In other words, any qualified voter would be an eligible Auditor. Such people
(auditors) would have the right to audit the-conduct of any person claiming or benefiting
from a government interest.
The independent HR court would hear all charges made by any HR auditor. All persons claiming
or benefiting in some way from a government interest would be subject to the jurisdiction of
the HR courts. The HR court would be empowered to hear a claim of wrongful behavior made
against any government person (elected, appointed, bureaucrats, military and contractors) and
if the court agrees substantive facts exist, then the court would assemble a case, impanel a
jury (from the ranks of the governed) and instruct that jury to hear the charges and to
develop the case, and to decide on the innocence or guilt of the person charged, and if
guilty then to decide on the penalty.
Important here is that the HR rights courts would hear cases against individuals that involve
corruption, fraud, theft, self dealing, negligence and treason.. the HR rights courts are not
government, they are courts made up of judges and juries that are appointed by the governed
people.
Thanks for your reply! Did you note the number of people who committed multiple felonies
that have yet to be prosecuted years now after-the-fact? The lack of justice being applied to
those who broke the law and violated the public trust is also a big issue itself that I
mentioned on the week in review. The bottom line: No democracy + no justice = no legitimacy,
which appears to be the main point. I just finished listening to
this interview with Dr. Hudson where in the last few minutes he says the DNC in 2020 aims
at electing Donald Trump, which seems to be the consensus arrived at by us barflies and with
which I agree. What Hudson doesn't touch on, nor is he asked, is what can be done to overturn
the Reagan Revolution which installed the current policy direction, although we can make a
few assumptions based on his preferences for Sanders and Gabbard and the movement to deal
with student debt relief.
My comment to the article wasn't optimistic and has yet to be posted. I don't really have
anything of substance to add to what b's proving about Biden as I've already called him out
for his Capital Crimes and the usual corruption. Maybe I ought to throw up my arms in disgust
and adopt a Don't Worry; Be Happy/What, Me Worry? escapist attitude and ignore it all for my
remaining days and party like it's 1999. Too bad Styx didn't offer a solution to having Too
Much Time on My Hands aside for that being a calamity for my sanity.
General-Prosecutor Victor Shokin was being pressured -- mostly by the USA -- to prosecute
corruption more effectively.
In response to such pressure, Shokin initiated an investigation of Mykola Zlochevsky on
October 17, 2015. It seems that Britain had established an investigation of Zlochevsky in
2014, had suspended that investigation on January 21, 2015, but then resumed that
investigation in October 2015. Shokin joined that British investigation on October 17,
2015.
It seems further that the USA eventually took unknown actions to prevent that joint
British-Ukrainian investigation of Zlochevsky.
On December 7-8, 2015, Vice President Biden indicated that a large US grant of aid money
would be conditional. However, the conditions seem to be secret.
In this situation, before the end of December 2015, General-Prosecutor Shokin transfered
the Zlochevsky investigation to the so-called National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine
(NABU), which essentially was a creature of the US Government.
The situation seemed to remain quiet through the month of January 2016. On February 2,
however, Shokin seized some of Zlochevsky's property, even though the NABU was supposed to be
managing the Zlochevsky case.
Sholin's seizure of Zlochevsky's property on February 2 sparked a US-Ukraine crisis. The
US (i.e. the Bidens) felt it had been double-crossed by Shokin.
Although the property seizure occurred on February 2, it was not announced publicly until
February 4. On that same day, Hunter Biden began following the Twitter account of US Deputy
Secretary of State Tony Blinken, who managed Ukrainian affairs. (I wonder if Blinken
communicated in code to Hunter Biden by means of Twitter.)
On February 12, Vice President Joe Biden talked with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by
telephone and ordered the firing of Shokin. The firing essentially happened later that same
day.
Joe Biden's story about waiting for an airplane due to take off in six hours might be
false or might refer to an airplane taking off in some country other than Ukraine.
Several (numerous?) topics so qualify. Either they're scarcely hinted at, or the lies and
misdirections prevail. Applause for anyone brave enough to name the first three forbidden
items that come to mind.
Are vlochevsky, kolomoisky, and pinchbuk partners in crime?
$1.8 billion in imf loans "disappeared" in koilomoiski's
privat bank. After that privat bank was nationalized and kolomoiski
fled to the us. Was this how vlochevsky's asets doubled? Coincidentally
the chinese firm investment in rosemont seneca was over $1 billion. Some
have speculated that the bidens could have become billionaires from this.
Was the chinese firm a pass through for the embezzled $1.8 billion imf loan?
Come on' folks, there are no Dems, there are no Repubs, there are no Independants ,only reps
who take the $ offered by the wealthy. In the U$A today, the party of $ owns the system. Case
closed. We get who they want. The rules have been changed to favor them. Vote if you want,
it's good therapy,but, the system is rigged.
The latest report from journalist John Solomon reveals that the Obama State Department saw
Joe and Hunter Biden's brewing Burisma scandal as a "Biden problem" during the 2016 US
election, and specificialy coached now-recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch on how
to answer awkward questions about it. [.]
Memos newly released through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the
Southeastern Legal Foundation on my behalf detail how State officials in June 2016 worked
to prepare the new U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, to handle a question
about "Burisma and Hunter Biden."
In multiple drafts of a question-and-answer memo prepared for Yovanovitch's Senate
confirmation hearing, the department's Ukraine experts urged the incoming ambassador to
stick to a simple answer.
"Do you have any comment on Hunter Biden, the Vice President's son, serving on the board
of Burisma, a major Ukrainian Gas Company?," the draft Q&A asked.
The recommended answer for Yovanovitch: "For questions on Hunter Biden's role in Burisma, I
would refer you to Vice President Biden's office."[.]
The Media has created a story whose purpose it is to keep the public focused on some small
details of goings-on in Ukraine mostly since 2014 and NOT the fact that this is a clear
example of a US backed coup which destabilized the country enough to allow the US Corporate
jackals in to strip off the booty. THAT is what all the participants in this scheme want to
keep secret. Why? Because the American citizens benefit not one bit from any of this. Change
will require something major to trigger it.
I agree with previous posters that the real crime was the 2014 coup, and people like Hillary,
Victoria Noland and Biden are the greater criminals. But let's not make this a Dem vs Rep
thing. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war in Iraq to steal their oil. Both war parties
supported Poroshenko and unending anti-Russian invective. It is from that mindset that they
argue over whether conditioning military aid to Ukraine constitutes quid pro quo.
In the meantime I wonder if Zelensky, who was elected over Porky with an end the war
platform, is thinking "Why do these idiots think they can negotiate by offering me something
I absolutely do not want?"
"Remember when voters in 2016 were like 'can we please have even one major candidate who
doesn't have something seriously wrong with them?', and the entire US political system was
all 'LOL nope,' and then nobody burned that system to the ground and flushed it down the
toilet? Good times."
Except IMO there were thousands of people willing and ready to burn down the system just
as there are now--that's what ought to happen to things that are corrupt: they get exposed as
illegitimate and get torched by the public is a fit of righteous outrage and exact justice
collectively.
But that didn't happen within the Outlaw US Empire in 2016, nor did it happen when Obama
backstabbed millions, broke the law he was supposed to enforce and gave billions to
fraudulent banksters. Most all political riots--not police riots--during my life were against
racism and its associated injustices long ongoing. Within the Outlaw US Empire historically,
corruption in politics is as traditional as apple pie, meaning the people are mostly inured
to its occurrence. As with customary bribery in some nations, political corruption is seen as
a normal happening usually of little consequence until something morally repulsive occurs to
raise awareness again. The problem of course is that corruption is always morally
repulsive. Perhaps such leniency says more about a nation's public than anything else--tons
of corruption's tolerated just as the killing of millions of innocents overseas is
tolerated/abided/excused. Guess it's time for some Victory Gin as there's not much more to
say.
I think you've left out the Vietnam era, karlof1 - there were certainly riots against that
war plus there was l968 in Chicago Democratic Convention. I'd call both of those political.
And I would call the Occupy movement at least anti-political in its focus on the banksters.
Plus protests against the invasion of Iraq. Those two latter 'thrusts' by the citizenry were
indeed handled oppressively and not covered adequately or at all in the case of protests
against the invasion and/or other political events. Just because they weren't covered doesn't
mean they didn't happen or weren't part of the general malaise. Trump got elected on that
premise. And just because you don't see it on TV doesn't mean the general public isn't
totally unhappy with the way things are.
Since the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, the international energy group
Burisma has been providing systematic and comprehensive assistance to the defenders of the
Fatherland. Among the military, whom the Burisma Group has supported since 2014, is the Poltava
Special Purpose Police Battalion, which has repeatedly served in the war zone in the
Donbass. from one of their press releases -
being the good nazis biden requested of them..
AFAIK, Burisma supported regaining Donbas because that's where the fracking opportunity
is.
Who else was an ardent supporter of regaining the Donbas? Kolomoyskyi, who is also
militantly pro-Israel, and is rumored to be the real owner (or part owner?) of
Burisma.
Biden is also a Zionist
and what his son made is peanuts compared to what Biden has/could make if he plays along.
Obama is said to have made $70 million after leaving the Presidency and has just bought a $15
million home. And where else is a fracking opportunity sought by a corrupt company that is connected to
corrupt politicians? Golan Heights and Genie Energy..
I liked Dr. Hudson's remarks concerning that DNC's quest for a candidate most sure to lose
to Trump. This of course accounts for their hysterical fear of Tulsi Gabbard, as she is the
only one who would be certain to beat him! The DNC will probably be willing, this time
around, to let Bernie sheepdog on into the general election if that's what it takes to stop
Tulsi. It's very sad to see the would be left media falling in line with the
Jacobin/Intercept/Omidyar psyops regime. The one slim hope is that actual voters not
controlled by any of the usual gatekeepers might overwhelm the DNC rigging machine in early
primaries. I'm encouraged whenever I'm out on the real street I frequently overhear people
mentioning her name and passersby chime in. Don't hear a thing about any of the mediocrities
supported by the DNC and the press.
From the Chris Hedges article you linked to: "The deep state committed the greatest
strategic blunder in American history when it invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq."
The sentence quoted is an example of the murky self-assured but dubious 'wordscape' that
we are so inundated by. This is not to imply that the author doesn't make many sensible
points in this particular article, or to dismiss his work more generally. In my opinion he
does lots of good work.
Note the use of the cryptic abstraction "deep state" to describe the 'perpetrator' of the
'invasions and occupations'.
Note the use of the abstract term "greatest" to describe the "strategic blunder". One can
declare without deserving even a raised eyebrow 'that was the greatest day of my life!' or
that was greatest number of apples I've ever eaten at one sitting, but never again!" But how
does one calibrate those two wars of aggression as the "greatest" whatever?
Note that these particlular wars of aggression, the supreme crime, and both not
coincidentally based on lies upon lies, have been verbally downgraded to "invasions". As in,
say, the Normandy invasion, or an invasion of grasshoppers? And all the horrors that followed
the wars of aggression are condensed by the summary word "occupation". Many of us have
occupations.
And for who were these "strategic blunders?" From the perspective of the MIC, and PNAC,
and 'strategic positioning' re Earthly heroin flows, say, perhaps these were "strategic
blessings". Or even diabolically cunning?
The point I'm making here is that even in the 'good articles', even in 'noble efforts' its
pretty hard not to slip into, what? Let's call it, Empire Speak. Or is that Swamp Speak?
@ Robert Snefjella with the analysis of the wording of the Chris Hedges article that ben
linked to
Nice work but I want to add that the real reason for going after Iraq and Afghanistan was
because they were not yet owned and subservient to the Western private banking cult.
Like Libya before Hillary "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton served her masters.
@ 42 Rboert
Personally, I don't care to dissect Hedges word choices. Those invasion were the greatest
mistake, because they broke the US public image, its military, and its economy. No, not
directly, but those overextensions were the watershed moments. While it has been quite
lucrative for certain parties since then, it has been a huge quagmire and literal sand in the
military's gears. It also destroyed the invincible image of the US military. Trillions of
dollars, thousands of troops, millions of civilians and yet we are all negotiating to stay in
Afghanistan against troops with tire scandals, no air force, and very limited mechanization.
@ 43 psycho I agree that the banking, and gold in particular, were reason for destroying
the countries. Along with human trafficking, Sumerian artifacts, takfiri recruitment,
etc.
Exactly, JR. The very limited amount of reporting on that quickly led to Jewish oligarchs
and that has been studiously ignored since. Since then it has been an endless shit show of
Biden's corruption and how the US foreign policy is handled with everyone trying to thinly
slice the corruption of DC so as to only smear the other side.
There are some
sites that think about these things.
We've gone through a lot of news sources to see if we couldn't figure out what is going on
in Ukraine as to why the Democrats, led by Jewish congressional representatives Adam Schiff
(D-Calif.) who leads the impeachment committee, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) who is on the
Judiciary Committee, Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Eliot
Engel (D-New York) along with 21 other Jewish Democratic congressional representatives all
calling for the impeachment of President Trump because of his phone call with President
Zelensky of Ukraine.
This site seems devoted to looking for links of this nature, but is often sketchy IMO. Where is O when you need an obsessive analysis.
So if the Biden's and Rosemont Seneca were in Ukraine stealing IMF funds,
what were they stealing in China?
Do they have no shame? Or is that Whitey Bulger's clan ethics at play.
Is all currency ok as long as its stolen?
How much bitcoin can they steal and convert or is that story yet to be told?
That is the oldest trick in the book: owning a company as a subsidiary of another company
that you own. The wonder is that Kolomoisky didn't insert another layer of another subsidiary
between Privat Group and Burisma Holdings to cover his tracks even more.
The largest private gas producer in Ukraine is establishing relations with the new US
administration.
The Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group, Ukraine's largest independent gas producer,
have signed a partnership agreement. The Atlantic Council, with the support of Burisma,
will develop transatlantic relations programs with a focus on energy security in Europe and
the world, the company said in an official press release.
For the Burisma Group, this is a new stage in the development of cooperation between the
United States and European countries together with such an influential world institution as
the Atlantic Council.
Relations with Ukraine and future programs with the Burisma Group will be overseen by an
authoritative diplomat, US Ambassador to Ukraine (2003-2006) and Director of the Dinu
Patriciu Eurasia Center (structure under the Atlantic Council) John Herbst.
"Support and cooperation with Burisma will allow us to expand our program development
activities in Ukraine and create new platforms for discussing important and relevant
issues," said John Herbst.
It is symbolic that the collaboration between the Atlantic Council and the Burisma Group
coincided with the launch of the new US Presidential Administration Donald Trump. According
to experts, this will allow for more efficient implementation of new joint projects in the
energy sector and gain support from one of the most respected and influential organizations
in the United States. The conclusion of an agreement between Burisma and the Atlantic
Council and the full implementation of joint projects became possible after all charges
against Burisma Group and its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky were dropped.
According to Mykola Zlochevsky, president of the Burisma Group, the Atlantic Council
plays a key role in Ukraine in building transatlantic relations, democracy and energy
security. "Ambassador Herbst has been and continues to be the lawyer of Ukraine, and
Burisma is pleased to be able to support the work of the ambassador and the Atlantic
Council," said Nikolai Zlochevsky.
The Atlantic Council (US Atlantic Council) is the largest American non-governmental
analytical center for international relations of the Atlantic community, headquartered in
Washington. It is one of the most influential non-governmental organizations in the United
States, operates ten regional centers and functional programs that deal with issues of
international security and global economic development.
The Atlantic Council and Burisma Holdings working together!
As I wrote in April 2015, there are very strong indications that Foreign Affairs
Representative for the EU Catherine Ashton, IMF boss Christine Lagarde and Assistant
Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland provided the united
US/EU media front for the Ukraine coup, with Biden, Kerry and John McCain too publicity
hungry to remain in the background like they were almost certainly supposed to.
https://bryanhemming.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/double-double-toil-and-trouble-the-cauldron-of-kiev/
Thank you for that link. Rolling up the naked capitalism story is
this rather more profound analysis from the Saker. It is also linked to in the abel
danger site I referenced earlier.
Something that really shocks me about Ukraine is like the video about the kitsch palace of
the Zlochevsky guy, the neighbors on the other side of the river complain about not being
able to swim across anymore, as they used to do, but the whole interview is in
Russian¡¡¡¡, I mean, it is supossed to be Kiev, not the east and
everybody speaks in a language that does not have official status anymore.
It is like a
virtual country that wants to impose a distorted view of itself. Just imagine for a minute if
California became independent and all of the sudden the official language is Spanish, all
relations at schools, hospitals, state centers, banks, etc. etc. are to be held in Spanish
only. Well, that's happening in that new "liberated" for democracy country, the priceless
work of Nulands, Bidens et al, plus all the killing, that goes without saying.
The same case happens in the UK (with Corbyn). They want the policies, but they don't want
"socialism".
This is the great contradiction of the USA and other First World countries: they know they
need to reform, but they don't want to give up the good things that capitalist imperialism
gave them. Therefore, they want the best of both worlds.
Great, true comment, vk. The people of America are willing participants in the American
Dream, aka The American Death Cult. Let's give the American People full credit for the horror
show they've inflicted on the world. They willfully chose this and continue to choose this
and that is why they embrace horrific figures like Trump, Hillary, Biden, etc..
But the American People do have a better angel. They also want community. They want to see
themselves as individually and collectively good. They want to believe that they are on the
light side of the Force, not the dark side of the Force, so to speak. How it plays out is
that they want the elites to tell them lies, sweet little lies...
For me the turning point of America, at least of the America that I've seen, was the Iraq
War. The Libya War can be seen as a second stage of that war; same with the Syria War. It's
not that such acts of global mayhem have been worse than what America has done before. It's
that the American System has embraced the evil more knowingly than ever before, it seems to
me. No one can credibly claim that they didn't see the US knowingly lie its way into war vs.
Iraq. No one can credibly call that a just war.
when a corrupt system lies to itself about its corruption there is some hope. When it
knows it is corrupt and embraces this anyway then there is no hope. The Ukraine controversey
we are seeing play its way out now typifies and illustrates this state of affairs. What Trump
did was brutal and corrupt, yet his fans continue to defend him and even to defend this. What
Biden did was far far more brutal and corrupt, yet the Dems continue to defend him and what
he did. Biden helped plunge a country into chaos and then feasted on the corpse. The Ukraine
controversey is a journey into the heart of our darkness.
We desperately need a bringer of light. Could it be Tulsi Gabbard? Perhaps, if she has the
guts to turn away from Indian and Israeli nationalism and if the people choose to support her
truth telling. It's a long shot, but she might be our last hope.
As for Biden? Well I suppose he's a placeholder for Hillary Clinton.
The USA is a capitalist society. However, as Marx demonstrated in his opus, the
development of capitalism tends to socialism. Socialism cannot be born out of
manorialism or antiquity, but only from capitalism.
The American elite knows this, so they came up with a very interesting strategy: they keep
the rest of the world down, in a permanent state of destruction and rebuild (groundhog day
mode); and, at home, they try to preserve a minimum of industrial dynamism and life quality
for their masses with "domesticated and restricted socialism". FDR did it during 1938-1944
and it worked; after the end of Bretton Woods and the establishment of the Dollar Standard,
they adopted restricted socialism in a specific sector -- the Military -- in order to
maintain its industrial and innovation capacity going in face of its inexorable tendency of
"financialization".
Although the Pentagon by itself is socialist, the USA remains capitalist because of the
way the Pentagon relates to the rest of the nation: it takes the infinite pool of taxpayer
money (so the profit motivation is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who
are capitalist and thus have the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into
money-capital through a socialist institution.
However, this comes at a price for the capitalists: as profits go down over time (as Marx
also scientifically demonstrated), the share of the Pentagon on the overall American economy
rises, thus rising the "socialist piece of the pie". Heterodox estimates put the Pentagon
social architecture at 10% of the American economy; most still put it at around 5%, and some
of then put it at an insignificant 3%. If think that, if you take out the ficitious part of
the capitalist economy (i.e. Wall St.), the figures are much closer to the 10%, probably even
more.
@56 -- "... it [Pentagon] takes the infinite pool of taxpayer money (so the profit motivation
is removed) but they give it back to private contractors, who are capitalist and thus have
the profit motivation. Taxpayer money is then converted into money-capital through a
socialist institution."
State-base 'capitalism' just like China!
The only additional point is that a sizable % of the socialist $$$'s (more Fed than
taxpayer these days) also flow from said funds into lobbying and then into the pockets of the
politician du jour. The corrupt Clinton's were not the exception -- rather the rule. Was this
systemic corruption not referred to previously as the military-industrial-congressional
complex?
No, it would be China if the contractors themselves were owned by the Government.
China is pretty much the polar opposite of the USA: it has a socialist system with some
restricted pockets of capitalism. Capitalism there is restricted to the special economic
zones, and private enterprise is restricted to non-strategic sectors.
That's why China's tax rates are actually lowering, not rising.
@2 If you recall the media explained that Joe Biden's corruption is really Joe Biden fighting
corruption. They create their own reality. We are just supposed to swallow it. The CFR video
doesn't matter. Just like Victoria Nuland's call. Snowden's revelations, or the volumes of
wikileaks documents proving the enormity of US self described "elite" corruption
I'd written a long detailed reply that I was about to post when my computer locked-up and
I lost my entire effort, and that ended my contributions yesterday. Of the many observations
I made, this IMO was the most important--When MLK was murdered, blacks nationwide rioted; but
when JFK and RFK were murdered, nothing of the sort occurred. I'll also reinforce the notion
of people rioting as the vast majority of what's deemed a riot by Media was in fact a Police
Riot as they run amok amidst peaceful protesters just as they would do against striking
workers, of which there's a long bloody history of massacres.
"... Sperry quotes Fred Fleitz, a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias." ..."
"... why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax" might do, even if Trump has made the term his own. ..."
"... There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. ..."
Ten days ago
Real Clear Investigations suggested that the "whistleblower" whose "complaint" last August set the impeachment probe in
motion was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella. And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned
Democratic Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.
Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish
national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born
Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate
Donald Trump.
For good measure, Paul Sperry's perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations reveals that Ciaramella conferred
with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to filing his "complaint" to
the CIA's inspector general.
This information comes after Schiff stated on the record that the staff of the House Intelligence Committee, which he heads, had
no contact with the whistleblower. Schiff has since acknowledged the Ciaramella connection.
Phantom in Plain Sight
No wonder no one in Washington will name this phantom in plain sight. The impeachment probe starts to take on a certain reek.
It starts to look as if contempt for Trump takes precedence over democratic process -- a dangerous priority. Sperry quotes Fred
Fleitz, a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows.
The New York Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to
name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed,
the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax"
might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.
There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that
may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of
Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated
coup in Kiev.
There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the
pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published
last week make this plain by any reasonable measure.
"... "The border has become a rights-free zone for Americans who have to travel," Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said in a statement given to Boland at the time. "The founders never could have imagined that the government would be able to sift through your entire digital life, from pictures to emails and even where you've been, just because you decide to take a vacation or travel for work." ..."
At last a victory for citizens. For nearly 20 years, the federal government has used and
abused the memory of the 9/11 attacks to expand its law enforcement authorities at the nation's
airports, even if that has meant broaching one of our most sacrosanct constitutional freedoms:
the right against illegal search and seizure, otherwise known as the 4th Amendment.
On Tuesday, a federal court in Boston ruled that the
Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can no longer
detain Americans coming back over the border to search their laptops, cell phones and other
electronic devices, without cause. One would think this is a no-brainer, but the number of
these incidents has actually escalated to over 33,000 last year -- nearly four times as many as
the previous three years,
according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
The ruling came in a lawsuit, Alasaad v. McAleenan , filed by the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and ACLU of
Massachusetts, on behalf of 11 travelers whose smartphones and laptops were searched without
individualized suspicion at U.S. ports of entry.
International travelers returning to the United States have reported numerous cases of
abusive searches in recent months. While searching through the phone of Zainab Merchant, a
plaintiff in the Alasaad case, a border agent knowingly rifled through privileged
attorney-client communications. An immigration officer at Boston Logan Airport
reportedly searched an incoming Harvard freshman's cell phone and laptop, reprimanded the
student for friends' social media postings expressing views critical of the U.S. government,
and denied the student entry into the country following the search.
According to EFF, border officers "must now demonstrate individualized suspicion of illegal
contraband before they can search a traveler's device."
TAC's Barbara Boland reported on this over the summer . The number of electronic devices
accessed in 2018 was six times the number in 2012, suggesting that this is not only a
post-9/11 issue, but that somewhere along the line the Trump Administration signaled to these
agencies, which are all under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security, that it was
gloves-off at the border -- even for American citizens. Lest you think this is just an
extension of the president's tough illegal immigration policies, be warned, many of the folks
targeted were typical international visitors and U.S. citizens -- think students, journalists,
academics, doctors -- and not travelers to this country for the first time. And they were
treated like they were coming into the Third World. From Boland:
One person detailed to Amnesty
International how she was selected for secondary screening at the border, locked in a
cramped, narrow concrete cell, and subjected to an invasive body search. Her requests for a
lawyer and medical treatment were denied. The supervisor told her she would be held
indefinitely.
When she told him that she is an American citizen, he replied: "The Fourth Amendment
doesn't apply here. We can hold you for as long as we want to."
She was released after four hours.
Journalist Seth Harp wrote a similarly
disturbing story about what happened when he was singled out for a "secondary screening" at
the Austin Airport in Texas. CBP agents pried him for information about what he was writing,
his sources, his reporting as a war correspondent, and his discussions with his editors.
"The border has become a rights-free zone for Americans who have to travel," Senator Ron
Wyden (D-Oregon) said in a statement given to Boland at the time. "The founders never could
have imagined that the government would be able to sift through your entire digital life, from
pictures to emails and even where you've been, just because you decide to take a vacation or
travel for work."
Let's hope that Tuesday's order fixes that -- though it might take a Supreme Court ruling to
put an end to it for good.
Wilberweld says: November 7, 2019
at 2:11 pm GMT 100 Words Trump's problem was described in simple terms by John Connelly
when talking with Henry Kissinger. "Henry", he said, "In Washington you are judged by the men
you've destroyed". Trump has not destroyed anyone, not Comey, not Brennan, not Klapper. So he
is viewed as weak, an easy target. So they just keep piling on. Attacking Trump is viewed as a
"penalty-free activity
"Meet the witnesses: Diplomats start off impeachment hearings" [Associated Press].
"Diplomats and career government officials, they're little known outside professional circles,
but they're about to become household names testifying in the House impeachment inquiry . The witnesses will
tell House investigators -- and Americans tuning into the live public hearings -- what they
know about President Donald Trump's actions toward Ukraine First up will be William Taylor, the
charge d'affaires in Ukraine, and George Kent, the deputy Assistant Secretary in the European
and Eurasian Bureau, both testifying on Wednesday." • You can read the full article for
the bios. First, William Taylor:
"Op-Ed in Novoye Vremya by CDA Taylor: Ukraine's Committed Partner" [ U.S.
Embassy in Ukraine ]. From November 10, 2019, the penultimate paragraph. I've helpfully
underlined the dogwhistles:
But as everyone who promotes democracy knows, strengthening and protecting democratic
values is a constant process, requiring persistence and steady work by both officials and
ordinary citizens. As in all democracies, including the United States, work
remains in Ukraine, especially to strengthen rule of law and to hold
accountable those who try to subvert Ukraine's structures to serve their personal aims,
rather than the nation's interests .
It's kind of Taylor to let the Ukrainians know who's really in charge of foreign policy,
isn't it? Now, Kent–
"George Kent Opening Statement At Impeachment Hearing: Concerned About
"Politically-Motivated Investigations" [
RealClearPolitics ]. From the full text as prepare for delivery:
Ukraine's popular Revolution of Dignity in 2014 forced a corrupt pro-Russian leadership to
flee to Moscow.
By analogy, the American colonies may not have prevailed against British
imperial might without help from transatlantic friends after 1776. In an echo of
Lafayette's organized assistance to General George Washington's army and Admiral John Paul
Jones' navy , Congress has generously appropriated over $1.5 billion over the past five
years in desperately needed train and equip security assistance to Ukraine.
Similar to von Steuben training colonials at Valley Forge, U.S. and NATO allied
trainers develop the skills of Ukrainian units at Yavoriv near the Polish border, and
elsewhere.
Are these people out of their minds? See, e.g., "America's Collusion With Neo-Nazis" [
The Nation ]:
Not even many Americans who follow international news know the following, for example:
That the snipers who killed scores of protestors and policemen on Kiev's Maidan Square in
February 2014, thereby triggering a "democratic revolution" that overthrew the elected
president, Viktor Yanukovych, and brought to power a virulent anti-Russian, pro-American
regime -- it was neither democratic nor a revolution, but a violent coup unfolding in the
streets with high-level support -- were sent not by Yanukovych, as is still widely reported,
but instead almost certainly by the neofascist organization Right Sector and its
co-conspirators.
§ That the pogrom-like burning to death of ethnic Russians and others in Odessa
shortly later in 2014 reawakened memories of Nazi extermination squads in Ukraine during
World War II has been all but deleted from the American mainstream narrative even though it
remains a painful and revelatory experience for many Ukrainians.
(To be fair, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis we supported weren't slaveholders, unlike to many of
our own Founders. So there's that.)
The Hearings should be in a room that lets in sunlight, that universal disinfectant. Make
the Front Row Kid Careerists sit by the windows.
Thus far, my main reaction is that the State Department needs to be shaken up to get rid of
those entrenched FRK'ing Careerists and to bring in some accountability. Inspector General
positions and functions should not be optional at the whim of some SoS or other.
Not change for its own sake, just bringing things out of the shadows. In keeping with my
light theme, a Sunset Provision would help, too. That is one step toward eliminating the
hearsay, innuendo and nonsense suppression of Due Process as that is anti-Constitutional. The
people, including back-row, dropouts and all, deserve better from their government.
"... So the Ukrainians traded their corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with it). ..."
"... Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down (American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"). ..."
"to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign policy and
resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true
offense is proposing to renovate a foreign policy framework that has been more or less
untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation)."
This may be even worse than Lawrence depicts. It is clear that Vindman in his opening
remarks made it clear that the consensus policy of experts (like John Bolton) had been
following an agenda from the Obama administration (or before, but implemented under Obama,
Biden and Nuland) and it is verboten to change anything, despite constitutionally these
people at best only having advisory roles to the President (and constitutionally the
President can ask for their opinions in writing; CYA even back then!) The Ukrainian Americans
involved in the coup (national security from Vindman's perspective) are deeply committed
since 2014, and they expect to reap the benefits with no interference from Trump. And the
Democrats/ Ukraine-Americans "running the show" are probably much more corrupt than
Ukrainians governing their country before 2014.
I have started Oliver Bullough's "Money Land" and was aghast at the luxury items
Yanukovich had stolen through corruption and accumulated at his many properties. Surely with
so much money going to corrupt Yanukovich and his henchmen, the coup would have been a
blessing for the Ukrainian people! Right? I was shocked to find that after the overthrow of
Yanukovich in 2014, the median per capita household income in Ukraine, which had risen
steadily from $2032 in 2010 to $2601 in 2013, had dropped over 50% to $1110 to $1135 in 2015
and 2016, and has only risen to $1694 in 2018 (ceicdata.com).
So the Ukrainians traded their
corrupt Ukrainian elected President, mostly accumulating stuff in Ukraine, for corrupt
neocon/ neolib Democrat bureaucrats and Ukrainian/ Americans, who now cannot be denied their
pound of flesh (which will quickly exit Ukraine, taking much of that country's value with
it).
Even the anti-corruption agencies are corrupt! So American policy now is set by such
bureaucrats, who not only play military adventurism games (to justify all that money in
loans, grants, and weapons), but even pass the corruption level of the Native Ukrainians in
skimming that incoming money and getting rich, and of course steal whatever isn't nailed down
(American policy as previewed in "Confessions of an Economic Hitman").
"... Will the Democratic Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus, succeed in its second attempt to depose President Donald Trump in what might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the thus-far-farcical impeachment probe, which is to be conducted publicly as of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in behalf of his own personal and political interests? Did Trump, in his fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president, put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged? ..."
"... All good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, get away with what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio while serving as vice president under Barack Obama? ..."
"... Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate Donald Trump. ..."
"... Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed, the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax" might do, even if Trump has made the term his own. ..."
"... There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated coup in Kiev. ..."
"... There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure. ..."
Now that "Russiagate" has failed and "
Ukrainegate " neatly takes its
place, many questions arise.
Will the Democratic Party, this time in open collusion with the intelligence apparatus, succeed in its second attempt to depose
President Donald Trump in what might fairly be called a bloodless coup? Whatever the outcome of the thus-far-farcical impeachment
probe, which is
to be conducted publicly as of Wednesday, did the president use his office to pressure Ukraine in behalf of his own personal
and political interests? Did Trump, in his fateful telephone conversation last July 25 with Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's president,
put U.S. national security at risk, as is alleged?
All good questions. Here is another: Will Joe Biden, at present the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination,
get away with what is almost certain to prove his gross corruption and gross abuse of office when he carried the Ukraine portfolio
while serving as vice president under Barack Obama?
Corollary line of inquiry: Will the corporate media, The New York Times in the lead, get away with self-censoring what is now
irrefutable evidence of the impeachment probe's various frauds and corruptions? Ditto in the Biden case: Can the Times and the media
that faithfully follow its lead continue to disregard accumulating circumstantial evidence of Biden's guilt as he appears to have
acted in the interest of his son Hunter while the latter sat on the board of one of Ukraine's largest privately held natural gas
producers?
Innuendo & Interference
It is not difficult to imagine that Trump presented Zelensky with his famous quid pro quo when they spoke last summer: Open an
investigation into Biden pčre et fils and I will release $391 million in military aid and invite you to the White House. Trump seems
to be no stranger to abuses of power of this sort. But the impeachment probe has swiftly run up against the same problem that sank
the good ship Russiagate: It has produced no evidence. Innuendo and inference, yes. Various syllogisms, yes. But no evidence.
There is none in the transcript of the telephone exchange. Zelensky has flatly stated that there was no quid pro quo. The witnesses
so far called to testify have had little to offer other than their personal opinions, even if Capitol Hill Democrats pretend these
testimonies are prima facie damning. And the witnesses are to one or another degree of questionable motives: To a one, they appear
to be Russophobes who favor military aid to Ukraine; to a one they are turf-conscious careerists who think they set U.S. foreign
policy and resent the president for intruding upon them. It is increasingly evident that Trump's true offense is proposing to renovate
a foreign policy framework that has been more or less untouched for 75 years (and is in dire need of renovation).
Ten days ago
Real Clear Investigations suggested that the "whistleblower" whose "complaint" last August set the impeachment probe in motion
was in all likelihood a CIA agent named Eric Ciaramella. And who is Eric Ciaramella? It turns out he is a young but seasoned Democratic
Party apparatchik conducting his spookery on American soil.
Ciaramella has previously worked with Joe Biden during the latter's days as veep; with Susan Rice, Obama's recklessly hawkish
national security adviser; with John Brennan, a key architect of the Russiagate edifice; as well as with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-born
Democratic National Committee official charged during the 2016 campaign season with digging up dirt on none other than candidate
Donald Trump.
For good measure, Paul Sperry's perspicacious reporting in Real Clear Investigations reveals that Ciaramella conferred with the
staff of Rep. Adam Schiff, the House Democrat leading the impeachment process, a month prior to filing his "complaint" to the CIA's
inspector general.
This information comes after Schiff stated on the record that the staff of the House Intelligence Committee, which he heads, had
no contact with the whistleblower. Schiff has since acknowledged the Ciaramella connection.
Phantom in Plain Sight
No wonder no one in Washington will name this phantom in plain sight. The impeachment probe starts to take on a certain reek.
It starts to look as if contempt for Trump takes precedence over democratic process -- a dangerous priority. Sperry quotes Fred Fleitz,
a former National Security Council official, thus: "Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York
Times knows. Congress knows. The White house knows . They're hiding him because of his political bias."
Here we come to another question. If everyone knows the whistleblower's identity, why have the corporate media declined to
name him? There can be but one answer to this question: If Ciaramella's identity were publicized and his professional record exposed,
the Ukrainegate narrative would instantly collapse into a second-rate vaudeville act -- farce by any other name, although "hoax"
might do, even if Trump has made the term his own.
There is another half to this burlesque. While Schiff and his House colleagues chicken-scratch for something, anything that
may justify a formal impeachment, a clear, documented record emerges of Joe Biden's official interventions in Ukraine in behalf of
Burisma Holdings, the gas company that named Hunter Biden to its board in March 2014 -- a month, it is worth noting, after the U.S.–cultivated
coup in Kiev.
There is no thought of scrutinizing Biden's activities by way of an official inquiry. In its way, this, too, reflects upon
the pantomime of the impeachment probe. Are there sufficient grounds to open an investigation? Emphatically there are. Two reports
published last week make this plain by any reasonable measure.
'Bursimagate'
John Solomon, a singularly competent follower of Russiagate and Ukrainegate, published
a report last Monday exposing Hunter Biden's extensive contacts with the Obama State Department in the early months of 2016.
Two developments were pending at the time. They lie at the heart of what we may well call "Burismagate."
One, the Obama administration had committed to providing Ukraine with $1 billion in loan guarantees. In a December 2015 address
to the Rada, Ukraine's legislature, V–P Biden withheld an apparently planned announcement of the credit facility.
Two, coincident with Hunter Biden's numerous conferences at the State Department, Ukraine's prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,
was swiftly advancing a corruption investigation into Burisma's oligarchic owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, who was by early 2016 living
in exile. Just prior to Biden's spate of visits to Foggy Bottom, Shokin had confiscated several of Zlochevsky's properties -- a clear
sign that he was closing in. Joe Biden wanted Shokin fired. He is, of course,
famously on the record boasting of his threat [starts at
52.00 in video below]to withhold the loan guarantee as a means to getting this done. Shokin was in short order dismissed, and the
loan guarantee went through.
Solomon documents his report with memos he obtained via the Freedom of Information Act earlier this year. These add significantly
to the picture. "Hunter Biden and his Ukrainian gas firm colleagues had multiple contacts with the Obama State Department during
the 2016 election cycle," he writes, "including one just a month before Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor
investigating his son's company for corruption."
Last Tuesday, a day after Solomon published his report, Moon of Alabama , the much-followed web publication, posted a granularly
researched and well-sourced
timeline of the events surrounding Shokin's dismissal at Vice President Biden's request. This is the most complete chronology
of the Burismagate story yet available.
In an ethical judicial system, it or something like it would now sit on a prosecutor's desk. There is no suggestion in the Moon
of Alabama's timeline that Shokin had shelved his investigation into Burisma by the time Biden exerted pressure to get him sacked,
as Biden's defenders assert. Just the opposite appears to be the true case: The timeline indicates Shokin was about to pounce. Indeed
Shokin said so under oath in an Austrian
court case, testifying that he was fired because of Biden's pressure not to conduct the probe.
It is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence that Joe Biden misused his office in behalf of his son's business
interests simply because there has been no investigation. Given what is beginning to emerge, however, the need for one can no longer
be in doubt. Can Democrats and the media obscure indefinitely what now amounts to very strong circumstantial evidence against Biden?
We live in a time when the corporate media make as much effort to hide information as they do to report it. But as in the case
of Ciaramella's identity, it is unlikely these myriad omissions can be sustained indefinitely -- especially if Biden wins the Democratic
nomination next year. Forecast: If only because of Burismagate, Joe Biden will never be president.
As everyone in Washington seems to understand, it is highly unlikely Trump will be ousted via an impeachment trial: The Republican-controlled
Senate can be counted on to keep him in office. Whatever Trump got up to with Zelensky, there is little chance it will prove sufficient
to drive him from office. As to the charge that Trump's dealings with the Ukrainian president threatened national security, let us
allow this old chestnut to speak for itself.
Price of Irresponsible Theatrics
This leaves us to reckon the price our troubled republic will pay for months of irresponsible theatrics that are more or less
preordained to lead nowhere.
More questions. What damage will the Democrats have done when Ukrainegate draws to a close (assuming it does at some point)? What
harm has come to U.S. political institutions, governing bodies, judiciary and media? The corporate press has been profligately careless
of its already questionable credibility during the years of Russiagate and now Ukrainegate. Can anyone argue there is no lasting
price to pay for this?
More urgently, what do the past three years of incessant efforts to unseat a president tell us about the power of unelected constituencies?
The CIA is now openly operating on American soil in clear breach of its charter and U.S. law. There is absolutely no way this can
be questioned. We must now contemplate the frightening similarities Russiagate and Ukrainegate share with the agency's classic coup
operations abroad: Commandeering the media, stirring discontent with the leadership, pumping up the opposition, waving false flags,
incessant disinformation campaigns: Maybe it was fated that what America has been doing abroad the whole of the postwar era would
eventually come home.
What, at last, must we conclude about the ability of any president (of any stripe) to effect authentic change when our administrative
state -- "deep," if you like -- opposes it?
"... I might have to disagree with Vindman being labelled 'a bureaucrat among bureaucrats'. I would judge that his allegiances lay elsewhere and by that I do not mean the dual loyalty to the Ukraine, even though he appears to be acting in the roll of Kiev's man in Washington. I suppose that you would say that he is a member of the deep state and the policies that they formulate with little regard to who is in power. ..."
"... Burisma is just one of numerous examples of the payoffs and shady deals that poison the American political system and disgust citizens. Schiff has been given the impossible task of trying to defend that against mounting evidence of corruption. How can he or anyone else rationalize that little gas board activity, or countless others including those benefiting those people related to elected officials across the aisle. ..."
"... One of the wonderful aspects of Empire is that you get to house all the right-wing exiles from around the world. Whether it's Batista-ites from Cuba, Curveballs from Iraq, rich, right-wing "refugees" from Chavismo in South America or Ukrainians like Vindman. They're happy to use the host country to further a color revolution back home, and the CIA is happy to use them as cover for another Empire resource grab. ..."
Ilargi: Vindman, the
Expert Posted on November 13, 2019
by Yves Smith
Yves here. While the main source for this piece on Alexander Vindman is Byron York of the
Washington Examiner, bear in mind that the Examiner is a non-crazy right-leaning site and has
even broken some important stories. It is telling that there are so few people on the left who
have the patience and constitutional fortitude to pick through the impeachment evidence
carefully, see what it amounts to and withstand the vitriol if what they find is not what Team
Dem insists is there.
And that's before we get to our regular lament: why are the Dems choosing a line of inquiry
which is a hairball (albeit less of one than Russiagate) and also has the Dems taking the
position that the President is not in charge of foreign policy, and should defer to the CIA and
other non-accountable insiders? Why not go after emoluments, which is in the Constitution as a
Presidential no-no, where Trump has clearly abused repeatedly (you need go no further than the
guest list in his DC hotel) and therefore easy to prove, and would have the added benefit of
allowing Team Dem to rummage around in his finances?
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
Let's see what shape I can give this. I was reading a piece by Byron York that has the first
good read-out I've seen of the October 29 deposition by Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman,
self-labeled no. 1 Ukraine expert at the National Security Counsel, and I want to share that in
a summarized form, with my comments. There'll be some longer quotes though. And I know there
are people who may not like York, but just skip his opinions and focus on the facts then.
Overall, Vindman comes across to me as a bureaucrat among bureaucrats, who also appears to
be on the edge what we think of when we mention the Deep State. And who seems to think his
views and opinions trump Trump's own. ".. his greatest worry was that if the Trump-Zelensky
conversation were made public, then Ukraine might lose the bipartisan support it currently has
in Congress."
A US President is elected to determine foreign policy, but Vindman doesn't like things that
way. He wants the policy to be set by people like him. It brings to mind Nikki Haley saying
that Tillerson and Kelly wanted her to disobey the President, because they felt they knew
better. That slide is mighty slippery. And unconstitutional too.
And the suspicion that Vindman's report of the call may be what set off "whistleblowing" CIA
agent Eric Ciaramella is more alive after the testimony than before. But, conveniently, his
name may not be spoken. For pete's sake,
Vindman Even Testified He Advised Ukrainians to Ignore Trump .
House Democrats conducted their impeachment interviews in secret, but Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman still emerged as star of the show. Appearing at his Oct. 29 deposition in
full dress uniform, the decorated Army officer, now a White House National Security Council
Ukraine expert, was the first witness who had actually listened to the phone call between
President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the
Democratic impeachment campaign. Even though lawmakers were forbidden to discuss his
testimony in public, Vindman's leaked opening statement that "I did not think it was proper
[for Trump] to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen" exploded on news
reports.
Here are four problems with the Vindman testimony:
1) Beyond his opinions, he had few new facts to offer.
[..] Indeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to
some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript
that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president. As one of a half-dozen
White House note-takers listening to the call, Vindman testified that he tried unsuccessfully
to make a few edits to the rough transcript as it was being prepared. In particular, Vindman
believed that Zelensky specifically said the word "Burisma," the corrupt Ukrainian energy
company that hired Hunter Biden, when the rough transcript referred only to "the company."
But beyond that, Vindman had no problems with the transcript, and he specifically said he did
not believe any changes were made with ill intent.
"You don't think there was any malicious intent to specifically not add those edits?"
asked Republican counsel Steve Castor. "I don't think so." "So otherwise, this record is
complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?" "Yes," said Vindman. Once Vindman
had vouched for the rough transcript, his testimony mostly concerned his own interpretation
of Trump's words. And that interpretation, as Vindman discovered during questioning, was
itself open to interpretation. Vindman said he was "concerned" about Trump's statements to
Zelensky, so concerned that he reported it to top National Security Council lawyer John
Eisenberg. (Vindman had also reported concerns to Eisenberg two weeks before the
Trump-Zelensky call, after a Ukraine-related meeting that included Gordon Sondland, the U.S.
ambassador to the European Union.)
Vindman said several times that he was not a lawyer and did not know if Trump's words
amounted to a crime but that he felt they were "wrong." That was when Republican Rep. John
Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, tried to get to the root of Vindman's concerns. What was
really bothering him? "I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought
there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to
the law," Ratcliffe said to Vindman. "And what I understand you to say is that you
weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had
concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"
"So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views,"
Vindman answered. "And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations,
U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan
play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for -- " "I understand that,"
Ratcliffe said, "but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason." Indeed it
did.
Elsewhere in Vindman's testimony, he repeated that his greatest worry was that if
the Trump-Zelensky conversation were made public, then Ukraine might lose the bipartisan
support it currently has in Congress. That, to Ratcliffe and other Republicans, did not seem
a sufficient reason to report the call to the NSC's top lawyer, nor did it seem the basis to
begin a process leading to impeachment and a charge of presidential high crimes or
misdemeanors.
So Vindman was so concerned that he contacted the National Security Council (NSC) top
lawyer, John Eisenberg. However, when John Ratcliffe asked Vindman: "I'm trying to find out
if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy
or there was something wrong with respect to the law.." , it turns out, it was about
policy, not the law. So why did he contact Eisenberg? He doesn't know the difference, or
pretends he doesn't know? Moreover, Eisenberg's not the only person Vindman contacted. There
were lots of others. And remember, this is sensitive material. Vindman was listening in on the
President's phone call with a foreign leader, in itself a strange event. Presidents and PM's
should be able to expect confidentiality.
2) Vindman withheld important information from investigators.
Vindman ended his opening statement in the standard way, by saying, "Now, I would be
happy to answer your questions." As it turned out, that cooperation did not extend to both
parties.
The only news in Vindman's testimony was the fact that he had twice taken his concerns to
Eisenberg. He also told his twin brother, Yevgeny Vindman, who is also an Army lieutenant
colonel and serves as a National Security Council lawyer. He also told another NSC official,
John Erath, and he gave what he characterized as a partial readout of the call to George
Kent, a career State Department official who dealt with Ukraine. That led to an obvious
question: Did Vindman take his concerns to anyone else? Did he discuss the Trump-Zelensky
call with anyone else? It was a reasonable question, and an important one. Republicans asked
it time and time again. Vindman refused to answer, with his lawyer, Michael Volkov, sometimes
belligerently joining in. Through it all, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff
stood firm in favor of keeping his committee in the dark.
[..] Vindman openly conceded that he told other people about the call. The obvious
suspicion from Republicans was that Vindman told the person who became the whistleblower, who
reported the call to the Intelligence Community inspector general, and who, in a carefully
crafted legal document, framed the issue in a way that Democrats have adopted in their drive
to remove the president from office. Vindman addressed the suspicion before anyone raised it.
In his opening statement, he said, "I am not the whistleblower I do not know who the
whistleblower is and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the
whistleblower."
Fine, said Republicans. We won't ask you who the whistleblower is. But if your story is
that you were so concerned by the Trump-Zelensky issue that you reported it to Eisenberg, and
also to others, well, who all did you tell? That is when the GOP hit a brick wall from
Vindman, his lawyer Volkov, and, most importantly, Schiff. As chairman of the Intelligence
Committee, charged with overseeing the intelligence community, Schiff might normally want to
know about any intelligence community involvement in the matter under investigation. But in
the Vindman deposition, Schiff strictly forbade any questions about it. "Can I just caution
again," he said at one point, "not to go into names of people affiliated with the IC in any
way." The purpose of it all was to protect the identity of the whistleblower, who Schiff
incorrectly claimed has "a statutory right to anonymity."
Schiff's role is beyond curious. Sometimes you think he's the boy with his finger in the
dike, mighty fearful that it could break at any moment. But then Vindman's lawyer jumps in as
well:
That left Republicans struggling to figure out what happened. "I'm just trying to
better understand who the universe of people the concerns were expressed to," said Castor.
"Look, the reason we're objecting is not -- we don't want -- my client does not want to be in
the position of being used to identifying the whistleblower, okay?" said Volkov. "And based
on the chair's ruling, as I understand it, [Vindman] is not required to answer any question
that would tend to identify an intelligence officer."
[..] Vindman's basic answer was: I won't tell you because that's a secret. After
several such exchanges, Volkov got tough with lawmakers, suggesting further inquiries might
hurt Vindman's feelings. "Look, he came here," Volkov said. "He came here. He tells you he's
not the whistleblower, okay? He says he feels uncomfortable about it. Try to respect his
feelings at this point." An unidentified voice spoke up. "We're uncomfortable impeaching the
president," it said. "Excuse me. Excuse me," Volkov responded. "If you want to debate it, we
can debate it, but what I'm telling you right now is you have to protect the identity of the
whistleblower. I get that there may be political overtones. You guys go do what you got to
do, but do not put this man in the middle of it."
Castor spoke up. "So how does it out anyone by saying that he had one other conversation
other than the one he had with George Kent?" "Okay," said Volkov. "What I'm telling you right
now is we're not going to answer that question. If the chair wants to hold him in contempt
for protecting the whistleblower, God be with you. You don't need this. You don't need to go
down this. And look, you guys can -- if you want to ask, you can ask -- you can ask questions
about his conversation with Mr. Kent. That's it. We're not answering any others." "The only
conversation that we can speak to Col. Vindman about is his conversation with Ambassador
Kent?" asked Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin. "Correct," said Volkov, "and you've already asked
him questions about it."
"And any other conversation that he had with absolutely anyone else is off limits?" "No,"
said Volkov. "He's told you about his conversations with people in the National Security
Council. What you're asking him to do is talk about conversations outside the National
Security Council. And he's not going to do that. I know where you're going." "No,
actually, you don't," said Zeldin. "Oh, yes, sir," said Volkov. "No, you really don't," said
Zeldin. "You know what?" said Volkov. "I know what you're going to say. I already know
what you're going to do, okay? And I don't want to hear the FOX News questions, okay?"
[..] It should be noted that Volkov was a lawyer, and members of Congress were members
of Congress. The lawyer should not be treating the lawmakers as Volkov did. Volkov was
able to tell Republicans to buzz off only because he had Schiff's full support . And
Republicans never found out who else Vindman discussed the Trump-Zelensky call with.
Looking at this, you get to wonder what the role is of GOP lawmakers, and why anyone would
want to be one. Their peers across the aisle pretend they can tell them exactly what and what
not to do or say. Is that why they are elected? I couldn't find one question or even word in
here that would be labeled unfitting, or out of place, or aggressive or anything like that. But
even then, they hit a brick wall.
So what makes Vindman the expert on Ukraine? I get the idea that it's his compliance with
whatever anyone says is the desired and required policy, and in this case, what is not. He
certainly doesn't appear to know everything. Maybe that's because he left the country at age
three.
3) There were notable gaps in Vindman's knowledge.
Vindman portrayed himself as the man to see on the National Security Council when it
came to issues involving Ukraine. "I'm the director for Ukraine," he testified. "I'm
responsible for Ukraine. I'm the most knowledgeable. I'm the authority for Ukraine for the
National Security Council and the White House." Yet at times there were striking gaps in
Vindman's knowledge of the subject matter. He seemed, for instance, distinctly incurious
about the corruption issues in Ukraine that touched on Joe and Hunter Biden.
Vindman agreed with everyone that Ukraine has a serious corruption problem. But he knew
little specifically about Burisma, the nation's second-largest privately owned energy
company, and even less about Mykola Zlochevsky, the oligarch who runs the firm. "What do you
know about Zlochevsky, the oligarch that controls Burisma?" asked Castor. "I frankly don't
know a huge amount," Vindman said. "Are you aware that he's a former Minister of Ecology"?
Castor asked, referring to a position Zlochevsky allegedly used to steer valuable government
licenses to Burisma. "I'm not," said Vindman.
"Are you aware of any of the investigations the company has been involved with over the
last several years?" "I am aware that Burisma does have questionable business dealings,"
Vindman said. "That's part of the track record, yes." "Okay. And what questionable business
dealings are you aware of?" asked Castor. Vindman said he did not know beyond generalities.
"The general answer is I think they have had questionable business dealings," Vindman
said.
[..] Vindman had other blind spots, as well. One important example concerned U.S.
provision of so-called lethal aid to Ukraine, specifically anti-tank missiles known as
Javelins. The Obama administration famously refused to provide Javelins or other lethal aid
to Ukraine, while the Trump administration reversed that policy, sending a shipment of
missiles in 2018. On the Trump-Zelensky call, the two leaders discussed another shipment in
the future. "Both those parts of the call, the request for investigation of Crowd Strike and
those issues, and the request for investigation of the Bidens, both of those discussions
followed the Ukraine president saying they were ready to buy more Javelins. Is that right?"
asked Schiff.
"Yes," said Vindman. "There was a prior shipment of Javelins to Ukraine, wasn't there?"
said Schiff. "So that was, I believe -- I apologize if the timing is incorrect -- under the
previous administration, there was a -- I'm aware of the transfer of a fairly significant
number of Javelins, yes," Vindman said. Vindman's timing was incorrect. Part of the entire
Trump-Ukraine story is the fact that Trump sent the missiles while Obama did not. The top
Ukraine expert on the National Security Council did not seem to know that.
York goes on to explain just how much of a bureaucrat Vindman is, as exemplified by things
like "..there's a fairly consensus policy within the interagency towards Ukraine," . The
"interagency" doesn't set -foreign- policy, the President does.
4) Vindman was a creature of a bureaucracy that has often opposed President
Trump.
One of his favorite words is "interagency," by which he means the National Security
Council's role in coordinating policy among the State Department, Defense Department, the
Intelligence Community, the Treasury Department, and the White House. [..] He says things
such as, "So I hold at my level sub-PCCs, Deputy Assistant Secretary level. PCCs are my boss,
senior director with Assistant Secretaries. DCs are with the deputy of the National Security
Council with his deputy counterparts within the interagency." He believes the interagency has
set a clear U.S. policy toward Ukraine. "You said in your opening statement, or you indicated
at least, that there's a fairly consensus policy within the interagency towards Ukraine,"
Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman said to Vindman.
"Could you just explain what that consensus policy is, in your own words?" "What I can
tell you is, over the course of certainly my tenure there, since July 2018, the interagency,
as per normal procedures, assembles under the NSPM-4, the National Security Policy [sic]
Memorandum 4, process to coordinate U.S. government policy," Vindman said. "We, over the
course of this past year, probably assembled easily a dozen times, certainly at my level,
which is called a subpolicy coordinating committee -- and that's myself and my counterparts
at the Deputy Assistant Secretary level -- to discuss our views on Ukraine."
The "interagency" doesn't set policy, the President does -and with him perhaps the House and
Senate. But not an alphabet soup of agencies.
I've said it before, and I fear I may have to say it again, this is a show trial. And no,
it's not even a trial, that happens next in the Senate. Jonathan Turley said the other day that
he thinks Nancy Pelosi wants a quick -before Christmas- resolution to the House part, but I'm
not convinced.
The reason is that the Democrats lose the director's chair once this moves to the Senate.
They can't silence the Republicans there the same way Adam Schiff does it in the House. Pelosi
herself said in March that impeachment MUST be a bipartisan effort. It's unclear why she
abandoned that position in August, but I think it could be panic, and that it was the worst
move she could have made.
Because this thing in its present shape is unwinnable. To impeach Trump, the Dems would need
Republican votes. But how could they possibly get those when they lock out the Republicans of
the entire process?
I certainly have no legal expertise & knowledge relating to what it takes to impeach a
president, but it does all strike be as being pretty threadbare & if it it all falls
apart only likely to strengthen Trump's support. I get the feeling that the only truly smart
thing about these people is in their ability to constantly fill their rice bowls &
perhaps we need an extra definition for that word.
Smart :
adj. Having or showing intelligence; bright. synonym: intelligent.
adj. Canny and shrewd in dealings with others.
IMO, I also don't believe that the above applies to gadgets, apps or whatever.
I always think of something similar to your second definition when I hear/read that
someone is smart. It is a subclass of self-serving intelligence. If I put myself in Vindman's
position, what would I do? What would be smart and what would be on the general interest?.
His actions reflect where he feels his obligations belong and it shows clearly he was
"obligued" to the interagency, not to the President. It is not clear to me if he thougth that
the interagency represents, better than the president, the interest of the US or if he was
being smart and thinking of his own career within the interagency.
I might have to disagree with Vindman being labelled 'a bureaucrat among bureaucrats'. I
would judge that his allegiances lay elsewhere and by that I do not mean the dual loyalty to
the Ukraine, even though he appears to be acting in the roll of Kiev's man in Washington. I
suppose that you would say that he is a member of the deep state and the policies that they
formulate with little regard to who is in power. That is the thing about these hearings. The
moment that the Republicans pull at a loose thread of this narrative, the Democrats stomp on
it before it goes any further. But the connections are all there on record and can be
followed up. Here are some examples.
Burisma, who is at the heart of this whole matter, has been giving the Atlantic Council
$100,000 a year for the past three years which is deep state central. You can see their name
in the $100,000 – $249,999 section at https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support-the-council/honor-roll-of-contributors/
and is just below the British Consulate General Istanbul and two entries above CNN. Burisma
"also reimbursed speaker travel and event costs, which amounted to around [$50,000 to
$70,000] per year." One of the staffers that went there was Thomas Eager who worked for
Schiff's Intelligence Committee, and the group at one point met with Bill Taylor, the top
U.S. diplomat in Ukraine. Bill Taylor is now one of the main witnesses.
If any sort of proper investigations start then it will open up all these people and their
connections and the lucrative payments that they have been receiving from places like
Burisma. Maybe when this case first came up the DNC thought that this was an impeachment case
to die for but they may very well get their wish. It is all there online and it does not take
much to find a very dubious group of people, organizations and companies with it seems the
Atlantic Council acting as some sort of clearing house. Below is just one article talking
about some of this stuff as an example-
Burisma is just one of numerous examples of the payoffs and shady deals that poison the
American political system and disgust citizens. Schiff has been given the impossible task of
trying to defend that against mounting evidence of corruption. How can he or anyone else
rationalize that little gas board activity, or countless others including those benefiting
those people related to elected officials across the aisle.
That defense of the widespread corruption permeating the DC culture is the real subject of
Schiff's fool's errand. When he fails, that will set back whatever good works the Dems have
been trying to accomplish, and undermine what remains of an alleged two-party system. That is
the Hill upon which he has been sent to die.
How can the Party that inflicted Christine Blasey Ford on us and turned a Supreme Court
nomination into a Jerry Springer show demean the institutions of the Republic further into
disrepute? With this going nowhere piece of political theater.
I have a hard time believing that any Lieutenant Colonel could be sufficiently high enough
in the food chain to have any impact on policy. I wonder if people are focusing on him too
much, at the expense of what's really going on here.
This isn't just a matter of the bureaucracy at odds with the President – it's also
Congress. Despite what many people seem to think, the President does not have carte blanche
in the conduct of foreign policy. Congress passed legislation to provide military assistance
to Ukraine. The President does not have the authority to decide on his own on whether to
execute that legislation or not. Unless there are conditions attached to that legislation, or
previously existing, the President cannot attach conditions of his own to that
legislation.
The U.S. system of government, as clearly envisioned by the founders, was set up with the
legislative branch to have more power than either the executive or judicial. Only Congress
can initiate legislation, and if the President vetoes it, Congress has the power to override
that veto. You can argue the merits of providing military assistance to the Ukraine (which I
personally think is a bad idea), but Congress did approve of it in accordance with the
Constitution. Trump withholding that assistance most likely did not. There are a lot of bad
actors on both sides of this controversy, but that doesn't mean that there aren't certain
principles worth defending. In my mind, Congress reasserting itself over the President is an
important enough principle to support impeachment (assuming they make their case). Long term,
such a position could also be used to reign in the blob.
One of the wonderful aspects of Empire is that you get to house all the right-wing exiles
from around the world. Whether it's Batista-ites from Cuba, Curveballs from Iraq, rich,
right-wing "refugees" from Chavismo in South America or Ukrainians like Vindman. They're
happy to use the host country to further a color revolution back home, and the CIA is happy
to use them as cover for another Empire resource grab.
What I find amusing about all this is that there is an influential school of American
political science writing going back to Huntington and Janowitz which shows an almost
paranoid distrust of career military officers and their potential impact on policy, and
advocates their close "control" by civilian political authorities to prevent them influencing
government too much. Now, suddenly, every General who ever led a military coup because they
feared that the government was doing things that were bad for the country will be feeling
retrospectively justified. The position in any democracy is quite clear: the government makes
the decisions in the context of existing laws, including the Constitution. Government
officials, in uniform or not, are not there to substitute their judgement of the interests of
the country for the judgement of the political leadership.
One might even entertain the suspicion that the reason so many keep accusing Trump of
fascism is that they keep flirting with it themselves. That "interagency consensus" thing is
much scarier than Trump and indeed some of his more despicable moves –Venezuela,
Bolivia(?)–may track back to that very source. Some of us have long thought that what
the USG does in Latin America is what they would like to do here if they could get away with
it. The previous Clinton impeachment, Bush v Gore, the media's lockstep approval of
imperialistic militaristic "narratives," the wild, over the top rejection of Trump's defeat
of Hillary–all show a deep contempt for the democratic process by both parties. Letting
military or IC figures opine on policy is part of this. How long before some general tells
Trump he should resign to "restore order"?
These Deep-Staters, who aren't so deep anymore, remind me of those Japanese theatre
stage hands that dress in black and by convention, are invisible to the audience, even though
they move about the stage in plain sight.
They've gradually become more and more visible, what with color revolutions abroad, and
election fraud at home, and finally, one would hope, they are throwing a tantrum, insisting
not only that they are still ' invisible' but that their efforts to pull off regime
change here at home are legitimate.
Which reminds me of a good friend's definition of a politician;
"A politician is a person who would try to steal a red-hot stove with their bare
hands."
"... this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods. ..."
"... Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. ..."
"... To me Trump is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it comes to impeachment. ..."
"... Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats . ..."
"... "The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth." ..."
"... Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats! ..."
"... Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a "war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all. ..."
"... To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero. ..."
"... The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee. ..."
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's unsubstantiated assertion that Biden
pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics," he said. "Period. That's on the
record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied
that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it
seems, have their blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's
about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party
agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and
equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take
it. And I agree it's about protecting the current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the impeachment, but other motives seem relevant.
I have thought since Obama went all in with Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And
they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth.
To me Trump
is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to
start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split
when it comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist
Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself
was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone
trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about
Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving
to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact
it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on
a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior to the excerpt I provide, which I
suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and other countries that the Obama administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all
boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to home Pelosi says look over here at
the orange head, look over there at the border but whatever you do, do not look over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE ">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Andrew J. Bacevich weighs in on US foreign policy:
Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of
World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian
Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly
in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a
"war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all.
To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the
ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that
failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward,
which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with
King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.t
The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement
on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with
the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee.
Is Whistleblower Aid a Charity Fraud? by Larry C Johnson There has been a lot of
smoke and diversion put up with regards to alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella thanks to the
work of his lawyer, Mark Zaid, and the charitable foundation supporting this
effort--Whistleblower Aid. I think it is time to set the record straight and raise some serious
questions about both Ciaramella and the charity backing him.
Eric Ciaramella, according to various press reports, is a CIA intelligence analyst who also
has close ties to Democrats working against Donald Trump. Ciaramella worked at the National
Security Council on the Ukraine issue and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC
operative Alexandra Chalupa, who were involved in the plot to smear Donald Trump as an agent of
Russia. It also is reported that Ciaramella was suspected of being the source for a false story
claiming that former FBI Director Comey was fired because Vladimir Putin told Trump to do it.
And, most importantly, Ciaramella was back at CIA Headquarters when Donald Trump spoke with
Ukraine's President Zelensky. He did not listen in on the call nor did he have access to the
transcript.
Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower. As a former intelligence analyst, like Ciaramella, I know that you must have
first hand information. What qualifies as first hand? You listened in on the conversation. You
read the transcript. Or, and no one has raised this, you have a piece of human or signals
intelligence that tells a different story from the publicized transcript. ZERO evidence for any
of this. Ciaramella's only qualification is that he does not like Trump and his policies
towards Ukraine.
Then there is the indisputable fact that the Ukrainian President is on the record, in
public, denying any pressure and denying any quid pro quo.
All of these facts justify bringing Mr. Ciaramella before Congress, putting him under oath
and getting him to explain the foundation for his claims. But Democrats and anti-Trumpers are
saying "no" and insisting that the identity of the whistleblower must be protected at all
costs. That is bunk. There is only one legitimate reason to keep the whistleblower's identity
secret--i.e., if he or she was undercover, either official or non-official. Ciaramella was not
undercover. He is no different from any other civil servant who works in any other part of the
Federal bureaucracy. He just happens to hold a Top Secret clearance.
I know several whistleblowers who have been vilified publicly by the very bureaucracies
where they exposed wrong doing--Bill Binney (NSA), Kirk Wiebe (NSA), Ed Loomis (NSA),
Russ Tice (NSA), Diane
Roark (Congress), John Kiriakou (CIA) and Peter Van Buren (State). In none of these
cases was there a public outcry to protect their identity. And there is one big difference
between these whistleblowers and Ciaramella--they had first hand knowledge about wrongdoing in
their respective organizations.
Which brings me to the not-for-profit organization that is backing Ciaramella--Whistleblower
Aid. According to Wikipedia :
In September 2017, Tye and lawyer Mark Zaid cofounded Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit law
firm.
But public records tell a different story. Whistleblower Aid is a "doing-business-as" name.
The incorporated name is Values United. It was
incorporated in Louisiana in April 2009 . The incorporation subsequently was revoked in
2013 and reinstated on 13 March 2017. Here is the Louisiana document:
Values United was granted 501 (c) (3) status on 30 March 2017 (you can find the determination
letter here .)
So, it was organized in March of 2017, not September. A minor point I suppose but a key
fact.
What do we find when we look at the 990 tax return required for not-for-profits? The DBA
name for Values United is Whistleblower Aid:
There is another oddity revealed in the tax return for Whistleblower Aid--huge liabilities.
Total assets at the end of 2017 are $133,106.00. Total liabilities? $752,823.00. Where was the
money going? Who was getting paid? And how is an organization with more than $600,000 in debt
able to stay afloat. True not-for-profits are supposed to operate according to strict oversight
and rules. Is Whistleblower Aid doing what it is chartered to do or is it acting as a partisan
political organization, something a charitable group is not allowed to do. It is worth looking
at.
and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa
So, all roads, then, lead to a criminal undercover org of Taco Bell. When I thought it
couldn't get any more tragicomic, it did. Now Taco Bell's commercials chihuahua comes in mind
with "drop the Chalupa" line. I wonder what do they mean by "drop".
State attorney general offices provide charitable non-profit oversight and offer a complaint
process. George Soros has been campaigning to buy up AG offices, since they wield so much
power behind the spotlight. Someone is Louisiana needs to file an AG complaint.
Liabilities are explained on the attached schedules.
It appears the bulk of the liabilities (nearly $600k) are in the form of loans made TO
"Values United" by the principal officer and his father.
They appear to have financed the bulk of the activity for 2017 via the loans.
They must not have filed a tax return for 2018 (or the IRS hasn't posted it yet.)
Note sure what is going on, but it does appear to be strange. Hard to tell what exactly
they are spending the money on, other than nearly $300k for a flashy Media Strategy firm.
Yeah. Looks more like a vanity charity. Charity fraud shows up on the expenses side that
go to favored parties and has a lot of income that comes from "donors" that expect something
in return. Certain well known foundations by former presidents come to mind. Charitable
foundations are quite a racket.
Is it merely coincidence that it was transformed into "Whistleblower Aid" this late Spring
just when IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson was installed, the IG who changed whistle
blower policies which now no longer require firsthand knowledge ?
This sure seems like one of Chuck Schumer's "6 ways from Sunday" the IC is trying, to get
back at Trump. I wonder who funds this "charity"?
Am I mistaken or isn't this form, so conveniently revised just this past August, 2019, the
"whistleblower" form which now reflects the policy change of permitting secondhand
information?
Who backed the significant debt of this operation is an equally interesting question? . What
do the minutes of the board of directors meetings disclose. How did this significant debt
conform to its stated charitable intent, that allowed its IRS tax exempt status. How
"charitable" will it be if this organization defaults on this amount of debt? More
information, please.
Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the big
public sector unions.
"Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the
big public sector unions.
The post-Clinton Deomcratic Party establishment has adapted to the Citizens
United decision just fine, thank you very much. They just took their cue from Groucho Marx:
"These are my principles! You don't like them? I have others."
Out West we get two standard slurs against all conservatives (aka alt right, far right, right
wingers, Fox and Friends and white supremists:
Conservatives are tools of Citizen United and the Koch Bros. Boooo, hisss, booo!
Clinton swore the first thing she would do as POTUS was get a constitutional amendment
against Citizens United. You report an interesting change of heart. Tell me more. Why is
Citizens United now working for the Democrat Party - the post-Clinton Democrat party, soon to
become the Neo-Clinton party?
It seems to me that Trump is constantly on the back foot playing defense. He does not seem
proactive in countering his opposition and directly taking the fight to his opponents.
He didn't declassify initially to avoid accusations of obstruction of the Mueller special
counsel. Now that Mueller didn't lay the knockout punch, they've found another reason to
claim obstruction with the Ukraine quid pro quo. All along he knew that Rosenstein played him
by setting up Mueller, yet he did not fire him. Same with Wray. He's now passed the buck on
to Barr who has his own agenda and prerogatives.
With LTC Vindman's testimony out there he should be all over his insubordination and as
C-in-C should order his court martial.
The fact that none of the insiders in his administration have a paid any price for their
acts of leaking and stories of innuendo and fanning the flames to have him impeached is only
emboldening them to escalate and be even more brazen.
Many are hoping the Durham investigation will settle the score and that justice, while not
swift, is nevertheless sure. It'll be a huge disappointment (to say the least) if none of the
malefactors pay a hefty price.
A while back, it took me 2 years and lots of legal expenses to finally get satisfaction
from a flooring company, so I would expect something like SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY to take a
little longer!
Trump is always getting ahead of their game, as well as punching back defensively. He is
changing the dynamics. One must listen carefully. So little of his proactive charges filter
through the media - even WSJ and now Fox are playing mind games against Trump. Give Kellyanne
Conway some credit - she still gets ahead of the story like no one else.
Following a complaint, the Scottish Charity Regulator investigated and concluded that
certain aspects of the IOS activities could not be classed as charitable.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
''Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower.''
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman-Russian---Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Polish/Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovitch - Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill --Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard, Russian
expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies
were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't
say.
This Trump coup is coming from the NSC and the State Department, not the CIA this
time.
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name. Not only are
Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of partisanship on
the largest social media platforms in the world.
"... Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only won with Putin's assistance. ..."
"... The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists, that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more plausible. ..."
"... It is now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still is weak to nonexistent. ..."
"... With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton). After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
"... And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force. Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced. ..."
"... The case officers would work with foreign intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate. ..."
"... e Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation of this Task Force. ..."
"... In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum, reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?" ..."
"... Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu. ..."
"... But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. ..."
"... This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund. ..."
"... And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media. ..."
"... Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S. intelligence and
national security community. Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan and former FBI Director Jim Comey appear to have played critical
leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own.
Almost certainly what they may have done would have been explicitly authorized by the former
President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his national security team.
It must have seemed a simple operation for the experienced CIA covert action operatives. To
prevent the unreliable and unpredictable political upstart Donald Trump from being nominated as
the GOP presidential candidate or even elected it would be necessary to create suspicion that
he was the tool of a resurgent Russia, acting under direct orders from Vladimir Putin to
empower Trump and damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Even though none of the alleged
Kremlin plotters would have expected Trump to actually beat Hillary, it was plausible to
maintain that they would have hoped that a weakened Clinton would be less able to implement the
anti-Russian agenda that she had been promoting. Many observers in both Russia and the U.S.
believed that if she had been elected armed conflict with Moscow would have been inevitable,
particularly if she moved to follow her husband's example and push to have both Georgia and
Ukraine join NATO, which Russia would have regarded as an existential threat.
Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the
narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to
help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of
Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only
won with Putin's assistance.
No substantive evidence for the claim of serious Russian meddling has ever been produced in
spite of years of investigation, but the real objective was to plant the story that would
plausibly convince a majority of Americans that the election of Donald Trump was somehow
illegitimate.
The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented
America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a
wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists,
that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one
changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political
power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there
exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more
plausible.
The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields
immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. It also operates through relationships that
are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity
will be exposed.
Nevertheless, some might even argue that having a Deep State is a healthy part of American
democracy, that it serves as a check or corrective element on a political system that has
largely been corrupted and which no longer serves national interests. But that assessment
surely might have been made before it became clear that many of the leaders of the nation's
intelligence and security agencies are no longer the people's honorable servants they pretend
to be. They have been heavily politicized since at least the time of Ronald Reagan and have
frequently succumbed to the lure of wealth and power while identifying with and promoting the
interests of the Deep State.
Indeed, a number of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directors have implicitly or
even directly admitted to the existence of a Deep State that has as one of its roles keeping
presidents like Donald Trump in check. Most recently, John McLaughlin, responding to a question
about Donald Trump's concern over Deep State involvement in the ongoing impeachment process,
said unambiguously "Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state' With all of the people who
knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something
about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. This is the institution
within the U.S. government is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth.
It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or
implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble in the
lobby."
Well, John's dedication to truth is exemplary but how does he explain his own role in
support of the lies being promoted by his boss George "slam dunk" Tenet that led to the war
against Iraq, the greatest foreign policy disaster ever experienced by the United States? Or
Tenet's sitting in the U.N. directly behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the debate over
Iraq, providing cover and credibility for what everyone inside the system knew to be a bundle
of lies? Or his close friend and colleague Michael Morell's description of Trump
as a Russian agent , a claim that was supported by zero evidence and which was given
credibility only by Morell's boast that "I ran the CIA."
Beyond that, more details have been revealed demonstrating exactly how Deep State associates
have attempted, with considerable success, to subvert the actual functioning of American
democracy. Words are one thing, but acting to interfere in an electoral process or to undermine
a serving president is a rather more serious matter.
It is
now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task
Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force
played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the
Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to
this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated
the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted
that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a
broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the
past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and
substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still
is weak to nonexistent.
The Russian "election interference" narrative went on steroids on January 6, 2017, shortly
before Trump was inaugurated, when an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) orchestrated by
Clapper and Brennan was published. The banner headline atop The New York Times, itself an
integral part of the Deep State, on the following day set the tone for what was to follow:
"Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says."
With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the
ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton).
After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked
analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather
unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the
Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA."
Task Force Trump was kept secret within the Agency itself because the CIA is not supposed to
spy on Americans. Its staff was pulled together by invitation-only. Specific case officers
(i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and administrative
personnel were recruited, presumably based on their political reliability. Not everyone invited
accepted the offer. But many did because it came with promises of promotion and other
rewards.
And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's
FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force.
Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump
took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information
that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced.
So, what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in
illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his
counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something
they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might
have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate.
Trump Task Force members could have also tasked the National Security Agency (NSA) to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in complicated covert actions
that would further set up and entrap Trump and his staff in questionable activity, such as the
targeting of associate George Papadopoulos. If he is ever properly interviewed, Maltese
citizen Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who met with him, briefed
him on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange monitored meetings. It
is highly likely that Azra Turk, the woman who met with George Papadopoulos, was part of the
CIA Trump Task Force.
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social
media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information
operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in
the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect
inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation
of this Task Force.
In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a
serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum,
reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA
and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then
possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions
regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably
regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired
national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably
leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest,
a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a
more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its
email is[email protected] .
The entire FISA court process has been exposed as an insane sham.
"The Secret Team" just took the absurdity of the process and raised it to the next
level–injecting it into a political campaign.
It would be wonderful if they could fill a jail with every empty suit who touched those
warrants–but I would be stunned if even one of them gets paraded around in the orange
jump-suit they so richly deserve. Read More Replies:
@Moi
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Looking on at this affair from outside the USA, it is clear that the power and influence of
the USA is waning a lot faster than most people expected.
The replacement of the US military by mercenaries who are called other names was a first
step. The sanctioning and punishing of allies for stepping out of line is the second step.
BTW, it is notable how Japan and Australia are very keen to stay in line but the Europeans
less so.
I suspect the third step will be to encourage a collapse of the Euro – so as to make
wealthy Europeans shift their money to the USA in a panic.
It seems to me that the US public will be the last to learn of what is really happening.
Even on this website there are sometimes letters or articles that mention 9/11 as a
"terrorist" or "Saudi" act. How can one take anything such a person writes seriously?
The control of media and the internet seems to be the last part of the collapse. They will
hang on to that to the very last moment.
John Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
Could it become Obamagate?
Perhaps, but what is the point? All this bullshit is engineered to make dumbass Americans
think justice is being served. Nothing will come of it no one will go to prison.
As if Trump weren't part and parcel of the Deep State.
His actions in Syria, Bolivia, Hong Kong, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc. all prove
incontrovertibly that he is (and has always been) a member in fine standing of the Deep
State. If he is a Manchurian Candidate, he is the true puppet of the Deep State, not the
people or of Russia.
Exactly. I voted for Trump, but, as long ago as mid April 2017, I determined that he was a
Deep Stater his actions are just too obvious to ignore.
The Magic Negro cannot be touched and that is why nothing will be done about the biggest crime in the history of our nation
Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S.
Which one are you referring to, Iran 1953, Kennedy assassination 1963, Gulf of Tonkin 1964
or the other dozens of examples?
"And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the
Task Force "
This just in: both the CIA and FBI are unconstitutional, agencies.Get rid of them -and all
of the other unconstitutional alphabet-soup agencies[FDA,EPA,SEC etc.etc.etc.]. No
downsizing-trash them all- NOW!
This also just in: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect
theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are
essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be
"reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
@Alfred
Your point about 9/11 can't be made forcefully enough. We're going straight to hell unless
Israel and its American confederates are brought to justice, these wars ended, and order
restored. Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Mueller, Chertoff and the whole traitorous bunch are
probably guilty as principals but almost certainly they're at least complicit as accessories
before and after the fact. So naturally all we hear about is Russiagate.
The evidence overwhelmingly implicates Israel and not Saudi Arabia as you point out. That
Building 7 was brought down by explosives has been proved beyond doubt by Architects &
Engineers for 911 Truth, and as Dr. Alan Sobrosky put it, if Building 7 was brought down by
explosives, so too were the Twin Towers. The official NIST reports and all related government
narratives are preposterous. They're fairytales for fools inasmuch as the official mechanisms
rely on a suspension of the laws of physics more fanciful than Jack and the Beanstalk. The
story of the nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle Cessna 150s magically flying jetliners into
precise targets is more absurd than fairytale tropes about flying carpets.
Yet for Conservatism Inc and Fox News, which both claim to oppose the Deep State and its
narratives, there's no standard of evidence so low or preposterous that these cucks won't
cling to it to cover up what they must now know is Israel's guilt. We can assume it's
precisely because they're aware of Israel's guilt that they rule out the overwhelmingly
conclusive circumstantial evidence pointing to Israel on the grounds such evidence is
"anti-Semitic" and consequently false on apriori grounds. Moreover, any expert investigator
qualified in the relevant field who uncovers and presents evidence implicating Israel is cast
as the actual terrorist. It should go without saying they've reversed a millennium in the
development of Western thought regarding the connection between evidence and conclusion, and
they've done so for the basest of reasons. At least Conservatism Inc is being daily exposed
for the controlled opposition and worthless club of preppy snots it's always been.
Brilliant Article.
The question is when deep state will finally admit that Globalism after all that sacrifice
and evildoing are just sour grapes. As fox said in Ezops tale.
"the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven
to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding
later that "It's in their DNA."
Right, along with drinking vodka and eating borscht.
The one nation that did interfere in the 2016 election, and has inserted themselves
into other elections to get their candidate elected, Israel remains untouched by this (((Deep
State))).
There's plenty of evidence for the Zionists and Israeli-Firsters corrupting the election
process for their fav nation, Israel, but the Operation Mockingbird asshats in the MSM won't
go near that, not if they want to keep their cushy job, 5th Avenue penthouse and that
chauffeured limo.
Anytime AIPAC comes to town, Congress gets into a fight with each other, trying to be the
one that shows the most slavish loyalty to the nation that has attacked the USA numerous
times, spies constantly on us, stealing our military, business and industrial secrets, had a
hand in both murdering JFK, RFK and masterminded the 9/11 FF, and has an overwheling presence
on the FED, yet most Americans don't know that, because the MSM keeps reporting lies,
distortions and half-truths, and always presenting a boogeyman to hate, sometimes Russia,
most times Muslims.
But fear not, that will soon come to an end, for when those TBTF Wall Street
banks–in collusion with the FED–again crash the stock market and drag the economy
down with their greed, that coming crash will make the one of 1929 seem like a picnic.
When that happens, what's left won't be of any interest to Israel to steal or manipulate.
The Deep State murdered Kennedy.
He planned on destroying the Fed and the CIA.
The Deep State required a president that COLLABORATED, like LBJ.
Then they figured, "why not put our guy in?'
Thus Bush 1.
Then Clinton (Bush 1 was his 'mentor') a pervert stooge.
Then Bush 2, a gaymail stooge.
Then Obomber, the gay Kenyan C_A stooge.
Then America says 'Enough', rejects the Witch and elects Trump.
Now the Deep State wants to kill America.
I think it's time for America to kill its' Deep State.
It is, after all, self-defense. Besides, hasn't this gone on long enough?
The alternative is to end up as the modern parallel of Rome.
Clapper, Brennan and Comey " may not have operated on their own." Duh!
You just remember, a donkey won't carry a heavy burden unless it's fed regularly. Find out
who owns the beast and you will have the culprit!
Phil, you should offer your services to the Trump defense/attack team*. Just stay away from
Giuliani (grin). Good article and salvo against Brennan and the rest who deserve all the pain
thay can get.
*Hey money is good especially around Christmas time. (Grin)
This certainly explains the incessant attacks on Trump by the deep state.
You have no concept of a charade being perpetrated on the American people. You don't find
it a little strange that Trump keeps hiring the Deep State denizens he purports to be
fighting? You are incapable of detecting the friend/foe, psychological tactic used to
deceive?
@Anonymous
That's it. Your hearsay trumps thousands of eyewitnesses and conversations of the victims on
flight 93 and in the pentagon.. You must be a first responder too. Talk about easily
influenced–you are why the old media gets away with their corruption. Some anonymous
source writes, says it on TV, and the lemmings follow.
@Biff
As we write, Obama probably is banging away some groupie in a DC mansion basement while the
gorrila is frying chicken upstairs for Oprah.
And Bubba, most likely, is watching porn in the garage in Westchester and the wicked witch
is massaging mrs. Wiener.
But it's Dubya worth looking into because he is out in the cowshed, buck naked save the
cowboy boots and the ten-gallon hat, whipping himself silly for the "mission
accomplished!"
Or, Obama and the police agencies investigated a known organized crime stooge when it became
apparent the GOP could offer no other candidate. Ironically, this was the original intent of
the creation of the FBI.
Don't play into the "victim trump" brand, he needs no help with it.
Thanks much for the most comprehensive précis yet of this bungled CIA putsch. The
articles in sequence teasingly open Gina's kimono, giving us horripilating glimpses of her
bushy penetralia. The question of Obama's involvement is the next step. CIA bots have been
pushing a partisan perspective for some time. Those darn Democrats!
But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW
Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. Just look at the oppo research, the best of which
comes from sanitized glimpses of the errands candidates run for CIA. Obama's other passport
is not Kenyan but Indonesian. It facilitated the youngster's schooling during Mom's year of
living dangerously in Indonesia. Obama's dad and stepdad were CIA skins on the wall. Grandma
was not in fact a drunk – she laundered the money for forcible overthrow and genocide
in Indonesia at her bank job in Hawaii. Grandpa was a "furniture salesman," like Bibi,
travelling around Asia under the hoariest old chestnut of NOC cover.
Young Barack was groomed as carefully as Bush minor. His only real job was BIC, a sheepish
front perennially stuffed to bursting with NOCs. While he was still wet behind the ears he
sported at falconry with a future head of state of Pakistan, for chrissakes, at a time when
nobody could get in there. And he got out without getting his head sawed off. How? The
youthful promise of this sullen stoner was somewhat obscure at that time. His GF was the
Aussie daughter of Mike Barry's opposite number. And the Mockingbird unison of ecstatic
acclaim when he rose to public prominence out of nowhere is the proof. His empty suit belings
to CIA.
This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence
Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was
merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her
turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their
lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund.
@Rabbi
Zaius They sense the rumblings of White solidarity among "the forgotten men and women" of
Trump's base and they do not cotton to this one little bit. Solidarity is forbidden to
Whites. It is only for the coalition of the fringes, all of those groups whose alienation can
be stoked to weaponize them against the descendants of those who founded and built the United
States.
@Dave
Sullivan The FISA warrants had nothing to do with organized crime.
On second thought, that is not correct.
They _were_ organized crime.
(It is not necessary to defend Trump to understand this. FISA warrants based on known fake
"evidence" are a stunning abuse of power–even within the slime-pit of DC.)
Anyone at all familiar with Brennan knows that he was and remains the driver of the
conspiracy to destroy first candidate, then President -Elect, and then POTUS Trump.
The same cannot be said of Comey and Clapper (especially).
It literally makes me sick to my stomach whenever I think about what it says about this
great republic that seditious filth like him rose to such a powerful position. It's rather
obvious he was willing to do anything including, I would submit, gift Russia and God Knows
Who Else anything they wanted in return for helping him destroy our constitutional
republic.
As I'm sure most here know, long before his 2016 election malefactions he had brazenly
engaged in spying on Congress and, most despicably, had debased President Obama and the
Office of the President through NYT revelations that every week Obama picked from his list of
drone assassination targets.
. . . and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Yes, though more important than that was what Obama was told (by Brennan) and what real
options did he have as president given that Brennan had him by the short hairs.
I've long considered anyone's efforts to prematurely direct liability to President Obama
as a bald attempt to protect Brennan. That worked for the purposes of a general, earlier on,
cover up. It won't at this stage because it isn't even a close call when it comes to
Democrats, elected and rank and file, choosing between the first black president and Brennan,
the American Beria.
And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton
crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the
court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media.
So Phil, was there any cooperation/communication between the Trump Task Force and the DNC
dirt-diggers in Ukraine (Ali Chalupa et al), or were they completely independent actions?
it was plausible to maintain that [the Russians] would have hoped that a weakened
Clinton would be less able to implement the anti-Russian agenda that she had been
promoting.
Not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If the Russians had tried unsuccessfully to
throw the election to Trump and Hellary won anyway, how exactly would that leave her
"weakened"? And wouldn't she have that much more reason to go after Russia?
My theory is that Hellary and her deep-swamp creatures only messed with Trump because they
were certain he was going lose. And if they could then plausibly claim after the
election that the Russians had interfered (albeit unsuccessfull) in the election, Hell-bitch
could've used that as a pretext for well, I don't know. War? More sanctions? Inducting
Ukraine into NATO? Invading Syria?
Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the
FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017,
that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,"
adding later that "It's in their DNA."
I had no idea Clapper was into HBD. Damn, he's biased!
@NPleeze
There is a theater play going on, unending series, each episode catching some other
superficial drift. A-l-l actors in the public view, their dialogues and declamations are
scripted. Trump´s also. He is not the major character, just a single, temporary one.
All media opinion pieces, what is news, are prompt readings. Rectal extraction is close.
Why is this possible? The public is beyond understanding. The ones who do, at least part
of what is going on, being closer to some sectors of society where a whiff of the smell of
power is perceived at clouded times, are interested. The middle classes are scraping and
grabbing and bickering for the scraps of the table of the powerful. It takes them most of
their career to even get to under the table. They are happy dogs, and scraps comparing to
scraps makes them a diverse world of nothings.
It is hard work to come up with alternative policies, not rail into historical models
proven wrong as to long term interests and goals of society. A path not to venture into,
against instinct.
That makes for a fine world, while it lasts, and is upended by another cycle. The empty
drum feeling in the head of most is stuffed with images and sound-bites that makes for a life
behind a velvet curtain(Apple´s i-phone).
There is very little cognitive difference between the individuals at the top and the
glorious bottom undesirables, they both like the sniff of the glue.
Donald Trump's election (which was not supposed to be allowed to happen) forced into public
view, the existence of a Deep State that's been in existence for more than 75 years. Although
not widely recognized as such, JFK'S election accomplished the same thing, but to an even
greater extent. Leaving me puzzled as to why Trump has been allowed to remain in office as
long as he has without the Deep State subjecting him to a similar fate.
With one logical
explanation being that, at this point in time, it would become obvious, even to the brain
dead, who's actually in control of the US government.
Phil, you need to get on the State Department and NSC re the coup against Trump by the
Ukraine cabal . The State Department has been stuffed with people like the below who try to
set US policy according their personal loyalties and /or hatreds or love for any foreign
country. And as we all know the State Department lost all objectivity when the Jews
infiltrated it decades ago to run out the 'Arbarist".
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment Ukraine testimony against Trump
Fiona Hill -- -- -- -- Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description "Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. .same spin Jews put
on "Israel fighting for US and world interest against Iran'.
Their testimonies were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what
Trump said or didn't say.
It is clear and was even said by Hill in her testimony that they .."should formulate foreign
policy, not they president'. And in several cases that is what they have done going even
further with sanctions on countries then what was called for and the unattentive Trump just
accepts it .
This Trump coup is coming from the Deep State of the NSC and the State Department, not the
CIA this time.
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken anti
Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate evil.
Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid because it
is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies were as much or
more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't say.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name
Not only are Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of
partisanship on the largest social media platforms in the world.
Is Whistleblower Aid a Charity Fraud? by Larry C Johnson
There has been a lot of smoke and diversion put up with regards to alleged whistleblower
Eric Ciaramella thanks to the work of his lawyer, Mark Zaid, and the charitable foundation
supporting this effort--Whistleblower Aid. I think it is time to set the record straight and
raise some serious questions about both Ciaramella and the charity backing him.
Eric Ciaramella, according to various press reports, is a CIA intelligence analyst who also
has close ties to Democrats working against Donald Trump. Ciaramella worked at the National
Security Council on the Ukraine issue and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC
operative Alexandra Chalupa, who were involved in the plot to smear Donald Trump as an agent of
Russia. It also is reported that Ciaramella was suspected of being the source for a false story
claiming that former FBI Director Comey was fired because Vladimir Putin told Trump to do it.
And, most importantly, Ciaramella was back at CIA Headquarters when Donald Trump spoke with
Ukraine's President Zelensky. He did not listen in on the call nor did he have access to the
transcript.
Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower. As a former intelligence analyst, like Ciaramella, I know that you must have
first hand information. What qualifies as first hand? You listened in on the conversation. You
read the transcript. Or, and no one has raised this, you have a piece of human or signals
intelligence that tells a different story from the publicized transcript. ZERO evidence for any
of this. Ciaramella's only qualification is that he does not like Trump and his policies
towards Ukraine.
Then there is the indisputable fact that the Ukrainian President is on the record, in
public, denying any pressure and denying any quid pro quo.
All of these facts justify bringing Mr. Ciaramella before Congress, putting him under oath
and getting him to explain the foundation for his claims. But Democrats and anti-Trumpers are
saying "no" and insisting that the identity of the whistleblower must be protected at all
costs. That is bunk. There is only one legitimate reason to keep the whistleblower's identity
secret--i.e., if he or she was undercover, either official or non-official. Ciaramella was not
undercover. He is no different from any other civil servant who works in any other part of the
Federal bureaucracy. He just happens to hold a Top Secret clearance.
I know several whistleblowers who have been vilified publicly by the very bureaucracies
where they exposed wrong doing--Bill Binney (NSA), Kirk Wiebe (NSA), Ed Loomis (NSA),
Russ Tice (NSA), Diane
Roark (Congress), John Kiriakou (CIA) and Peter Van Buren (State). In none of these
cases was there a public outcry to protect their identity. And there is one big difference
between these whistleblowers and Ciaramella--they had first hand knowledge about wrongdoing in
their respective organizations.
Which brings me to the not-for-profit organization that is backing Ciaramella--Whistleblower
Aid. According to Wikipedia :
In September 2017, Tye and lawyer Mark Zaid cofounded Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit law
firm.
But public records tell a different story. Whistleblower Aid is a "doing-business-as" name.
The incorporated name is Values United. It was
incorporated in Louisiana in April 2009 . The incorporation subsequently was revoked in
2013 and reinstated on 13 March 2017. Here is the Louisiana document:
Values United was granted 501 (c) (3) status on 30 March 2017 (you can find the determination
letter here .)
So, it was organized in March of 2017, not September. A minor point I suppose but a key
fact.
What do we find when we look at the 990 tax return required for not-for-profits? The DBA
name for Values United is Whistleblower Aid:
There is another oddity revealed in the tax return for Whistleblower Aid--huge liabilities.
Total assets at the end of 2017 are $133,106.00. Total liabilities? $752,823.00. Where was the
money going? Who was getting paid? And how is an organization with more than $600,000 in debt
able to stay afloat. True not-for-profits are supposed to operate according to strict oversight
and rules. Is Whistleblower Aid doing what it is chartered to do or is it acting as a partisan
political organization, something a charitable group is not allowed to do. It is worth looking
at.
and had repeated contacts with individuals, such as DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa
So, all roads, then, lead to a criminal undercover org of Taco Bell. When I thought it
couldn't get any more tragicomic, it did. Now Taco Bell's commercials chihuahua comes in mind
with "drop the Chalupa" line. I wonder what do they mean by "drop".
State attorney general offices provide charitable non-profit oversight and offer a complaint
process. George Soros has been campaigning to buy up AG offices, since they wield so much
power behind the spotlight. Someone is Louisiana needs to file an AG complaint.
Liabilities are explained on the attached schedules.
It appears the bulk of the liabilities (nearly $600k) are in the form of loans made TO
"Values United" by the principal officer and his father.
They appear to have financed the bulk of the activity for 2017 via the loans.
They must not have filed a tax return for 2018 (or the IRS hasn't posted it yet.)
Note sure what is going on, but it does appear to be strange. Hard to tell what exactly
they are spending the money on, other than nearly $300k for a flashy Media Strategy firm.
Yeah. Looks more like a vanity charity. Charity fraud shows up on the expenses side that
go to favored parties and has a lot of income that comes from "donors" that expect something
in return. Certain well known foundations by former presidents come to mind. Charitable
foundations are quite a racket.
Is it merely coincidence that it was transformed into "Whistleblower Aid" this late Spring
just when IC Inspector General Michael Atkinson was installed, the IG who changed whistle
blower policies which now no longer require firsthand knowledge ?
This sure seems like one of Chuck Schumer's "6 ways from Sunday" the IC is trying, to get
back at Trump. I wonder who funds this "charity"?
Am I mistaken or isn't this form, so conveniently revised just this past August, 2019, the
"whistleblower" form which now reflects the policy change of permitting secondhand
information?
Who backed the significant debt of this operation is an equally interesting question? . What
do the minutes of the board of directors meetings disclose. How did this significant debt
conform to its stated charitable intent, that allowed its IRS tax exempt status. How
"charitable" will it be if this organization defaults on this amount of debt? More
information, please.
Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the big
public sector unions.
"Why do the names "Values United" and "Volunteers United" sound so much like a
counter-punch to "Citizens United", the anathema SCOTUS ruling to both Democrats and the
big public sector unions.
The post-Clinton Deomcratic Party establishment has adapted to the Citizens
United decision just fine, thank you very much. They just took their cue from Groucho Marx:
"These are my principles! You don't like them? I have others."
Out West we get two standard slurs against all conservatives (aka alt right, far right, right
wingers, Fox and Friends and white supremists:
Conservatives are tools of Citizen United and the Koch Bros. Boooo, hisss, booo!
Clinton swore the first thing she would do as POTUS was get a constitutional amendment
against Citizens United. You report an interesting change of heart. Tell me more. Why is
Citizens United now working for the Democrat Party - the post-Clinton Democrat party, soon to
become the Neo-Clinton party?
It seems to me that Trump is constantly on the back foot playing defense. He does not seem
proactive in countering his opposition and directly taking the fight to his opponents.
He didn't declassify initially to avoid accusations of obstruction of the Mueller special
counsel. Now that Mueller didn't lay the knockout punch, they've found another reason to
claim obstruction with the Ukraine quid pro quo. All along he knew that Rosenstein played him
by setting up Mueller, yet he did not fire him. Same with Wray. He's now passed the buck on
to Barr who has his own agenda and prerogatives.
With LTC Vindman's testimony out there he should be all over his insubordination and as
C-in-C should order his court martial.
The fact that none of the insiders in his administration have a paid any price for their
acts of leaking and stories of innuendo and fanning the flames to have him impeached is only
emboldening them to escalate and be even more brazen.
Many are hoping the Durham investigation will settle the score and that justice, while not
swift, is nevertheless sure. It'll be a huge disappointment (to say the least) if none of the
malefactors pay a hefty price.
A while back, it took me 2 years and lots of legal expenses to finally get satisfaction
from a flooring company, so I would expect something like SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY to take a
little longer!
Trump is always getting ahead of their game, as well as punching back defensively. He is
changing the dynamics. One must listen carefully. So little of his proactive charges filter
through the media - even WSJ and now Fox are playing mind games against Trump. Give Kellyanne
Conway some credit - she still gets ahead of the story like no one else.
Following a complaint, the Scottish Charity Regulator investigated and concluded that
certain aspects of the IOS activities could not be classed as charitable.
For Spook aficionados, interesting commentary on the alleged biological relationship to
the alleged "Whistleblower",Eric Ciaramella, and the former head of See Eye Aye
Counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton:
''Here's the bottomline--Ciaramella, lacking first hand information, does not qualify as a
whistleblower.''
'If' Ciaramella is the whistleblower who set him up to be the whistleblower?
Could it be whistleblower Lt. Vindman, who was there, or his twin brother who is a lawyer in
the NSC?
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman------------Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovich- Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill ------------Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard,
Russian expert.
Currently staring in Congress Impeachment testimony against Trump
Lt. Vindman-Russian---Ukraine Jewish refugee NSC
Amb Gordon Sondland----Polish/Russian Jewish refugee
Amb Marie Yovanovitch - Russian Jewish refugee
Fiona Hill --Dual US-UK citizen. Studied under Richard Pipes, in 1998 at Harvard, Russian
expert.
I have read the testimonies and several things jump out. All these people are outspoken
anti Russia activist and pro Ukraine. According to their statements Russia is the ultimate
evil. Vindman, Yovanovitch and Hill all use the same description...''Ukraine needs US aid
because it is fighting for US interest and against Russian aggression'. Their testimonies
were as much or more about why we should support Ukraine then about what Trump said or didn't
say.
This Trump coup is coming from the NSC and the State Department, not the CIA this
time.
Calling All Patriots to Intelligence War, with Special Guest, Bill Binney
Less than 24 hours after our Nov. 7 live "fireside chat" broadcast, YouTube said our video
was "was flagged for review" and they've made it unavailable for public viewing. While we're
in the process of appealing this, we've made our broadcast available in Vimeo.
Clearly we've struck a nerve! In this too hot for YouTube broadcast, LaRouchePAC's Barbara
Boyd is joined by William Binney (former NSA and member of the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, VIPS). They give the latest in the coup attempt against President
Donald Trump.
Mark Zaid, the attorney for the fake whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, laid out the entire
plot of what we now see unfolding before our eyes in a series of tweets, starting back in
January of 2017. Zaid tweeted: "the coup has started" and "impeachment will follow
ultimately." In July of 2017, Ciarmella said that CNN would play a key role in the coup and
that, "We will get rid of him, and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his
supporters." Zaid further promised that the coup would take place in a series of steps and
that as one member of RESIST, within the Administration fell, two others would take their
place.
Here's some more grit regarding Eric Ciaramella, and the coup against POTUS Trump
Facebook And YouTube Erase All Mentions Of Anti-Trump Whistleblower's Name. Not only are
Facebook and YouTube's standards a form of censorship, they are an example of partisanship on
the largest social media platforms in the world.
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's
unsubstantiated assertion that Biden pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor,
Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics,"
he said. "Period. That's on the record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence
campaigns on swing voters and implied that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S.
Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it seems, have their
blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment
isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in
the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from
the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public
health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing
to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although
if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take it. And I agree it's about protecting the
current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the
impeachment, but other motives seem relevant. I have thought since Obama went all in with
Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the
Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes
and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. To me Trump is like the mobster Joe
Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and
wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So
they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes
Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it
comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of
the Bidens in the Ukraine affair' (original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der
Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19,
nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's
an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the
same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the
Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial
assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope
something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has
been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience
with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when
in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream
media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but
vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior
to the excerpt I provide, which I suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic
Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost
the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya, Yemen, and other countries that the Obama
administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high
crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get
the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to
home Pelosi says look over here at the orange head, look over there at the border but
whatever you do, do not look over https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE
">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture
of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair' (original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der
Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19,
nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Following the release of the letter, Trump gave his two cents, arguing the list ought to be
expanded to include "Nervous Nancy Pelosi" and "Sleepy Joe Biden."
I recommend that Nervous Nancy Pelosi (who backed up Schiff's lie), Shifty Adam Schiff,
Sleepy Joe Biden, the Whistleblower (who miraculously disappeared after I released the
transcript of the call), the 2nd Whistleblower (who also disappeared), & the I.G., be
part of the list!
"... Trump's real offense is waging an un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and for-real genocidal war against the human beings of Yemen. His war crimes in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq have at least taken place in conflicts supposedly authorized by Congress, making the legal cases against actions there somewhat more complicated. ..."
"... But in Yemen, no law, only presidential orders, have authorized our military , spies , arms merchants and mercenaries to "lead from behind" in this disastrous war of the so-called "Saudi-led coalition" against the civilian population there. ..."
Americans should support the impeachment and removal of
President Donald Trump, but not for Ukrainegate . In fact, they should oppose his
impeachment on Ukrainegate grounds completely.
Trump's real offense is waging an un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and
for-real genocidal war against the human beings of Yemen. His war crimes in
Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and Iraq have at least taken place in conflicts supposedly
authorized by Congress, making the legal cases against actions there somewhat more
complicated.
But in Yemen, no law, only presidential orders, have authorized our
military ,
spies , arms
merchants and
mercenaries to "lead from behind" in this disastrous war of the so-called "Saudi-led
coalition" against the civilian population there.
The previous Yemen war, the CIA and air force drone war against al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which began in 2009, the lawyers argued, was legal
under the Authorization to Use Military Force against the group that attacked the United
States on September 11th 2001. They were, after all, involved in
the attack , and had previously bombed the USS Cole in 2000. Of course that drone
war only backfired ,
empowering the al Qaeda enemy by radicalizing the local population. It turns out a 500-pound
bomb isn't a "scalpel" in real life, like they say in Washington.
But this is not that war . This is the war that President Barack Obama and
then-Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammed bin
Salman started back in March 2015. It's not a war against AQAP at all. In fact, from the
very beginning it's been
a war for AQAP and their allies against their deadly enemies, the Houthi movement
of Zaidi Shi'ite tribes from the north of the country who seized the capital city of Sana'a
at the end of 2014. The Houthis had been helping
the U.S. to fight
against AQAP .
Strikes against AQAP have continued as well, mostly to
bad effect . But even the blowback from that
failed policy amounts to nothing
compared to the gains
al Qaeda has made from fighting on what is now America's side in the war, mostly due to
their
association with the mercenary forces of the United Arab Emirites, a major partner in the
U.S.-led coalition.
By the time Obama switched to their side in the war, AQAP had also inspired the Ft. Hood
massacre , attempted to blow up a plane over Detroit , launched an
attempted bomb
attack on a U.S. cargo plane and massacred
the staff of Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, France in January 2015.
That same January, Obama's undersecretary of defense for intelligence, Gen.
Michael Vickers, announced that the U.S. was working with the new regime against al
Qaeda. Just two months later, Barack Obama betrayed the Houthis and sided with al Qaeda
against them.
The AUMF does not cover that.
And let's get it straight. America is the "Superpower"; Saudi Arabia is our client state.
Obama didn't have to do anything. In fact, to hear his war cabinet tell it, they can barely
remember starting the war at all.
Robert Malley, Obama's coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and Gulf Region,
recently
wrote (get this):
"Why the U.S. got entangled in this war -- and why a president so determined to keep
the country out of another Mideast military mess nonetheless got caught in this one -- makes
for a painful a story. [sic] In March 2015, Saudi Arabia came to the U.S. with a
request for support in a campaign it vowed to conduct regardless. After that, and although
events took place a mere four years ago, memories blur. In our conversations, many former
U.S. officials found it hard to recall what precisely the Saudis asked for, what specific
commitments the administration made in response, and when certain types of assistance started
to flow. Some, including one of us who attended the deliberations, recall a deeply ambivalent
president who greenlighted U.S. support but insisted it be confined to the defense of Saudi
territory and not extend to the war against the Houthis. Others don't recall hearing about
that instruction, and struggle to reconcile it with what the U.S. actually did during the war
-- including refueling coalition sorties and replenishing weapons stocks.
[laugh track]
"Yet all agree the decision ultimately came without much debate. The reason, at bottom,
was straightforward: Here was a partner (Saudi Arabia) seeking help in restoring a government
(that of President Hadi) the U.S. regarded as legitimate and a loyal ally in the war against
al-Qaeda. That government had been toppled by an insurgent group (the Houthi or Ansar Allah);
although the extent of its ties to Iran was debatable and debated, their existence was
indisputable. Plus, all this came at a time when relations between Washington and Riyadh
already were deeply damaged by disagreements over the Obama administration's response to the
Arab uprisings and, even more so, its negotiations over a nuclear deal with Tehran. As Riyadh
saw it, doing nothing would mean permitting control by a Hizbollah-like organization of its
southern border, ensconcing a perpetual threat. Rebuffing the Saudi request at any time
likely would have provoked a serious crisis in Saudi/U.S. bilateral relations. Doing so while
the U.S. was seeking a landmark agreement with the kingdom's sworn enemy could have brought
them to breaking point. That was a risk even a president skeptical of the wisdom of Saudi
policies and willing to call into question elements of the relationship was not prepared to
take.
Poor helpless President of the United States of America. Unlike, say,
Iran's nuclear weapons program , the Houthis' "existence was indisputable ." What
could Obama possibly do at that point than stab them, his actual anti-al Qaeda allies, in the
back and take MBS and Ayman al Zawahiri's side against them? It's high treason His
Royal Highness wants, it's
high treason he gets.
So this treasonous war is unauthorized and therefore un-Constitutional
. It's also a war that is in violation of the War Powers Resolution, and not only technically
speaking. Lo and behold the unbelievable fact that
both houses of the U.S. Congress have voted to invoke the War Powers Resolution, demanding an
end to the war. They even passed the same version at the same time and sent it to the
president's desk earlier this year. He 'vetoed' it . So
the unauthorized, unconstitutional, treasonous war is also in the narrow sense, illegal.
But what's this about genocide? That could fall under the War Crimes Act .
That's exactly what it is.
The
strategy of the U.S.-Saudi campaign has been to target Yemen's water, electric and sewage
systems, hospitals, markets and farms – where they bomb the grain silos, flocks of
sheep in the field, irrigation systems and whatever else they can target to destroy the basic
infrastructure supporting the lives of the civilian population, especially in the north of
the country. During the last
world's worst cholera outbreak in history before the current
one , the U.S.A. and their Saudi friends
bombed the cholera hospitals just to be sure to kill as many babies as possible.
All the while the U.S. Navy helps the Saudis and UAE keep the place under
blockade , preventing
virtually all international trade, and
limiting the availability of humanitarian aid.
The most powerful nation in world history, barely hiding behind its proxy, is decimating
the poorest, weakest country in the Middle East.
Yemen is not a country that ever attacked us or threatened us. Even the Houthis'
anti-American slogans were only adopted to
embarrass their then-enemy and later-ally, dictator Abdullah Saleh, for being so close to
the George W. Bush administration in the 2000s.
As referenced above, the Houthis were helping
the Obama government fight al Qaeda at the time he started bombing them. And he only did
it to " placate the
Saudis " over their unease about the possibility of a new (absolutely out of the
question) American slant back toward Iran while negotiating the 2015 nuclear deal.
The latest numbers from the group ACLED Data have it that
over 100,000 people have been killed in the violence of the war, while the UN recently
said that more
than 133,000 additional people had died in the war due to deprivation (starvation,
otherwise easily treatable diseases, etc.). This includes 85,000children
under 5 years old , many thousands of whom died of cholera. That is, they vomited and
defecated themselves to death.
[Insert mental image of a young child you know and love dying that way and you being
absolutely unable to do anything about it here.]
From the very beginning it was known that this very poor
country was heavily dependent on foreign food imports for their survival and that the state
of war would immediately propel masses to famine . And so
it has.
So you see, the war is un-authorized, unconstitutional, illegal, treasonous and
genocidal
all at the same time. It is as bad as Iraq War II at least. When the whole thing is finally
over, we are virtually certain to find that the "excess death rate" for the Yemeni people
during this time equates to over a million dead.
But Donald Trump could have stopped the war almost three years ago. He could stop it right
now with one simple phone call to the secretary of defense. Instead he crows about how much
money "we're" making helping Saudi's government kill.
This is the same reason why I have supported impeachment and removal against George Bush
Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama before Trump: war crimes.
Not only should Trump be removed from office for this wanton murder, he should have to
share a Supermax cell with his buddy Barack Obama
for the rest of their lives over it too.
That would be the law and justice being applied to the powerful equally like in the
theories they teach us in high school civics class about how our system is supposed to
work.
But folks. Come on now. That is not what this current impeachment scandal is at all.
America's
secret police , formerly under John "
Jabhat al Nusra " Brennan, are leading a coup against the elected leader of the national
government. Cry as they might about how uncouth Trump is,
the real motive for the entire Russiagate setup was their fear that he might actually
mean some of the good things he said about " getting along
with Russia ," his disregard
for the NATO alliance and
unwillingness to continue America's indefinite catastrophe in the Middle East.
Isolationism!
Like the fools who believed in him, all the hawks took what Trump said at face value and
went crazy. Treat the Palestinians "
fairly "?! Red Alert! DEFCON 1! Treason Summit!
But Trump has
escalated every single one of the wars he
inherited from Barack Obama in 2017. He's done everything
the Israelis want. But it's just not enough. Trump doesn't believe in America's
divine
mission to dominate the planet earth – er, "lead" it – until the end of time.
He doesn't demand the rest of us do either. His terrible
trade policies also are "
disruptive " to our system of permanent alliances around the world. That is why the "deep
state" is out to get him.
After failing
to
stop Trump's inauguration with their false accusations
that he conspired with the Russians to steal the 2016 election, and chucking the
possibility that they could get his cabinet to overthrow him by invoking the 25th
amendment, the feds settled on a project to "
reign him in " at the very least by dragging out the fake Russia caper as long as they
could.
Once the special council
threw in the towel after another year of false Russiagate accusations, they switched to
Plan B. Now that it's clear that the "
whistleblower " Eric Ciaramella, formerly worked for Brennan, this entire thing should be
cancelled. It doesn't matter that Trump was
caught acting unethically with the Ukrainians, the presumption must be that Ciaramella
was acting as a spy for the CIA against the elected president, sent there to find something,
anything that could be used against Trump to take him down. Wait around a little while. It
won't take long.
(Isn't it funny how most of the media still won't say the man's name, Eric Ciaramella , after it's
already been
published . Isn't their job now to either confirm it's true or not that he's the one who
started this? Oh, no, they just love and want to protect whistleblowers now,
right? That must be what's behind all the recent
fawning coverage of Chelsea Manning's current sacrifice in federal prison.)
Opposing the U.S. coups in Ukraine in 2004 and
2014 and
U.S. support of any kind for their
Nazi-infested military forces, and being absolutely against Joe Biden and
everything about him , and his scumbag
,
crackhead son and
their roles in Ukraine after
the last coup , I am therefore also very dubious about just what a terrible crime it is
supposed to be that Trump would hold up this "vital" aid to Ukraine under these or any other
circumstances. This is the narrative, you've noticed: Americans – you – owe
Ukraine's government loyalty forever. To fail to give them the weapons they need to
restart the
horrible war against their countrymen in the east would be an unpardonable sin and
so-forth. Call it another clue as to what is really going on around here.
To allow the CIA this win – after they've
gotten away with
using torture to lie us into war in Iraq and their
presumption to challenge the authority of the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee
by spying on her and attempting to have the Department of Justice prosecute her staffers for
investigating that torture; after the revelations of their lawless NSA-like spying on
Americans in the
Vault 7 leak ; after their supporting
al Nusra in Syria for 4 years leading to the
rise of the Islamic State "caliphate" and Iraq War III; after they
lied that the president of the United States was a guilty traitor who stole the 2016
election with the help of the Kremlin – would be no victory for justice at all.
After racking up a president's head as a trophy for their wall ( a second ?), just think what
these monsters would be like then.
It's pretty
easy to tell when there's a CIA coup going on. When they
openly
boast about it, as former acting CIA director John McLaughlin
recently did , then you should be on the right side of it, against.
Any real effort to hold all politicians accountable for their crimes under the equal rule
of law should be welcomed and supported. We'll believe it when we see Obama's indictment
right next to Trump's.
Chalupa, Nunes writes, can shed light on "the facts and circumstances surrounding Ukrainian
involvement in the 2016 election."
According to Nunes, Ohr told committees in 2018 that Fusion GPS sources included high
ranking Ukrainians. And Ohr, the lawmaker claims, can help illuminate "the facts and
circumstances surrounding Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election."
"... Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose." ..."
"... : by telling the president that he was not a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name. ..."
"... by the time he issued his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling. ..."
"... On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern summarized the findings: ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton ..."
"... Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now, either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020, too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope. ..."
With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies
hope.
Impeachment is a game that Democrats are playing with Donald Trump, and the game's only rule is "heads I win, tails you lose."
The president is familiar with these rules by now, as they're the same ones that governed the investigations into Russian meddling
in the 2016 election. FBI Director James Comey told Trump at the outset that he was not a target of the investigation.
Yet anonymous quotes and other questionably sourced reports continued to appear in the press claiming that Trump was a Russian
asset-as Hillary Clinton might bluntly put it-and so the president asked Comey to say in public what he had told him in private.
Comey refused, and Trump soon fired him.
This act of self-defense, or pique, depending on your point of view, triggered calls for the appointment of a special counsel
to take over the investigation-which ballooned from an investigation that didn't center around Trump into one in which Trump's behavior
toward Comey was grounds for investigating the president. Comey had made a power play: by telling the president that he was not
a subject of the probe and then refusing to issue a statement to that effect, Comey was making the point: Trump might be the country's
elected executive, but men like Comey were the government. Officials could leak, they could issue anonymous quotes prejudicial to
the president, and all Trump could do was wait until Comey decided to clear his name.
Other politicians might play by those rules out the desire for self-preservation. Trump chose not to. And so, an ex-FBI
director, who may have had hopes of becoming director once again, took over the investigation. Comey would not go unavenged. Mueller
ultimately found nothing criminal or meriting a recommendation of impeachment in Trump's behavior. But by the time he issued
his report, the protracted investigation, and all the hype about Trump and Russia that it sustained, had done its political damage
and hammered the lesson home. Republicans suffered a bloodbath in the 2018 midterms, and the next president would think twice-and
then twice again-about treating an FBI director as his underling.
The Ukraine corruption that is at the heart of the Democrats' impeachment project involves the same logic if somewhat different
players. On January 11, 2017, Politico ran a news story under the headline "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire." The
story documented Ukraine's meddling on behalf of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Kenneth P. Vogel and David
Stern summarized the findings:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only
to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico
investigation found.
If a foreign power involves itself is a U.S. election like that, shouldn't America ask questions? And shouldn't aid money to that
foreign power be held up until those questions were answered-not least because withholding those funds might be necessary to compel
cooperation with the investigation and to get the foreign interest to mend its ways? The questions Trump had to ask in this case,
however, involving what ties Ukrainians had to prominent Democratic Party figures, could and would, of course, be portrayed by Democrats
and the media sympathetic to them as a kind of election interference in its own right. Why, Trump was demanding a quid pro quo from
Kiev-the funds in return for information about the Democrats or an investigation that would embarrass a possible 2020 nominee.
Again, as Trump's enemies would have it, he loses if he acts (by firing Comey, by urging Kiev to look into questionable behavior
by or benefiting Democrats), and he loses if he doesn't act (and simply accepts mischaracterizations of the Russia investigation
in the press or Kiev's intrigues with Democrats). Trump has a predilection to defy his enemies-something they might now have come
to count on-so rather than taking the beating they want to mete out to him, he hits back, and then they cry foul. The media intensifies
its insinuations that Trump has broken one or more laws (though just which law remains vague and hardly even argued, let alone proven),
and the president's foes reach for their institutional weapons: the special counsel provisions and now impeachment proceedings. When
Republicans do not go along with the kangaroo court, well-paid ex-conservatives are hauled out to bemoan the lost integrity of a
party whose last president misled the country into ceaseless wars in the Middle East-with these very same ex-conservatives having
led the cheers for those interventions.
Trump was within his rights as president to demand answers from Ukraine. And if he stood to benefit politically it was because
Ukraine had already involved itself in American politics on the side of Democrats: severing those dubious ties and preventing further
manipulation of U.S. elections would necessarily come at the expense of the party that Ukrainians had cultivated when Barack Obama
was in power and which they had hoped to keep in power by helping Hillary Clinton.
Ukrainians are only acting in self-interest here:
they understandably want to enlist U.S. power in every way possible as a check upon Russia. The prospect of American politics taking
a turn toward rapprochement with Russia stirs Ukraine to take one side in our elections and Russia to take another. This is an old
familiar pattern in American politics-as old as the Washington and Adams administrations, when revolutionary France and counter-revolutionary
England had interests in our elections, and America's ideological factions were inclined to favor one power or another. Neutrality
was the course that George Washington urged, and by and large, it was the one that won out, even when the French-sympathizing Thomas
Jefferson and James Madison came to power.
A lesson from George Washington would stand the leaders in Washington, DC in good stead today. But Democrats in Congress have
other ideas: Ukraine may have failed to elect Hillary Clinton in 2016, but Democrats hope to use Ukraine to remove Trump now,
either through impeachment-a longshot-or by weakening him and the GOP ahead of the 2020 election. And Democrats hope that Republican
senators will be so embarrassed and perhaps divided by a trial in the Senate that they will lose control of that chamber in 2020,
too. They know Trump will keep fighting, and the harder he fights, the more he refuses to play by the rigged rules of the game, the
more opportunity Democrats see to frame his defensive moves as outrageous and impeachable offenses. With Nixon and Watergate, the
cover-up was often said to be worse than the crime. With Trump, there is no crime, but his defiant acts of self-defense are enough
to convict him-or so the Democrats and their allies hope.
nopeace > jeremypw • 2 hours ago
The Jan 2017 piece referenced above disproves your entire post. It points out that Democrats used Ukraine n the 2016
election (long before Trump ever the Ukraine or Biden entered the race.
BTW, there wasn't just one country where the drug-abusing, bad discharged Biden-boy made gross amounts of money from countries
trying to buy influence in the Obama administration through his father. There were several, including China. The difference is
that his father admitted on video to threatening withdrawing billions in U.S. aid if the prosecutor of his son was not fired.
True quid pro quo.
A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President
Donald Trump's
private conversation with the Ukrainian President
Volodymyr
Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch.
Last week
Real Clear Investigation's first reported the whistleblower's name. It is allegedly CIA officer Eric Ciaramella. His name, however,
has been floating around Washington D.C. since the leak of Trump's phone call. It was considered an 'open secret' until reporter
Paul Sperry published his article. Ciaramella has never openly stated that he is the whistleblower and most news outlets are not
reporting his name publicly.
He was detailed to the National Security Counsel during the Obama Administration in 2015 and was allegedly sent back to the CIA
in 2017, after a number of people within the Trump White House suspected him of leaking information to the press, according to several
sources that spoke with SaraACarter.com .
Further, the detailed visitor logs reveal that a Ukrainian expert
Alexandra Chalupa , a contractor that was hired by the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, visited the White
House 27 times.
Chalupa allegedly coordinated with the Ukrainians to investigate then candidate Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Manafort was forced out of his short tenure as campaign manager for Trump when stories circulated regarding business dealings with
Ukrainian officials. Manafort was later investigated and convicted by a jury on much lesser charges then originally set forth by
Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. He was given 47 months in prison for basically failing to pay appropriate taxes and
committing bank fraud.
Both Ciaramella and Chalupa are of interest to Republican's investigating the what some conservatives have described as the second
Trump 'witch-hunt.' And many have called for the whistleblower to testify to Congress.
They are absolutely correct and within the law. There is so much information and evidence that reveals that this was no ordinary
whistleblower complaint but one that may have been based on highly partisan actions targeting Trump.
Here's just one example : Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes said its impossible to have a fair impeachment
inquiry without the testimony of the alleged whistleblower because he is a 'fact foundational witness' who had met with Intelligence
Committee Chairman
Adam
Schiff, D-CA, previously. Schiff had originally denied that he had any contact with his committee and then had to walk back his
statements when it was revealed that the whistleblower had met with the Democrats prior to filing his complaint to the Intelligence
Inspector General about the President.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, said the visitor logs reveal that there is much lawmakers or the American public don't know
about what happened during the 2016 presidential elections and moreover it raises very significant questions about the apparent partisan
nature of the whistleblower.
"Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine
and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump," said Fitton, in a press release Friday.
"Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs."
Read Below From Judicial Watch
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White
House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She
visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill
reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took the rare step of
trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC)."
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded
Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department
Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported
that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department's policy
planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of
the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama's Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy
reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on
June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered
documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with Clinton-funded
dossier . Judicial Watch also released
documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified Russia investigation
information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire
reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European
affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9,
2015.
Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That
meeting was on June 2, 2015.
Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with
Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016.
Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work
for the City of Chicago Treasurer's office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis
Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.
"... Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign, never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself. ..."
"... Faced now with a criminal investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an allegation of conducting routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy. ..."
Earlier in Stone's legal process his lawyers filed a motion to try to prove that Russia
did not hack the DNC and Podesta emails. The motion
revealed that CrowdStrike, the cybersecurity firm hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign,
never completed its report, and only gave a redacted draft to the FBI blaming Russia. The FBI
was never allowed to examine the DNC server itself.
In the end, though, it doesn't matter if it were a hack or a leak by an insider. That's
because the emails WikiLeaks released were accurate. When documents check out it is
irrelevant who the source is. That's why WikiLeaks set up an anonymous drop box, copied
by big media like The Wall Street
Journal and others
. Had the emails been counterfeit and disinformation was inserted into a U.S. election by a
foreign power that would be sabotage. But that is not what happened.
The attempt to stir up the thoroughly discredited charge of collusion appears to be part of
the defense strategy of those whose reputations were thoroughly discredited by maniacally
pushing that false charge for more than two years. This includes legions of journalists. But
principal among them are intelligence agency officials who laundered this "collusion"
disinformation campaign through the mainstream media.
Faced now with a criminal
investigation into how the Russiagate conspiracy theory originated intelligence officers
and their accomplices in the media and in the Democratic Party are mounting a defense by
launching an offensive in the form of impeachment proceedings against Trump that is based on an
allegation of conducting
routine, corrupt U.S. foreign policy.
Stone may be just a footnote to this historic partisan battle that may scar the nation for a
generation. But he has the personality to be the poster boy for the Democrats' lost cause.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent
forThe Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe,Sunday Timesof London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at[email protected]and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
"... "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried" ..."
"... If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that. ..."
"John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be 'Very, Very Worried"
Way back when, it was taken as mostly-gospel that Trump was surprised as anybody that he
won, and that he didn't really want the job. While it appears that he's having lots of fun
being #1, maybe he's not so worried about an impeachment, because it will get him out of the
White House, and back to making money. Impeachment could be Donald and the Repub's wet dream:
they get rid of an odious figurehead (but one who has given them everything they have
wanted), they get Mike Pence to finish off the term and run in 2020, and he can claim he was
unjustly removed from office, all the while raking in the $$ from speaking engagements, new
TV shows, merch sales, and additional influence peddling.
I've always felt that Trump's best move would be to not run again. It would be perfectly
in character for him to say "been there done that" and exit with his middle finger extended.
He's done it his whole life and his "brand" for those who ever bought it to begin with would
be even stronger. Successful impeachment might slow him up a bit but does anyone really think
he's just gonna go away with his tail between his legs after he leaves the White House? He's
shameless and unless he goes to jail he will be with us forever which, loved or hated, is the
only thing that matters to him
This of course is the true hope of the impeachers–that he will just quit–since
they know he won't really be impeached. They look fondly to the Nixon precedent.
If he does not go for a second term, his enemies will go after him legally and he
would be without the protection of being President. The establishment would pin anything that
they can (or make up) so as to teach any other future Presidential candidate that you do not
become so without getting the nod from them first. So Roman that.
From the Medium article "John Bolton's Old Rivals Say Trump Should Be Very, Very
Worried"
"I don't think dirt-digging would offend Bolton. What would offend Bolton is interrupting
military supplies to a country in a deadly battle with Russia. Doing something that for
whatever reason appeases Putin," Thielmann said."
The country referred to is Ukraine. I guess I've missed all the msm articles detailing all
those deadly clashes between Russian & Ukrainian military units along with casualty
figures and all that. I suppose I need to pay closer attention (or something).
UN says 12,800–13,000 killed since April 2014. So Congress bought a pile of Javelin
AT munitions, the ones with a top attack flight profile that will place a high explosive
shape-charge of molten copper through tops of young Russian tank commanders' heads, who are
sons of Putin's base, if there was a mechanized push further into Ukraine. [The political
tolerance window for which is narrowing.]
Our benevolent leader said, "Hold-on. You gotta first get your FBI to clear my campaign
and come up with some trumped-up charges against my political opponent. My FBI won't do it."
Congressional impoundment, solicitation of a bribe for personal gain, and abuse of power. In
any case, Ukraine's getting a smaller pile of missiles until next year, so, gross incompetent
moves, both domestic and abroad.
You recall that the Obama administration opposed giving Ukraine any lethal assistance?
Congress has just come up with an excellent method of giving the Russians a lot of free
Javelins if there were a serious fight. Which there continues to be no sign of.
The great bulk of (pro-government) Ukrainian casualties occurred in the course of
ill-advised and poorly conducted offensives against the breakaway republics. When it only
defends, the Ukrainian side doesn't suffer casualties. Because nobody attacks it.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt? What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity. I just can't see what Trump is
supposed to be guilty of except making this transparent.
The distinction I've heard being made is whether the bribery (or whatever they decide to
call it) happened for personal gain or the public's/nation's gain. What's being alleged here
is that this was a case where it was for personal gain.
In other words, whatever shady tactics a public representative uses to obtain concessions
is just fine if it's to benefit those he or she represents, but not fine if it only benefits
the representative him or herself.
I think this line of argument actually makes some sense, so I'm starting to come around to
the idea of this impeachment.
Clinton, Military aid to Saudi Arabia, Saudi donation to Clinton Foundation.
Biden threat to withhold aid from Ukraine unless prosecutor fired, son gets to keep five
figure job AND stay out of Ukrainian prison.
I am pretty sure a fair case could be made for some other items in the Middle East and
South America especially when you look at post government employment and positions.
If I thought any of this would actually change business as usual in DC, I would be all for
it. But just as with Benghazi, those in charge of the investigation are trying to take out
limited targets while keeping changing SOP out of it.
It is political show and directed by a group of people who should be limited to the same
power I have, one vote.
Unfortunately what you say rings true about the usual players trying to selectively
prosecute. But at what point do (did?) we just throw our hands up and say (said?) "forget it,
let's just ignore this part of the law (constitution)" even in the face of clear evidence
that it happened?
As I learn more, this is starting to look to me like a clearer case for an impeachment
trial than there was against Clinton, or even against Nixon, since bribery is very
specifically mentioned in the constitution as a justification for impeachment (as opposed to
the less specific "high crimes and misdemeanors", which I presume is what those other two
cases fell under).
If that's the case, then Trump's team has to show that the Bidens were being investigated
for corruption. I'm sure that the GOP would gladly include a show-trial of sorts into
impeachment proceedings to demonstrate this was the case even if it wasn't.
This whole thing is ridiculous and will only serve to boost Trump, especially when the Dems
(again) force-feed a conservative through the convention as their nominee.
Right, one of his possibly effective lines of defense could be that he indeed made that
request for the benefit of the country, and that it was just an unfortunate coincidence that
it was regarding a political opponent. And he would have some backing evidence in the form of
his other unusual requests like pressuring Sweden to release the rapper and all that.
I also agree that this whole thing could possibly boost him, but not necessarily. It may
well enrage his base, but it may turn away people in the middle who are still open to solid
arguments and evidence.
I don't think the whole thing is ridiculous anymore, and feel that Pelosi decided that she
finally had something substantial to start impeachment after talking about it for so
long.
The only things he is guilty of, is being an uncouth D.C. outsider that relishes pulling
festering scabs off of the tony eastcoast pearl-clutchers, and giving the one-finger salute
to California liberals ("I • Drink • Your • Impeachment • MILKSHAKE !,
Nancy .. I DRINK IT UP siffft !!) .. when he's not bullchinashopping the Brunch Crowd,
swilling the Dom Perrier before making off with the Belgian Waffles.
Mhmmm, it's not a joke. As it seems received wisdom here @NC that trump will be
re-elected, & liberal Dems don't get it & lefty can't get elected, what harm is there
in holding trump accountable for something, whether you understand it or not, for something
that he is actually responsible for?
It matters not if every other president is equally guilty which they are not. There are
prices to be paid.
"To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss national security in the context
of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both Trump and Russian leader Vladimir
Putin. "
We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under
President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National
Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy
and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this operation " Intelgate
," and it has since been well documented by other writers, including Lee
Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain leading, and
equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed such
transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will leave
power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain.
§ We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press"
cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream
media -- leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to
cover and report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of
Russiagate allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The
New York Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and the
Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert Mueller
report.
Jeffrey Harrison says: November 6, 2019 at 9:30 pm
There are no more "honorable members of the Senate", Mr. Cohen. The members of both houses
of Congress are partisan hacks who know nothing of how to run a country or exist in a
multipolar world, they only know how to get elected.
Facebook Scrubs All References To Alleged Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella
by
Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/08/2019 - 16:45
0
SHARES
Facebook announced on Friday that it would be removing an posts which name alleged Trump-Ukraine
whistleblower
Eric Ciaramella
.
"
We are removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower's name and will
revisit this decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures
in the debate
," Facebook said in a statement in which they claim it violates their
"coordinating harm" policy which prohibits content 'outing of witness, informant, or activist.'
On Wednesday, the social media giant removed ads naming Ciaramella which had been viewed several
hundred thousand times according to the
Washington Post
.
On Friday,
Breitbart
'
s Allum Bohkari reported that the news outlet's posts containing references to
Ciaramella had been scrubbed from the site.
Wednesday evening, Facebook removed Breitbart posts
reporting
on the fact other respected news outlets have reported the identity of the alleged
whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. Any Facebook user who attempts to click on that article on
Facebook is now given a message that says, "this content isn't available at the moment."
To be clear, Breitbart did not "out" the alleged whistleblower but did provide
additional relevant reporting about him
; he is, after all, a public figure, having
served on the National Security Council
. Moreover, his name has been used in the
Mueller report (p283)
and Ambassador Bill Taylor's
testimony
.
Administrators of Breitbart News' Facebook page began receiving notifications on Wednesday
evening stating that Breitbart's page is "at risk of being unpublished" but were not given any
details as to why, or even which posts were allegedly at issue. -
Breitbart
"
There is no overarching protection for the identity of the whistleblower under federal
law
," said attorney Dan Meyer, the former executive director of the intelligence community
whistleblower program, adding "Congress has never provided that protection."
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of
power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984
“The trouble [with injustice] is that once you see it, you can’t unsee it. And
once you’ve seen it, keeping quiet, saying nothing, becomes as political an act as speaking
out. There is no innocence. Either way, you’re accountable.” -- Arundhati Roy --
Arundhati Roy
people are doing things in banks that they shouldn't be doing
Welcome to the We Tortured Some Folks School of Minimization, where you too can learn
to master the deceptive art of manipulative psychological abuse!
I see you, Holder, how you're trying to lie people into believing the bankster crimes
are the same kind of petty theft as hungry people stealing food. That's some straight up
evil shit, man.
We did torture some folks and according to the guy who scanned every page of the torture
memos it was much worse than we were led to believe. There is a video coming out soon about
the torture report and it's findings. I don't remember where I read that and saw the trailer,
but if I find it again I will post it.
Remember that the CIA broke into congress' computer files to see what was there and no one
was held accountable for it. DiFi made a big deal of looking outraged, but.... yeah, we
tortured some folks. The thing is that we still are.
—
America is a pathetic nation; a fascist state fueled by the greed, malice, and
stupidity of her own people.
- strife delivery
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt?
What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity.
I just can't see what Trump is supposed to be guilty of except making this
transparent.
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and
unconvincing, given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I
suppose we should all welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent
is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the ' shomer ' (guardian) of wistleblowers.
I guess what I'm having trouble with is -- is there any foreign policy involving financial
or military leverage that isn't bribery and/or extortion? The Marshall Plan? Alliance for
Progress? Sanctions of any kind? Aid to Israel and Egypt?
What isn't bribery and extortion?
If it doesn't involve quid pro quo, then it's charity.
I just can't see what Trump is supposed to be guilty of except making this
transparent.
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and
unconvincing, given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I
suppose we should all welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent
is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the ' shomer ' (guardian) of wistleblowers.
This is Pelosi attempt to score some political points for coming elections, but it can backfire in Republicans in the Senate deside
to wipe the floor with her and Schiff.
It would be totally ridiculous, unprecedented, and farcical for the losing party to impeach a president
There was definitely treason all right, by elements of the CIA, FBI, and DNC, working with MI5 and Ukrainian oligarchs, to first
interfere in the 2016 election in favor of Clinton, and after the surprise loss, to overturn the results with the ridiculous Russia-gate
(and now Ukraine-gate) hoaxes.
The Democrats will destroy themselves.Wikipedia: "Hoist with his own petard" is a phrase from a speech in Hamlet that has become
proverbial. The phrase's meaning is literally that the bomb-maker...is blown up ("hoisted" off the ground) by his own bomb, and
indicates an ironic reversal, or poetic justice.
So if Trump's behavior is all kosher, I guess the DNC should hold a press conference tomorrow to officially ask every foreign
country to search for dirt on Trump, his kids, Kushner, and their companies. They have been sleazing around a lot of countries
making "deals" for a long long time.
If it is okay to ask foreign countries for help with domestic elections, the Dems should get all over that right away. Hmmmm,
I wonder if Trump has offended any foreign countries in the last couple of years, who might like to help usher him out of office...?
China, Mexico, half of Europe. Their intelligence agencies should give the DNC a call.
Hypocrisy is in the eye of the beholder too, I guess. Unless you can define how the Federal Bribery Statute has historically been
applied to US presidents dealing for foreign leaders. I'm sure the readers would be interested in seeing you make that case.
Asking for cooperation from an ally in exposing corruption has never been "charged" any other US president. If you want examples
of other presidents' quid pro quos, just ask. Foreign aid is a political quid pro quo (as we have VP Joe Biden bragging
about on camera). It is not, however, extortion in the jurusprudential meaning of the term. It's reckless and dishonest to claim
that it is.
The Pandora's Box of criminializing heretofore normal presidential activities is one of the more egregious examples of leftwing
ideologues scorching the earth of America's government.
I sat out the last presidential election, because both candidates who were running were unacceptable to me, but Pat's analysis
has cut through all the propaganda surrounding this clumsy coup attempt to overturn the choice that American voters made for who
they wanted as their next president.
...As for the notion that Biden started the civil war in Ukraine? Nonsense. What really kick
started that was the attack on Russian speakers launched as the first order of business.
Killing a bunch of people in Odessa by setting a building on fire and trapping them inside was
motivation too.
Lee Arnold@72 speaks of democratic process. and Russian expansion. Both are imaginary. The
process in Ukraine is fascist. It's true that the open fascists are not at the top, but then,
this was true of Franco's Spain, where the Falange party was not on top either. But only a
swindler would deny Franco's Spain was fascist.
The idea there was no rebellion against the fascists in Kyiv is preposterous on the face of
it. Further, Kharkov nearly went with Donetsk and Lugansk, but the national government managed
to keep control. There is no sane scenario where a Russian invasion doesn't take Kharkov, which
shows it wasn't Russian invasion that started it. And, conclusively, incorporating Donetsk and
Lugansk means ending the war in some fashion that leaves essential control to Moscow. Whatever
military assistance Russia gives the rebels is about making sure they don't go too the left in
fighting the fascists and making sure there are no embarrassing wave of Russian-speaking
refugees from Ukrainian fascism. Endless war is not incorporation. It just means Putin is a
fool for thinking one side won't eventually collapse. Lastly, as to Crimea, the simple truth is
that the establishment of liberal democracies generally demands consolidation of the national
territory, which generally demands redrawing boundaries and ethnic cleansing. The insistence
that Ukrainian fascists have a "right" to make Russians in Crimea second-class citizens because
of old maps is not becoming.
"... Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance ..."
"... The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on collision course with the rest of the country. ..."
"... The Democratic leadership have accepted that their real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now. ..."
"... So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking 'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days. ..."
"... The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly bragged about. ..."
"... That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower". ..."
"... Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co? ..."
For those readers who care more about Donald Trump, Obama's legacy or the Republican/Democrat
parties rather than the Rule of Law and what remains of the US Constitution, the following scenario should be a Giant
Wake up Call.
As the result of an anonymous "whistleblower"
Complaint
filed against President Trump on August 12, the House Intel Committee conducted a series of closed door hearings that
violated
Sixth Amendment
protections while
relying on an anonymous WB.
Right away, those hearings morphed into an impeachment inquiry that took on the spectacle of a clumsy kerfuffle
not to be taken seriously – except they were.
There is an essential Ukraine backstory which began with the US initiating the overthrow of its democratically
elected President Yanukovych in 2014.
Fast forward to Russiagate followed by Ukrainegate and an impeachment inquiry with Trump telling newly elected
Ukraine President Zelensky in their now infamous July 25th conversation:
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation in Ukraine; they say Crowdstrike. The
server they say, Ukraine has it<."
In a nutshell, possession of the CrowdStrike server is crucial to revealing the Democratic hierarchy's role in
initiating Russiagate as the Democrats are having a major snit-fit that now threatens the constitutional foundation
of the country.
On October 31st the House voted to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry based on still mysterious
Whistleblower's allegations. At the time, there was still no confirmation of who the shadowy Whistleblower was or
whether a Whistleblower even existed.
It is a fact that most whistleblowers bring the transgression
proudly forward
into the public light for the specific purpose of exposing the deeds that deserve to be exposed.
At great personal cost, they then provide a credible case for why this offense is illegal or a violation of the
public trust and deserves to be made public.
This alleged WB, however, defies the traditional definition of a WB who most often experiences the wrong-doing
first hand and from a personal vantage while revealing said wrong-doing as a function within an agency of their
employment.
This WB's identity has been protected from public disclosure by TPTB, shrouded in mystery and suspicion as if
fearful of public scrutiny or that his 'truth' would crumble under interrogation and not be greeted with unanimity.
What is clear is that this WB had no direct experience but only second-hand knowledge of events which is defined as
'hear say' evidence. While inadmissible in a Court of law, why should 'hear say' be allowed when the subject is as
profound as impeachment of a President?
Real-life CIA
whistleblower Jon Kiriakou
who served 22 months in prison, suggested this "
whistleblower is not a
whistleblower but a anonymous CIA analyst within the Democratic House staff
." When was the last time a real
whistleblower was 'protected' by the government from public exposure.
There has been no explanation as to why this informant's identity is necessarily been kept secret – and not just
from the public but from Members of Congress especially as Republican Members have been unable to question him.
There has been no further information regarding a second "Whistleblower" who allegedly came forward to corroborate
the first WB although why it is necessary to corroborate that which has already been publicly revealed remains
questionable.
In a once unimaginable example of CIA–Democratic collusion, it turns out that the identity of the alleged WB is
not such a secret after all.
Far from the public eyes of Americans, there has been a coordinated effort to stifle any exposure of his identity;
presumably to prevent any revelation of the underpinnings of exactly how this convoluted scheme of malfeasance was
organized. And as his name and political history within the Obama Administration and Democratic party are publicly
scrutinized, it makes perfect sense why the TPTB would prefer to prevent public hearings or keep the WB's identity
under wraps.
His identity should have been public knowledge weeks ago and yet it took
Real Clear Investigations
,
an alt-news website to publicly reveal what has been well known within
the DC bubble for some weeks.
The answer to the title question is that this WB is instead a very
well connected
partisan lackey and CIA operative.
The alleged WB is said to be a 33 year old
CIA analyst
by the name of Eric Ciaramella who was an Obama White House holdover at the National Security Council
until mid 2017.
Consequently, he has deep partisan ties to former VP Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan and former
National Security Advisor Susan Rice as well as the DNC establishment. And here's where it get especially
interesting; Ciaramella specializes in Russia and Ukraine, is fluent in both languages, ran the Ukraine desk at the
Obama NSC and had close association with Ukrainian DNC hyper-activist Alexandra Chalupa.
Ciaramella's bio reads like a litany of the political turmoil that has consumed the nation for the last three
years as it is reported that he had a role in initiating the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy while at the Obama
White House and worked with Biden who was the Obama point-person on Ukraine issues in 2015 and 2016 when
$3 billion USAID funding
was being embezzled.
Clearly, Ciaramella has a wealth of information to share regarding the Biden
Quid pro Quo scandal
which is currently being muzzled by the corporate media.
With Ciaramella's identity revealed, a former NSC staffer who was present during the Trump-Zelensky July 25th
conversation testified that he saw
nothing illegal
in the talk. Tim Morrison told the House Intel Committee that "
I want to be clear, I was not
concerned that anything illegal was discussed"
and that the transcript of the call which was declassified and
released by the White House "
accurately and completely reflects the substance of the call."
More recently, Mark Zaid, attorney for Ciaramella has said that his client would accept written questions from
Republicans on the House Intel Committee and that his client "
wants
to be as bipartisan
as possible throughout this process while remaining anonymous
."
Seriously? He's got to be kidding.
Did the reality of being required to testify in public just recently dawn on Ciaramella or was he not expecting
that his every word and utterance would be scrutinized before the entire world? Is he so unfamiliar with the Sixth
Amendment that he believes a Defendant's right to confront his accuser should not apply to him or in a Presidential
impeachment inquiry?
Did he actually believe he could make anonymous impeachment accusations against the President of the US without a
ripple or without having to directly face questions from House and Senate Republicans? Who did he think would
protect him from public scrutiny?
Given Ciaramella's extensive partisan history since 2015 and his national security experience with Susan Rice in
the Obama White House, it will be interesting if he receives a mention in the IG report on the abuse of FISA warrants
and whether Ciaramella's name has moved to the top of the Durham interviewee list.
Stephen Morrell
These inquiries always spiral out of the control of their instigators, and this one is becoming
positively delicious.
Seamus Padraig
Regarding the transcript of Trump's call, please tell me: what law/statute did he break? In order
for there to be a high crime or misdemeanor, there must first be
some
kind of crime or misdemeanor.
Tom
You cannot be serious! How about EXTORTION? As in holding up the money from Ukraine until they
agreed to look into his prime political opponent in the upcoming election (Biden). That's a
crime.
Or perhaps they will call it BRIBERY. That's a crime also.
Or moving on, how about receiving money from foreign interests in the form of forbidden
EMOLUMENTS, through, at a minimum, his Washington hotel or the foreign visitors spending heavily
at his gold courses? These venues generate revenue for the Trump organization, which he never
divested himself from.
Take your hands off of your ears and remove the wool from your eyes.
JudyJ
Tom
You mention "Bribery", and you mention "receiving money from foreign interests" both
in the context of Trump. I'm sorry but from where I stand there are far stronger suggestions
of that in the context of Biden and the undenied international connections of his son. You
appear to be taking the position that however serious the inferred misdemeanours (let me use
the term 'corruption') of Biden are, he does whatever he does – unlike Trump, of course – to
"put the health of the country first" (your words @ 8.41) and are by definition not deserving
of investigation. He's all heart, isn't he? Foolish of me not to see this.
Tom
Biden isn't VP any longer. The Republicans had complete control of Congress AND the
presidency for 2016/2017. If they wanted to investigate Biden, that would have been your
best the time to do it. So why do you supposed they didn't investigate Biden then? Might
it be that while Biden may have taken advantage of his political position, as so many
politicians do, what he did was not judged to be illegal. Personally, I don't give a rat's
arse about Biden one way or another.
The attempts by you and others in your camp and
Trump himself to muddy the impeachment investigation and direct attention elsewhere are so
transparent as to be almost ludicrous.
You need to focus on what is most import to the USA and the people of this country –
the clear and present danger that President Trump represents!
Seamus Padraig
Here's the
full transcript
of the call with Zelensky. Now tell me: where's the "bribery" and
"extortion" there? Trump just asked Zelensky a favor–that's all.
Tom
You never watched any mafia movies have you?
Did you know that people have been
convicted of murder and sent to death row when they never even found the body? It's called
circumstantial evidence.
The same legal concept applies to Trump's conversations. Trump thought he was being
slick by not explicitly mentioning that the Ukraine president HAD to do this favor for him
to get the allocation released to him. 'Hey, I need ya to do me a favor first'
But just as with circumstantial evidence, a direct request is not necessary. An implied
one will do just as well. You are way out of your league trying to play lawyer here!
Martin Usher
I daresay they can get him on Emoluments and exceeding Constitutional authority. Impeachment
isn't like a criminal trial, its really about whether the official went against their oath to
"protect and defend the Constitution". This is the bit that President Trump doesn't quite
understand; everyone who's part of government swears an oath to protect and defend the
Constitution (so do naturalized citizens, BTW) and its this that they're loyal to, not an
individual. The individual only holds power because the Constitution gives it to them --
temporarily. (At the time of the founding of the US this was a bit of a novelty, the idea that
you owe fealty to an abstract concept rather than an individual, and many people even in this
country still don't get it.)
Ultimately, though -- as we found with Clinton in the 90s -- its
going to come down to "Because We Can". Personally I'd rather not bother, I'd just collect the
information, put it out there and let the electorate decide what's best for the country, but I'm
not running the show.
Martin Usher
This really didn't turn into an impeachment enquiry until the issue was forced by media partisanship.
President Trump has already crossed numerous boundaries that would get a normal President into trouble
and Ukraine was just another straw for the camel to carry. Next year is an election year and its
starting to look like the Democrats could field an actual donkey and still win the Presidency.
What's probably more damning than the whistleblower's original complaint is the testimony of Marie
Yovanaovitch, the US ambassador to Ukraine who had the rug pulled out from under her earlier this
year. I don't want to comment on her role in that country or the US's role in bringing 'freedom and
democracy' (aka "total chaos and economic ruin"), its more about the way that ill informed tweets and
media punditry by Fox News commentators such as Sean Hannity are undermining the work of the State
Department. Some might say this is a good thing but I personally believe that all this screwing
around, both with foreign relations and the economy, is doing the US demonstrable harm and probably
needs to have a stop put to it sooner rather later. This is not reality TV, this is serious stuff.
Those who've read my posts on this site will know that I've never been a fan of Russiagate or
interested in a renewed Cold War, its a road to nowhere. This is why I don't see the 'hand ofPutin'
everywhere, he's not the contemporary Illuminati and probably doesn't smoke (so no smoke filled
rooms). However, if I wanted to play international zero sum I would suggest that all Putin (and Xi)
needs to do to 'win' is to do nothing, just stand well back because the inevitable meltdown is going
to get really messy.
Tim Jenkins
Bravo Renée: I loved this article, not least because I loathe Adam Schiff with a vengeance,
as does anybody with the slightest degree of scientific & analytical know how: yet you managed to
avoid any partisan accusations and mentioning his name: which would have been impossible in my case
Quality journalism Renée and the head of the House Intelligence Committee should be immediately investigated, prosecuted and may
I add, Not thrown in Prison, but Shot at Dawn, for TREASON USA
Something I used to write regularly in the Guardian, before they banned me, was
Never in the field of Human Conflict, has
so much been owed by so few to so many
MichaelK
The USA is a deeply divided country. Split from the top to the bottom. The 'liberal' coastal cities on
collision course with the rest of the country.
The Democratic leadership have accepted that their
real chances of winning the next presidential election are small, unless the economy goes into a sharp
decline and the voters turn against Trump in their millions. This isn't happening. So Trump stands a
really good chance of winning in 2020. Just a year from now.
The party top wants another 'conservative' and 'safe' candidate like Clinton so they can keep
control of the party and banish the 'dangerous left' once more. Only the party activists don't want
another 'Clinton' candidate that'll lead them towards another defeat.
So, if the chances of defeating Trump democratically at the coming election are looking
'problematic' and increasingly remote; the alternative is to remove him from office by impeachment
where the Law is used instead of the voting system, which is far harder to control these days.
This process, removing political leaders using the Law, because they are corrupt, has been used in
several countries recently, for example in Brazil, where Lula was imprisoned and unable to stand for
election after a questionable trial.
Now, it's the turn of the USA. Whether the millions of Trump supporters will simply sit back and
watch this kind of 'legal coup' unfold, is another story.
mark
I think the reason for impeachment is not a substitute for an elusive electoral victory on the part
of the democrats.
It is actually far worse than that.
It is a case of "either we get him, or he gets us."
"Either we walk over him, or he walks over us."
They are simply trying to save their skins.
The Clinton/ Biden clans and their minions are now looking at serious jail time in a
winner-takes-all, high stakes, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners zero sum game.
The Deep State, the Spooks, the Dirty Cops, Wall Street, MIC, Hollywood and the MSM, and the
Democrat establishment, tried to rig the election to prevent Trump winning.
Having failed to achieve this, they tried to sabotage and delegitimise his administration by the
Russiagate hoax, planting spies in the White House, and corrupt and politicised investigations and
prosecutions of senior officials, using perjured and fabricated "evidence" from dubious foreign
sources (Steele, Dearlove, MI6, Ukraine.)
This is now a busted flush. Russiagate has been comprehensively debunked, however much the MSM
tries to pretend otherwise. Their criminality and corruption is being steadily and methodically
exposed for all the world to see.
Trump knows that impeachment would be just the beginning, not the end. They would not be content to
remove him from office, Nixon style. They want him broken, to make an example of him. They want him
in jail, bankrupt, his businesses broken up and his assets confiscated, his children and his
friends in jail with him. They won't settle for anything less than this.
The somewhat pathetic "Ukrainegate" saga is a smokescreen that his been thrown up in desperation at
short notice to try to snatch victory from defeat. It is becoming less and less credible as more
facts emerge. It seems to be based on little more than second or third hand gossip from rabidly
anti Trump sources, and is rapidly being discredited. No matter how much the MSM tries to big this
up, it will run its course leaving the anti Trump conspiracy even more nakedly exposed.
Trump and Barr have only to keep up the pressure to turn the tables.
Not that anyone should have any sympathy for Trump and his cronies. They all belong in jail, as do
the anti Trump faction. Ideally, they should all go to jail. It's a pity they can't all lose.
If you think it's all dirty and down in the gutter now, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Let dog eat dog.
George Cornell
As your namesake Twain said, the more I see of people, the more I like of dogs. This is more
akin to cannibalism? I agree that we are just seeing the opening warmup acts now. But more like
unscripted unrehearsed professional wrestling every day.
nwwoods
Jail time? DC political elites? Not gone happen.
Tim Jenkins
MK Ultra good comment, upon which I could expand, but I don't want to give the game away, because I
reckon Trump's planning, timing and strategy is unstoppable, after he wins the next election.
All
will see and pretend that they knew all along what he was doing & going to do.
I should add, I'm on record @TheGuardian, stating that he would definitely win in 2016,
well in advance and nobody believed me, though it was easy to see & calculate, with sound analysis
of the key factors. It was obvious and I switched off, long before the announcement,
that he'd won, when they were still predicting HRC, knowing I was right, on that night.
I will tell you this much: It would be very silly of him to 'fire' the FED, before the elections
😉
phree
I have to disagree with Kiriakou and the author on this one. I'm a lawyer and I've been involved in
whistleblower cases on both sides. MANY whistleblowers do not want to go public. I'd say at least 50%
in my experience. And most whistleblowers have personal interests in addition to wanting to protect
the public interest -- they are looking for a pay day.
Plus, these attacks on this whistleblower for bias or lack of first hand knowledge really miss the
point: His claims have been almost entirely verified. There clearly was a quid pro quo (not that one
is necessary) as admitted by Mulvaney (before he tried to walk it back) and Sondland, and testified
about by others involved with Ukraine at the time. Since many National Security people were aghast at
these actions (including that die hard liberal Bolton), and Guliani says everything he was doing was
on behalf of his private client, there is no reason to think that this was a matter of national
security policy.
Indeed, the memo of Trump's phone call demonstrates the quid pro quo to any reasonable person -- it
certainly would be enough to indict a gangster. Do me a "favor" if you want me to sell you missiles?
That's not enough? Really? Especially when in order to buy the missiles you need the military
assistance money Trump was blocking.
Bbbbut what about the Bidens some whimper. Investigate them through proper channels, not by
blackmail through a back channel.
So, save your hair pulling for a whistleblower who's claims turn out to be false.
Northern
Your moral condemnation is evidently selective.
Bbbut what about the quid pro quo you whimper? Why don't you find some ordinary Ukrainian
citizens and ask them which was the greater evil; being thrust into civil war by rampaging mobs of
US sponsored neo-nazis, or the neo-nazi's not getting paid on time? Go re-asses your moral compass
you fascist sympathizer.
mark
The real scandal over Ukraine lies in Biden threatening to withhold $1 billion from the country
unless the prosecutor investigating Biden Junior was sacked – something he openly and publicly
bragged about.
Tom
Biden wasn't alone. Much of the rest of Europe was making the same call because the prosecutor
himself was corrupt. And why didn't the Republicans take this up when they had full control of
Congress during 2016/2017? I bet you can't come up with any kind of sensible answer!
Tim Jenkins
Use your real name or you are talking BOLLOCKS !
nwwoods
That's all very nice but this individual is a spy, not a "whistleblower".
Tom
Doesn't matter. Is the information correct? That's what you SHOULD be focusing on but then you
won't like how that further sullies the already awful reputation of your deity Trump.
mark
Schumer's concern for the welfare of whistleblowers may appear somewhat belated and unconvincing,
given his previous pronouncements about Snowden, Assange and Manning, but I suppose we should all
welcome a sinner come to repentance (or whatever the kosher equivalent is.)
Seamus Padraig
Chuck is now the '
shomer
'
(guardian) of wistleblowers.
Dungroanin
Was he part of the 'taskforce' or is he part of the diversion from that taskforce or indeed the
conspiracy against Ukraine by Obama/Clinton nazi promoting Nuland & co?
The report is – if not a
whitewash – going to ruin as many trousers and underwear as any explosive diarrhetic fart!
From Barry's stupid peace prize – to our stupid DS outlaws.
Especially if the tories carry on as they have started this election – with masterful pratfalls,
foot-in-mouths and devious lying, cheating and hiding.
When they've been employed by the CIA I'd say very, very rarely.
Real-life CIA whistleblower Jon Kiriakou who served 22 months in prison
Did he now? 22 months in prison and sentenced on 22 October. They love their 22s. Just as Chelsea
had 22 charges laid against her, was 22 at the time of her leaking and spent 22 hours a day in prison
for some of her alleged 7 year sentence.
His Wikipedia story does not sound in the least compelling. He allegedly disclosed the torture of
Abu Zubaydah, accused of being an aide to Osama bin Laden. So if bin Laden was an agent how real is
Zubaydah?
On December 10, 2007, Kiriakou gave an interview to ABC News[16] in which he described his
participation in the capture of Abu Zubaydah, who was accused of having been an aide to Al-Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden. Kiriakou said that he did not witness Zubaydah's interrogation, but had
been told by CIA associates that it had taken only a single brief instance of waterboarding to
extract answers:
He was able to withstand the waterboarding for quite some time. And by that I mean probably
30, 35 seconds and a short time afterwards, in the next day or so, he told his interrogator that
Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate.[17]
Following the interview, Kiriakou's accounts of Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding were widely
repeated and paraphrased,[Note 1][6] and he became a regular guest expert on news and public
affairs shows on the topics of interrogation and counter-terrorism.
In 2009, however, it was reported that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded at least 83 times,[18]
and that little or no useful additional information may have been gained by "harsh methods" of
interrogation.[19][20] Kiriakou had been under the mistaken belief that Zubaydah was waterboarded
only once, and even that single instance he had described as a form of torture while expressing
reservations about whether the value of the information obtained was worth the damage done to the
United States' reputation.[citation needed]
Kiriakou has said that he chose not to blow the whistle on torture through internal channels
because he believed he "wouldn't have gotten anywhere" because his superiors and the congressional
intelligence committees were already aware of it.[21]
OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?
Tim Jenkins
"OMG! Does the theatre ever stop?"
yep, it does actually: when you finally suss out what Bill
Binney was telling you all about; about 6 years before you profess to have taken an interest in the
events leading up to and including those that occurred on the 11th sept. 2001 and of course, the
missing D.o.D $$$TRILLIONS$$$ and what they spent the money on >>>
Like "Parallel Platforms" !
mark
What's a mere missing $21 trillion between friends?
Probably just fallen down the back of the sofa.
Along with the 140 tons of Libyan gold and the 1,500 tons of German gold and the Ukrainian
gold and the gold from WTC 7 and the Venezuelan gold ..
There's a perfectly simple explanation for everything if you look hard enough.
mark
China is the biggest gold producer in the world, with over 400 tons a year, none of which
is ever seen outside the country.
There has been speculation that their holdings are over 10,000 tons, but nobody really
knows.
This follows the historical pattern over thousands of years, China exporting silk, spices,
quality ceramics and tea, and taking silver bullion in payment. Europe was drained of
silver until the looting of the New World.
Some people believe that America has 8,300 tons, a figure unchanged since 1971. But then
again some people believe in fairies and Father Christmas.
Democrats?. You just stand
back and watch them implode. It's painful to watch some days I'll tell ya
George Cornell
Debbie does the Dems. Wasserperson Schultz , where are you when your party needs some deep
corruption?
Keeping an émigré in charge of the foreign policy towards that country. What could go wrong?
Notable quotes:
"... Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy. While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine." ..."
"... Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett – to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe. ..."
"... Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense. ..."
"... Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ." ..."
"... The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments. ..."
"... Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. ..."
"... A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign influence-peddling and deepstatism. ..."
"... "It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe" (Ukraine). Well done boys. Another Libya? There is a pattern here. ..."
The current
frenzy to impeach President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be hidden about the operation
of the Deep State inside the federal government. Congress is currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants
in what will inevitably be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political quid pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared opening statement by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert on the National Security
Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC actually works. Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated
to the United States with his family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some capacity
in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart. Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and
Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include
a key role in Pentagon planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in articulating and managing US policy towards that
country, but that is not really what his role on the NSC should have been. As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise vis-ŕ-vis its relationship with Ukraine,
and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy,
reads. Rather than providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding quickly enough
to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the Deep State, which considers global conflict
as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from the US taxpayer. Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains
in part its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though he has done precious
little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began
implementing the administration's policy on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful to US government policy.
While my interagency colleagues and I were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined
US government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State rather than responding to
his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone
on in his country of birth. President Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett
– to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close to Moscow. The regime change
was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger
Senator John McCain. Vice President Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet governments propped up by billions in foreign
aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on Russian President Vladimir Putin and the
established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security.
The preferred solution is to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn reported to By Jingo We'll Go To
War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was
focused instead on speeding up the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective was to punish the Russians and
prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about the implications for the US government's
support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted
as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained ."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would benefit from bilking the taxpayer
to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding.
He does eventually go on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has manifested
an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional
hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further
confrontations with the West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression ."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave Ukrainians serving as a bastion
of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering. Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its
imperial ambitions, if they actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the United
States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important
American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US
Establishment when he repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole through his statement's praise of the
train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major
steps towards integrating with the West . The US government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelensky
and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize
its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is his actual objective, but his comments
about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic community" clearly imply just that. The expansion of NATO up to Russia's
borders by the rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities of the twentieth
century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that error as both are vital national security interests
for Moscow given their history and geography. Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has brought
so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness
and a uniform, should be regarded as little more than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a certain colonel named "Colonel" House was secretly running the White House's foreign policy
with a secret globalist agenda right under the Woodrow Wilson's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in fact, he was about as much of a colonel as Colonel Parker). The outcome? The post-World War 1 "new
world order" (which was neither new, nor order, nor global in any sense) that was a nightmare on steroids, a humpty-dumpty Frankenstein
that gave birth to both Nazism and Bolshevism as well as Globalist Elitism, American Exceptionalism, and New Deal Neoliberalism
and was every satanist's wet dream. Short of procreating Beelzebub and Baphomet, "Colonel" House just about did 'em all.
Fast forward 100 years, back to the future: year 2019 AD. A certain colonel named "Colonel" Vindman is secretly running
the White House's foreign policy with a secret globalist agenda right under the Donald Trump's nose (a "colonel" who, by the way,
is about as battlefield hero as Melania Trump). The outcome? The American foreign policy in shambles, a total sham, a farce on
steroids, a schizo chaos of competing special interests, payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck, foreign
influence-peddling and deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for once, right. History really does repeat itself. It first comes as a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
It is absolutely mind boggling how the Democrats get away with making up false claims over and over but the real losers are voters who are paying useless jack asses to do nothing. What has the House done ? Further testimony to the farce is Mr. Magoo , Sessions , thinking he might have some contribution to make .
And Vindman sat with his whistle up his *** while Biden played pay to play and blackmailed Ukraine into dropping the investigation of the company his under qualified over paid son sat on. Biden let his ego overtake reason and admitted on tape what he did . Held back payment to Ukraine unless a judge was off the
case .
What did Vindman do about that ? Was he in on it ? Vindman is a patsy and a gossip . Nothing more . OK except for lying about his deep Democrat attachments . The guy looks like a deer in headlights but he is just being used .
A vet with a Purple Heart can be a piece of crap just like anyone else. Neither status is akin to sainthood. In fact this guy should be ashamed of the way the US government has wronged Ukraine and he is a damned big part of it.
"... "The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame after the 9/11 attacks. ..."
"... Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff, described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East – and in D.C. – certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision." ..."
"... Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. ..."
"... To a great degree American foreign policy no longer operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the obsessions inherited from Old Europe. ..."
From what I have read, I gather that the FBI in the Mueller / Comey era has made extensive
use of "perjury traps". They then threaten charges to get someone to "flip" on someone
bigger, in this case Trump. Flynn wouldn't flip even when they threatened to go after Flynn's
son. So they decided to "F" him, as stated by Andrew McCabe.
The FBI has been thoroughly disgraced, and Wray is incapable of cleaning it up. He just
wants to keep the dirt under the rug. It is too late for that, it is all coming out. US
citizens deserve to know how dirty our FBI and CIA are - they are criminal organizations.
I am reminded of Susan MacDougall in the Clinton Whitewater case, decades ago -she claimed
"they' were trying to make her flip too - can't remember who was on which side, but was it
also government prosecutors against a vulnerable individual who they had hope to break to get
the goods they decided they wanted? If so, I guess we need generational reminders of the
awesome and terrifying powers of an overly powerful "government".
Factorum,
re: I guess we need generational reminders of the awesome and terrifying powers of an
overly powerful "government".
I'd put it more precise - "the awesome and terrifying powers of ANY overly powerful
"government".
If it's an Obama FBI crew getting after you or a Trump FBI crew - it must be very bad
every time, guilty of anything or not. A classic case of how really bad it can get is Brazil's evangelical Bolsonaro. Iirc a
Brazilian TV station had reported that his son was likely deeply involved in the
murder of a left politician or reporter in Brazil, a deed done by former Brazilian cops who
also happened to call Bolsonaro's house.
Bolsonaro simply freaked out and was not interested at all in any investigation. or the
question whether the report was accurate. He simply threatened the TV station that, when
reelected, he would nullify their media license. He showed no interest in any reality or facts but was just trying to brutally silence and
intimidate the media outlet he doesn't like. He also suggested that his son should become Brazil's ambassador to the US. Probably a
perfect job since Trump doesn't have any problems with the Saudi murder prince MbS as
well.
K.T. McFarland (whose name comes up every now and then in this matter)
has some pertinent thought to on how the government used its power against Flynn: "KT McFarland
speaks for first time about Michael Flynn" , Fox News interview, 2019-11-05
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and
Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being
unreasonable--those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to boost
Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort. Jokes aside, however,
I can only imagine how SVR and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many
"free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within
the American administration.
I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the
more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it had been an American Admiral. I had no
luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown
member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who
had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame
after the 9/11 attacks.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff,
described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House
with his Southern sense of humor, adding that they had become almost overnight what was
henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East
– and in D.C. – certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that
period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the
policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to
positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been
uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. Or, to put
it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an
outside observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with
Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an
extent American foreign policy has been hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves
retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign
policy has been uniformly deleterious. And that from a long way back and no matter whether
those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined
Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus
on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes with
neighbors.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of
the United States - because that is a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the
world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American foreign policy no longer
operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the
obsessions inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New
World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the
old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen
for half a century and more. But there was a price few noticed. The New World might have
stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a most destructive
freight.
If all of this corruption were carried out to entrap or thwart a liberal Democrat instead of
Trump and his associates, we all know the MSM would be banging a drum of utter outrage, 24/7.
We'd never hear the end of a story such as this -- that the FBI misidentified the authors of
Flynn's interview notes. Unbelievable.
A while back, I recall reading about a sexual discrimination or harassment case involving
FBI's Andrew McCabe in which Gen. Flynn intervened on behalf of the female accuser, and it
was thought by some that the bogus charge against the general was in part an act of revenge
on McCabe's behalf. There are so many dots out there, unconnected, because the MSM is doing
its best to suppress the truth.
How long can they continue to hear, see and speak no evil if the you-know-what hits the
fan? I guess we're going to find out.
How do you know the FBI/DOJ and our wonderful allies never did this to a Democratic
politician before? Keeping them in office and subject to extortion to get favorable policies
in place would be far more effective than removing someone from office. Perhaps we should ask
Jeffrey Epstein just what those politicians and businessmen were doing on that island, that
manions in NYC or the one in Paris.....
Is this just a situation where the DoJ are giving the judge an easy way out to throw the case
for a technical reason?
This would leave Flynn high and dry without his innocence having been proved having just
got off on a technicality. Also the DoJ would not be exposed to having to produce all the
damning stuff that the Honey Badger wants out in public.
Very interesting to see which way Judge Sullivan goes now. Wonder if he wants another
Powell book.
Which country are you from where people have to prove innocence rather than prosecutors
prove guilt? A technicality - do you mean that as a joke since this is obviously criminal
misconduct by the FBI/DOJ; or do you really believe they made a mistake that went
undiscovered through the entire Mueler probe, congressional testimony and a couple years
worth of legal discovery by defense counsel?
The manner in which Comey and his select team of officials engineered the Flynn 'interview'
was contemptible, but not surprising. The group had been steeping in politics from the moment
Comey agreed to the Clinton e-mail case under the conditions he did. The special organization
he created, an FBI within the FBI operating out of HQ, the administering of 'blood oaths',
etc, only made matters worse, or better, depending on one's political point of view. The only
thing lacking was secret hand shakes.
In my now outdated experience, the charge of lying to the FBI was viewed as B.S., period; it
was never even contemplated as as a stand alone charge. Separated from a substantive charge,
it is worse than B.S.
There are several things wrong about the Flynn interview. Among them: if there was indeed a
reason for a strategy session to deceive Flynn about his possibly requiring a lawyer, that
reason to the fair minded person meant there should have been no need for a strategy session:
the interview required telling Flynn that he had the right to a lawyer; he should have been
told the purpose of the interview, ie what it was he was suspected of having done wrong and
that the import of his answers was sufficiently serious that if he didn't tell the truth he
could be charged with lying; if there was uncertainty whether Flynn had told the truth, as
apparently there was because the 302 was subjected to editing and reediting, itself highly
irregular, the proper way to have resolved any question would have been to reinterview Flynn,
not tailor the paperwork to support the charge; if in fact Flynn did lie, what was the harm
caused by the lie, or put another way, what would have been the outcome if Flynn had told the
truth.
On the subject of recorded interviews, I am of uncertain mind. There is a before interview;
there is an after interview. Electronics change the dynamics of the interview itself, and it
may be to the advantage of the person interviewed and it may be to his or her disadvantage.
If an interview is fairly played, there should be no need to record it; if the interview is
intent on something other than fair play, he will find some way to game the electronics.
Electronics are no panacea to instilling integrity where integrity is not otherwise to be
found.
The 'honey badger' was a species unknown to me, but having looked that animal up, it seems
an apt comparison.
Indeed, at the risk of being frivolous, I am tempted to quote the Kipling refrain about
the 'female of the species' being 'deadlier than the male.' It seems to me quite likely that
people at the FBI, and elsewhere, are still finding it difficult to grasp what has hit
them.
Something which interests me greatly is the possible knock-on effects of Ms. Powell's
breakthroughs in exposing the conspiracy to frame Michael Flynn on other cases, notably those
in which Ty Clevenger and Steven S. Biss are involved.
The pair are representing Ed Butowsky and Devin Nunes, and also, crucially, Svetlana
Lokhova, in her case against the 'ratfucker' – the term used in the 'Complaint' –
Stefan Halper and some of the MSM organisations who have collaborated in his 'dirty
tricks.'
In all of these cases, material freely available on the 'Courtlistener' site is a mine of
fascinating information.
Of particular interest at the moment, I think, are the efforts of Clevenger to 'prise
open' the cover-up over the role over Seth Rich in leaking the materials from the DNC which
the conspirators falsely alleged were hacked by the Russians, and that about the
circumstances of his murder.
These efforts have been aided by a remarkable 'hostage to fortune' given by Deborah Sines,
a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C. who was assigned to the Rich case.
The 'supplemental evidence' in question appeared back in July in Episode 5 of the podcast
'Conspiracyland' which Michael Isikoff produced for 'Yahoo! News'. In this, Ms. Sines
recycled the familiar disinformation from Andrew McCabe to the effect that it had been
established that there was no connection between Rich and Wikileaks.
She then suggested that the FBI had indeed examined his computer, but solely because
someone had been trying to 'invade his Gmail account and set up a separate account after Seth
was murdered.' The supposed purpose of this activity, by a 'foreign hacker', was 'so they
could dump false information in there.'
As Clevenger pointed out, this claim is rather hard to reconcile with the FBI's insistence
that it has no records pertaining to Rich, and makes the Bureau's refusal to search its
Computer Analysis Response Team ("CART") for relevant records, and the Washington Field
Office for email records, look even more suspicious than it already did.
From the 'Courtlistener' pages it also appeared that, following a telephone conference,
Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom ruled that the statement by Ms. Sines did not rise to the 'level
of bad faith' required to justify the 'discovery' that Clevenger sought, on the basis of
it.
Also freely available on 'Courtlistener', however, is an 'Unopposed motion for stay' which
Clevenger filed on 30 November. From this, we learn that Judge Bloom had 'noted that Ms.
Sines' statements were not made under oath, further suggesting that the Plaintiff might try
to obtain a sworn statement from Ms. Sines.'
In response, Clevenger made clear that he intended to subpoena that lady for a deposition,
in the relation to the defamation cases brought against Michael Gottlieb et al, and also
David Folkenflik et al, where he is representing Ed Butowsky.
Accordingly, he asked the Court to stay his own case 'until the deposition of Ms. Sines
can be arranged and the transcripts can be produced.' Apparently, there was no objection from
the DOJ, FBI, and NSA.
In addition, Clevenger asked the court to take 'judicial notice' of the fact that, in her
reply dated 24 October to the lawyers for the USG, 'attorney Sidney Powell laid out damning
evidence that high-ranking FBI officials systematically tampered with records and hid
exculpatory evidence for the purpose of framing the defendant, retired General Mike
Flynn.'
So it looks as though what the 'honey badger' has been digging out in relation to Flynn
may help in the burrowing efforts of others in related matters – who may be in a
position to return the favour.
Increasingly, it seems not entirely unthinkable that the cumulative effect of of the cases
in which Powell, Clevenger and Biss are involved may blow open the whole conspiracy against
the Constitution, irrespective of whether or not Horowitz, Barr and Durham are prepared to go
substantially beyond a 'limited hangout.'
Another important, and neglected, aspect here relates to the cases still ongoing against
Steele and Orbis in London – that brought by Aleksej Gubarev, and that by the Alfa
oligarchs. It is material that libel laws on this side are noticeably less favourable to
defendants than on yours – not least in that the 'fair report privilege' retains its
original narrower construction here.
Unfortunately, we do not have here any equivalent to 'PACER' and 'Courtlistener.' The last
I heard about the Gubarev case was in the spring, when his American lawyers suggested that it
should come to court before Xmas.
It would not at all surprise me if it was postponed. Ironically, however, I now think that
it may be quite likely that his British lawyers see delay as being in Gubarev's
interests.
A critical point is that Steele is making no attempt to defend the accuracy of the claims
about the involvement of Gubarev and his companies in hacking in the final memorandum in the
dossier.
It seems quite likely that what is coming to light as the result of the lawsuits on your
side may make it materially more difficult to mount any credible case that these were not
very seriously defamatory.
There have been repeated attempts to locate the dossier attributed to Steele in another
version of a familiar 'Russophobic' narrative, suggesting that he was deliberately fed
disinformation by his Russian contacts as part of an 'active measures' campaign.
In my view, these are largely BS. However, a possible partial exception has to do with the
claims about Gubarev, which follow on from the those made in Company Report 2016/086, which
is dated 26 July 2015.
My suspicion has long been that the sloppy misdating – 2016 is clearly meant –
reflected the fact that the document was part of a panic-stricken response to the murder of
Rich, which had taken place on 10 July. What I may well have happened is that FBI
cybersecurity people, who had been cultivating sources among their FSB counterparts, put out
an urgent request, which generated material that went into the dossier.
If that was the case however, it would have been likely that some of their informants were
playing a 'double game.' And my suspicion is that, when a further request was put in,
following Trump's election victory, those making it were fed a 'baited hook' about Gubarev,
very likely cast in the hope of producing something like the outcome that materialised.
I noted with interest that both Devin Nunes and Lee Smith are now expressing scepticism
about the notion that Steele's role was in actually authoring the dossier, rather than taking
ownership of a compendium essentially produced within Fusion GPS.
Another ground for believing this was put into sharp focus with the publication by
'Judicial Watch' in September of – heavily redacted – versions of reports from
Steele circulated in the State Department prior to the dossier.
These clarify a matter which has long puzzled me about the memoranda. Normally, one would
expect the product of a serious business intelligence company to be properly presented, on
headed stationery, without elementary errors. And one would not expect a numbering which
suggests that the documents made public are part of a much larger series.
A document dated 13 June 2014, headline 'RUSSIA-UKRAINE CRISIS: Kremlin Emboldened to
Challenge USG Sanctions and Anti-Russian Leverage On Financial Markets', which is labelled
'Report ID: 2014/130a', suggests that we are actually dealing with a format used in an
information service sent out to a large number of clients. Precisely what this would not
contain was material attributed to highly sensitive sources.
So the clumsy imitation of this formatting in the dossier gives further reason to believe
that it was produced by people other than Steele, who were trying to attribute authorship to
him.
A further implication is that Steele may have ended up left facing libel charges in
relation to claims for which he was not actually responsible.
In addition to those about Gubarev, the use of the transliteration 'Alpha' instead of
'Alfa' for the Fridman/Aven/Khan group makes me think that the author of the relevant
memorandum was not a native English speaker, but someone used to thinking in Russian and/or
Ukrainian.
If so, the memorandum may be part of 'Ukrainegate', which, unlike 'Russiagate', looks like
being a real story.
And here, of course, the question of what became of Seth Rich's laptop, and what
information the FBI is concealing about it, is again critical.
It would not in the least surprise me if the kind of traces described by Ms. Sines are
actually really present on some hard drive.
If however they are, a quite likely explanation is that Alperovitch and his Ukrainian
'partners-in-crime' organised a hack, after the leak was discovered, as part of the more
general attempt to obfuscate the truth.
Why does the media and virtually every pundit commenting on the Ukrainian phone call
intentionally avoid any mention of Trump's Crowdstrike "favor" request?
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back
away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. A Ukrainian-American operative who
was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian
Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul
Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. The
Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation and
advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to the
east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia's alleged
hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.
Politico, January 11, 2017
Still, Trump critics insist the pressure the president exerted on Ukraine, and the desire to
receive dirt on Biden for 2020, was implicit.
The same month of Zaid's 2017 "coup" tweet, Sen. Charles Schumer, a leader in the Democrat
party, issued a public warning to Trump that if he took on the intelligence community, it has "
six ways from Sunday
" to "get back at you". MSNBC Host Rachel Maddow asked Schumer, "What would the intelligence
community do?" Schumer answered, "I don't know," but went on to say the intel community was
very upset with Trump.
On Aug. 15, 2016, after FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok and his FBI girlfriend Lisa
Page met with Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe, Strzok texted Page that they couldn't take the
risk of Trump getting elected without having "an insurance policy" in place.
Another figure, Benjamin Wittes, chose the same phrase. In October 2016, in his Lawfare
blog, Wittes
wrote : "What if Trump wins? We need an insurance policy against the unthinkable: Donald
Trump's actually winning the Presidency."
Wittes has acknowledged being a good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey . Wittes spoke to a New York Times
reporter about Comey's interactions with President Trump , right after Robert Mueller 's appointment as special
counsel.
In a 2016 blog post, Wittes wrote that his vision of an "insurance policy" against Trump
would rely on a "Coalition of All Democratic Forces" to challenge and obstruct Trump, using the
courts as a "tool" and Congress as "a partner or tool." He even mentioned impeachment -- two
weeks before Trump was elected.
Read more: What would the intelligence community's "insurance policy" against Trump look
like? Click the link below.
From what I have read, I gather that the FBI in the Mueller / Comey era has made extensive
use of "perjury traps". They then threaten charges to get someone to "flip" on someone
bigger, in this case Trump. Flynn wouldn't flip even when they threatened to go after Flynn's
son. So they decided to "F" him, as stated by Andrew McCabe.
The FBI has been thoroughly disgraced, and Wray is incapable of cleaning it up. He just
wants to keep the dirt under the rug. It is too late for that, it is all coming out. US
citizens deserve to know how dirty our FBI and CIA are - they are criminal organizations.
I am reminded of Susan MacDougall in the Clinton Whitewater case, decades ago -she claimed
"they' were trying to make her flip too - can't remember who was on which side, but was it
also government prosecutors against a vulnerable individual who they had hope to break to get
the goods they decided they wanted? If so, I guess we need generational reminders of the
awesome and terrifying powers of an overly powerful "government".
Factorum,
re: I guess we need generational reminders of the awesome and terrifying powers of an
overly powerful "government".
I'd put it more precise - "the awesome and terrifying powers of ANY overly powerful
"government".
If it's an Obama FBI crew getting after you or a Trump FBI crew - it must be very bad
every time, guilty of anything or not.
A classic case of how really bad it can get is Brazil's evangelical Bolsonaro.
Iirc a brazilian tv station had reported that his son was likely deeply involved in the
murder of a left polician or reporter in Brazil, a deed done by former brazilian cops who
also happened to call Bolsonaro's house.
Bolsonaro simply freaked out and was not interested at all in any investigation or the
question whether the report was accurate. He simply threatened the tv station that, when
reelected, he would nullify their media license.
He showed no interrest in any reality or facts but was just trying to brutally silence and
intimidate the media outlet he doesn't like.
He also suggested that his son should become Brazil's ambassador to the US. Probably a
perfect job since Trump doesn't have any problems with the Saudi murder prince MbS as
well.
Fred, Thank goodness the German government has never done anything like this ?
Please enlighten me, I am curious and must have missed it - and I live in Germany.
If you want to go back to Attila, Genghis Khan, Adolf or Honnecker - please spare me since
about all of that happened long before I was born (and two of those are huns or mongols) and
is utterly irrelevant here.
Bolsonaro-isms on the other hand "happen right now" and are an example of pretty obvious
abuse of power to cover up crimes like political murder and to permanently silence critics
and/or inconvenient media.
There has been plenty of abuse of government power and it doesn't all require a bullet in
the back or investigators/prosecutors making false claims. I'm on the road but will write
something up about that over the weekend.
K.T. McFarland (whose name comes up every now and then in this matter)
has some pertinent thoughta on how the government used its power against Flynn: "KT McFarland
speaks for first time about Michael Flynn" , Fox News interview, 2019-11-05
Is it just me (wink, wink) but I find it completely coincidental that both Strzok (100%) and
Pientka (likely) are of Polish origins. Could it be my Russian paranoia. Nah, I am being
unreasonable--those people never had a bad feeling towards Trump's attempts to boost
Russian-American relations with Michael Flynn spearheading this effort. Jokes aside, however,
I can only imagine how SVR and GRU are enjoying the spectacle. I can only imagine how many
"free" promotions and awards can be attach to this thing as a free ride.
Your comment brings to mind the outdated Russophobia of many in positions of influence within
the American administration.
I couldn't remember who coined the term "the crazies in the basement" as applied to the
more hawkish elements in US politics. I thought it had been an American Admiral. I had no
luck finding a reference so I googled it. Still no joy with the American admiral, but the
list thrown up had near the top of it this informative quote from Patrick Bahzad.
"The "crazies in the basement" is an expression that was coined originally by some unknown
member of George W's administration. It used to designate the small clique of Neo-Cons who
had found their way into Bush junior's team of advisors, before they rose to dubious fame
after the 9/11 attacks. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, at the time Colin Powell's chief of staff,
described their status enhancement from "lunatic fringe" to top executives in the White House
with his Southern sense of humour, adding that they had become almost overnight what was
henceforth called the Cheney "Gestapo". And what happened over the weekend in the Middle-East
– and in D.C. – certainly looked like a distant but distinct reminder of that
period in the early 2000s when "crazies" coming right out of a dark basement took over the
policy agenda on questions that would require adult supervision."
Both in Canada and the States men and women of Eastern European background have risen to
positions of influence in the respective administrations. I'd argue that that has not been
uniformly beneficial. Not when those men and women enlist under the crazy banner. Or, to put
it more soberly, form part of the neocon wing of those administrations. Though I, as an
outside observer, might be prejudiced here because I happen not to get on very well with
Brzezinski and his copious output.
Allowing for that prejudice, which I confess runs very deep, I still think that to an
extent American foreign policy has been hijacked by Eastern European emigres who themselves
retain some of the prejudices and mindset of another age and place.
Looking at it from afar, the influence of some Eastern European emigres on American foreign
policy has been uniformly deleterious. And that from a long way back and no matter whether
those emigres are in Washington or Tel Aviv.
It cannot but help be distorting, that influence. It's not merely that unexamined
Russophobia is embedded in the DNA of many Eastern Europeans. There's a narrow minded focus
on aggressive Machtpolitik, bred from centuries of violent territorial disputes with
neighbours.
That, transferred to the world stage as it must be when it infects the foreign policy of
the United States - because that is a country that cannot but help be at the centre of the
world stage - distorts US foreign policy. To a great degree American foreign policy no longer
operates in the interests of the broad mass of the American people. It too often plays to the
obsessions inherited from Old Europe.
In the most famous of his speeches Churchill spoke of the time when, as he hoped, "the New
World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the
old."
Let the historians dispute as they will, that is what happened. And continued to happen
for half a century and more. But there was a price few noticed. The New World might have
stepped forward to rescue the old, but it carried back from that old world a most destructive
freight.
Very well put. No better example, apart from being utter academic failure, expected from
"white board" theorists with zero understanding of power, exists of this than late Zbig. Only
blind or sublime to the point of sheer idiocy could fail to see that Brzezinski's loyalties
were not with American people, but with Poland and old Polish, both legitimate and false,
anti-Russian grievances. He dedicated his life to settling whatever scores he had with
historic Russia using the United States merely as a vehicle. So do many, as you correctly
stated, Eastern European immigrants to the United States. They bring with them passions, of
which Founding Fathers warned, and then infuse them into the American political discourse. It
finally reached it peak of absurdity and, as I argue constantly, utter destruction of the
remnants of the Republic.
I wrote what follows before reading Andrei's response to EO, but do not see much reason to
change what I had written.
When in 1988 I ended up working at BBC Radio 'Analysis' programme because it was
impossible to interest any of my old television colleagues in the idea that one might go to
Moscow and talk to some of the people involved in the Gorbachev 'new thinking', my editor,
Caroline Anstey, was an erstwhile aide to Jim Callaghan, the former Labour Prime
Minister.
As a result of his involvement with the Trilateral Commission, she had a fascinating
anecdote about what one of his fellow members, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt,
said about another, Zbigniew Brzezinski: that he could never work out which of his country's
two traditional enemies his Polish colleague hated most.
Almost a generation after hearing her say this, in December 2013, I read an article
Brzezinski published in the 'Financial Times, headlined 'Russia, like Ukraine, will become a
real democracy.'
Unfortunately, it is behind a subscription wall, but it clearly expresses its author's
fundamental belief that after all those years of giving Russia the 'spinach' treatment
– to use Victoria Nuland's term – it would finally 'knuckle under', and become a
quiescent satellite of the West.
An ironic sidelight on this is provided in a recent article by a lady called Anna
Mahjar-Barducci on the 'MEMRI' site – which actually has some very useful material on
matters to do with Russia for those of us with no knowledge of the language – headlined
'Contemporary Russian Thinkers Series – Part I – Renowned Russian Academic Sergey
Karaganov On Russia And Democracy.'
Its subject, who I remember well from the days when he was very much one of the 'new
thinkers', linked to it on his own website, clearly pleased at what he saw as an accurate and
informed discussion of his ideas.
There is an obvious risk of succumbing to facetiousness, but sometimes what one thinks are
essential features of an argument can be best brought out at the risk of caricaturing it.
It seems to me that some of the central themes of Karaganov's writing over the past few
years – doubly interesting, because his attacks on conventional Western orthodoxies are
very far from silly, and because he is a kind of 'panjandrum' of a significant section of the
Russian foreign policy élite – may be illuminated in this way.
So, attempting to link his Russian concerns to British and American ones, some central
contentions of his writings might be put as follows:
'"Government of the people, by the people, for the people' looked a lovely idea, back in
1989. But if in practice "by the people" means a choice of Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump,
Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, how can it be "for the people?"
'Moreover, it turned out that our "deplorables" were always right, against us
'intellectuals', in grasping that, with "Russophobes" running Western policy, a "real
democracy" would simply guarantee that we remained as impotent and humiliated as people like
Brzezinski clearly always wanted us to be.
'Our past, and our future, both in terms of alliances and appropriate social and political
systems, are actually "Eurasian": a 'hybrid' state, whose potential greatest advantage
actually should be seen as successfully synthesising different inheritances.
'As the need for this kind of synthesis is a normal condition, with which most peoples
have to reckon, this gives us a very real potential advantage over people in the West, who,
like the communists against whom I rebelled, believe that there is one path along which all
of humanity must – and can – go.'
At the risk of over-interpreting, I might add the following conclusion:
'Of course, precisely what this analysis does not mean is that we are anti-European
– simply that we cannot simply come to Europe, Europe come some way to meet us.
'Given time, Helmut Schmidt's fellow countrymen, as also de Gaulle's, may very well
realise that their future does not lie in an alliance with a coalition of people like
Brzezinski and traditional "Russophobes" from the "Anglosphere".
'And likewise, it does not lie with the kind of messianic universalist "liberalism"
– and, in relation to some of the SJC and LGBT obsessions, one might say "liberalism
gone bonkers" – which Putin criticised in his interview with the "Financial Times" back
in June.
An obvious possibility implicit in the argument is that, if indeed the continental
Europeans see sense, then the coalition of traditional 'Anglophobes' and the 'insulted and
injured' or the 'borderlands' may find itself marginalised, and indeed, on the 'dustbin of
history' to which Trotsky once referred.
Of course, I have no claims to be a Russianist, and my reading of Karaganov may be quite
wrong.
But I do strongly believe that very superficial readings of what was happening when I was
working in the 'Analysis' office, back in 1988-9, have done an immense disservice alike to
Britain and the United States.
David, Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. But the events of two days ago with
Putin and Lavrov being personally present at the unveiling of the monument to Evgenii
Primakov in a front of Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs speaks, in fact screams, volumes.
You know of Primakov's Doctrine. It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means
that the West "lost" (quotation marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose) Russia
and it can be "thankful" for that to a so called Russia Studies field in the West which was
primarily shaped and then turned into the wasteland, in large part thanks to influx of East
European "scholars" and some "Russian" dissidents which achieved their objectives by drawing
a caricature. They succeeded and Russia had it with the West.
DH, appreciate your comment. Haven't read the MEMRI paper yet. Scanned the first page though.
Karaganov is an opportunist, granted a smart one. ... You know of Primakov's Doctrine.
It is being fully implemented as I type this and it means that the West "lost" (quotation
marks are intentional--Russia was not West's to lose)
Well, two things sticked out for me during Tumps reelection campain.
1) on the surface he stated, he wanted closer relations to Russia. Looked at more closely, as
should be expected, maybe. They were ambigous. If I may paraphrase it colloguially: I meet
them and, believe me, if I don't get that beautiful deal, i'll be out of the door the next
second.
2) he promised to be enigmatic, compared to earlier American administrations. In other words,
hard to read or to predict. Guess one better is as dealmaker. But in the larger intelligence
field? Enigmatic may well be a commonplace. No?
Otherwise, Andrei, I would appreciate your further elaboration on Karaganov as
opportunist.
Andrei: Strzok and Pientka come from Galicia -- the westernmost portion of what is now
Ukraine -- that was acquired by Empress Maria Theresa in the mid - 18th century.
I have been curious about precisely where both Srzok and Pientka came from, but have not
had time to do any serious searches.
What is the actual evidence that they have Galician origins?
And, if they do, what are these?
I would of course automatically tend to assume that Polish names mean that their origins
are Polish.
But then, if this is so, why are they enthusiastically collaborating with 'Banderista'
Ukrainians?
It has long been a belief of mine that one of Stalin's great mistakes was to attempt to
incorporate Galicia into the empire he was creating.
Had he returned it to Poland, the architects of the Volhynia massacres of Poles – as
also of the massacres of Jews in Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg – could have gone back to their old
habits of assassinating Polish policemen.
I first picked up the Galician connection in an article by Scott Humor: " North America is
a land run by Galician zombies " -- published by The Saker on July 4, 2018. It seems that
Galicians, especially those that arrived after WWII, migrate into security positions such as
ICE / FBI / NSA etc. It may have to do with a family history of work in the Austro-Hungarian
Empire.
Regrettably, I am not from Eastern Europe and cannot help you further about the Bortnicks,
the Gathkes, Buchtas, and so on.
If all of this corruption were carried out to entrap or thwart a liberal Democrat instead of
Trump and his associates, we all know the MSM would be banging a drum of utter outrage, 24/7.
We'd never hear the end of a story such as this -- that the FBI misidentified the authors of
Flynn's interview notes. Unbelievable.
A while back, I recall reading about a sexual discrimination or harassment case involving
FBI's Andrew McCabe in which Gen. Flynn intervened on behalf of the female accuser, and it
was thought by some that the bogus charge against the general was in part an act of revenge
on McCabe's behalf. There are so many dots out there, unconnected, because the MSM is doing
its best to suppress the truth.
How long can they continue to hear, see and speak no evil if the you-know-what hits the
fan? I guess we're going to find out.
How do you know the FBI/DOJ and our wonderful allies never did this to a Democratic
politician before? Keeping them in office and subject to extortion to get favorable policies
in place would be far more effective than removing someone from office. Perhaps we should ask
Jeffrey Epstein just what those politicians and businessmen were doing on that island, that
manions in NYC or the one in Paris.....
Is this just a situation where the DoJ are giving the judge an easy way out to throw the case
for a technical reason?
This would leave Flynn high and dry without his innocence having been proved having just
got off on a technicality. Also the DoJ would not be exposed to having to produce all the
damning stuff that the Honey Badger wants out in public.
Very interesting to see which way Judge Sullivan goes now. Wonder if he wants another
Powell book.
Which country are you from where people have to prove innocence rather than prosecutors
prove guilt? A technicality - do you mean that as a joke since this is obviously criminal
misconduct by the FBI/DOJ; or do you really believe they made a mistake that went
undiscovered through the entire Mueler probe, congressional testimony and a couple years
worth of legal discovery by defense counsel?
The manner in which Comey and his select team of officials engineered the Flynn 'interview'
was contemptible, but not surprising. The group had been steeping in politics from the moment
Comey agreed to the Clinton e-mail case under the conditions he did. The special organization
he created, an FBI within the FBI operating out of HQ, the administering of 'blood oaths',
etc, only made matters worse, or better, depending on one's political point of view. The only
thing lacking was secret hand shakes.
In my now outdated experience, the charge of lying to the FBI was viewed as B.S., period; it
was never even contemplated as as a stand alone charge. Separated from a substantive charge,
it is worse than B.S.
There are several things wrong about the Flynn interview. Among them: if there was indeed a
reason for a strategy session to deceive Flynn about his possibly requiring a lawyer, that
reason to the fair minded person meant there should have been no need for a strategy session:
the interview required telling Flynn that he had the right to a lawyer; he should have been
told the purpose of the interview, ie what it was he was suspected of having done wrong and
that the import of his answers was sufficiently serious that if he didn't tell the truth he
could be charged with lying; if there was uncertainty whether Flynn had told the truth, as
apparently there was because the 302 was subjected to editing and reediting, itself highly
irregular, the proper way to have resolved any question would have been to reinterview Flynn,
not tailor the paperwork to support the charge; if in fact Flynn did lie, what was the harm
caused by the lie, or put another way, what would have been the outcome if Flynn had told the
truth.
On the subject of recorded interviews, I am of uncertain mind. There is a before interview;
there is an after interview. Electronics change the dynamics of the interview itself, and it
may be to the advantage of the person interviewed and it may be to his or her disadvantage.
If an interview is fairly played, there should be no need to record it; if the interview is
intent on something other than fair play, he will find some way to game the electronics.
Electronics are no panacea to instilling integrity where integrity is not otherwise to be
found.
The 'honey badger' was a species unknown to me, but having looked that animal up, it seems
an apt comparison.
Indeed, at the risk of being frivolous, I am tempted to quote the Kipling refrain about
the 'female of the species' being 'deadlier than the male.' It seems to me quite likely that
people at the FBI, and elsewhere, are still finding it difficult to grasp what has hit
them.
Something which interests me greatly is the possible knock-on effects of Ms. Powell's
breakthroughs in exposing the conspiracy to frame Michael Flynn on other cases, notably those
in which Ty Clevenger and Steven S. Biss are involved.
The pair are representing Ed Butowsky and Devin Nunes, and also, crucially, Svetlana
Lokhova, in her case against the 'ratfucker' – the term used in the 'Complaint' –
Stefan Halper and some of the MSM organisations who have collaborated in his 'dirty
tricks.'
In all of these cases, material freely available on the 'Courtlistener' site is a mine of
fascinating information.
Of particular interest at the moment, I think, are the efforts of Clevenger to 'prise
open' the cover-up over the role over Seth Rich in leaking the materials from the DNC which
the conspirators falsely alleged were hacked by the Russians, and that about the
circumstances of his murder.
These efforts have been aided by a remarkable 'hostage to fortune' given by Deborah Sines,
a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in D.C. who was assigned to the Rich case.
The 'supplemental evidence' in question appeared back in July in Episode 5 of the podcast
'Conspiracyland' which Michael Isikoff produced for 'Yahoo! News'. In this, Ms. Sines
recycled the familiar disinformation from Andrew McCabe to the effect that it had been
established that there was no connection between Rich and Wikileaks.
She then suggested that the FBI had indeed examined his computer, but solely because
someone had been trying to 'invade his Gmail account and set up a separate account after Seth
was murdered.' The supposed purpose of this activity, by a 'foreign hacker', was 'so they
could dump false information in there.'
As Clevenger pointed out, this claim is rather hard to reconcile with the FBI's insistence
that it has no records pertaining to Rich, and makes the Bureau's refusal to search its
Computer Analysis Response Team ("CART") for relevant records, and the Washington Field
Office for email records, look even more suspicious than it already did.
From the 'Courtlistener' pages it also appeared that, following a telephone conference,
Magistrate Judge Lois Bloom ruled that the statement by Ms. Sines did not rise to the 'level
of bad faith' required to justify the 'discovery' that Clevenger sought, on the basis of
it.
Also freely available on 'Courtlistener', however, is an 'Unopposed motion for stay' which
Clevenger filed on 30 November. From this, we learn that Judge Bloom had 'noted that Ms.
Sines' statements were not made under oath, further suggesting that the Plaintiff might try
to obtain a sworn statement from Ms. Sines.'
In response, Clevenger made clear that he intended to subpoena that lady for a deposition,
in the relation to the defamation cases brought against Michael Gottlieb et al, and also
David Folkenflik et al, where he is representing Ed Butowsky.
Accordingly, he asked the Court to stay his own case 'until the deposition of Ms. Sines
can be arranged and the transcripts can be produced.' Apparently, there was no objection from
the DOJ, FBI, and NSA.
In addition, Clevenger asked the court to take 'judicial notice' of the fact that, in her
reply dated 24 October to the lawyers for the USG, 'attorney Sidney Powell laid out damning
evidence that high-ranking FBI officials systematically tampered with records and hid
exculpatory evidence for the purpose of framing the defendant, retired General Mike
Flynn.'
So it looks as though what the 'honey badger' has been digging out in relation to Flynn
may help in the burrowing efforts of others in related matters – who may be in a
position to return the favour.
Increasingly, it seems not entirely unthinkable that the cumulative effect of of the cases
in which Powell, Clevenger and Biss are involved may blow open the whole conspiracy against
the Constitution, irrespective of whether or not Horowitz, Barr and Durham are prepared to go
substantially beyond a 'limited hangout.'
Another important, and neglected, aspect here relates to the cases still ongoing against
Steele and Orbis in London – that brought by Aleksej Gubarev, and that by the Alfa
oligarchs. It is material that libel laws on this side are noticeably less favourable to
defendants than on yours – not least in that the 'fair report privilege' retains its
original narrower construction here.
Unfortunately, we do not have here any equivalent to 'PACER' and 'Courtlistener.' The last
I heard about the Gubarev case was in the spring, when his American lawyers suggested that it
should come to court before Xmas.
It would not at all surprise me if it was postponed. Ironically, however, I now think that
it may be quite likely that his British lawyers see delay as being in Gubarev's
interests.
A critical point is that Steele is making no attempt to defend the accuracy of the claims
about the involvement of Gubarev and his companies in hacking in the final memorandum in the
dossier.
It seems quite likely that what is coming to light as the result of the lawsuits on your
side may make it materially more difficult to mount any credible case that these were not
very seriously defamatory.
There have been repeated attempts to locate the dossier attributed to Steele in another
version of a familiar 'Russophobic' narrative, suggesting that he was deliberately fed
disinformation by his Russian contacts as part of an 'active measures' campaign.
In my view, these are largely BS. However, a possible partial exception has to do with the
claims about Gubarev, which follow on from the those made in Company Report 2016/086, which
is dated 26 July 2015.
My suspicion has long been that the sloppy misdating – 2016 is clearly meant –
reflected the fact that the document was part of a panic-stricken response to the murder of
Rich, which had taken place on 10 July. What I may well have happened is that FBI
cybersecurity people, who had been cultivating sources among their FSB counterparts, put out
an urgent request, which generated material that went into the dossier.
If that was the case however, it would have been likely that some of their informants were
playing a 'double game.' And my suspicion is that, when a further request was put in,
following Trump's election victory, those making it were fed a 'baited hook' about Gubarev,
very likely cast in the hope of producing something like the outcome that materialised.
I noted with interest that both Devin Nunes and Lee Smith are now expressing scepticism
about the notion that Steele's role was in actually authoring the dossier, rather than taking
ownership of a compendium essentially produced within Fusion GPS.
Another ground for believing this was put into sharp focus with the publication by
'Judicial Watch' in September of – heavily redacted – versions of reports from
Steele circulated in the State Department prior to the dossier.
These clarify a matter which has long puzzled me about the memoranda. Normally, one would
expect the product of a serious business intelligence company to be properly presented, on
headed stationery, without elementary errors. And one would not expect a numbering which
suggests that the documents made public are part of a much larger series.
A document dated 13 June 2014, headline 'RUSSIA-UKRAINE CRISIS: Kremlin Emboldened to
Challenge USG Sanctions and Anti-Russian Leverage On Financial Markets', which is labelled
'Report ID: 2014/130a', suggests that we are actually dealing with a format used in an
information service sent out to a large number of clients. Precisely what this would not
contain was material attributed to highly sensitive sources.
So the clumsy imitation of this formatting in the dossier gives further reason to believe
that it was produced by people other than Steele, who were trying to attribute authorship to
him.
A further implication is that Steele may have ended up left facing libel charges in
relation to claims for which he was not actually responsible.
In addition to those about Gubarev, the use of the transliteration 'Alpha' instead of
'Alfa' for the Fridman/Aven/Khan group makes me think that the author of the relevant
memorandum was not a native English speaker, but someone used to thinking in Russian and/or
Ukrainian.
If so, the memorandum may be part of 'Ukrainegate', which, unlike 'Russiagate', looks like
being a real story.
And here, of course, the question of what became of Seth Rich's laptop, and what
information the FBI is concealing about it, is again critical.
It would not in the least surprise me if the kind of traces described by Ms. Sines are
actually really present on some hard drive.
If however they are, a quite likely explanation is that Alperovitch and his Ukrainian
'partners-in-crime' organised a hack, after the leak was discovered, as part of the more
general attempt to obfuscate the truth.
Why does the media and virtually every pundit commenting on the Ukrainian phone call
intentionally avoid any mention of Trump's Crowdstrike "favor" request?
"... The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an "attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. ..."
"... We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. ..."
"... We also learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. ..."
"... Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies, particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly, they have not been. ..."
"... However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed. It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty. ..."
Almost daily for three years, Democrats and their media have told us very bad things about
Donald Trump's life, character, and presidency. Some of them are true. But in the process, we
have also learned some lamentable, even alarming, things about the Democratic Party
establishment, including self-professed liberals. Consider the following:
The Democratic establishment is deeply and widely imbued with rancid Russophobic
attitudes. Most telling was (and remains) a core "Russiagate" allegation that "Russia
attacked American democracy during the 2016 presidential election" on Trump's behalf -- an
"attack" so nefarious it has often been equated with Pearl Harbor. But there was no
"attack" in 2016, only, as I have
previously explained , ritualistic "meddling" of the kind that both Russia and America
have undertaken in the other's elections for decades. Little can be more phobic than the
allegation or belief that one has been "attacked by a hostile" entity. And yet this myth and
its false narrative persist in the Democratic Party's discourse, campaigning, and
fund-raising. We have also learned that the heads of America's intelligence agencies
under President Obama, especially John Brennan of the CIA and James Clapper, director of
National Intelligence, felt themselves entitled to try to undermine an American presidential
candidacy and subsequent presidency, that of Donald Trump. Early on, I termed this
operation " Intelgate ," and it has
since been well documented by other writers, including
Lee Smith in his new book . Intel officials did so in tacit alliance with certain
leading, and equally Russophobic, members of the Democratic Party, which had once opposed
such transgressions. This may be the most alarming revelation of the Trump years: Trump will
leave power, but these self-aggrandizing intelligence agencies will remain. We also
learned that, contrary to Democratic dogma, the mainstream "free press" cannot be fully
trusted to readily expose such abuses of power. Indeed, what the mainstream media --
leading national newspapers and two cable news networks, in particular -- chose to cover and
report, and chose not to cover and report, made the abuses and consequences of Russiagate
allegations possible. Even now, exceedingly influential publications such as The New York
Times seem
eager to delegitimize the investigation by Attorney General William Barr and
his appointed special investigator John Durham into the origins of Russiagate. Barr's
critics accuse him of fabricating a "conspiracy theory" on behalf of Trump. But the real, or
grandest, conspiracy theory was the Russiagate allegation of "collusion" between Trump and
the Kremlin, an accusation that was -- or should have been -- discredited by the Robert
Mueller report. And we have learned, or should have learned, that for all the talk by
Democrats about Trump as a danger to US national security, it is their Russiagate allegations
that truly endanger it. Consider two examples. Russia's new "hyper-sonic" missiles, which can
elude US missile-defense systems, make new nuclear arms negotiations with Moscow imperative
and urgent. If only for the sake of his legacy, Trump is likely to want to do so. But even if
he is able to, will Trump be entrusted enough to conduct negotiations as successfully as did
his predecessors in the White House, given the "Putin puppet" and "Kremlin stooge"
accusations still being directed at him? Similarly, as I have asked repeatedly, if confronted
with a US-Russian Cuban missile–like crisis -- anywhere Washington and Moscow are
currently eyeball-to-eyeball militarily, from the Baltic region and Ukraine to Syria -- will
Trump be as free politically as was President John F. Kennedy to resolve it without war? Here
too there is an inconvenient truth: To the extent that Democrats any longer seriously discuss
national security in the context of US-Russian relations, it mostly involves vilifying both
Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin. (Recall also that previous presidents were free to
negotiate with Russia's Soviet communist leaders, even encouraged to do so, whereas the
demonized Putin is an anti-communist, post-Soviet leader.)
The current state of US-Russian relations is unprecedentedly dangerous, not only due to
reasons cited here -- a new Cold War fraught with the possibility of hot war. Whether President
Trump serves one or two terms, he must be fully empowered to cope with the multiple
possibilities of a US-Russian military confrontation. That requires ridding him and our nation
of Russiagate allegations -- and that in turn requires learning how such allegations
originated.
Opponents of Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate say it is impermissible
or unprecedented to "investigate the investigators." But the bipartisan Church Committee, based
in the US Senate, did so in the mid-1970s. It exposed many abuses by US intelligence agencies,
particularly by the CIA, and adopted remedies that it believed would be permanent. Clearly,
they have not been.
However well-intentioned Barr may be, he is Trump's attorney general and therefore not
fully credible. As I have also argued repeatedly, a new Church Committee is urgently needed.
It's time for honorable members of the Senate of both parties to do their duty.
v> I keep hearing responses that this impeachment process is about 'procedure'. Are
there criminal/ prosecutable consequences for pushing forth this impeachment process on an
unfounded basis or political bias? How about false accusations and claims by Schiff? If this
is just a stall to impede the progress of the President to prevent his and our success,
especially with all the malfeasance and corruption that is being exposed the last three years
from his opposition and previous administration, can and will there be legal consequences to
Schiff and company's incompetence, ineffectivenesss, abuse, and attacks? What is it that can
be held legally against those who have been pushing this impeachment without proper basis,
just their contempt for the man with over 60 million votes who won an election rigged against
him? Will there be an impeachment in every future administration on this current basis?
60 Minutes (Of Lies) interviewed Joe Biden allowing him a platform to do damage control
about his crimes in Ukraine & spread lies against the Justice Department!
This is not an interview. They do not listen to each other. And only Bannon mentions
CrowdStrike. Cooper is trying to present he this whole thin that Trump going after Biden. Biden
is ideal opponent for Trump. And CrowdStrike is much more important
Cooper, we had the Mueller investigation, impeachment hearing after hearing, opposition to
supreme court picks etc. Aren't you interested in the truth, why can't investigations be
launched in the other direction. Honest question! Why can't democrats be investigated? As if
they could do no wrong! America has a problem within the DNC and with leftist
politics.....
ionlink " data-sessionlink="itct=CBQQtnUiEwi4paSI1tnlAhWF9ZwKHZhDBgw"
href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0HRyTTIyBA&t=232s"> 3:52 4:09 : Cooper: "the president
has access to--we have corruption-fighters in the Treasury-Department. He could have called
up Steve Minuchin and said, 'You know what? Give me a list of most corrupt players in
Ukraine. I'll talk to the president about it.' He didn't. The only thing he cites as a favor
is crowd-strike server Biden." Cooper exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the
organizational hierarchy of the executive branch of the federal government. Subordinate
federal officers, such as Treasury Secretary Minuchin and his "corruption-fighters," serve at
the pleasure of the president. Trump could dismiss Minuchin any time. Minuchin serves the
president. The president does not serve or take orders from his cabinet-officials. The
president is not obliged to delegate tasks to his subordinates, though he may choose to do
so, at his pleasure. The primary responsibility for enforcing law is the president's, not his
subordinates' . Again, it is not the business of the US to investigate or prosecute
corruption among Ukrainian officials. That is President Zelensky's duty. Trump''s duty is to
investigate and prosecute corruption of US officials. 5:58 : Cooper: "Democrats would
argue with you, saying, 'you know what hurts the United States is using taxpayer-money as a
weapon, against an ally, who's fighting our enemy..' It's not like it's Donald Trump's money,
saying, buying information about the Bidens." It's not only Trump's money, but he has a share
in it, as a US taxpayer. As president, he is the custodian of that aid, until it is
transferred to Ukraine. He has a duty to treat it prudently. Donald Trump prudently and
judiciously delayed transfer of the aid to Ukraine until he was reasonably sure, from
assurances from anti-corruption President Zelensky, that the aid would serve the purposed
intended, to defend Ukraine against Russia, not vanish into the pockets of corrupt Ukrainian
or US officials. That delay is rational, given the long track-record of Ukrainian corruption.
Trump did not use the aid "as a weapon." 6:28 : Cooper: "...cite some
specific thing. There's no evidence...The president hasn't cited any evidence. He's just
throwing this out and he said, 'Oh, in China too.' He hasn't cited anything. There's no
facts." Again, Cooper exhibits his fundamental misunderstanding of fundamental principles.
Trump was calling for an investigation. He has not concluded anything yet. The infamous
videotaped statements of Joe Biden that he threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, unless
the Ukrainians fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son's gas-company and that,
within six hours, that prosecutor was fired and the aid delivered, raises suspicion of
corruption, but only suspicion. The purpose of a criminal investigation is to collect and
ascertain evidence. At the instigation of an investigation, the evidence is obviously not
collected or ascertained yet. That collection and ascertainment comes with the passage of
time and the effort of investigators. 8:51 Cooper: "I think a kid,
being on a board, I think it's shady. I think it makes no sense." Bannon: "Shady? It's
corrupt." Precisely, but only suspicion of corruption. Before, Cooper was objecting that
Trump cited no evidence, because he, Trump, only had tentative suspicion of Biden's
corruption, not conclusive evidence. In the last passage, Cooper concedes precisely the same
sort of suspicion. He thus arguably contradicted himself.
'No, you don't. It's both psychologically possible and not at all inconsistent to
object to a general strategy, and to object how the strategy is being used for personal
gain.'
Possible but not likely. How many establishment Dems (or even non-establishment Dems)
have indicated that they have any objections to arming the Ukrainians? That would be in the
region of about 'none', I would imagine. While what I assume your position is logically
consistent (although bizarre .'I think it's disgusting that the US is giving weapons to the
Ukrainians although I'm not prepared to do anything about that, but Trump, who threatened to
stop doing this, he must be impeached, because he was threatening to stop arming the
Ukrainians, which, to repeat, I approve of, for the wrong reasons.' .it's a logically
consistent but deeply weird argument), it's very obviously not the Democrats' position.
The Democrats position is that arming the Ukrainians is a good and moral thing to do and
that Trump is terrible for threatening to stop it, which is far simpler, far more logical and,
if one ignores its flagrant immorality, far easier to 'swallow'.
As always 'reversing the polarities' gives clarity (imagine I worked for Putin, who was
arming MS-13, and then Putin put me on trial because, for whatever reason, I stopped arming
MS-13 .what would we think of Putin?).
It's not even clear what motive Trump has. Biden has as much chance of being President as I
have, he won't be the Presidential candidate, this wasn't an 'attack' on him, it was an attack
on his son, who Biden could easily distance himself from even on its own terms the accusation
make absolutely no sense. It does, however, focus a laser like light on the Bidens's activities
in the Ukraine, which may not be something that the Democrats really want to happen, for all
kinds of reasons.
The current
frenzy
to impeach
President Donald Trump sometimes in its haste reveals that which could easily be
hidden about the operation of the Deep State inside the federal government.
Congress is
currently obtaining testimony from a parade of witnesses to or participants in what will inevitably
be called UkraineGate, an investigation into whether Trump inappropriately sought a political
quid
pro quo
from Ukrainian leaders in exchange for a military assistance package.
The
prepared
opening statement
by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, described as the top Ukraine expert
on the National Security Council (NSC), provides some insights into how decision making at the NSC
actually works.
Vindman was born in Ukraine but emigrated to the United States with his
family at age three. He was commissioned as an army infantry officer in 1998 and served in some
capacity in Iraq from 2004-5, where he was wounded by a roadside bomb and received a purple heart.
Vindman, who speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently, has filled a number of diplomatic and
military positions in government dealing with Eastern Europe, to include a key role in Pentagon
planning on how to deal with Russia.
Vindman, Ukrainian both by birth and culturally, clearly was a major player in
articulating and managing US policy towards that country, but that is not really what his role on
the NSC should have been.
As more than likely the US government's sole genuine Ukrainian
expert, he should have become a source of viable options that the United States might exercise
vis-ŕ-vis its relationship with Ukraine, and, by extension, regarding Moscow's involvement with
Kiev. But that is not how his statement, which advocates for a specific policy, reads. Rather than
providing expert advice, Vindman was concerned chiefly because arming Ukraine was not proceeding
quickly enough to suit him, an extremely risky policy which has already created serious problems
with a much more important Russia.
Vindman apparently sees Ukraine-Russia through the established optic provided by the
Deep State, which considers global conflict as the price to pay for maintaining its largesse from
the US taxpayer.
Continuous warfare is its only business product, which explains in part
its dislike of Donald Trump as he has several times threatened to upset the apple cart, even though
he has done precious little in reality. Part of Vindman's written statement (my emphasis) is
revealing: ""When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy
on Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine
inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency.
This
narrative was harmful to US government policy. While
my interagency colleagues and I
were
becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative undermined US
government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine."
Alexander Vindman clearly was pushing a policy that might be described as that of the Deep State
rather than responding to his own chain of command where it is the president who does the decision
making. He also needs a history lesson about what has gone on in his country of birth. President
Barack Obama conspired with his own version of Macbeth's three witches – Rice, Power and Jarett –
to overthrow the legitimate government of Ukraine in 2014 because it was considered to be too close
to Moscow. The regime change was brought about by "mavericks" like the foul-mouthed neocon State
Department officer Victoria Nuland and the footloose warmonger Senator John McCain. Vice President
Joe Biden also appeared on the scene after the "wetwork" was done, with his son Hunter trailing
behind him. Since that time, Ukraine has had a succession of increasingly corrupt puppet
governments propped up by billions in foreign aid. It is now per capita the poorest country in
Europe.
Washington inside-the-beltway and the Deep State choose to blame the mess in Ukraine on
Russian President Vladimir Putin and the established narrative also makes the absurd claim that the
political situation in Kiev is somehow important to US national security. The preferred solution is
to provide still more money, which feeds the corruption and enables the Ukrainians to attack the
Russians.
Colonel Vindman, who reported to noted hater of all things Russian Fiona Hill, who in turn
reported to By Jingo We'll Go To War John Bolton, was in the middle of all the schemes to bring
down Russia. His concern was not really over Trump vs. Biden. It was focused instead on speeding up
the $380 million in military assistance, to include offensive weapons, that was in the pipeline for
Kiev. And assuming that the Ukrainians could actually learn how to use the weapons, the objective
was to punish the Russians and prolong the conflict in Donbas for no reason at all that makes any
sense.
Note the following additional excerpt from Vindman's prepared statement: " .I was worried about
the implications for the US government's support of Ukraine . I realized that if Ukraine pursued an
investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which
would undoubtedly
result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far
maintained
."
Vindman's concern is all about Ukraine without any explanation of why the United States would
benefit from bilking the taxpayer to support a foreign deadbeat one more time. One wonders if
Vindman was able to compose his statement without a snicker or two intruding. He does eventually go
on to cover the always essential national security angle, claiming that "Since 2008, Russia has
manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid
warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to
dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the
West. In this situation, a strong and independent Ukraine is critical to US national security
interests because
Ukraine is a frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression
."
The combined visions of Russia as an aggressive, expansionistic power coupled with the brave
Ukrainians serving as a bastion of freedom is so absurd that it is hardly worth countering.
Russia's economy is about the size of Italy's or Spain's limiting its imperial ambitions, if they
actually exist. Its alleged transgressions against Georgia and Ukraine were both provoked by the
United States meddling in Eastern Europe, something that it had pledged not to do after the Soviet
Union collapsed. Ukraine is less an important American ally than a welfare case, and no one knows
that better than Vindman, but he is really speaking to his masters in the US Establishment when he
repeats the conventional arguments.
It hardly seems possible, but Vindman then goes on to dig himself into a still deeper hole
through his statement's praise of the train wreck that is Ukraine. He writes "In spite of being
under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken major steps towards
integrating
with the West
. The US government policy community's view is that the election of President
Volodymyr Zelensky and the promise of reforms to eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's
Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and
economic prosperity. The United States and Ukraine are and must remain strategic partners, working
together to realize the shared vision of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine that is
integrated into the
Euro-Atlantic community
."
Alexander Vindman does not say or write that the incorporation of Ukraine into NATO is
his actual objective, but his comments about "integrating with the West" and the "Euro-Atlantic
community" clearly imply just that.
The expansion of NATO up to Russia's borders by the
rascally Bill Clinton constituted one of the truly most momentous lost foreign policy opportunities
of the twentieth century. The addition of Ukraine and Georgia to the alliance would magnify that
error as both are vital national security interests for Moscow given their history and geography.
Vindman should be regarded as a manifestation of the Deep State thinking that has
brought so much grief to the United States over the past twenty years. Seen in that light, his
testimony, wrapped in an air of sanctimoniousness and a uniform, should be regarded as little more
than the conventional thinking that has produced foreign policy failure after failure.
Exactly 100 years ago, in 1919, a
certain colonel named "Colonel"
House was secretly running the
White House's foreign policy with
a secret globalist agenda right
under the Woodrow Wilson's
nose (a "colonel" who, by the
way, was neither an army officer,
nor the battlefield hero - in
fact, he was about as much of a
colonel as Colonel Parker). The
outcome? The post-World War 1
"new world order" (which was
neither new, nor order, nor
global in any sense) that was a
nightmare on steroids, a
humpty-dumpty Frankenstein that
gave birth to both Nazism and
Bolshevism as well as
Globalist Elitism, American
Exceptionalism, and New Deal
Neoliberalism and was every
satanist's wet dream. Short of
procreating Beelzebub and
Baphomet, "Colonel" House just
about did 'em all.
Fast
forward 100 years, back to the
future: year 2019 AD. A certain
colonel named "Colonel" Vindman
is secretly running the White
House's foreign policy with a
secret globalist agenda right
under the Donald Trump's nose (a
"colonel" who, by the way, is
about as battlefield hero as
Melania Trump). The outcome? The
American foreign policy in
shambles, a total sham, a farce
on steroids, a schizo chaos of
competing special interests,
payola, kickbacks, quid-pro-quo
big-fish-eats-small clusterfuck,
foreign influence-peddling and
deepstatism.
So, yes, Karl Marx was, for
once, right. History really does
repeat itself. It first comes as
a tragedy and then returns the
second time around as an
inbred farce. Or a slapstick.
He served our nation with
distinction, and his
testimony is in line with
what we heard from the
diplomats and Sandberg who
keeps twisting himself into
a brezel.
Managed to
grab the 4th post in just a
few seconds for your Jewz
insertion. Keep up the bad
work, true professional that
you are - BTW, how much in
American money ??? Per word
or post ???
Another dipshitz, another
thread; FOAD, please soon.
House Democrats on Tuesday released excerpts of closed-door depositions with former US
Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker, as well as revised testimony from US Ambassador to
the EU, Gordon Sondland which was a complete reversal from what he said in text messages
revealed last month as well as prior testimony.
In them, Sondland reveals in four new pages of sworn testimony he told a top Ukrainian
official that a meeting with President Trump may be contingent upon its new
administration committing to investigations Trump wanted, according to the New York
Times.
Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the
Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the
president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. -New York Times
Bloomberg reports "Sondland testified that a promise by Ukraine to investigate Joe
Biden's son and the 2016 election was a condition that "would have to be complied with"
for the country's leaders to get a meeting with Trump."
"That was my understanding," he said.
SO if that is Sondland's [mis]understanding, let's compare. Read his Sept 9 text message
to Taylor.
The image of Biden and son in link, speaks truth. Take a look.
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be
impeached and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?[.]
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a
transfer of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President
Barack Obama refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the
Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was
not Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons
to Ukraine altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He
passed word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press
conference to announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would
not get the arms we had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky
requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime? [.]
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro
Poroshenko's regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a
prosecutor whose dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed
to investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund
from the Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.[.]
The article , written by Breitbart senior investigative reporter New York Times bestselling author and Aaron Klein, details how
Ciaramella was central to the Obama administration's Ukraine policy - including the eventual signing of a $1 billion US loan guarantee
after former VP Joe Biden pressured them into firing the guy investigating an energy company paying his son to sit on their board
, Burisma Holdings.
In response to Trump Jr. tweeting Ciaramella's name, journalist Yashar Ali (who worked for Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential
campaign) contacted Don Jr., who told him " The outrage on this is BS. And those pretending that I would coordinate with The White
House to send out a Breitbart link haven't been watching my feed for a long time ."
Don Jr. then tweeted "The entire media is #Triggered that I (a private citizen) tweeted out a story naming the alleged whistleblower.
Are they going to pretend that his name hasn't been in the public domain for weeks now? Numerous people & news outlets including
Real Clear Politics already ID'd him."
Trump Jr.'s 'outing' of Ciaramella comes one day after Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he was considering releasing the whistleblower's
name, and claimed that he may be involved in Ukraine corruption.
Ciaramella interfaced about Ukraine with individuals who played key roles in facilitating the infamous anti-Trump dossier produced
by Fusion GPS and reportedly financed by Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee.
"... On a more constructive & positive note, regarding Assange & Flynn, i thought the X22 Report was not bad yesterday: at least he sees how the Deep State specifically operating within GCHQ & the CIA, desperately need Julian Assange entirely 'unavailable' for comment. ..."
JFK, 9/11, the Fed, rigged elections, suppressed cancer cures and the greatest conspiracies of our time Editor
In today's world, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is pejorative and has a negative connotation. To many people, a conspiracy theory
is an irrational, over-imaginative idea endorsed by people looking for attention and not supported by the mainstream media or government.
History shows, though, that there have been many times when governments or individuals have participated in conspiracies. It would
be naďve to think that intelligence agencies, militaries, government officials, and politicians don't sometimes cooperate in covert,
secretive ways. Following are five instances when it's been proven that the government engaged in a conspiracy.
THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION
On August 4, 1964, Captain John J. Herrick, the commander of the USS Maddox, a US Navy vessel that was on an intelligence-gathering
mission in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported to the White House and Pentagon that North Vietnamese patrol boats had fired torpedoes at
his ship, and, so, the Maddox had fired back.
Two days later, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara testified to the Congress that he was certain that the Maddox had been attacked.
On August 7, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed, the Congressional act that allowed President Johnson free reign to commence
war; Johnson immediately ordered air strikes on North Vietnam and the Vietnam War -- which would eventually kill fifty-eight thousand
Americans and two million Asians -- was underway.
Since then, it has been shown and proven that no North Vietnamese boats ever fired on the Maddox, and that McNamara had been untruthful
when he testified before Congress. According to the official publication of the Naval Institute,
once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear
that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full US involvement in
the Vietnam War."
In the weeks prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, South Vietnamese ships had been attacking posts in North Vietnam in conjunction
with the CIA's Operation 34A. According to many inside sources, the Johnson administration wanted a full-scale war in Vietnam and
through Operation 34A was trying to provoke North Vietnam into an attack that would give Johnson an excuse to go to war. But when
McNamara was asked by the Congress on August 7 if these South Vietnam attacks had anything to do with the US military and CIA, McNamara
lied and said no.
Within hours after reporting that the Maddox had been attacked, Captain Herrick was retracting his statements and reporting to
the White House and Pentagon that "in all likelihood" an over-eager sonar man had been mistaken and that the sonar sounds and images
that he originally thought were enemy torpedoes were actually just the beat of the Maddox's own propellers.
Herrick reported that there was a good probability that there had been no attack on the Maddox, and suggested "complete reevaluation
before any action is taken."
McNamara saw these new, updated reports and discussed them with President Johnson early in the afternoon of August 4. Even though
this was so, on the evening of August 4, President Johnson went on national television and announced to the American public that
North Vietnam had engaged in "unprovoked aggression" and, so, the US military was retaliating.
A few days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Johnson remarked, "Hell, those damn stupid sailors were just shooting at flying
fish."
Recently, new documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident have been declassified and according to Robert Hanyok, a historian
for the National Security Agency, these documents show that the NSA deliberately "distorted intelligence" andand "altered documents"
to make it appear that an attack had occurred on August 4.
When President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented to the American public and said he knew that North Vietnam had attacked a US ship,
and when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lied to the Congress and said he was sure that the Maddox had been attacked and that the
CIA had nothing to do with South Vietnam aggression, and when NSA officials falsified information to make it appear that there had
been an attack on the Maddox, that was a government conspiracy.
OPERATION NORTHWOODS
In 1962, the most powerful and highest ranking military officials of the US government, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt strongly
that the communist leader Fidel Castro had to be removed from power and, so, came up with a plan to justify an American invasion
of Cuba.
The plan, entitled Operations Northwoods, was presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, and was signed
by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer.
Operations Northwoods was a proposal for a false flag operation, a plan in which a military organizes an attack against its own
country and then frames and blames the attack on another country for the purpose of the purpose of initiating hostilities and declaring
war on that country.
The proposal was originally labeled Top Secret but was made public on November 18, 1997, by the John F. Kennedy Assassination
Records Review Board. The complete Operation Northwoods paper was published online by the National Security Archive on April 30,
2001, and this once-secret government document can now be read by anyone.
The actions that General Lemnitzer and the other chiefs wanted to d to take under Operations Northwoods are shocking. According
to the plan, CIA and military personnel and hired provocateurs would commit various violent acts and these acts would be blamed on
Castro to "create the necessary impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility" and "put the United States in the apparent position
of suffering defensible grievances."
One of the most ambitious plans of Operation Northwoods was to blow up a plane in midflight. The strategy was to fill a civilian
airplane with CIA and military personnel who were registered under fake ID's; an exact duplicate plane -- an empty military drone
aircraft -- would take off at the same exact time.
The plane of fake passengers would land at a military base but the empty drone plane would fly over Cuba and crash in the ocean,
supposedly a victim of Cuban missiles. "Casualty lists in US newspapers" and conducting "fake funerals for mock-victims"
would cause "a helpful wave of national indignation" in America.
The Operation Northwoods proposal also states: "We could blow up a US ship and blame Cuba." Whether the ship was to be empty or
full of US soldiers is unclear. The document also says: "Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged."
Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods would have surely led to serious injuries and even deaths of Cuban and American
civilians. The plan suggests:
We could sink a boatload of Cubans on route to Florida (real or simulated)."
And:
We could foster attempts on lives of anti-Castro Cubans in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to
be widely publicized We could explode a few bombs in carefully chosen spots."
Lemnitzer and the chiefs wanted many of these staged terrorist attacks to be directed at the Guantanamo Bay United States Naval
Base in Cuba. The plans were:
"Start riots near the entrance to the base" "lob mortar shells from outside the base to inside the base" "blow up ammunition inside
the base; start fires" "burn aircraft on airbase (sabotage)" "sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napalm."
When Secretary of Defense McNamara was presented with the Operation Northwoods plan, he either stopped and rejected the plan himself
or passed it on to President Kennedy and JFK then rejected it. But if Kennedy and McNamara had agreed with the plan, then the Joint
Chiefs of Staff wanted to begin enacting Operation Northwoods "right away, within a few months."
Even though Operation Northwoods was never initiated, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the other highest-ranking
military officials of the United States Government planned to organize violent attacks on Americans and anti-Castro Cuban citizens,
knowing those attacks could severely injure and kill those citizens, and when they planned to blame those attacks on Cuba and then
use that as an excuse to invade Cuba, that was a government conspiracy.
FBI AND THE MAFIA
In March 1965, the FBI had the house of New England organized crime boss Raymond Patriarca wiretapped and overheard two mobsters,
Joseph Barboza and Vincent Flemmi, asking Patriarca for permission to kill another gangster, Edward Deegan. Two days later, Deegan's
blood-soaked body was found dead in a Boston alley.
Within days, an official FBI report confirmed that Joseph Barboza and three other mobsters were the murderers. Instead of those
men going to prison for murder, though, three years later a man named Joseph Salvati was brought to trial for the murder of Edward
Deegan. At that trial Joseph Barboza testified and lied that Salvati was one of the murderers. On the basis of Barboza's testimony,
Joseph Salvati was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
At that time, in the mid 1960s, the FBI was being pressured more and more to do something to stop organized crime. The bureau
began using members of the mafia -- criminals and murderers -- to inform against fellow mafia members. Joseph Barboza was one of
these FBI-protected, paid informants. The FBI didn't want Barboza to go to prison for the murder of Deegan because they wanted him
to continue infiltrating the mafia and testifying against other mafia members.
The bureau, apparently, did want a conviction in the Deegan murder case, though, and, so, let Barboza lie under oath and let a
man they knew to be innocent, Joseph Salvati, go to prison.
The Witness Protection Program was first created for Joseph Barboza, and Barboza was the first mafia informant to be protected
under the program. After helping to convict a number of mobsters, Barboza was sent off to live in California. While under the Witness
Protection Program, Barboza committed at least one more murder, and probably more.
On trial for a murder in California, FBI officials showed up for Joseph Barboza's trial and testified on his behalf, helping Barboza
to get a light sentence.
Joseph Salvati ended up serving thirty years in prison for a murder that he was innocent of. During that thirty-year period, lawyers
for Salvati requested documents from the FBI that would have proved Salvati's innocence, but the bureau refused to release them.
Finally, in 1997, other evidence came forth suggesting Salvati's innocence and the governor of Massachusetts, William Weld, granted
Salvati's release. A few years later, the FBI was ordered to release all its reports on the case; hundreds of documents showed the
FBI knew that Barboza was a murderer, that he had murdered Edward Deegan, and that Joseph Salvati had had nothing to do with the
crime.
Salvati was exonerated in a court of law, and was eventually awarded millions of dollars in a civil lawsuit against the government.
(Three other defendants were also exonerated. At the 1968 trial, Joseph Barboza had testified that three other men -- men who were
also not guilty -- had participated in Deegan's murder. These three innocent men were, with Salvati, also sent to prison.)
Perhaps the most shocking thing that the FBI documents showed, though, was that FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover himself knew Salvati
was innocent and that Barboza had killed Deegan.
Hoover was working closely, almost daily, with the agents handling Joseph Barboza, and it was probably Hoover directing the operation.
The congressional committee that investigated the case was the House Committee on Government Reform and Congressman Dan Burton was
the chairman.
When asked by CBS's 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace "Did J. Edgar Hoover know all this? " Burton replied:
"Yes . . . It's one of the greatest failures in the history of American justice J. Edgar Hoover knew Salvati was innocent.
He knew it and his name should not be emblazoned on the FBI headquarters. We should change the name of that building."
Congressman Burton claimed there was evidence that there were more cases when the FBI did the same sorts of things they did in
the Joseph Salvati case; when Burton and his committee requested the files on these cases, the Attorney General and the White House
refused to release them.
When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and top FBI officials let a known murderer lie and perjure himself in a courtroom, when they
let four men they knew to be innocent suffer in the hell of a prison cell for thirty years, and when they deliberately covered that
up for decades, that was a government conspiracy.
THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
In 1939, Albert Einstein and two other European physicists sent a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt informing Roosevelt that
the German government was working on developing the science that could lead to the creation of a nuclear bomb. FDR immediately formed
a committee to look into the idea of the US government making an atomic bomb.
In 1942, the Manhattan Project, the United States program to build a nuclear bomb, headed by General Leslie R. Groves of the US
Army Corps of Engineers, was formed.
The program existed from 1942–1946, spent two billion dollars, had plants and factories in thirty cities, and employed 130,000
workers. But virtually no one knew about it. The Manhattan Project is considered the "Greatest Secret Ever Kept."
The US government wanted to keep the Project a secret lest Germany or one of America's other enemies found out about it and built
-- more quickly -- a larger, better bomb. In the early 1940s, when American scientists began working on splitting atoms and nuclear
fission, US government officials asked the scientists to not publish any reports on the work in scientific journals. The work was
kept quiet.
In 1943, when newspapers began reporting on the large Manhattan Project construction going on in a few states, the newly formed
United States Government Office of Censorship asked newspapers and broadcasters to avoid discussing "atom smashing, atomic energy,
atomic fission . . . the use for military purposes of radium or radioactive materials" or anything else that could expose the project.
The press kept mum. The government didn't talk about the Manhattan Project, the press didn't report on it, and the public knew nothing
about it.
Not even the 130,000 Manhattan Project laborers knew they were building an atom bomb.
In 1945, a Life magazine article wrote that before Japan was attacked with a-bombs, "probably no more than a few dozen men in
the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on
atoms was involved."
The workers were told they were doing an important job for the government, but weren't told what the job was, and didn't understand
the full import of the mysterious, daily tasks they were doing. The laborers were warned that disclosing the Project's secrets was
punishable by ten years in prison, and a hefty financial fine.
Whole towns and cities were built where thousands of Manhattan Project workers lived and worked but these thousands didn't know
they were helping to build nuclear bombs.
The Manhattan Project finally became known to the public on August 6, 1945, when President Harry Truman announced that America
had dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.
Truman, himself, had not been informed of the Manhattan Project until late April 1945.
When the government kept the purpose of the Manhattan Project a secret from the press, from the public, from America's enemies,
from Harry Truman, and even from the 130,000 laborers who worked for the Manhattan Project, that was a government conspiracy.
THE CHURCH COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
In the early 1970s, after the Watergate affair and investigative reports by the New York Times, it became apparent that the CIA
and other US intelligence agencies might be engaging in inappropriate and illegal activities. In 1975, the Church Committee, named
after the Committee's chairman Senator Frank Church, was formed to investigate abuses by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS.
The Church Committee reports are said to constitute the most extensive investigations of intelligence activities ever made available
to the public. Many disturbing facts were revealed. According to the final report of the Committee, US intelligence agencies had
been engaging in "unlawful or improper conduct" and "intelligence excesses, at home and abroad" since the administration of President
Franklin Roosevelt.
The report added that "intelligence agencies have undermined the Constitutional rights of citizens" and "checks and
balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure accountability have not been applied."
One of the most well-known revelations of the Committee was the CIA's so-called "Family Jewels," a report that detailed the CIA's
misdeeds dating back to Dwight Eisenhower's presidency. The committee also reported on the NSA's SHAMROCK and MINARET programs; under
these programs the NSA had been intercepting, opening, and reading the telegrams and mail of thousands of private citizens.
The Church Committee also discovered and exposed the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the bureau's program to covertly destroy and disrupt
any groups or individuals that J. Edgar Hoover felt were bad for America. Some of the movements and groups that the FBI tried to
discredit and destroy were the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference,
and individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr.
The most alarming thing that the Church Committee found, though, was that the CIA had an assassination program. It was revealed
that the CIA assassinated or had tried to assassinate Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Raphael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, General Rene
Schneider of Chile, Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, and other political leaders throughout the world.
The Committee learned about the different ways the CIA had developed to kill and assassinate people: inflicting cancer, inflicting
heart attacks, making murders look like suicides, car accidents, boating accidents, and shootings. At one point, CIA Director William
Colby presented to the Committee a special "heart attack gun" that the CIA had created. The gun was able to shoot a small poison-laden
dart into its victim. The dart was so small as to be undetectable; the victim's death from the poison would appear to be a heart
attack, so no foul play would be suspected.
In response to the Church Committee report, in 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11,905, which forbade employees
of the US government from engaging in or conspiring to engage in political assassinations.
In that same year, the Senate approved Senate Resolution 400, which established the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the
committee responsible for providing vigilant oversight over the intelligence agencies.
Many former CIA employee-whistleblowers and other people, though, claim that US intelligence agencies are still acting in improper
ways. In 2008, it was revealed that the CIA had hired Blackwater, a private company made up of ex-Navy Seals, to track down and assassinate
suspected terrorists.
Later in the 2000s, when the Congress formed a committee to investigate if CIA waterboarding and other methods of interrogation
constituted torture, congressmen complained that they couldn't get to the bottom of the matter because CIA officials and the CIA
director were lying to the congressional committee.
Forty-five years after the revelations of the Church Committee, it seems US intelligence agencies are still engaging in covert
and improper conduct.
When US intelligence agencies and the CIA plot to influence the affairs of foreign nations, when the CIA plots assassinations
and assassinates foreign leaders and political dissidents, when the CIA develops new ways to kill and assassinate and interrogate
and torture, and when the CIA keeps all that from Congress, the press, and the public, that's a government conspiracy.
*
If these five instances of government engaging in conspiracies have been proven to be true -- and they have been -- isn't it logical
to assume that government agencies may have engaged in other conspiracies? It is the very nature of intelligence agencies and militaries
to act in secretive, conspiratorial ways.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" shouldn't have a negative connotation. Politics always plays out with backroom handshakes. It is
the suggestion of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups that government agencies and officials and the special interests that influence
them are often engaging in conspiratorial actions, and that conspiracies have been behind some of the most iconic and important events
of American history.
A conspiracy theorist was regaling a friend with one conspiracy theory after another. Finally, the friend interrupted and said,
"I bet I know what would happen if God Himself appeared out of the sky right now, looked down at us, and said, 'There is no conspiracy.'
I bet you would look up and say, 'So the conspiracy goes higher than we thought.'"
Perhaps if the Almighty appeared to inform us that politicians and governments and government officials don't act in secretive,
covert, conspiratorial ways, then we could accept that.
But when the evidence indicates otherwise .
Theories questioning if multiple people might have shot at JFK, or if interior bombs brought down the World Trade Center, or if
somebody was able to rig the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections can make for dramatic, sensational storytelling.
But it is not the purpose of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups to be sensational; the purpose of this book is to talk about
"conspiracy realities" that can hopefully give us a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics.
If elements in the intelligence agencies participated in assassinating President Kennedy, then how can the intelligence agencies
be better controlled? If elements in the government allowed or caused 9/11 to happen to give us an excuse to go to war in the Middle
East, then how much of the War on Terror is disinformation and propaganda?
If presidential elections can be rigged, then how can we have fairer, uncorrupted elections? If secretive influences behind the
scenes, a Deep State, are controlling our social, political, and financial systems for their own selfish purposes, then it would
benefit us to expose who and what these secretive influences are.
American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups may give us a glimpse into the way that government and politics work.
It is revelatory how the DS minions work here btl.
You are seen like rabbits in the lights you are.
Tim Jenkins
Yoyoyo, that's why they have names like 'Crispy', before we burn them to a crisp: and they just can't believe what they are seeing
& reading: left dumbfounded & speechless,
every darn time 🙂 LouisP. needs back up from NormP. , coz' LouisP. has lost the plot & will to contest anything constructively
& factually, simply because the DS suckers are ALL out of Ammo. It's great fun when all yer' ducks are in a row and all you have
to do is pull the trigger. 😉
On a more constructive & positive note, regarding Assange & Flynn, i thought the X22 Report was not bad yesterday: at least
he sees how the Deep State specifically operating within GCHQ & the CIA, desperately need Julian Assange entirely 'unavailable'
for comment.
Now, all we have to do is re-educate Legally, the minds of the masses, who got wholly suckered by the Deep state controlled
& censored MSM: because in courts of Law, we cannot lose in the longterm ! Just be patient and always remember to ridicule the
sheeple that relied upon the WAPO & NYT, (like LouisP. did) and of course, do have extra good fun ridiculing The Guardian readers,
above all else 🙂 We must change Media & Communications Law, more urgently than any thing else, FIRST ! But, High Tide has been
and left 'hasbeens' exposed & lying on the beeches, naked, like driftwood, ready to burn 😉
' the purpose of this book is to talk about "conspiracy realities" that can hopefully give us a deeper and more meaningful understanding
of politics.'
Frankly, I don't want "a deeper and more meaningful understanding of politics".
I want the criminal conspiracy realities to stop and for those guilty of carrying them out to be brought to justice.
US love all around
Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged.
"Encouraged?
Tha's lovely! and more lovely, this "Operations Northwoods" was planned by highest ranking military officials of the US government.
Martin Usher
I recently re-read a biography called "A Man Called Intrepid" about the life and work of a relatively low key Canadian, William
Stephenson. This fellow pretty much wrote the book on the use of intelligence and dirty tricks in warfare. He worked closely with
Churchill and Roosevelt, acting as a private go-between back before the US was involved in WW2 (and was heavily non-interventionist).
He organized a huge black operation, an operation that was initially based in New York. The book is worth reading because once
read it takes little interpolation to get from where they were in the 1940s to where we are today.
Stephenson didn't invent dirty tricks, of course, but he understood their value and the role of propaganda. His role is very
much like Edison's in invention -- Thomas Edison didn't so much invent machines as invent industrial scale research and development,
he industrialized the process and so vastly increased its scope and power.
Antonym
Japan Mil. Inc. was pretty early in the false flag incident business: 1931 with their Mukden incident; their start of their invasion
of Manchuria, as North Eastern China was called than (wonder why?):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukden_Incident
Antonym
They didn't even damage their own railway track: more like the real deal compared to 9/11.
They lied about the terrorists, they lied about the planes (including 265 dead in plane crashes), they lied about the building
collapses and yet you believe they didn't lie about the 2,735 who allegedly died in the buildings when they could so easily fake
it as the evidence shows. Who's more a nutjob – me or you?
George Mc
"So 9/11 is still too recent to call out as an inside conspiracy, is it? Only 18 years old so it can't be called out."
9/11 will never be called out as far as the mainstream media is concerned. Can you imagine the effect if they did? The entire
edifice of "The West" would collapse and the Islamic world would explode in deservedly righteous fury. The case is similar, though
on a much smaller scale, with that of Tony Blair. He was exposed as a liar and should have been tried as a war criminal. But there
was no way that was going to happen since it would necessarily lead to the Western governments throwing up their hands and admitting
that they were conscienceless manipulative bastards. In short, the game would be up. On the one hand, 9/11 and Blair's bullshit
serve the ruling class interests and, on the other hand – and more importantly – the abandonment of 9/11 and Blair would mean
the wrecking of the whole scam. (I am aware that Blair is much more expendable than the official narrative of 9/11 so it is feasible
that he will "go down" later but not until sufficient distance is established between him and the powers that be).
mark
When they can't do anything else, they'll offer up Shady Wahabia as a convenient whipping boy, to divert attention from Kosherstan.
This is their fall back position. Offer up the Shadies as the Lee Harvey Oswald of the operation.
Hugh O'Neill
BigB. Your naďveté is almost touching: you claim archives as truth, despite all that we know about the CIA deliberately creating
false archives. Just as Orwell said: Who controls the present controls the past, controls the future. Watergate burglar Hunt admitted
under oath that he had altered records to show that JFK had ordered the assassination of Diem: he did so so as to tarnish his
reputation amongst Catholics. I also recall that your beloved scholar Zelikow was taken to task for doing much the same thing
in the JFK archives.
Your logic is bizarre: you think Lemnitzer was part of the assassination plot. But if that were so, then how did he get away with
it? Might it not require huge swathes of the military, CIA and State departments and the entire MSM to be complicit.
Iy would seem that you are flogging a dead horse on this website where we esteem the principled scholarship of decent men like
Douglass, Talbot, Curtin and many many more. Do yourself and the rest of us a favour. Try and think more logically/ Which part
of Eisenhower's Valedictory did you not understand?
BigB
I know I am flogging a dead horse: which is why I gave up. The DNSA archive revived my interest. You and I could have sorted this
years ago with a comparative reading of Stern and Douglass side by side. The offer is still open.
The CIA did not fabricate the ExComm tapes. Let us make that perfectly clear. That is a non-argument. They probably did not
even know about them. They were never meant to be made public. That RKF was the chief hawk for Cuban invasion is clear and negates
the narrative construction that they were against the Unspeakable. They were part of it. End of.
This allows me to reach exactly the same conclusion that Lemnitzer and Dulles were involved. Without the whole fabricated 'turning
to peace' constructivism and an overlay about the Unspeakable. There is hardly anything that distinguishes the Unspeakable in
my eyes. Apart from rhetorical speech-acts and narrative constructivism. The facts posted and Stern's books speak for themselves.
You do not even address the fact that Stern is selectively mis-presented. You cannot read about the ExComm version then come up
with another alternative version without critical scrutiny. Not without serious criticism of the narrative made. To repeat: if
RFK was the chief hawk and not the JCOS – so who were the Unspeakable.
"The [ExComm] tapes, however, contradict the book [Thirteen Days] in several fundamental ways and tell a very different
story -- one that is much more complex, interesting, and subtle. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that the tapes actually
expose Thirteen Days as not just selective or slanted history, which is the common affliction of personal diaries and memoirs,
but rather as the capstone of an effort to embellish, if not manipulate, the history of the missile crisis to Robert Kennedy's
perceived advantage."
"As noted earlier, Robert Kennedy was one of the most unwaveringly hawkish participants in the ExComm meetings. On October
16, the first day of the meetings, RFK suggested using the American naval base at Guantánamo to stage an incident that would
justify military intervention: "You know, sink the Maine again or something."[14] He also suggested that "we should just get
into it [attack Cuba] and get it over with and take our losses." On the final day of crisis meetings, October 27, RFK strenuously
opposed any linkage between the Soviet missiles in Cuba and the U.S. missiles in Turkey"
" It's not just television "documentaries" that perpetuate this kind of fiction. Just this year, David Talbot, author of
Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, declared that President Kennedy's "only key support [for a non-military
solution] in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara."[22]
Talbot claimed that RFK "matured from a knee-jerk hawk to a wise and restrained diplomat" during the ExComm meetings.[23] In
fact, Robert Kennedy, along with McNamara, consistently opposed any terms involving the U.S. missiles in Turkey well into the
final hours of "Black Saturday," so-called because if a deal failed to materialize, a superpower clash seemed imminent and
unavoidable. Talbot's account attempts to legitimize the myths in Thirteen Days."
"Of course, Kennedy never abandoned his commitment, even after the missile crisis, to undermine the Cuban regime and get
rid of Fidel Castro."
That is enough to substantiate my claim that Douglass and Talbot based their accounts on fabrication. Curtin merely repeats
these claims. But I am flogging a dead horse if people will not re-appraise their metaphysicla truth-claims in the light of hard
evidence. Believe what you want. Don't let facts get in the way.
Your take on events might be accurate but you rather miss the point; the original article simply contends that JFK was murdered
by the state in a coup d'etat, which is still denied to this day. Whether he deserved to die (presumably you think so) is immaterial.
By my simple logic, he couldn't have been all bad if the really really bad guys murdered him. Furthermore, such logic is also
consistent with JFK's political views before his Presidency e.g. his support for post colonial leaders like Lumumba, Sukarno etc.
and his views on peace e.g. "war will continue until that distant day when the conscientious objector is revered as the warrior
is today. Blessed are the peace makers. May you find some in your tortured illogical mind.
BigB
The original article claims Northwoods was never implemented: which is only partially true. It was rejected because it was overt.
Covert operations – Operation Mongoose – where carried out until 1963. They were run by the Kennedy regime as the highest priority.
As I have now provided several archives to back up.
We can easily establish the facts without resort to comments about my tortured illogical mind. The actual Kennedy's have nothing
to do with this. It is the invented Kennedy's that are constructions of the imagination in comtemporary minds. That is illogical,
Hugh. For everything anyone contends about the imaginary Kennedy's – there is a primary historic record – that prevents the invention.
It still needs contextualising: but out and out fabrications – such as Douglass and Talbot put forward are easily refuted.
Or not. The legend lives on and the facts do not. Not on this site anyway.
Antonym
Quite an effort to blame the Kennedy brothers over the other power brothers, not even mentioned: John Foster Dulles US
secretary of State and Allan Dulles boss and co-creator of the CIA. They had already organized coups in Iran and Guatemala, so
the intent and experience were there: no need for newbie JFK. This "Cuban project" was commissioned in March 1960; JFK only became
president in January 1961.
US foreign policy is driven by "diaspora politics" - double traitors who first betrayed
their home country and are now betraying the US in the name of their nationalist Nazi
ideology and their desire to wage war on Russia.
My friend George Eliason has expanded on the topic.
After weeks of secretive impeachment proceedings from which House Democrats have largely excluded
Republican lawmakers, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA)
announced on Twitter
Wednesday that
his committee will hold its first public impeachment hearings next week
.
Unsurprisingly, those with the most damaging testimony will be peddled out, while witnesses who
gave exonerating testimony such as special envoy Kurt Volker and Ambassador Gordon Sondland are
notably absent from the roster.
First up? On Wednesday, November 13 the panel will hear from
Bill Taylor
- the
top US diplomat in Ukraine who told house investigators last month that he believes there was a
quid pro quo between the Trump administration and Ukraine.
Taylor notably expressed his concerns in a Sept. 9 text message to US ambassador to the EU,
Gordon Sondland, saying: "
I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with
a political campaign.
"
To which Sondland, dictating from Trump, replies "
Bill, I believe you are incorrect
about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any
kind,
" adding "I suggest we stop the back and forth by text."
Sondland, meanwhile, 'updated' his earlier testimony to clarify that he told a top Ukrainian
official that the country would need to commit to investigating former VP Joe Biden and other
Democrats in exchange for the release of nearly $400 million in US military aid.
"I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public
anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks," said Sondland. That said,
Sondland also testified that his quid pro quo comments were
his
opinion,
and that President Trump specifically said he did not want one.
Also testifying next Wednesday will be State Department official George Kent
,
who testified that he was told to "lay low" on Ukraine matters, before being edged out on Ukraine
policy by Sondland according to the
New
York Times
.
Lastly,
recalled US Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch will testify on Friday
. She
privately told House investigators that Rudy Giuliani and his associates led a campaign to have her
ousted based on claims that she was blocking Ukraine from investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian gas
company paying Hunter Biden to sit on its board.
A good politician should of course be sensitive to both public opinion and to potential
allies, so of course Pelosi should take into account Republicans who might want to nail
Trump. If there were enough of those in the Senate, he might even get removed from
office!
Do you suggest that this is not a pro-wrestling type of exercise, a dirty media-oriented
trick designed to increase the chances of Dem neoliberal candidate (supposedly Warren) to win
the 2020 election? And that Schiff serves any other role then reincarnation of Maddow, and want
to get to the bottom of the dirty deals between the US officials and their Ukrainian puppets
both adamant to fleece Ukrainian population via the debt trap and enrich themselves in the
process (the standard of living in Ukraine dropped probably two times after 2014 and now is on
the level of central African countries ($2 a day or so for bottom 50%) , while currency
depreciated around 300%) ?
And truth be told Warren is just a careerist with sharp elbows, who does not challenge the
establishment narrative (kind of Eisenhower republican) and while like Trump during election
campaign she attacks FIRE sector, she most probably will fold in best Obama "change we can
believe in" fashion and will continue imperial foreign policy, while giving some necessary but
limited relief to deplorables domestically in order to prevent mass protests. I want to be
wrong is this assessment, but we have what we have.
I would recommend you to read Matt Taibbi's Hate Inc., which might help to educate you about
intricacies of the US neoliberal political scene. Among other things, he provides an
interesting assessment of "MadCow" style media personalities and their assigned roles: FOX vs.
MSBNC with Maddow "a depressingly exact mirror" of Hannity. Both Sean and Rachel maintain the
bipartisan consensus for ever-increasing military budgets, for everlasting wars, for
ever-expanding surveillance, for ever-growing bailouts of and tax breaks for multinationals and
FIRE sector.
And how the range of opinions has been artificially and skillfully narrowed and emasculated
long before you get to hear it.
The idea is to manufacture fake dissent in order to smother real dissent. That's
by-and-large is what the impeachment process is about.
I can't take anyone seriously once they start denying the Russian influence operation.
Even if we abstract from a distinct neo-McCarthyism smell of such a statement, you are
completely out of touch with reality.
This is not about Russia, or Ukraine, or quid pro quo in supplying weapons to Ukraine
(it is unclear why Liberasts (note the Russian term) think that it is a good thing; it does not
change the balance of power in the region and they might ends in the hands of Ukrainian far
right; kind of Christian Taliban ) .
This is about out of control intelligence agencies (and first of all CIA) as well as
factions of neoliberals/neocons in the Department of Justice, the Department of State, and
Pentagon who want to prevent any change of the USA imperial policies.
In other words, this is about well-being of a loyal (and well paid) imperial troops who want
to preserve their franchise and money flows despite the obvious signs of weakening and/or
disintegration of the US led global neoliberal empire (China, Russia, Iran and other "axis of
resistance" states; frictions with EU, Brexit, etc ) by deposing the current "Emperor" and
installing their own puppet. Kind of Praetorian Guard ( https://www.britannica.com/topic/Praetorian-Guard
) revolt in a modern incarnation.
The hawkish mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own political
fortunes but also global peace...
Last week's vote by House Democrats to formally open an impeachment inquiry of President Donald
Trump followed testimony that appeared to boost their case. Several US officials told Congress that
the Trump administration sought to leverage US military aid to pressure Ukraine into opening
politically tainted investigations.
But liberals cheering on these developments should be
mindful of their limitations -- and their potential consequences.
The available testimony does
not strike me as being as damning for Trump as it is being portrayed. More importantly, even if that
proves to be a faulty interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a dangerous Cold
War mentality that could threaten their own election chances in 2020.
The Democrats' theory of the case is plausible: At the same time as Trump's chosen point man, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, pressured Ukraine to launch politically beneficial investigations, the
president froze military aid as a tool of added leverage. But
although the available testimony
helps the impeachment case so far, we have not uncovered a smoking gun.
Bill Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, says that Sondland told him that the military
assistance was conditioned on a Ukrainian pledge to open investigations into Burisma, the company
where Hunter Biden got his lucrative board seat, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US
election. Taylor also offered the first known testimony that this demand was made explicit to the
Ukrainian side: According to Taylor, National Security Council aide Tim Morrison told him that
Sondland directly communicated the quid pro quo to Andriy Yermak, an aide to Ukraine's prime minister,
Volodymyr Zelensky, at a meeting in Warsaw in September 1.
Morrison corroborated Taylor's testimony in his appearance last week. But we do not yet know
whether Morrison witnessed the Sondland-Yermak conversation that he told Taylor about, or is relying
on his recollection of what Sondland told him. This would allow Sondland to claim that Morrison
misinterpreted him.
What is certain is that Morrison left some wiggle room for Trump.
His opening
statement says that he and Taylor "had no reason to believe that the release of the security sector
assistance might be conditioned on a public statement reopening the Burisma investigation" until he
spoke to Sondland in Warsaw on September 1. "Even then," he added, "I hoped that Ambassador Sondland's
strategy was exclusively his own," and not Trump's. According to CNN,
Morrison
testified
that he tried to find out whether Sondland was relaying demands to the Ukrainian side on
Trump's behalf, or was "going rogue" as a "free radical." The fact that Morrison suspected that
Sondland's "strategy was exclusively his own" means that his testimony did not directly implicate
Trump. And it leaves Trump with the leeway to claim that Sondland, and perhaps Rudolph Giuliani, were
indeed "going rogue."
It is perfectly reasonable to deduce from all of this that what Sondland relayed -- if that is what he
did -- is exactly what Trump intended. Or indeed that Sondland was acting on Trump's orders. But a case
that can only be made from inference may have limited impact beyond those who have already made up
their mind. Even if Trump knew exactly what Sondland was doing, Morrison's testimony leaves him with
the opportunity to throw Sondland under the bus. For his part, Sondland
has
said through his attorney
that he rejects Taylor's characterizations and does not recall the
Warsaw conversation that Taylor (and now Morrison) claim to have heard about.
For Taylor and Morrison's testimony to prove dispositive -- and to make a convincing case to the
broader US public and the Senate Republicans who will decide Trump's fate -- corroborating testimony or
evidence will have to emerge that Trump explicitly linked the military aid to investigations of Biden
and that this demand was explicitly communicated to the Ukrainian side.
That corroboration has yet to come from Ukraine. The Ukrainian government has said that it
did not feel pressured.
The New York Times
reported
that
Ukrainian officials were made aware that US military aid was on hold by the first week in August,
earlier than previously known. Yet communications between US and Ukrainian officials, the
Times
writes,
"did not explicitly link the assistance freeze to the push by Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani for the
investigations." Nor was the aid freeze mentioned in Trump's July 25 phone call with Zelensky.
Yermak, reached via WhatsApp, did not respond to
The Nation
's request for comment. His
testimony will now be critical. As will follow-up testimony by Sondland. Perhaps Taylor and Morrison
are accurately recounting Sondland's words. Or perhaps Sondland will contradict them, or claim that
they are conflating the investigations that Trump sought from Ukraine. As I've
argued
previously
,
demanding an investigation of
documented
(
and
openly acknowledged
)
Ukrainian
meddling
in the 2016 elections is different from demanding one of a political rival.
All of this positions us for a "he said, he said" impeachment scandal:
The question of whether or not Trump is guilty of attempting to extort Ukraine could come down to
which US bureaucrat, one chooses to believe.
There is no reason to put faith in Sondland, who, in line with a longstanding tradition in
US diplomacy, owes his plush diplomatic posting to a lucrative campaign donation to the winning
presidential candidate.
But before we embrace bureaucrats Taylor, Morrison, and another key
witness, NSC official Alexander Vindman, as liberal heroes, it is worth taking stock of their
impartiality and espoused views. Despite efforts to portray them as nonpartisan civil servants, the
trio's opening statements show them to be Cold Warriors devoted to continuing the US-Russia proxy war
in Ukraine. As their testimony makes clear, that proxy war was imperiled by the very action that Trump
took -- briefly freezing the military aid that they all unabashedly support.
In
the
case of Taylor
, arming Ukraine was a condition of his willingness to serve in the job. When the
Trump administration asked him to take the position in Kiev, Taylor recalls thinking, "I could be
effective only if the US policy of strong support for Ukraine were to continue." Taylor even told
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, "If US policy toward Ukraine changed, he would not want me posted
there and I could not stay." No wonder then, that Taylor was upset when he began to hear rumblings
that US military assistance to Ukraine was in jeopardy.
Another star witness, Vindman,
offers
a similar outlook
. Russia, he says, "has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy"
necessitating "a deterrent."
To Vindman, that deterrent is "a strong and independent
Ukraine," which, he believes, is "critical to US national security interests because Ukraine is a
frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression." Morrison concurs,
declaring
that the administration's policy
"was to make sure the United States' longstanding bipartisan
commitment to strengthen Ukraine's security remained unaltered." In his view, "security sector
assistance is, therefore, essential to Ukraine."
Given their open dedication to ensuring the continuation of US military aid to Ukraine, it is
reasonable to question if the trio's interpretations of decisions and conversations about freezing
military aid were colored by their own policy preferences. As
The
Washington Post
put
it
, Vindman "told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as an attempt by
the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy." While undoubtedly many Democrats and Republicans share
Vindman's foreign policy views, it should be up to the president, not unelected bureaucrats, to decide
US foreign policy.
Even if their recollections are accurate, the consequence of embracing their collective
worldview is worth considering.
We do not need wade far into the intricacies of the
Russia-Ukraine conflict to know that the position of Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison -- and by extension,
the entire liberal political and media establishment now cheering them -- is well to the right of what
the Democratic Party embodied just one administration ago.
The very US military assistance that Trump froze is the same that President Barack Obama refused to
provide during his last years in office. Obama feared, as
The New York Times
noted in 2015,
that US weapons sent to Ukraine "
would
only escalate the bloodshed
" in the Donbass and possibly
"[end]
up in the hands of thugs
" (a likely reference to far-right Ukrainians, which proved prescient).
In refusing to send that US military aid, Obama rejected intense pressure from the bipartisan DC
foreign policy establishment. This includes Taylor himself, who, as he notes in his opening statement,
unsuccessfully lobbied Obama to arm Ukraine. Taylor's contemporaneous view is captured in a December
2014 letter he wrote to
The
Washington Post
. Taylor denounced an opinion article,
co-authored by a former Obama State Department official, that had opposed sending US arms to Ukraine
and advocated an agreement between NATO and Russia to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. Backers of such
steps, Taylor wrote, are "advocating that the West appease Russia. Now is not the time for
appeasement."
The very fact that Ukrainegate now has Democrats advocating a policy that Obama rejected
should be enough to spark consideration of whether briefly not arming Ukraine is really the issue on
which to pin removing a president from office.
Moving toward impeachment over Ukraine policy
also has potential electoral consequences: In 2016, voters rejected the neoconservative worldview that
national security bureaucrats like Taylor, Vindman, and Morrison now espouse. Trump, after all,
campaigned on improving ties with Russia and falsely presented himself as an opponent of the hawkish
legacy that these star impeachment witnesses embody. On this note, the fact that John Bolton
may
become the Democrats'
next
star
witness
might also hasten some reflection.
The Cold War mindset that liberals have embraced threatens not just their own
political fortunes but also global peace.
Lost in the outrage over Trump's
potential -- and ultimately unrealized -- interruption of US military assistance to Ukraine is that Zelensky,
the new Ukrainian president, openly campaigned on
ending
the war with Russia
that this military assistance fuels. Zelensky is now
under
heavy pressure from Ukraine's far right
to abandon his pledge to make peace with Moscow. It does
not bode well for Zelensky's chances if the official opposition party of his US patron is effectively
joining hands with his country's own right-wing forces to continue the war.
The dangers extend beyond Ukraine's borders. The day after the House impeachment vote,
Russia warned that there is not enough time left to renegotiate the New START Treaty, the last
remaining accord limiting the US and Russian nuclear arsenals, before it expires in 2021.
The
treaty's demise,
The
New
York Times
notes
, would leave the world's top two nuclear powers "free to expand their
arsenals without limits" on "the most powerful weapons both sides can launch." According to Vladimir
Leontyev, Russia's top arms control official, the Kremlin hopes to renew or revise the accord, but
"the US administration is silent about it." The Russians' impression, Leontyev added, is that the
Trump White House "is organically against any restrictions being imposed on the United States."
The Russian warning, the
Times
adds, is "the latest in a sobering list of signals that the
great powers appear
headed
for a new arms race
," following Trump's
earlier
withdrawal
from another critical nuclear accord, the INF Treaty. It is also the latest
in
a
long
list
of
Trump
administration
policies
that
have
escalated
tensions
with
nuclear-armed
Russia
-- including
authorizing
the US military assistance
to Ukraine that Obama once opposed and that Democrats now seek to
impeach him over.
The fact that this list includes increasing the threat of nuclear
conflict should be sobering to any liberal who continues to push the falsehood that Trump does
Russia's bidding
-- all the more so given that the propagation of this falsehood helps
worsen, rather than reduce, those tensions.
There is another list worth being mindful of: The many Trump administration scandals that
Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, overshadows. The day after the House impeachment vote also
coincided
with the end of the comment period
for a Trump administration plan to cut food programs for
low-income Americans. According to government estimates, around 3 million recipients face the loss of
food stamp benefits and close to 1 million children are at risk of losing automatic placement in
federal school lunch programs.
"Instead of declaring a war on poverty, this president has declared war on our most vulnerable
citizens," Representative Marcia Fudge (D-OH), the chairwoman of the House Agriculture Committee's
subcommittee on nutrition,
said
last month
. That is undoubtedly correct, which makes it all the more puzzling that Democrats are
preoccupied with an impeachment scandal that overshadows Trump's attacks on the vulnerable and
encourages him to escalate wars abroad. The same goes for their stance on Syria, which saw
bipartisan
opposition
to an announced US withdrawal but next to no opposition to Trump's sudden reversal with
the explicit aim of
stealing
Syria's oil
.
It is true that polls currently show that a
majority
of Americans support impeachment
.
It is also encouraging that Democratic presidential
candidates are
sidelining
the impeachment drama
to focus on serious policy issues on the campaign trail. At the same time,
it appears that Democrats are not moving the needle in the battleground states that will decide the
next election.
A new
New
York Times
/Siena College poll
of the six closest swing states that went Republican in 2016
finds that Trump's "advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole
remains
intact or has even grown
since 2016."
With 2020 on the horizon, the dangers of the Democratic establishment's priorities cannot
be emphasized enough.
I find it hard to believe, as the author says, that a majority of
Americans support impeachment. That's because no one would know
why. It hasn't been disclosed or revealed what "crime" Trump
committed. That leaves the question: Impeach him for what exactly?
What they aren't telling you is the poll probably asks, "If Pres.
Trump was guilty of a serious felony, do you think he should be
impeached?" To which a majority would answer, "yes"
More importantly, even if that proves to be a faulty
interpretation, the impeachment frenzy is enrolling liberals in a
dangerous Cold War mentality that could threaten their own
election chances in 2020.
Are you kidding me? They already ******* lost.
We gave them a serious ear, they fucked everything up, and this is
their reaction to the world finally giving them the finger. The
worse they behave, the better. If we're lucky, we'll end up with a
civil war and subsequent ******* purge, so that our future is sealed
for the next 50-100 years.
I'm 64 years old, a veteran, but I'd still go hand-to-hand with
that ******* fat insubordinate traitor Col. Vindman. What a piece
of **** he is. He should be deported back the Ukraine. As far as
I'm concerned, he forfeited his citizenship here..........and
people say we shouldn't criticize him. ********.
Cold war and the current insane lunatism do not make a perfect match.
We are residing in an era of denial of all proven experimental
science, but it would be nice too witness, what future historians
will write about this epoch of a rock bottom of the Western
civilization after 250 years of scientific progress.
"Trump's Impeachment Lures Democrats Into A Cold War Mentality"
Liberals are always in
war mode
... incessantly pushing pushing
pushing for their destructive communist agenda. Think about it...
they're NEVER satisfied. When was the last time you ever heard of a
Leftist willingly giving an inch of ground on their ideologies or
platforms? Never. Conservatives, on the other hand, have acquiesced
so much in the last 50 years, that the term which defines them no
longer has any meaning. There's nothing left to "conserve". I mean,
John F. Kennedy was FAR more "conservative" by today's standards than
ANY mainstream Republican politician. That is why the terms
"populist" or "nationalist" are better labels for those on the right
who truly want to change things.
We like war! We're a
war-like people! We like war because we're good at it! You know
why we're good at it? Cause we get a lot of practice. This
country's only 200 years old and already, we've had 10 major wars.
We average a major war every 20 years in this country so we're
good at it! And it's a good thing we are; we're not very good at
anything else anymore! Huh? Can't build a decent car, can't make a
TV set or a VCR worth a ****, got no steel industry left, can't
educate our young people, can't get health care to our old people,
but we can bomb the **** out of your country all right! Huh?
Especially if your country is full of brown people; oh we like
that don't we? That's our hobby! That's our new job in the world:
bombing brown people. Iraq, Panama, Grenada, Libya, you got some
brown people in your country, tell them to watch the **** out or
we'll goddamn bomb them! Well when's the last white people you can
remember that we bombed? Can you remember the last white--- can
you remember ANY white people we've ever bombed? The Germans,
those are the only ones and that's only because they were trying
to cut in on our action. They wanted to dominate the world!
********! THAT'S OUR ******* JOB! !
The real problem is they appear to still be largely half the
country. We keep letting more of them invade...demographics is
destiny....I'm beginning to believe it's already a foregone
conclusion.
I don't know. Seems like when they're approached properly
there's plenty of motivation to walk away. Every person who
bothered to make and upload a video probably represents
hundreds or thousands of others.
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen
that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses
slowly, one by one."― Charles MacKay,
Extraordinary Popular
Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
The Democratic operative attorney representing the anti-Trump whistleblower vowed to "
get rid
of Trump
", and said that the "
#coup has started
" in 2017 tweets.
Mark Zaid, the John Podesta, Clinton and Schumer-linked attorney who founded the anti-Trump
nonprofit 'Whistleblower Aid' in 2017, tweeted "It's very scary.
We will get rid of him, and
this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.
"
As
Fox News
reports, Zaid remarked in July 2017 "
I predict @CNN will play a key role
in @realdDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.
"
The posts, which came shortly after President Trump fired then-acting Attorney General Sally
Yates for failing to defend federal laws in court, are likely to fuel Republican concerns that the
whistleblower's complaint is tainted with partisanship.
"The whistleblower's lawyer gave away the game," the Trump campaign's communications director,
Tim Murtaugh. told Fox News. "It was always the Democrats' plan to stage a coup and impeach
President Trump and all they ever needed was the right scheme. They whiffed on Mueller so now
they've settled on the perfectly fine Ukraine phone call. This proves this was orchestrated from
the beginning."
Trump has repeatedly accused Democrats and partisans in the intelligence community of
effectively plotting a coup against him, through selective leaks and lengthy investigations. -
Fox
News
"45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump.
I'll be old, but will be worth the wait," he tweeted in
June 2017
.
Hilariously, Zaid describes himself as a "non-partisan" attorney "handling cases involving national
security, security clearances, govt investigations, media, Freedom of Information Act, &
whistleblowing, according to
Breitbart
's Aaron Klein, who noted that Zaid's "Whistleblower Aid" organization is
heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic policies.
Whistleblower Aid was founded in September 2017 in the wake of Trump's presidency to encourage
government whistleblowers to come forward.
The group did not sit around waiting for whistleblowers. Upon its founding, Whistleblower Aid
actively sought to attract the attention of Trump administration government employees by
reportedly
blasting advertisements for its whistleblower services on Metro trains, using mobile
billboards that circled government offices for 10 hours a day, and handing out whistles on street
corners as a gimmick to gain attention.
When Whistleblower Aid was first formed, the main banner for the mission statement of its
website contained clearly anti-Trump language.
"Today our Republic is under threat. Whistleblower Aid is committed to protecting the rule of
law in the United States and around the world," read the previous statement which can still be
viewed
via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. -
Breitbart
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has called on Congressional Republicans to subpoena the anti-Trump
whistleblower, suggesting
he may be involved in corrupt business dealings in Ukraine
.
In a Tuesday interview, Paul said that the whistleblower - reported to be CIA officer Eric
Ciaramella - "
is a material witness to the possible corruption of Hunter Biden and Joe
Biden,
" and that Congress should
investigate the whistleblower's ties to the Biden
family and Burisma holdings
, the Ukrainian gas company that paid Hunter Biden to sit on
its board, according to
BuzzFeed
.
"
[The whistleblower] might have traveled with Joe Biden to Ukraine for all we know
.
We should look at his writings. We should know all of this stuff to see whether or not he has any
intersection with Burisma and with Hunter Biden," said Paul.
The president's most ardent supporters in Congress have long insisted
the real
corruption in Ukraine was done by former vice president Joe Biden
and his family rather
than by President Donald Trump. Many have also called for outing the anonymous intelligence
official who filed a whistleblower complaint alleging Trump demanded a political quid pro quo
from the Ukrainian government -- an investigation into the Biden family in exchange for hundreds
of millions of dollars in military aid. But, until now, they had not brought those two lines of
attack together. -
BuzzFeed
When asked if he has any evidence for his suppositions, Paul said "
We don't know unless
we ask.
"
Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was surprised at Paul's comments, saying
"He needs to tell us. You can't ask a judge. You can't ask members [of Congress], '
Do you
want to subpoena this guy?
' He might be this, he might be that."
Both Graham and Paul do agree, however, that
the whistleblower's identity should be
officially made public
, with Paul telling reporters that he "probably will" disclose his
name.
"I'm more than willing to, and I probably will at some point. ... There is no law preventing
anybody from saying the name," said Paul.
Other lawmakers such as Sen. Mitt Romney, Roy Blunt, John Cornyn and Lisa Murkowski say he
should remain anonymous. The whistleblower's attorney, Mark Zaid, said that Paul and others are using disinformation to
distract from the substance of the allegations.
"I imagine at some point soon our client will be accused of masterminding JFK's assassination as
well," he said. "Any Member of Congress who pushes to expose the whistleblower will not only
undermine the integrity of the system but will be disgracing their office and betraying the
interests of the Constitution and the American people."
Ever since the whistleblower complaint from inside the CIA first surfaced against President Donald Trump,
a steady stream of national security and State Department officials have testified about their consternation at his dealings
with Ukraine. The dominant impression that they have left, however, is that they are blurring the line between what constitutes
unsavory behavior when it comes to pressuring Ukraine for information on domestic political opponents, on the one hand,
and what are legitimate policy disagreements. Indeed, it appears that they are, more often than not, substituting their
own political judgments for the president's when it comes to the conduct of American foreign policy-something that should
concern Democrats as much as Republicans. A whole caste of government officials seems to believe that for an American president
to aim to improve relations with Russia is an illegitimate, even treasonous, aspiration.
Today was no exception. Consider the testimony of State Department official Catherine Croft. In her brief opening statement,
she declared, "As the Director covering Ukraine, I staffed the President's December 2017 decision to provide Ukraine with
Javelin anti-tank missile systems. I also staffed his September 2017 meeting with then-President Petro Poroshenko on the
margins of the UN General Assembly. Throughout both, I heard-directly and indirectly-President Trump describe Ukraine as
a corrupt country." The implication was that Trump had no business complaining about corruption in Ukraine. But why not?
The persistence of corruption, which President Volodymyr Zelensky was elected by an overwhelming majority to combat, is
hardly a secret.
Perhaps even more revealing was Croft's declaration to the House Intelligence Committee that in November 2018 the White
House refused to approve the release of a statement condemning Russia for seizing three Ukrainian ships located close to
Crimea. It sounds damning at first glance. But once again, why shouldn't Trump have practiced restraint in this instance
if he was intent on improving relations with Russia, a platform that he was elected on? As it happens, the Zelensky campaign
depicted the ship incident as a political provocation on the part of the Poroshenko government.
The implicit assumptions that appear to guide these veteran members of the bureaucracy were even more obvious in the
case of Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman. As the media has underscored, he is the first person to testify in the impeachment
inquiry who participated in the July 25 phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Initially, Trump's defenders sought to portray him as guilty of "espionage" or dual loyalty because he emigrated to America
as a toddler. But this was always preposterous. More telling is that Vindman, no less than Croft, epitomizes a mindset that
seems to regard a deviation from the strictures of the foreign policy establishment as by definition unacceptable.
In his opening statement, Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression."
He added, "the U.S. government policy community's view is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise
of reforms will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy
and economic prosperity." But what if Trump has a different view of matters than the "U.S. government policy community's
view"? After all, Trump was elected in part on his explicit declarations that he would not rely on the experts who had plunged
America into Iraq and Libya.
Consider as well the attention that Vindman has lavished upon Trump's phone call with Zelensky. According to Vindman,
portions of the call he considered important were not included in the document kept by the government that was released
to the last month. This includes President Trump claiming there are recordings of former Vice President Joe Biden discussing
Ukrainian corruption, and President Zelensky specifically referring to Biden's son's company, Burisma Holdings. The document
released by the administration includes Zelensky talking about "the company" and Trump saying, "Biden went around bragging
that he stopped the prosecution," which is an interpretation of a video of Joe Biden describing how the Obama administration
made firing Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin a prerequisite for receiving foreign aid. Vindman's recollection
of the call does not change the substance of what was already understood. However, the changes in language are being portrayed
as more analogous to Richard Nixon editing the White House tapes than the routine process that produced a routine document.
"Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, who heard President Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president and was alarmed, testified
that he tried and failed to add key details to the rough transcript," blared the New York Times headline.
For two months, major media outlets have described the document as a "transcript," as a shorthand term. But as the document,
and TNI's previous reporting
makes clear, it is not a transcript in the strict sense of the term. "This is what's known as a memorandum of conversation:
MEMCON. It is a standard tool that is used throughout the government and the procedures can vary from agency to agency,
or who your boss is. But generally, they're all done about the same way," explains Peter Van Buren, a former Foreign Service
Officer in the State Department.
"In my own experience in government for 24 years it's a pretty standardized practice. The idea is, for all sorts of reasons,
most interactions are not recorded. Instead, they're memorialized through this process of MEMCON. Typically, while there
are many people who may be listening in or present at a meeting, someone (or sometimes two people) are designated as official
notetakers and they take down the conversation. And they're not trying necessarily to get an exact word-for-word account,
but they're certainly trying to get an idea for idea. And in many cases when you're dealing at the White House level, they
are getting it pretty much word for word," Van Buren tells TNI.
As a participant on the phone call, Vindman would have been one of the early editors. As the process continued, officials
higher than him made changes, just like the editor of a magazine would for a writer. The precise reasons for the changes
are open-ended and probably unknowable. There exists no evidence that the changes were nefarious or anything other than
mundane word choice. The document released to the public is the official U.S. government record of what happened.
John Marshall Evans, a former U.S. Foreign Service officer and Ambassador to Armenia, narrows down what should be the
focus of this inquiry-and what it's actually becoming. "The issue is indeed not one of policy, which the President can change,
but of the purpose that was pursued in the July 25th call: whether it was in the national interest or a private gain," he
says. So far, no one has shown that Trump demanded that the Ukrainian government produce a specific result or fabricate
evidence about the Bidens.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi is supposed to hold a House vote on the impeachment inquiry tomorrow, after a barrage of criticism
from Republicans for moving forward without one. Whether the open hearings and public testimony will provide any more substance
than a parade of national security bureaucrats ventilating their grievances about a president who sought to take a different
course in foreign policy is questionable.
Vindman declared, that Ukraine is a "frontline state and a bulwark against Russian aggression.
Complete bull. The truth is that there is no Russian aggression. What we're seeing from Russia is actually pushback against
American aggression. The US is trying to turn Ukraine into a NATO member, knowing that doing so would severely undermine Russia's
national security. The American goal is to reduce Russia's influence in world affairs, and to be in geostrategic position to relate
to Russia coercively. Little wonder, then, that Russia lashed back by taking Crimean and Donbass.
For Vindman to assert that Ukraine is "bulwark against Russian aggression" and a matter vital to the US's national interests
only goes to prove that America is under the influence of liars. The American people are being mislead about the truth.
Ukraine's on Russia's front door step. It overlaps with Russia territorially, demographically, and geopolitically. By entering
Ukraine for strategic reasons, the US has provoked and threatened Russia. There is no justification for this reckless foreign
policy move by the US.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense. Every foreign
policy move this president has made has only benefited Russia, not the US! Secondly, I have slowly but surely become convinced
Trump is a wholly owned subsidiary of Putin Inc. I don't know what Putin has on Trump (but I think money laundering would be a
solid guess) or if it's the promise of Putin's blessing for a Trump Tower Moscow, but whatever it is, he has Trump in his back
pocket. And lastly, if everyone has not figured out all The Donald cares about is money in his pocket they are fools. Face it,
writer, you either have bought that bag of magic beans Trump sold the electorate in the last election or you are being willfully
blind to who and what this 'man' is.
First off, 'improving relations with Russia' does NOT mean doing whatever is best for Russia at our expense.
That's confusing. How exactly is America doing something for Russia at the expense of the US? If you really believe this, then
you've been fooled by American propaganda into thinking that Ukraine is an extension of the continental US. The reality, of course,
is that Ukraine is on the other side of the world, and does not in any way matter to America's vital national interests.
In Ukraine, America is overstretching its ambitions, and is behaving like an aggressor.
Let's start with the sanctions passed by Congress on Russian oligarchs for invading the Ukraine. Somehow, they just weren't
imposed until Trump was forced to. Then there is the deliberate sabotage of all of our alliances. Now it's stabbing the kurds
in the back so Putin and Erdogan can split that area up between them. The only thing Trump, Turkey and Russia have in common are
Trump Tower Istanbul and his desire for Trump Tower Moscow. He is, quite literally selling us out.
P.S. Nice try, Russkie, but it wasn't us who invaded and seized Crimea and western Ukraine. That was you. We may stick our
noses into world affairs more than we should, but we have not stolen any land or resources of any country we are in. Get right
down to it, if it wasn't for your nukes, we'd put you down like a rabid dog. Don't think we can? Your economy is the size of our
state of Georgia and it ain't even close to the top. Just another commie basket case.
According to the survey, 73% of those polled have little to no trust in how the House
impeachment inquiry has been conducted to date, while 59% say it would "make more sense" to
wait until next year's election . The same poll found just 44% of Americans think that Trump
should be impeached and removed from office .
"Even many who would like to impeach Trump seem to feel that beating him at the polls in
2020 is actually a better strategy for ousting him from office," said Patrick Murray, director
of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.
What's more, 71% of respondents think it's unlikely the Senate would vote to remove Trump -
which, as Nancy Pelosi warned, would simply empower Republicans after Democrats can't tank
Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate whether former VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter engaged
in a quid-pro-quo to personally enrich themselves.
That said, just over half of Americans think its a good idea for the House to conduct the
inquiries, even if many of those people have 'little to no trust' in it!
Those who approve of the job Trump is doing rose to 42% from 41% in September, while 51%
disapprove, down from 53% in September.
Of those who approve, 62% can't think of anything he could do that would cause them to stop
supporting him .
Methodology: The Monmouth University Poll was sponsored and conducted by the Monmouth
University Polling Institute from Oct. 30 to Nov. 3 with a national random sample of 908 adults
age 18 and older. The margin of error for the total sample is ± 3.3.
"Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
These are the offenses designated in the Constitution for which presidents may be impeached
and removed from office.
Which of these did Trump commit?
According to his accusers in this city, his crime is as follows:
The president imperiled our "national security" by delaying, for his own reasons, a transfer
of lethal aid and Javelin missiles to Ukraine -- the very weapons President Barack Obama
refused to send to Ukraine, lest they widen and lengthen the war in the Donbass.
Now, if Trump imperiled national security by delaying the transfer of the weapons, was not
Obama guilty of a greater crime against our national security by denying the weapons to Ukraine
altogether?
The essence of Trump's crime, it is said, was that he demanded a quid pro quo. He passed
word to incoming President Volodymyr Zelensky that if he did not hold a press conference to
announce an investigation of Joe Biden and son Hunter, he, Zelensky, would not get the arms we
had promised, nor the Oval Office meeting that Zelensky requested.
Again, where is the body of the crime?
Did Zelensky hold the press conference Trump demanded? No.
Did Zelensky announce Ukraine was investigating the Bidens? No.
Did Zelensky get the Oval Office meeting? Yes.
Did Zelensky get the U.S. weapons? Yes, $400 million in arms and Javelin missiles.
Where then is the crime? When was it consummated?
Or was this a thought crime, a bluff to get Zelensky to look into how Hunter Biden got a
$50,000-a-month seat on the board of the most corrupt company in Ukraine, days after Joe Biden
was in Kyiv threatening to block a $1 billion loan guarantee to the regime.
By the way, what was Biden doing approving a $1 billion loan guarantee to Petro Poroshenko's
regime, which was so corrupt that it ferociously fought not to fire a prosecutor whose
dismissal all of Europe was demanding?
Should Biden be nominated and elected, a special prosecutor would have to be appointed to
investigate this smelly deal, as well as the $1 billion Hunter got for his equity fund from the
Chinese after his father visited the Middle Kingdom.
Given last week's party-line vote in the House, where all but two Democrats voted to proceed
with the inquiry, the impeachment of President Donald Trump seems baked in the cake. Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's designation of Adam Schiff to head the investigation tells us all we need to
know about the sincerity of her pledge to make the inquiry bipartisan.
Suppose Zelensky had agreed to an investigation into how Hunter Biden, with no experience in
the energy industry, got his sweetheart deal.
Would that be impeachable for Trump? How so?
Does not the U.S. have a right to put conditions on its foreign aid and to seek guarantees
that our money will not be used as graft to grifters?
A few of those listening in on Trump's phone call with Zelensky have gone public asserting
that withholding the arms transfer to Kyiv imperiled our national security.
But if east Ukraine rises up and secedes from Kyiv, as Kyiv itself seceded from the Russian
Federation at the end of the Cold War, how does any of that endanger America's national
security? Did not George H.W. Bush himself warn, three decades ago, that a declaration of
independence by Ukraine from the Russian Federation would constitute an act of "suicidal
nationalism"?
And who does the Constitution charge with making the decisions as to whether military aid
goes to Ukraine?
The president, or some NSC staffer who sits on the Ukraine desk?
Since the U.S.-backed overthrow of the pro-Russian regime in Kyiv in 2014, and Vladimir
Putin's counter-seizure of Crimea and support for pro-Russian secessionists in Donetsk and
Luhansk, there has been a debate in the USA over how to deal with this faraway problem.
Obama decided not to send lethal aid or tank-killing Javelin missiles, lest the U.S. arms
escalate a war between Russia and Ukraine that Kyiv could not win.
The Republicans argued the issue at their Cleveland convention. Trump's team won that
argument, but lethal aid and Javelin missiles were eventually sent to Kyiv. Now Trump has sent
even more weapons.
But again, the authority to make this decision resides in the Oval Office, not in the NSC,
not in the CIA, and not with those in the "deep state" who have their own settled view of what
U.S. foreign policy should be.
The authority lies with the elected president of the United States.
This impeachment battle will almost surely reach the Senate.
And in the end it will be about what it has been about since the beginning: An attempt by
the deep state and its media, bureaucratic and political allies to overturn the democratic
verdict of 2016 and to overthrow the elected president of the United States.
The establishment's coup attempt is now approaching end game.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made
and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. T
"... 'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must do so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.' ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative, ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft, ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Open Information Partnership ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Media Diversity Institute ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Moon of Alabama ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Integrity Initiative. ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Institute of Statecraft ..."
"... Integrity Initiative ..."
"... 'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must do so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.' ..."
james @ 4 opined;"
thanks b... i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some
need to find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it
purely to generate more money into the industrial military complex"
I'm with ya' james, this demonization of Russia, and any countries that refuse the
empire's beck and call, is around to stay I'm afraid.
And yes, it's all of the above, but, mostly about the $.
'i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some need to
find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it purely to
generate more money into the industrial military complex? what is the rationale?...'
They're the nuclear rival that don't import many of the u.s.'s consumer products.
otherwise, it'd either be china, or both...
plus, of course, there's all them cold war memes that can be triggered in a sizable
portion of the population's heads...
I suspect the the antipathy to Russia and the extensive disinformation campaign stems from
a 'Five Eyes' project and strategy ... with the malign Uncle as its director.
@james #4 "i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia..."
Same motivation as all forgotten empires had. Even our cat want some of it, staring down on
his employees from his basket high up on the fridge with that evil look on his face. We call
it his World Domination Command Centre, WDCC for short. Global domination is what they crave.
Kill the competition, loot its resources, more power, more money. America has been looted,
devastated. Time for the locusts to move on to greener pastures. Russia is the promised land,
the next wild west new world to colonize. Problem is, as always, the natives.
I am hopeful that more and more of the population are realising that if an organisation is
promoted by any western government as a source of information, then that organisation will
provide disinformation by default. There are few, if any, journalists anywhere that are not
part of the empirical disinformation program. Those that are not will be independent and,
therefore, by alternate default, extremely wary of western government/government-funded/NGO
sources. All the hegemon and it's vassals can do now is double-down and hope that the
populations will go back to sleep.
As with all things evil, the British oligarchy began in the 1830s targeting Russia as a
threat to its autocratic interests, in this case "defending" the Ottoman Empire against
Russia.
The Brits were further scared out of their wits when the 1917 Russian Revolution was on
the verge of establishing an anti-capitalist system. So they, along with a ragtag bag of
co-conspirators including the United States, launched a military invasion of Russia.
That's right, U.S. troops landed at two places in Russia and fought against Russian
soldiers. The Brits/U.S/et. al. suffered a humiliating defeat, leaving so quickly that U.S.
dead soldiers were left behind buried in Soviet soil, to be repatriated years later.
But it's Russia that is the threat to "us", right?
@ Trisha | Nov 4 2019 21:22 utc | 16
___________________________________________
Thanks for your informative comment. I'd started to reply to James that Russia has been a
default "boogie-man" and Western scapegoat since the 19th Century, but that sounded
unhelpfully circular-- and I didn't have the ambition to refresh my understanding with actual
historical facts. ;)
The fact that a sort of Western "coalition of the willing" invaded Russia after the 1917
revolution is still a well-kept secret! It was never mentioned in my (US) school courses,
from parochial school through the "Honors Survey of Western Civilization" course I took in
college.
At the end of last year some enterprising 'anonymous' person
released papers of the British Integrity Initiative. As we
reported at that time:
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and thereby with influencing the public, military and governments of
a number of countries. What follows is an contextual analysis of the third batch of the
Initiative's internal papers which were
dumped by an anonymous yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its offshoot
Integrity Initiative . The
Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state donors.
That plans seems to have been the blueprint for the
March 2018 mass expulsion of Russian diplomats during the Skripal affair. Several of the
other measures Donnelly and his ilk planned
have since been implemented.
The Institute of Statecraft was registered as a charity under Scottish law. After
the release of its papers the Scottish charity regulator OSCR investigated the status of the
Institute . Unsurprisingly the OSCR
found (pdf) that its shady behavior and its running of anti-Russian disinformation
campaigns did not justify its status:
In the course of our inquiry we found that the charity was not meeting the charity test
required for continuing registration as a charity in Scotland because:
its purposes were not entirely charitable
one of its most significant activities, a project known as Integrity Initiative, did
not provide public benefit in furtherance of the charity's purposes
private benefit to charity trustees was not incidental to the charity's activities that
advance its charitable purpose
The purpose of the charity was purportedly to educate the public. But the regulator found
that the Integrity Initiative did not educate but only spread its own version of
'reality' i.e. disinformation. The charity lacked neutrality:
In addition, our Meeting the Charity Test guidance states that:
'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must do
so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.'
OSCR's view is that the Integrity Initiative expressed a particular perspective intended
to persuade the public to a specific point of view and, given the nature of the subject
matter, it was not sufficiently neutral to advance education.
The crocks who were running the charity were filling their own pockets with the public money
the 'charity' received:
To pass the charity test any private benefit must be incidental to the organisation's
activities that advance its purposes, that is, it must be a necessary result or by-product of
the organisation's activities and not an end in itself.
We were concerned at the level of private benefit that a number of the charity's trustees
were gaining from the exercise of its functions.
There was no clear explanation as to why the salaries being paid to charity trustees were
considered reasonable and necessary, and we had concerns about the charity trustees'
decision-making process around these payments. We do not consider that this private benefit
was incidental to the organisation's activities that advanced its purposes.
The regulator also noted a lack of record keeping and a lack of documentation of decision
making by the Institute's trustees.
Unfortunately the charity regulator will not close down the Institute of
Statecraft. It accepted that it rectified its behavior by taking a number of measures:
the charity has ceased to undertake any activity related to the Integrity initiative,
and this is now undertaken by a non-charitable entity having no legal connection to the
charity
the charity has ceased to remunerate any of its charity trustees
the charity is taking external guidance on governance
some charity trustees are to stand down as soon as replacement charity trustees can be
identified
The Integrity Initiative, as paid for by the British Foreign Office, Ministry of
Defense, NATO and other such entities, will live on as a non-charitable entity with even less
transparency. Its website, as well as that of Institute of Statecraft, is down. That
it will now have to live in total secrecy will make it more difficult for it to recruit foreign
journalist to spread its propaganda.
On 3rd April, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) minister Alan Duncan revealed his
department's 'Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme' - which bankrolls the
Institute for Statecraft and its Integrity Initiative subsidiary - was funding a new
endeavour, Open Information
Partnership (OIP).
The announcement, buried in a response to a written parliamentary question, was supremely
light on detail - Duncan merely said the effort would "respond to manipulated information in
the news, social media and across the public space". Official fanfare was also unforthcoming
- there was no accompanying press release, briefing document, or even mention of the launch
by any government minister or department via social media channels.
The original proposal for
the Open Information Partnership , as
released by 'anonymous' , included the Institute of Statecraft , a Media
Diversity Institute , Bellingcat , DFR Lab (i.e. the Atlantic Council)
and some others in a so called ZINC Network . On the current OIP website the Institute of
Statecraft 'charity' is no longer named.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama reports on the issue:
At the end of last year some enterprising 'anonymous' person
released papers of the British Integrity Initiative. As we reported
at that time:
The British government financed Integrity Initiative is tasked with spreading
anti-Russian propaganda and thereby with influencing the public, military and governments
of a number of countries. What follows is an contextual analysis of the third batch of the
Initiative's internal papers which were
dumped by an anonymous yesterday.
Christopher Nigel Donnelly (CND) is the co-director of The Institute for Statecraft and founder of its
offshoot Integrity
Initiative . The Initiative claims to "Defend Democracy Against Disinformation".
Both, the Institute as well as the Initiative, claim to be independent Non-Government
Organizations. Both are financed by the British government, NATO and other state
donors.
That plans seems to have been the blueprint for the
March 2018 mass expulsion of Russian diplomats during the Skripal affair. Several of the
other measures Donnelly and his ilk planned
have since been implemented.
The Institute of Statecraft was registered as a charity under Scottish law. After
the release of its papers the Scottish charity regulator OSCR investigated the status of the
Institute . Unsurprisingly the OSCR
found (pdf) that its shady behavior and its running of anti-Russian disinformation
campaigns did not justify its status:
In the course of our inquiry we found that the charity was not meeting the charity test
required for continuing registration as a charity in Scotland because:
its purposes were not entirely charitable
one of its most significant activities, a project known as Integrity Initiative, did
not provide public benefit in furtherance of the charity's purposes
private benefit to charity trustees was not incidental to the charity's activities
that advance its charitable purpose
The purpose of the charity was purportedly to educate the public. But the regulator found
that the Integrity Initiative did not educate but only spread its own version of
'reality' i.e. disinformation. The charity lacked neutrality:
In addition, our Meeting the Charity Test guidance states that:
'Where a charity is providing education in respect of a controversial issue it must
do so in a way that allows the people being educated to make up their own minds.'
OSCR's view is that the Integrity Initiative expressed a particular perspective intended
to persuade the public to a specific point of view and, given the nature of the subject
matter, it was not sufficiently neutral to advance education.
The crocks who were running the charity were filling their own pockets with the public
money the 'charity' received:
To pass the charity test any private benefit must be incidental to the organisation's
activities that advance its purposes, that is, it must be a necessary result or by-product
of the organisation's activities and not an end in itself.
We were concerned at the level of private benefit that a number of the charity's
trustees were gaining from the exercise of its functions.
There was no clear explanation as to why the salaries being paid to charity trustees
were considered reasonable and necessary, and we had concerns about the charity trustees'
decision-making process around these payments. We do not consider that this private benefit
was incidental to the organisation's activities that advanced its purposes.
The regulator also noted a lack of record keeping and a lack of documentation of decision
making by the Institute's trustees.
Unfortunately the charity regulator will not close down the Institute of
Statecraft. It accepted that it rectified its behavior by taking a number of
measures:
the charity has ceased to undertake any activity related to the Integrity initiative,
and this is now undertaken by a non-charitable entity having no legal connection to the
charity
the charity has ceased to remunerate any of its charity trustees
the charity is taking external guidance on governance
some charity trustees are to stand down as soon as replacement charity trustees can
be identified
The Integrity Initiative, as paid for by the British Foreign Office, Ministry of
Defense, NATO and other such entities, will live on as a non-charitable entity with even less
transparency. Its website, as well as that of Institute of Statecraft, is down. That
it will now have to live in total secrecy will make it more difficult for it to recruit
foreign journalist to spread its propaganda.
On 3rd April, Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) minister Alan Duncan revealed his
department's 'Counter Disinformation and Media Development Programme' - which bankrolls the
Institute for Statecraft and its Integrity Initiative subsidiary - was funding a new
endeavour, Open
Information Partnership (OIP).
The announcement, buried in a response to a written parliamentary question, was
supremely light on detail - Duncan merely said the effort would "respond to manipulated
information in the news, social media and across the public space". Official fanfare was
also unforthcoming - there was no accompanying press release, briefing document, or even
mention of the launch by any government minister or department via social media
channels.
The original proposal
for the Open Information Partnership , as
released by 'anonymous' , included the Institute of Statecraft , a Media
Diversity Institute , Bellingcat , DFR Lab (i.e. the Atlantic Council)
and some others in a so called ZINC Network . On the current OIP website the Institute of
Statecraft 'charity' is no longer named.
---
Previous Moon of Alabama reports on the issue:
Thanks, B. It's a pity the people of the UK have no foreseeable recourse to stop shadow
government operations like this that exist to disinform the people of the UK.
At Kit Klarenberg's Twitter ,
there's a long tweet thread further detailing what b has written above. I can't help be
wonder how the Monty Python troop would have portrayed the Institute for Statecraft and its
parent the Integrity Initiative. It appears that the governments of the English speaking
nations became addicted to lying to their citizens @1900 and are unable to kick the habit and
instead have actually deepened their addiction. Elsewhere on the planet, it seems that people
are learning it's easier to talk straight and transparently with other people and to pool
resources and combine efforts to form a community of nations and humanity to better one and
all. Seems simple enough to determine which is functional and which isn't.
thanks b... i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some
need to find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it
purely to generate more money into the industrial military complex? what is the rationale? i
agree with @ 1 - noyk - it is unfortunate the uk people are used as guinea pigs on such a
regular basis.. i suspect a similar exercise is in operation in canada and the west, although
it seems the msm fulfills this role here...
"CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears."
The article details a segment of Russiagate's overall unraveling and outs WaPost's David
Ignatius as part of Operation Mockingbird. And I see no reason to dispute the item's
conclusion:
"These close connections between the Washington Post's Ignatius and individuals connected
to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting that has taken
place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare of the soft coup
aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda."
The longer the above conclusion's denied, the wider the polarization becomes between those
guided by facts and those following media fantasies.
james @ 4 opined;"
thanks b... i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some
need to find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it
purely to generate more money into the industrial military complex"
I'm with ya' james, this demonetization of Russia, and any countries that refuse the
empire's beck and call, is around to stay I'm afraid.
And yes, it's all of the above, but, mostly about the $.
'i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia... is this due some need to
find someone to demonize, an outgrowth of christianity or god knows what? or is it purely to
generate more money into the industrial military complex? what is the rationale?...'
they're the nuclear rival that don't manufacture many of the u.s.'s consumer products.
otherwise, it'd either be china, or both...
plus, of course, there's all them cold war memes that can be triggered in a sizable
portion of the population's heads...
The OSCR report includes the Institute for Statecraft's own description of its purposes, but
nothing about its actual operations, other than the ones now being deemed unsatisfactory
under the charities law.
So now that the Institute has committed not to run the Integrity Initiative, and
not to enrich its trustees, what are its legitimate "charitable" activities that OSCR
is kindly allowing it to continue with?
I suspect the the antipathy to Russia and the extensive disinformation campaign stems from
a 'Five Eyes' project and strategy ... with the malign Uncle as its director.
As an Irish citizen, I think the British deep state - the original deep state -have been very
successful at demonising the enemies of 'freedom' and 'civilisation', the Irish yes, also the
Indians, Africans, Germans, french, Spanish, Muslims and now the Russians. Our enemies are
not each other rather the deep state. Let's recognise who our real enemy is
@james #4 "i don't understand why so much hate is directed at russia..."
Same motivation as all forgotten empires had. Even our cat want some of it, staring down on
his employees from his basket high up on the fridge with that evil look on his face. We call
it his World Domination Command Centre, WDCC for short. Global domination is what they crave.
Kill the competition, loot its resources, more power, more money. America has been looted,
devastated. Time for the locusts to move on to greener pastures. Russia is the promised land,
the next wild west new world to colonize. Problem is, as always, the natives.
I am hopeful that more and more of the population are realising that if an organisation is
promoted by any western government as a source of information, then that organisation will
provide disinformation by default. There are few, if any, journalists anywhere that are not
part of the empirical disinformation program. Those that are not will be independent and,
therefore, by alternate default, extremely wary of western government/government-funded/NGO
sources. All the hegemon and it's vassals can do now is double-down and hope that the
populations will go back to sleep.
@8 ben / @ 9 semiconscious / @ 11 chet380.. yes, there is that too, but is that it? money as
ben says rings true for me mostly... that is mostly how i see this...the agencies seem to be
a front for western oligarchs.. the kleptomaniacs want access to all russian resources and
have yet to be successful in getting it.. they succeeded in ukraine for the most part in
having the kleptos gain control over much of ukraine.. the 2014 coop was meant to solidify
more of that and poke russia in the eye too..
@ 13 joost... i would watch out for your cat! alas, we all seem to agree it is about
wanting to loot russia... we share a similar viewpoint.. it is really sick how so many are
ignorant pawns, or worse in all of this.. no wonder i make next to no money working in the
music industry... i am in the wrong game and don't share a lack of ethics on such display
with all these losers..
As with all things evil, the British oligarchy began in the 1830s targeting Russia as a
threat to its autocratic interests, in this case "defending" the Ottoman Empire against
Russia.
The Brits were further scared out of their wits when the 1917 Russian Revolution was on
the verge of establishing an anti-capitalist system. So they, along with a ragtag bag of
co-conspirators including the United States, launched a military invasion of Russia.
That's right, U.S. troops landed at two places in Russia and fought against Russian
soldiers. The Brits/U.S/et. al. suffered a humiliating defeat, leaving so quickly that U.S.
dead soldiers were left behind buried in Soviet soil, to be repatriated years later.
But it's Russia that is the threat to "us", right?
Reading through the OCSR's document at the PDF link in B's post, I am surprised (should I
be?) that during the entire decade-long period when the Institute of Statecraft was
registered as a charity, the OCSR did not see fit at any time to remind the organisation of
its responsibilities to keep proper records of its activities and decision-making, to provide
a proper formal and transparent structure for its activities that could be shown to
demonstrate a public benefit, and to have proper formal structures generally for its
day-to-day running and governance activities. The Scottish public have every right to hold
the OCSR to much higher standards of being a regulatory organisation making sure that
charities are run properly as charities and not simply accept those charities' word that they
will improve their operations when they have spent 10 long years taking money (some of it
taxpayers' money) and misusing it.
@ Trisha | Nov 4 2019 21:22 utc | 16
___________________________________________
Thanks for your informative comment. I'd started to reply to James that Russia has been a
default "boogie-man" and Western scapegoat since the 19th Century, but that sounded
unhelpfully circular-- and I didn't have the ambition to refresh my understanding with actual
historical facts. ;)
The fact that a sort of Western "coalition of the willing" invaded Russia after the 1917
revolution is still a well-kept secret! It was never mentioned in my (US) school courses,
from parochial school through the "Honors Survey of Western Civilization" course I took in
college.
@ 20..lol.. that is true... can't ver ask too many questions! and, it has been a repeat of
mccarthyism.. it's bizarre to see so many otherwise intelligent people swallow this crap.. i
think of emptywheel and how i used to think she was smart.. she is so busy looking at the
trees, she's incapable of seeing the forest..
@16 trisha... thanks... as i have mentioned here at moa numerous times, the book 'paris 1918'
by Margaret Macmillan is an excellent book that gives an overview and discusses exactly what
you are talking about.. i can't recommend the book enough.. https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/1135/Paris-1919
I ploughed through the Kit Klarenberg piece on Sputnik that b linked to and would have wept
at the Orwellian inversions of truth in the OIP's 'mission statment' if I'd had any tears
left after enduring the recent decades of lies and projection of the Empire's propaganda
machine. The Mighty Wurlitzer at corporate-speak indeed. In fact all I could do was laugh
like Group Captain Mandrake in Dr Strangelove when confronted with the madness of
General Ripper.
Tragically, the opening paragraph of their statement sounded like something Caitlin
Johnstone might pen, urging our side to be wary and vigilant of the propaganda of
them .
"Democracy cannot thrive without honest, accurate and freely available information about
the world around us We need to know where our information is coming from, we need to know
the motives (good, bad or neither) of those providing the information, and be in the habit
of thinking critically about everything we read and hear. Every one of us has the right to
be properly informed – that knowledge gives us strength. Every one of us shares
responsibility for informed engagement and critical thinking, to challenge the powerful and
uncover the truth An engaged population, equipped with clarity and the truth, is the
foundation for a world where we can all enjoy greater equality and greater peace."
"critical thinking"
"challenge the powerful"
"uncover the truth"
They are taking the tools that we need to deal with their perfidy, and
pretending that they need to use them to "challenge the powerful and uncover the
truth". I found this Orwellian inversion of the truth so chilling that I could only
laugh.
In all seriousness, I can only presume that they actually believe their own lies.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992) states that Russia should remain America's main enemy for the
forseeable future because it inherited the USSR's nuclear arsenal. At least this is the
official rationale.
But there may be another reason. Courtesy from Pepe Escobar's facebook page:
@22 James ... thanks for the "Paris 1919" book reference, luckily it's available at my local
library. For a detailed history of (sadly) another in a long list of America's criminal acts
of aggressive war, I highly recommend Russian
Sideshow: America's Undeclared War, 1918-1920 by Robert L. Willett.
they are attacking Russia because they know that only military force can stop the collapse
the fake Dollar & all the Jewish printed wealth which goes with it. "yes, the Dollar is
our money, but, it is your problem" sort of imposed doctrine of the last half-century is
coming to an end & no naval carriers could stop its fall.
"CIA, FBI Informant Was Washington Post Source For Russiagate Smears."
The article details a segment of Russiagate's overall unraveling and outs WaPost's David
Ignatius as part of Operation Mockingbird. And I see no reason to dispute the item's
conclusion:
"These close connections between the Washington Post's Ignatius and individuals
connected to the American and British intelligence communities, and the false reporting
that has taken place over the last three-plus years, raise grave concerns that the warfare
of the soft coup aimed at President Trump includes using the media to push propaganda."
The longer the above conclusion's denied, the wider the polarization becomes between
those guided by facts and those following media fantasies.
In today's world, the phrase "conspiracy
theory" is pejorative and has a negative connotation.
To many people, a conspiracy theory
is an irrational, over-imaginative idea endorsed by people looking for attention and not supported
by the mainstream media or government.
History shows, though, that there have been many times when governments or individuals
have participated in conspiracies.
It would be naďve to think that intelligence agencies,
militaries, government officials, and politicians don't sometimes cooperate in covert, secretive
ways.
Following are five instances when it's been proven that the government engaged in a
conspiracy.
THE GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION
On August 4, 1964, Captain John J. Herrick, the commander of the USS Maddox, a US Navy vessel
that was on an intelligence-gathering mission in the Gulf of Tonkin, reported to the White House
and Pentagon that North Vietnamese patrol boats had fired torpedoes at his ship, and, so, the
Maddox had fired back.
Two days later, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara testified to the Congress that he was
certain that the Maddox had been attacked. On August 7, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was passed,
the Congressional act that allowed President Johnson free reign to commence war; Johnson
immediately ordered air strikes on North Vietnam and the Vietnam War -- which would eventually kill
fifty-eight thousand Americans and two million Asians -- was underway.
Since then, it has been shown and proven that no North Vietnamese boats ever fired on the
Maddox, and that McNamara had been untruthful when he testified before Congress. According to the
official publication of the Naval Institute,
once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with
previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and
deceived the American public about events that led to full US involvement in the Vietnam War."
In the weeks prior to the Gulf of Tonkin incident, South Vietnamese ships had been attacking
posts in North Vietnam in conjunction with the CIA's Operation 34A. According to many inside
sources, the Johnson administration wanted a full-scale war in Vietnam and through Operation 34A
was trying to provoke North Vietnam into an attack that would give Johnson an excuse to go to war.
But when McNamara was asked by the Congress on August 7 if these South Vietnam attacks had anything
to do with the US military and CIA, McNamara lied and said no.
Within hours after reporting that the Maddox had been attacked, Captain Herrick was retracting
his statements and reporting to the White House and Pentagon that "in all likelihood" an over-eager
sonar man had been mistaken and that the sonar sounds and images that he originally thought were
enemy torpedoes were actually just the beat of the Maddox's own propellers.
Herrick reported that there was a good probability that there had been no attack on the Maddox,
and suggested
"complete reevaluation before any action is taken."
McNamara saw these new, updated reports and discussed them with President Johnson early in the
afternoon of August 4. Even though this was so, on the evening of August 4, President Johnson went
on national television and announced to the American public that North Vietnam had engaged in
"unprovoked aggression" and, so, the US military was retaliating.
A few days after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Johnson remarked,
"Hell, those damn stupid
sailors were just shooting at flying fish."
Recently, new documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident have been declassified and
according to Robert Hanyok, a historian for the National Security Agency, these documents show that
the NSA deliberately "distorted intelligence" andand "altered documents" to make it appear that an
attack had occurred on August 4.
When President Lyndon Johnson misrepresented to the American public and said he knew that North
Vietnam had attacked a US ship, and when Defense Secretary Robert McNamara lied to the Congress and
said he was sure that the Maddox had been attacked and that the CIA had nothing to do with South
Vietnam aggression, and when NSA officials falsified information to make it appear that there had
been an attack on the Maddox, that was a government conspiracy.
OPERATION NORTHWOODS
In 1962, the most powerful and highest ranking military officials of the US government, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt strongly that the communist leader Fidel Castro had to be removed from
power and, so, came up with a plan to justify an American invasion of Cuba.
The plan, entitled Operations Northwoods, was presented to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
on March 13, 1962, and was signed by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lyman L. Lemnitzer.
Operations Northwoods was a proposal for a false flag operation, a plan in which a military
organizes an attack against its own country and then frames and blames the attack on another
country for the purpose of the purpose of initiating hostilities and declaring war on that country.
The proposal was originally labeled Top Secret but was made public on November 18, 1997, by the
John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. The complete Operation Northwoods paper was
published online by the National Security Archive on April 30, 2001, and this once-secret
government document can now be read by anyone.
The actions that General Lemnitzer and the other chiefs wanted to d to take under Operations
Northwoods are shocking. According to the plan, CIA and military personnel and hired provocateurs
would commit various violent acts and these acts would be blamed on Castro to "create the necessary
impression of Cuban rashness and irresponsibility" and "put the United States in the apparent
position of suffering defensible grievances."
One of the most ambitious plans of Operation Northwoods was to blow up a plane in midflight. The
strategy was to fill a civilian airplane with CIA and military personnel who were registered under
fake ID's; an exact duplicate plane -- an empty military drone aircraft -- would take off at the same
exact time.
The plane of fake passengers would land at a military base but the empty drone plane would fly
over Cuba and crash in the ocean, supposedly a victim of Cuban missiles.
"Casualty lists in US
newspapers"
and conducting
"fake funerals for mock-victims"
would cause "a helpful
wave of national indignation" in America.
The Operation Northwoods proposal also states: "We could blow up a US ship and blame Cuba."
Whether the ship was to be empty or full of US soldiers is unclear. The document also says:
"Hijacking attempts against US civil air and surface craft should be encouraged."
Some of the recommendations of Operation Northwoods would have surely led to serious injuries
and even deaths of Cuban and American civilians. The plan suggests:
We could sink a boatload of Cubans on route to Florida (real or simulated)."
And:
We could foster attempts on lives of anti-Castro Cubans in the United States even to the
extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized We could explode a few bombs in
carefully chosen spots."
Lemnitzer and the chiefs wanted many of these staged terrorist attacks to be directed at the
Guantanamo Bay United States Naval Base in Cuba. The plans were:
"Start riots near the entrance to the base"
"lob mortar shells from outside the base to inside the base"
"blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires"
"burn aircraft on airbase (sabotage)"
"sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napalm."
When Secretary of Defense McNamara was presented with the Operation Northwoods plan, he either
stopped and rejected the plan himself or passed it on to President Kennedy and JFK then rejected
it. But if Kennedy and McNamara had agreed with the plan, then the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to
begin enacting Operation Northwoods
"right away, within a few months."
Even though Operation Northwoods was never initiated, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the other highest-ranking military officials of the United States Government planned to
organize violent attacks on Americans and anti-Castro Cuban citizens, knowing those attacks could
severely injure and kill those citizens, and when they planned to blame those attacks on Cuba and
then use that as an excuse to invade Cuba, that was a government conspiracy.
FBI AND THE MAFIA
In March 1965, the FBI had the house of New England organized crime boss Raymond Patriarca
wiretapped and overheard two mobsters, Joseph Barboza and Vincent Flemmi, asking Patriarca for
permission to kill another gangster, Edward Deegan. Two days later, Deegan's blood-soaked body was
found dead in a Boston alley.
Within days, an official FBI report confirmed that Joseph Barboza and three other mobsters were
the murderers. Instead of those men going to prison for murder, though, three years later a man
named Joseph Salvati was brought to trial for the murder of Edward Deegan. At that trial Joseph
Barboza testified and lied that Salvati was one of the murderers. On the basis of Barboza's
testimony, Joseph Salvati was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
At that time, in the mid 1960s, the FBI was being pressured more and more to do something to
stop organized crime. The bureau began using members of the mafia -- criminals and murderers -- to inform
against fellow mafia members. Joseph Barboza was one of these FBI-protected, paid informants. The
FBI didn't want Barboza to go to prison for the murder of Deegan because they wanted him to
continue infiltrating the mafia and testifying against other mafia members.
The bureau, apparently, did want a conviction in the Deegan murder case, though, and, so, let
Barboza lie under oath and let a man they knew to be innocent, Joseph Salvati, go to prison.
The Witness Protection Program was first created for Joseph Barboza, and Barboza was the first
mafia informant to be protected under the program. After helping to convict a number of mobsters,
Barboza was sent off to live in California. While under the Witness Protection Program, Barboza
committed at least one more murder, and probably more.
On trial for a murder in California, FBI officials showed up for Joseph Barboza's trial and
testified on his behalf, helping Barboza to get a light sentence.
Joseph Salvati ended up serving thirty years in prison for a murder that he was innocent of.
During that thirty-year period, lawyers for Salvati requested documents from the FBI that would
have proved Salvati's innocence, but the bureau refused to release them.
Finally, in 1997, other evidence came forth suggesting Salvati's innocence and the governor of
Massachusetts, William Weld, granted Salvati's release. A few years later, the FBI was ordered to
release all its reports on the case; hundreds of documents showed the FBI knew that Barboza was a
murderer, that he had murdered Edward Deegan, and that Joseph Salvati had had nothing to do with
the crime.
Salvati was exonerated in a court of law, and was eventually awarded millions of dollars in a
civil lawsuit against the government. (Three other defendants were also exonerated. At the 1968
trial, Joseph Barboza had testified that three other men -- men who were also not guilty -- had
participated in Deegan's murder. These three innocent men were, with Salvati, also sent to prison.)
Perhaps the most shocking thing that the FBI documents showed, though, was that FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover himself knew Salvati was innocent and that Barboza had killed Deegan.
Hoover was working closely, almost daily, with the agents handling Joseph Barboza, and it was
probably Hoover directing the operation. The congressional committee that investigated the case was
the House Committee on Government Reform and Congressman Dan Burton was the chairman.
When asked by CBS's 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace
"Did J. Edgar Hoover know all this?
"
Burton replied:
"Yes . . . It's one of the greatest failures in the history of American justice J. Edgar
Hoover knew Salvati was innocent. He knew it and his name should not be emblazoned on the FBI
headquarters. We should change the name of that building."
Congressman Burton claimed there was evidence that there were more cases when the FBI did the
same sorts of things they did in the Joseph Salvati case; when Burton and his committee requested
the files on these cases, the Attorney General and the White House refused to release them.
When FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and top FBI officials let a known murderer lie and perjure
himself in a courtroom, when they let four men they knew to be innocent suffer in the hell of a
prison cell for thirty years, and when they deliberately covered that up for decades, that was a
government conspiracy.
THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
In 1939, Albert Einstein and two other European physicists sent a letter to President Franklin
Roosevelt informing Roosevelt that the German government was working on developing the science that
could lead to the creation of a nuclear bomb. FDR immediately formed a committee to look into the
idea of the US government making an atomic bomb.
In 1942, the Manhattan Project, the United States program to build a nuclear bomb, headed by
General Leslie R. Groves of the US Army Corps of Engineers, was formed.
The program existed from 1942–1946, spent two billion dollars, had plants and factories in
thirty cities, and employed 130,000 workers. But virtually no one knew about it. The Manhattan
Project is considered the
"Greatest Secret Ever Kept."
The US government wanted to keep the Project a secret lest Germany or one of America's other
enemies found out about it and built -- more quickly -- a larger, better bomb. In the early 1940s, when
American scientists began working on splitting atoms and nuclear fission, US government officials
asked the scientists to not publish any reports on the work in scientific journals. The work was
kept quiet.
In 1943, when newspapers began reporting on the large Manhattan Project construction going on in
a few states, the newly formed United States Government Office of Censorship asked newspapers and
broadcasters to avoid discussing "atom smashing, atomic energy, atomic fission . . . the use for
military purposes of radium or radioactive materials" or anything else that could expose the
project. The press kept mum. The government didn't talk about the Manhattan Project, the press
didn't report on it, and the public knew nothing about it.
Not even the 130,000 Manhattan Project laborers knew they were building an atom bomb.
In 1945, a Life magazine article wrote that before Japan was attacked with a-bombs, "probably no
more than a few dozen men in the entire country knew the full meaning of the Manhattan Project, and
perhaps only a thousand others even were aware that work on atoms was involved."
The workers were told they were doing an important job for the government, but weren't told what
the job was, and didn't understand the full import of the mysterious, daily tasks they were doing.
The laborers were warned that disclosing the Project's secrets was punishable by ten years in
prison, and a hefty financial fine.
Whole towns and cities were built where thousands of Manhattan Project workers lived and worked
but these thousands didn't know they were helping to build nuclear bombs.
The Manhattan Project finally became known to the public on August 6, 1945, when President Harry
Truman announced that America had dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.
Truman, himself, had not been informed of the Manhattan Project until late April 1945.
When the government kept the purpose of the Manhattan Project a secret from the press, from the
public, from America's enemies, from Harry Truman, and even from the 130,000 laborers who worked
for the Manhattan Project, that was a government conspiracy.
THE CHURCH COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION
In the early 1970s, after the Watergate affair and investigative reports by the New York Times,
it became apparent that the CIA and other US intelligence agencies might be engaging in
inappropriate and illegal activities. In 1975, the Church Committee, named after the Committee's
chairman Senator Frank Church, was formed to investigate abuses by the CIA, NSA, FBI, and IRS.
The Church Committee reports are said to constitute the most extensive investigations of
intelligence activities ever made available to the public. Many disturbing facts were revealed.
According to the final report of the Committee, US intelligence agencies had been engaging in
"unlawful or improper conduct" and "intelligence excesses, at home and abroad" since the
administration of President Franklin Roosevelt.
The report added that
"intelligence agencies have undermined the Constitutional rights of
citizens"
and
"checks and balances designed by the framers of the Constitution to assure
accountability have not been applied."
One of the most well-known revelations of the Committee was the CIA's so-called "Family Jewels,"
a report that detailed the CIA's misdeeds dating back to Dwight Eisenhower's presidency. The
committee also reported on the NSA's SHAMROCK and MINARET programs; under these programs the NSA
had been intercepting, opening, and reading the telegrams and mail of thousands of private
citizens.
The Church Committee also discovered and exposed the FBI's COINTELPRO program, the bureau's
program to covertly destroy and disrupt any groups or individuals that J. Edgar Hoover felt were
bad for America. Some of the movements and groups that the FBI tried to discredit and destroy were
the Civil Rights movement, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference, and individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr.
The most alarming thing that the Church Committee found, though, was that the CIA had an
assassination program. It was revealed that the CIA assassinated or had tried to assassinate Dinh
Diem of Vietnam, Raphael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, General Rene Schneider of Chile, Fidel
Castro, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, and other political leaders throughout the world.
The Committee learned about the different ways the CIA had developed to kill and assassinate
people: inflicting cancer, inflicting heart attacks, making murders look like suicides, car
accidents, boating accidents, and shootings. At one point, CIA Director William Colby presented to
the Committee a special "heart attack gun" that the CIA had created. The gun was able to shoot a
small poison-laden dart into its victim. The dart was so small as to be undetectable; the victim's
death from the poison would appear to be a heart attack, so no foul play would be suspected.
In response to the Church Committee report, in 1976 President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order
11,905, which forbade employees of the US government from engaging in or conspiring to engage in
political assassinations.
In that same year, the Senate approved Senate Resolution 400, which established the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee responsible for providing vigilant oversight over
the intelligence agencies.
Many former CIA employee-whistleblowers and other people, though, claim that US intelligence
agencies are still acting in improper ways. In 2008, it was revealed that the CIA had hired
Blackwater, a private company made up of ex-Navy Seals, to track down and assassinate suspected
terrorists.
Later in the 2000s, when the Congress formed a committee to investigate if CIA waterboarding and
other methods of interrogation constituted torture, congressmen complained that they couldn't get
to the bottom of the matter because CIA officials and the CIA director were lying to the
congressional committee.
Forty-five years after the revelations of the Church Committee, it seems US intelligence
agencies are still engaging in covert and improper conduct.
When US intelligence agencies and the CIA plot to influence the affairs of foreign nations, when
the CIA plots assassinations and assassinates foreign leaders and political dissidents, when the
CIA develops new ways to kill and assassinate and interrogate and torture, and when the CIA keeps
all that from Congress, the press, and the public, that's a government conspiracy.
* * *
If these five instances of government engaging in conspiracies have been proven to be
true -- and they have been -- isn't it logical to assume that government agencies may have engaged in
other conspiracies? It is the very nature of intelligence agencies and militaries to act in
secretive, conspiratorial ways.
The phrase "conspiracy theory" shouldn't have a negative connotation. Politics always plays out
with backroom handshakes. It is the suggestion of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups that
government agencies and officials and the special interests that influence them are often engaging
in conspiratorial actions, and that conspiracies have been behind some of the most iconic and
important events of American history.
A conspiracy theorist was regaling a friend with one conspiracy theory after another. Finally,
the friend interrupted and said,
"I bet I know what would happen if God Himself appeared out of
the sky right now, looked down at us, and said, 'There is no conspiracy.' I bet you would look up
and say, 'So the conspiracy goes higher than we thought.'"
Perhaps if the Almighty appeared to inform us that politicians and governments and government
officials don't act in secretive, covert, conspiratorial ways, then we could accept that.
But when the evidence indicates otherwise .
Theories questioning if multiple people might have shot at JFK, or if interior bombs brought
down the World Trade Center, or if somebody was able to rig the 2000 and 2004 presidential
elections can make for dramatic, sensational storytelling.
But it is not the purpose of American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups to be sensational; the
purpose of this book is to talk about "conspiracy realities" that can hopefully give us a deeper
and more meaningful understanding of politics.
If elements in the intelligence agencies participated in assassinating President Kennedy, then
how can the intelligence agencies be better controlled? If elements in the government allowed or
caused 9/11 to happen to give us an excuse to go to war in the Middle East, then how much of the
War on Terror is disinformation and propaganda?
If presidential elections can be rigged, then how can we have fairer, uncorrupted elections? If
secretive influences behind the scenes, a Deep State, are controlling our social, political, and
financial systems for their own selfish purposes, then it would benefit us to expose who and what
these secretive influences are.
American Conspiracies and Cover-Ups may give us a glimpse into the way that government
and politics work.
As Bette Davis said in All About Eve , "Fasten your seatbelts -- it's going to be a bumpy night."
The ride started last night with Rep. Devin Nunes' appearance on Hannity , escalated with arrests of figures tied to Rudy
Giuliani, and will possibly come to a complete halt when former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch meets with three House committees
tomorrow -- assuming the State Department allows the testimony to take place at all.
Kicking this off, Kicking this off, Kicking this off,
Nunes went on Hannity last night to claim that Yavonovitch may have been spying on Americans -- including journalists.
Sean Hannity expresses his anger over what his own sources are telling him about surveillance of John Solomon among others, although
Nunes more cautiously advises patience:
"What I can tell you is that we know what Pete Sessions, congressman from Texas now retired, we know what he had to say. We
know that there are people within that were not only Ukrainians but also Americans that worked at the State Department who have
raised concerns about this ambassador, that's why she was ultimately removed," Nunes said.
"We also have concerns that possibly they were monitoring press from different journalists and others," he continued. "That
we don't know, but, you know, we have people who have given us this information and we're going to ask these questions to the
State Department and hopefully they'll get the answers before she comes in on Friday."
Hannity then said three sources have told him there "is evidence that shows government resources were used to monitor communications"
of a journalist, The Hill's John Solomon.
"Well, what I have heard, and I want to be clear. I think there is a difference. What I've heard is that there were strange
requests, irregular requests to monitor, not just one journalist, but multiple journalists," Nunes said. "Now perhaps that was
okay. Perhaps there was some reason for that, that it can be explained away. But that's what we know and that's what we are going
to be looking into."
Keep Pete Sessions in mind as our ride progresses to its next sharp turn. Earlier today, two of Rudy Giuliani's clients -- and
donors to a PAC funding Giuliani's investigation of the Bidens --
got arrested for criminal campaign finance violations . Among the allegations are that those violations intended to mask foreign
influence on US elections:
Two Soviet-born donors to a pro-Trump fundraising committee who helped Rudy Giuliani's efforts to investigate Democrat Joe
Biden were arrested late Wednesday on criminal charges of violating campaign finance rules, including funneling Russian money
into President Trump's campaign.
Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, two Florida businessmen, have been under investigation by the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan,
and are expected to appear in federal court in Virginia later on Thursday, the people said. Both men were born in former Soviet
republics.
Mr. Giuliani, President Trump's private lawyer, identified the two men in May as his clients. Both men have donated to Republican
campaigns including Mr. Trump's, and in May 2018 gave $325,000 to the primary pro-Trump super PAC, America First Action, through
an LLC called Global Energy Producers, according to Federal Election Commission records.
The men were charged with four counts, including conspiracy, falsification of records and lying to the FEC about their political
donations,
according
to the indictment that outlines a conspiracy to funnel a Russian donor's money into U.S. elections.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the two have been instrumental in helping Giuliani make contacts in Ukraine. One of them
happened to be part of a meeting Giuliani had with the now-unemployed envoy Kurt Volker:
Since late 2018, Mr. Fruman and Mr. Parnas have introduced Mr. Giuliani to several current and former senior Ukrainian prosecutors
to discuss the Biden case.
Mr. Parnas in July accompanied Mr. Giuliani to a breakfast meeting with Kurt Volker, then the U.S. special representative for
Ukraine negotiations. "We had a long conversation about Ukraine," Mr. Volker wrote in his testimony to House committees last week.
During that breakfast, Mr. Giuliani mentioned the investigations he was pursuing into Mr. Biden and 2016 election interference.
The
indictment
released today has a very telling reference to a former US congressman who involved himself in the effort to oust Yovanovitch:
And now let's go back to the WSJ for some dot-connecting:
In May 2018, Pete Sessions, at the time a GOP congressman from Texas, sent a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asking
for her removal, saying he had been told Ms. Yovanovitch was displaying a bias against the president in private conversations.
The indictment references a congressman, identifiable as Mr. Sessions, whose assistance Mr. Parnas sought in "causing the U.S.
government to remove or recall the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine." The indictment says those efforts were conducted "at least
in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials." Mr. Sessions didn't respond to a request for comment.
Hoo boy . If nothing else, this certainly looks bad, which makes Nunes' citation of Session suspect on its face.
The Department of Justice is essentially accusing Sessions of being bought by foreign influence in going after Yovanovitch, and clearly
intends to press that case against Giuliani's associates on that basis.
Bear in mind that this is William Barr's DoJ, too. Barr got read into the case soon after taking over the Attorney General
job in February, and apparently found it convincing enough to proceed to indictment. The arrest also made it very convenient for
House Democrats to
issue subpoenas for testimony from the pair , although it likely complicates how cooperative they're willing to be. At the very
least, they'll be easy to find.
Giuliani responded by attacking the DoJ for its "extremely suspect" timing in unsealing the indictment and arresting his associates.
He promised Fox News' Catherine Herridge that he would shortly reveal how all of this is connected to his investigation into the
Bidens:
What about the "extremely suspect" timing? It turns out that the pair were
trying to leave
the country , which forced the DoJ to make the arrests now:
The two Giuliani-linked defendants, Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, were detained at Dulles International Airport outside of Washington
on Wednesday and are scheduled to appear in court in Virginia at 2 p.m. ET Thursday.
Meanwhile, Yovanovitch continues to prepare for her own testimony, which is still
scheduled to take place tomorrow . The Washington Post reported late last night that she's "on board" for cooperating with the
committees, and perhaps now even more so after Nunes' allegations on Hannity last night. The State Department could still
bar her from discussing her work with Congress (she remains employed by State), but
ABC reports today that Mike Pompeo is already facing a rising level of discontent over Yovanovitch's treatment and Pompeo's lack
of a public defense for her:
Marie Yovanovitch, who was recalled early from her post this spring, is scheduled for a deposition Friday with three committees
in the House of Representatives, but it is unclear whether she will be allowed to show up after the U.S. ambassador to the European
Union was blocked by the Trump administration from testifying on Tuesday.
Either way, the manner in which Yovanovitch has been treated by Trump and the silence from Pompeo has already rankled many
rank and file at the State Department, according to half a dozen current and former officials, who are also upset by the administration's
use of career diplomats in the president's efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political opponents.
So where does this ride come to a stop? How much of this is true -- all of it, none of it, or only some of it? Trump loyalists
will surely consider all of this as more evidence of a Deep State plot that now involves both the State and Justice Departments.
Trump haters will see this as another case of foreign influence on the administration and a plot to smear Trump's opponents, both
electoral and otherwise. The rest of America might just be hoping that the [expletive deleted] ride would come to an end, period
.
At this point, the mess is too complicated to suss out which conclusion reflects the truth. What does appear to true is
that we're not going to know for sure what's true for a long, long time -- and it might turn out, ironically, that the DoJ
could end up as the most credible player in Ukraine-Gate.
Right-wing media tries to smear former Ukraine ambassador Marie Yovanovitch
Despite grave Judicial Watch allegations about a "surveillance" campaign from right-wing figures,
the facts so far point to mere tracking of a pro-Trump disinformation campaign
UPDATE (10/24/19)
: It
turns out
that the list Marie Yovanovitch allegedly used to "spy" on conservatives was really a basic Facebook
search on CrowdTangle, a
mundane and widely-used
social media
tool that
tracks
public
social media activity.
Judicial Watch
described CrowdTangle as a "Soros-linked media tracking tool."
Representatives of right-wing group Judicial Watch have been claiming during appearances on
conservative media shows that former Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was "spying" on media figures
close to President Donald Trump by monitoring public statements they made on social media regarding
Ukraine.
Judicial Watch is alleging that Yovanovitch -- who recently
testified to House impeachment investigators
that Trump pressured the State Department to remove her
over baseless allegations -- was "basically running a war room" by monitoring public statements regarding
Ukraine
made by
figures in right-wing media like Sean Hannity and Lou Dobbs, Trump personal lawyer Rudy
Giuliani, and Donald Trump, Jr. The list also includes former Obama ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul.
Judicial Watch also claims that the searches were looking for the following keywords: "Biden,"
"Giuliani," "Soros," and "Yovanovitch."
That Yovanovich would monitor public statements made by public figures is unsurprising given her
recent testimony
claiming that Giuliani had been criticizing her in the months before her ousting,
and the people she allegedly monitored are connected to the smear campaign Giuliani was waging. He had
accused her of privately criticizing the president and trying to protect the interests of Biden and his
son Hunter, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company. The smear included accusations that
Soros was funding a conspiracy to hurt Trump's presidency and elect Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
Yovanovich said she was "incredulous" about her removal and that it was based on "unfounded and false
claims by people with clearly questionable motives" -- claims that have been
promoted publicly
by conservative media figures.
The Washington Post
reported that George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state responsible
for Ukraine, became concerned around October 2018 that Yovanovitch was the target of a "classic
disinformation operation."
NBC News
indicated that the State Department was concerned over the effort to oust Yovanovich,
reporting that the agency "attempted to ring alarm bells" regarding Giuliani's efforts to smear her:
The documents also show that Giuliani, through conservative writer John Solomon's columns in The Hill,
attempted to tie former ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch to the liberal donor George Soros as part
of a massive conspiracy to take down Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort and help Hillary
Clinton win the 2016 election.
...
When State Department officials saw the disinformation campaign, they attempted to ring alarm bells
and strategized to correct the record, the documents show.
Yovanovitch, who has over 30 years of experience in foreign diplomacy, further testified that, as
The Washington Post
put it, "under Trump's leadership, U.S. foreign policy has been compromised by
self-interested actors who have badly demoralized and depleted America's diplomatic corps." The testimony
of
White House aide Fiona Hill
confirmed Yovanovitch's depiction of foreign policy under the Trump
administration.
Still, Judicial Watch is attempting to push the narrative that Yovanovitch nefariously
spied on Trump allies among right-wing media, appearing on the radio shows of Sebastian Gorka and Sean
Hannity and Fox Business host Lou Dobbs' prime-time show to spread the message. Some Fox News figures
responded with paranoia regarding their own conversations.
Judicial Watch
also shared
its report on Twitter, announcing that it is "investigating if prominent conservative figures/journalists
& persons [with ties] to @realDonaldTrump were unlawfully monitored by the State Dept in Ukraine at the
request of ousted U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, an Obama appointee."
Fox & Friends
hosted Judicial Watch
President Tom Fitton, who repeated that his "sourcing tells us that she was asking that folks like Rudy
Giuliani, Don Trump Jr., a whole list of your colleagues there at Fox, be monitored on certain phrases."
Co-host Steve Doocy invited Fitton to "go ahead and speculate for a second" about Yovanovitch's motives,
to which Fitton replied, "It looks an awful lot like an enemy's list to me." Doocy noted that Yovanovitch
is "keeping an eye on television, of all things," and he called it "particularly disturbing that, you
know, somebody in the federal government would be tracking people on TV."
FOX News contributor John Solomon revealed fired Ukrainian Ambassador Maria Yovanovich's
links to a radical Soros group. Yovanovich appeared before Congress on Friday, claiming that
she was unjustly fired just because she badmouthed the president, prevented Ukrainian officials
from coming to the US to expose Democrat corruption, and giving Ukrainian prosecutor a do not
prosecute list. Now, investigative reporter John Solomon reports on her link to a
Soros-supported group. Lutsenko told Solomon that in April 2016, Ukrainian prosecutors were
investigating an alleged anti-corruption group, AntAC, over $4.4 million that was illegally
diverted. AntAc was founded by the Obama administration and George Soros.
Trump's Little Surprise Is Making Liberals Cry! Got Yours Yet? Liberty Journalists x Ads by Revcontent Find Out More >
21,994
On Friday fired Ambassador Yovanovich testified behind closed doors in front of the
Pelosi-Schiff impeachment committee.
Yovanovich believes she was unjustly fired despite the fact that she was an Obama holdover,
was speaking out against President Trump and she was
colluding with the DNC and Hillary Campaign to undermine the US presidential election.
On Friday John Solomon told Lou Dobbs about the fired ambassador's links to a radical Soros
group operating in Ukraine.
On March 20th Solomon
published his interview with Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko alleging
Yovanovitch gave him a "do not prosecute list," back in 2016.
It will be clear once the transcripts are released, that the crew
testifying for Adam Schiff are upset about the President fulfilling his
Constitutional responsibility to run foreign policy rather than letting
them run it, about his determination to get to the bottom of Ukraine's role
in intervening in the 2016 U.S. Election, and the ongoing coup against him,
which implicates many of these very same "witnesses." The President,
knowing that Ukraine tried to take him out by intervening in the 2016
election, refused to meet with the Poroshenko government. That government
jockeyed for favor by revealing its role in the 2016 illegalities and
documenting the Biden story for Rudy Guilani and others.
When new
President Zelensky was elected, President Trump used an alternate channel
to assess him, rather than the State Department and National Security
Council operatives who were either involved in the coup against him or
refused to stand against it. That appears to have included Ukraine envoy
Kurt Volker, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
There is nothing unusual in this but it drove the unelected Mandarins,
including John Bolton, crazy, along with the considerable military
industrial complex grouping in the Congress who want permanent war with
Russia.
Here are the key players so far based on the applause provided by
Democrats and the Main Stream Media:
William B. Taylor, Jr.
Presented hearsay testimony, based on conversations with NSC John Bolton
protégé Tim Morrison, and others that somehow the President presented a
quid pro quo in his July 25th phone call with Zelensky, despite the fact
that the actual transcript of the call and repeated statements by President
Zelensky evidence no quid pro quo. Taylor's career has featured every U.S.
imperial disaster possible:
– "Economic development" coordinator for Eastern Europe, former Soviet
Union, resulting in the economic decimation of those countries and their
looting
– Coordinator for U.S. assistance of Afghanistan. Said the U.S. had the
right to stay forever until the country was secured to U.S. specifications
– Coordinator for Iraq Reconstruction. Program lost billions and left
the country destitute and mired in religious warfare.
– Ambassador to Ukraine in 2006-2009 right after the Orange Revolution,
the nation's first color revolution delivered by the British and the State
Department.
– Under Obama, Special Coordinator for Mideast "transitions" in the wake
of the Arab Spring, the program which set all of Southwest Asia on fire and
birthed the present round of Isis terrorism.
– Serves on the U.S./Ukraine Business Council with David J. Kramer as a
senior advisor. Kramer leaked the dirty Christopher Steele dossier against
Donald Trump to Buzzfeed. The Council coordinates the "investment" of
various vulture and "turnaround" funds in Ukraine. According to Breitbart's
Aaron Klein, Taylor met with a member of Adam Schiff's staff, Thomas Eager,
in Ukraine, prior to his testimony.
Marie Yovanovitch
U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine from August 18, 2016, until she was recalled,
in May of 2019. She claimed she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump
attorney, Rudy Giuliani and Ukrainians who opposed her. But, she was at the
helm of the Embassy at the point when the Manafort black ledger smear
campaign was at full roar.
Way back in March, 2019, U.S. Embassy employees at the Ukrainian Embassy
were leaking that the Ambassador was telling Embassy employees and
Ukrainians not to pay any attention to President Donald Trump because he
was going to be impeached.
This was before a wave of articles featuring Ukraine's former prosecutor
Yuriy Lutsenko claiming that Yovanovitch had provided him with a list of
"do not prosecute" names, including those Ukrainians most involved in the
Ukrainian efforts to target and smear former Trump Campaign Advisor Paul
Manafort as a Russian agent.
Judicial Watch has just filed a FOIA request based on State Department
sources who claim that during her tenure in Ukraine, Yovanovitch ordered
the monitoring of various journalists who published negative stories about
her or who generally support President Trump.
Her resume evidences a trail of destruction. Dubbed the "Iron Lady" by
colleagues, she replaced the infamous Ambassador Geoffey Pyatt in Ukraine.
In 2002, after serving as one of the key State Department anti-Russian
diplomats, Yovanovitch played a central role in the Ukraine regime change
operation known as the "Orange Revolution." She promoted the scandal of
Ukraine selling 4 Kolchuga radar systems to Iraq in violation of the United
Nations sanctions. This led to the pro-Russian Ukrainian President Leonid
Kuchma being replaced by Washington and London's choice, Viktor
Yushschenko..
She was Ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic at the time the British-U.S.
Tulip Color Revolution occurred in that country, led by the State
Department and the British.
In 2008-2011 Yovanovitch was U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, where she was
heavily involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in neighboring Azerbaijan
(a separatist operation as part of a regime-change operation).
Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman
A Ukrainian born Army veteran, Vindman joined the NSC in July of 2018,
under John Bolton, as the NSC's "Ukraine expert." He claimed that all of
his corrections to the transcript of the Zelensky/Trump call were not
accepted although he admitted that his corrections were minor and did not
change the call substantively. He testified that he discussed with
Ukrainian colleagues how to "handle Trump."
The key to who he is and why he is testifying is contained in his
opening statement:
"When I joined the NSC in the Spring of 2019, I became aware of
outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent
with the consensus views of the interagency. This narrative was harmful for
U.S. government policy."
There you have it, the "interagency" dictates U.S. foreign policy, not
the President as specified in Article II of the Constitution. Vindman also
says he authored the Russia strategy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff for
managing "competition" with Russia, an undoubtedly very bellicose document.
Amidst the media fanfare claiming that Vindman represents "the ultimate
immigrant hero" story, the Republicans finally leaked something substantive
about what happened behind closed doors. Asked to cite in the transcript of
the call where the President offered a quid pro quo, Vindman apparently
testified that the entire call evidenced this, since the President was in a
"position of power" over President Zelensky. If true, foreign policy is now
being managed on the same terms as the Me Too movement.
"... NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal or factual basis " while the NY Times continues to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with: ..."
"... There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. ..."
"... Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release. ..."
"... As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media. ..."
"... As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision (real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it. ..."
"... Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend, the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. " ..."
"... I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything. ..."
"... Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office of the President. ..."
"... The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps. ..."
"... Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning & Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete & utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative. ..."
"... "American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors. ..."
"... Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government of the United States." ..."
As the Quantum field oversees the disintegration of institutions no longer in service to the public, the Democratic party continues
to lose their marbles, perpetuating their own simulated bubble as if they alone are the nation's most trusted purveyors of truth.
Since the Mueller Report failed to deliver on the dubious Russiagate accusations, the party of Thomas Jefferson continues to remain
in search of another ethical pretense to justify continued partisan turmoil. In an effort to discredit and/or distract attention
from the Barr-Durham and IG investigations, the Dems have come up with an implausible piece of political theatre known as Ukrainegate
which has morphed into an impeachment inquiry.
The Inspector General's Report, which may soon be ready for release, will address the presentation of fabricated FBI evidence
to the FISA Court for permission to initiate a surveillance campaign on Trump Administration personnel. In addition, the Department
of Justice has confirmed that Special Investigator John Durham's probe into the origin of the
FBI's counter intelligence investigation during the 2016
election has moved from an administrative review into the criminal prosecution realm. Durham will now be able to actively pursue
candidates for possible prosecution.
The defensive assault from the Democrat hierarchy and its corporate media cohorts can be expected to reach a fevered pitch of
manic proportions as both investigations threatened not only their political future in 2020 but perhaps their very existence.
NBC s uggests that the Barr investigation is a ' mysterious ' review " amid concerns about whether the probe has any legal
or factual basis " while the
NY Times continues
to cast doubt that the investigation has a legitimate basis implying that AG Barr is attempting to " deliver a political victory
for President Trump." The Times misleads its readers with:
Trump has repeatedly attacked the Russia investigation, portraying it as a hoax and illegal even months after the special counsel
closed it."
when in fact, it was the Russiagate collusion allegations that Trump referred to as a hoax, rather than the Mueller investigation
per se.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va), minority leader of the Senate Intel Committee suggested that Attorney General William Barr " owes the
Committee an explanation " since the committee is completing a " three-year bipartisan investigation " that has " found nothing to
justify " Barr's expanded effort.
The Senator's gauntlet will be ever so fascinating as the public reads exactly how the Intel Committee spent three years and came
up with " nothing " as compared to what Durham and the IG reports have to say.
On the House side, prime-time whiners Reps. Adam Schiff (D-Calif) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) commented that news of the Durham
investigation moving towards criminal liability " raised profound concerns that Barr has lost his independence and become a vehicle
for political revenge " and that " the Rule of Law will suffer irreparable damage ."
Since Barr has issued no determination of blame other than to assure a full, fair and rigorous investigation, it is curious that
the Dems are in premature meltdown as if they expect indictments even though the investigations are not yet complete.
There is, however, one small inconvenient glitch that challenges the Democratic version of reality that does not fit their
partisan spin. The news that former FBI General Counsel James Baker is actively cooperating with the BD investigation ought to send
ripples through the ranks. Baker has already stated that it was a 'small group' within the agency who led the counterintelligence
inquiry into the Trump campaign; notably former FBI Director James Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
Baker's cooperation was not totally unexpected since he also cooperated with the
Inspector General's FISA abuse investigation which is awaiting public release.
As FBI General Counsel, Baker had a role in reviewing the FISA applications before they were submitted to the FISA court and
currently remains under criminal investigation for making unauthorized leaks to the media.
As the agency's chief legal officer, Baker had to be a first-hand participant and privy to every strategy discussion and decision
(real or contemplated). It was his job to identify potential legal implications that might negatively affect the agency or boomerang
back on the FBI. In other words, Baker is in a unique position to know who knew what and when did they know it.
His 'cooperation' can be generally attributed to being more concerned with saving his own butt rather than the Constitution.
In any case, the information he is able to provide will be key for getting to the true origins of Russiagate and the FISA scandal.
Baker's collaboration may augur others facing possible prosecution to step up since 'cooperation' usually comes with the gift of
a lesser charge.
With a special focus on senior Obama era intel officials Durham has reportedly already interviewed up to two dozen former and
current FBI employees as well as officials in the office of the Director of National Intelligence.
From the number of interviews conducted to date it can be surmised that Durham has been accumulating all the necessary facts and
evidence as he works his way up the chain of command, prior to concentrating on top officials who may be central to the investigation.
It has also been reported that Durham expects to interview current and former intelligence officials including CIA analysts, former
CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper regarding Russian efforts to interfere in the
2016 election.
In a recent
CNN
interview , when asked if he was concerned about any wrongdoing on the part of intel officials, Clapper nervously responded:
I don't know. I don't think there was any wrongdoing. It is disconcerting to know that we are being investigated for having
done our duty and done what we were told to do by the President."
One wonders if Clapper might be a candidate for 'cooperating' along with Baker.
As CIA Director, Brennan made no secret of his efforts to nail the Trump Administration. In the summer of 2016, he formed an inter-agency
taskforce to investigate what was being reported as Russian collusion within the Trump campaign. He boasted to Rachel Maddow that
he brought NSA and FBI officials together with the CIA to ' connect the dots ."
With the addition of James Clapper's DNI, three reports were released: October, 2016, December, 2016 and January, 2017 all disseminating
the Russian-Trump collusion theory which the Mueller Report later found to be unproven.
Since 1947 when the CIA was first authorized by President Harry Truman who belatedly regretted his approval, the agency has been
operating as if they report to no one and that they never owe the public or Congress any explanation of their behaviour or activity
or how they spend the money.
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run their
own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress willing
to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast
Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member
of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31
vexarb
From a realist who deals with the real world, Syrian President Dr.Assad on why Trump is the best POTU$A:
"As for Trump, you might ask me a question and I give you an answer that might sound strange. I say that he is the best American
President, not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president. All American presidents perpetrate
all kinds of political atrocities and all crimes and yet still win the Nobel Prize and project themselves as defenders of human
rights and noble and unique American values, or Western values in general. The reality is that they are a group of criminals who
represent the interests of American lobbies, i.e. the large oil and arms companies, and others. Trump talks transparently, saying
that what we want is oil. We want money. This is the reality of American policy. What more do we need than a transparent opponent?"
vexarb
Adds realist Dr.Assad: "I said before whatever the Americans say has no credibility, whether they say it to an enemy or a friend,
the result is the same – it is unreliable. That is why we do not waste our time on things like this. "
[Note: by "the Americans" Dr.Assad means the United $tates. A figure of speech, taking the whole to denote the part.]
Martin Usher
I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted a formal impeachment, they would prefer that Trump just faded away quietly before
the 2020 election and were in the process of collecting information to reinforce this. They got cornered into formalizing the
investigation by Trump's defense team baiting them as part of their overall strategy. It really doesn't change anything.
Whichever way you slice and/or dice it Trump is fundamentally incompetent, he's unable to fulfill the duties of the office
of the President. He also refuses to distinguish between private interests and public service. His cabinet, a rag tag body of
industry insiders and special interests, are busy trying to ride roughshod over opposition, established policy and even public
opinion to grab as much as possible before the whole house of cards collapses. Its a mess, and its a mess that's quite obviously
damaging US interests. Many constituency groups will have gone along with the program because they thought they could control
things or benefit from them but as its become increasingly obvious Trump's unable to deliver they've been systematically alienated.
The DNC is playing this with a relatively weak field of potential candidates for 2020. Much as I personally like a Sanders
or Warren they're just not going to fly in a Presidential contest -- as we found from the Obama presidency the ship of state just
doesn't turn on a dime, you're not going to undo decades or generations of entrenched neoconservatism and a politically divided
country overnight by some kind of Second Coming pronouncements. My concern is that if we don't get our collective acts together
we're going to end up with a President Romney after 2020 -- a much more reasonable choice considering the last four years but
also one that's guaranteed to change nothing. We need the journey but its only going to start with a few steps.
( and as for Trump/collusion we've spent the last three years confusing money with nation states. Trump's a businessman in
a business that's notorious for laundering money from dubious sources (this doesn't mean he's involved, of course)(legal disclaimer!).
I daresay that if Russia really wanted to sink Trump they could easily do so but why would they bother when he's doing such a
great job unaided?)
Interesting updates, Joerg: however, it was obvious from the beginning that the interference in the US 2016 elections were Deep
State gamers, from GCHQ-Ukro-Italian secret services, which was why they manufactured the Skripal Affair as Russians, Warning
& Distraction, to cover their own backsides in the media: the same Skripal that worked on the Bum Steele Dossier, writing complete
& utter fiction about Trump, that Comey then used as basis for his attempt with McCabe to enact Treason U$A, on wholly false trumped
up charges, which were then transposed to the Russiagate-Hoax, Mueller &&& (yawn), . Still, it's good that Sid Powell has confirmed
that they have Mifsud's phone . . . Get Mifsud, Now !? Strange how such USUK Agents become untraceable, when we simple folk would
be harangued to hell, even with the odd ex-judicial killing, if we prove inconvenient to their narrative.
More importantly for me was the "Putin sends a clear Message to Macron and the EU" TDC, (Top dead centre) in your link: it
was a (month old) pretty good longterm objective analysis of how the alliance between Russia & China was designed to be and has
become truly rock-solid, moving forwards: and it's well discussed & documented what a moron ManuMacroni has been on the world
stage >>> great translation of Putin's statement of intent and clear talk to Macron, who is exposed for the meaningless Deep State
puppet he is >>> even, Putin had no need to mention the Gilets Jaunes, representing a degree of vision, trust & commitment far
beyond that of the failing FUKUS empires: a vision that FUKUS cannot even financially entertain, in their present economic state
of financial & moral depravity & bankruptcy.
Austerity my ass, let's keep raising national debt and keep funding bum wars & terrorism, for the MIC & National Security State,
until society burns. How utterly shameful
It should be now very clear to all that the Russian-Chinese alliance is far more than just military, in every sense: together,
the world's largest economy will plough on regardless of what Macron or any other arrogant manipulative untrustworthy Westerner
has to say! And frankly, after NATZO's broken promises in Eastern Europe, (which I have personally observed here in Bulgaria since
2004, fully expected & awaited, I might add) and the events in the Ukraine and the self-destructive EU sanctions based on media
lies & manipulations & omissions, I really do believe Putin has handled this all extremely wisely & astutely playing the long
game, like the Chinese & avoiding incredible provocation, media wise. One day, however long it takes, the average ignorant Westerner
will come to understand that they have been deceived & lied to, from the beginning, especially by their secret services; & have
been lapdogs in the arms of US Deep State Corporate Fascist NATZO CIA & GCHQ morons, in "The History of the National Security
State" and, that Julian Assange needs to be set FREE asap : and given the Seth Rich murder, which kinda' benefited Trump and his
Fake News declarations, my guess is that Trump will not want Assange charged, in the end: but, we'll see ! ? Because first the
British have to sort out the arrogant bastards in GCHQ, also in the Media and their own new 'attorney general' who will investigate
secret services role in Deep State Corporate Deeds & prosecute people like Judge Arbuthnot, for not recusing herself >>> BoJo's
job, actually, but who cares ? >>> drain UK Swampland. ? Myopic Corbyn seems to have missed the bus & significance on the Affair
Assange, completely, which is somewhat inexplicable, given the Guardian Moderators infiltration by the British Military 77th Brigade,
and their bias against Corbyn. At least, that appears to be Trump's agenda and the longer Assange remains 'Censored', the worse
that societies throughout Europe will become, until we all address Communications & Media Law, with wholly wise, tech. savvy intelligent
and independent JUDGES, not compromised by the HillBilly Clinton/Epstein Clan of NATZO CIA/GCHQ operatives. (maybe I'm not clarifying
in the best way, but hopefully you get the drift?). Only a week or so ago, the Bulgarian President was complaining about appalling
standards of journalism, too, with an obvious agenda from abroad, also in terms of ownership. (Not widely reported!) And, I'm
sure you are aware of the incredible bias & censorship in the German MSM, just like Professor Dan Ganser & myself. 😉 R.i.P Udo
Ulfkotte >>> when Secret Services dictate the News, not much point in listening to a word they have to say >>> HANG 'EM HIGH
! out to dry, in Public Eye ! They are FASCISTS ! The worst kind !
I don't say this lightly . . . after over 40 years studying their collective behaviours, in relation to the reality on the ground.
Joerg
@Tim Jenkins
Yes, You are right.
But let's look at the bigger picture.
23 Trillions(!) of $$ are missing in the Pentagon.
To that see the great James Corbett's video "Fitt's Trillions" –
https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=fitts-trillions
.
So 23 trillion $ are missing – and the congress decided not to follow that up.
Before that on 911 already 3 trillion $ (if I remember this right) were missing in the Pentagon. And surprise, surprise: On 911
the Pentagon building exploded exactly there where those accountants were placed, who tried to find out where all that money (3
trillion $) went. All accountants died. After that no one started again to find out where the money went.
Where did the stolen gold from under the Twin Towers go to? Mueller (than state attorney of NY) obviously did want to research
that.
The US is already ruled by a mighty super-syndicate – or possibly by two or three of them. So mighty they could put the classical
Mafia directly into kindergarten.
And with that much money stolen they can buy in the USA but also in Europe (and, yes, Germany) all politicians, judges and journalists.
And those who don't comply, get fired by their (also bought) boss. Or they get murdered ("suicide"), or their career gets destroyed.
There are no classical politics anymore like, let's say, 50 years ago. Here in the west it is only the super-syndicates' power
that rules.
By the way: In the end-time of the Roman Empire there were also no more free judges. They had to follow the orders of the local
criminal gang – or they got killed. And I also believe that the fall of this impressive "Indus Valley Civilisation" (2000 B.C.)
was caused by overwhelming and destructive power of Mafia/Syndicates. In the end the citizens of the Indus Valley civilisation
simply fled the area – obviously to south India. So the Tamils may very well be the descendants of the old Indus people.
With you all the way, Joerg: ironic you should mention the Tamils. I spent time alone in Jaffna, in the aftermath of genocide.
I'd better not start here & now on Sin-dication and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Suffice to say, if one wishes to speculate
on the weather & commodities, with insider knowledge of what the D.o.D. did/do with electronics like HAARP, one would not be a
particularly intelligent or moral person, scientifically speaking. And said person, would never wish to discuss the contents of
WTC 7 and that Pentagon Wing. 😉
Ta, for the linkS :). Look forward to hearing more from you.
Viele Grüsse,
Tim
Latest in series of articles by the author re USA – Ukraine connections
"American Ukrainian nationalists don't like democracy. They don't understand the concept of it and don't care to learn. But
they do understand nationalist fascism where only the top of society matters. They are behind the actors of the Intelligence coup
going on in the US today .This is the mentality and politics the Diaspora is pushing into American politics today. Hillary Clinton
and the DNC is surrounded with this infection which even includes political advisors.
Rest assured they all the related Diasporas are in a fight for their political lives. If Donald Trump wins, their ability to
infect American politics might be broken. Many of the leadership will be investigated for attempting to overthrow the government
of the United States."
"My thoughts on all this are that many of us have become distracted and failed to examine the timeline of events since 9/11. We
look at news and conflict in isolation and move on to the next without seeing what is now a clear pattern."
In terms of the Middle East you need to go back further than the fortuitous event of 9/11 – at least to 1997 and the founding
of the Project for the New American Century which was essentially the first explicit formalisation of the agenda for an imperialist
Neoliberal and Neoconservative globalist new world order deployed through the media constructed conflicts of 'good' and 'evil'
around the world and with it the call for the 'democratisation' of the Middle East under the alibi of humanitarian interventionism
against broadly socialist governments, which since the fall of communism were constructed by Neoliberal fundamentalists as being
patently heretical and ideologically illegitimate forms of government. If it is economically illogical to elect a socialist failed
form of government then one can only assume that the election must have been rigged.
I started looking at this all a few years ago when I asked myself the question 14 years after the invasion of Iraq: where was
the liberal outrage at what had subsequently taken place in the ME? The answer was that from the Invasion of Iraq onward in addition
to fully embracing the economics of Neoliberalism as the end of economic history, the progressive 'left' quietly assimilated and
reduplicated the fundamentalist illiberal political philosophy of the Neocons. The progressive 'left' both in the UK and US have
subsequently become the far Neocon 'right' in all but name and their party hosts of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the
US remain blissfully unaware of all of this. How else can we explain why they would welcome 'Woke' Bill Kristol into their ranks?
Once one accepts this hypothesis, then an awful lot falls into place in order to explain the 'Progressive' open support for regime
change and the almost total lack of any properly liberal objections to what has taken place ever since.
One key point here is that the Neocons have nothing to do with conservatism or the right. What is striking and most informative
about the history of Neo-conservatism is that it does not have its roots in conservatism at all, but grew out of disillusioned
US left wing intellectuals who were Marxist, anti-Stalinist Trotskyites. This is important because at the heart of Neo-conservatism
is something that appeals strongly to the die hard revolutionaries of the left who hold a strong proclivity for violence, conflict
and struggle. If one looks at the type of people in the Labour party who gravitated to the 'progressive' Neoliberal imperialist
camp they all exhibit similar personality traits of sociopathic control freaks with sanctimonious Messiah complexes such as Blair.
These extremist, illiberal fundamentalists love violence and revolution and the bloodier the better. In Libya or Syria is did
not matter that Gadaffi or Assad headed socialist governments, the Neo-colonised progressives would back any form of apparent
conflict and bloody revolution in any notional struggle between any identifiable form of 'authority' or 'oppression' with any
identifiable form of 'resistance' even if those leading the 'resistance' were head chopping, misogynist, jihadist terrorists.
It makes no difference to the fundamentalist revolutionary mindset.
The original left wing who gradually morphed in the Neoconservatives took 30-40 years to make the transition for the 1960s
to 1990s. The Labour party Blairites made the same journey from 1990 to 2003. Christopher Hitchens made the same journey in his
own personal microcosm.
When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end? Does anyone else think that Adam Schiff has a screw or three
loose, and should be residing in an institution? And imagine if somehow Mike Pence became Prez. Now that would be something to
scare the bejesus out of you.
Tim Jenkins
Adam Schiff should be shot for Treason, of the highest order, along with many others, including HRC, Brennan & Clapper ; and it
should be a public execution, like in Saudi Arabia. This is war on the minds of the masses, that Schiff for brains cares nothing
for.
As for Chuck Schumer, he can have a life sentence, as long as he manages to shut his utterly unfunny dumb vulgar cousin Amy up
& keep her out of the public eye, forever 🙂
Gezzah, life may seem bad right now: but imagine if,
you were Amy Schumer's Husband and father of her child 😉
Talk about obnoxious and utterly nauseating 🙂 , with you Gezzah, all the way.
"When is this nausea inducing confected pile of crap going to end?"
I'm almost seriously thinking of buying a one way ticket to the Marquesas Islands Right in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, nowhere
near anywhere; such is the mad bad state of the World.
Need to start up a Go Fund Me page tho!
As I almost (94.6% of the time) boycott the presstitute filth masquerading as journalists (cough) so, I 99% of the time boycott
anything coming out of Hollywood, including alleged 'comedians'.
How are things in Bulgaria? What are the Fascist Stormtroopers up to, aka NATZO who all those you named have intimate connections
with.
Listening to a gorgeous Russian band called: iamthemorning. Check them out – food for the soul. Enjoy your arvo..
"The presidential election in Argentina was a game-changer and a graphic lesson. It pitted the people versus neoliberalism.
The people won – with new President Alberto Fernandez and former President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK) as his VP.
Neoliberalism was represented by a PR marketing product, Mauricio Macri [a Micron look-alike]: former millionaire playboy,
president of football legends Boca Juniors, obsessed with spending cuts, who was unanimously sold by Western MSM as a New Age
paradigm.
Well, the paradigm will soon be ejected, leaving behind the usual New Age wasteland: $250 billion in foreign debt, less than
$50 billion in reserves; inflation at 55 percent; 35.4 percent of Argentine homes can't make it); and (incredible as it may seem
in an agriculturally self-sufficient nation) a food emergency."
Meanwhile, in the real world, the Denmark's Ukronazi-friendly regime has been brought to heel by Germany's common sense:
Some big natural gas news very significant for Russia, Germany and the Ukraine. The Danish pipeline sector has been stalled
for a while now by anti-Russia, pro-Ukrainian forces within the Scandiwegian NATZO-friendly regimes. But it appears that Nordstream
2 _will_ get completed and that Ukraine's gas transit chokehold on the EU will come to an end when Russia's Nordstream 2 comes
online for Europe.
-- -- -- -
Permit for the Nord Stream 2 project is reluctantly granted by the Danish Energy Agency. Nord Stream 2 AG has been granted
a permit to construct natural gas pipelines on the Danish continental shelf.
The permit is granted pursuant to the Continental Shelf Act and in accordance with Denmark's obligations under the UN Convention
on the Law of the Sea. Denmark has been put under obligation to allow the construction of transit pipelines with respect to resources
and the environment.
In my humble opinion, the Trump stuff is all total nonsense.
Donald Trump was a property speculator in New York (amongst other places) and was heavily involved with the Mafia. Likewise,
Trump was heavily involved with Jeffery Epstein.
There's so much dirt on Trump that they could get him with the snap of fingers; but of course that's not what they really want.
Trump is pure theatre; a ploy to divert the masses. 'RussiaGate', 'UkraineGate' are all utter rollocks.
Trump and Obama, and all the rest going back to the assassination of Kennedy, are just puppets.
American/ deep state policy doesn't change a jot with any of them.
Wilmers31
America is always presentation over substance, wrapper over content, and shoot the messenger if you don't like the message.
In the meantime the adults in this world outside the US have to hold it all together.
Why was for instance Hillary Clinton not in the dock for saying 'Assad must go'?? It was meddling in the highest order.
Antonym
Pretty humble for an opinion 😀
phree
I guess this just goes to show you that a person can be a member of the ACLU, even a leader apparently, and still be highly biased
in favor of Trump.
Just because a witness is "cooperating" with an investigation does not entail that the witnesses testimony or evidence will
favor any particular side.
And implying that Clapper's comments somehow shows guilt when he clearly says he knows of no wrongdoing is pretty over the
top.
I've read a lot of what's out there about the start of the initial Russia investigation, and it does seem that some of the
FBI personnel leading it (McCabe particularly) were anti-Trump.
Isn't the bigger question whether the investigation was justified based on the reports from the Australians that Trump was
getting political dirt on Hillary from Russia? Is the FBI just supposed to ignore those reports? Really?
George Cornell
Love the Clapper claim (the same Clapper who lied to Congress) says he was just doing his duty in Russiagate. As GBS said, " when
a scoundrel is doing something of which he is ashamed, he always says he is doing his duty".
mark
The Spook Organisations and the Dirty Cops are a greater threat to our way of life than any foreign army or terrorist group (most
of which they created in the first place and which they directly control.)
They are a law unto themselves and completely free of any genuine oversight or control.
This applies equally to the US and UK.
"We lie, we cheat, we steal", as Pompeo helpfully explains.
They also murder people, at home and abroad. JFK, David Kelly, Diana, Epstein.
They plant bombs and blow people up.
Many of the "terrorist atrocities" from Northern Ireland to the present day, were false flag spook operations. The same applies
with Gladio on the continent and the plethora of recent false flags.
There is also a long and inglorious history of interference in domestic politics from the Zinoviev Letter onwards. Plots to stage
a military coup against the Wilson government of the 60s and 70s, with Mountbatten as its figurehead.
The more recent Skripal Hoax.
The contrived Syrian Gas Attack Hoaxes and the White Helmets.
They would not hesitate to do the same to Corbyn if they deemed it necessary.
The CIA and FBI conspired with the UK and Ukrainian governments to prevent the election of Trump, and then to sabotage and smear
his administration once he had been elected. The UK played a major part in this through MI6 and Steele.
This is highly dangerous for this country, irrespective of your view of Trump.
Trump has repaid the favour by meddling in Brexit and interfering in UK politics. It is not in his nature to turn the other cheek.
We have spook organisations claiming for themselves a right of veto over election results and foreign policy. These people are
poor servants and terrible masters.
We see Schumer warning against crossing the spook organisations, begging the obvious question – who runs this country, you or
the spooks?
The Democrats, the Deep State, the MSM, and the Deranged Left were willing to support these conspiracies and hoaxes, and even
suspend disbelief, for the greater good. The ends justify the means. All that matters is getting rid of Trump. Anything goes.
The corrosive erosion of trust, credibility and integrity in all the institutions of the state is probably irreparable. The legislature
and the political process in general. The judiciary. The spooks and police. About 9% of Americans now believe the MSM.
The irony in all this is that it very much serves Trump's interests.
He is extremely vulnerable, having failed to keep any of his promises.
Building The Wall, Draining The Swamp, Bringing The Troops Home. Sorting out health care. Building "incredible, fantastic" infrastructure.
All the Democrats had to do was highlight these failures, find a suitable candidate, and put forward some sensible policies, and
they were home and dry.
Instead, they provided an endless series of diversions and distractions from Trump's failures by charging down every rabbit hole
they could find, Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Impeachment. It couldn't work out better for Trump if he was paying them.
Expect to see the Orange Man in the White House for another 4 years.
And another even more virulent outbreak of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Tim Jenkins
Enigmatic and brilliant synopsis, m8, lol: & surely BigB could only agree 🙂
and you never even mentioned HQ.Intel.inside.Israel, today & their illegal trespass of WhatsApp, via corporate 'subsidiaries'
with 'plausible' denial of liability of spying on
everything-everything & any body, that could possibly threaten corporate fascist computerised dictatorship: distributing backdoors,
like Promis & Prism, liberally & worldwide, the Maxwells legacy . . . (yet) 🙂
No need to even discuss, until Western societies ALL get a grip on the depths of depravity that lie within the actions
and "The History of the National Security State" you have to admit, that Julian Assange could not have picked a better book to
firmly grip and signal with, than GORE Vidal's, when being manhandled out of the Ecuadorian Embassy, by Spooks who would
sell their own mother, let alone nation, in their utter technological ignorance and adherence to anachronistic doctrines & mentality
!
Glad you mentioned 'good ole' cousin ChuckS.' >>> Lol, just for a laugh and a sense of perspective: yes, he is related to Amy
Queen of Vulgarity & hideous societal distraction.
What a family of wimps & morons: the 'Schumers' being perfect fodder for ridicule & intelligent humour, naturally . . . on a positive
note, mark, think yourself lucky that you are not married to or the father of Amy Schumer's child 🙂
mark
I think I'd prefer the female rhinoceros in Moscow Zoo, even if Putin has been blackmailing me with the photos ever since.
Tim Jenkins
Well, (ahem), you certainly got me all thorny & horny, more than AmyS. ever could, in her wildest dreams, or Chucks, (shucks)
🙂 talk about suckers . . . now, do tell, what was the female Rhino's name ? ! 🙂
Who cares about some BlackRhinoMail, today ?
They'll be dead and extinct, in no time with a legacy 😉
for passionate lovers of Black holes & eternal energy 🙂
Antonym
Is that the best money can buy these days in the US? I guess most of the 1% reside in the Caribbean these days, while Washington
D.C. is stuffed with semi-stiffs.
The most important thing for us and deliciously so now the election is happening is the BLOWBACK. Our DS lying murdering arses
are going to get new ones drilled by Trump and BoBos bromance exploding in full technicolor.
Think May's dementia tax and Strong and Stable were bad?
Lol. This is going to be a FUN month of early xmases.
Dungroanin,
SST is essential reading for anyone concerned with US overseas policy and the corruption of the USA itself in the service of the
security state, so, many thanks for posting this link.
Dungroanin
By sharing we disrupt the msm messages.
Bernard at MoonofAlabama is also worth a daily visitation – priceless analysis on multiple subjects.
lundiel
Since those days it has been a weak-minded Congress, intimidated and/or compromised Members who have allowed intel to run
their own show as if they are immune to the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Since 1947, there has been no functioning Congress
willing to provide true accountability or meaningful oversight on the intel community.
Pretty much a carbon copy of our own oversight. We hear even less about our security services than Americans do of theirs.
I'd have thought that events like the spy in the holdall, the spies caught by farmers in Libya, the Skripal's, and the whole over-the-top
reaction to the domestic terrorism threat and consequent successful pleas for extra funding, the obvious danger of creating terrorists
by security services, the policy of giving asylum to foreign terrorists of countries we don't like and the whole concept of the
5 eyes and GCHQ needs more than ministerial oversight, a committee of yes men/women and an intelligence services commissioner.
The dispute was not over whether the United States should continue to pursue empire but
rather how to continue to achieve it. The debates were occasioned by the rise of the
countries of the Global South, the societally wrenching experience of the Vietnam War, the
growth of power and influence of the former Soviet Union, and since its collapse, the
emergence of China as a new global economic, political and military power. In addition, the
new international economy was becoming more global, that is to say more interconnected.
Debates about strategy, tactics, surfaced between the neoliberal globalists who emphasized
so-called free trade, financial speculation, and the promotion of a neoliberal agenda that
advocated for the privatization of all public activities by states and the development of
austerity policies that would shift wealth from the many to the few. The international debt
system would be the vehicle for pressuring poor and rich countries to transform their own
economic agendas. This faction dominated United States foreign policy making for
generations, particularly from Reagan to Clinton to Obama. In political/military terms,
they have sought to push back challengers to neoliberal capitalism: Russia, China, populist
Latin American countries, and they have advocated advancing US economic interests in Asia
and Africa. Many of the institutions of the neoliberal globalists, sometimes called the
"deep state" include the CIA, NSA, and other security agencies.
On the other hand, as Targ explains, are the Trumpian, "America First" nationalist
capitalists. This faction of the ruling class, while also supporting global dominance and a
permanent war economy (military-related spending will consume 48 percent of the 2020
federal budget) favors trade restrictions, economic nationalism, building walls and
anti-immigrant policies.
Although Trump is inconsistent, bumbling and sometimes contradictory, he's departed from
the neocon's agenda by making overtures to North Korea and Russia, voicing doubts about
NATO as an expensive relic from the past that is being dangerously misused outside of
Europe, not being afraid to speak bluntly to EU allies, frequently mentioning ending our
"endless, ridiculous and costly wars," asserting that the U.S. is badly overextended and
saying "The job of our military is not to police the world."
I would add that Trump is also an "American exceptionalist" but ascribes a very
different provincial meaning to the term, something closer to a crabbed provincialism, an
insular "Shining City on a Hill," surrounded by a moat.
The constitutional power to impeach a
duly elected president was intended by the Framers of the Constitution as a neutral, non-partisan
tool of last resort to be used against only criminal incumbents in extreme cases.
It is
now being deployed as a partisan weapon that can be used routinely against presidents of a
different party from those who control the House of Representatives.
Under the views of some members of Congress, any time the House is controlled by one party, a
simple majority can properly vote to impeach. As Congresswoman
Maxine
Waters put it
:
"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law."
She is wrong.
The Constitution is the law and she is not above it.
The recent partisan misuse of this emergency power began with the impeachment of former
President William Jefferson Clinton by the Republican-controlled House in 1998.
Clinton did
not commit an impeachable offense, even if he feloniously lied under oath about his sex life. Such
perjury, if it occurred, would satisfy the definition of a "crime," but not meet the required
Constitutional criteria of a "high crime and misdemeanor."
If President Clinton committed
a crime, it would be a low crime related to his sex life and comparable to the low felonies --
adultery and paying off an extortionist -- committed by Alexander Hamilton when he was Secretary of
the Treasury. Had Hamilton payed the extortionist from Treasury funds, as he was falsely accused of
doing, he would have been guilty of an impeachable high crime.
To be impeached, a president must commit a crime (misdemeanor is a species of crime) and
the commission of that crime must also constitute an abuse of office. An abuse of office without an
underlying crime is a political sin, but not an impeachable offense.
This very issue was debated at the Constitutional Convention, where one delegate proposed
"maladministration" as the criteria for impeachment and removal of a president. James Madison, the
Father of our Constitution, strongly objected on the ground that so vague and open-ended a
criterion would have the president serve at the will of Congress and turn us from a Republic with a
strong president into a parliamentary democracy in which the chief executive can be removed by a
simple vote of no confidence. Instead, the Convention adopted strict prerequisites for impeachment:
treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors. The House is no more empowered to
substitute its own criteria for those enumerated in the Constitution than the Senate would be to
change the 2/3 vote requirement for removal to a simple majority or a 3/5 super majority. Congress
is not above the law. It is bound by what the Framers accepted and cannot now apply the criterion
the framers explicitly rejected.
Those who characterize the impeachment and removal process as completely political are
wrong as a matter of constitutional law, even if they are right in describing the reality of how it
is being currently misused. Advocates of this view misquote Hamilton in Federalist #65.
Hamilton did characterize the criteria for impeachment as "political," but only in the sense
that they relate to "injuries done immediately to the society itself." He then immediately rejected
the view that the process should be partisan, based on "the comparative strength of parties,"
rather than on "the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." He called that the "greatest
danger" and demanded "neutrality toward those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny." Those
who misquote and misunderstand Hamilton wrongly conflate the words "political," by which he meant
governmental, and "partisan, " by which he meant related to the comparative strength of parties and
factions.
It is difficult to imagine a greater breach of Hamilton's principles than the recent
House vote along party lines (with two exceptions, both opposing impeachment) to open a formal
impeachment investigation against President Trump. The vote was determined exclusively by the
"comparative strength of parties," as was the vote to impeach President Bill Clinton two decades
ago.
A partisan House vote to impeach President Trump, followed by a partisan Senate vote to acquit
him, would not only hurt the Democratic Party -- as the votes in the Clinton case hurt the
Republican Party -- it would damage our constitution and further polarize our already divided
nation.
Most important, misusing the impeachment power in a partisan manner would pose, in the
words of Hamilton, "the greatest danger" to our Constitution.
Attorneys Admit 'Whistleblower' Had Contacts With Other Presidential Candidates
by
Tyler Durden
Mon, 11/04/2019 - 11:40
0
SHARES
President Trump has continued to his attacks on the Democrats' "impeachment resolution"
proceedings, and in particular the so-called 'whistleblower' and the irrelevance of his (or her)
thoughts and feelings...
" What I said on the phone call with the Ukrainian President is "perfectly" stated.
There is no reason to call witnesses to analyze my words and meaning.
This is just
another Democrat Hoax that I have had to live with from the day I got elected (and before!).
Disgraceful!"
"
The Whistleblower gave false information & dealt with corrupt politician Schiff. He
must be brought forward to testify.
Written answers not acceptable! Where is the 2nd
Whistleblower? He disappeared after I released the transcript. Does he even exist? Where is the
informant? Con!"
And, interestingly, this follows a statement from the attorneys representing the whistleblower
acknoweledging that their client "has come into contact with presidential candidates from both
parties."
In light of the ongoing efforts to mischaracterize whistleblower #1's alleged "bias" in order
to detract from the substance of the complaint, we will attempt to clarify some facts.
First
, our client has never worked for or advised a political candidate,
campaign, or party.
Second
, our client has spent their entire government career in apolitical,
civil servant positions in the Executive Branch.
Third
, in these positions our client has come into contact with presidential
candidates from both parties in their roles as elected officials – not as candidates.
Fourth
, the whistleblower voluntarily provided relevant career information
to the ICIG in order to facilitate an assessment of the credibility of the complaint.
Fifth
, as a result, the ICIG concluded – as is well known – that the
complaint was both urgent and credible.
Finally
, the whistleblower is not the story.
To date, virtually every substantive allegation has been confirmed by other sources. For that
reason the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant.
* * *
Except the motivations of the whistleblower are relevant, as Dan Bongino noted on Fox this
morning:
"
There is no Whistleblower. There is someone with an agenda against Donald Trump.
What he was blowing the whistle on didn't happen.
We have the transcript of the call.
This is all a farce and no Republican should forget that."
A parade of Washington's unelected diplomatic elite has been appearing before the House
Intelligence Committee in a tiny room in the House basement, a SCIF (sensitive compartmented
information facility), walled off from the world by a blanket of electronic security to enforce
absolute, total secrecy. There, in a proceeding reminding most of the British Star Chamber,
they are making claims against a man they hate, a man whom the voters elected in 2016 to throw
them all out of any power whatsoever over the nation -- the President of the United
States. Here is how America voted.
Here is a map of US counties, colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic
majorities respectively. Source: personal.umich.edu
They are claiming that President Trump withheld necessary military aid for Ukraine in
exchange for a promise by the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his cocaine-addled son,
Hunter. This is the so-called "impeachment inquiry" which follows two previous impeachment
campaigns in sequence, launched by the Democrats and the Anglo-American defense and
intelligence establishment on the day Donald Trump won the election.
In this brief we will show you that Donald Trump should have withheld military aid from the
Ukrainians, but for a reason different than that stated. And, we will demonstrate that Joe
Biden should be investigated, for supervising a coup, led by neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which has
collapsed that country. Thousands have been killed or fled the country. Many of the foreign
policy mandarins now testifying against Trump were Biden's managers of that horrific crime, and
other similar crimes, which have created America's "forever" wars.
Joe Biden otherwise
played a key role as Obama's Vice President in the 2016-2017 illegalities against candidate
and President-elect Donald Trump, actively joining a small group of "principals" (John Brennan,
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, James Clapper, Jim Comey) discussing and implementing the
intelligence feed for a propaganda campaign intended to defeat Trump by smearing him as a
Russian agent. These conversations included Susan Rice, Avril Haines, and Lisa Monaco from the
White House side, in addition to Joe Biden. Biden also played a significant role in the
attempted coverup of the White House's direct role in the 2016 foreign interference
operation against Donald Trump.
After the string of illegalities against Trump, which continued through his firing of FBI
Director James Comey, and after the brutal
Robert Mueller inquisition , which destroyed many lives but came up empty as to any crimes
by the President, we have now entered phase three of the coup against the President. As
Congressman Al Green (D-TX) and even Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have admitted: impeachment now
is necessary because, without it, Trump will win a second term. The same sentiment was
pronounced by the British House of Lords in their 2018 "UK Foreign
Policy in a Shifting World Order," in an order to their American satrapy: a second Trump
term must not happen.
Everyone who has appeared before the House Intelligence Committee so far, is up to their
ears in U.S./British regime-change operations, particularly the one conducted by the Obama
Administration in 2013-2014 in Ukraine, where Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland engineered regime
change on Russia's border, using Neo-Nazis as muscle, and creating a post-coup vassal-state
which included the very same Neo-Nazis as government officials. Joe Biden, who served as the
Obama Administration's "point man" on Ukraine, and Biden's State Department, National Endowment
for Democracy, and Atlantic Council buddies misnamed their atrocity, the "Revolution of
Dignity." Victoria Nuland, the case officer with Joe Biden for the coup, says the United States
spent $5 billion dollars in creating this fiasco. Her figures do not include substantial funds
delivered by the British government and NATO, along with George Soros and other privateers.
Like other regime-change wars, most prominently Iraq, this one installed a government of
colonial administrators, and resulted in a perfectly predictable, violent insurgency from those
sections of Ukraine that would never agree to an occupation government, particularly after
being attacked by the coup's "Right Sector" neo-Nazis. In Ukraine, this insurgency involved the
Russian-speaking population of Eastern Ukraine, the Donbass, where, after the coup, the regions
of Donetsk and Lugansk declared themselves autonomous Republics. There is plenty of evidence
that the insurgency was provoked to facilitate a full-scale ethnic cleansing of this asset-rich
area which formerly housed that nation's manufacturing capacity and skilled
workforce.
March in Kiev on anniversary of the birthday of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera (depicted
on flag), January 2015, Photo: All-Ukrainian Union
The conflict in the Donbass has killed over 13,000 people to date. And the coup resulted in
the further disintegration of Ukraine into Europe's poorest country. The operation replaced one
set of corrupt oligarchs who stole the country's riches after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
but were considered "soft" on Russia, with a different set of oligarchs who have voiced a
desire to go to war with Russia, while continuing the stealing.
Biden, Ukraine, and
Burisma
This is the context for the real Joe Biden corruption story in Ukraine and his son's
estimated $3 million dollar haul from one of the largest and most corrupt Ukrainian gas and oil
companies: Burisma . This is a story about the obsession of Joe Biden and others who went
out to cripple Russia's economy by shutting down the gas transit lines that pass from Russia,
through Ukraine, to Europe, while supplying Ukraine through Western oil companies shepherded
into the country by Biden, along with a scheme for fracking in the war-torn Donbass. They
pursued this while overtly threatening Russia with nuclear war, facilitated by their new vassal
state, Ukraine, on Russia's border -- placing the entire world in jeopardy by their madness. To
accomplish his gas gambit, Biden had to capture Burisma.
Then Vice President Joe Biden with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, Secretary of
State John Kerry, Ambassador Victoria Nuland, and others in a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko on February 7, 2015.
Many of the British and American intelligence operatives who accomplished the Ukraine
"regime change" in 2014, turned their attention, in 2016, to destroying the political candidacy
of Donald Trump, smearing him as a Manchurian candidate because he publicly stated a desire for
better relations with Russia.
When Rudy Giuliani started to investigate Kiev's role in the illegal 2016 attempt to defeat
Donald Trump, he touched a "third rail" of British and American intelligence, one that goes all
the way back to British and American adoption and support of the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN-B) led by Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was an MI-6 agent, Lebed
became CIA. Earlier, during World War II, in collaboration with the Nazis, they slaughtered
thousands of Poles and Jews -- all in the name of defeating Russia. The Right Sector groups
used by Joe Biden for the coup and subsequently installed in the government, idolize Stepan
Bandera.
Now that Attorney General William Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham have, as anticipated,
undertaken a full criminal investigation of the U.S., British and other intelligence figures
who led the 2016-2017 effort to defeat Donald Trump and subvert his presidency, the Ukrainian
aspect of this operation has become a very, very hot potato.
The appearance of the bogus Ukraine-aid "whistleblower" -- himself, we now know, a CIA
agent, expert in Ukraine, who previously worked with Joe Biden in the Obama White House --
represents an effort to block this story from serious investigation at all costs. It also aims
to delegitimize the entire Barr/Durham criminal investigation, as well as the imminent report
of the Justice Department's Inspector General Michael Horowitz. Both DOJ investigations center
on illegalities in the first stage of the coup against Trump, prior to Mueller's appointment as
Special Counsel. And, most important, the bogus impeachment "inquiry" is yet another
full-spectrum information-warfare operation, using the media, fed by cascading, 24/7 bogus
headlines and leaks from the intelligence community and the Democrats in Congress, to tank the
President's standing with the American people and either impeach him or defeat him in
2020.
The Present Charade
We now know that the bogus whistleblower worked, covertly, with Congressman Adam Schiff's
staff to launder leaks about the President's July 25th phone call with incoming Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, into a new bogus narrative about the President. This
whistleblower is represented by a law firm that has actively sought whistleblowers from the
intelligence agencies against the President, posting leaflets and billboard ads outside the
agencies and offering to cover any and all expenses.
Paul Sperry, in an October 30th
article at Real Clear Investigations , states that everyone in Washington and the national
news media "knows" that the bogus whistleblower is Eric Ciaramella. If true, it only highlights
the scandal embodied in the sham impeachment proceedings being run by the Democrats, it is the
equivalent of a hand grenade. Ciaramella worked in the Obama White House with Susan Rice, John
Brennan and Joe Biden on Ukraine. He also worked with Alexandra Chalupa, who ran Ukraine's
illegal 2016 election interference in the United States on behalf of Hillary Clinton. According
to a former NSC official, he got caught leaking to the media as an Obama holdover at the NSC
under Trump, where he chaired the Ukraine desk. His leaks framed the totally bogus narrative
that Putin caused the firing of James Comey by Trump. Rather than being fired,
Ciaramella returned to the CIA and his close friends, according to Sperry's story, joined Adam
Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, a most convenient setup.
The bogus whistleblower was also assisted by a new Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, Michael Atkinson, who dubbed this bogus complaint "credible" and "urgent." Atkinson
migrated from the leadership of the National Security Division of the Justice Department -- a
central control point in Phases 1 and 2 of the coup -- to the IG post, and promptly rewrote the
rules so that whistleblower complaints could be based on total hearsay and gossip, rather than
first-hand knowledge. In Atkinson's January 2019 confirmation hearing before the Senate
Intelligence Committee, Mark Warner (D-VA) charged him with a mission of protecting
whistleblowers first and foremost. This was most strange coming from a committee that has
repeatedly acquiesced in the destruction of actual whistleblowers such as Tom Drake, Bill
Binney, Jeff Sterling, and Julian Assange. It suggests that a new "insurance policy" was being
worked on already by the higher echelons of the intelligence community and the most corrupted
committee in the Senate.
Surprise: the Transcript
To the surprise of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the coup's strategists, the President
released the actual transcript of his July 25th phone conversation with President Zelensky,
which, in any reasonable culture, should have ended the entire affair. The bogus
whistleblower's gossip was proven demonstrably false by the transcript. Washington, D.C. is
not, presently, such a culture.
In the call, President Trump congratulated Zelensky on his victory in the parliamentary
elections, and Zelensky promptly announced that he would be reforming his government to clean
up its legendary and horrific corruption. The President and Zelensky discussed the fact that
the United States is shouldering the burden of support for Ukraine, while Germany and other
European countries, which have the most immediate strategic interest, are not contributing
enough.
In the portion of the call the Democrats are trying to make an impeachable crime, President
Trump said he was concerned about Ukraine's intervention into the 2016 U.S. election on behalf
of Hillary Clinton and expressed concern that Zelensky is surrounded by some of the same people
who conducted those activities. Trump asked whether the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
computer server examined by CrowdStrike is in the possession of a Ukrainian oligarch. He asks
Zelensky to work with Attorney General Barr, who is conducting the investigation into the 2016
presidential election illegalities. He characterizes this request to investigate possible
Ukrainian illegalities in the 2016 election, and to speak with Attorney General Barr, as doing
him (Trump) a "favor."
The "favor," it is clear, had nothing to do with the 2020 elections or asking Ukraine to
"attack" Democrats and Joe Biden, as repeatedly mischaracterized by Democrats and the bogus
whistleblower. Instead, it had to do with investigating the ongoing coup in the United
States which threatens this nation's very existence .
It is Zelensky who brings up Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer, who has been conducting
his own investigation of Ukraine's interference on behalf of Hillary Clinton since January of
2019. The President then says that he had heard that a very good prosecutor in Ukraine was shut
down by some very bad people, and that the former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie
Yovanovitch, was bad news, as were the people she was dealing with. The President then relates
that Joe Biden bragged about stopping the prosecution of Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company
where Hunter Biden sat on the Board. He says that whatever Zelensky can tell Attorney General
Barr about this would be great. Zelensky responds that Marie Yovanovitch was a bad ambassador
as she admired Petro Poroshenko, the previous President, and refused to accept Zelensky's
election.
That's it. There was absolutely nothing illegal or wrong here, despite the hair-on-fire
headlines fulminated daily by the news media and Adam Schiff -- the same "walls closing in"
nonsense that occurred daily during Russiagate. There is no reference to, "if you do this, I'll
do that." In fact, the Ukrainians were not even aware that the lethal military aid they were
expecting had been placed on temporary hold.
Unfortunately, the President, after the call, approved the lethal military aid to Ukraine
which Congress' war-mongers had ordered up in their continuing destructive madness about
"Russia, Russia, Russia." The aid was issued without any requirement whatsoever that Ukraine
produce anything to meet President Trump's concerns about 2016 election interference or the
corruption surrounding Burisma and/or Joe Biden. The aid was issued without any real guarantees
in place to ensure that lethal weaponry would not be put in the hands of the various Neo-Nazis
integrated into Ukraine's National Guard and militias, and who are now arrayed against
President Zelensky himself, charging that his effort to settle the war in the Donbass is a
sell-out to Russia.
Now if the President and his supporters choose to tell the real and whole truth to the
American people about what the Ukraine issue is really all about, the impeachers, so desperate
to block this from coming to light, will have hoisted themselves on their own petard in true
Shakespearian fashion, in the best boomerang imaginable. That story, the real story about Joe
Biden, Ukraine corruption, and the Ukrainian role in the effort to fix the 2016 election for
Hillary Clinton, is what we will set forth, in summary fashion, in what follows.
Then the Ukraine whistleblower story broke in September
The problem here is that the person in question does not fit well the definition of
"whistleblower" unless you want to change the meaning of this word.
A more plausible hypothesis is that Ciaramella (if it was he) was a Brennan spy in the
West Wing, which former key FBI Russaigaters Peter Strzok and Lisa Page named
"Charlie".
If Ciaramella was a "Confidential Informant" (CI) in no way he can be called
whistleblower, because it was his responsibility to produce regular reports about Trump
administration actions and intentions for FBI, CIA or both. And that makes him and his
handlers subjects to criminal investigation.
So then the question is, if this goes on through the election, will that be a
disaster? It may depend on what evidence comes out.
IMHO the intention is to drag it till the elections in order to repeat the success of
the influence of Mueller investigation on the 2018 elections results. Kind of "Hail Mary"
pass by Pelosi. Right now even Sanders has diminished chances against Trump due,
unfortunately, to his health problems (to say nothing about the fact that DNC would
prefer Trump to Sanders any day ;-).
But please understand that the real game will start only after the Senate will open
the trial. So the last thing Pelosi wants is to get this case on the Senate floor. At
this point Senate Republicans can wipe the floor with Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and company
with impunity as long as they wish: they can call any witnesses and request any material
they want, using help from their House colleagues, especially Nunes, who proved to be a
pretty capable politician, much superior caliber then Schiff (who is the victim of
nepotism, so to speak ;-) . Tables will be instantly turned.
They can also destroy Brennan, Marie Yovanovitch (who can be criminally prosecuted for
informing Ukrainians that they do not need to deal with Trump, just wait until
impeachment) , Taylor, Vindman (who can be court marshaled) and other initiators of
Ukrainegate.
The question only is whether they want to do it or not, because most Republicans do
not like Trump.
Warren chances in the atmosphere of impeachment hysteria are not looking good (and the
fact the she jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon proves that she is a weak politician.)
First of all, unhinged Trump is dangerous. Not only he is a much better showman, he is
a master of playing a victim. He will try to rally voters around the flag and make his
failures less significant for his core electorate (some faction of which, for example
anti-war Republicans, and a part of blue-collar workers might not vote at all).
In other words, this impeachment game (and it is a dirty game) may play for Trump the
same role that Iraq war played for Bush II: people understood that this reformed
alcoholic is a miserable failure, but voted for him anyway out of patriotism.
Likewise, many independents who were ready to defect Trump may hold their nose and
vote for Trump because they despise neoliberal Dems dirty games more then they despise
Trump. Kind of perverted version of LEV (lessee evil voting :-)
"Americans sharply divided over whether to impeach and remove Trump from office, Post-ABC
poll finds" [
WaPo ]. "The poll finds that 49 percent of Americans say the president should be
impeached and removed from office, while 47 percent say he should not. Among Democrats,
support for removing the president from office is overwhelming, with 82 percent in favor and
13 percent opposed. Among Republicans, it is almost the reverse, with 82 percent opposed and
18 percent in favor, even as the president's approval rating reached a new low among members
of his party. Independents are closely divided, with 47 percent favoring removal and 49
percent opposed." • If one wished to be completely cynical, one might argue that the
quick release and simple story of UkraineGate was more effective than the constantly shifting
story of RussiaGate.
"Impeach Trump. Then Move On." [David Brooks, New York Times ].
"During Watergate, voters trusted federal institutions and granted the impeachment process a
measure of legitimacy. Today's voters do not share that trust and will not regard an
intra-Washington process as legitimate," • Yep. More: "I get that Democrats feel they
have to proceed with impeachment to protect the Constitution and the rule of law. But there
is little chance they will come close to ousting the president. So I hope they set a
Thanksgiving deadline. Play the impeachment card through November, have the House vote and
then move on to other things." • The Democrats were muttering about the end of the year.
No way.
UPDATE "Why the Impeachment Fight Is Even Scarier Than You Think" [ Politico
]. "Democrats and Republicans might still disagree about policy, but they are increasingly
also at odds over the very foundations of our constitutional order. Political scientists have
a term for what the United States is witnessing right now. It's called "regime cleavage," a
division within the population marked by conflict about the foundations of the governing
system itself -- in the American case, our constitutional democracy. In societies facing a
regime cleavage, a growing number of citizens and officials believe that norms, institutions
and laws may be ignored, subverted or replaced." • Seems reasonable. Here's the tell:
"Decades ago, a regime cleavage divided Chileans, with conservatives aligning against the
elected government of Salvador Allende and eventually leading to a coup that replaced him
with General Augusto Pinochet." How on earth to do you write about the coup in Chile without
mentioning the role of the intelligence community? Well, the same way you write about a
change in the Constitutional order today, without mentioning the intelligence community.
IMO there is a lot of evidence of incompetence and malfeasance in the leadership of the 17
agencies of the Intelligence Community and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A partial list
of failures and misdeeds:
1. They failed to predict the collapse of the USSR. There was a lot of scholarship on the
subject before the event and individual analysts were sure that the end was approaching for the
Soviet government but the agencies refused to believe that such a thing could happen. Why? The
IC accepted the insistence of the elected government of the US that history would continue in a
straight line forever with concomitant profits for industry.
2. They failed to predict 9/11. This failure was not "failing to connect the dots." It was
largely a failure to run clandestine HUMINT collection operations well enough to know what
al-Qa'ida was up to in detail. This was not an impossible task. The IC was offered the means of
penetration of the group and refused to take the risk of disclosure with subsequent damage to
executives careers even though it was well understood how dangerous AQ was after the East
Africa bombings.
3. They failed to infiltrate Al-Qa'ida before 9/11. Once again, this was not an impossible
task. I could tell you how, but ...
4. The FBI has repeatedly participated in DoJ efforts to "frame" persons charged in federal
courts. They helped DoJ prosecutors do that to Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska. To my certain and
personal knowledge from my work as a consultant to the federal courts and an expert witness in
national security cases the FBI/DoJ have repeatedly withheld evidence from the discovery
process in which security cleared defense attorneys were due this knowledge, I have seen the
FBI bribe witnesses to testify against defendants on what amounted to a contingency basis,
i.e., no conviction, no fee.
5. And then there is the current murky situation concerning the leaders of the IC; Brennan,
Clapper etc., and the leaders of the FBI. IMO it is clear that whatever they did exactly, they
aligned themselves against Candidate/President elect Trump.
There are many, many more examples but time and space available here must limit my
recitation of these issues.
Tell me, pilgrims, why should we put up with such nonsense? Why should we pay the leaders of
these agencies for the privilege of having them abuse us? We are free men and women. Let us
send these swine to their just deserts in a world where they have to work hard for whatever
money they earn.
TTG and I are agreed that the very first thing to do is strip CIA of whatever role they
still have in the world of Covert Action. CA includes all measures short of war but more
violent than diplomacy that are taken to implement legal US foreign policy. The CIA should not
have this mission, one they have shared with the armed forces since 9/11. CIA's present mission
is to serve as the main US Clandestine Service, backed up by the military. In this role they
are supposed to recruit foreigners to spy for us but also to run a large part of CA. It is
obvious to anyone who has watched them try to do that over many decades that they simply lack
the skills needed. Watching them try, is like watching a monkey try to f---k a football. In
their efforts to comply with this mission the civilian leadership of CIA hire people who once
were soldiers but who sought other employment and they also borrow junior soldiers from Army
Special Forces. Why not cut out the "middle man" in the process and have the military run
CA?
An argument can be made that the FBI, the spawn of J. Edgar Hoover's peculiar brain (he
amassed dossiers on US politicians in order to control them) and the CIA an artifact of the
Cold War (which ALWAYS had too much power) should simply be torn down as institutions and
replaced with other government bodies more reflective of our collective nation values.
The country needs a police agency that obeys the law. The country needs a small agency to
conduct strategic level penetrations of important foreign threats.
Should existing structures like the US Marshal's Service and/or DIA be given the missions of
the CIA and FBI or should altogether new groups be constructed with better controls inflicted
on them?
Well over a decade and half ago our local Committee on Foreign Relations (parent company
Council on Foreign Relations CFT) had a guest speaker on this exact topic -what are we
getting from the millions (billions?) spent on our IC community.
He also at that time presented a compelling list of intelligence failures, and questioned
the value of this operation's continued existence. Wish I could recall who the speaker was,
other than being surprised such clearly "anti-government" position was being presented under
the auspices of the CFR.
Sir,
It seems like we've reached a juncture where burning these agencies to the ground is
necessary. You'd greatly expand the US Marshall's investigative abilities and pass the CIA's
mission over to the military. Fine. However, you've still got the DoJ involved with the
Marshalls and you've got people like Vindman in the military and you've got people like
Clinton and Kerry at State, etc. Why wouldn't the Marshalls and military, in time, become as
corrupt and incompetent as the FBI and CIA?
Then there's the lack of congressional and executive oversight (or worse, mal-direction)
that has allowed a lot of the corruption and incompetence to flourish. Our elected reps are,
for the most part, very shabby people.
So I'm not optimistic about the longer term impact, but yeah, burn them down as an object
lesson for the time being.
You could start your bill of particulars a lot earlier than 1991. The CIA systematically
overstated the capabilities of the Soviet Union over a period of 40 years. That had serious
policy implications which reach right down to the present day. Then there were the Bay of
Pigs failure and Aldrich Ames.
It is said that Greed is the root of all evil.
Uncontrolled capitalism is Greed.
Your Congress and Senate are bought by money, To become elected to any government position
usually goes to the highest bidder.
Board members get rich by share buybacks that drain the blood from your companies enriching a
few shareholders on the way. One only needs to use Boeing as example once a great innovator
and engineering company now it is like a sleigh of hands.
So of course all levels of government are corrupted
Hollywood and the media controlled by a few extremely wealthy who's agenda certainly does not
support America or the American people.
So to talk about your changing your letter agencies is to try to fix the symptoms not the
cause.
Uncontrolled capitalism is nothing more than a willing buyer meeting a willing seller. Both
are mutually greedy - one wants a high price; one wants a low price. Nothing has changed.
Maybe you are talking about class envy, Chibi.
Turning to the FBI, why should the agency exist at all? We got along fine for more than a
century without it. It didn't serve its present "elite" role until 1982 and it has been a
notable failure in that regard, as demonstrated by your list.
Presently, there are more than 30 different armed law enforcement agencies in the federal
government--everything from the Marshalls Service to Fish & Wildlife. At best the FBI is
redundant.
How can they be cleaned out when the whole government appears infiltrated with individuals
disloyal to the Constitution. And the hypocrites say this
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on
which I am about to enter: So help me God."
turcopolier
"No. Neocons seek world domination under their rule. The US is just a tool for them."
As far as I can see they hate National Borders as you have stated. I wouldn't be surprised
at this point that the massive illegal immigration was allowed to happen in order to destroy
the fabric of society in the United States with the eventual goal of a North American Union.
The EU is definitely the model for a "Republic" of World Governments which will only be a
mask or veil for a tyranny much as it is today. But much much worse is planned in my
opinion.
It is time individuals start deciding which Father they will follow. The "God" of this
World known as Death or the God of Life. That's the way it was put to me. And that's the way
it will be put to the inhabitants of Planet Earth. We will either have a Kingdom of Hell or a
Kingdom of Heaven. No more straddling the fence.
I will never betray him again. And look forward to meeting the Bastard on the
Battlefield.
Sometimes analysis of long serving success may reveal how the nation might proceed. A case in
point -- Morris, Jack and Benjamin Childs and their wives. Morris who?
Morris and Jack Childs were early graduates of a 1920 Soviet spy school. They returned to
the US and operated in the Illinois area with some success, especially during the Depression
years. Morris developed a heart condition during WWII and was abandoned by the Communist
Party of America. His brothers dropped extraneous activity and focused their time and
resources on helping him.
Then . . . the FBI came calling. At government expense Morris was moved to the Mayo Clinic
and Jack was instructed to solicit assistance from Party Chapters all across the US. The
money received was minimal, but donors were enthusiastically thanked.
By 1950, Morris had risen to the #2 position in the Communist Party of America, which
involved his visiting Russia for a month at a time, several times every year to discuss
budget and operations. As a communist graduate of the "heroic" age, he became a discreet
father figure for everyone in the Politburo. (All his fellow graduates had been eliminated
during the Stalin years.) His friends in Moscow learned that their confidences and expressed
annoyances were sympathetically discussed, but never shared with rivals. Ultimately, the
Kremlin asked him to visit Mao in Peking, Castro in Havana to smooth over disputes -- Morris
was the go-to friend to the Politburo.
A word about Jack and Benjamin. They established a mail-order business selling white shoes
and clothes to nurses, called "Women in White," as a cover for the income Morris enjoyed as
an invalid. Periodically, Jack would visit New York to order clothing and collect Soviet
funds, using time-consuming Soviet methods to detect whether he was being followed.
The FBI never revealed anything about the Childs. In fact, many of Morris' FBI handlers in
Chicago were never promoted from modest GS 11 and 12 positions. The very valuable
intelligence delivered by Morris was disguised by the FBI handlers in "think essays," or as
electronic intercepts.
By 1977, Morris was visibly failing. He made one last trip to Moscow and Andropov
organized a magnificent dinner for hundreds in the Kremlin. On his return to Chicago, an
unknown moving company assisted the family to relocate to Florida amid numerous well wishing
farewells. Somehow, communication with the Childs in Florida ceased -- perhaps Morris had
died.
For a fascinating read: Operation Solo: The FBI's Man in the Kremlin, by John Daniel
Barron.
As Colonel Lang said, the first step is to transfer all covert action to DoD. That's where it
belongs. The CIA grabbed onto that as it became their raison d'être with their
"capture, kill" mantra after 9/11 and it has only gotten worse since then. The majority of
their paramilitary officers are former SF soldiers and Rangers. We might as well hire these
former soldiers back into DIA and JSOC similar to the Military Intelligence Civilian Excepted
Career Program long used by the Army and DIA for HUMINT officers. Hell, we've already used
civilian HUMINTers in special mission units. I was one of them.
The CIA is largely into liaison and Embassy operations, the cocktail party circuit. The
Army and, later, the DIA relied mainly on rather scruffy and low level commercial cover
operations. In my opinion, it takes a lot more skill to develop and run HUMINT operations
using a scruffy, nobody cover than than as an Embassy official. We, the military, can do both
well. I don't know if the same can be said of most CIA officers. Although, I have to admit
the CIA does a much better job at developing cover support mechanisms. Maybe that's a niche
for them. Having said that, there are more than enough intelligence requirements to keep two
HUMINT organizations fully employed. Let DIA support DoD's requirements and let a CIA without
CA or paramilitary capabilities support DoS, Commerce Department, and DOE requirements. CIA
is always trying to hog military support. Stay in your lane!
I agree with Eric Newhill in that much of the FBI's problems lie with the DOJ and the
court system. Our adversarial system either seeks a conviction or seeks to avoid a
conviction. Truth and justice take a backseat to these goals. Maybe there should be
separation of law enforcement and counter-intelligence. I'm not sure how that would work yet,
but that whole Homeland Security mess ought to be included in our bonfire of the
Agencies.
From a mere citizen of our battered Republic, no expertise in intelligence work other than
distrusting everything the Borg wants me to believe, I say huzzah to you sir. As others said,
the rot infects all society in interlocking, Byzantine knots. But the I.C. is a good place to
start. After all, no reforms will matter if we let these maniacs pull us into thermonuclear
extinction. Priorities.
No organization is immune from the effects of men and women with huge egos and a lust for
power---not the elected government institutions, the government bureaucracy, the military, or
even the church. One consolation throughout this attempted "coup" upon Trump has been the
fact that the full weight of the military is not behind this. What happens if our foreign
intelligence is handled by the military and it becomes corrupt? Who is to stop them?
Can we talk about what is so much at stake that those inside our government would plot
against our system of government, just to ensure they get their hands on it?
'Power" is not the answer -- power to do what? Is it just money- hands on our own tax
money? Ego. Is it a guy thing? Hanging on to nice house in, Foxhall, Bethesda or Spring
Valley?
What drove this insider cabal, who already were at the peak of their power in this the
most powerful nation on the planet, to plot this alleged coup?
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he included
a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced
char
-a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's
intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in
the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The
public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even
contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump
to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
There are some serious questions around the Biden family
involvement in the Ukraine that the media have not picked up
on.
The first regards the ownership of the company which hired
Joe Biden's son Hunter for an exorbitant amount of money while
Joe Biden ran the U.S. Ukraine policy.
The second question is about the firing of the Viktor
Shokin, the former Prosecutor General of the Ukraine. Trump
accuses Joe Biden of having intervened in favor of his son's
sponsor to get Shokin fired. The timeline below supports that
assertion.
That Lisa Page needs to be put in prison for a long ******* time.
She's been playing her **** **** games with Congress and Trump for
a couple of years, then she lies under oath. **** her, send her
away.
Who ever was running that loser SJW Charlie needs to be
indicted and thrown in prison as well.
Starting with Hillary, Obama, Biden, Holder, Brennan, Clapper,
Strock, Page, Comey, and that cankle pig Loretta Lynch...this is
good start.....and by the way, don't let that pig Donna Brazille
off either for what she did..all of these people need to pay. And
when they pay, then it is payback for Rachel Maddow...Don Lemon,
Chris Hayes, Lawrence O'Donnel, Anderson Cooper, etc.
And then...who else do I want to see BURN IN HELL...Pelosi,
Schiff, Waters, Fat **** Nadler, and that pig Shiela "Hand them an
envelope of cash" Lee. I almost forgot that piece of **** Eric
Swalwell.
You left out Criminal at Large, Debbie Wasserman Shultz. Let's
also not forget the Awan brothers. Anthony Weiner's laptop,
Seth Rich & Pure Evil War Criminal Treasonous Seditious
Psychopath at Large, Hillary Rodham Clinton's 33,000 missing
emails.
I know Lieutenant Colonel Alex
Vindman from a combined US-Russian exercise called Atlas Vision 13 in Grafenwoher, Germany.
He worked with the Russian Embassy and I was assigned to the Joint Multinational Training
Command within US Army Europe. Vindman worked coordination with the Russian 15th Peacekeeping
Brigade, and I was in charge of all Simulations planning, as well as assisting the US Army
Europe Lead Planner as the Senior Military Planner.
Share
photo credit:
Адміністрація
Президента
України
Alexander Vindman
I have a confession. I behaved badly recently, and I'm just going to admit it.
As a guest at a dinner party in Georgetown, I stormed in and started bossing everyone
around. First, I demanded that the foyer be painted a different color and wainscoting be added
to the dining room. Then I had my hosts assemble their children so I could give them all
different names. Before making my exit, I grabbed two legs of turkey off the entree platter and
stuffed them in my purse.
I have a second confession. None of that happened. But if it had, I would be exactly like
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman.
He was born in Ukraine and raised there until age 3 1/2, when he was invited to our country.
As you've no doubt heard, he served in our military. Thank you for your service, Colonel!
Now he is the top Ukrainian adviser on the National Security Council. Of all the people who
could look out for the U.S.'s interests vis-a-vis Ukraine, we got someone who was born
there.
As such, Vindman was permitted to listen to a phone call the president of the United States
made to the president of Ukraine -- a completely unnecessary, pro forma task.
So, naturally, when he had a policy disagreement with President Trump pertaining to the
country he was born in, he thought he had a responsibility to agitate for removal proceedings
against the duly elected U.S. president, just as I might have taken issue with the carpets in
the Georgetown townhouse.
"Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined erudition, the
last refuge of the insufferable."
For some reason, we keep hearing about Col. Vindman's valor and patriotism. I don't doubt
that he's a super swell guy. But unless I missed it in the newspapers at the time, I don't
believe he was elected president in 2016. In fact, there's a specific constitutional provision
that prevents Col. Vindman from ever being president: He wasn't born here.
Study question: Why might the framers have added that clause?
It would be bad enough if Col. Vindman's policy disagreement with the president had to do
with U.S. policy on Mexico or North Korea. But it was about the country where Col. Vindman was
born.
We're always told that Democrats don't have to prove wrongdoing by Trump -- for example,
under the emoluments clause, in his foreign policy negotiations or when he fired his FBI
director. Rather, it's claimed that Trump's conduct creates the appearance of impropriety.
Well, having a Ukrainian-born analyst butt in to ensure U.S. foreign aid flows effortlessly
to the country of his birth gives the appearance that he's concerned about fairness to Ukraine.
That's not what this is supposed to be about. It's supposed to be about what's in the best
interests of the United States.
Worse, Vindman was dealing with the U.S.'s Ukrainian policy versus Russia, which Ukrainians
hate because Stalin murdered millions of them. It's like having an Armenian advise on whether
we should be hostile to Turkey.
This is not the usual dual loyalty claim insultingly attributed to Irish or Jewish Americans
who were born in this country. Lots of us have admixtures of other nationalities.
But when you were actually born in another country and that's the precise policy matter
you're sticking your nose into, people are going to wonder if it's really our national
interests you're looking out for.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 1: Immigrants are required to wait a minimum of two
(2) generations before bossing around the most successful, prosperous, free country on Earth,
and fully three (3) generations before advising on our government's policy toward the countries
of their forefathers.
We also need a constitutional amendment directed at 10th-generation Americans who fancy
themselves foreign policy experts. Foreign policy is the idiot's shortcut to imagined
erudition, the last refuge of the insufferable.
Sen. Lindsey Graham was on TV last week, bragging about how he'd been to Syria --
Afghanistan? Iraq? Who cares! -- 75 times.
Not one person who voted for Graham has the peace and contentment of Syrians on his Top Ten
Concerns list. Like everyone else, South Carolinians care about their jobs, their safety, their
neighborhoods, their country.
But Sen. Graham wouldn't sound like a deep intellectual if he went on TV and started talking
about water treatment plants, despite the fact that clean drinking water is of far greater
interest to his constituents.
It's very romantic to think of yourself as a geopolitical chess player, jetting around the
globe and staying in five-star hotels in Riyadh and Paris, chatting with dictators and
reporting back your impressions as a Master of the Universe -- I'm very concerned about the
leadership of the Kurds Richard Haas wrote a fascinating treatise about how our policy has been
deficient in the following nine ways I'll be sure to bring that up next week when I'm meeting
with the E.U.
These are the kinds of people who would join Mensa.
It would be annoying enough if government officials, whose salaries we pay, spent all their
time working on the betterment of other nations, but at least everything turned out GREAT. In
fact, however, they're never right, they always make things worse, and they never pay a price
because, again, no one cares.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment No. 2: Elected officials may take one government-funded
boondoggle abroad for every three (3) trips they make to our southern border.
"... The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, such as information operations. A nice sounding euphemism for propaganda, and computer network operations. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation of this Task Force. ..."
The average American has no idea how alarming is the news that former CIA Director John
Brennan reportedly created and staffed a CIA Task Force in early 2016 that was named, Trump
Task Force, and given the mission of spying on and carrying out covert actions against the
campaign of candidate Donald Trump.
This was not a simple gathering of a small number of disgruntled Democrats working at the
CIA who got together like a book club to grouse and complain about the brash real estate guy
from New York. It was a specially designed covert action to try to destroy Donald Trump.
A "Task Force" is a special bureaucratic creation that provides a vehicle for bring case
officers and analysts together, along with admin support, for a limited term project. But it
also can be expanded to include personnel from other agencies, such as the FBI, DIA and NSA.
Task Forces have been used since the inception of the CIA in 1947. Here's a recently
declassified memo outlining the considerations in the creation of a task force in 1958. The
author, L.K. White, talks about the need for a coordinating Headquarters element and an
Operational unit "in the field", i.e. deployed around the world.
A Task Force operates independent of the CIA " Mission Centers
" (that's the jargon for the current CIA organization chart).
So what did John Brennan do? I am told by an knowledgeable source that Brennan created a
Trump Task Force in early 2016. It was an invitation only Task Force. Specific case officers
(i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and admin personnel were
recruited. Not everyone invited accepted the offer. But many did.
This was not a CIA only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force. We have some clues that Christopher Steele's FBi handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been
detailed to the Trump Task Force ( see here
).
So what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities. Task Force members could task NSA to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in covert action, such as
targeting George Papadopoulos. Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who
met with him, briefed on operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange
monitored meetings. I think it is highly likely that the honey pot that met with George
Papadopoulos, a woman named Azra Turk, was part of the CIA Trump Task Force.
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, such as information
operations. A nice sounding euphemism for propaganda, and computer network operations. There
has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation of this Task
Force.
In light of what we have learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, there
should be a serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at
minimum, reporting to them.
When I described this to one friend, a retired CIA Chief of Station, his first response was,
"My God, that's illegal." We then reminisced about another illegal operation carried out under
the auspices of the CIA Central American Task Force back in the 1980s. That became known to
Americans as the Iran Contra scandal.
I sure hope that John Durham and his team are looking at this angle. If true it marks a new
and damning indictment of the corruption of the CIA. Rather than spying on genuine foreign
threats, this Task Force played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald
Trump was a tool of the Russians and a puppet of Putin.
Petri Krohn's comment @37 "ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT"
Little mentioned is the server in Ukraine which was brought up in the phone call. Barr's
investigation has become a criminal investigation and interested in a server in Ukraine.
The impeachment farce is trying to put the focus on Biden, but the server may be what they
are trying to protect.
This impeachment show looks to be a rearguard or defensive action to try and stop the Barr
criminal investigation into russiagate.
Given Ciaramella's rise within the Obama administration intelligence community, radio host
Rush Limbaugh frames
him as a spy
:
"He's lurking in there in the West Wing as an Obama holdover.
He's essentially a
spy for John Brennan
, and he's there to do the dirty work of the deep state." -
Rush
Limbaugh
Limbaugh cites journalist
Sharyl Attkisson
who wrote in response to Sperry's 'outing' of Ciaramella, " If the reporting
is correct, it implies
the "whistleblower" could have been worried Trump was getting close
to uncovering Democrat links to Ukraine's interference in US elections in 2016.
"
And if Ciaramella
was
a deep-state spy in the West Wing,
former FBI employees
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are potentially involved
- as pieced together by
Fox News
contributor and former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino, who starts with an
April 25 letter
from Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Johnson (R-WI) to Attorney General
William Barr asking about
cryptic text messages between Strzok and Page
in which
they discuss someone named "Charlie" who may be "the CI guy."
Bongino posits that Strzok and Page may be talking about Ciaramella being a "Confidential
Informant" (CI), or spy - and notes that Paul Sperry may have dropped a hint in the way he included
a "pronunciation note" regarding the whistleblower's name (pronounced
char
-a-MEL-ah)
may have referred to "Charlie" in the Strzok/Page texts.
Finally,
also discussed in Bongino's podcast, is an invitation for a series of events
sponsored by major Clinton Foundation donor ($25 million) and Ukrainian oligarch Victor Pinchuk
in the spring of 2016
. It looks to be an Ukrainian outreach type of event. Ukrainian
member of parliament Olga Bielkova is scheduled to meet with none other than Eric Ciaramella.
She hates Trump. (This can be viewed at 22:08 in the video.)
The emerging image of EC shows him to be a hyper-partisan Democrat, well-connected
within the ranks of the deep state, who was possibly spying on the Trump White House for the FBI
.
As voters see the individual behind the whistleblower complaint which has triggered an
impeachment inquiry, they will "have thoughts" about the Democrats.
Perhaps we'll find out more about Ciaramella from
John Durham
, the prosecutor
appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of the "Russiagate" counterintelligence operation
against the Trump campaign. As Rush Limbaugh puts it, this is a race between impeachment and a
Durham indictment.
"... This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.” ..."
"... The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings. ..."
"... the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra ..."
"... The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. ..."
"... And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms. ..."
"... And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show. ..."
"... Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State. ..."
"... As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his decisions 99% of time after the fact. ..."
"... All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on ''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the Democrats ..."
"... Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US imperialism and neoliberalism. ..."
"... Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate state. ..."
"... If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but lies. ..."
"... The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive ..."
In light of Thursday’s vote in the US House of Representatives to formalize the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump,
it is worth contrasting the events now unfolding in Washington to those that led to the resignation of Richard Nixon 45
years ago.
In July 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Nixon. The direct
cause of the impeachment proceeding was the Watergate scandal, in which Nixon directed a group of burglars known as the
“White House Plumbers” to break into and wiretap the offices of the Democratic National Committee.
However, the impeachment inquiry unveiled a far broader range of crimes by the administration. Among the five articles
of impeachment debated on the committee was one that accused Nixon of “the submission to Congress of false and misleading
statements concerning the existence, scope, and nature of American bombing operations in Cambodia” in connection to the
Vietnam War.
Before Watergate, the first task of Nixon’s “plumbers” was to burglarize the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist.
The aim was to discredit the man who released the Pentagon Papers, which documented that the White House “systematically
lied, not only to the public but also to Congress,” about the conduct of the war.
This burglary, as one commentator noted, linked “Vietnam and Watergate in one continuous 1961-to-1975 story.”
“In 1973 the Senate Watergate Committee investigation revealed that the executive branch had directed national
intelligence agencies to carry out constitutionally questionable domestic security operations,” notes the official history
by the United States Senate. “In 1974 Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh published a front-page New York
Times article claiming that the CIA had been spying on anti-war activists for more than a decade, violating the
agency’s charter.”
This led to the formation of the Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank
Church, commenting on the committees’ findings, warned that the NSA has the capability “to make tyranny total in America,
and we must see to it that this agency… operate[s] within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over
that abyss.”
Twelve years later, another crisis erupted in Washington, which nearly led to the impeachment of Ronald Reagan, who was
only saved by the unwillingness of the Democrats to remove him.
The crisis was triggered by the revelation that the Reagan administration had concocted a scheme to sell arms to Iran
in order to buy weapons to finance an illegal war against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua. According to the CIA officer
in charge of the covert war, the Contras routinely murdered “civilians and Sandinista officials in the provinces, as well
as heads of cooperatives, nurses, doctors and judges.”
The investigation revealed that the Reagan administration flagrantly violated the Boland Amendment, passed by Congress
to prohibit US government assistance to the Contras.
The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted, fundamentally, in the
prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy interests. They exposed sweeping abuses of democratic
rights, from the COINTELPRO operation exposed by the Church Committee, to the revelation of the Rex 84 plan for mass
detention of “subversive” elements documented by the Iran-Contra hearings.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact opposite of the
investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing the criminal activities of the US intelligence
agencies and military, it is aimed at expanding and empowering them.
House speaker Nancy Pelosi summed up the basis of the impeachment inquiry as follows: “In one phone conversation, he
[Trump] undermined our national security by withholding military assistance to a country [Ukraine] that has been voted on
by the Congress of the United States—to the benefit of the Russians.”
Trump, as former CIA Director David Petraeus recently put it, stands accused of “holding up assistance that’s
desperately needed by those who are on the front lines” of a war waged by the US-backed Ukrainian government against
forces aligned with Russia. Petraeus added, “This is World War I… it's a very hot war still going on.”
The broad unpopularity of war abroad has created a crisis of legitimacy for the Democrats’ impeachment drive. As might
be expected, the Democrats have not mobilized significant popular support on this basis. As Times columnist David
Brooks wrote, “For most [Americans], impeachment is not a priority. It’s a dull background noise… the fundamental reality
is that many Americans are indifferent.”
In fact, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry has more in common with the impeachment of Bill Clinton by the Republicans,
in which a concocted sexual scandal was used as a cover for a right-wing agenda.
From the outset, as the World Socialist Web Site has explained, the Democrats’ opposition to Trump has had
nothing in common with the popular opposition to his fascistic administration. It is one side in a conflict within the
capitalist ruling class and the state, primarily over foreign policy questions.
From the day of Trump’s inauguration, when millions protested across the country, the Democratic Party has worked to
contain popular anger and channel it behind a pro-war agenda. It has sought to suppress opposition to Trump’s fascistic
assault on immigrants, his moves toward dictatorship, his praise for neo-Nazis, his tax cuts for the rich and his attacks
on social programs for workers and poor people.
The Democrats are neither able to nor willing to make any democratic appeal to the popular hatred of Trump. Having long
ago abandoned any program of social reform directed toward the working class, the Democratic Party has evolved into an
organization based on an alliance of the intelligence agencies, sections of finance and the affluent upper-middle class.
The current impeachment drive has no progressive or democratic content. The Democrats are attempting to impeach Trump
on false pretenses, concealing their real objectives. It has all the elements, in other words, of a palace coup.
As the Socialist Equality Party Political Committee wrote in its
statement posted October 14, “No to American
fascism! Build a mass movement to force Trump out!”:
So long as the conflict is confined to the divisions within the ruling class, there can be no democratic or
progressive outcome. Should the impeachment drive of the Democrats fail, it will strengthen Trump’s political position.
Should it succeed, it will elevate Trump’s factotum, Mike Pence, to the presidency. Moreover, impeachment will actually
strengthen the political influence of the CIA and FBI over the White House. It will legitimize a foreign policy based
on an anti-Russia hysteria that will justify a dangerous confrontation with a nuclear-armed power. Either outcome
represents an immense danger to the working class.
The fight against Trump can only take a progressive character to the extent that is completely separate from, and
hostile to, the palace coup being orchestrated by the Democrats on behalf of the intelligence agencies and the military.
It must be conducted by the working class through the expansion of the class struggle against war, dictatorship and
social inequality. It must be informed by a conscious struggle to put an end to capitalism, the source of war and
inequality, and establish a socialist society.
As author correctly point out true crimes of POTUS against life, human rights, against peace,
tranquility and prosperity committed in the name not of American people but on orders from
ruling elite he serves were never on trial and so called oversight procedures were all sham.
Example of praised Church commission that supposedly rein in CIA and NSA:
Church Committee, which investigated abuses by the CIA, NSA and FBI. Senator Frank Church,
commenting on the committees' findings, warned that the NSA has the capability "to make
tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency operate[s] within the law
and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss.
Would that shocking disclosure of a grave, existential threat to democracy not solicit the
only rational response namely abolition, dismantling and prosecution of all US security
agencies including political police called FBI?
And definitely any rational conclusion would not call for, as proposed by church
commission, doomed to failure futile act of what amounts to harsh criticism, admonition of
security and surveillance apparatus, an effective slap in a cheek proposing supposed remedial
therapy that resembled instructing alcoholic to drink two not four drinks a day and call it
moderation and compliance with.. US constitutional norms.
And supposed fig leaf of FISA court pushed by Church Commission proven to never stopping
any illegal spying and only confirming that US was always run by ruling elite delegating
executive power to Deep State security and surveillance apparatus while POTUS belongs to
stage theatrics of bourgeois liberal political puppet show.
Unexpected benefit of Trump was that he inadvertently revealed true reality of US system
of power where elections are meaningless as elected puppets have no power at all, they only
may, more or less convincingly, pretend that they do if they smartly align their own
blabbering with decisions already taken by ruling elite and being executed by Deep State.
As a narcissistic oligarch Trump has pathological inability to follow, he had to reverse his
decisions 99% of time after the fact.
Impeachment? Hollow spectacle to cover up real high crimes and misdemeanors.
All is smoke and mirrors when it comes to the political establishment . It relies on
''workers being donkeys '' but alas for them the ''donkeys'' have found their political voice
and for whatever the crimes of Trump, many if not most, remember the treachery of the
Democrats.
As this tale plays itself out, it does so in a world where the condition of the working
class may be confused somewhat, but the condition for the ruling class is ''hopeless''.
They simply have ''no'' solutions based on the free market and a nationalist perspective
that the working class could be remotely interested in .
"The Nixon impeachment inquiry and the Iran-Contra scandals involved vast crimes, rooted,
fundamentally, in the prosecution of illegal wars in pursuit of predatory US policy
interests.
One need only review this history to see that the present impeachment hearing is the exact
opposite of the investigation of Watergate and Iran-Contra. Instead of exposing and curbing
the criminal activities of the US intelligence agencies and military, it is aimed at
expanding and empowering them."
Notice how the impeachment of Nixon, the Reagan Iran-Contra investigation, and now Trump's
impeachment are all related to decades of insidious security state machinations tied to US
imperialism and neoliberalism.
Even Lewinisky's "blue dress" was not just about Bill Clinton's debauchery which was a
known fact since Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, but was used by the intelligence agencies
as leverage to ensure the continuation of military interventions in the Middle East, Eastern
Europe, and Africa as well as the implementation of extremely exploitative economic polices
in the US and abroad transferring enormous wealth to Wall Street, the big banks and the arms
industry.
Presidents don't get impeached or investigated for "committing social crimes" against
the working-class they're only investigated, prosecuted or impeached when they lose favor
with factions of the security state and the ruling class. Investigations of presidents are
always internecine battles between segments of the military/surveillance/corporate
state.
If that was NOT the case, then Clinton, Bush, and Obama would have been impeached for
war crimes. Trump, would be impeached not for his Ukraine phone call, but for his policies
that resulted in the death of migrant children, the corruption within federal agencies, the
deregulation of the EPA accelerating planetary ecocide, and for his numerous promises to the
working-class about providing decent healthcare and good paying jobs, but were nothing but
lies.
The only thing that has changed over the last four decades is that the security state
is now fully partnered with corporate mainstream media news and entertainment. They work
seamlessly to propagandize the American public so that even liberals are convinced that being
a Joe McCarthyite Russophobe is progressive .
"... The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or supply documents to them. ..."
"... Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. ..."
"... There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one of his top aides. ..."
"... General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat." ..."
"... Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on the Bidens. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in Syria. ..."
"... Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in Washington. ..."
By a near party-line vote of 232-196, the US House of Representatives voted Thursday for a
resolution laying out the procedures for the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump
that was begun September 24. The resolution sets the stage for the holding of public, televised
hearings and the likely drawing up of articles of impeachment in the course of the next
month.
Only two Democrats out of 233 in the House voted against the resolution, Jeff Van Drew of
New Jersey and Colin Peterson of Minnesota. Only one member elected as a Republican, Justin
Amash of Michigan, voted for the resolution. He left the Republican Party in July because of
his support for impeachment, and he now sits as an independent.
The sharp divisions over the resolution were reflected in the hour-long debate, in which
Republican defenders of Trump denounced the impeachment inquiry with hysterical anticommunist
rhetoric, calling it "Soviet-style" and a "show trial." Democrats wrapped themselves in the
American flag -- or displayed it on a large placard as they spoke, in the case of Speaker Nancy
Pelosi -- and denounced Trump for endangering US "national security."
The procedure laid down in the eight-page resolution, drafted Wednesday by the House Rules
Committee, gives an outsized role to the House Intelligence Committee, which is to begin public
hearings sometime in November at which many of the witnesses who have testified behind closed
doors will be asked to do so again in front of television cameras.
The Intelligence Committee, along with four other committees conducting investigations into
various aspects of President Trump's personal, business and official conduct, will report its
findings to the Judiciary Committee, which would actually draw up any articles of impeachment,
vote on them, and send them to the full House for final action.
The overall procedures, including provisions for extended questioning of witnesses by
representatives of both the majority and minority parties, conform generally to similar
measures adopted during the impeachment hearings against President Richard Nixon in 1974 and
President Bill Clinton in 1998.
The main difference is that the right of the president to have his own attorneys attend
and participate at sessions of the Judiciary Committee is conditional on Trump dropping his
order that executive branch officials refuse to testify before the various House probes or
supply documents to them.
In the event of continued presidential stonewalling of the House committees, the resolution
provides that the chair of the Judiciary Committee "shall have the discretion to impose
appropriate remedies, including by denying specific requests by the president or his counsel
under these procedures to call or question witnesses."
In other words, if Trump continues to block testimony and evidence, his attorneys will not
be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses who do appear despite the full-throated opposition
of the White House. Given that many officials and former officials of the Trump administration
have agreed to testify under subpoena, this could become a significant issue.
The special role of the House Intelligence Committee underscores the reactionary nature of
the Democrats' impeachment drive. Trump is being targeted, not for his real crimes as
president, attacking immigrants, undermining democratic rights, and asserting quasi-dictatorial
powers, but for his foreign policy actions that are opposed by a substantial section of the US
military-intelligence apparatus.
The witnesses testifying before the closed-door sessions of the Intelligence Committee are
not immigrant mothers, cruelly and in some cases permanently separated from their children, or
the victims of Trump-inspired fascist gunmen like the El Paso mass shooter. Instead, they are
an array of State Department and military officials at odds with Trump's efforts to browbeat
the government of Ukraine into supplying him with political dirt against former vice president
Joe Biden, viewed by Trump as a likely opponent in the 2020 election.
Particularly significant in that context is the announcement that the Intelligence Committee
has set a November 7 date for the testimony of John Bolton, Trump's former national security
advisor. It is not clear whether Bolton will testify, but the potential alignment of the
Democrats and one of the most notorious war criminals in the American government is a clear
demonstration of the reactionary motives of the Democrats, who are acting as front men for
rabid warmongers in the national-security state.
Already, on Thursday, the Intelligence Committee took hours of testimony from Bolton's
top deputy for Russia and Eastern Europe, Timothy Morrison. Morrison was brought on the
National Security Council by Bolton with main responsibility for White House policy on weapons
of mass destruction. He spearheaded the drive by the Trump administration to withdraw from the
Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, which both he and Bolton vehemently opposed, in order
to give the US military the green light to develop nuclear missiles that could target China
from US bases like Guam, other US-controlled islands, and ships in the Pacific and Indian
Oceans.
Morrison is the highest-ranking Trump aide to provide evidence to the Intelligence
Committee, and he announced his impending departure from the White House on Wednesday night,
hours before he was sworn in as a witness. According to leaks to the press from the closed-door
hearing, Morrison largely confirmed the testimony of other witnesses, particularly Lt. Col.
Alexander Vindman, that there was a direct quid pro quo involved in US policy towards Ukraine:
Trump demanded a public investigation into the Democratic Party and the Bidens, in return for
military aid and a visit by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to the White House.
There are other indications that Bolton is playing a key role behind the scenes in the
gathering storm over impeachment. Two Democratic senators have sent a letter to US Trade
Representative Robert Lighthizer seeking details on the Trump administration's decision not to
restore Ukrainian access to the "generalized system of preferences" (GSP), a program that
benefits developing countries. The letter follows a Washington Post report October 24 that
Bolton had warned Lighthizer not to seek restoration of benefits to Ukraine because Trump would
not approve it, as part of his effort to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the
Bidens. Given the content of the article, the most likely source for the leak is Bolton or one
of his top aides.
There were further indications of support for the impeachment drive -- or at least for the
national-security officials who have come forward to testify against Trump -- from the top
levels of the military and diplomatic establishment. General Joseph F. Dunford, who retired
only a month ago as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a statement to CNN Wednesday
defending Colonel Vindman against attacks from Fox News and other ultra-right media, calling
him "a professional, competent, patriotic, and loyal officer" who "has made an extraordinary
contribution to the security of our nation in both peacetime and combat."
And in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which is expected
to confirm his nomination to be US Ambassador to Russia, Deputy Secretary of State John
Sullivan defended the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, and agreed that she was
the victim of a smear campaign by Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who helped engineer
her recall from her post in Kiev because she was an obstacle to the effort to dig up dirt on
the Bidens.
Asked whether it was "ever appropriate for the president to use his office to solicit
investigations into his domestic political opponents," Sullivan replied, "I don't think that
would be in accord with our values." Given Trump's frequent declarations that his telephone
conversation with Zelensky, in which he made just such a request, was "perfect," Sullivan's
statement is extraordinary. It suggests an unprecedented degree of open revolt against Trump
within the national-security establishment.
The real motives of the impeachment drive were spelled out with particular frenzy in a
column by neoconservative Max Boot, who, like Bolton, has been an all-out supporter of US
military aggression in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and throughout the world. Writing in the
Washington Post , under the headline, "More Trump gifts to Russia," he declares,
"Trump is bringing the United States to its knees and making Russia great again."
Boot focuses on two decisions that have most provoked the CIA-Pentagon-State Department
axis of evil: holding up aid to Ukraine, thus undermining military operations against
pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, and Trump's partial pullout of US forces in
Syria.
He writes: "Russian soldiers are entering U.S. bases and taking up the joint patrolling
duties with the Turkish army that U.S. troops had been performing until recently. The fate of
Syria was settled not in Washington but in Sochi -- Putin's favorite Black Sea resort. Trump
has given Russia what it has sought for decades: a leading role in the Middle East. This is the
biggest geopolitical shift in the region since 1972 when Egypt's Anwar Sadat expelled Soviet
advisers and aligned with Washington."
Boot is, of course, a fervent supporter of impeachment, because he sees that as a step
towards reversing course on foreign policy and adopting a more aggressive and militaristic US
role in the Middle East. His ranting only underscores the reality of the political conflict in
Washington.
"... It gets funny, this shallow analysis of the deep state that is currently big news. There's something ghoulish about it, perfectly timed for Halloween and masked jokers. What was once ridiculed by the CIA and its attendant lackeys in the media as the paranoia of "conspiracy theorists" is now openly admitted in reverent tones of patriotic fervor. But with a twisted twist. ..."
"... The Council on Foreign Relations ..."
"... Foreign Affairs, ..."
"... Linguistic mind control is insidious like the slow drip of a water faucet. After a while you don't hear it and just go about your business, even as your mind, like a rotting rubber washer, keeps disintegrating under propaganda's endless reiterations. ..."
"... To think that the deep state is government employees just doing their patriotic duty is plain idiocy and plainer propaganda. ..."
It gets funny, this shallow analysis of the deep state that is currently big news.
There's something ghoulish about it, perfectly timed for Halloween and masked jokers. What
was once ridiculed by the CIA and its attendant lackeys in the media as the paranoia of
"conspiracy theorists" is now openly admitted in reverent tones of patriotic fervor. But with
a twisted twist.
The corporate mass-media has recently discovered a "deep state" that they claim to be not
some evil group of assassins who work for the super-rich owners of the country and murder
their own president (JFK) and other unpatriotic dissidents (Malcom X, MLK, RK, among others)
and undermine democracy home and abroad, but are now said to be just fine upstanding American
citizens who work within the government bureaucracies and are patriotic believers in
democracy intent on doing the right thing.
This redefinition has been in the works for a few years, and it shouldn't be a surprise
that this tricky treat was being prepared for our consumption a few years ago by The
Council on Foreign Relations . In its September/October 2017 edition of its journal
Foreign Affairs, Jon D. Michaels, in "Trump and the Deep State: The Government
Strikes Back," writes:
Furious at what they consider treachery by internal saboteurs, the president and his
surrogates have responded by borrowing a bit of political science jargon, claiming to be
victims of the " deep state ," a
conspiracy of powerful, unelected bureaucrats secretly pursuing their own agenda. The
concept of a deep state is valuable in its original context, the study of developing
countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey, where shadowy elites in the military and
government ministries have been known to countermand or simply defy democratic directives.
Yet it has little relevance to the United States, where governmental power structures are
almost entirely transparent, egalitarian, and rule-bound.
The White House is correct to perceive widespread resistance inside the government to
many of its endeavors. But the same way the administration's media problems come not from
"fake news" but simply from news, so its bureaucratic problems come not from an insidious,
undemocratic "deep state" but simply from the state -- the large, complex hive of people
and procedures that constitute the U.S. federal government.
Notice how in these comical passages about U.S. government transparency and
egalitarianism, Michaels slyly and falsely attributes to Trump the very definition –
"unelected bureaucrats" – that in the next paragraph he claims to be the real deep
state, which is just the state power structures. Pseudo-innocence conquers all here as there
is no mention of the Democratic party, Russiagate, etc., and all the machinations led by the
intelligence services and Democratic forces to oust Trump from the day he was elected. State
power structures just move so quickly, as anyone knows who has studied the speed with which
bureaucracies operate. Ask Max Weber.
Drip by drip over the past few years, this "state bureaucracy" meme has been introduced by
the mainstream media propagandists as they have gradually revealed that the government
deep-staters are just doing their patriotic duty in trying openly to oust an elected
president.
Many writers have commented on the recent New York Times article, Trump's
War on the 'Deep State' Turns Against Him" asserting that the Times has finally admitted
to the existence of the deep state, which is true as far as it goes, which is not too far.
But in this game of deceptive revelations – going shallower to go deeper – what
is missing is a focus on the linguistic mind control involved in the changed definition.
In a recent article by Robert W. Merry, whose intentions I am not questioning –
"New York
Times Confirms: It's Trump Versus the Deep State" – originally published at The
American Conservative and widely reprinted , the lead-in to the article proper
reads: "Even the Gray Lady admits the president is up against a powerful bureaucracy that
wants him sunk." So the "powerful bureaucracy" redefinition, this immovable force of
government bureaucrats, is slipped into public consciousness as what the deep state
supposedly is. Gone are CIA conspirators and evil doers. In their place we find career civil
servants doing their patriotic duty.
Then there is The New York Times' columnist James Stewart who, appearing on the
Today Show recently, where he was promoting his new book, told Savannah Guthrie
that:
Well, you meet these characters in my book, and the fact is, in a sense, he's [Trump]
right. There is a deep state there is a bureaucracy in our country who has pledged to
respect the Constitution, respect the rule of law. They do not work for the President. They
work for the American people. And, as Comey told me in my book, 'thank goodness for that,'
because they are protecting the Constitution and the people when individuals – we
don't have a monarch, we don't have a dictator – they restrain them from crossing the
boundaries of law. What Trump calls the deep state in the United States is protecting the
American people and protecting the Constitution. It's a positive thing in this sense.
So again we are told that the deep-state bureaucracy is defending the Constitution and
protecting the American people, as James Comey told Stewart, "in my book, 'thank goodness for
that,'" as he put it so eloquently. These guys talk in books, of course, not person to
person, but that is the level not just of English grammar and general stupidity, but of the
brazen bullshit these guys are capable of.
This new and shallow deep state definition has buried the old meaning of the deep state as
evil conspirators carrying out coup d'états, assassinations, and massive media
propaganda campaigns at home and abroad, and who, by implication and direct declaration,
never existed in the good old U.S.A. but only in countries such as Egypt, Turkey, and
Pakistan where shadowy elites killed and deposed leaders and opponents in an endless series
of coup d'états. No mention in Foreign Affairs , of course, of the American
support for the ruthless leaders of these countries who have always been our dear allies when
they obey our every order and serve as our servile proxies in murder and mayhem.
Even Edward Snowden , the courageous whistleblower in exile in Russia, in a recent
interview
with Joe Rogan , repeats this nonsense when he says the deep state is just "career government
officials" who want to keep their jobs and who outlast presidents. From his own experience,
he should know better. Much better. Interestingly, he suggests that he does when he tells
Rogan that "every president since Kennedy" has been successfully "feared up" by the
intelligence agencies so they will do their bidding. He doesn't need to add that JFK, for
fearlessly refusing the bait, was shot in the head in broad daylight to send a message to
those who would follow.
Linguistic mind control is insidious like the slow drip of a water faucet. After a while
you don't hear it and just go about your business, even as your mind, like a rotting rubber
washer, keeps disintegrating under propaganda's endless reiterations.
To think that the deep state is government employees just doing their patriotic duty is
plain idiocy and plainer propaganda.
It is a trick, not the treat it is made to seem.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to
your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the
Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author's website
here .
Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate. The 'whistleblower complaint' is the new 'dirty
dossier'. The 'former' MI6 spy Christopher Steele wrote the dossier.
The whole impeachment
show the Democrats launched is a major political mistake. The Democrats have chosen the wrong
issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of ballast
The choice of a Trump phonecall with the Ukrainian president as the item to hang the
impeachment on is especially dumb. Trump's call was less incriminating than Biden's pressure
on the Ukrainian president
to help his son's paymaster . It is also a mistake to let the Chair of the House
Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff run the impeachment
process . Schiff already
flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that
two members
of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security
Council, had advised him.
The process will create a lot of collateral damage. It will hurt a number people involved
in it, but it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. It will not end with impeachment. I
believe, like
Noam Chomsky , that it will, in the end, even help Trump
... the Democrats try to defeat him with theater. But Trump is a much better showman than
Schiff or any other Democrat. It almost looks as if they want Trump to win.
...To me, the question remains if the Dems are a totally lost party or if this process
will be the spark that refocus them with new leadership and a set of potential president/vice
that is some Bernie/Tulsi/Warren combo which could beat Trump, IMO.
..The DS must know that Biden or Warren are not going to beat Trump, so may have decided
they can keep Trumpy corralled by an endless stream of MIC Swampers
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now that the identity of the "whistleblower" is apparently known, all the
Republicans under Devin Nunes have to do is sub-poena the "whistleblower" to attend.
The House Intelligence Committee will hold public hearings, and Republicans will need
approval from at least some Democrats to call witnesses or to otherwise issue subpoenas
.
But the Democrats will look like wankers and will eventually cave, because the Senate is
in no way obligated by the impeachment reolution. Schiff is so deranged about getting Trump
that he'll fail and Trump will win in 2020. Just like 2016 was Hillary Clinton's
responsibility, 2020 will be Adam Sciff's.
Zerohedge just posted, citing the Washington Examiner, that CiaraMeLLA refuses to testify
after it became known he worked with Biden et al and was coached by Schiffty's staff. A
little cold feet, must be the snowl. And also, his Attorneys came down with rat's flu.
How they could otherwise effectively bluntly steal all what has been planned to steal ( at
whatever cost for others...)before the dollar falls, as it is currently happening in
Syria?
Plus, the phone call issue, IMO, fails to meet the criteria for impeachment as there's no
crime involved. As I've written many times, there are plenty of valid reasons--crimes--that
Trump ought to be impeached over but the Ds will never employ them just as Pelosi refused to
do her duty and allow impeachment charges to be filed against Bush/Cheney.
IMO, Gabbard and Sanders must seriously consider forming a 3rd Party to mount a challenge
to Trump as the D-Party's about to shoot itself in the head--and hopefully it won't miss.
What it is is the Corporate party will still take Trump over Sanders or Tulsi. And why is
that? That is because either one of those two, having won, will promptly defenestrate all of
the current crop of federal-trough-feeders into the street, and take over, just as Clinton
did back in the day.
Ever since it because clear that Obama did not intend to use the mandate we gave him, and
he dis-assembled the machine he built to win, I have never given the DNC a thought. Never
again.
There is no doubt that Impeachmentgate is the Act 2 of Russiagate. There is so much
continuity between the two acts, most of all that neither are/were wise. It reminds me so
much of US military interventions - no good endgame, withdraw like a dog with a tail between
your legs from a war that was lost even before it was started (Vietnam, Afghanistan etc).
Naturally, those wars were not started to win then to get rich. Now here comes a genius who
wants to actually steal the oil or something else of value instead of spending huge amounts
of money just to make the world a better place. Much better, isn't it? What a novel idea, the
wars were never before about stealing other people's property (cattle and women)!
But, one has to put himself into the shoes of the Democrats to understand why Russiagate
must continue. Firstly, as b says they got nothing, no policy, no differentiation, no
believable claim that they could do something better than the incumbent, no new spring of
hope faux agent of change like Obama. There is a chance of real change in Gabbard, but who is
crazy enough to subject the entrenched interests to real change. Secondly, they have this
spiffy Main Sewerage Media machine under their control, which can churn out an endless stream
of turds (Vindman, Ciaramella) wrapped into golden foil to pass them as voter candy. Remember
that genocide-personified Democrat Madeleine Albright: "What's the point of having this
superb military if you can't use it?" No machine runs on empty, they need to feed some crap
into the propaganda machine.
So what are the Democrats to do? B, it is easy to say Impeachmentgate is bad
electioneering, but do suggest any better approach that could return this most criminal gang
on the planet back into power and safety from prosecution.
Societies all over the world have been turned upside down, creating untold suffering en
mass by such bogus half cooked rabbit in the hat tricks....only to find its way back to the
US and sicken the American society.....Poor Americans, like poor civilians elsewhere have no
idea where its all coming from and are instead at each others' throats.
" It nearly looks as if they want Trump to win."
Nearly? it have seemed like they wanted him to win since 2016, nearly is a understatement
imho...
This bread and circus for the plebs is getting boring,, the utter stupidity in their
manuscripts and the gaggle of vassals and terrorists they support is the lowest iq and
degenerate nihilists in the world.
The Benedict option seems like the only option left, unless one wants to let the "modern
world" drive one insane or into isolation..
Careful b. You don't want to give more leash to those who think the democrats are in cahoots
with potus. As I have said before, trump has done more than any other president in memory to
pull the wool from the independent voter's eye. They will no longer vote along partisan
lines, knowing there is so little daylight, or in any case the stuff that actually matters,
between the parties.
It is a brand new world thanks to trump. Regardless of any temporary rethug policy he
manages to employ.
The bed has been thoroughly shat. No gluing humpty-dumpty, and no writing schiff's
ship.
The DNC is now, effectively, fighting on two fronts: the GOP from the Right and the
developmentists/progressives from the Left.
In this scenario, it may well be the case it will choose to use a botched impeachment to
reelect Trump and thus implode the Leftist opposition inside their own party. It isn't a
perfect strategy, but at least it buys them time (four years, to be precise).
The GOP and the Dems may have their differences, but they are both from the Capitalist
Party. The divergence is not that the USA shouldn't be an empire anymore, but how the empire
should be managed.
You're headline is perfect b. This is Theater. These are the Vagina Monologues of the Beltway
Bourgeoise.
It is the US political process that is being impeached, so to speak, to prepare us for
it's eventual dismantling.
Living in the day to day one might think this circus matters. It does not. All
actors/public figures work for hidden interests, who in turn take orders from a centralized
authority.
Frankly it is foolish and childish to pretend otherwise.
My sole exposure to straight up Octopus Media is listening to the radio, which I sometimes
turn on during long drives. Sometimes. Even then mostly I turn it off, in anger. I dislike
being taken for a fool. I have no cable, don't watch garbage movies and no longer bother
glancing at newspaper headlines as I'm passing by. There's just no point. To the best of my
ability I am self directed in my thinking.
We should all do the same. When we surf we are partly self directed, that's true, but also
here we must acknowledge EVERYTHING available is Octopus Media and Intelligence controlled,
by one means or another.
thanks b... the dems could question trumps comment that the usa plans to steal syrias oil...
that would be an actual conversation of merit here.. instead the dems have the gun pointed at
their foot and are going to hit it again with this...
@10 karlof1... there is no way sanders would consider a 3rd party run.. the guy is not
capable of independent action like that..he is another cog in the wheel happy to go along
with all the same bullshite..
the whole usa system of bullshite has to come down... trump is helping as i see it.. the
dems are too!! this is really an impeachment case against this joke called freedom and
democracy that the usa likes to cloak itself in..
We can speculate all we want about which strings the Deep State is pulling or which
dimensional chess it is playing, the bottom line is that I cannot vote either for the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Dim Party or the
"Neocon/Warmonger/Israelfirst/MIC-Wallstreet" Repug Party. I'll therefore, as usual and most
likely, vote for the Green Party.
I think Bashar Al-Assad gave in the last interview the best description of the US system I
have heard so far...in a nutshell...
"American politics are no different from Hollywood; it relies on the imagination. Not even
science fiction, just mere imagination. So, you can take American politics and see it in
Hollywood or else you can bring Hollywood and see it through American politics."
Yes, what were they thinking... it really is more of the same.
That said, the national Dem party leadership is getting some minor things out of it, at
the cost of I think +1% to Trump in the 2020 general election:
* Biden got a small boost. He was going to get attacked on his and Hunter's Ukraine
business anyway, they defended him. It was also a big show of support for him by the entire
House Democrat side - in the face of surprisingly weak fundraising.
* Completely drowned out TV/press coverage of everything else to do with the primary.
* This ends the chances of all the minor candidates except Buttigieg (but i bet some will
stick around anyway in hopes of a VP nomination or cabinet position)
* Public support for impeachment gained something like 8-10%, now evenly split. But this
statistic means little because it is Senate Republicans who decide, and they would be
committing political suicide given Trump's 85%+ support among Republican voters.
Besides that, it is the undecided / apathetic voters who are the real audience, and they
seem to remain unswayed. The swing-state polling is not looking great either, with FL, AZ,
and perhaps WI viewing impeachment less favorably than the national average. PA on the other
hand is neutral to very faintly supportive of impeachment.
Also with Harris looking finished, Buttigieg picked up another 10% of the "moderate" Dems
in polls. Biden will want this group of voters, so something will be happening there sooner
or later.
The House intel committee investigation will continue, maybe indefinitely. With the star
witness backing out, it does seem that they got taken for a ride (once again) by the national
security guys. And Trump's outsider status, a positive in today's electorate, is again
established.
The gateway pundit is asking if Ciaramella is the "Charlie" referred to in Strzok and Page
emails. This Charlie was the FBI appointed spy in the whitehouse. Oops, Ciaramella and his
FBI handlers might have a big problem.
At our stage of political disintegration the interesting question is what comes after Trump-
a return to business as usual? doubt it that Rubicon has been crossed,
If I understand this year's DNC rule changes, Biden needs to either keep Sanders below 15%
- the minimum threshold to get voting delegates at the convention - which is unlikely, or he
needs another "moderate" such as Buttigieg to get above 15% and then endorse him, or he needs
enough of a lead to beat Warren and Sanders together.
Otherwise, only delegates for Sanders, Warren, and Biden vote. Sanders can endorse Warren,
and their combined delegates would be enough to give Warren the nomination on the first round
of the convention (before superdelegates). To complete the nightmare scenario for the DNC,
Sanders would get to name his price for supporting Warren.
So perhaps they are hoping to scrape up all the random-other-moderate Dems, give their
supporters to Buttigieg to get him over 15%, and have him endorse Buden in the end. That
would be a semi plausible scenario...
One legitimate issue is if the government should investigate political opponents
. There is a potential for abuse in two directions: impure political tools of y
ou do it, impunity to established powers if you do not.
For example, if you desire to investigate bankers as a part of your political pr
ogram, you can bet that more than a random sample of bankers will join the ranks
of your political opponents.
Concerning the politics of the issue, a surprising percentage of Americans trust
s FBI and CIA, and centrist Democrats would like to ride on the wave of this sen
timent. But "interagency consensus" is not as popular, however illogical it may
seem. Chances are, champions of interagency consensus may gain the support of
the majority of the Democratic "base", but they will get slim picking in other d
emographics.
ERIC CIARAMELLA IS NOT A WHISTLEBLOWER - HE IS A SUSPECT
The identity of the whistleblower was publicly known already on October 10, 2019. Another
important detail about Eric Ciaramella and his activities was revealed at the same time.
John Solomon published an article in The Hill on April 25, 2019 on the origins of
Ukrainegate :
That makes the January 2016 meeting one of the earliest documented efforts to build the
now-debunked Trump-Russia collusion narrative and one of the first to involve the Obama
administration's intervention.
The White House visitor records available online reveal that the meeting in the Eisenhower
Executive Office Building was hosted by Eric Ciaramella, the CIA "whistleblower".
BREAKING: Alleged #Whistleblower Eric Ciaramella ran the meeting that @jsolomonReports
was "one of the earliest documented efforts to build the now-debunked Trump-Russia
collusion narrative".
@AndriyUkraineTe please confirm.
United States Attorney General William Barr is investigating the origins of the
Trump-Russia collusion narrative. The New York Times reports that this investigation
has turned into a criminal investigation. Would this make Eric Ciaramella a suspect?
Pardon me for asking, but how many people died in the course of events both before and
after the coup in Ukraine? Biden abetted everyone of those deaths, as did Obama, Nuland, and
a host of other Outlaw US Empire pukes. Trump was correct in asking about Biden's level of
involvement with the Ukraine government that he helped install through his help in murdering
people. Trump hasn't used such terms yet, but there're lots of Trump folk out there plus a
few like me that don't have any reason not to review the truth about the huge crime that
Biden was responsible for as Veep. And of course, that's not the only Capital Crime that
Biden abetted as Obama's Veep.
I for one am sick and tired of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to accusing
Outlaw US Empire pukes correctly of the crimes they've committed. And as I've written often,
Trump's guilty too, but what they're trying to pin on him doesn't meet the impeachment
threshold required by the constitution. Hell, he's bent on stealing Syrian oil and trying to
illegally profit from its sale, and if that's not an impeachable crime I don't know what
is!
Occasionally on Twitter you run into a great photo of two terrorists pointing their
pistols at each others head. That's what I see happening between the D and R Parties. It
would be a boon to the nation and world if they'd pull their triggers at the same time and
die.
this political theater by the democratic Elites about impeachment will not come to a good
end. I can see it going much as B and others are imagining. A few republican senators might
abstain, or even perhaps vote against Trump, but he'll actually come out better than Clinton
in the final Senate vote.
The millionaires and billionaires that now run the democratic party will never allow a
Sanders or Gabbard to be candidate - so it's going to be either biden or Warren, I strongly
suspect.
even worse, these wankers in the democratic party and their billionaire backers (some
exceptions of course) don't even realize, they haven't the faintest idea really, nor do they
perhaps even care, how close the human race is to being totally wiped out this century by
climate catastrophe (leave alone the possibility of some nuclear war in the next 80 years).
Hell you can't even get much enthusiasm among the american people/voters because they've been
so propagandized and brainwashed by the right wing crackpots who control the US/world economy
and the media Narrative, and who believe that this capitalist-consumerist orgy of a show will
go on forever.
it's not looking good, no matter who wins at the impeachment barker circus, or in the 2020
election....
Did a quick search and found it only passed the House and now moves to the Senate. It's
one of those funding acts for Title VIII that needs to be reauthorized to stay alive, and
that's what happened. Joyce at his Twitter didn't mention Gabbard as co-sponsor, taking full
credit for its passing.
Meanwhile, The Flynn Trial continues to
produce details of entrapment, manipulation, perjury, and prosecutorial misconduct. One
commenter is surprised Trump's DoJ continues to pursue the case when it ought to be obvious
why: He spilled the beans about the formation of Daesh and its use by the Outlaw US Empire,
and IMO Barr didn't like that.
engaged Ukraine to give Russia collusion narrative an early boost
Good info, and as a sidelight...I'll play "language maven" on the quotes you use, put some
fire in "give Russia collusion narrative." Improve on what they said.
Perhaps instead we should use the current get-Trump language.
"Obama sought to induce the government of Ukraine to become involved in the 2016 presidential
election."
"Ukraine was given military gear in exchange for dirt on Obama's election opponent"
etc
i dunno; i think with the addition of federal prosecutor john durham,, the investigation's
expanding, and just might grow some legs, and grow barr an actual spine.
If it weren't the phone call to Ukraine, it would be some other petty reason to impeach
Trump. Primarily there was the move, led by CNN, right after Trump unexpectedly won the 2016
election, to hurt Trump's inauguration in January 2017. The "Impeach Trump" movement included
the Steele Dossier first showcased on CNN Jan 10, 2017 and also magazine articles such as
Vanity Fair's "Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump" on Dec 15, 2016
here
, both prior to Trump's inauguration. And it's gone on since then, culminating in this
political side show, as if "digging up dirt" on one's political appointment originated with
Trump. They couldn't come up with anything really important, any really good reason to dump
the elected president, to negate his election, sort of like with Nixon and Clinton.
"... And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started: Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the Obama National Security Council, had advised him. ..."
"... Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment. ..."
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one.
I think the real objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the
same rotten politics as insinuations Clinton was treasonous.
Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over Russian interference in the 2016 election
as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only distinction being one is a Democratic
bugbear and the other is a Republican.
likbez 11.03.19 at 4:15 am (no link)
steven t johnson 11.01.19 at 3:27 pm
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to
draw up a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty. The US embassy in Kyiv
would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if the request was denied
would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and only then would such
discussion be legally mandated. What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement
of an investigate, or worse, to rig and investigation.
I respectfully disagree. Road to hell is always paved with good intentions. How you can do
it, if you know that Kiev embassy is controlled by Obama/Brennan plotters including the
ambassador, and the CIA controls Ukrainian security services? Speaking directly to president
about Crowdstike was the only way to move this investigation forward. Inclusion of Biden was
a huge, suicidal political blunder, for which Trump now is paying a price. "Full of Schiff"
commenters here emphasize it, and conveniently forget to mention Crowdstrike part and
"Manafort dirt" part of the "Ukrainian influence on 2016 elections" story. Which are far more
important.
It looks to me as if somebody within Trump administration wanted to sabotage the whole
thing. He should have been staying strictly on Russiagate investigation topic (which is a
criminal investigation now, if I understand the situation correctly), but being Trump he
can't (Rick Perry was probably a contributing factor in this stupidity). As the result it
served as a pretext for the counterattack on his Russiagate origins investigation by
Obama/Brennan faction.
But there is a silver lining in any dark cloud. If Ukrainegate is the new Russiagate then
the 'whistleblower complaint' is surprisingly similar to the 'former' MI6 spy Christopher
Steele 'dirty dossier'. It has a lot of problems. First of all Obama/Brennan faction have
chosen the issue, Ukraine, where they themselves have a lot of skeletons in the closet. The
choice of a CIA officer as a whistleblower and his complaint as the cornerstone of the
impeachment was especially dumb: the word "CIA" is a dog whistle for Trump electorate. It
also puts Brennan and Obama in undesirable spotlight.
And this process or digging out neoliberal Dems and CIA machinations already started:
Schiff already flip-flopped over requesting the 'whistleblower' to testify after it was
reported that two members of his staff, who knew Ciaramella from working with him at the
Obama National Security Council, had advised him.
Now this process is starting to create more and more collateral damage for neoliberal
Dems, as Schiff will not be able to fully block republican efforts to bring witnesses. But it
will not hurt Trump with his electorate. And it will not end with impeachment.
I believe, like Noam Chomsky, that it will, in the end, help Trump and might put Warren
(forget about Biden) in disadvantage: the noise for impeachment will deafen all her proposals
and will convert 2020 election into another show. And Trump is much better showmen then
she.
That is the point that "full of Schiff" commenters, in their excitement about the new
opportunity to unseat Trump, are unable to comprehend.
"... If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous ..."
"... It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart, who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US "humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in the US when dealing with humanities. ..."
"... That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. ..."
Whistle While You Work... In the CIA or in the White House. Evidently, if to believe
media frenzy, the name of the so called "whistle blower" against Trump is 33 years old Eric
Ciaramella, whose profile nails him directly as a snitch to the Brennan's cabal of putchists
who continue to rape Constitution and eradicate the last remnants of the Republic, turning it
into the Third World shithole mafia state.
OK, that clarifies it somewhat but this is not what is truly interesting about
this CIA "analyst" who, at this moment still may or may not be a blowjo...pardon me,
whistle-blower for Adan Schiff and his collection of treasonous operatives. No. The thing which
catches one's attention who have at least some serious military or intelligence background is
this:
Ciaramella grew up in Prospect, Connecticut, as one of three children. He spent time
attending Woodland Regional High School in Beacon Falls, Connecticut, and then graduated from
Chase Collegiate School, in Waterbury, Connecticut, in 2004, according to the prep school's
alumni magazine. After high school, Ciaramella attended Yale University, graduating in 2008
as a Russian and East European studies major. In 2007, he was awarded a grant by the Yale Macmillan
Center for European Union Studies to "research on the perceptions of the EU among rural
Italian residents." While at Yale, Ciaramella, who speaks Russian, Ukrainian and Arabic, led
a protest over the departure of an Arabic department professor, according
to the Yale Daily News. The student newspaper wrote, "Students convened outside Silliman
at 9 a.m., all dressed in white to symbolize their future goal of bridging the gap between
the United States and the Middle East through the use of the Arab language, said Eric
Ciaramella '08, one of the students who led the protest." Ciaramella also studied at Harvard
University, focusing on Russia, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, according to the school's
website. He
received a grant in 2009 for research on "Language in the Public Sphere in Three
Post-Soviet Capital Cities," Tbilisi, Georgia; Yerevan, Armenia; Baku, Azerbaijan. Ciaramella
was additionally a corresponding author for Harvard's Department of Linguistics and wrote a
paper in 2015 titled, "Structural ambiguity in the Georgian verbal noun."Ciaramella worked at
the World Bank after college,
according to a 2011 publication by the international financial institution. In the World
Bank report, "Russia: Reshaping Economic Geography," published in June 2011, Ciaramella is
listed in the acknowledgments for making "important contributions" to the research. On a
now-deleted Linkedin profile, he described himself as being a "Consultant, Poverty
Reduction/Economic Management" at World Bank.
Ah, that's warmer. And it is an Exhibit A of a main reason why the United States
finds itself where it is today and why current American so called "elites" cannot find their
own ass with both hands in a brightly lit room. One is bound to struggle with own ass finding
when having background such as Ciaramella's, and his background with slight deviations within
narrow confines of humanities education, from Law to Political "Science", is a background of
the overwhelming majority of people who "shape" US policies both domestically and abroad.
Ciaramella is a classic product of the US Ivy League degree mills for good ol' boys and girls
and, as is expected, possesses zero required instruments for serious foreign policy analysis in
which power factor is at the center of an issue and it is beyond, wrong as they are, so called
modelling and methodology used in the US for studying this issue--a body of absolutely
overwhelming evidence of utter and humiliating, I may add, failure of American institutions
dealing with country studies. No bigger evidence exists than a wasteland of Russia Studies
field in the United States.
If you think that a person who does such research as this "Structural ambiguity in the
Georgian verbal noun" is a serious analyst, I have a bridge to sell. Knowing language is
just a first step in knowing cultures and nations. The idea that some barely 30 years old kid
can have a profound understanding of factors forming geopolitical balance by merely studying
language or working in the Wold Bank is preposterous.
It is not even the issue of IQ-driven so
called intelligence metric. I met many people with IQ through the roof and some of them were
one of the most impressive dumbfvcks I ever encountered in my life. The issue here is
deeper--you literally have brainwashed political operatives, most of them not even book-smart,
who are excreted every year from the American "humanities" programs who have "credentials" but
have zero actual serious skills which are imperative for a serious statesmanship. They simply
do not teach this in the US, nor can it be changed because the whole machine of the US
"humanities" education pulsates between two extremes: one is of a complete deconstruction of
the American history and culture into one non-stop genocide by whites of everyone else or, on
the other extreme, utterly delusional exceptionalist shining city on the hill narrative with
latter being as false as the former one. Few common sense and objective views which exist in
between are pure coincidence which are there despite a totally corrupt educational system in
the US when dealing with humanities.
That is why, US elites having "analysts" like Ciaramella will not get out of this rut because
the only thing they can reproduce are such specimens as this guy perfectly honed for one
thing--to exist in the self-contained system of corruption, treachery, snitching, dirty
intrigue and delusion, also known as American political system. In this case, forestalling any
undeniably upcoming claims from these types of guys about their "honor", duty to a country or
"democracy" it should be made patently clear that they have none, other than personal and
narrow political interests and ambitions attached to a destruction of America which, at least
nominally, was so far known as a land of laws and of the Constitution and which it is no more.
"... We drove for hours through the desert, towards the Iraqi border. Approx. 20-30 kilometers from the border, there really was nothing. First of all no war. There were armored vehicles and tanks, burned-out long ago. The journalist left the bus, splashed the contents of the cans on the vehicles. We had Iraqi soldiers with us as an escort, with machine guns, in uniform. You have to imagine: tanks in a desert, burned out long ago, now put on fire. Clouds of smoke. And there the journalists assemble their cameras. ..."
"... So I gathered courage and asked one of the reporters: 'I understand one thing, they are great pictures, but why are they ducking all the time? ' ..."
"... I'll finish, because I am not here to make satire today. I just want to say that this was my first experience with truth in journalism and war reporting. ..."
"... Then a certain type of reporting is expected. Which one? Forget my newspaper, this applies in general. At the start of the trip, the journalist gets a memo – today it is electronic – in his hand. If you are traveling abroad, it is info about the country, or the speeches that will be held. This file contains roughly what will happen during this trip. In addition there are short conversations, briefings with the politician's press manager. He then explains to you how one views this trip. Naturally, you should see it the same way. No one says it in that way. But is is approximately what one would have reported. ..."
"... He explained that a recruitment board from the intelligence services had participated. But I had no idea that the seminar Introduction to Conflict Studies was arranged by the defense forces and run by the foreign intelligence service BND, to have a closer look at potential candidates among the students, not to commit them. They only asked if they, after four such seminars, possibly could contact me later, in my occupation. ..."
"... Two persons from BND came regularly to the paper, to a visiting room. And there were occasions when the report not only was given, but also that BND had written articles, largely ready to go, that were published in the newspaper under my byline. ..."
"... But a couple of journalists were there, they told about it. Therefore I repeat: Merkel invited the chief editors several times, and told them she didn't want the population to be truthfully and openly informed about the problems out there. For example, the background for the financial crisis. If the citizens knew how things were, they would run to the bank and withdraw their money. So beautifying everything; everything is under control; your savings are safe; just smile and hold hands – everything will be fine. ..."
"... From one hour 18 minutes onwards, Ulfkotte details EU-Inter-State Terror Co-operation, with returning IS Operatives on a Free Pass, fully armed and even Viktor Orban had to give in to the commands of letting Terrorists through Hungary into Germany & Austria. ..."
"... Everybody who works in the MSM, without exception, are bought and paid for whores peddling lies on behalf of globalist corporate interests. ..."
"... Udo's voice (in the form of his book) was silenced for a reason – that being that he spoke the truth about our utterly and completely corrupt Western fantasy world in which we in the West proclaim our – "respect international law" and "respect for human rights." His work, such as this interview and others he has done, pulled the curtain back on the big lie and exposed our oligarchs, politicians and the "journalists" they hire as simply a cadre of professional criminals whose carefully crafted lies are used to soak up the blood and to cover the bodies of the dead, all in order to hide all that mayhem from our eyes, to insure justice is an impossibility and to make sure we Western citizens sleep well at night, oblivious to our connection to the actual realities that are this daily regime of pillage and plunder that is our vaunted "neoliberal order." ..."
"... "The philosopher Diogenes (of Sinope) was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.' To which Diogenes replied, 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king"." ..."
"... So Roosevelt pushed Hitler to attack Stalin? Hitler didn't want to go East? Revisionism at it most motive free. ..."
"... Pushing' is synonymous for a variety of ways to instigate a desired outcome. Financing is just one way. And Roosevelt was in no way the benevolent knight history twisters like to present him. You are outing yourself again as an easliy duped sheep. ..."
"... Lebensraum was first popularized in 1901 in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum Hitler's "Mein Kampf" ( 1925) build on that: he had no need for any American or other push, it was intended from the get go. ..."
"... This excellent article demonstrates how the Controlling Elite manipulates the Media and the Message for purposes of misdirecting attention and perception of their true intentions and objective of securing Global Ownership (aka New World Order). ..."
"... Corporate Journalism is all about corporatism and the continuation of it. If the Intelligence Community needs greater fools for staffing purposes in the corporate hierarchy they look for anyone that can be compromised via inducements of whatever the greater fools want. ..."
"... Bought & paid for corporate Journalists are controlled by the Intelligence Agencies and always have been since at least the Second World War. The CIA typically runs bribery & blackmail at the state & federal level so that when necessary they have instant useless eaters to offer up as political sacrifice when required via state run propaganda, & impression management. ..."
"... Assuming that journalism is an ethical occupation is naďve and a fools' game even in the alternative news domain as all writers write from bias & a lack of real knowledge. Few writers are intellectually honest or even aware of their own limits as writers. The writer is a failure and not a hero borne in myth. Writers struggle to write & publish. Bought and paid for writers don't have a struggle in terms of writing because they are told what to write before they write as automatons for the Intelligence Community knowing that they sold their collective souls to the Prince of Darkness for whatever trinkets, bobbles, or bling they could get their greedy hands on at the time. ..."
"... Once pond scum always pond scum. ..."
"... It is a longer process in which one is gradually introduced to ever more expensive rewards/bribes. Never too big to overwhelm – always just about what one would accept as 'motivation' to omit aspects of any issue. Of course, omission is a lie by any other name, but I can attest to the life style of a journalist that socializes with the leaders of all segments of society. ..."
"... Professional whoring is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Being ethical is difficult stuff especially when money is involved. Money is always a prime motivator but vanity works wonders too. Corporatists will offer whatever inducements they can to get what they want. ..."
"... All mainstream media voices are selling a media package that is a corporatist lie in and of itself. Truth is less marketable than lies. Embellished news & journalistic hype is the norm ..."
In 2014, the German journalist and writer Udo Ulfkotte published a book that created a big stir, describing how the journalistic
profession is thoroughly corrupt and infiltrated by intelligence services.
Although eagerly anticipated by many, the English translation of the book, Bought Journalists , does not seem to be forthcoming
anytime soon.
So I have made English subtitles and transcribed this still very relevant 2015-lecture for those that are curious about Ulfkotte's
work. It covers many of the subjects described in the book.
Udo Ulfkotte died of a heart attack in January 2017, in all likelihood part of the severe medical complications he got from his
exposure to German-made chemical weapons supplied to Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.
Transcription
[Only the first 49 minutes are translated; the second half of the lecture deals mostly with more local issues]
Introducer Oliver: I am very proud to have such a brave man amongst us: Udo Ulfkotte
Udo Ulfkotte: Thanks Thanks for the invitation Thanks to Oliver. I heard to my great surprise from Oliver that he didn't
know someone from the intelligence services (VVS) would be present. I wish him a warm welcome. I don't mean that as a joke, I heard
this in advance, and got to know that Oliver didn't know. If he wants – if it is a man – he can wave. If not? no? [laughter from
the audience]
I'm fine with that. You can write down everything, or record it; no problem.
To the lecture. We are talking about media. we are talking about truth. I don't want to sell you books or such things. Each one
of us asks himself: Why do things develop like they do, even though the majority, or a lot of people shake their heads.
The majority of people in Germany don't want nuclear weapons on our territory. But we have nuclear weapons here. The majority
don't want foreign interventions by German soldiers. But we do.
What media narrates and the politicians say, and what the majority of the population believes – seems often obviously to be two
different things.
I can tell you this myself, from many years experience. I will start with very personal judgments, to tell you what my experiences
with 'The Lying Media' were – I mean exactly that with the word 'lying'.
I was born in a fairly poor family. I am a single child. I grew up on the eastern edge of the Ruhr-area. I studied Law, Political
Science and Islamic Studies. Already in my student years, I had contact with the German Foreign Intelligence, BND. We will get back
to that later.
From 1986 to 2003, I worked for a major German newspaper, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), amongst other things as a war
reporter. I spent a lot of time in Eastern and African countries.
Now to the subject of lying media. When I was sent to the Iran-Iraq war for the first time, the first time was from 1980 to July
1986, I was sent to this war to report for FAZ. The Iraqis were then 'the good guys'.
I was bit afraid. I didn't have any experience as a war reporter. Then I arrived in Baghdad. I was fairly quickly sent along in
a bus by the Iraqi army, the bus was full of loud, experienced war reporters, from such prestigious media as the BBC, several foreign
TV-stations and newspapers, and me, poor newbie, who was sent to the front for the first time without any kind of preparation. The
first thing I saw was that they all carried along cans of petrol. And I at once got bad consciousness, because I thought: "oops,
if the bus gets stuck far from a petrol station, then everyone chips in with a bit of diesel'. I decided to in the future also carry
a can before I went anywhere, because it obviously was part of it.
We drove for hours through the desert, towards the Iraqi border. Approx. 20-30 kilometers from the border, there really was nothing.
First of all no war. There were armored vehicles and tanks, burned-out long ago. The journalist left the bus, splashed the contents
of the cans on the vehicles. We had Iraqi soldiers with us as an escort, with machine guns, in uniform. You have to imagine: tanks
in a desert, burned out long ago, now put on fire. Clouds of smoke. And there the journalists assemble their cameras.
It was my first experience with media, truth in reporting.
While I was wondering what the hell I was going to report for my newspaper, they all lined up and started: Behind them were flames
and plumes of smoke, and all the time the Iraqis were running in front of camera with their machine guns, casually, but with war
in their gaze. And the reporters were ducking all the time while talking.
So I gathered courage and asked one of the reporters: 'I understand one thing, they are great pictures, but why are they ducking
all the time? '
'Quite simply because there are machine guns on the audio track, and it looks very good at home.'
That was several decades ago. It was in the beginning of my contact with war. I was thinking, the whole way back:'Young man, you
didn't see a war. You were in a place with a campfire. What are you going to tell?'
I returned to Baghdad. There weren't any mobile phones then. We waited in Hotel Rashid and other hotels where foreigners stayed,
sometimes for hours for an international telephone line. I first contacted my mother, not my newspaper. I was in despair, didn't
know what to do, and wanted to get advice from an elder person.
Then my mother shouted over the phone: 'My boy, you are alive!' I thought: 'How so? Is everything OK?'
'My boy, we thought ' 'What's the matter, mother?' 'We saw on TV what happened around you' TV had already sent lurid stories, and I tried to calm my mother down, it didn't happen like that. She thought I had lost my mind
from all the things that had happened in the war – she saw it with her own eyes!
I'll finish, because I am not here to make satire today. I just want to say that this was my first experience with truth in journalism
and war reporting.
That is, I was very shocked by the first contact, it was entirely different from what I had experienced. But it wasn't an exceptional
case.
In the beginning, I mentioned that I am from a fairly poor family. I had to work hard for everything. I was a single child, my
father died when I was young. It didn't matter further on. But, I had a job, I had a degree, a goal in life.
I now had the choice: Should I declare that the whole thing was nonsense, these reports? I was nothing, a newbie straight out
of uni, in my first job. Or if I wanted to make money, to continue, look further. I chose the second option. I continued, and that
for many years.
Over these years, I gained lots of experience. When one comes from university to a big German newspaper – everything I say doesn't
only apply to FAZ, you can take other German or European media. I had contact with other European journalists, from reputable media
outlets. I later worked in other media. I can tell you: What I am about to tell you, I really discovered everywhere.
What did I experience? If you, as a reporter, work either in state media financed by forced license fees, or in the big private
media companies, then you can't write what you want yourself, what you feel like. There are certain guidelines.
Roughly speaking: everyone knows that you won't, for example in the Springer-newspapers – Bild, die Welt – get published articles
extremely critical of Israel. They stand no chance there, because one has to sign a statement that one is pro-Israel, that one won't
question the existence of the state of Israel or Israeli points of view, etc.
There are some sort of guidelines in all the big media companies. But that isn't all: I learned very fast that if one doesn't
– I don't mean this negatively – want to be stuck in the lower rungs of editors, if one wants to rise; for me this rise was that
I was allowed to travel with the Chancellor, ministers, the president and politicians, in planes owned by the state; then one has
to keep to certain subjects. I learned that fast.
That is, if one gets to follow a politician – and this hasn't changed to this day – I soon realized that when I followed the president
or Chancellor Helmut Kohl etc, one of course isn't invited because your name is Udo Ulfkotte, but because you belong to the newspaper
Frankfurter Allgemeine.
Then a certain type of reporting is expected. Which one? Forget my newspaper, this applies in general. At the start of the trip,
the journalist gets a memo – today it is electronic – in his hand. If you are traveling abroad, it is info about the country, or
the speeches that will be held. This file contains roughly what will happen during this trip. In addition there are short conversations,
briefings with the politician's press manager. He then explains to you how one views this trip. Naturally, you should see it the
same way. No one says it in that way. But is is approximately what one would have reported.
All the time you no one tells you to write it this or that way but you know quite exactly that if you DON'T write it this or that
way,then you won't get invited next time. Your media outlet will be invited, but they say 'we don't want him along'. Then you are
out.
Naturally you want to be invited. Of course it is wonderful to travel abroad and you can behave like a pig, no one cares. You
can buy what you want, because you know that when you return, you won't be checked. You can bring what you want. I had colleagues
who went along on a trip to the US.
They brought with them – it was an air force plane – a Harley Davidson, in parts. They sold it when they were back in Germany,
and of course earned on it. Anyway, just like the carpet-affair with that development minister, this is of course not a single instance.
No one talks about it.
You get invited if you have a certain way of seeing things. Which way to see things? Where and how is this view of the world formed?
I very often get asked: 'Where are these people behind the curtain who pulls the wires, so that everything gets told in a fairly
similar way?'
In the big media in Germany – just look yourself – who sit in the large transatlantic think-tanks and foundations,the foundation
The Atlantic Bridge, all these organizations, and how is one influenced there? I can tell from my own experience.
We mustn't talk only theoretically. I was invited by the think-tank The German Marshall Fund of the United States as a fellow.
I was to visit the United States for six weeks. It was fully paid. During these six weeks I could this think-tank has very close
connections to the CIA to this day, they acquired contacts in the CIA for me and they got me access to American politicians, to everyone
I wanted. Above all, they showered me with gifts.
Already before the journey with German Marshall Fund, I experienced plenty of bought journalism. This hasn't to do with a particular
media outlet. You see, I was invited and didn't particularly reflect over it, by billionaires, for example sultan Quabboos of Oman
on the Arabian peninsula.
When sultan Qabboos invited, and a poor boy like me could travel to a country with few inhabitants but immense wealth, where the
head of state had the largest yachts in the world, his own symphony orchestra which plays for him when he wants – by the way he bought
a pub close to Garmisch-Patenkirchen, because he is a Muslim believer, and someone might see him if he drank in his own country,
so he rather travels there. The place he bought every day fly in fresh lamb from Ireland and Scotland with his private jet. He is
also the head of an environmental foundation.
But this is a digression. If such a person, who is so incredibly rich, invites someone like me, then I arrive first class. I had
never traveled first class before. We arrive, and a driver is waiting for me. He carries your suitcase or backpack. You have a suite
in the hotel. And from the very start, you are showered with gifts. You get a platinum or gold coin. A hand-weaved carpet or whatever.
I interviewed the sultan, several times. He asked me what I wanted. I answered among other things a diving course. I wanted to
learn how to dive. He flew in a PADI-approved instructor from Greece. I was there for two weeks and got my first diving certificate.
On later occasions, the sultan flew me in several times, and the diving instructor. I got a certificate as rescue diver, all paid
for by the sultan. You see, when one is attended to in such a way, then you know that you are bought. For a certain type of journalism.
In the sultan's country, there is no freedom of the press.
There are no human rights. It is illegal to import many writings, because the sultan does not wish so. There are reports about
human rights violations, but my eyes are blind. I reported, like all German media when they report about the Sultanate of Oman, to
this day, only positive things. The great sultan, who is wonderful. The fantastic country of the fairy tale prince, overshadowing
everything else – because I was bought.
Apart from Oman, many others have bought me. They also bought colleagues. I got many invitations through the travel section in
my big newspaper. 5-star. The reportage never mentioned that I was bought, by country A or B or C. Yemenia, the Yemeni state airline,
invited me to such a trip.
I didn't report about the dirt and dilapidation in the country, because I was influenced by this treatment, I only reported positively,
because I wanted to come back. The Yemenis asked me when I had returned to Frankfurt what I wished In jest, I said "your large prawns,
from the Red Sea, from the Indian Ocean, they were spectacular.", from the seaport of Mocha (Mocha-coffee is named after it). Two
days later, Yemenia flew in a buffet for the editorial office, with prawns and more.
Of course we were bought. We were bought in several ways. In your situation: when you buy a car or something else, you trust consumer
tests. Look closer. How well is the car tested? I know of no colleagues, no journalists, who do testing of cars, that aren't bribed
– maybe they do exist.
They get unlimited access to a car from the big car manufacturers, with free petrol and everything else. I had a work car in my
newspaper, if not, I might have exploited this. I had a BMW or Mercedes in the newspaper. But there are, outside the paper, many
colleagues who only have this kind of vehicle all year round. They are invited to South Africa, Malaysia, USA, to the grandest travels,
when a new car is presented.
Why? So that they will write positively about the car. But it doesn't say in these reports "Advertisement from bought journalists".
But that is the reality. You should also know – since we are on the subjects of tests – who owns which test magazines? Who owns
the magazine Eco-test? It is owned by the Social Democrats. More than a hundred magazines belong to the Social Democrats. It isn't
about only one party, but many editorial rooms have political allegiance. Behind them are party political interests.
I mentioned the sultan of Oman and the diving course, and I have mentioned German Marshall Fund. Back to the US and the German
Marshall Fund. There one told me, they knew exactly, 'hello, you were on a diving course in Oman ' The CIA knew very precisely. And
the CIA also gave me something: The diving gear. I received the diving gear in the United States, and I received in the US, during
my 6-week stay there, an invitation from the state of Oklahoma, from the governor. I went there. It was a small ceremony, and I received
an honorary citizenship.
I am now honorary citizen of an American state. And in this certificate, it is written that I will only cover the US positively.
I accepted this honorary citizenship and was quite proud of it. I proudly told about it to a colleague who worked in the US. He said
'ha, I already have 31 of these honorary citizenships!'
I don't tell about this to be witty, today I am ashamed, really.
I was greedy. I accepted many advantages that a regular citizen at my age in my occupation doesn't have, and shouldn't have. But
I perceived it – and that is no excuse – as entirely normal, because my colleagues around me all did the same. But this isn't normal.
When journalists are invited to think-tanks in the US, like German Marshall Fund, Atlantic Bridge, it is to 'bring them in line',
for in a friendly way to make them complicit, naturally to buy them, to grease them with money.
This has quite a few aspects that one normally doesn't talk about. When I for the first time was in Southern Africa, in the 80s,
Apartheid still existed in South Africa, segregated areas for blacks and whites. We didn't have any problems with this in my newspaper,
we received fully paid journeys from the Apartheid regime to do propaganda work.
I was invited by the South-African gold industry, coal industry, tourist board. In the first invitation, this trip was to Namibia
– I arrived tired to the hotel room in Windhoek and a dark woman lay in my bed. I at once left the room, went down to the reception
and said 'excuse me, but the room is already occupied' [laughter from the audience]
Without any fuss I got another room.
Next day at the breakfast table, this was a journalist trip, my colleagues asked me 'how was yours?' Only then I understood what
had happened. Until then, I had believed it was a silly coincidence.
With this I want to describe which methods are used, maybe to film journalists in such situations, buy, make dependent. Quite
simply to win them over to your side with the most brutal methods, so that they are 'brought in line'.
This doesn't happen to every journalist. It would be a conspiracy theory if I said that behind every journalist, someone pulls
the wires.
No. Not everyone has influence over the masses. When you – I don't mean this negatively – write about folk costume societies or
if you work with agriculture or politics, why should anyone from the upper political spheres have an interest in controlling the
reporting? As far as I know, this doesn't happen at all.
But if you work in one of the big media, and want up in this world, if you want to travel with politicians, heads of state, with
CEOs, who also travel on these planes, then it happens. Then you are regularly bought, you are regularly observed.
I said earlier that I already during my study days had contact with the intelligence services.
I will quickly explain this to you, because it is very important for this lecture.
I studied law, Political Science and Islamology, among other places in Freiburg. At the very beginning of my study, just before
end of the term, a professor approached me. Professors were then still authority figures.
He came with a brochure, and asked me: 'Mr. Ulfkotte, what are your plans for this vacation?'
I couldn't very well say that I first planned to work a bit at a building site, for then to grab my backpack and see the ocean
for the first time in my life, to Italy, 'la dolce vita', flirting with girls, lie on the beach and be a young person.
I wondered how I would break it to him. He then came with a brochure [Ulfkotte imitating professor]: 'I have something for
you a seminar, Introduction to Conflict Studies, two weeks in Bonn I am sure you would want to participate!'
I wondered how I would tell this elderly gentleman that I wanted to flirt with girls on the beach. Then he said 'you will get
20 Marks per day as support, paid train journey, money for books 150 Marks You will naturally get board and lodging.' He didn't stop
telling me what I would receive.
It buzzed around in my head that I had to achieve everything myself, work hard. I thought 'You have always wanted to participate
in a seminar on Introduction to Conflict Studies!'
So I went to Bonn from Freiburg, and I saw other students who had this urge to participate in this seminar. There were also girls
one could flirt with, about twenty people. The whole thing was very strange, because we sat in a room like this one, there were desks
and a lectern, and there sat some older men and a woman, they always wrote something down. They asked us about things; What we thought
of East Germany, we had to do role play.
The whole thing was a bit strange, but it was well paid. We didn't reflect any further. It was very strange that in this house,
in Ubierstraße 88 in Bonn, we weren't allowed to go to the second floor. There was a chain over the stairs, it was taboo.
We were allowed to go to the basement, there were constantly replenished supplies of new books that we were allowed to get for
free. Ebay didn't exist then, but we could still sell them used. Anyway, it was curious, but at the end of the fortnight, we were
allowed to go up these stairs, where we got an invitation to a continuation course in Conflict Studies.
After four such seminars, that is, after two years, someone asked me 'you have probably wondered what we are doing here'.
He explained that a recruitment board from the intelligence services had participated. But I had no idea that the seminar Introduction
to Conflict Studies was arranged by the defense forces and run by the foreign intelligence service BND, to have a closer look at
potential candidates among the students, not to commit them. They only asked if they, after four such seminars, possibly could contact
me later, in my occupation.
They gave me a lot of money. My mother has always taught me to be polite. So I said 'please do', and they came to me. I was then
working in the newspaper FAZ from 1986, straight after my studies.
Then the intelligence services came fairly soon to me. Why am I telling you this? The newspaper knew very soon. It is also written in my reference, therefore I can say it loud and clear. I had very close contact with the intelligence service BND.
Two persons from BND came regularly to the paper, to a visiting room. And there were occasions when the report not only was given,
but also that BND had written articles, largely ready to go, that were published in the newspaper under my byline.
I highlight certain things to explain them. But if I had said here: 'There are media that are influenced by BND', you could rightly
say that 'these are conspiracy theories, can you document it?'
I CAN document it. I can say, this and that article, with my byline in the paper, is written by the intelligence services, because
what is written there, I couldn't have known. I couldn't have known what existed in some cave or other in Libya, what secret thing
were there, what was being built there. This was all things that BND wanted published. It wasn't like this only in FAZ.
It was like this also in other media. I told about it. If we had rule of law, there would now be an investigation commission.
Because the political parties would stand up, regardless of if they are on the left, in the center or right, and say: What this Ulfkotte
fella says and claims he can document, this should be investigated. Did this occur in other places? Or is it still ongoing?'
I can tell you: Yes it still exists. I know colleagues who still have this close contact. One can probably show this fairly well
until a few years ago. But I would find it wonderful if this investigation commission existed.
But it will obviously not happen, because no one has an interest in doing so. Because then the public would realize how closely
integrated politics, media, and the secret services are in this country.
That is, one often sees in reporting, whether it is from the local paper, regional papers, TV-channels, national tabloids and
so-called serious papers.
Put them side by side, and you will discover that more than 90% looks almost identical. A lot of subjects and news, that are not
being reported at all, or they are – I claim reported very one-sided. One can only explain this if one knows the structures in the
background, how media is surrounded, bought and 'brought onboard' by politics and the intelligence services; Where politics and intelligence
services form a single unity. There is an intelligence coordinator by the Chancellor.
I can tell you, that under the former coordinator Bernd Schmidbauer, under Kohl, I walked in and out of the Chancellery and received
stacks of secret and confidential documents, which I shouldn't have received.
They were so many that we in the newspaper had own archive cabinets for them. Not only did I receive these documents,but Schmidbauer
should have been in jail if we had rule of law. Or there should have been a parliamentary commission or an investigation, because
he wasn't allowed
For example if I couldn't bring along the documents if the case was too hot, there was another trick. They locked me in a room.
In this room were the documents, which I could look through. I could record it all on tape, photograph them or write them down. When
I was done, I could call on the intercom, so they could lock me out. There were thousands of these tricks. Anonymous documents that
I and my colleagues needed could be placed in my mail box.
These are of course illegal things. BUT, you ONLY get them if you 'toe the line' with politics.
If I had written that Chancellor Helmut Kohl is stupid, a big idiot, or about what Schmidbauer did, I would of course not have
received more. That is, if you today, in newspapers, read about 'soon to be revealed exposures, we will publish a big story based
on material based on intelligence', then none of these media have dug a tunnel under the security services and somehow got hold of
something secret. It is rather that they work so well with intelligence services, with the military counterespionage, the foreign
intelligence, police intelligence etc, that if they have got hold of internal documents, it is because they cooperate so well that
they received them as a reward for well performed service.
You see, in this way one is in the end bought. One is bought to such a degree that at one point one can't exit this system anymore.
If I describe how you are supplied with prostitutes, bribed with cars, money; I tried to write down everything I received in gifts,
everything I was bribed with. I stopped doing so several years ago, more than a decade ago.
It doesn't make it any better, but today I regret everything. But I know that it goes this way with many journalists.
It would make me very happy if journalists stood up and said they won't participate in this any longer, and that they think this
is wrong.
But I see no possibility, because media corporations in any case are doing badly. Where should a journalist find work the next
day? It isn't so that tens of thousands of employers are waiting for you. It is the other way round. Tens of thousands of journalists
are looking for work or commissions.
That is, from pure desperation one is happy to be bribed. If a newsroom stands behind or not an article that in reality is advertising,
doesn't matter, one goes along. I know some, even respected journalists, who want to leave this system.
But imagine if you are working in one of the state channels, that you stand up and tell what you have received. How will that
be received by your colleagues? That you have political ulterior motives etc.
September 30 [2015], a few days ago, Chancellor Merkel invited all the directors in the state channels to her in the Chancellery.
I will claim that she talked with them about how one should report the Chancellors politics. Who of you [in the audience] heard about
this incident? 3-4-5? So a small minority. But this is reality. Merkel started already 6 years ago, at the beginning of the financial
crisis, to invite chief editors ..she invited chief editors in the large media corporations, with the express wish that media should
embellish reality, in a political way. This could have been only claims, one could believe me or not.
But a couple of journalists were there, they told about it. Therefore I repeat: Merkel invited the chief editors several times,
and told them she didn't want the population to be truthfully and openly informed about the problems out there. For example, the background for the financial crisis. If the citizens knew how things were, they would run to the bank and withdraw
their money. So beautifying everything; everything is under control; your savings are safe; just smile and hold hands – everything
will be fine.
In such a way it should be reported. Ladies and gentlemen, what I just said can be documented. These are facts, not a conspiracy
theory.
I formulated it a bit satirically, but I ask myself when I see how things are in this country: Is this the democracy described
in the Constitution? Freedom of speech? Freedom of the press?
Where one has to be afraid if one doesn't agree with the ruling political correctness, if one doesn't want to get in trouble.
Is this the republic our parents and grandparents fought for, that they built?
I claim that we more and more – as citizens – are cowards 'toeing the line', who don't open our mouths.
It is so nice to have plurality and diversity of opinions.
But it is at once clamped down on, today fairly openly.
Of my experiences with journalism, I can in general say that I have quit all media I have to pay for, for the reasons mentioned.
Then the question arises, 'but which pay-media can I trust?'
Naturally there are ones I support. They are definitely political, I'll add. But they are all fairly small. And they won't be
big anytime soon. But I have quit all big media that I used to subscribe to, Der Spiegel, Frankfurter Allgemeine, etc. I would like
to not having to pay the TV-license fee, without being arrested because I won't pay fines. But maybe someone here in the audience
can tell me how to do so without all these problems?
Either way, I don't want to financially support this kind of journalism. I can only give you the advice to get information from
alternative, independent media and all the forums that exist.
I'm not advertising for any of them. Some of you probably know that I write for the publishing house Kopp. But there are so many
portals. Every person is different in political viewpoint, culturally etc. The only thing uniting us, whether we are black or white,
religious or non-religious, right or left, or whatever; we all want to know the truth. We want to know what really happens out there,
and exactly in the burning political questions: asylum seekers, refugees, the financial crisis, bad infrastructure, one doesn't know
how it will continue. Precisely with this background, is it even more important that people get to know the truth.
And it is to my great surprise that I conclude that we in media, as well as in politics, have a guiding line.
To throw more and more dust in the citizens' eyes to calm them down. What is the sense in this? One can have totally different
opinions on the subject of refugees with good reasoning.
But facts are important for you as citizens to decide the future. That is, how many people will arrive? How will it affect my
personal affluence? Or will it affect my affluence at all? Will the pensions shrink? etc. Then you can talk with people about this,
quite openly. But to say that we should open all borders, and that this won't have any negative consequences, is very strange. What
I now say isn't a plug for my books. I know that some of them are on the table in front.
I'm not saying this so that you will buy books. I am saying this for another reason that soon will be clear. I started to write
books on certain subjects 18 years ago. They have sold millions. It is no longer about you buying my books. It is important that
you hear the titles, then you will see a certain line throughout the last ten years. One can have different opinions about this line,
but I have always tried to describe, based on my subjective experiences, formed over many years in the Middle East and Africa.
That there will be migration flows, from people from culture areas that are like; if one could compare a cultural area with an
engine, that one fills petrol in a diesel engine then everyone knows what will happen, the engine is great, diesel is great, but
if there too much petrol, then the engine starts to splutter and stop.
I have tried to make you aware of this, with drastic and less drastic words. What we can expect, and ever faster. The book titles
are SOS Occident; Warning Civil War; No Black,Red, Yellow [the colors in the German flag], Holy War in Europe; Mecca Germany.
I just want to say, when politicians and media today claim no one could have predicted it, everything is a complete surprise;
Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not at all surprising. The migration flows, for years warnings have been coming from international
organizations, politicians, experts, exactly about what happened and it is predictable, if we had a map over North Africa and the
Middle East..
If the West continues to destabilize countries like Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, country by country, Iraq when we toppled Saddam
Hussein, Afghanistan. We as Europeans and Germans have spent tens of billions on a war where we allegedly defend peace and liberty,
at the mountain range Hindu Kush [in Afghanistan]. And here, in front of our own door, we soon have Hindu Kush.
We have no stabilization in Afghanistan. Dozens of German soldiers have lost their lives for nothing. We have a more unstable
situation than ever.
You can have your own opinions. I am only saying that these refugee flows didn't fall from the sky. It is predicable, that if
I bomb and destabilize a country, that people – it is always so in history – it hasn't anything to do with the Middle East or North
Africa. I have seen enough wars in Africa. Naturally they created refugee flows.
But all of us didn't want to see this. We haven't prepared. And now one is reacting in full panic, and what is most disconcerting
with this, is when media and politicians, allegedly from deepest inner conviction, say: 'this was all a complete surprise!'
Are they drunk? What are they smoking? What sort of pills are they eating? That they behave this way?
End transcription
The transcription has been edited for clarity, and may differ from the spoken word. The subtitles and transcription are for the
first 49 minutes of the lecture only. Subtitled and transcribed by Terje Maloy. This article is Creative Commons 4.0 for non-commercial
purposes.
Terje Maloy (
Website ) is a Norwegian citizen, with roots north of the Arctic Circle. Nowadays, he spends a lot of time in Australia, working
in the family business. He has particular interests in liberty, global justice, imperialism, history, media analysis and what Western
governments really are up to. He runs a blog , mostly in Norwegian,
but occasionally in English. He likes to write about general geopolitical matters, and Northern Europe in particular, presenting
perspectives that otherwise barely are mentioned in the dominant media (i.e. most things that actually matter).
Tim Jenkins
From 1:18 minutes, Ulfkotte reveals without question, that the EU Political 'elite's' combined intelligence services work with
& propagate . . .
Terror, Terrorists & Terrorism / a conscious organised Politics of FEAR ! / Freedom of Movement, of fully armed IS Agents
Provocateurs & with a Secret Services get out of jail free card, 'Hände Weg Nicht anfassen', it's 'Hammertime', "U Can't
Touch this", we're armed state operatives travelling to Germany & Austria, " don't mess with my operation !" & all journalists'
hands tied, too.
The suggestions & offers below to translate fully, what Ulfkotte declares publicly, make much sense. It is important to understand
that even an 'Orban' must bow occasionally, to deep state Security State Dictators and the pressures they can exert in so many
ways. Logic . . . or else one's life is made into hell, alive or an 'accidental' death: – and may I add, it is a curiously depressing
feeling when you have so many court cases on the go, that when a Gemeinde/Municipality Clerk is smiling, celebrating and telling
you, (representing yourself in court, with only independent translator & recorder), "You Won the Case, a superior judge has over-ruled
" and the only reply possible is,
"Which case number ?"
life gets tedious & time consuming, demanding extreme patience. Given his illness, surely Ulfkotte and his wife, deserve/d
extra credit & 'hot chocolate'. Makes a change to see & read some real journalism: congrats.@OffG
Excellent Professional Journalism on "Pseudo-Journalist State Actors & Terrorists". If you see a terrorist, guys, at
best just reason with him or her :- better than calling
INTERPOL or Secret Services @theguardian, because you wouldn't want a member of the public, grassing you up to your boss, would
you now ? ! Just tell the terrorist who he really works for . . . Those he resents ! Rather like Ulfkotte had to conclude,
with final resignation. My condolences to his good wife.
Wilmers31
Very good of you to not forget Ulfkotte. If I did not have sickness in the house, I would translate it. Maybe I can do one chapter
and someone else can do another one? What's the publisher saying?
You wouldn't say that if you could speak German, my friend ! ?
From one hour 18 minutes onwards, Ulfkotte details EU-Inter-State Terror Co-operation, with returning IS Operatives on
a Free Pass, fully armed and even Viktor Orban had to give in to the commands of letting Terrorists through Hungary into Germany
& Austria.
But, don't let that revelation bother you, living under a Deep State 'Politic of Fear' in the West and long unedited speeches
gets kinda' boring now, I know a bit like believing in some kinda' dumbfuk new pearl harbour, war on terror &&& all phoney propaganda
fairy story telling, just like on the 11/9/2001, when the real target was WTC 7, to hide elitist immoral endeavours, corruption
& the missing $$$TRILLIONS$$$ of tax payers money, 'mislaid' by the D.o.D. announced directly the day before by Rumsfeld, forgotten
? Before ramping the Surveillance States abilities in placing & employing "Parallel Platforms" on steroids, so that our secret
services can now employ terror & deploy terrorists at will .., against us, see ?
Plus ca change....
I remember on a similar note a 60 Minutes piece just prior to Clinton's humanitarian bombing of Serbian civilian infrastructure
(and long ago deleted, I'm sure) on a German free-lancer staging Kosovo atrocities in a Munich suburb, and having the German MSM
eating it up and asking for more. (WWII guilt assuagement at work, no doubt).
mark
Everybody who works in the MSM, without exception, are bought and paid for whores peddling lies on behalf of globalist corporate
interests.
That is their job.
That is what they do.
They have long since forfeited all credibility and integrity.
They have lied to us endlessly for decades and generations, from the Bayonetted Belgian Babies and Human Bodies Turned Into Soap
of WW1 to the Iraq Incubator Babies and Syrian Gas Attacks of more recent times.
You can no longer take anything at face value.
The default position has to be that every single word they print and every single word that comes out of their lying mouths is
untrue.
If they say it's snowing at the North Pole, you can't accept that without first going there and checking it out for yourself.
You can't accept anything that has not been independently verified.
This applies across the board.
All of the accepted historical narrative, including things like the holocaust.
And current Global Warming "science."
We know we have been lied to again and again and again.
So what else have we been lied to without us realising it?
mark
Come to think of it, I need to apologise to sex workers.
I have known quite a few of them who have quite high ethical and moral standards, certainly compared to the MSM.
And they certainly do less damage.
Vert few working girls have blood on their hands like the MSM.
Compared to them, working girls are the salt of the earth and pillars of the community.
Seamus Padraig
Compared to them, working girls are the salt of the earth and pillars of the community.
I heartily agree. Even if one disapproves morally of prostitution, how can it possibly be worse to sell your body than to sell
your soul?
Oliver
Quite. Checking things out for yourself is the way to go. Forget 'Peer Reviews', just as bent as the journalism Ulfkotte described.
DIY.
Mortgage
So natural, all it seems
Part II:
Bought Science
Part III:
Bought Health Services
mapquest directions
The video you shared with great info. I really like the information you share.
boxnovel
Gary Weglarz
I knew we were in dangerous new territory regarding government censorship when after waiting several years for Ulfkotte's best
selling book to finally be available in English – it suddenly, magically, disappeared completely – a vanishing act – and I couldn't
get so much as a response from, much less an explanation from, the would be publisher. Udo's book came at a time when it could
have made a difference countering the fact-free complete and total "fabrication of reality" by the U.S. and Western powers as
they have waged a brutal and ongoing neocolonial war on the world's poor under the guise of "fighting terrorism."
Udo's voice (in the form of his book) was silenced for a reason – that being that he spoke the truth about our utterly and
completely corrupt Western fantasy world in which we in the West proclaim our – "respect international law" and "respect for human
rights." His work, such as this interview and others he has done, pulled the curtain back on the big lie and exposed our oligarchs,
politicians and the "journalists" they hire as simply a cadre of professional criminals whose carefully crafted lies are used
to soak up the blood and to cover the bodies of the dead, all in order to hide all that mayhem from our eyes, to insure justice
is an impossibility and to make sure we Western citizens sleep well at night, oblivious to our connection to the actual realities
that are this daily regime of pillage and plunder that is our vaunted "neoliberal order."
Ramdan
After watching the first 20 min I couldn't help but remembering this tale:
"The philosopher Diogenes (of Sinope) was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who
lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have
to live on lentils.'
To which Diogenes replied, 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king"."
which is also the reason why such a large part of humanity lives in voluntary servitude to power structures, living the dream,
the illusion of being free..
Ramdan
"English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte's "Bought Journalists" Suppressed?" at Global Research 2017!!
Just rechecked Amazon. Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News
by Udo Ulfkotte PH.D. The tag line reads.
Hard cover – currently unavailable; paperback cover – currently unavailable; Kindle edition – ?
Book burning anyone?
nottheonly1
No translation exists for this interview with Udo Ulfkotte on KenFM, the web site of Ken Jebsen. Ken Jebsen has been in the cross
hairs of the CIA and German agencies for his reporting of the truth. He was smeared and defamed by the same people that Dr. Ulfkotte
had written extensively about in his book 'Gekaufte Journalisten' ('Bought Journalists').
The reason why I add this link to the interview lies in the fact that Udo Ulfkotte speaks about an important part of Middle
Eastern and German history – a history that has been scrubbed from the U.S. and German populations. In the Iraq war against Iran
– that the U.S. regime had pushed for in the same fashion the way they had pushed Nazi Germany to invade the U.S.S.R. – German
chemical weapons were used under the supervision of the U.S. regime. The extend of the chemical weapons campaign was enormous
and to the present day, Iranians are born with birth defects stemming from the used of German weapons of mass destruction.
Dr. Ulfkotte rightfully bemoans, that every year German heads of state are kneeling for the Jewish victims of National socialism
– but not for the victims of German WMD's that were used against Iran. He stresses that the act of visual asking for forgiveness
in the case of the Jewish victims becomes hypocrisy, when 40 years after the Nazis reigned, German WMD's were used against Iran.
The German regime was in on the WMD attack on Iran. It was not something that happened because they had lost a couple of thousand
containers with WMDs. They delivered the WMD's to Iraq under U.S. supervision.
Ponder that. And there has never been an apology towards Iran, or compensations. Nada. Nothing. Instead, the vile rhetoric
and demagogery of every U.S. regime since has continued to paint Iran in the worst possible ways, most notably via incessant psychological
projection – accusing Iran of the war crimes and crimes against humanity the U.S. and its Western vassal regimes are guilty of.
Here is the interview that was recorded shortly before Udo Ulfkotte's death:
If enough people support the effort, I am willing to contact KenFM for the authorization to translate the interview and use
it for subtitles to the video. However, I can't do that on my own.
nottheonly1
Correction: the interview was recorded two years before his passing.
Antonym
the U.S. regime had pushed for in the same fashion the way they had pushed Nazi Germany to invade the U.S.S.R.
So Roosevelt pushed Hitler to attack Stalin? Hitler didn't want to go East? Revisionism at it most motive free.
nottheonly1
It would help if you would use your brain just once. 'Pushing' is synonymous for a variety of ways to instigate a desired
outcome. Financing is just one way. And Roosevelt was in no way the benevolent knight history twisters like to present him. You
are outing yourself again as an easliy duped sheep.
But then, with all the assaults by the unintelligence agencies, it does not come as a surprise when facts are twisted.
Antonym
Lebensraum was first popularized in 1901 in Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum
Hitler's "Mein Kampf" ( 1925) build on that: he had no need for any American or other push, it was intended from the
get go. The timing of operation Barbarossa was brilliant though: it shocked Stalin into a temporary limbo as he had
his own aggressive plans.
Casandra2
This excellent article demonstrates how the Controlling Elite manipulates the Media and the Message for purposes of misdirecting
attention and perception of their true intentions and objective of securing Global Ownership (aka New World Order).
This approach has been assiduously applied, across the board, over many years, to the point were they now own and run everything
required to subjugate the 'human race' to the horrors of their psychopathic inclinations. They are presently holding the global
economy on hold until their AI population (social credit) control system/grid is in place before bringing the house down.
Needless to say, when this happens a disunited and frightened Global Population will be at their mercy.
If you wish to gain a full insight of what the Controlling Elite is about, and capable of, I recommend David Icke's latest
publication 'Trigger'. I know he's been tagged a 'nutter' over the past thirty years, but I reckon this book represents the 'gold
standard' in terms of generating awareness as a basis for launching a united global population counter-attack (given a great strategy)
against forces that can only be defined as pure 'EVIL'.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Corporate Journalism is all about corporatism and the continuation of it. If the Intelligence Community needs greater fools
for staffing purposes in the corporate hierarchy they look for anyone that can be compromised via inducements of whatever the
greater fools want. Engaging in compromise allows both parties to have complicit & explicit understanding that corruption
and falsehood are the tools of the trade. To all-of-a-sudden develop a conscience after decades of playing the part of a willing
participant is understandable in light of the guilt complex one must develop after screwing everyone in the world out of the critical
assessment we all need to obtain in order to make decisions regarding our futures.
Bought & paid for corporate Journalists are controlled by the Intelligence Agencies and always have been since at least
the Second World War. The CIA typically runs bribery & blackmail at the state & federal level so that when necessary they have
instant useless eaters to offer up as political sacrifice when required via state run propaganda, & impression management.
Assuming that journalism is an ethical occupation is naďve and a fools' game even in the alternative news domain as all
writers write from bias & a lack of real knowledge. Few writers are intellectually honest or even aware of their own limits as
writers. The writer is a failure and not a hero borne in myth. Writers struggle to write & publish. Bought and paid for writers
don't have a struggle in terms of writing because they are told what to write before they write as automatons for the Intelligence
Community knowing that they sold their collective souls to the Prince of Darkness for whatever trinkets, bobbles, or bling they
could get their greedy hands on at the time.
Developing a conscience late in life is too late.
May all that sell their souls to the Intel agencies understand that pond scum never had a conscience to begin with.
Once pond scum always pond scum.
MOU
nottheonly1
What is not addressed in this talk is the addictive nature of this sort of public relation writing. Journalism is something different
altogether. I know that, because I consider myself to be a journalist at heart – one that stopped doing it when the chalice was
offered to me. The problem is that one is not part of the cabal one day to another.
It is a longer process in which one is gradually introduced to ever more expensive rewards/bribes. Never too big to overwhelm
– always just about what one would accept as 'motivation' to omit aspects of any issue. Of course, omission is a lie by any other
name, but I can attest to the life style of a journalist that socializes with the leaders of all segments of society.
And I would also write a critique about a great restaurant – never paying a dime for a fantastic dinner. The point though is
that I would not write a good critique for a nasty place for money. I have never written anything but the truth – for which I
received sometimes as much as a bag full of the best rolls in the country.
Twisting the truth for any form of bribes is disgusting and attests of the lowest of any character.
MASTER OF UNIVE
Professional whoring is as old as the hills and twice as dusty. Being ethical is difficult stuff especially when money is
involved. Money is always a prime motivator but vanity works wonders too. Corporatists will offer whatever inducements they can
to get what they want.
All mainstream media voices are selling a media package that is a corporatist lie in and of itself. Truth is less marketable
than lies. Embellished news & journalistic hype is the norm.
If the devil offers inducements be sure to up the ante to outsmart the drunken sot.
House Republicans on Thursday said that testimony from the State Department's former envoy to Ukraine, sought by
House Democrats with regards to their impeachment inquiry, won't advance the drive to impeach President Donald Trump.
Emerging from the day-long deposition, New York Republican
Lee Zeldin
said that former U.S. Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker's private Thursday testimony, "blows a hole in the
argument" presented by Democrats that Trump asked the president of Ukraine for a quid pro quo.
Volker on Thursday spent hours testifying with congressional investigators who are seeking to discover if he
played any role in Trump's efforts to obtain from Ukrainian officials information on Hunter Biden, the son of 2020
presidential hopeful
Joseph R. Biden Jr.
House Intelligence Chairman
Adam B. Schiff
briefly addressed reporters during the testimony, charging that Trump encouraging a foreign nation
to investigate his political rival was a "fundamental breach of the president's oath of office."
"It endangers our elections, it endangers our national security, it ought to be condemned by every member of this
body, Democrats and Republicans alike," Schiff said.
While Volker testified, Ohio Republican
Michael R. Turner
, an Intelligence Committee member, released a statement saying he does "not believe that
Volker's testimony advanced Schiff's impeachment agenda."
Zeldin urged the relevant congressional committees to make public a transcript of Volker's deposition, along with
text messages Volker sent to Ukrainian officials, which have become a source of intrigue in the fledgling impeachment
push.
About two-and-a-half hours into Volker's deposition,
Jim Jordan
, an Ohio Republican and founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, emerged and told reporters that
Schiff wanted to limit certain members from questioning Volker and that the California Democrat had barred State
Department lawyers from participating in the closed briefing.
Want insight more often?
Get Roll Call in your inbox
"If this is how Mr. Schiff is going to conduct these types of interviews in the future," Jordan said, "that's a
concern."
Secretary of State
Mike Pompeo
has drawn the ire of congressional Democrats this week for rejecting a subpoena and rebuffing
congressional requests to question five current and former State Department officials to testify in the impeachment
inquiry.
Trump: House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff should "resign from office"
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack
Press shift question mark to access a list of
keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts
Play/Pause
SPACE
Increase Volume
↑
Decrease Volume
↓
Seek Forward
→
Seek Backward
←
Captions On/Off
c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen
f
Mute/Unmute
m
Seek %
0-9
Off
Automated Captions - en-US
facebook
twitter
Email
Link
Copied
Live
00:00
02:34
02:34
Jordan praised Volker, calling him "impressive." Turner called Volker "an incredible diplomat," in his statement.
Volker resigned from his position as special envoy less than a week ago after his name appeared in a whistleblower
complaint alleging that Volker was coordinating with Ukrainian officials on how to handle requests from Trump's
personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani. That whistleblower report is central in justifying House Democrats' impeachment
inquiry.
Turner said he doesn't believe Volker would have done anything untoward during his State Department service.
"It is my strong belief that Volker would not have been involved in nor permitted anything inappropriate, let
alone illegal, in his service to our country," Turner said. "Today he continued his legacy of integrity under
questioning from Schiff's staff."
Orange Watch@45 is a little confusing. If I prefer "conduct unbecoming a president"
as an impeachment charge I'm not restricting impeachment to violations of criminal statutes.
Hatemongering is not a criminal offense, but a political and moral one. I think the real
objection is that I view insinuations Trump is treasonous as exactly the same rotten politics
as insinuations Clinton was treasonous. Or that it is exactly as foolish to freak out over
Russian interference in the 2016 election as Ukrainian interference, or vice versa, the only
distinction being one is a Democratic bugbear and the other is a Republican.
... ... ...
likbez@42 doesn't realize that the legal course was for the US Justice Department to draw up
a list of requirements of the sort specified in the treaty.
The US embassy in Kyiv would then relay the request to their counterparts. If and only if
the request was denied would there be any occasion for presidents to discuss the matter, and
only then would such discussion be legally mandated.
What Trump did was press Zelensky for a public announcement of an investigate, or worse, to
rig and investigation. It is the equivalent of the CIA planting a libel in the foreign press so
that it can be "reported" as legitimate news in the US.
There are legal and ethical issues with the President directing underlings to begin
investigations of his opponents in the domestic sphere. They don't disappear abroad. I don't
think there's any doubt, except for Trump's lawyers, the call was a campaign violation.
Perry is another neocon in Trump administration and it looks like he pushed Trump under the train.
Notable quotes:
"... In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets." ..."
"... Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs. While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies involved in the project. ..."
Congressional Democrats want to know more about Rick Perry's travels to Ukraine and
conversations with officials there, signaling that the mild-mannered energy secretary won't
escape the intense of heat of the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
In a memo released Wednesday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.)
said he plans to issue a subpoena for White House documents by the end of the week centered on
Trump's requests to the Ukrainian government to open an investigation into one of his chief
political rivals, former vice president Joe Biden.
Among the records his committee is seeking are any related to Perry's attendance of
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's inauguration on May 20 as well as a White House
meeting Perry attended three days later.
Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
similarly sent a letter to Perry on Tuesday asking him what instructions Trump gave him when
the Cabinet official flew to Ukraine in May, as well as who asked Perry to go there in the
first place. And three House committees on Monday issued a sweeping subpoena to Trump's
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, in part seeking documents related to Perry.
The multiple congressional inquiries have put a spotlight on Perry, who has distinguished
himself during his time in the job for avoiding controversy. Though the energy secretary is not
accused of wrongdoing and has not been directly subpoenaed, Perry and his Energy Department
spent Wednesday reassuring congressional Democrats they will cooperate with the impeachment
probe.
"We're going to work with Congress and answer all their questions," Perry told reporters
Wednesday at a departmental event in Chicago on artificial intelligence.
Leading a department he once called to eliminate when running for president in 2012, Perry
has kept his head down and avoided the scandals that embroiled some of Trump's original energy
and environmental policy team members, including former Environmental Protection Agency chief
Scott Pruitt and ex-Interior Department secretary Ryan Zinke, who were both ousted amid ethics
investigations. Perry's easygoing demeanor has let him develop productive relationships with
members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.
"Regardless of subject, the Department is always willing to work with Congress in response
to requests that follow proper procedures," Energy Department spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes wrote
by email.
An explosive whistleblower complaint from an anonymous U.S. intelligence official alleged
Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until he saw how the new Ukrainian leader "chose to
act" in office. In May, Perry led the American delegation to Zelensky's inauguration in lieu of
Vice President Pence after Pence canceled his planned trip, according to the complaint.
Two months later, on July 25, Trump repeatedly urged Zelensky in a phone call to investigate
Biden, offering to enlist Attorney General William P. Barr in that effort while dangling the
possibility of a White House meeting, according to a rough transcript of the call the White
House released.
On Wednesday, Perry declined to say to reporters whether he was on the July phone call. He
joked that he was asked to fill in for Pence in Ukraine in May because he is "just such a darn
good Cabinet member."
As energy secretary, Perry has regularly traveled to Eastern Europe to promote the sale of
U.S.-produced natural gas and coal. "I've had the opportunity to go into so many different
countries to represent the United States, our energy opportunities," Perry said Wednesday.
"Ukraine is one of those."
It is not unusual for energy secretaries to have a hand in foreign policy. Ernest Moniz, a
nuclear physicist who served as President Barack Obama's energy secretary, played a central
role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal in 2015.
Energy secretaries "do get involved from time to time on diplomatic issues," said Susan
Tierney, a former assistant secretary for policy at the Energy Department under Obama.
Curbing Eastern and Central European countries' dependence on Russia for electricity and
heating fuel was "very early on a priority" for the Trump administration, according to George
David Banks, a former Trump White House energy policy adviser. Given Perry's happy-go-lucky
charm -- and the fact that former secretary of state Rex Tillerson was recused from dealing
with several energy issues because of his previous job as ExxonMobil's chief executive -- it
made sense for Perry to work on Ukraine, Banks said.
"He's a natural-born diplomat," Banks said.
Ukraine, rich with its own natural gas reserves, does not import gas from the United States,
unlike some Eastern European nations such as Poland and Lithuania. But it does take in and burn
American coal -- about 4.8 million tons of it in 2018, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration. Most of that U.S.-to-Ukraine-bound coal is of a special grade often used in
manufacturing steel, a major industry in Ukraine. The United States is only one of a few
coal-exporting countries that has that type of coal.
The country has its own coal reserves, but much of them are located in contested territory
in eastern Ukraine. Facing costly imports from Russia, Ukraine has begun getting coal supplies
from the United States, Australia, Kazakhstan, and others places in recent years, according to
EIA.
In November, Perry touted a shipment of Pennsylvania coal to Ukraine as "just one example of
America's readiness and commitment to help diversify Europe's energy markets."
Another major priority for Perry is opposing the construction of Nord Stream 2, a proposed
gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany that many nations, including the
United States, fear will increase the European Union's reliance on Russia for its energy needs.
While in Ukraine in May, Perry promised that Trump would back a bill sanctioning companies
involved in the project.
While true whistleblowers pay the heavy price for their courage, neoliberal Democrats and corrupt to the core neoliberal MSM lionize
a CIA leaker because he justifies their impeachment crusade.
Why couldn't this CIA asset not simply report through regular channels? He wasn't blowing whistle on the CIA itself so no risk there.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers. Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment. ..."
"... The inconvenient reality is that Trump and both his predecessors have committed far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. ..."
"... The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe Biden. ..."
"... Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen. ..."
"... President Obama, for example, dropped 26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11. He even executed American citizens overseas without due process . ..."
"... Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate war crimes in Yemen to the tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama started that war , providing U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald. ..."
"... Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. ..."
"... Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper, Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism. ..."
"... Even the language is instructive. They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then. ..."
"... Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of the people. ..."
"... So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." ..."
"... Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them. ..."
"... Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government. ..."
Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower in President Trump's alleged
Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should. Few see the irony in the corporate mainstream media's love affair with the anonymous whistleblower
in President Trump's alleged Ukraine-gate affair. Yet everyone should.
The whole impeachment charade, and that's what it is, rests on the paradoxical and ahistorical assertions that 1) the president's
phone call with Ukraine's leader is Trump's worst crime, and 2) the "liberal" press has always supported government whistleblowers.
Both are absurd claims, though fitting for this partisan political moment.
The inconvenient reality is that Trump and
both his predecessors have committed
far worse crimes against the Constitution by engaging in illegal wars. Certainly this is more serious than the shady Ukraine/Biden
incident. And the mainstream media has a rather poor track record when it comes to whistleblowers, often demonizing leakers who expose
nefarious government actions. The only reason the Left -- which historically has distrusted U.S. intelligence activities -- has
canonized this anonymous CIA whistleblower is that he or she, and the entire clandestine apparatus, has implicated Trump, the reflexive
archenemy of the liberal elite. Trump's actual crime, contrary to the prevailing yarn, was not his overriding of Congress
on war policies (which he largely copied from Obama and Bush II), but that he dared to attack a longtime Democratic insider: Joe
Biden.
Sure, Trump's apparent threat to use aid as a cudgel to pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden, and his son Hunter,
is a serious matter. Far be it for me, or anyone else, to dispute that. Whether that meets the threshold for impeachment is debatable
-- and by the way, Hunter Biden's $50,000 a month, unqualified position on a foreign corporate gas company's board while his father
was vice president doesn't exactly pass the smell test either. But I'll table that for now.
Notice that the Democratic leadership in Congress has declined to investigate the fact that this president, and others before
him, overrode congressional authority to wage all sorts of military operations outside the Authorization for Use of Military Force
(AUMF) passed after 9/11, including the current assistance we are giving Saudi Arabia in its attacks on Yemen.
President Obama, for example,
dropped
26,171 bombs on at least seven countries using an AUMF that has been extended well beyond those who attacked America on 9/11.
He even executed American citizens overseas
without
due process .
Meanwhile, Trump abets legitimate
war crimes in Yemen to the
tune of 100,000-plus dead -- without evident remorse. But Obama
started that war , providing
U.S. aerial refueling, targeting support, and deadly munitions to the Saudis back in 2015. So the Democratic leadership stands down
on the issue of Yemen, not wanting to implicate their hero in the process of impeaching The Donald.
Mainstream liberal hypocrisy runs even deeper, unfortunately. I'm just old enough to remember when the Left railed against
the CIA, NSA, and spooks in general. And
rightfully so . That, however,
was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America. It was impressive watching
media and Democratic insiders immediately turn on a dime.
Suddenly every Obama- and Bush-era national security staffer and intelligence super-sleuth -- John Brennan, James Clapper,
Michael Hayden, etc. -- was regularly appearing on CNN and MSNBC to attack Trump and pine for the status quo of U.S. military hyper-interventionism.
It was as though all their sins -- mass surveillance, drone assassination, illegal rendition, torture -- had been collectively
pushed down the memory hole, the entire intel apparatus born again as agents of truth and honor. The whole masquerade was bizarre,
and beyond duplicitous.
The final insult was the recent canonization of the anonymous Ukraine-gate whistleblower(s). Even the language is instructive.
They aren't "leakers," "traitors," or "criminals," but whistleblowers , surging with moral courage and exposing ostensibly
unthinkable presidential wrongdoing. That's funny: where were these folks when other, far more profound whistleblowers uncovered
criminality during the Bush and Obama years? Either crickets or pejorative attacks were all they proffered back then.
... ... ...
Meanwhile, Obama utilized the archaic 1917 Espionage Act to
prosecute more whistleblowers than all previous presidents combined. The liberal press and most Democratic legislators barely
made a peep. Barack was their guy , one of their own -- the "leakers" must have been in the wrong, enemies, so to speak, of
the people. So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment
down our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state." Ultimately it will amount to nothing.
Each side remains entrenched.
Either the Dem elites will hand Trump a second term with this impeachment charade, or, maybe just as likely, President Biden will
take the helm. When he does, whistleblowers will revert, once again, to being traitors.
So while Trump is by no means without serious flaws, the Beltway elites and media personalities stuffing impeachment down
our throats are hypocritical and dishonest enough to make one believe in a "deep state."
Danny Sjursen is a retired U.S. Army Major whose writing has appeared in The American Conservative, Harper's, the Los Angeles
Times, The Nation and Tom Dispatch. He served combat tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan and later taught history
at his alma mater, West Point. He is the author of a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq war,
Ghostriders of Baghdad: Soldiers,
Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge . Follow him on Twitter @SkepticalVet
.
The problem with designating this CIA officer a whistleblower, while denigrating the actual whistleblowers as something other,
as criminals, is obvious enough, or should be: in the cases of the latter, they were exposing the crimes of the intel establishment,
and punished for it, the 'protections' of the law notwithstanding; in other words, the intel establishment got its way; in the
case of the former, the intel establishment is getting its way in its campaign to undermine the administration, notwithstanding
Trump's incompetence and corruption, for which he deserves censure, impeachment, whatever.
Heads, they won; tails, we lose.
The problem, in other words, is that we - collectively, as a nation - get to choose only the modality of how our institutions
and norms are degraded, not whether they will be degraded. Pick your poison.
The CIA and the intelligence services operate black budgets. They kill, steal, run drugs, bribe leaders at home as well as
abroad, arrange accidents like the airplane crashes that have killed several Democrats who danced out of tune, have operatives
placed in government including state governments, the courts and Congress. Who owns your favorite candidate? The CIA. Who controls
the media including the New York Times? The CIA. Bribery, threats, blackmail, control files, setups. The chicanery we tolerate
and celebrate in the name of National Security abroad has come home. Secrecy works wonders for control.
Trump's crime is he's an outsider and the CIA did not expect him to win. His very existence is a threat to them.
Can he clean up the mess? I doubt it. Imagine what would happen, the screams and agony, were he to eliminate all government
secrecy. Imagine what the CIA would claim if the Black Budget became transparent. If Trump tried to eliminate the CIA it would
simply reconstitute and shape-shift within other agencies or outside government.
That, however, was before Mr. Trump shocked coastal elites and got himself elected president of their America.
That, for the elitist Left (and Right), is Donald Trump's real and only crime. He got himself elected president of their America.
But to get right to the heart of it, he didn't get himself elected as much as the American people got him elected. This is about
us..all about us..not about him. Any subsequent attacks on him are in fact attacks on the American electorate.
After the DOJ/FBI advanced their defensive efforts
last weekend via the New York Times and NBC, now the CIA/ODNI faction step forth with the
same intents and purposes.
CIA defending journalist Natasha Bertrand has been participating in the multi-year PR effort
which helped frame the CIA/ODNI talking points against President Trump, and she is deployed
again in the latest effort within
Politico . The timing here is predictable.
( Via
Politico ) President Donald Trump's obsession with former CIA director John Brennan could
be on a collision course with an ongoing Justice Department probe as Attorney General Bill
Barr takes a more hands-on approach to examining the intelligence community's actions in
2016.
[ ] Durham's report is likely to land well after the results of an inquiry by the Justice
Department's Inspector General, who is examining the FBI's applications to a secret court in
2016 and 2017 to obtain surveillance warrants on a Trump campaign aide.
[ ] "Is the IG report going to say we made mistakes? Yes," said one of the former
officials. "But it won't say we did so for some nefarious purpose. So the report will be a
dry hole for Trump and his supporters. Which is why [Barr and Durham] have now gone to this
other theory, positing that the CIA was engaged in some rogue operation to overthrow Trump
and therefore feeding the FBI bullshit," he said. "It's complete nonsense."
"Haven't you heard?" said another former FBI official, sarcastically. "Brennan was a
puppet-master and we were just his puppets."
Unfortunately, Ms. Bertrand gets too far over her defensive skis when she scribes defense
and obfuscation that is laughable to anyone who followed the activity of CIA Director John
Brennan when she writes:
[ ] Asked for comment, White House deputy press Secretary Hogan Gidley said: " John
Brennan lied before Congress when he got caught spying on American citizens and lied about
having Russian collusion evidence that never existed. The only way I've ever heard anyone in
the White House mention him is as a punchline."
It's not clear what Gidley was referring to -- Brennan has not been accused of lying to
Congress. ( read
full article )
Obviously Ms. Bertrand is counting on people not knowing that John Brennan was caught lying
about his instructions to CIA operatives to spy on the networks of the Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence. Brennan later
apologized to the Senate for that effort; but hey, what's a little forgetfulness amid
professional narrative engineering.
Additionally, in directly related matters; while remembering the 'gossip-blower' stems from
the same CIA institution headed by Brennan while a member of the National Security Council; and
while remembering the Washington Post is the primary outlet for the PR efforts of the CIA
resistance du jour; the mysterious "white house insider" who penned an op-ed in the New York
Times last year has now signed an anonymous book deal expand on the anti-Trump intelligence
community narrative.
(
WaPo ) The author of an anonymous column in the New York Times in 2018, who was
identified as a senior Trump administration official acting as part of the "resistance"
inside the government, has written a tell-all book to be published next month.
The book,
titled "A Warning," is being promoted as "an unprecedented behind-the-scenes portrait of
the Trump presidency" that expands upon the Times column, which ricocheted around the world
and
stoked the president's rage because of its devastating portrayal of Trump in office. (
read more )
When CTH originally penned the term "The Big Ugly" we were directly describing a looming
confrontation that would happen between President Donald Trump and the aligned interests of the
deepest part of the Deep State. Those interests are not along party lines, they are ideological
interests directly related to the construct of the institutions of government and how those
interests tied financially back to the Administrative State.
The DOJ, FBI, CIA, ODNI and State Department do not oppose the deconstruction efforts of
Donald Trump as an outcome of bland institutional opposition. Rather the institutions
themselves are subsidiaries of a larger network that exists for the purposes of Washington DC
as a business and financial enterprise.
The reason the DC system -writ large- is going bananas is because selling the influence of
political office for financial gain is the custom and currency of DC affluence.
Selling influence and manipulating government action – both foreign and domestic
– to enhance the financial interests of other participants, is a purposeful part of DC as
a way to gain financial affluence. In essence the U.S. government is used as a tool to
accumulate wealth. This process is at the heart of all Trump's opposition.
The Christopher Steele dossier was called " Crown Material " by FBI agents within the small
group during their 2016 political surveillance operation. The "Crown" description reflects the
unofficial British intelligence aspect to the dossier as provided by Steele.
In May 2019 former House Oversight Chairman
Trey Gowdy stated there are emails from former FBI Director James Comey that outline
instructions from CIA Director John Brennan to include the "Crown Material" within the highly
political Intelligence Community Assessment
.
Specifically outlined by Gowdy, the wording of the Comey email is reported to say :
"Brennan is insisting the Crown Material be included in the intel assessment."
However, on May 23rd, 2017, in testimony -under oath- to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) John Brennan stated [ @01:54:28 ]:
GOWDY: Director Brennan, do you know who commissioned the Steele dossier?
BRENNAN: I don't.
GOWDY: Do you know if the bureau [FBI] ever relied on the Steele dossier as part of any
court filing, applications?
BRENNAN: I have no awareness.
GOWDY: Did the CIA rely on it?
BRENNAN: No.
GOWDY: Why not?
BRENNAN: Because we didn't. It wasn't part of the corpus of intelligence information that
we had. It was not in any way used as a basis for the Intelligence Community Assessment that
was done. Uh it was not.
.
Video of the exchange [ prompted 01:54:28 just hit play ]
[ ] James Clapper, John Brennan, and James Comey are now all accusing one another of being
culpable for inserting the unverified dossier, the font of the effort to destroy Trump, into
a presidential intelligence assessment -- as if suddenly and mysteriously the prior seeding
of the Steele dossier is now seen as a bad thing. And how did the dossier transmogrify from
being passed around the Obama Administration as a supposedly top-secret and devastating
condemnation of candidate and then president-elect Trump to a rank embarrassment of
ridiculous stories and fibs?
Given the narratives of the last three years, and the protestations that the dossier was
accurate or at least was not proven to be unproven, why are these former officials arguing at
all? Did not implanting the dossier into the presidential briefing give it the necessary
imprimatur that allowed the serial leaks to the press at least to be passed on to the public
and thereby apprise the people of the existential danger that they faced? ( read more )
Fox News Maria Bartiromo has more knowledge of the details within the 2016 political
surveillance scandal than any other MSM host. Bartiromo has followed the events very closely
and now she is the go-to person for those who are trying to bring the truth behind the scandal
to light.
On the morning of May 20th, 2019, on her Fox Business Network show Ms. Bartiromo outlined
the current issues between Comey and Brennan. WATCH:
It certainly looks like former CIA Director John Brennan has exposed himself to perjury.
However, beyond that and even more disturbing, what does this say about the political intents
of a weaponized intelligence apparatus?
CTH has previously outlined how the December 29th, 2016, Joint Analysis
Report (JAR) on Russia Cyber Activity was a quickly compiled bunch of nonsense about
Russian hacking.
The JAR was followed a week later by the January 7th, 2017, Intelligence Community Assessment .
The ICA took the ridiculous construct of the JAR and then overlaid a political narrative that
Russia was trying to help Donald Trump.
The ICA was the brain-trust of John Brennan, James Clapper and James Comey. While the
majority of content was from the CIA, some of the content within the ICA was written by FBI
Agent Peter Strzok who held a unique "insurance policy" interest in how the report could be
utilized in 2017. NSA Director Mike Rogers would not sign up to the "high confidence" claims,
likely because he saw through the political motives of the report.
(
JUNE 2019 – New York Times ) [ ] Mr. Barr wants to know more about the C.I.A.
sources who helped inform its understanding of the details of the Russian interference
campaign, an official has said. He also wants to better understand the intelligence that
flowed from the C.I.A. to the F.B.I. in the summer of 2016.
During the final weeks of the Obama administration, the intelligence community released
a declassified
assessment that concluded that Mr. Putin ordered an influence campaign that "aspired to
help" Mr. Trump's electoral chances by damaging Mrs. Clinton's. The C.I.A. and the F.B.I.
reported they had high confidence in the conclusion. The National Security Agency, which
conducts electronic surveillance, had a moderate degree of confidence. (
read more )
Questioning the construct of the ICA is a smart direction to take for a review or
investigation. By looking at the intelligence community work-product, it's likely Durham will
cut through a lot of the chatter and get to the heart of the intelligence motives.
Apparently John Durham is looking into just this aspect: Was the ICA document a politically
engineered report stemming from within a corrupt intelligence network?
The importance of that question is rather large. All of the downstream claims about Russian
activity, including the Russian indictments promoted by Rosenstein and the Mueller team, are
centered around origination claims of illicit Russian activity outlined in the ICA .
If the ICA is a false political document . then guess what?
Yep, the entire narrative from the JAR and ICA is part of a big
fraud. [Which it is]
Among all media personalities Maria Bartiromo easily has the most comprehensive grasp of the
2016 operation against President Trump. During two interviews today Bartiromo outlines the
evidence that leads directly to the person at the origination point, former CIA Director John
Brennan.
First, here's a mash-up of the two interviews (Senator Graham and John Solomon) where
Bartiromo asks the same question. [ hat tip Michael Sheridan for the video]
Former CIA Director John Brennan lies at the heart of the intelligence community decision to
weaponize against Donald Trump. In this outline I will provide supporting evidence for
Bartiromo's assertion, which I suspect has already led to a criminal referral to U.S. Attorney
John Durham by HPSCI Ranking Member Devin Nunes.
Suspicious Cat ate canary
The FBI's formal origination of the counterintelligence investigation into candidate Donald
Trump known as "Operation Crossfire Hurricane", begins with a two-page memo submitted by former
CIA Director John Brennan to former FBI Director James Comey.
The two page origination memo is known as an "EC" or "electronic communication". This
classified origination memo is one of the key documents requested by congress for
declassification by President Trump, to be shared with the American people.
According to House Intelligence Committee member Devin Nunes; who is also a member of the
intelligence oversight 'Gang-of-Eight'; that EC contains intelligence material that did not
come through "official intelligence channels" into the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
The origin of the 2016 counterintelligence operation was the Electronic Communication
document, a 'raw intelligence product' delivered by CIA Director John Brennan to the FBI.
The EC was not an official product of the U.S. intelligence community. Additionally,
Brennan was NOT using official partnerships with intelligence agencies of our Five-Eyes
partner nations; and he did not provide raw intelligence – as an outcome of those
relationships – to the FBI.
When we first watched this interview the initial questions were: if the EC is not based on
official intelligence from U.S. intelligence apparatus or any of the 'five-eyes' partners, then
what is the origin, source and purpose therein, of the unofficial raw intelligence? Who created
it? And why?
Now we know many of the answers to those questions.
All research indicates CIA Director John Brennan enlisted the help of U.S. and foreign
intelligence assets to run operations against the Trump campaign early in 2016. The objective
was to give the false and manufactured appearance of compromise. Once the CIA established the
possibility of compromise, that activity created the EC which opened the door for an FBI
investigation.
The operation run by Brennan targeting Papadopoulos is at the
center of the two-page "EC" (
electronic communication ); given to FBI Director James Comey to start the
counterintelligence operation (Crossfire Hurricane) against the Trump campaign.
Yes, the primary intelligence sources of John Brennan's "EC" is were operations run by FBI
and CIA operative Stefan Halper, and western intelligence asset Joseph Mifsud. A great
background on Halper is HERE .
In March 2018 Chuck Ross of The Daily
Caller took a deep dive on how Stefan Halper interacted with George Papadopoulos and Carter
Page. Halper is sketchy, and he was trying to initiate contacts with low-level Trump campaign
aides. [ SEE HERE ]
DAILY CALLER
– Two months before the 2016 election, George Papadopoulos received a strange request
for a meeting in London, one of several the young Trump adviser would be offered -- and he
would accept -- during the presidential campaign.
The meeting request, which has not been reported until now, came from Stefan Halper, a
foreign policy expert and Cambridge professor with connections to the CIA and its British
counterpart, MI6.
Halper's September 2016 outreach to Papadopoulos wasn't his only contact with Trump
campaign members. The 73-year-old professor, a veteran of three Republican administrations,
met with two other campaign advisers, The Daily Caller News Foundation learned. ( Please
Keep Reading )
We now know Brennan's
originating structure involved Stefan Halper the foreign policy expert and Cambridge
professor deeply connected to the CIA and willing to run the operation to benefit the political
objective for CIA Director Brennan. This is how John Brennan originates the "EC" through
non-traditional intelligence channels. The EC is then given to James Comey, who starts
Operation Crossfire Hurricane on July 31st, 2016.
[ NOTE : •On July 31st, 2016 the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation against
the Trump campaign. They did not inform congress until March 2017. •At the beginning of
August
(1st-3rd) 2016 FBI Agent Peter Strzok traveled to London, England for interviews with UK
intelligence officials. •On August 15th , 2016 Peter Strzok
sends a text message to DOJ Lawyer Lisa Page describing the " insurance policy ",
needed in case Hillary Clinton were to lose the election. That's where Carter Page comes
in.]
However, CIA Director John Brennan didn't stop with simply originating the FBI
investigation, he went on to promote additional material from his knowledge of the Christopher
Steele Dossier.
This is the part that John Brennan has denied ; however, the evidence proving
his lies is overwhelming.
We start by remembering the sworn testimony of John Brennan to congress on May 23rd, 2017.
Listen carefully to the opening statement from former CIA Director John Brennan and pay close
attention to the segment at 13:35 of this video [transcribed below]:
Brennan: [13:35] "Third, through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept
congress apprised of these issues as we identified them."
"Again, in consultation with the White House , I PERSONALLY briefed the full details of
our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election to congressional
leadership; specifically: Senators Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Dianne Feinstein and Richard
Burr; and to representatives Paul Ryan, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes and Adam Schiff between
11th August and 6th September [2016], I provided the same briefing to each of the gang of
eight members."
"Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case [that
means the FBI], involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere in our presidential
election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of
congress; each of whom was accompanied by one senior staff member."
Notice a few things from this testimony. First, where Brennan says " in consultation with
the White House ". This is a direct connection between Brennan's activity and President
Obama, National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Chief-of-Staff Denis McDonough, each of whom
would have held knowledge of what Brennan was briefing to the Go8.
Secondly, Brennan is describing raw intelligence (obviously gathered prior to the Carter
Page FISA Application/Warrant – October 21st, 2016) that he went on to brief the
Gang-of-Eight (pictured below). Notice Brennan said he did briefings "individually".
Brennan also says in his testimony that he began the briefings on August 11th, 2016. This is
a key point because former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter
to James Comey on August 27th, 2016, as an outcome of his briefing by John Brennan. But it is
the content of Reid's letter that really matters.
In the last paragraph of Reid's letter to Comey he notes something that is only cited within
the Christopher Steele Dossier [ full letter pdf
here ]:
This letter is August 27th, 2016. The Trump advisor in
the letter is Carter Page. The source of the information is Christopher Steele in his dossier.
Two months later (October 21st, 2016) the FBI filed a FISA application against Carter Page
using the Steele Dossier.
So what we are seeing here is CIA Director John Brennan briefing Harry Reid on the Steele
dossier in August 2016, even before the dossier reached the FBI. However, John Brennan has
denied seeing the
dossier until December of 2016. A transparent lie.
Brennan goes on to testify the main substance of those 2016 Go8 briefings was the same as
the main judgements of the January 2017 classified and unclassified intelligence assessments
published by the CIA, FBI, DNI and NSA, ie. "The Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA).
We also know from Paul Sperry: "[ ] A source close to the House investigation said
Brennan himself selected the CIA and FBI analysts who worked on the ICA, and that they included
former FBI counterespionage chief Peter Strzok . "Strzok was the intermediary between
Brennan and [former FBI Director James] Comey, and he was one of the authors of the ICA,"
according to the source."
(link)
♦ Summary so far : During a period early in 2016 CIA Director John Brennan
manufactured the material needed to start the FBI investigation on July 31st, 2016. John
Brennan also received information from within the Steele Dossier which he put into President
Obama's Daily Briefing and shared with the Gang of Eight.
So it would seem that Brennan was leaking to the media and pushing hard on this same Russia
narrative during the transition period. It's almost bizarre to see Brennan now saying "perhaps
he had bad information" BRENNAN IS THE INFORMATION !!
Fucking Brennan.
Additionally, if you want to throw on an even more stunning layer upon this manipulation
matrix, consider that Nellie Ohr was
likely working for the CIA.
"I read an article in the paper that mentioned Glenn Simpson. And I remembered because he
had been a Wall Street Journal reporter working on things like Russian crime and corruption,
so I recognized the name. I was underemployed at that time and I was looking for
opportunities. "
If Nellie Ohr, a known CIA open source contractor, sought out Glenn Simpson at Fusion GPS
for the job in 2015, not vice-versa, then it would appear a sting operation from within the CIA
(John Brennan) was underway and long planned. The evidence of this likelihood surfaces later
from Brennan's knowledge of the specific intelligence within the Steele Dossier as shared with
Obama and briefed to Harry Reid in August 2016.
So let us recap:
♦In the first phase of this operation the CIA, likely Brennan, seeded Fusion GPS with
information via Nellie Ohr. After it became clear that Donald Trump would be the 2016 GOP
candidate, that information was then piped-into another Fusion GPS contractor and former FBI
Source, Chris Steele. Steele then "laundered", and returned the Ohr research material into an
official intelligence product to the FBI. [The tool was Carter Page.]
♦Concurrently timed with the start of this first phase, Brennan was running an
operation using Stephan Halper and Joseph Mifsud to generate the "EC" and initiate the FBI to
begin a counterintelligence operation named Crossfire Hurricane. [The tool was George
Papadopoulos]
This is why the media got/get somewhat confused with the origins of everything:
Papadopoulous (Crossfire Hurricane) -vs- Carter Page (dossier into FISA); an origination
confusion which still exists through today.
In essence we can see that John Brennan was the initiator manipulating everything, somewhat
behind the scenes, for all of the activity (tangentially noted by Peter Strzok and Lisa Page in
their text messages about the CIA leaks). After the 2016 election, Brennan continued pushing
the Steele Dossier into the media bloodstream as it carried the Russian Conspiracy virus he
created.
During the time James Comey's FBI was running operation Crossfire Hurricane, Comey admitted
he intentionally never informed congressional oversight: " because of the sensitivity of
the matter ". I suspect he knew there was manipulation behind the events that initiated the
construct; he was, however, willfully blind to it.
When Brennan
now says in hindsight he might have received " bad information ", it's laughable
– because the information is his creation.
Now with all of that hindsight in mind, watch the first four minutes of this interview and
pay attention to the duping delight:
Lastly, unlike other DOJ and FBI officials connected to the fraudulent exploitation of the
FISA court, John Brennan is not attached to the ongoing DOJ Inspector General investigation
being conducted by IG Horowitz.
Presumably Inspector General Michael Horowitz is only looking at the process, procedures and
people who were involved in submitting an unverified and likely fraudulent FISA application.
Though his investigation would mean reviewing the underlying evidence for the FISA warrant, ie.
the Steele Dossier, the list of IG targets does not necessarily include anyone outside the DOJ
and FBI process.
This could mean former CIA Director John Brennan, or any other Obama-era official outside
the DOJ and FBI, could be referred for criminal investigation to John Durham; and investigation
or review of that referral should not impede any ongoing investigation by IG Michael
Horowitz.
That's why it is possible for Devin Nunes to have submitted a ¹criminal referral for
John Brennan; which would be one of the primary aspects of review by Durham (noted by Solomon),
and only tangentially connected to the IG Horowitz investigation.
¹Or, NSA Advisor Susan Rice, ODNI James Clapper, or former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
Samantha Power (unmasking); or any other administration official who may have engaged in
leaking and/or disseminating classified intelligence information.
Advertisements Report this
ad Report this ad Share this:
Horse trading
is the oxygen of politics;
it is how politicians are persuaded to care about things that otherwise would not make their radar.
Not only does it happen all the time, but it is a core feature of our political system;
representative government relies on this kind of political trading to ensure a plurality of
interests and needs are satisfied.
Members of Congress routinely trade "policy for policy." You sponsor my bill, and I'll sponsor
yours, you vote for a road in my district, and vice versa. Members even trade policy for personnel
and hiring purposes: you support my bill, and I'll let so-and-so's hearing move forward, you
appoint me to this, and I'll recommend your protege for that. These deals can even cross the
blood/brain barrier between states and the federal government.
It is not corruption. It's the warp and woof of a democratic political system. But in routinely
branding
President Trump's dealings with Ukraine as potential "corruption,"
and pointing to the exchange
of unrelated asks as proof of that corruption, our friends in the fourth estate are acting in
willful ignorance and bad faith.
The President has taken a
firm
position
that he did not hold out foreign aid to Ukraine as a condition for investigating
Hunter Biden's activities there. But, even if he did, bargaining isn't corruption -- it's
policymaking.
Rod Blagojevich.
GOVERNANCE WOULD HARDLY BE POSSIBLE
An esteemed panel of federal judges in Chicago made precisely this point a few years ago. You
may recall the
prosecution
of former-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich
on various federal charges. And although the judges
largely upheld his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit commentary on the
affair was crystal clear. At least one of the counts that the trial judge had sent to the jury was
just politics, pure and simple, and could not have been a crime.
"[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is fundamentally
unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In 2008, then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama was elected to serve as President of the United
States. Appointment of his successor in the Senate, until an interim election was held, fell by
operation of statute to Governor Blagojevich.
In
the words of Judge Frank Easterbrook
, writing for the court, the Governor saw this as a
"bonanza." Among other things, Governor Blagojevich (through intermediaries) was alleged to have
asked President-elect Obama for an appointment to the Cabinet (for himself) in exchange for him
appointing Valerie Jarrett to the interim seat in the Senate. Alternatively, he was alleged to have
asked the President-elect to "persuade a foundation to hire him at a substantial salary after his
term as Governor ended, or find someone to donate $10 million and up to a new 'social welfare'
organization that he would control."
The President-elect declined on all counts, but the lawyerly point is this: the trial judge told
the jurors that if it found the Governor had proposed any of these three deals, it could return a
verdict of guilty.
Not so fast, said Judge Easterbrook.
Writing for a unanimous court, Judge Easterbrook noted that, indeed, the trial judge's
instructions to the jury supported a conviction "even if [the jury] found that his only request of
Sen. Obama was for a position in the Cabinet." But not all the Governor's proposals were the same.
According to the court, "[A] proposal to trade one public act for another, a form of logrolling, is
fundamentally unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment."
In other words, swapping one policy for another is a political commonplace. "Governance would
hardly be possible without these accommodations," the court went on to observe.
Rudy Giuliani.
INVESTIGATING CORRUPTION IS -- AND SHOULD BE -- POLICY
To be sure, some folks may disagree with the President's foreign policy, but elections matter in
a representative democracy, and President Trump was duly elected.
Whether or not you agree
with his politics, he has been elected to do a job: govern.
So let's suppose -- strictly for the sake of argument -- that the President did withhold foreign aid
to Ukraine in exchange for a commitment to investigate allegations of corruption. This is, quite
literally, the exchange of one policy for another -- horse-trading in every sense. Does the United
States have no policy interest in making sure that the countries with which it interacts -- and to
which it sends aid money -- do not engage in corrupt practices? Of course, it does. The case for
"corruption" would require that President Trump withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not
policy gains that are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham: it's a misinformation
campaign in which Democrats and their media are willfully ignoring the way our policy process works
to prevent our President from governing.
Uh, yes, "horse trading" with a foreign government for info on a
political opponent is not allowed...that is the simplest form of
dictator style corruption that there is.
"Horse trading" with a
foreign government to trade hostages, or any other variety of deal
making that doesn't involve your own countries political
enemies is of course allowed and has always been done.
They already did and had no problem with the corruption
under Clinton or Obama--they just considered those "scandal
free" administrations and looked the other way. Now they
don't like the president and they want to change the rules
or take their ball and go home because they don't like the
game. Some children never grow up.
Proud-Christian-White-American-Man
,
3 hours ago
link
The case for "corruption" would require that President Trump
withdraw aid in exchange for personal profit -- not policy gains that
are ultimately good for American foreign policy.
My comment:
Great article which sums up exactly what politics is..horse
trading and deal making. If President Trump is impeached on this
basis, then all elected officials in the US must also be
impeached. If you can't understand this then either : you are a
vile TDS troll or you think that there are 57 states in the US.
IT is a Coup and that is all it is. The Democrat's and their
Deep State cohorts in the CIA, FBI, MSM, are subverting the will
of the US Voter.
How do you feel about that US voter? Do you
enjoy unelected and opposition Politicians taking down an Elected
President because they don't like him and his policies?
Is that what your country has became? Does it NOT have a
Constitution anymore? Are the General Population drugged up
sufficiently to NOT NOTICE....or Understand what is going on
around them?
Are the Children of the middle class brain washed enough in
school and college to be good little neoliberals and give up ALL
FREEDOM's fought for with blood for hundreds of years?
I think there are enough SANE Americans left to stop this coup
and hang the traitors.....but will they? THAT IS THE $64,000
Question.
It's not
'Horse-trading'
when you blackmail a
vulnerable nation with withholding military assistance.
And
trying to get a foreign head of state to start an investigation so
you have a scoop to smear your potential opponent is the very
definition of abuse of power.
It's blatant and anybody denying this should be ashamed to call
themselves American.
Hmmmm, how about all the self-enriching ******** the Bidens,
and the rest of the Obama admin did to Ukraine? Why isnt Vicki
Nuland swinging from a noose?
Self-enriching ******** the Bidens, and the rest of
the Obama admin did to Ukraine?
The only proper way to investigate any foul play on this
end is through the DoJ, leveraging the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act of 1977, and asking the Ukrainian authority
for assitance through proper prosecutorial channels. So you
tell me why Barr isn't doing that?
DoD? I think not. All the ******** the Obama admin did
was under the guise of various agency schemes. State
Dept, on down the list. DoD has zero say in "policy and
trade deals".
The Ukraine is vulnerable because of foreign meddling and
internal corruption. Obama Admin pretended to give them aid
while it was stolen by the Ukrainian oligarchs, Dem cronies and
their kids.
How dare Trump ask to investigate this. How dare
he.
At its core, the case for impeachment is more than a sham:
It's a misinformation campaign in which Democrats and their
Corrupt Media are willfully ignoring Hillary's DNC/Ukraine
Collusion to bring down a duly elected President.
What the Dem's are doing since Trump was elected is simple:
projecting. They are accusing Trump of everything that they, the
Dem's, are guilty of, and "getting out in front" before they can
be accused.
Watch what happens once the indictments are handed
out by Barr, from the Durham investigation. The Dem's will SQUEAL
"FOUL!!!" They will say that Barr is just doing this to deflect
from the impeachment hearings.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian
customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American
and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its
dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize
deposits of natural gas, sufficient for domestic household
consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the
Ukrainians got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it
was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its
households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like
Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like
Burisma) had very high profits and very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas
for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new
president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went
sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for
their cooking and heating; and huge profits went to coffers of
the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or
subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price
hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's intervention in the Ukraine and the Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even contradicting the facts the media create an opening for Trump to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
A dictionary definition of asset is:
a
useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
The word has been much in the news lately.
Usually coupled with "Russian," it's a favorite smear of establishment stalwarts like Hillary
Clinton and establishment media like
The New York Times.
It's been directed against
President Trump, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and others who question the US's interventionist
foreign and military policies.
By implication, anyone who is an asset of a foreign country places the interests of that
foreign country ahead of their own country's.
The term is especially odious when appended
to a country commonly considered an enemy. Examining US foreign and military policy the last
several decades, an unasked question is: to whom or what has that policy been "useful or valuable"?
Establishment attacks on Trump and Gabbard serve to clarify who has actually been assets
for unfriendly governments, and it's not Trump or Gabbard.
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power and no nation could directly
challenge it.
After the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic bomb in 1949, the two
countries settled into the Cold War stalemate that lasted until the Soviet Union's dissolution in
1991. Actual use of nuclear weapons was considered potentially catastrophic, to be avoided by
either side except to counter a nuclear strike -- either preemptively or after the fact -- by the other
side. They were not considered a battlefield weapon, although there were elements of the American
military command, and probably the Soviet command as well, that at various times advanced
consideration of battlefield use.
The rest of the world's nations tried to protect themselves under the American or Soviet
nuclear umbrellas.
Both countries' confederated alliances -- essentially empires -- were based
on that ultimate protection, but the very unthinkability of nuclear weapons' use meant that other
calculations entered into governments' and rulers' calculations of strategic advantage. Just
because a nuclear power wanted something or desired a certain outcome didn't necessarily mean a
nation had to comply, especially if the envelope was not pushed too far. Were you going to drop the
bomb on a country that nationalized your oil company?
The fundamental failure of both the American and Soviet leadership was to recognize a simple
lesson of history:
more resources and energy are required to maintain an empire than the
resources and energy that the empire can extract from it. Empires are inevitably victims of their
own success.
As their geographic boundaries expand arithmetically, the challenges of
defending borders and subjugating conquered territories expands exponentially. Loot from the
colonies fuels corruption among the rulers, who typically buy off the peasantry with a
bread-and-circus welfare state. Taxes rise, the state grows, money is debased, the work ethic and
productivity crumble, and decadence and internal rot metastasize. Eventually the empire succumbs to
revolution, invasion, or both.
Empires never win the hearts or minds of all of their conquered subjects, and some resist.
Nowadays, all but the poorest of the subjugated can avail themselves of inexpensive computing and
communications.
Expensive offensive weaponry and large numbers of troops can be destroyed
or rendered inoperative by cheap rockets and artillery, improvised explosive devices, mines,
drones, and other deadly gadgetry.
The locals always know the territory and language
better than their conquerers and can usually count on the support of the civilian population.
The successful attack on a Saudi oil facility, allegedly by Yemeni Houthis, is unprecedented
because drones were used, the target was not military but industrial, and it was on the would-be
conqueror's home territory. In the larger picture, however, it's merely the most recent
manifestation of a trend that has been going on since at least the Vietnam War: the destruction of
the expensive with the cheap. The US's multi-billion dollar power grid, say, could be brought down
through a combination of sabotage and computer hacking that would probably take less than twenty
dedicated "revolutionaries" and under $100,000. That too would be unprecedented, but not really
surprising.
Those who have called the shots for the US since World War II could have grasped
the ultimately futility of empire from even a cursory reading of history.
They've
certainly had that lesson borne home to them by their own experience, if not from the Korean War
then certainly from the Vietnam War. By now, it's obvious that empire and US interventionism has
been a net loser for the US, which can no longer be said to be at an apex of unchallengeable power.
If its policies have been a net loss for the US, does that mean they have been a net gain
for those the US defines as its enemies?
In 1953, a coup sponsored by the CIA and Great Britain's MI6 deposed Iran's democratically
elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, and replaced him with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, an
autocratic and repressive US government puppet. He was deposed in 1979 by Shia fundamentalists, who
set up a theocratic regime aligned with neither the US or the Soviet Union, although decidedly
hostile to the US.
Without reviewing the tangled history of US-Iranian relations since 1979, it's fair to say that
they've remained hostile. It's been the fondest hope of the US foreign policy establishment and its
allies in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia and Israel, to unseat the theocratic regime and
install another American puppet. With the exception of the Iranian nuclear agreement abrogated by
President Trump, there has been little comity between the two countries' governments. Within the
Trump administration there are officials who openly talk of waging war and fomenting regime change.
The administration has resorted to harsh, punitive sanctions against both the country and many of
its key figures to effectuate their objectives.
Yet, "enemy" Iran has clearly been the biggest beneficiary of US policy in the Middle East.
Iranian intelligence, military, and political elements have infiltrated and gained influence in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, all nations against which the US or its Saudi Arabian
or Israelis allies have waged offensive war. A potential "Shia Crescent" from Iran to the
Mediterranean, cited as a danger justifying US interventions, is now a reality not in spite of,
but
because of
those interventions. Iran's standing in the Middle Eastern has not been
this high for at least the last several centuries.
US hostility has also driven Iran into the loving arms of Russia and China for weapons,
industrial and financial aid, and markets for its oil. This is not the only instance that Russia
and China have been the beneficiaries of the US's maladroit moves in the Middle East, Indeed, their
Belt and Road initiative, spanning Asia and the Middle East and now extending to Eastern Europe and
Africa, has been ideologically midwifed by the US. Nations have been offered a choice: US bullets,
bombs, and bullying, or Chinese and Russian infrastructure funding and expertise.
The Chinese and Russians aren't acting from altruistic motives, but the recipients
realize that and what America offers isn't altruistic either.
Choosing the former is an
easy choice with few negative consequences. What will the US do to nations that choose to enter the
Russian-Chinese orbit, start dropping nuclear bombs? Take on Russia or China? The case of Syria -- in
the Russian orbit since the 1940s -- is instructive. The US couldn't foment its desired regime change
there, although according to Obama we were fighting the "junior varsity." Once the
varsity -- Russia -- entered the picture it was all over for the US effort.
Even if there were no Belt and Road Initiative, the Russians and Chinese, now cast as the US's
great power enemies, have reaped enormous benefits from the US's interventions in the Middle East
and Northern Africa. Having stepped away from conquest, except for potentially the "conquests"
which creditors exact from debtors who cannot pay (a favorite US stratagem), Russia and China have
been able to devote substantial resources to their own infrastructures and the development of
high-tech weaponry that renders any US government impetus for military confrontation with them
delusional (see "
The
Illusion of Control, Part 1
").
Every yuan and ruble not spent on US-style interventionism, and every drop of blood not spilled,
is money and manpower available for pursuits far more rewarding than intrigue, sabotage,
skullduggery, corruption, regime change, war, and the infliction of collateral damage on
populations who, sensing the would-be conqueror's indifference to their plight, often become
terrorists, refugees or both -- "
blowback
" -- raising the butcher's bill even
higher. Let the US and its allies bear those costs.
If US foreign and military policy for many decades has been a detriment to the US and a benefit
to those the US government terms our enemies, particularly Russia, China, and Iran,
are not
the architects and proponents of those policies actually the "assets" of those countries?
That such a group includes virtually the entire US establishment doesn't mean that the question
shouldn't be asked, nor that the answer is not in the affirmative. Keep in mind that it is this
group that has lately been throwing around terms like "assets," "traitors," and "treason." In light
of the clear benefits
they
have bestowed on the enemies of
their
choosing, how
can intellectual turnabout in light of the actual results of
their
policies not be fair
play?
It wasn't Donald Trump or Tulsi Gabbard who authorized the US's failed wars and
regime-change efforts.
Unlike most of her critics, Gabbard fought in some of them! That
Trump continues such efforts justifiably elicits condemnation, but he's been in office less than
three years and America's malevolent misadventures have gone on for over six decades. During that
time, he's been one of the few prominent figures to even question them, and he's been roundly
criticized for it.
The trillions of dollars spent and the millions of victims killed and wounded, whose lives have
been upended, both from our own military and the nations we've devastated or destroyed, demands
what we'll never get -- a comprehensive investigation, a thorough accounting, and justice blind to the
positions, wealth, and power of the people responsible.
It requires a clear-eyed assessment
of how much they have benefited our enemies -- and themselves -- and that will mean, in all justice,
calling them what they are: enemy assets, traitors guilty of the darkest treachery to their
country.
To be effective, agit-prop requires a modicum of truth inserted in
its' body of lies.
In the present case
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power
and no nation could directly challenge it.
serves that purpose, and from there, we go deeper and deeper
into the authors' ******** narrative. Back it up... and start
over.
At the end of WWII, the US was at the apex of its power and
no nation could directly challenge it.
Only a covert,
'supranational' movement, capable of operating by stealth, and
using tools of deceit and subversion could be successful at that
task. But 'challenging the USA' meant less a struggle against its
already compromised political class[Wilson and his 'controller'
House demonstrate that subtext admirably]and more a 'culture war'
against the values of independent thought and living, free
enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit;
That was the task assigned to the Trotskyite faction of the
international "jewish revolutionary spirit cookers" cabal; their
backers - the Wall St/London/Frankfurt heretical judaic Frankist
banksters cult - wished to use the power of the west to reign in
the break away "stalinist' national communists running their main
franchise - the USSR.
So cultural marxism and 'the new left' were born, and all
organs of the western executive, judicial and administrative
levels of government infiltrated by agents of a foreign power. Not
a 'state' power.Just as important, they took over the educational
systems, in order to systemically breed a contempt for the very
values which had made the west rich and successful.
The products of that long process of cultural and intellectul
devolution now flock to sites just like this one, so as to
celebrate the victory of their foreign masters, and to indulge in
the obligatory spitting upon the remnants of their own culture.
They call traitors 'patriots' and patriots 'traitors.' And make
sure every discussion devolves into the same miasma of distortion
and nonsense.
Drimpf signals the successful conclusion of the long struggle
to make the USA a pariah state despised by the rest of the world.
This isn't complicated. Our threats are not other countries. Our
threats are not other political parties. Those other governments
and our politicians are all owned by the same people. Those same
people are those that comprise the international banking cartel.
They are those who own stakes in the central banks, the World
Bank, the IMF, and the BIS.
And I hate to break it to you, but
they own Drumpf and Gabbard just the same as all the others. If
you're bickering along party lines, you're either a shill or
you've been had. Time to wake up now...
Tulsi lost me when she supported Ellen loving on war criminal
G.W. Bush and then her refusal to condemn the Bidens for their
graft in Ukraine. She's not quite the outsider we would all
like to believe.
You're not getting it. She should have never had you. None
of them should have ever had you. They are all bought and
paid for. They are all actors and actresses in a great big
political theater production designed to distract the People
while the real crap goes down out of sight.
Trump-Ukraine Whistleblower Suddenly Won't Testify; Lawyers Break Off Negotiations Amid New Revelations
by
Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/01/2019 - 13:25
0
SHARES
A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten
cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that
he worked with Joe Biden, former
CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative
who sought dirt on President Trump from
officials in Ukraine's former government.
According to the
Washington Examiner
, discussions with the whistleblower - revealed by
RealClearInvestigation
s
as 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella have been halted, "and there is no
discussion of testimony from a second whistleblower, who supported the first's claims."
Ciaramella complained that President Trump abused his office when he asked Ukraine to
investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his son Hunter, as well as claims related
to pro-Clinton election interference and DNC hacking in 2016.
On Thursday, a top National Security Council official who was present on a July 25 phone call
between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky testified that he saw
nothing illegal about the conversation
.
"
I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed
,"
said Tim Morrison, former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs who was on the July 25 call
between the two leaders.
And now, the partisan whistleblowers have cold feet;
"There is no indication that either of the original whistleblowers will be called to testify or
appear before the Senate or House Intelligence committees.
There is no further discussion
ongoing between the legal team and the committees
," said the
Examiner
's source.
The whistleblower is a career CIA officer with expertise in Ukraine policy
who served on the White House National Security Council during the Obama administration,
when 2020 Democratic presidential candidate
Joe Biden was "point man" for
Ukraine
, and during the early months of the Trump administration. -
Washington
Examiner
In other words,
House Democrats are about to impeach President Trump over a second-hand
whistleblower complaint by a partisan CIA officer, and neither he nor his source will actually
testify about it
(for now...).
On Thursday, the House passed a resolution establishing a framework for Trump impeachment
proceedings, belatedly granting Republicans the ability to subpoena witnesses, but only if
Schiff and fellow Democrats on the Intelligence Committee agree.
Mark Zaid, who along with Andrew Bakaj is an attorney for both the original whistleblower and
the second whistleblower, told the
Washington Examiner
the legal team was willing
to work with lawmakers so long as anonymity is ensured
. "We remain committed to
cooperating with any congressional oversight committee's requests
so long as it properly
protects and ensures the anonymity of our clients
," Zaid said.
On Wednesday,
Zaid and Bakaj
declined to confirm or deny in a statement
to the
Washington Examiner
that Eric
Ciaramella, 33, a career CIA analyst and former Ukraine director on the NSC
,
was the whistleblower
after a report by RealClearInvestigations. -
Washington
Examiner
In September, House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, who lied about contacts with
Ciaramella (and hired two Ciaramella associates as staffers) said that the whistleblower "would
like to speak to our committee."
Once Ciaramella's status as a CIA officer and his links to Biden emerged, however, Schiff
backtracked. On October 13 he changed his tune, saying "Our primary interest right now is making
sure that that person is protected."
Meanwhile,
once the House impeaches Trump - which it most certainly will
-
the tables will turn in the Senate
, which will hold a mandatory trial. Not only
will the GOP-Senators controlling the proceedings be able to subpoena documents and other evidence,
they'll be able to compel Ciaramella, the Bidens, Chalupa and any other witnesses they
desire
as we head into the 2020 US election.
Nancy Pelosi saw this coming and caved to her party anyway. There isn't enough popcorn in the
world for what's coming.
Have a few seconds of Nunes in an interview, "That's why I kind of
ignore it all and just make fun of them because it's such a joke.
I mean, it's really just a bunch of nitwits."
Lt Col Vindman, who was on the phone conversation and who is a very
close associate with Eric Ciaramella, was most likely the one who
leaked to Ciaramella; probably to give him a heads up; probably also
as part of the nefarious deep state op.
When Representative Jordan
asked Vindman who he spoke to after President Trump's conversation,
Schiff would not permit him to answer. Wonder why?
Now is a PERFECT time for Judicial Watch to file a FOIA request
for all texts and emails to/from Ciaramella.
ANd yet....they can continue this with impunity as there is nobody
who has power to stop them. Half the US population will continue to
believe the MSM nonsense. No Barr, no Trump has any guts to applpy
justice, but just use it for politics, not truth or justice. Weird
this US "justice system". Are there no laws on libel, defamation,
fraud, malintent etc. Years of promises about indictments, but
nothing in reality, just show. Powerless even in their own country,
but capable of stealing the oil from wrecked Syria: all crooks!
Dems are so fucked it's incredible. I can't see how they could
possibly survive this ****. Gabbard should form a new party, at least
she has some common sense.
"... Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal: ..."
"... " Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. " ..."
"... The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September 27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page: ..."
"... With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very, very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter. ..."
With the Trump impeachment procedures ongoing and the connection to his conversation about the
Biden family with Ukraine President Zelenskyy, there has been very little coverage of an
important aspect of the relationship between Washington and Kiev. While none of us can speak to
the actual intent of Donald Trump's remarks be it for personal gain or for other reasons, there
is background information that may help illuminate the context of the discussion between the
two world leaders.
In case you haven't read the pertinent section of the transcript of the conversation, here it
is:
" President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that
you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any
future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the
United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States
and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard
on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him
having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate
even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just
recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we
will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody
but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most
experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you
Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also
plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as
the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I
can assure you.
President Trump: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good
and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way
they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr.
Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I
would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy
very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that
would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the
people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that.
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution
and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney
General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you
can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all,
I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute
majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate,
who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or
she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue.
The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the
honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top
of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to
us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in
our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall
her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad
ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she
admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new
President well enough.
President Trump: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr.
Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get
to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very
badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to
get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many
Ukrainian friends, their incredible people." (my bolds)
Now, let's look back in time to 1998. On July 22, 1998, a treaty was signed between Ukraine and
Washington.
The Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters was signed in Kiev on the aforementioned date. Here is an
excerpt from the The original letter of submittal from the Department of State to the
President's office dated October 19, 1999 which states the following:
"I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty between the United States of America and
Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex (``the Treaty''), signed at
Kiev on July 22, 1998. I recommend that the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for its advice
and consent to ratification. Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, is an exchange of notes under which the
Treaty is being provisionally applied to the extent possible under our respective domestic
laws, in order to provide a basis for immediate mutual assistance in criminal matters.
Provisional application would cease upon entry into force of the Treaty.
The Treaty covers mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. In recent years, similar
bilateral treaties have entered into force with a number of other countries. The Treaty with
Ukraine contains all essential provisions sought by the United States. It will enhance our
ability to investigate and prosecute a range of offenses.The Treaty is designed to
be self-executing and will not require new legislation." (my bold)
The Treaty was then transmitted by the President of the United States (Bill Clinton) to the
Senate on November 10, 1999 (Treaty Document 106-16 -106th Congress - First Session) as shown
on this letter of
transmittal from Bill Clinton's office:
Note this key excerpt from the letter of transmittal:
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or
statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving
documents; locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or
other purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related
to restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
The Treaty was reported favourable by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on September
27, 2000, consented to ratification by the Senate on October 18, 2000 and ratified by the
President of the United States on January 5, 2001. The Treaty was entered into force on
February 27, 2001. Here are the title page of the Treaty and the signature page:
Here are the first two pages of the Treaty which outline the scope of assistance that is to
be offered by both nations as well as the limitations on assistance:
... ... ...
If you wish to read the Treaty in its entirety, please click
here .
With this background and while I don't want to appear to be pro- or anti-Trump, it is very,
very clear that the current POTUS was within the law under the Treaty on Mutual Legal
Assistance in Criminal Matters between the United States and Ukraine when it comes to asking
Ukraine to investigate a potential criminal matter.
"... And there is the real definition, which is using a minority to render the country ungovernble, waving a simplistic banner against corruption and for undefined democracy, which movement leaves the masses unorganized and eschews even a platform lest they organize, in favor of a secret coterie. ..."
"... No matter how you view Trump, it is undeniable that several signs of a color revolution were present in Russiagate (and Ukrainegate, which is, in essence, Russiagate 2.0 -- a counterattack on the attempt by Trump to investigate the origins of Russiagate). ..."
Faustusnotes@43 continues the meltdown, notably forgetting his own list of non-rigid
class societies (nations, ) retreating to the UK and Australia. Reminding everyone of the
widely accepted definition for color revolution would have been useful. There is the propaganda
notion, a vague image of the outraged people rising en masse to throw out the
Communists/Communist-adjacent corrupt (unlike all others of course,) government. Inasmuch as
likbez specifically denied a mass movement, this is still as much a red herring as it was when
first brandished.
And there is the real definition, which is using a minority to render the country
ungovernble, waving a simplistic banner against corruption and for undefined democracy, which
movement leaves the masses unorganized and eschews even a platform lest they organize, in favor
of a secret coterie. Thus when the Astroturf does drive out the current administration,
mirabile dictu! nothing changes except its receptivity to international capital. The
fundamental color revolution mechanism it seems to me is the hiding of the real program, the
true commitment to capital, behind a facade.
Lastly, the idea that likbez just made stuff up is remarkable. If anything, it seems to me
that likbez has been heavily influenced by the thesis of Quinn Slobodian's The Globalists. But
that book may be touted largely as (unread) proof somebody disreputable isn't acceptable in
polite company, not really useful otherwise.
Surprisingly, nastywoman confirms my general impression is really seeing the EU as the
inspiration for a better society, without radicalism, much less revolution. I agree there's
nothing worse than revolution except not having a revolution, which I guess takes us back to
square one. The EU of course is really the Maastricht treaty, the Lisbon treaty, the
announcement that elections can't change policy, technocrats as PM in Italy, Greece, etc. In
short, nastywoman confesses to incoherence. But nastywoman can take joy in correctly spotting
that I'm a disgusting old person too vile to understand rap and can hope I'll be dead soon, and
blight humanity no more.
likbez 10.31.19 at 11:22 pm
(no link)
Faustusnotes 10.30.19 at 2:38 pm @43
'Color revolution ' has a specific meaning and what happened to Lula and Trump ain't
it
You probably never read Gene Sharp, who passed in Feb 2018. Claims of "corruption" and
"unfair" election results (which includes foreign influence on elections) are classic color
revolution methods described in detail in his books.
Participation of intelligence agencies and controlled by them MSM is a distinctive feature
of any color revolution: is it, in essence, a modern, very sophisticated variant of a false
flag operation. Controlled/influenced (often indirectly) by intelligence agencies MSM
essentially serve the role similar to airforce in modern neocolonial wars (and the level of
control is staggering starting from the operation Mockingbird; see Journalists for Hire How
the CIA Buys the News by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte).
No matter how you view Trump, it is undeniable that several signs of a color revolution
were present in Russiagate (and Ukrainegate, which is, in essence, Russiagate 2.0 -- a
counterattack on the attempt by Trump to investigate the origins of Russiagate).
Here is the list adapted from the writings on the topic by former CIA analyst Larry C
Johnson and Colonel Lang (DIA). The latter led intelligence analysis of the Middle East and
South Asia for the Defense Department and world-wide HUMINT activities in a high-level
equivalent to the rank of a lieutenant general. He runs well respected
Sic Semper Tyrannis blog.
Both think that the CIA pulled the main strings. They noted the following:
-- Obama officials efforts in establishing surveillance on Trump campaign on a false
pretext (FICA memo scandal, etc.) ;
-- CrowdStrike false flag operation with DNC -- converting the internal leak into Russian
break-in;
-- MI6 fabrication of Steele dossier using materials from the USA obtained via Fusion GPS
and Brennan and rehashing them as an original British intelligence.
-- Brennan use of Steele dossier to produce "17 intelligence agencies assessment," which
served as the signal of unleashing of Russiagate hysteria in neoliberal MSM and the official
start of Russiagate.
-- Rosenstein gambit with using firing of Comey as a convenient pretext for appointment
Mueller (appointment of the Special Prosecutor was in the cards anyway and was inescapable
for Trump as it was a preplanned action by the plotters, and they controlled all the
necessary strings; this probably was the meaning of the word "insurance" in Strzok-Page text
messages).
-- McCabe's opening of FBI investigation of Trump links to Russia.
-- Alexandra Chalupa machination with getting dirt on Trump and his associates (Manafort)
from Poroshenko government (which was a client state anyway so it is funny that Schiff now
tries to claim that Ukraine can exercise foreign influence; it is a USA controlled entity;
the country in a debt trap ).
-- Systematic attempts to entrap Trump associates with connection to the Russian
government by CIA, MI6 and Italian intelligence (Misfud entrapment operation, Felix Sater
entrapment operation with idea of building of Trump hotel in Moscow, Halper entrapment
attempt, MI6 entrapment operation with Natalia Veselnitskaya visit to Trump tower, etc.).
I think that under the weight of those facts, the picture is more or less clear -- this
was a color revolution.
"... The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices independent of what the president thinks or believes. ..."
"... If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected officials why should we bother with holding elections? ..."
"... The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies? ..."
"... I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power. ..."
"... I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the "government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community". ..."
"... Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it. Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters. ..."
"... Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street. ..."
"... Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity any nation who stands in our way.. ..."
"... Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable! ..."
"... Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to them. ..."
"... When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life. ..."
"... A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a ridiculous notion. ..."
"... If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I can see that now. ..."
"... Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times. ..."
"... American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political parties. ..."
President Trump and many other people believe that it would be better for the United
States to ally with Russia against an ever growing China than to push Russia and China into
an undefeatable alliance against the United States. Trump often alluded to this during his
campaign. The voters seem to have liked that view.
The U.S. coup in the Ukraine made that policy more difficult to achieve. But within the
big picture the Ukraine is just a bankrupt and corrupt state that has little strategic value
and can be ignored.
One can disagree with that view and with other foreign policy priorities Trump set out and
pursues. I certainly disagree with most of them. But for those who work "at the pleasure of
the President" his views are the guidelines that set the direction of their duties.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are
trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest
and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices
independent of what the president thinks or believes.
We have warned that such interference by the Borg, the 'deep state' or 'swamp', is a
danger
to democracy :
If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected
officials why should we bother with holding elections?
The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are
likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service
functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?
It is unfortunate that the above points have to be repeated again and again. But when
powerful media try to sell the lies about the Ukrainian interferences by repeating the same
falsehoods over and over again the truth has only a chance to win when it is likewise spread
repeatedly.
Vindman is a Jew born in Ukraine and brought up in the Little Odessa
neighborhood of Brooklyn. I surmise he is reflecting Israeli disquiet with the idea of a
peace in Syria that leaves Assad in power.
I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the
"government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to
hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is
supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize
Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community".
Everyone was shocked when Trump won the election, especially Trump and the "government
policy community". He is the proverbial dog that caught the speeding car. It's quaint that
Trump thinks he can make real policy changes. His failures in medical insurance, controlling
the FED, etc. underscore the point that being the leader is useless if underlings don't obey.
The "government policy community" will never follow Trump and it won't stop until Trump is
gone one way or another.
Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is
required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it.
Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy
established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the
stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters.
I'm starting to think that things may get really ugly in the "Home of the Brave and the
Land of the Free".
Our foreign policies have, IMO, long been tailored to the needs and expectations of our major
corporations. Notably, the fossil fuel corporations and their allies on Wall street.
Our corporate empire wishes to export predatory capitalism around the globe, and pity
any
nation who stands in our way..
Isn't it something, b. Could you imagine ever reading a headline out of Russia or Germany
where a subordinate went on record declaring he made attempts to edit Putin or Merkel's
classified phone transcript, he then admits to sharing this classified information with a
group of peers OUTSIDE classified channels and ended his 15 mins of fame by declaring Putin
nor Merkel's policies on Ukraine fit the consensus of a national security bureaucratic group
of nobodies. It's simply unimaginable!
Last night I watched a report by Catherine Herrhidge of Fox state that in Vindman's
statement he admits to sharing POTUS' classified transcripts and other readouts to a small
group of others outside the NSC. In essence he admitted to leaking classified information.
When Rep Jim Jordan started to drill down into that line of questioning, Schiff cut him
off.
This entire shitshow honestly tells any w/an open mind that the D's and their leadership
are desperate. Imagine a committee chairman not allowing members to question a witness about
who he shared the President's classified information with. That's not the rascally Dem Party
I know. It's painfully obvious these radicals will walk on hot coals, climb the Himalayans
and swim across the Atlantic to pin anything and I mean anything on Trump. They do not care
about downstream impacts, catastrophic as they may turn out to be.
Which tells me they are fighting for something else entirely. Maybe more light will be
shed following the release of the IG's FISA report. Then again, maybe they are motivated by
fear that their lining their pockets with taxpayers gazillions has finally caught up to
them.
When Vindman admitted his crime, the Sergeant at Arms should have arrested him immediately
after his testimony, but he was allowed to walk--yet another perversion of justice! By
cutting off the line of questioning, Schiff was engaging in the obstruction of justice--the
very crime he accuses Trump of committing! IMO, the application of the law must be
depoliticized and all offenders arrested regardless of their station in life.
A guy like this Vindman character, a walking identity problem first and foremost, given
his background, should never have made it through the ranks of the US forces, let alone be
given a job at the Security Council. A loyalty issue waiting to get worse. It's just wrong, a
ridiculous notion.
If you want to join the British forces e.g. you are required to have parents who were already
born in Britain. Kept me from applying to join their navy back when I tried to. I was
disappointed then, but it makes sense to handle the nationality question just like that. I
can see that now.
And nothing good ever comes from Ukraine. It's a psyched country, or would-be country, just
there to give the world trouble.
Regarding Washington, seems like the Beast, aka the Deep State, is finally coming out of its
lair. Trump is way too salacious as bait for them to be careful and keep in hiding. Before
they realize that trying to snatch Trump will be their own undoing, things will have way too
much momentum for them to stop. Just look at Rep. Schiff moving from blunder to blunder. He'd
be so much better off just doing nothing for half a year and keeping his mouth shut, but he
somehow cannot do that. Neither can the Times.
Looks like
Real Clear Investigations is suggesting a certain Eric Ciaramella is the "whistleblower",
which might upset Schiff since the Democrats want he name and political attachments kept a
secret. Anyway the article provides some more pieces for the Russiagate/Ukrainegate jigsaw
puzzle.
American citizens lost their voice in foreign policy a long time ago. It's a question I ask
when the party politicians meet with lobbyists or attend events like Bilderberg. I am
thankful for the alt media. Americans should be disgusted by their politicians and political
parties.
Okay, so just what is the Outlaw US Empire's Foreign/Imperial Policy? I'm glad I asked!
The overarching #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire is to establish Full Spectrum
Domination over the planet and its people as enunciated publicly in 1996 policy paper
Joint
Vision 2010 which was modified and republished as Joint Vision 2020 , both of
which are essentially military policies, not National Defense as they're espousing 100%
offensive doctrines. In tandem is the much older economic policy plot known as the Washington
Consensus, which I've referenced many times and is best explained by Dr. Hudson's book
Super
Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire , and began at the end of WW2
but was greatly expanded/escalated in 1978.
Now it's obvious that Trump's trying to implement his own policies since he's getting so
much resistance. On the previous thread having this topic, I noted that Pepe Escobar had
written several pieces citing members of the Current Oligarchy who are Trump supporters who
provided him with info as to the likely directions of Trump's policies if he became POTUS. In
response to a request by Evelyn, I went and looked for those old items and found several.
This one IMO is worthy
of close scrutiny. Pepe opens:
"And for all the 24/7 scandal time of non-stop groping and kissing and lewd locker room
misbehaving, Trump seems to be ready to limp toward the finish line just as he began; an
all-out populist/nativist/nationalist fighting open borders (a Clinton mantra, as revealed by
the latest WikiLeaks Podesta email dump); 'free' trade; neoliberal globalization; and regime
change/bomb them into democracy/'humanitarian' imperialism."
Yes, there's more, but the above's more than enough to show that Trump's 100% against the
two major policies of the Outlaw US Empire--and--he's actually done what the above suggests
he might do. I remember reading that just a little more than 3 years ago and thought Pepe was
fed a line of bull from his sources--he wasn't.
S.O. 2
"> Will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine to realize its
dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.
Take a look at that statement and realise how diseased it is."
I totally agree. It is diseased on multiple levels. "lock in"? he says? What if Ukrainians
change their minds??? Say, by electing a Russia-leaning politico?
Oh, right, that's what happened back in 2014. Hence, the Maidan "lock-in." to me this "lock
in" comment is an open confession of ongoing meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs.
That is quite apart from the sick joke that is reference to "a dream of vibrant democracy
and economic development" brought about by the "West-leaning trajectory."
From what I have heard, Ukraine is an unmitigated disaster since "the West" decided to
determine and "lock in" its political trajectory. Not to mention thousands dead in the
Donbass and Lukansk.
"Donald Trump's red wave on Election Day was an unprecedented body blow against
neoliberalism. The stupid early-1990s prediction about the 'end of history' turned into a
– possible – shock of the new....
"Once again. A body blow, not a death blow. Like the cast of The Walking Dead, the
zombie neoliberal elite simply won't quit. For the Powers That Be/Deep State/Wall Street
axis, there's only one game in town, and that is to win, at all costs . Failing that, to
knock over the whole chessboard, as in hot war...
"The angry, white, blue collar Western uprising is the ultimate backlash against
neoliberalism – an instinctive reaction against the rigged economic casino capitalism
game and its subservient political arms. That's at the core of Trump winning non-college
white voters in Wisconsin by 28 points. Blaming 'whitelash', racism, WikiLeaks or Russia is
no more than childish diversionary tactics." [My Emphasis]
No, they didn't quit but immediately put their very improvised "insurance policy" into
play based on the lies and contrivances concocted during the campaign and put into play by
Obama in the most unprecedented fashion ever as a sitting POTUS had never before sought to
undermine/sabotage the incoming POTUS in the manner being devised--essentially in my book,
Obama committed treason: again .
In his written testimony (from the Stars and Stripes account in Don Bacon's link at 146 in
the previous 'Deep State' thread) Lt. Colonel Vindman wrote:"...I am a patriot, and it is my
sacred duty and honor to advance and defend OUR country, irrespective of party or politics."
Thanks so much b, for elaborating on that first part - "...sacred duty and honor to
advance.."
It does seem the Constitutional duties and limitations got lost in the shuffle back when
George Bush (I think it was) joked the Constitution was 'just a piece of paper.' Still, even
he too thought foreign policy was his to dictate. I am remembering the 'first strike'
doctrine that he propounded and Al Gore gave a speech decrying back in the day.
That "advance" stuck in my craw - thanks for shining the light.
@29 Ghost Ship
fascinating... didn't realize how much the Trump Admin's seemingly simple
retaliation-for-Russiagate investigation of Biden really struck a nerve among the Obama era
CIA/NSC Ukraine team. Wonder what they know.
"... "To any rational person," says Nunes, "it looks like they were scheming to produce a get-out-of-jail-free card -- for the president and anyone else in the White House. They were playing Monopoly while the others were playing with fire. Now the Obama White House was in the clear -- sure, they had no idea what Comey and Brennan and McCabe and Strzok and the rest were up to." ..."
"... Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump's illicit relationship with the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped "that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia." ..."
"... After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out. ..."
"... Even Obama partisans thought it was weak. "The punishment did not fit the crime," said Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador to Russia. "The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack." ..."
"... But the administration wasn't retaliating against Russia for interfering in a US election; the action was directed at Trump. Obama was leaving the president-elect with a minor foreign policy crisis in order to box him in. Any criticism of Obama's response, never mind an attempt to reverse it, would only further fuel press reports that Trump was collaborating with the Russians. ..."
"... Obama's biggest move against Trump was to order CIA director John Brennan to conduct a full review of all intelligence relating to Russia and the 2016 elections. He requested it on December 6 and wanted it ready by the time he left office on January 20. But the sitting president already knew what the intelligence community assessment (ICA) was going to say, because Brennan had told him months before. ..."
"... Brennan's handpicked team of CIA, FBI, and NSA analysts had started analyzing Russian election interference in late July. In August, Brennan had briefed Harry Reid on the dossier and may have briefed Obama on it, too. Earlier in August, Brennan sent a "bombshell" report to Obama's desk. ..."
AFTER DONALD TRUMP was elected forty-fifth president of the United States, the operation designed to undermine his campaign transformed.
It became an instrument to bring down the commander in chief. The coup started almost immediately after the polls closed.
Hillary Clinton's communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was
illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump.
Obama was working against Trump until the hour he left office. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, commemorated it with
an email to herself on January 20, moments before Trump's inauguration. She wrote to memorialize a meeting in the White House two
weeks before.
On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama
had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice
President Biden and I were also present.
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is
handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book." The President stressed that he is not asking about,
initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed
as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming
team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. . . .
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified
information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
The repetition of "by the book" gave away the game -- for there was nothing normal about any of it.
Rice wrote an email to herself. It commemorated a conversation from two weeks before. The conversation was about the FBI's investigation
of the man who was about to move into the White House -- an investigation from which Obama was careful to distance himself. During
the conversation, the outgoing president instructed his top aides to collect information ("ascertain") regarding the incoming administration's
relationship with Russia.
"To any rational person," says Nunes, "it looks like they were scheming to produce a get-out-of-jail-free card -- for the
president and anyone else in the White House. They were playing Monopoly while the others were playing with fire. Now the Obama White
House was in the clear -- sure, they had no idea what Comey and Brennan and McCabe and Strzok and the rest were up to."
Boxing Trump in on Russia
Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump's illicit relationship with
the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped "that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia."
The outgoing president was in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss everything from NATO to Vladimir Putin. Obama said
that he'd "delivered a clear and forceful message" to the Russian president about "meddling with elections . . . and we will respond
appropriately if and when we see this happening."
After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered
the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians
had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out.
Even Obama partisans thought it was weak. "The punishment did not fit the crime," said Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador
to Russia. "The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack."
But the administration wasn't retaliating against Russia for interfering in a US election; the action was directed at Trump.
Obama was leaving the president-elect with a minor foreign policy crisis in order to box him in. Any criticism of Obama's response,
never mind an attempt to reverse it, would only further fuel press reports that Trump was collaborating with the Russians.
Spreading Intelligence to Spring Leaks
In the administration's last days, it disseminated intelligence throughout the government, including the White House, Capitol
Hill, and the intelligence community (IC). Intelligence was classified at the lowest possible levels to ensure a wide readership.
The White House was paving the way for a campaign of leaks to disorient the incoming Trump team.
The effort, including the intended result of leaks, was publicly acknowledged in March 2017 by Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy
assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration.
Obama's biggest move against Trump was to order CIA director John Brennan to conduct a full review of all intelligence relating
to Russia and the 2016 elections. He requested it on December 6 and wanted it ready by the time he left office on January 20. But
the sitting president already knew what the intelligence community assessment (ICA) was going to say, because Brennan had told him
months before.
Brennan's handpicked team of CIA, FBI, and NSA analysts had started analyzing Russian election interference in late July.
In August, Brennan had briefed Harry Reid on the dossier and may have briefed Obama on it, too. Earlier in August, Brennan sent a
"bombshell" report to Obama's desk.
When Brennan reassembled his select team in December, it was to have them reproduce their August findings: Putin, according to
Brennan, was boosting the GOP candidate. And that's why only three days after Obama ordered the assessment in December, the Washington
Post could already reveal what the intelligence community had found.
"The CIA," reported the December 9 edition of the Post , "has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in
the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system."
The story was the first of many apparently sourced to leaks of classified information that were given to the Post team
of Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller. The reporters' sources weren't whistle-blowers shedding light on government corruption
-- rather, they were senior US officials abusing government resources to prosecute a campaign against the newly elected commander
in chief. The article was the earliest public evidence that the coup was under way. The floodgates were open, as the IC pushed more
stories through the press to delegitimize the president-elect.
A Wave of Leak-Sourced Stories All Saying the Same Thing
The same day, a New York Times article by David E. Sanger and Scott Shane echoed the Post 's piece. According to
senior administration officials, "American intelligence agencies have concluded with 'high confidence' that Russia acted covertly
in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton's chances and promote Donald J. Trump."
A December 14 NBC News story by William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden reported that "Russian President Vladimir
Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence
officials told NBC News."
The ICA that Obama ordered gave political operatives, the press, and his intelligence chiefs a second shot at Trump. They'd used
the Steele Dossier to feed the echo chamber and obtain surveillance powers to spy on the Trump campaign. The dossier, however, had
come up short. Trump had won.
But now, on his way out of the White House, Obama instructed Brennan to stamp the CIA's imprimatur on the anti-Trump operation.
As Fusion GPS's smear campaign had been the source of the preelection press campaign, the ICA was the basis of the postelection media
frenzy. It was tailored to disrupt the peaceful transition of power and throw the United States into chaos.
Because Trump hadn't been elected by the US public, according to the ICA, but had been tapped by Putin, he was illegitimate. Therefore,
the extraconstitutional and illegal tactics employed by anti-Trump officials were legitimate. The ultimate goal was to remove Trump
from office.
"If it weren't for President Obama," said James Clapper, "we might not have done the intelligence community assessment . . . that
set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today."
Nunes agrees. "The ICA," he says, "was Obama's dossier."
Changing the Intelligence Assessment
Nunes is sitting in his office in the Longworth House Office Building along with his communications director, Jack Langer, a forty-six-year-old
former book editor and historian with a PhD from Duke University.
"The social media attacks on Devin began shortly after the election," Langer remembers. "They're all hinting at some vast conspiracy
involving Russia that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee is part of. And we have no idea what they're talking about."
Nunes points out that his warnings about Russia fell on deaf ears for years. "And all of a sudden I'm a Russian agent," says the
congressman.
Now Langer and Nunes see that the attacks were first launched because the congressman had been named to Trump's transition team.
"I put forward [Mike] Pompeo for CIA director," says Nunes. "He came from our committee."
The attacks on Nunes picked up after the December 9 Washington Post article. The assessment provided there was not what
the HPSCI chairman had been told. The assessment had been altered, and Nunes asked for an explanation. "We got briefed about the
election around Thanksgiving," he says. "And it's just the usual stuff, nothing abnormal. They told us what everyone already knew:
'Hey, the Russians are bad actors, and they're always playing games, and here's what they did.'"
By providing that briefing, the IC had made a mistake. When it later changed the assessment, the November briefing was evidence
that Obama's spy chiefs were up to no good. "I bet they'd like to have that back," says Nunes. "They briefed us before they could
get their new story straight."
'They Kept Everyone Else Away from It'
Nunes acknowledges that he was caught off guard by many things back then. "We still thought these guys were on the up and up,"
he says. "But if we knew, we'd have nailed them by mid-December, when they changed their assessment. 'Wait, you guys are saying this
now, but you said something else just a few weeks ago. What's going on?'"
After the Post story, Nunes wanted an explanation. "We expressed deep concern, both publicly and privately," says Langer.
"We demanded our own briefing to try to determine whether that Post story was true or false. They refused to brief us. They
said, 'We're not going to be doing that until we finish the ICA.'"
Nunes says the fact that the IC conducted an assessment like that was itself unusual. "I don't know how many times they'd done
that in the past, if ever," he says. "But if the IC is operating properly, when someone says what can you tell me on X or Y or Z,
they have it ready to pull up quickly. The tradecraft is reliable, and the intelligence products are reliable." That was not the
case with the ICA. There were problems with how the assessment had been put together.
"If you really were going to do something like an assessment from the intelligence community, then you'd get input from all our
seventeen agencies," says Nunes. "They did the opposite. It was only FBI, CIA, NSA, and DNI. They siloed it, just like they had with
Crossfire Hurricane. They kept everyone else away from it so they didn't have to read them in."
'Manipulation of Intelligence for Political Purposes'
Nunes released several statements in the middle of December. The HPSCI majority, read a December 14 statement, wanted senior Obama
intelligence officials "to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us. The Committee
is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political
purposes."
After the statements warned of political foul play in the IC's assessments, the social media attacks on Nunes became more regular.
"They were constant," says Langer.
Anti-Trump operatives recognized that Nunes was going to be a problem. The HPSCI chair had previously called out the IC for politicizing
intelligence. "They said that we had defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria," says Nunes, "and I knew that wasn't true. Then they withheld
the Osama bin Laden documents to conceal that Al Qaeda worked with Iran, because the administration was protecting the Iran deal.
So when I saw them changing this assessment of the 2016 election in midstream, I knew it was the same old trick: they were politicizing
intelligence."
The speed with which Brennan's handpicked analysts produced the ICA and then got a version of it declassified for public consumption
was another sign that something wasn't right. "All throughout Obama's two terms, his IC chiefs aren't paying attention to Russian
actions," says Nunes. "We give them more money for Russia, which they don't use. But now they know so much about Putin that they
manage to produce a comprehensive assessment of Russian intentions and actions regarding election interference in a month -- at Christmastime,
when everything slows down. And then they produce a declassified version in a manner of weeks. None of this is believable."
Three different versions of the ICA were produced: an unclassified version, a top secret one, and another highly compartmentalized
version. According to a January 11, 2017, Washington Post story by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Karen DeYoung, an annex
summarizing the dossier was attached to the versions that were not declassified.
'Designed to Have a Political Effect'
The FBI had been working from Steele's reports for more than half a year. Including the dossier along with the ICA would provide
Comey with ammunition to take on the president-elect. Both he and Brennan were manipulating intelligence for political purposes.
"A lot of the ICA is reasonable," says Nunes. "But those parts become irrelevant due to the problematic parts, which undermine
the entire document. It was designed to have a political effect; that was the ICA's sole purpose."
The assessment's methodological flaws are not difficult to spot. Manufacturing the politicized findings that Obama sought meant
not only abandoning protocol but also subverting basic logic. Two of the ICA's central findings are that:
Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary
Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.
To know preferences and intentions would require sources targeting Putin's inner circles -- either human sources or electronic
surveillance. As Nunes had previously noted, however, US intelligence on Putin's decision-making process was inadequate.
But even if there had been extensive collection on precisely that issue, it would be difficult to know what was true. For instance,
the closest you can get to Putin's inner circle is Putin himself. But even capturing him on an intercept saying he wanted to elect
Trump might prove inconclusive. It is difficult to judge intentions because it is not possible to see into the minds of other people.
How would you know that Putin was speaking truthfully? How would you know that the Russian president didn't know his communications
were under US surveillance and wasn't trying to deceive his audience?
Quality control of information is one of the tasks of counterintelligence -- to discern how you know what you know and whether
that information is trustworthy. There was no quality control for the Trump-Russia intelligence. For instance, Crossfire Hurricane
lead agent Peter Strzok was the FBI's deputy assistant director of counterintelligence. Instead of weeding out flawed intelligence
on Russia, the Crossfire Hurricane team was feeding Steele's reports into intelligence products. Yet the ICA claimed to have "high
confidence" in its assessment that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President- elect Trump." What
was the basis of that judgment?
According to the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests
against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging
him.
"Most likely" and "almost certainly" are rhetorical hedges that show the assessment could not have been made in "high confidence."
Putin may have held a grudge against Clinton, but there is no way of knowing it.
The supporting evidence deteriorates more the farther the ICA purports to reach into Putin's mind.
Beginning in June, Putin's public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump,
probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States.
This is absurd. Part of the evidence that Putin supported Trump is that he avoided praising Trump. It is difficult enough to determine
intentions by what someone says. Yet the ICA claims to have discerned Putin's intentions by what he did not say.
There is no introductory philosophy class in logic where reasoning like that would pass muster. Yet Brennan's handpicked group
used it as the basis of its assessment that Putin had helped Trump.
Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
This may be an accurate description of how Putin saw Trump. But Trump's predecessor also wanted to coordinate anti- ISIS operations
with Moscow. On this view, Trump would have represented a continuation of Obama's ISIS policy. Why would this make Trump's victory
suspicious to Obama's intelligence chiefs?
Curious Inaccuracies about Russia's RT Network
The ICA also pointed to documentary evidence of Putin's intentions: English-language media owned by the Russian government, the
news site Sputnik, and the RT network, were critical of Clinton.
State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President-elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary
election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.
Curiously, just days before the election, the informant the US government sent after the Trump campaign praised the Democratic
candidate in an interview with Sputnik. "Clinton would be best for US-UK relations and for relations with the European Union," Stefan
Halper told the Kremlin-directed media outlet. "Clinton is well-known, deeply experienced, and predictable. US-UK relations will
remain steady regardless of the winner although Clinton will be less disruptive over time."
The ICA includes a seven-page appendix devoted to RT, the central node, according to the document, of the Kremlin's effort to
"influence politics, fuel discontent in [ sic ] US."
Adam Schiff appeared on RT in July 2013. He argued for "making the FISA court much more transparent, so the American people can
understand what's being done in their name in the name of national security, so that we can have a more informed debate over the
balance between privacy and security."
RT's editor in chief, Margarita Simonyan, is a master propagandist, according to the ICA. The document fails to mention that Simonyan
heads another Moscow-owned media initiative, Russia Beyond the Headlines , a news supplement inserted into dozens of the West's
leading newspapers, including the New York Times . Russia Beyond the Headlines has been delivered to millions of American
homes over the last decade. By contrast, RT's US market share is so small that it doesn't qualify for the Nielsen ratings. Virtually
no one in the United States watches it.
Taking the logic of Brennan's handpicked team seriously would mean that the publishers of the New York Times played a major
role in a coordinated Russian effort to elect Donald Trump.
'It Was an Operation to Bring Down Trump'
Nunes realized even then the purpose of Obama's dossier. "Devin figured out in December what was going on," says Langer. "It was
an operation to bring down Trump."
There was no evidence that any Trump associate had done anything improper regarding the Russians, and Nunes was losing patience.
"We had serious things the committee wanted to do," he says. "With Trump elected, we could do some big stuff, like with China."
Still, it was important for HPSCI to maintain control of the Russia investigation. Otherwise, Democrats and Never Trump Republicans
were likely to get their wish to convene a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference -- with the purpose of turning
it on Trump.
"Before they started floating the idea of a special counsel, the big idea was a special commission like the 9/11 Commission,"
says Langer. It was outgoing secretary of state John Kerry who first came forward with the proposal.
The point was to change the power dynamic. "In a normal committee," says Langer, "the majority has the power, and that happened
to be us. They wanted to strip our power and make it fifty-fifty."
"Bipartisan" was a euphemism for "anti-Trump." "It would have been a complete joke," says Nunes. "A combination of partisan hacks
from the left and people who hated Trump on the right."
Democrats led by Schiff and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer were joined by the late John McCain, the most active of the Never
Trump Republicans. After the election, the Arizona senator had instructed his aide David Kramer to deliver a copy of the Steele Dossier
to Comey.
"God only knows who they'd have populated that committee with," says Nunes. "Anyone they could control. It would have been a freak
show."
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan defended HPSCI's independence. On the Senate side, Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr
had only one move. To deflect demands for an independent commission, he effectively ceded control of the Senate investigation to
his vice chair, Democrat Mark Warner.
No Evidence of Collusion Years Later
Still, Nunes believed that all the talk of Trump and Russia was a waste of time. "They kept promising us evidence of collusion,
week after week, and they came up with nothing."
Nunes's disdain for the ICA forced the Crossfire Hurricane team's hand. "Right around the time that they came out with the ICA,
they kept saying that we were waiting on something to show us, something important that was coming in," he says. "They said it was
some significant figure who they couldn't quite track down yet."
But the FBI knew exactly where its missing link was, the piece of evidence that they thought would convince hardened skeptics
like Nunes that collusion was real. They didn't have to chase him down, because he was sitting at home in Chicago. He submitted to
a voluntary interview January 27 and without a lawyer because he had no idea what the FBI had in store for him.
The Crossfire Hurricane team was figuring how they were going to set up the Trump adviser they'd used to open up the investigation
in July 2016: George Papadopoulos. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
Nice misdirection Donald. I asked about the sudden interest in the Ukraine thing, trump
and Giulianis latest Old Man Yells at Cloud moment, not some old news about credit cards.
As for "sudden interest in the Ukraine thing" I would like to remind you that Ukraine was an
important player in Russiagate, and, as such, is potentially guilty in the interference in the
USA elections.
Below is one tidbit for your attention: there is actually an old (1999) and a very
interesting treaty between the USA and Ukraine under which Ukraine is legally obligated to help
the USA exactly in the matters discussed by Trump. Under this treaty very little sovereignty is
reserved for Ukraine , if the USA wants to investigate something. So no pressure, or God forbid
quid pro quo is needed at all. Ukraine is legally obligated to deliver the materials
requested and/or open their own investigation to get those materials for the USA.
I think that not only you, but also other "Full of Schiff" people in this blog will have
great difficulties in understanding this legal situation ;-).
Due to existence of this treaty, from a legal standpoint Trump behaved exactly as if he was
asking Governor of NJ for help in investigation of Jon Corzine, or older Kushner for their
misdeeds. So while ethically he was wrong, and it was politically suicidal to include Biden
(who, being semi-senile is an ideal for Trump opponent on Dem side) along with legitimate
request to provide information about Ukrainian action of CrowdStrike, and, especially, servers
that were used for this (from which probably fake Russian attack on DNC originated)
That blunder allowed Dems plotters to launch a very successful counterattack on his attempt
to get to the origins of Russiagate.
But legally he was on a pretty solid ground: below is the quote from Bill Clinton letter to
the Senate on November 10, 1999 Treaty Document 106-16 -106th
" Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking of testimony or statements
of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; serving documents;
locating or identifying persons; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other
purposes; executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to
restraint, confiscation, forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and any
other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the requested state. "
Rep. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, said Morrison's
testimony is filling in blanks -- and completing a narrative that increasingly points to a quid
pro quo.
Sal, that was an interesting link referring to text of Trump's discussion with
Zelinsky.
I am not very astute in the details, it appears to me that the impeachment "charge" of
Trump strong-arming the foreign president for political gain has no merit. This will be the
second time (at least) that the dems have embarked on agenda to disrupt the functioning of
the executive because they do not approve of the intent - first case was intent to improve
relations with Russia, second being intent to investigate an attempt at strong-arming foreign
government (already admitted to).
Even if the charge(s) had some merit I imagine it is unlikely that the Senate would allow
the removal of Trump (as long as he is playing ball on ziocon agenda).
So dems will (potentially) damage themselves politically for the purpose of disrupting the
executive, again.
As
Bloomberg reports, the onus is now clearly on Nancy Pelosi to finish what she started.
However, she is still losing in the areas where it matters most: No. 1) in the court of public
opinion, where the country is roughly split on support for impeachment. That's right: All of
the Dems' smears have had practically no impact, perhaps because the White House immediately
moved to release the rough transcript, allowing the public to see with its own eyes that there
was no quid-pro-quo during the July 25 call with Zelensky.
Whatever progress impeachment has
made in terms of public opinion, Pelosi better prepare to lose it. Because, as Bloomberg points
out, the impeachment inquiry has burst into public view. In a few weeks, public hearings will
begin, and although the Dems promised the White House that Trump's legal team would be allowed
to participate, it turns they won't be allowed to cross examine witnesses until the next round,
which will be handled by the Judiciary Committee.
And even then, the Dems will have a veto over any witnesses the Republicans wish to call.
Trump has been mostly shut out of the process so far, but his persistent criticisms of the
Witch Hunt have still been effective, and that's unlikely to change.
House Democrats, have been careful not to divulge their strategy, but some elements are
coming into focus. By allowing Trump's legal team to participate in the second, highly public,
half of the pre-impeachment hearings, they've created a venue that could possibly lead to Trump
testifying publicly. Or at least they set it up so that they could criticize Trump if he
refuses. It's worth noting that the way this has all been set up, it's almost as if the
leadership assumes impeachment will fail, but has decided that the political boost they might
gain by bashing Trump is worth the effort, according to
the New York Times.
As one politico who spoke to the NYT reportedly said, it appears both sides have begun a
"political death march" until the next election. For the Dems, that means allowing the newly
reinvigorated far-left base to take the reins, at the risk of undermining the moderates who
still vote in vast numbers across the US.
The Dims think this is a red / blue game, but it's not... They have failed to take into
consideration the largest voting block in the country, independents... With Nancy &
company's tactics and platform since they took control of Congress, I don't think they will
get a single vote except from the hard left next year as no independent in their right mind
would vote for them... Have to give it to them though, they are going out in a blaze of
glory... The Dimotard party is done. finished, kaput...
If anything, Nutsy Feloni's corrupt House merely shows more and more Americans everyday
that we're taxed WITHOUT any representation, just like the Brits did in 1775/6.
They're shooting themselves in the foot and then in the head in 2020.
Schiff AND Nadler get to approve any and all Republican witnesses and Schiff still gets to
have closed hearings and still gets to tamper with witnesses by telling them what to answer
and how to answer in his closed hearings. There will be ZERO transparency but of course the
MSM will say it's transparent and open in (with most Americans believing it since most
Americans are abject fidiots) exactly the same way they say absolutely ZERO now about the
fact that Schiff is leaking only what he wants the Marxist press to leak. Stalin, Hitler,
Polpot, Mao, Castro would be extremely jealous of the Democrats.
Basically, the Democrats are saying "screw half the country". They don't represent anybody
as far as I'm concerned. They've snow jobbed their own voters with the propaganda from the
media they own. Truth has been the casualty for many years now. This must be corrected, or it
will surely lead to civil war.
Despite their haste to rid America of the Trump Presidency, there is one very significant
problem that plagues Congress that they will do absolutely nothing to solve:
in a massive display of cognitive dissonance, despite American's distaste for their
"representatives", they keep voting them back into office by overwhelming
percentages.
Growing up in the 80s I always saw Africa suffering from wars, famine, disease etc on tv.
After the fall of the Apartheid govt, Africa became peaceful. Weird huh?
What are your opinions on the Sunday 3rd of November Seattle doomsday conspiracy? I was very
sceptical at first but it started to freak me out a bit since there really are a lot of
Seattle/terrorism/nuclear weapons and 3/11 references in movies and series. With Israeli
embassies closed world wide and Israeli mass casualty exercises going on something seems to
be brewing.
Because the sheeple are trained to not "throw away their vote" by voting for third party
or independent candidates. They've yet to learn that voting for candidates deemed "electable"
by the regime's political machinery gatekeepers is the ultimate waste. Anyone over 40
should've learned by now. Instead, they're told "democracy works!" and "vote harder!" (donate
more money, cuz "this time it's personal" or something...).
(Not telling you what you don't already know. Just appending to your statement.)
And I finally understand why people in other countries sometimes boycott their
elections.
The "whistleblower" is reportedly Eric Ciaramella.
here
also: photo of Biden with caption: Joe Biden: Invited Ciaramella to state luncheon with
Italian premier. Also invited: Brennan, Comey, Clapper.
Sal, that was an interesting link referring to text of Trump's discussion with
Zelinsky.
I am not very astute in the details, it appears to me that the impeachment "charge" of
Trump strong-arming the foreign president for political gain has no merit. This will be the
second time (at least) that the dems have embarked on agenda to disrupt the functioning of
the executive because they do not approve of the intent - first case was intent to improve
relations with Russia, second being intent to investigate an attempt at strong-arming foreign
government (already admitted to).
Even if the charge(s) had some merit I imagine it is unlikely that the Senate would allow
the removal of Trump (as long as he is playing ball on ziocon agenda).
So dems will (potentially) damage themselves politically for the purpose of disrupting
the executive, again.
The thoughtful James Kustler, (and I too) have doubts about election 2020... "...a colossal
Three-Card-Monte game that produces a lot of "money" without producing wealth. Even worse,
financialization destroyed the indexes that accounted for the measurement of real wealth, or
capital, and replaced it with accounting fraud, so it's very hard to see the damage.
What it boils down to is that the USA is no longer a credit-worthy borrower. If
the..."
.................
He's wrong, of course, somebody will take the oath...
Did it matter last time?
Is it already over? ("it" being Murka itself) If, as we see, the Basic Law (USC) is
discarded (it has) what's left?
A simulacrum...
...........
James @ 11 / 12 People who might imagine that rudeness is a good may possibly decide later
that it is not. It is hard to undo.
I myself read and re-read all the comments...often, in fact, they're more interesting when
they are "OT"...subjective, of course.
Cohen observes in his latest conversation with John Batchelor that the so-called Impeachment
inquiry, whether formal or informal, will make the new Cold War even worse and more dangerous
than it already is, noting that an inflection point has been reached, because at the core of
these allegations -- most of which are undocumented and a substantial number of which are
untrue -- revolving around Russiagate and now Ukrainegate is an underlying demonization of
Russia. Relations between America and Russia will continue to deteriorate either due to the
fact that the entire political spectrum is engaging in a frenzy of Russophobia or that
President Trump, who ran and won on a platform of improving relations with Russia, is now
completely shackled, thus it is inevitable that the new Cold War will continue to become more
dangerous.
Regarding Attorney General Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, as Cohen
noted previously, Barr has made it clear that he's investigating not the FBI but the
intelligence agencies, and Cohen is uncertain that even the Attorney General of the United
States can be successful in that line of inquiry. For example, the young and politically
inconsequential George Papadopolous, a young aid to the Trump campaign, got four or five
visitors, every one of them tied to foreign intelligence, American or European, which makes it
self-evident that the Intelligence Agencies were running an operation against the Trump
campaign. Cohen says that even if Barr is a resolute man and says he wants to get to the bottom
of this, Cohen is not confident that he will be able to do so.
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Discussing the recent American mission against Abu Baker al-Baghdadi in Syria, Cohen stated
Nancy Pelosi utterly disgraced herself when she complained Trump informed the Russians about
the success of the mission and its initiation, considering the fact that this wing of Congress
is so against Trump he had no guarantee that one of them would not have leaked the mission
before it began. Russian intelligence in that part of the world is probably better than other
nation's, so Cohen assumes Russia knew about the mission and that they helped by providing
information to America.
In addition, Cohen has noted Putin discussed a partnership with America against domestic
terrorism starting with his approach to Obama and noted that even considering the September 11
terror attack, Russia has suffered more victims of domestic terrorism than America has. Obama
thought about the proposal, hesitated, and it never happened. These recent events are a
reminder that the United States and Russia are uniquely positioned to partner against
international terrorism, but this may be slightly beyond the grasp of President Trump at the
present time.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Expanding on the topic of Ukraine, despite its size and natural resources, it is the poorest
country in Europe. The new president, a comedian who starred in a TV show portraying the
Ukranian president and thus life imitates art, ran as a peace candidate; that and his promise
to fight corruption resulted in his victory. Part of his pledge was to meet with Putin to try
to solve the conflicts; but he promised to end the hot war with Russia. American politics got
in the way and people are still dying: at last count, there were approximately thirteen
thousand dead, including women and children. And the peace candidate has been dragged into
American politics and the commentary on Ukraine has a colonial tone. America speaking of
Ukraine as a "strategic ally" is foolishness and warfare thinking. What should be the American
policy is to encourage Zelensky to pursue these peace policies with Russia so the war doesn't
spread and the killing stops and that Ukraine, which is a potentially rich country, can
recover. While Obama egged on the war policy, Trump seemed to have no policy, other than to
encourage Zelensky in his peace initiative. What isn't known in the conversation Trump had with
Zelensky was whether he encouraged him in his peace initiative; the transcript is a fragment,
redacted and edited so that it doesn't mention the war but certainly it was discussed. The
issue is whether the United States should give Ukraine's government $400 million dollars in
military equipment. Obama, who Cohen observes was not a good foreign policy president refused
to do so but Cohen concludes that was a wise decision. All that providing weapons to Ukraine
would accomplish is to incite the pro-war forces in Kiev against the anti-war forces led by
Zelensky; the military advantage in any event lies with Russia.
Despite the fact Zelensky is an actor, he did run on a program of peace and Cohen believes
that he is sincere; Cohen notes the problem is not Russia, but the armed Nationalists who are
opposed to peace -- approximately 30,000 -- who have publicly threatened Zelensky. Cohen notes
Putin wants to end the war with Ukraine and he has made efforts to help Zelensky, such as the
recent prisoner release, although he included people Russians consider terrorists. Thus,
Zelensky doesn't have a lot of political power. While there are bad nationalist actors -- the
Azov battalion, which threatened Zelensky with either removal or death -- nevertheless Cohen
has asked where the regular army stands: will it back him, will it be loyal? That answer now is
unknown.
Cohen concluded to most Ukrainians Zelensky represented hope, hope in the war against
corruption and hope against the war. The Kremlin wants to end the war; Zelensky has a chance,
he's supported by Germany and France, Putin is helping, but the United States is not a party of
the Minsk Agreement peace acccord. Trump has intruded in his own unusual way but can be a
factor for good. If Cohen were advising President Trump, he'd tell him if he favored the
negotiations for Russian and Ukrainian peace, this would favor his historical reputation.
"... Ciaramella was a known Susan Rice protege. He is said to have traveled to Ukraine with Vice President Joe Biden twice. ..."
"... He was a close associate of State Department anti-Trump partisan Victoria Nuland. Ciaramella was involved in the 2016 correspondence about the $1 billion dollar loan guarantee Biden held up until prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired. ..."
If Eric Ciaramella really is the whistleblower, the whole impeachment narrative is
decimated Published 1 day ago on October 30, 2019 By 1 day ago on October 30, 2019 By on
October 30, 2019 By on October 30, 2019 By October 30, 2019 By JD Rucker
The purpose of being a "whistleblower" is to expose wrongdoing perpetrated by people in
power whose actions are being concealed from the public, oversight officials, and/or law
enforcement. It is never to be used for political gain, whether personal or on behalf of
others. It is also not supposed to be used as a ploy against one's political opponents or the
political opponents of those with whom the whistleblower is attached.
In other words, blowing the whistle is not supposed to be weaponized for political purposes,
but if it turns out CIA operative Eric Ciaramella is the Ukraine whistleblower, his report can
only be viewed as an attempted political assassination.
We know this because he has been actively involved in multiple attempts to take down the
President even before he was elected. He is the "Deep State" pawn many on the right have
condemned, a pawn who has reported multiple instances of the President's "wrongdoings" which
invariably turned out to be false.
If anyone can be less credible than Adam Schiff, it's Eric Ciaramella. When other news
outlets pointed out the whistleblower was a Democrat, I shrugged. No big deal. A person's
allegiance to an opposing party does not eliminate credibility in and of itself. But when it
was revealed that he worked for former Vice President Joe Biden, his credibility started
slipping away, even in the eyes of skeptics like me. Now, we're learning he has a long history
of attempts to expose President Trump, including getting fired from the NSC for leaking
information to the press. His attachments to John Brennan, Adam Schiff, Susan Rice, and others
who have worked against the President is the cherry on top of the obliteration of his
credibility.
The more we learn about him, the easier it is to understand why Democrats have pulled back
on having him as part of the impeachment inquiry at all in spite of his whistleblower complaint
being the catalyst for the whole debacle.
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the
new Republican president's foreign policies. "My recollection of Eric is that he was very
smart and very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing –
Ukraine," he said. "He didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was
the right thing to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the
president's policies." "So I wouldn't be surprised if he was the whistleblower," the official
said. In May 2017, Ciaramella went "outside his chain of command," according to a former NSC
co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump happened to hold a meeting
with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing Comey, who led the
Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President Vladimir Putin had
phoned the president a week earlier.
It's clear Democrats want to distance their inquiry (and themselves) from Ciaramella because
he represents and unambiguous demonstration of the political motivations behind the Obama
administration's initial investigation into Russian collusion, the Mueller investigation, and
now the impeachment inquiry. Moving forward on impeachment based on the word of Ciaramella is
like initiating a study to prove tobacco is healthy because of a report presented by Philip
Morris.
Eric Ciaramella was a CIA analyst and expert on Ukraine and Russia. He was detailed to
the Obama White House NSC as Director of Baltic and Eastern European Affairs including
Ukraine. Ciaramella was a known Susan Rice protege. He is said to have traveled to
Ukraine with Vice President Joe Biden twice.
He was a close associate of State Department anti-Trump partisan Victoria Nuland.
Ciaramella was involved in the 2016 correspondence about the $1 billion dollar loan
guarantee Biden held up until prosecutor Victor Shokin was fired.
Ciaramella was said to be traveling with Biden on that trip.
He was certainly in the loop on all things Ukraine. Including disinformation on Paul
Manafort and Trump passed to Victoria Nuland by Ukrainian sources. Clinton donor Victor
Pinchuk sent Ukrainian Member of Parliament Olga Bielkova to meet with Ciaramella. One day
before Bielkova also met with infamous John McCain aide David Kramer.
Ciaramello is not confirmed as the whistleblower, but all circumstantial evidence points
squarely at him. We may never hear the official word on it because doing so would paint the
Democrats' impeachment narrative as one built like a house of cards.
The sheer fact the alleged whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, had attempted on multiple
occasions to frame the President is enough to destroy the entire impeachment narrative. This
is the boy who cried wolf every chance he got.
See also
Will John Bolton support impeachment to spite President Trump?
The biggest reason to reject opinions that Ukrainian aid was tied to a Biden
investigation
How the Army officer who testified against Trump could end up in a court-martial
When Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman appeared before members of Congress on Tuesday to discuss
what he knew about President Trump's conversations with Ukraine's president, he was
violating an order from his commander in chief not to cooperate with the House's
impeachment inquiry.
He is likely protected from legal ramifications from showing up to testify, a former Army
judge advocate told Military Times on Thursday. But it remains to be seen whether what he
told legislators could get him charged with a crime ― and, of course, how his choice
to rebel against his White House chain-of-command will affect his career.
...
It comes down to whether Trump's order was lawful, he said. If Trump was trying to prevent
Vindman from sharing sensitive information, it could be. If he was trying to prevent
testimony, period, it's not.
The Military Whistleblower Protection Act prohibits government officials from interfering
with a member of the military in communicating with Congress or an inspector general.
Adding to the complexity is that the president gets to determine what is and isn't
classified.
here
Cohen notes that the Russian press, which follows American politics closely, has resulted in
a consensus that all of this -- Russiagate, Ukrainegate -- was created to stop Trump from
having better relations with Russia. Thus, it is important that Putin had been told the reason
Trump cannot engage in détente is because of Trump being shackled.
Cohen noted that expert opinion in Russia -- which informs the Kremlin leadership, including
Putin -- has soured on the United States; the older generation of Russian America specialists
who like America, who visit regularly and appreciate American culture, have become utterly
disillusioned and cannot promote a Russian-American partnership given what has happened to
Trump.
Regarding Ukraine, Cohen notes it shares a very large border with Russia, tens of millions
of intermarriages, language, culture and history, and although the United States shares none of
this with Ukraine, the United States has declared Ukraine is a strategic ally, and this would
be equivalent to Russia stating that Mexico is its strategic ally, which is preposterous; the
term "strategic" clearly has military implications.
Your line of thinking might reflect the way some people in the US Establishment look on the
matter. However, this is militarily a non-starter. Attacking Russia with nuclear weapons
would immediately result in the disappearance of the USA.
IMHO, Ukraine and other countries has been a gift to corrupt US politicians. The money
they send to Ukraine never ends in the hands of those who are supposed to get it -- the
Ukrainian peoples (it is de facto several countries). The money is redirected into the hands
of US and Ukrainian politicians and Jewish oligarchs.
The weapons that are sent to Ukraine are largely sold off to countries in the Middle East
-- countries which in turn give them to terrorists on their payrolls. This money largely
benefits the upper echelons of the army of Ukraine.
Powerful elements amongst the US power elites and their hangers on wish to provoke a war with
Russia. The obtainment of total world power would seem to be the ultimate objective.
Z Brzizinski in his late 1990's book The Grand Chessboard specifically points out
the importance of Ukraine to US ambitions in Eurasia.
Excerpts below from an 1853 US geo-political book called The New Rome elaborate
further. I see the mid 19th century book and it's contents potentially as 'a suggestion'
being put into the US public's mind to let them know what was expected of them in the future,
and why, as most people in the US, then and now, are rather indifferent about Russia, just as
most Russians are probably indifferent about the United States.
Similarly, Russia could be being manipulated into a war with the US, a war which
potentially could largely destroy both the US and Russia, which indeed may be the idea as
part of a larger picture.
People have their refusal.
Has Mr Cohen read this generally unknown 1853 book, The New Rome ?
Some excerpts from The New Rome linked below:
US and UK are free, Russia is not.
pg 155
'Freedom is now limited to the oceanic world, to England and America; Russia, with its
continental dependencies, is despotic..'
After US and UK form a united front and conquer Germany (the center of power upon
continental Europe) and consolidate control over it, the US and Russia will then square
off.
pg 109
'Thus the lines are drawn. The choirs are marshalled on each wing of the world's stage,
Russia leading the one, the United States the other. Yet the world is too small for both, and
the contest must end in the downfall of the one and the victory of the other.'
Global projection of US air power is to be the key for final US victory over Russia.
pg.155-156
'It [air power] will give us the victory over Russian continentalism. American
air-privateers will be down upon the Russian garrisons, to use our own expressive slang,
'like a parcel of bricks'
Who transcribed the broadcast (Giraldi?). BTW, I regard the transcription as very fair and
accurate.
Listening to the very last stages of the broadcast I felt that Batchelor became somewhat
confrontational towards Cohen. As a matter of fact Cohen remarked that Batchelor will be
getting a lot of phone calls and emails over that!
Here is the obvious explanation.
Zio-Globalist led by Rothschild are dead set to destroy, or at least neutralize Russia.
Keep in mind another clear and obvious point: The Zio-Globalists now see the USA as
totally expendable. There is some sign they are throwing it to the curb right now.
To be fair, Netanyahu said as much years ago. America would be tossed when no longer
needed. Well, that day is coming close. Productive facilities leaving the nation is nearing
its half-century mark, and now even films and TV shows mostly film in Canada, the UK, etc.,
even though they are sold as US products, which they are mostly not.
Destroy and Russia and USA, part one. Get them to blame each other, part two. Three?
They'll both still have lots of bombs
@Ilyana_Rozumova
“Russia now is last resistance to Globalist control of all world.
China for Globalists is not really a problem. When Globalists will control Russia than China
will like it not, will be controlled by flow of energy.”
That is essentially the situation. If Russia is forced to be something close to a vassal
of the Anglo-Zionist Empire, then China will be faced with being forced into the same boat.
The Chinese might well prefer nuclear war, and unleashing 5 million men at arms, with another
5 million in training camps.
The leaders of the Anglo-Zionist Empire would not care a teeny tiny bit if Korea,
southeast Asia, the Philippines, and Japan were to be decimated. They would be tickled pink
to fill those lands with black Africans and Sunni Arabs, with Jews running the local
shows
@Baron
Ukraine is lebensraum . It has had little importance in geopolitical affairs until
Russia stupidly gave it its independence upon the breakup of the Soviet Union. Now it’s
a slush fund for the most prominent Democrat politicians. It’s also become another
conveniently remote shithole for justifying insane military spending.
re: human rights
The US, as far as I know, is the only country on the world that publishes an annual human
rights report (State Dept) and which regularly comments on what it sees as poor human rights
in other countries. This is despite the fact, as indicated above, that the US has a poor
record of human rights throughout its history, and still does with definite underclasses
separated geographically from the general public and in prison.
Regarding China, quite a few Chinese people were instrumental in building the railroads
that greatly contributed to the settling of the West. Then, after they had been used and
abused, and the tracks laid, Chinese were evicted from the country under the Chinese Exclusion Act which
technically only prohibited immigration, but was also used for eviction. There are many
Chinese descendants currently in Mexicali Mexico as a result. Also the US Border Patrol (now
used against Hispanics mostly) was originally formed to keep Chinese people out. . .China is
probably too polite to bring this up.
The only mistake Merry makes is his erroneous statement that Trump held up aid to Ukraine to
pressure the Ukrainian president to investigate the Ukrainian firm that made $1,750,000
payments to the corrupt Biden and his corrupt son. The transcript of the telephone call between
Trump and the Ukrainian president shows no Quid Pro Quo, and the Ukrainian president says there
was none. The Quid Pro Quo was entirely on Biden's part when he told the president of Ukraine
to fire the prosecutor investigating the firm that was paying him and his son seven figures in
protection money or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. You can watch it here:
https://www.wsj.com/video/opinion-joe-biden-forced-ukraine-to-fire-prosecutor-for-aid-money/C1C51BB8-3988-4070-869F-CAD3CA0E81D8.html
Moreover, even it Trump did threaten to withhold aid from a country that was covering up
corruption by a US vice president and his son, that is the US president's right. There is no
reason whatsoever that a president should permit US taxpayers' money to be given to a
government that covers up corruption by a vice president of the United States.
Biden's son has admitted that he used poor judgment taking money from a firm in order to
protect it from prosecution.
Even if Trump did what the Democrats allege, which he did not, there is nothing illegal or
unethical about it whatsoever. Compared to the tactics US prosecutors use to convict the
innocent, Trump's conversation with the president of Ukraine is far above the highest ethics
known to US prosecutors.
Why aren't the Democrats complaining about the criminally illegal treatment of Julian
Assange and Manning? The reason is that the Democrats, the most utterly corrupt political
organization on the face of the Earth, are bought and paid for by the Deep State. The Democrats
are dog excrement to the core. They are traitors to America and to our Constitutional order.
The entire party should be arrested and put on trial for sedition to overthrow the government
of the United States.
"Nancy Pelosi still doesn't believe in impeachment" [ The Week ]. "The problem with [Pelosi's] strategy of
impeachment in name only is that it is formally unstructured. What Pelosi and most of the
Democratic leadership understand as a cynical political stalling tactic is understood by much
of the party's younger rank-and-file membership -- to say nothing of the always credulous base
-- as a deathly serious mission to extirpate a tyrant from the republic.
The vote now scheduled for Thursday does not change the reality on the ground. According to
the letter Pelosi addressed to Democrats on Monday, the resolution -- the text of which has yet
to appear -- will be formal rather than substantive. Procedures will be established, a
framework agreed upon, documents requested. It will not bring the party closer to impeachment
itself. But it will remove a few more crucial pegs from the Jenga tower that will inevitably
fall at some point between now and November 2020 -- the hypothetical moment when refusing to
proceed further could actually threaten her leadership It turns out that if you want to enjoy
all the political benefits of attempting to impeach the president of the United States, sooner
or later you actually have to attempt to impeach him. Imagine that."
UPDATE "Republicans eye a shift in impeachment strategy as Trump demands new attacks" [
Politico ].
"There is a growing desire among Republicans to start building a more merit-based case to
defend Trump in the Ukraine scandal, according to a source familiar with the GOP's thinking
Republicans, however, still think they are on solid ground when it comes to their process
argument and aren't ready to drop that crusade entirely Trump's public defense will be left in
the hands of the nine Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee -- the fewest number of
GOP lawmakers to push back against the impeachment inquiry."
Eric Ciaramella is connected to Victoria Nuland. IIf this information is true, the entire Impeachment thing is a another phase
of Russiagate. It's the Democrats attempt at a coup d'etat
Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protégé and was brought into the White House by H. R. McMaster. Looks like McMaster was a
neocon zealot.
Rush Limbaugh knows the whistleblower's name. He says everyone in Washington does.
For obvious reasons, it's in the Democrats' best interests to keep the name under wraps. And
no Republican wants to be the first to report the name. Rush
said , "They're just trying to figure out a way to get it in the public. Kind of like
everybody knew about the Steele dossier but nobody knew how to get it into the public, so they
ran a scam on Trump to tell him about the golden showers story and, voila, that bogus dossier
makes it into the news."
Earlier today, I wrote a post about the most problematic part of Lt. Col. Alexander S.
Vindman's testimony. Speaking before Schiff's House Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, he said
he had shared
read-outs of the call with others afterward. He had included this in his prepared remarks
as well. Vindman wrote that he had shared with "a
very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relative need to
know." I questioned if a member of this group might be the whistleblower. Or if not, perhaps a
member of this group told the whistleblower.
When Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) heard Vindman's statement, he immediately asked him how many
others he shared this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to
reporters following the hearing, Schiff said, "No, no, no, no, we're not going to let him
answer that question."
Schiff may think he can keep the whistleblower out of this. And the reporters accusing Jim
Jordan of trying to arrive at the whistleblower's name through the process of elimination may
also believe they can keep it quiet. But if everyone in Washington knows it, it can't remain
private forever.
Nor should it.
Anyway, Rush
said , Vindman "may be the guy -- we don't know -- Vindman may be the guy that told the
whistleblower. So Vindman would actually be silent whistleblower number 1. The whistleblower we
all know about would be whistleblower number 2. He's the guy that called Schiff. And they were
all working with Schiff. And Schiff doesn't want that to come out."
On Tuesday, The Daily Beast published a story entitled "Nunes Aide Is Leaking the
Ukraine Whistleblower's Name, Sources Say." The lede
says , "Derek Harvey, a former intelligence analyst, has also been spreading disinformation
about an aide to Adam Schiff." The article tells us this information has come from "two
knowledgeable sources."
According toThe Daily Beast:
Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence
committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower's name
ahead of the high-profile depositions of Trump administration appointees and civil servants
in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the
whistleblower's name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff
has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it's an attempt to out the anonymous
official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry.
Over the weekend, The Washington Post
reported that "GOP lawmakers and staffers have "repeatedly" used a name purporting to be
that of the whistleblower during the depositions."
There have been a number of recent articles in left-leaning publications accusing
Republicans of playing it fast and loose with the whistleblower's name. That's a problem for
Democrats because once it's known, and his or her connection (I think it's a he) to Schiff is
discovered, the air will start escaping from the repugnant representative's impeachment
balloon. Until it deflates just like the Mueller balloon did.
Republicans need to question the whistleblower under oath. Lindsey Graham, the Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee should subpoena this individual.
One of the attorneys representing the whistleblower, Mark Zaid,
toldThe Daily Beast , "Exposing the identity of the whistleblower and attacking our
client would do nothing to undercut the validity of the complaint's allegations. What it would
do, however, is put that individual and their family at risk of harm.
Well, sorry darlin' – but that's just a risk we'll have to take.
Who
Is Eric Ciaramella? This morning in a comment, Mike Sylwester linked to a blog at American
Thinker that discussed possible "whistleblower" candidates: Who is the
whistleblower? Eric Ciaramella is the third candidate discussed. There's some shocking
material available about Ciaramella, who was a Susan Rice protege and was brought into the
White House by H. R. McMaster, a truly disastrous appointment. Of course I have no idea whether
Ciaramella is Sammy #1. I merely offer here some material re Ciaramella to show what Trump has
been up against throughout his first term. These are excerpts only--the portions that pertain
to Ciaramella--of longer blogs:
Ciaramella was involved in 2016 correspondence about $1 billion loan guarantee which Biden
had held up, pending firing of prosecutor Viktor Shokin. Ciaramella associate of Clintonista
neocon Victoria Nuland, whose name turns up too often, even re Steele https://t.co/vmkWBdjKU5 -- Stephen McIntyre
(@ClimateAudit)
Mc Master Caught Leaking to Make Himself Indespensible
On June 11, Cernovich posted again on Medium.
The Right News has a copy (emphasis mine):
Meet Eric Ciaramella -- H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal Aide
This is an explosive article, excerpted below (emphases in the original):
Ciaramella's ascension is surprising considering pro-Trump sources within the Obama
administration disclosed to me in December, 2016 that Ciaramella's helped draft Susan Rice's
anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration .
In fall of 2016 as Obama's director for Ukraine on the NSC, Ciaramella was the main force
pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
Some suspect Ciaramella was one of the original leakers who told the media about classified
conversations Trump had with Russian diplomat Sergei Lavrov . While it's unproven that
Ciaramella leaked that conversation, it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every
conversation Trump has with foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster.
W hen this story first came to me, my question was, "This is a huge personnel move. Why
hasn't Politico run it?"
My sources told me other outlets passed on the story, because, "This isn't the type of
information the mainstream media wants out there ."
Note the second sentence in the third paragraph:
it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every conversation Trump has with
foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster.
Meet Eric
Ciaramella -- H.R. McMaster Appoints Susan Rice Ally to be his Personal
Aide W est Wing officials confirmed to Cernovich Media that Eric Ciaramella, who worked
closely with Susan Rice while at NSC , was recently promoted to be H.R. McMaster's personal
aide. Ciaramella will have unfettered access to McMaster's conversations with foreign leaders .
Ciaramella's ascension is surprising considering pro-Trump sources within the Obama
administration disclosed to me in December, 2016 that Ciaramella's helped draft Susan Rice's
anti-Trump talking points before the Inauguration . In fall of 2016 as Obama's director for
Ukraine on the NSC, Ciaramella was the main force pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
Some suspect Ciaramella was one of the original leakers who told the media about classified
conversations Trump had with Russian diplomat Sergei Lavrov . While it's unproven that
Ciaramella leaked that conversation, it is now a fact of life that he will have access to every
conversation Trump has with foreign officials, as part of his official duties for McMaster. W
hen this story first came to me, my question was, "This is a huge personnel move. Why hasn't
Politico run it?" My sources told me other outlets passed on the story, because, "This isn't
the type of information the mainstream media wants out there ." Staunchly pro-Ukraine and
anti-Russia, Ciaramella is the media's dream, which explains why this high-profile personnel
move hasn't been covered in any mainstream media outlets. The only result for Ciaramella in
Google News is a 2015 article about a meeting of religious leaders from the Ukraine meeting
with Barack Obama.
EXCLUSIVE: Internet Abuzz – Schiff's Ukrainian Hoax Linked to Members of
Obama's NSC Including Eric Ciaramella and Charles Kupchan https://t.co/xyHFeyPp7U via
@gatewaypundit
From Wikipedia "Alexander Vindman and his twin brother Yevgeny were born to a Jewish family in the Ukrainian SSR , Soviet Union . [3] After the
death of their mother, the three-year-old twins and their older brother Leonid were brought to
New York in December 1979 by their father, Semyon (Simon). They grew up in Brooklyn's "
Little Odessa "
neighborhood" ... Beginning in 2008, Vindman became a Foreign Area Officer specializing in
Eurasia. In this capacity he served in the U.S. embassies in Kyiv , Ukraine , and Moscow , Russia . Returning to Washington, D.C. he was then a
politico-military affairs officer focused on Russia for the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff . Vindman served on the Joint Staff at the Pentagon from September 2015 to
July 2018. [8] In July 2018, Vindman
accepted an assignment with the National Security Council. [9] In his role on the
NSC, Vindman became part of the U.S. delegation at the inauguration of the Ukraine's newly
elected President, Volodymyr Zelensky . The five member
delegation, led by Rick
Perry , United States Secretary of
Energy , also included Kurt Volker , then U.S. Special Representative
for Ukraine Negotiations, Gordon Sondland , United States
Ambassador to the European Union , and Joseph Pennington, then acting chargé d'affaires .
[10][11]
Here is the whistleblower on Trump's Ukraine call . Why is it that no matter what rock you
turn over there is a Jew underneath?
Who Is Alexander Vindman? A Ukrainian Refugee Turned White House Official Testifies in
the Impeachment Inquiry
He fled Ukraine at age 3 and became a soldier, scholar and official at the White House.
That's where, he told impeachment investigators, he witnessed alarming behavior by President
Trump.
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Oct. 29, 2019Updated 12:55 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- Alexander S. Vindman and his twin brother, Yevgeny, were 3 years old when
they fled Ukraine with their father and grandmother, Jewish refugees with only their
suitcases and $750, hoping for a better life in the United States
On Tuesday, Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, a Director of National Security Affairs at the
National Security Council, testified before Adam Schiff's House Intelligence Committee.
Vindman, a direct witness to the July 25th conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky, is considered the White House's "Ukraine expert." He was so
troubled by the call that he
reported his concerns to the NSC's lead counsel, John A. Eisenberg.
I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S.
citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government's support of
Ukraine. Following the call, I reported my concerns to NSC's lead counsel
I am a patriot, and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country,
irrespective of party or politics
For over 20 years as an active-duty United States military officer and diplomat, I have
served this country in a nonpartisan manner, and have done so with the utmost respect and
professionalism for both Republican and Democratic administrations.
There were several troubling aspects to Vindman's testimony. First, according to the New
York Times , after viewing the White House rough transcript of the call, he noticed there
were several omissions. For example, Zelensky had referred to Ukrainian natural gas company
Burisma
, and that name did not appear in the transcript. Burisma, had been under investigation in
2015-2016 by Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. At that time, Vice President Joe
Biden's son, Hunter, served on the company's board. Knowing that Shokin was about to question
his son, Biden famously threatened that he would withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless Shokin
was fired. The other major omission was " Trump's
assertion that there were recordings of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
discussing Ukraine corruption."
Vindman testified that he had tried to have those items put back into the call transcript,
but had failed. At first, news that he had tried to tamper with the rough transcript sent off
alarm bells among Republicans. Ultimately, cooler heads prevailed and this issue was said to be
minor.
A lot of verified conservatives I otherwise like, who were salivating over this story last
night, should probably think about not eating out of Schiff's selectively leaking hand next
time. https://t.co/6GyqaQfQuT
The more concerning issue with Vindman's testimony was his admission that he had shared
read-outs of the call with others afterward. You can well imagine that Republican ears
perked up when they heard this. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) asked Vindman how many others he shared
this information with. At that point, according to Jordan who spoke to reporters following the
hearing, Schiff said, "No, no, no, no, we're not going to let him answer that question."
This is extremely problematic. If Schiff had not stopped the witness from answering the
question, Jordan would have asked who exactly were the individuals he gave this information to.
It's possible that one of them is the whistleblower.
Reporters accused Jordan of trying to find out the name of the whistleblower through the
process of elimination.
So what!
We should know the name of the whistleblower. The so-called "whistleblower" set off a
national firestorm. He doesn't get to remain anonymous.
The fact that Vindman shared the read-outs with others after the call led Fox News '
Catherine Herridge to wonder if he had violated 18 USC 798 .
the federal leaking statute , by doing so.
In the clip below, Herridge explains that presidential phone calls are classified, so if
Vindman shared it with an individual who was not authorized to receive it, he may have
potentially violated the law. In his prepared statement, he indicates he shared it with "a
very small group of properly cleared national security counterparts with a relative need to
know."
It is important for Republicans to find out who these individuals are. It may be that they
are all properly cleared. It may also be that one of them spoke to the whistleblower.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schiff have handled the impeachment inquiry, that Pelosi says
is not an impeachment inquiry, poorly. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) said that Schiff is trying "to
run a one-sided, Soviet style process that we've never seen before."
Last night, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Sean Hannity. He
said :
I have never in my life seen anything like what happened today, during the testimony of
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman.
It was unprecedented. I mean, they've been bad at most of these depositions, but to
interrupt us continually to coach the witness, to decide what we're going to be able to ask
the witness.
And, to see someone coach a witness, this isn't the first time that Schiff -- Schiff is
very good at coaching witnesses.
All I can say is that the American people are watching, and with the exception of the
Democratic base, no one is too impressed.
"... The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business deals in Russia ..."
"... Honestly, the more that emerges, the more I wonder under what inducements Mueller consented to figurehead this steaming heap of offal. (The rest of the gang at least had the excuse of assuming Clinton would win, but Mueller agrees to step into it, through the tainted subterfuge of Comey's no less, once Trump was already elected.) ..."
"... And then there's Ukraine. I know PL has just stressed the impropriety of a uniformed officer detailed to the NSC doing what he's done -- because he disagrees with the President's policy on Eastern Europe, by his own admission, which includes urging Zelensky to investigate those allied with the Borg in Ukraine for attempting to influence the outcome of the election in favour of Clinton. ..."
"... A shame Trump couldn't just leave the Biden investigation to the professionals, but then maybe he's having trouble trusting his subordinates. Wonder why. ..."
"... Fred -> indus56... , 30 October 2019 at 03:19 PM ..."
"... The "professionals" ensured the Burisma investigation was closed by the prior Ukraine government. By all means cover up corruption at the top of the Obama administration. Kompromat would never happen there. BTW I wonder if Pussy Riot will be joining the band of the same name at their next concert? https://www.infoconcert.com/artiste/kompromat-175468/concerts.html ..."
"... catherine said in reply to indus56... , 30 October 2019 at 04:54 PM ..."
"... Is it normal procedure to edit phone call memos? ..."
"... National security official tells Congress he tried to add edits to White House memo about Trump Ukraine call ..."
"... The proposed edits of the call were to include Trump mentioning possible recordings of Joe Biden discussing corruption in Ukraine and Ukraine's president mentioning the Burisma gas company specifically. ..."
"... Shame on the FBI for many failings in their handling of the Steele report. Of course the Agents responsible for evaluating the report knew that Sater was an informant or asset; but the report reeks of bullshit anyway. ..."
"... "Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,.." "Trusted compatriot... sources A and B... senior...figure... former...(but) still active..." what does this nonsense even mean? Specifics? To use the word specifics to describe what is being put on offer is a joke. Those specifics wouldn't serve to predicate a FISC wire on Joe Shit the Ragman let alone a candidate for President of the United States. ..."
"... There should have been no action taken on Steele's offerings absent Steele's fully identifying every source cited in his document, the precise circumstances surrounding their receipt of the information, the precise circumstances of Steele's receipt of the information from the so called sources, and either access to the sources themselves or. damn good reason why not. ..."
"... The Agents not pinning this guy down knowing that he was a paid political operative doing Oppo research makes the whole thing truly shocking. It's going to be very telling if and when the files come out that were used to administer the handling not only of Sater but also Steele. ..."
"... ex PFC Chuck , 30 October 2019 at 03:44 PM ..."
"... Although he may be a pariah to some who hang out here, during a recent interview with Joe Rogan Edward Snowden offered some intriguing views of the Borg/Deep State from his experience and perspective. He sees it as a conglomeration of interest groups inside and outside of the government who have interests that sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate. The video is over 2 hours long, and it's almost all Snowden talking and very little of Rogan. ..."
To appreciate the lies and corruption that are the foundation of the conspiracy to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump by the
FBI, the CIA and the DNI, one need only look at how Robert Mueller lied about FBI informants who were targeting the Trump team.
Let us look specifically at Felix Sater. Felix Sater has been a fully signed up Confidential Human Source for the FBI since 1998.
His original plea deal was signed off on by Mueller's deputy, Andrew Weismann. But you would not know any of this if you relied solely
on the Mueller Report.
Here is how Mueller portrays Sater:
In approximately September 2015, Felix Sater, a New York based real estate advisor, contacted Michael Cohen, then-executive vice
president of the Trump Organization and special counsel to Donald J. Trump. Sater had previously worked with the Trump Organization
and advised it on a number of domestic and international projects. Sater had explored the possibility of a Trump Tower project in
Moscow while working with the Trump Organization and therefore knew of the organization's general interest in completing a deal there.
This is fundamentally dishonest. Sater was more than a mere "real estate advisor" who had previously worked with Trump. He was
and is a fully signed up FBI Confidential Human Source. Not my opinion. It is a fact. An excellent article by Newsweek reporter Bill
Powell, Donald Trump Associate Felix Sater Is Linked
to the Mob and the CIA -- What's His Role in the Russia Investigation? , provides an excellent review of Sater's history and
involvement with the FBI. One of the surprising revelations from Powell is that Felix Sater was a childhood friend of Michael Cohen,
Trump's lawyer. Let that sink in for a moment. The FBI informant, Felix Sater, was a long time friend of Cohen.
Sater was playing a role scripted by the FBI and deliberately designed to feed the meme that Trump was dealing with the Russians.
The covert op to paint Trump as a Russian stooge was not left to Sater alone. Christopher Steele, a British spy who was hired
by Fusion GPS, conveniently produced a report insisting that the Russians were working overtime to get Trump in bed with them on
"lucrative real estate deals." The Steele report dated 20 June 2016 makes the following claims:
Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top level
Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting
US Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP for at least 5 years. . . .
In terms of specifics, Source A confided that the Kremlin had been feeding TRUMP and his team valuable intelligence on his opponents,
including Democratic presidential candidate Hillary CLINTON, for several years (see more below). . . .
The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business
deals in Russia , especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament. How ever, so far, for reasons unknown,
TRUMP had not taken up any of these.
Pay attention. Who offered Trump the deal in Moscow? FELIX SATER. Was he a Russian agent? No. He was the FBI's Joe.
If the Steele Dossier was true, Trump should have had multiple offers for projects on in Russia, especially Moscow. Steele claims
Putin's people were feeding Trump information and opportunity. So where is the evidence of such activity? There is none. Just Felix
Sater, FBI snitch.
Robert Mueller tried in vain to advance the lie that Trump was doing deals in Moscow. His report states:
In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately
September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen (i.e., Michael Cohen) on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert),
a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov. Sater had known Rozov since approximately
2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov's purchase of a building in New York City. Sater later
contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and
brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee
of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
Who was pushing the project in Moscow? FELIX SATER. Not Michael Cohen and certainly not Donald Trump. Sater was the instigator.
At no time did he testify that he was directed by Trump or anyone else in the Trump organization to reachout to the Russians. And
don't forget what Christopher Steele claimed -- the Russians were in a frenzy supposedly to offer Trump lucrative deals. That was
and is a monumental lie.
Sater was and is an FBI informant. Sater was not just a private entrepreneur looking to make some coin. We know without a doubt
that Sater was a fully signed up FBI informant. Sater's status as an FBI snitch was first exposed in 2012 (you can read the letter
confirming Sater's status as an FBI snitch
here ). Another inconvenient
fact excluded from the Mueller report is that one of Mueller's Chief Prosecutors,
Andrew Weissman,
signed the deal with Felix Sater in December 1998 that put Sater into the FBI Informant business . Sater was used multiple times
in the next decade by the FBI to make cases against Russian spies and mobsters.
How could Robert Mueller neglect to mention this critical fact? This was not the oversight of a senile old man. It was deliberate
obfuscation.
The question that prosecutor Robert Durham needs to ask is who directed Sater to pitch the Trump team in September 2015 to pursue
a deal in Moscow? The answer probably lies in Sater's FD-1023s. A 1023 is a report that an FBI agent must file every time he meets
with a Confidential Human Source. This was an orchestrated attempt to set up Donald Trump as a Russian stooge. But it did not start
in July 2016 as the FBI falsely claims. It started in September 2015. Who authorized this?
Add to the curious terminology used by the guy setting up the Trump Tower meeting with the female lawyer who promised dirt on
Clinton - he described her as the "Crown Prosecutor" for Russia (no such thing)- more likely also on M16's payroll working in
cahoots with Brennan and the CIA?
I'm not sure if LJ is presenting anything new here on Sater, though it's damning enough to merit a refresh. I suppose many reading
this for the second time will, as I do, feel impatient that this has been out there for some time, and nothing official has yet
come of it, from Horowitz or Durham. Perhaps that impatience is fuelled by what appears to be a repeat performance using the same
comic-opera playbill, this time with Ukraine. I recognize that the wheels of justice grind slowly; the Borg can manufacture these
colour-tempests much more quickly, and so continue to control the news cycles (in addition to controlling the news).
Honestly, the more that emerges, the more I wonder under what inducements Mueller consented to figurehead this steaming
heap of offal. (The rest of the gang at least had the excuse of assuming Clinton would win, but Mueller agrees to step into it,
through the tainted subterfuge of Comey's no less, once Trump was already elected.)
Nor is it easy to maintain confidence in Barr through the rumbling over his role in Iran Contra, the family connections with
the CIA, with its attendant opportunities to develop kompromat to hold over the family. Then there's Horowitz's reputation for
playing softball...
And then there's Ukraine. I know PL has just stressed the impropriety of a uniformed officer detailed to the NSC doing
what he's done -- because he disagrees with the President's policy on Eastern Europe, by his own admission, which includes urging
Zelensky to investigate those allied with the Borg in Ukraine for attempting to influence the outcome of the election in favour
of Clinton.
A shame Trump couldn't just leave the Biden investigation to the professionals, but then maybe he's having trouble trusting
his subordinates. Wonder why.
The "professionals" ensured the Burisma investigation was closed by the prior Ukraine government. By all means cover up
corruption at the top of the Obama administration. Kompromat would never happen there. BTW I wonder if Pussy Riot will be joining
the band of the same name at their next concert? https://www.infoconcert.com/artiste/kompromat-175468/concerts.html
National security official tells Congress he tried to add edits to White House memo about Trump Ukraine call
The proposed edits of the call were to include Trump mentioning possible recordings of Joe Biden discussing corruption
in Ukraine and Ukraine's president mentioning the Burisma gas company specifically.
Shame on the FBI for many failings in their handling of the Steele report. Of course the Agents responsible for evaluating
the report knew that Sater was an informant or asset; but the report reeks of bullshit anyway.
"Speaking to a trusted compatriot in June 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry figure and a former top
level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively,.." "Trusted compatriot... sources A and B...
senior...figure... former...(but) still active..." what does this nonsense even mean? Specifics? To use the word specifics to
describe what is being put on offer is a joke. Those specifics wouldn't serve to predicate a FISC wire on Joe Shit the Ragman
let alone a candidate for President of the United States.
There should have been no action taken on Steele's offerings absent Steele's fully identifying every source cited in his
document, the precise circumstances surrounding their receipt of the information, the precise circumstances of Steele's receipt
of the information from the so called sources, and either access to the sources themselves or. damn good reason why not.
The Agents not pinning this guy down knowing that he was a paid political operative doing Oppo research makes the whole
thing truly shocking. It's going to be very telling if and when the files come out that were used to administer the handling not
only of Sater but also Steele.
Although he may be a pariah to some who hang out here, during a recent interview with Joe Rogan Edward Snowden offered some
intriguing views of the Borg/Deep State from his experience and perspective. He sees it as a conglomeration of interest groups
inside and outside of the government who have interests that sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate. The video is over 2 hours
long, and it's almost all Snowden talking and very little of Rogan.
"... As lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an explanation of what really happened. ..."
"... Interfax-Ukraine ..."
"... The second part is about Trump allegations connecting the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike to the Ukraine. The NYT ..."
"... CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch issued a report about a Ukrainian software for artillery targeting. The report falsely claimed that the software was hacked by Russia and that Russia used the coordinates the hacked software allegedly transmitted. ..."
"... Those CrowdStrike allegations were completely false : ..."
"... The debunked CrowdStrike report about the Ukraine demonstrated that the company can not be trusted when it alleges Russian hacking - be it of an Ukrainian artillery app or of the DNC servers. ..."
"... The Ukrainian actions against the Trump campaign are well documented . The Ukrainians even admitted their intervention : ..."
"... The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election. ..."
"... Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their efforts to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power. ..."
"... Trump claimed that China handed over $1.5 billion to Hunter Biden. But the truth is that the state owned Bank of China handed $1.5 billion ( by now $2.1 billion ) to a company that was partially owned by Hunter Biden. The timing of the very unusual deal additionally suggests that it was made for political purposes. ..."
"... The debunking piece fails in all four points it raises. It is itself sowing disinformation about Biden's intervention against Shokin and the Ukrainian meddling in the U.S. election. It fails to mention relevant facts on the two other issues. ..."
"... While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani , though they typically communicated in English. ..."
The New York Times continues to lie about Joe Biden's involvement in the Ukraine
and about Ukrainian involvement in the U.S. election. Today it also lied about a fact in
relation to Lieutenant Colonel Vindman who was yesterday questioned by the Democrats
'impeachment inquiry'. The NYT reported that very fact just a day ago. During the
hearing Lt.Col. Vindman expressed a rather preposterous view about who should define U.S.
foreign policy.
The NYT claims to debunk falsehoods but spreads more of them:
Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine As lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden
family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an
explanation of what really happened.
Why was Ukraine's top prosecutor fired?
...
A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine's prosecutor general, a job similar to the
attorney general in the United States. He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an
international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.
But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin . In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden
joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin's ouster. The next March, Mr.
Shokin was fired. A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.
Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin
started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to
lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the
Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on
vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into
office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then
closed the case against Zlochevsky.
and:
It is quite astonishing that the false claims, that Shokin did not go after Burisma owner
Zlochevsky, is repeated again and again despite the fact that the public record , in form of a
report by Interfax-Ukraine , contradicts it.
Back to the NYT
'debunking' . The second part is about Trump allegations connecting the cybersecurity
company CrowdStrike to the Ukraine. The NYT is correct to say that Trump's claims in
that direction are mostly confused or false. But it also makes this claim:
CrowdStrike, based in California, is not Ukrainian-owned and does not appear to have any
Ukrainian connections.
CrowdStrike's co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch issued a report about a Ukrainian software
for artillery targeting. The report falsely claimed that the software was hacked by Russia
and that Russia used the coordinates the hacked software allegedly transmitted.
In December, CrowdStrike said it found evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian
artillery app, contributing to heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's war with pro-Russian
separatists.
VOA reported Tuesday that the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS),
which publishes an annual reference estimating the strength of world armed forces,
disavowed the CrowdStrike report and said it had never been contacted by the company.
Ukraine's Ministry of Defense also has stated that the combat losses and hacking never
happened.
CrowdStrike was first to link hacks of Democratic Party computers to Russian actors last
year, but some cybersecurity experts have questioned its evidence.
The debunked CrowdStrike report about the Ukraine demonstrated that the company can
not be trusted when it alleges Russian hacking - be it of an Ukrainian artillery app or of
the DNC servers.
The NYT 'debunking' also claims:
Mr. Trump's own former Homeland Security secretary, Thomas P. Bossert, called the
president's assertion that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 elections on behalf of the
Democrats "not only a conspiracy theory" but "completely debunked."
The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin,
becoming leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's
wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before:
intervene, however indirectly, in a U.S. election.
... Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their
efforts to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it
annexed two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power.
The third claim which the NYT tries to 'debunk' is that the CIA agent who played
the 'whistleblower' against Trump is a political partisan. The debunking fails when the
NYT itself notes the source of the claim:
Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for the American intelligence community, found
unspecified indications of "an arguable political bias," suggesting the whistle-blower
favored a rival political candidate, according to a Justice Department memo.
The fourth 'debunking' is about Hunter Biden's business with China:
Critics of Hunter Biden have sought other areas ripe for sowing disinformation. One they
have homed in on is his dealings in China.
...
While the amount of money Hunter Biden made from those deals remains unknown, Mr. Trump has
said that China handed over $1.5 billion to Mr. Biden in a "sweetheart" business deal meant
to win favor with his father.
...
The $1.5 billion figure Mr. Trump has referred to appears to be the amount of money a
Shanghai private-equity company raised in 2014. Hunter Biden joined the board of the
company, BHR Equity Investment Fund Management, in late 2013. In 2017, he bought 10 percent
of the firm, investing the equivalent of $420,000.
The NYT conveniently forgets to mention who is
behind BHR and how the deal was made:
On one of the first days of December 2013, Hunter Biden was jetting across the Pacific
Ocean aboard Air Force Two with his father and daughter Finnegan. ... Vice President Biden,
Hunter Biden and Finnegan arrived to a red carpet and a delegation of Chinese
officials.
...
[Hunter Biden's company] Rosemont Seneca Partners had been negotiating an exclusive deal
with Chinese officials, which they signed approximately 10 days after Hunter visited China
with his father. The most powerful financial institution in China, the government's Bank of
China, was setting up a joint venture with Rosemont Seneca.
...
Rosemont Seneca and the Bank of China created a $1 billion investment fund called Bohai
Harvest RST (BHR), a name that reflected who was involved. Bohai (or Bo Hai), the innermost
gulf of the Yellow Sea, was a reference to the Chinese stake in the company. The "RS"
referred to Rosemont Seneca. The "T" was Thornton.
Trump claimed that China handed over $1.5 billion to Hunter Biden. But the truth is
that the state owned Bank of China handed $1.5 billion (
by now $2.1 billion ) to a company that was partially owned by Hunter Biden. The timing
of the very unusual deal additionally suggests that it was made for political
purposes.
The NYT asserts that Trump was "sowing disinformation' about Hunter Biden's China
relation. Trump often lies but in this case he just simplified the facts.
The debunking piece fails in all four points it raises. It is itself sowing
disinformation about Biden's intervention against Shokin and the Ukrainian meddling in the
U.S. election. It fails to mention relevant facts on the two other issues.
In its zeal to propagandize against the Trump administration the NYT is playing
lose with the facts and is even disregarding its own reporting. Consider this
item from today about media reactions to the Lieutenant Colonel who was yesterday
questioned by the Democrats 'impeachment inquiry':
Jack Posobiec, a well-known figure on the far-right internet, tweeted the falsehood that
Mr. Vindman had been advising the Ukrainian government on how to counter Mr. Trump's
foreign policy goals. Mr. Posobiec cited The New York Times as his source -- in fact, The
Times reported no such thing.
While Colonel Vindman's concerns were shared by a number of other officials, some of
whom have already testified, he was in a unique position. Because he emigrated from Ukraine
along with his family when he was a child and is fluent in Ukrainian and Russian, Ukrainian
officials sought advice from him about how to deal with Mr. Giuliani , though they
typically communicated in English.
When Rudi Giuliani was trying to get information about Ukrainian involvement in the 2016
election he was undoubtly pursuing the president's foreign policy. Posobiec was right and the
NYT should correct itself.
Lt.Col. Vindman did not like those policies. He in fact believes that U.S. foreign policy
should not be directed by the president.
In his written opening remarks to yesterday's confidential hearing, widely spread to the
media, he
asserts :
In spite of being under assault from Russia for more than five years, Ukraine has taken
major steps towards integrating with the West. The U.S. government policy community's view
is that the election of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and the promise of reforms to
eliminate corruption will lock in Ukraine's Western-leaning trajectory, and allow Ukraine
to realize its dream of a vibrant democracy and economic prosperity.
Given this perspective and my commitment to advancing our government's strategic
interests , I will now recount several events that occurred.
...
When I joined the NSC in July 2018, I began implementing the administration's policy on
Ukraine. In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false
narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency. This
narrative was harmful to U.S. government policy . While my interagency colleagues and I
were becoming increasingly optimistic on Ukraine's prospects, this alternative narrative
undermined U.S. government efforts to expand cooperation with Ukraine.
Who the f**k does this NSC minion thinks he is? The President of the United States?
The U.S.
constitution "empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly
negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries."
The constitution does not empower the "U.S. government policy community", nor "the
administration", nor the "consensus view of the interagency" and certainly not one Lt.Col.
Vindman to define the strategic interests of the United States and its foreign policy. It is
the duly elected president who does that.
President Trump and many other people believe that it would be better for the United
States to ally with Russia against an ever growing China than to push Russia and China into
an undefeatable alliances against the United States. Trump often alluded to this during his
campaign. The voters seem to have liked that view.
The U.S. coup in the Ukraine made that policy more difficult to achieve. But within the
big picture the Ukraine is just a bankrupt and corrupt state that has little strategic value
and can be ignored.
One can disagree with that view and with other foreign policy priorities Trump set out and
pursues. I certainly disagree with most of them. But for those who work "at the pleasure of
the President" his views are the guidelines that set the direction of their duties.
The anti-Russian/pro-Ukrainian fanatics in the Borg, to which Lt.Col. Vindman belongs, are
trying to prevent Trump from achieving his large picture vision of U.S. strategic interest
and from defining U.S. foreign policy goals. They want to implement their own polices
independent of what the president thinks or believes.
We have warned that such interference by the Borg, the 'deep state' or 'swamp', is a
danger
to democracy :
If the deep state is allowed to make its own policies against the will of the elected
officials why should we bother with holding elections?
The Democrats are stupid to applaud this and to even further these schemes. They are
likely to regain the presidency in 2024. What will they do when all the Civil Service
functionaries Trump will have installed by then organize to ruin their policies?
It is unfortunate that the above points have to be repeated again and again. But when
powerful media try to sell the lies about the Ukrainian interferences by repeating the same
falsehoods over and over again the truth has only a chance to win when it is likewise spread
repeatedly.
Posted by b on October 30, 2019 at 18:46 UTC |
Permalink Thanks,b. The truth is that the NYT piece is a published blue print for what
the quality media in vassal countries are supposed to communicate. Being German, you know
what I mean. Now, I know what will be presented in all channels tomorrow and I can spare the
time considering that bs. ;-)
No mystery here. As you pointed out already, the NYT first denied the deep state and then
came to love it. There is no going back now, it is a love story for the ages...
All the lies are just part of a neverending media circus, with no real consequences on
anything. Telling the truth about the media circus has exactly the same effect.
And if you look at the NY Times reporter's credit and CV, clicking her name will lead you
there, her job at the NY Times is to "debunk" online disinformation.
But she posted a crap load of fake news here as you note.
Here's Ms Alba's NY Times bio-CV page, note the short first paragraph:
Davey Alba is a technology reporter covering online disinformation and its global
harms.
Before joining The New York Times, Ms. Alba was a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News,
writing about artificial intelligence and the invasive effects of tech in people's lives. In
2019, her feature on how Rodrigo Duterte, president of the Philippines, used Facebook to fuel
the drug war in the country won a Livingston Award for excellence in international reporting.
The article also won a 2019 Mirror Award for best story on journalism in peril.
Ms. Alba has covered tech for the last decade, writing about topics as diverse as
facial recognition's civil rights problems, the industry's practice of using forced
arbitration in employee contracts and sexual harassment in tech. She has written for various
publications, including Wired, Gizmodo and IEEE Spectrum.
She moved to the United States in 2010 after attending De La Salle University in Manila
and has a master's degree in science journalism from Columbia University. She lives in
Brooklyn.
Columbia University School of Journalism embarrasses itself again.
I first heard this idea that Trump is supposed to implement the foreign policy of the
"government policy community" just a few days ago on the PBS Snooze Hour. It was startling to
hear such a blatant admission of the existence of the "Deep State", and that Trump is
supposed to obey it. I wonder who wrote the memo that says its now OK to publicly criticize
Trump for not following the orders of the "government policy community".
Everyone was shocked when Trump won the election, especially Trump and the "government
policy community". He is the proverbial dog that caught the speeding car. It's quaint that
Trump thinks he can make real policy changes. His failures in medical insurance, controlling
the FED, etc. underscore the point that being the leader is useless if underlings don't obey.
The "government policy community" will never follow Trump and it won't stop until Trump is
gone one way or another.
Trump is truly a horrible excuse for a human being, but apparently that is what is
required to successfully rip the facade off the Deep State, however one wants to define it.
Brain-dead Dummycrats will nod and exclaim that of course Trump is supposed to follow policy
established by "knowledgeable experts". But I speculate that this new public attitude of the
stink tank talking heads will enrage Trump supporters.
I'm starting to think that things may get really ugly in the "Home of the Brave and the
Land of the Free".
I don't agree with b that Posobiec's assertion that the NY Times had reported that "Vindman
had been advising the Ukrainian government" was factual just because the Times had reported
that "Ukrainian officials sought advice from [Vindman]".
Surely Ukraine seeking advice is not the same as Vindman actually providing it. It seems
the Times may be accurate in calling Posobiec's statement a "falsehood".
I am not a legal or constitutional scholar, but I ask myself, not for the first time, whether
the media can ever be held to account. One might argue that the criminal justice system could
not function without credible penalties for perjury. Whistleblowers and journalists who bring
the secrets of the powerful to light are increasingly fair game. But the only journalist I
can think of who faced at least mildly negative consequences for her role in the run up to
the Iraq war was Judith Miller, and she managed to have herself carted off on the laughable
hobbyhorse of "protecting" her sources among the murderous architects of that war.
I get that we have wandered back into the arena of "fake news," which has been framed by
the Right against corporate media that they quaintly characterize as "Left", and that the
Oligarchy's concern for it (among the Right) has been a stalking horse for repressing actual
progressive dissent. (A la Propornot.)
But are there simply no legal remedies that might actually serve to improve the quality of
information that we are forced to wade through?
Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, who provided key testimony to the Democrats' controversial
impeachment inquiry last week, led an election observation delegation in Ukraine earlier this year for a George
Soros-funded organization that at the time boasted Hunter Biden on its small chairman's council.
Two months before he came out of retirement to serve as the highest ranking U.S. official in Ukraine, Taylor led
an election observer delegation to Ukraine's April 21, 2019 second round presidential election for the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) organization.
The delegation's mission, according to NDI
literature
, was to "accurately and impartially assess various aspects of the election process, and to offer
recommendations to support peaceful, credible elections and public confidence in the process."
Taylor led the team along with former Director of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Office
for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) Audrey Glover and former Minister for European Union
Affairs Birgitta Ohlsson.
Hunter Biden at the time served on NDI's ten person Chairman's Council, which
describes itself
as
bringing together "leaders from corporate, philanthropic, and academia sectors to provide expertise, counsel and
resources to help the Institute meet these evolving challenges."
Biden was engaged in Ukraine in his role as a board member for Burisma, the Ukranian natural gas company at the
center of allegations regarding Joe Biden's involvement in Ukraine policy during the Obama administration while his
son was being paid by Burisma.
NDI did not immediately respond to a Breitbart News inquiry about when Hunter Biden was removed from the
organization's chairman's council. The WayBack Internet archive
shows
Biden was
listed on NDI's website in that position until at least August 2019, encompassing the period when Taylor led the
organization's delegation.
Earlier this month, an attorney for Biden
said
the former vice president's son had stepped down from the Burisma board and that he planned to step down
from the board of BHR, a Chinese company seeking to invest Chinese funds outside China.
The NDI is not Taylor's only seemingly conspicuous link. Last week, Breitbart News
reported
that Taylor has evidenced a close relationship with the Atlantic Council think tank, writing Ukraine
policy pieces with the organization's director and analysis articles published by the Council. The Atlantic
Council is
funded
by
and works in partnership with Burisma.
In addition to a direct relationship with the Atlantic Council, Taylor for the last nine years also served as a
senior adviser to the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), which has
co-hosted
events
with the Atlantic Council and has participated in events co-hosted
jointly
by
the Atlantic Council and Burisma. USUBC events have been financially sponsored by Burisma.
Another senior
adviser
to
the USUBC is David J. Kramer, a long-time adviser to late Senator John McCain. Kramer played a central role in
disseminating the anti-Trump dossier to the news media and Obama administration.
Taylor participated in events and initiatives organized by Kramer.
The links may be particularly instructive after Breitbart News
reported
that
itinerary for a trip to Ukraine in August organized by the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council for ten Congressional
aides reveals that a staffer on Rep. Adam Schiff's House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a meeting
during the trip with Taylor. The pre-planned trip took place after the so-called whistleblower officially filed his
August 12 complaint and
reportedly
after
a Schiff aide was contacted by the so-called whistleblower.
Common funding themes
Meanwhile, NDI, where Taylor led the election observation delegation,
lists
partners and sponsors who "provide much-needed resources," including Soros's Open Society Foundation, Google Inc.,
the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S.
Department of State.
Besides Burisma funding, the Atlantic Council is also financed by Soros's Open Society Foundations, Google, and
the U.S. State Department. Another Atlantic Council funder is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc.,
Google, Soros's Open Society Foundations, the Rockefeller Fund, and an agency of the State Department each also
finance a self-described investigative journalism organization repeatedly referenced as a source of information in
the so-called whistleblower's complaint alleging Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference
from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential race.
The charges in the July 22 report referenced in the so-called whistleblower's document and released by the Google
and Soros-funded organization, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), seem to be the public
precursors for a lot of the so-called whistleblower's own claims, as Breitbart News
documented
.
One key section of the so-called whistleblower's document claims that "multiple U.S. officials told me that Mr.
Giuliani had reportedly privately reached out to a variety of other Zelensky advisers, including Chief of Staff
Andriy Bohdan and Acting Chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine Ivan Bakanov."
This was allegedly to follow up on Trump's call with Zelensky in order to discuss the "cases" mentioned in that
call, according to the so-called whistleblower's narrative. The complainer was clearly referencing Trump's request
for Ukraine to investigate the Biden corruption allegations.
Even though the statement was written in first person – "multiple U.S. officials told me" – it contains a footnote
referencing a report by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
That footnote reads:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22 July, two associates
of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019 and met with Mr. Bakanov and another close Zelensky adviser,
Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
The so-called whistleblower's account goes on to rely upon that same OCCRP report on three more occasions. It does
so to:
Write that Ukraine's Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko "also stated that he wished to communicate directly
with Attorney General Barr on these matters."
Document that Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani "had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a
Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani."
Bolster the charge that, "I also learned from a U.S. official that 'associates' of Mr. Giuliani were trying to
make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team." The so-called whistleblower then relates in another footnote, "I
do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in the 22 July report by
OCCRP, referenced above."
The OCCRP
report
repeatedly
referenced is actually a "joint investigation by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and
BuzzFeed News, based on interviews and court and business records in the United States and Ukraine."
BuzzFeed infamously also first
published
the
full anti-Trump dossier alleging unsubstantiated collusion between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. The
dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was produced by the
Fusion GPS opposition dirt outfit.
The OCCRP and BuzzFeed "joint investigation" resulted in both OCCRP and BuzzFeed publishing similar lengthy pieces
on July 22 claiming that Giuliani was attempting to use connections to have Ukraine investigate Trump's political
rivals.
The so-called whistleblower's document, however, only mentions the largely unknown OCCRP and does not reference
BuzzFeed, which has faced scrutiny over its reporting on the Russia collusion claims.
Taylor, Atlantic Council, Kramer
Multiple U.S. media outlets last week
obtained
Taylor's
full opening statement to the House Intelligence, Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees.
In the leaked pre-written full opening statement, Taylor alluded to work he said he did for a "small Ukrainian
non- governmental organization" but he omitted the name of the organization.
"In the intervening 10 years, I have stayed engaged with Ukraine, visiting frequently since 2013 as a board member
of a small Ukrainian non- governmental organization supporting good governance and reform," he said.
The name of the organization is the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC), where Taylor served for nine years as
senior advisor. The USUBC has co-hosted or participated in scores of events with the Atlantic Council. Taylor has
also authored numerous analysis pieces published by the Atlantic Council itself and has co-authored opeds written
together with the Atlantic Council's director.
Burisma is a key financial backer of the Atlantic Council. In 2017, Burisma and the Atlantic Council
signed
a
cooperative agreement to develop transatlantic programs with Burisma's financial support reportedly to focus "on
European and international energy security." Burisma specifically finances the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Besides funding the Atlantic Council, Burisma also routinely partners with the think tank. Only four months ago,
the company
co-hosted
the
Atlantic Council's second Annual Kharkiv Security Conference. Burisma
advertises
that
it committed itself to "15 key principles of rule of law and economic policy in Ukraine developed by the Atlantic
Council."
In March, three months before he became Trump's ambassador to Ukraine, the Atlantic Council
featured
an
oped co-authored by Taylor in which the diplomat argued Ukraine "has further to travel toward its self-proclaimed
European goal" of reformation.
In 2017, Taylor wrote a
piece
for
the Atlantic Council about a Ukrainian parliament vote on health care reform.
Last year, he
participated
in
an online Atlantic Council Q & A on the Crimea.
In November 2011, the Atlantic Council
hosted
Taylor
as the featured speaker at a discussion event when he was appointed that year as Special Coordinator for Middle East
Transitions at the State Department.
In March 2014, Taylor co-authored an analysis piece at Foreign Policy
magazine
written
together with John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine who serves as director of the Eurasia Center for
the Atlantic council – the same Eurasia Center that is specifically funded by Burisma.
That same year, Taylor also co-authored a
New York Times
op-ed
with
the Atlantic Council's Herbst on Ukraine. The duo co-authored another
Times
op-ed
one
year later on the future of Ukraine. The op-ed was
reprinted
on
the USUBC's website.
The USUBC, where Taylor was a senior adviser for nine years along with Kramer, has
hosted
Herbst
for briefings and other events.
Kramer of the USUBC, infamous for his role in disseminating the anti-Trump dossier, also held a November 2011
event
at
the Atlantic Council's D.C. offices for a group that he heads called Freedom House. Taylor was one of six featured
speakers at Kramer's event.
The Atlantic Council published what it deemed a
24-point
plan
for ending the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In conjunction with the plan, Kramer, in his role as
director of Freedom House, organized a letter by American and European experts and former officials urging Russia to
end its conflict with Ukraine. Signatories of the letter,
published
on
the Burisma-funded Atlantic Council's website, include Taylor, Kramer and the Atlantic Council's Herbst.
As late as this past March, Taylor was
listed
as
one of nine members of the Friends of Ukraine Network Economic Security Task Force. Another member is Kramer.
When he deployed to Ukraine as Trump's ambassador in June, the USUBC
authored
a
piece in the Kyiv Post welcoming him.
In the USUBC
piece
welcoming
Taylor to Ukraine, Kramer himself commented about Taylor's ambassador position. "He's a great choice for now," Kramer
gushed.
The USUBC's piece noted that the "USUBC has worked closely with Ambassador Taylor for many years," touting his
role as the business group's senior adviser.
On June 26, just nine days after arriving in Ukraine as ambassador, the USUBC already
hosted
Taylor
for a roundtable discussion about his new position.
Vadym Pozharskyi, adviser to the board of directors at Burisma Holdings, was also previously
hosted
as
a USUBC featured speaker.
Geysha Gonzalez is the sponsoring Atlantic Council officer listed on the Congressional disclosure form for the
Schiff staffer's trip to Ukraine in August. She is deputy director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Gonzalez is also one of eleven members of the rapid response
team
for
the Ukrainian Election Task Force, which says it is working to expose "foreign interference in Ukraine's democracy."
Another
member
of
the team is Kramer.
Kramer revealed in testimony that he held a meeting about the anti-Trump dossier with a reporter from BuzzFeed
News, who he says snapped photos of the controversial document without Kramer's permission when he left the room to
go to the bathroom. That meeting was held at the McCain Institute office in Washington, Kramer stated.
BuzzFeed infamously
published
the
Christopher Steele dossier on January 10, 2017, setting off a firestorm of news media coverage about the document.
The Washington Post
reported
last
February that Kramer received the dossier directly from Fusion GPS after McCain expressed interest in it.
In a deposition taken on December 13, 2017, and
posted
online
earlier this year, Kramer revealed that he met with two Obama administration officials to inquire about
whether the anti-Trump dossier was being taken seriously.
In one case, Kramer said that he personally provided a copy of the dossier to Obama National Security Council
official Celeste Wallander.
In the deposition, Kramer said that McCain specifically asked him in early December 2016 to meet about the dossier
with Wallander and Victoria Nuland, a senior official in John Kerry's State Department.
Taylor testimony and Burisma
In his testimony to the Democrats secretive impeachment inquiry, Taylor said that he "understood" from U.S.
Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that a White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky "was dependent on a public announcement of the investigations." Taylor was referring to the announcement of
an investigation that included Burisma, as well as alleged Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
Taylor's testimony was
characterized
by
CNN as "explosive" and was similarly hyped by other news media outlets despite it not being unusual for the U.S. to
condition aspects of relations on participation in ongoing American investigations involving the foreign country in
question.
Still, Taylor conceded that there was no quid pro quo.
"Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although
this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not 'clear things up' in public, we could be at a 'stalemate.'
I understood 'stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance," Taylor
testified.
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau
chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk
radio program, "
Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio
." Follow him on
Twitter
@AaronKleinShow.
Follow him on
Facebook.
Joshua Klein contributed research to this article.
On Thursday Nancy Pelosi held a vote to
reaffirm her impeachment inquisitiveness. It was theater; everyone knows the
hyper-politicized Democratic House will impeach. It's a weak case, but that doesn't matter. A
partisan Senate (who will also see a weak case but that doesn't matter) won't convict. America
will leave a steaming mound of democracy aside the road and reflect forever which side stepped
in it after we're done arguing who won in November 2020.
We'll have forgotten by then about the evidence, so it's worth a look while still fresh.
Absent any really big surprises, we know the narrative now.
Forget the whistleblower. He had no first hand knowledge of a "high crime and misdemeanor,"
just an opinion about a phone call he wasn't party to. Yet even after DOJ ruled the
whistleblower revealed
no criminal act, Nancy Pelosi
announced an impeachment inquiry.
Trump then released the memorandum of conversation between himself and Ukrainian president
Zelensky. This is the U.S. government's record of what was said and as such will form near 100
percent of what Dems will use to impeach. After all, it is the only primary document in the
case. Yet despite its short length, some five
pages , many people want to characterize what it says instead of just reading the thing. So
follow
along if you like.
Advertisement
The call was a routine congratulatory message to Zelensky on his election, diplomatic chit
chat. We're on page three before the first bit of possible significance comes. Here it is in
its entirety:
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been
through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened
with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike I guess you have one of your
wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on,
the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I
would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get
to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor
performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance. But they say a lot of
it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's
possible.
Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and
that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that the way they shut your very good
prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected
man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I
will ask him to call you along with the Attorney·General. Rudy very much knows what's
happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was
dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other
thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot
of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would
be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into
it It sounds horrible to me.
To impeach, one must conclude from the text above that a) Trump asking for information,
however far-fetched, on possible foreign interference in the 2016 election was wrong (and then
explain why the Dems conducted a three year investigation of the same); b) Trump asking for an
investigation into whether then-Vice President and perhaps soon President Biden used his office
for personal gain is of no interest to the people of the United States, even if that same
information were also of interest to Trump (and account for Dems asking in 2018 the Ukraine to
cooperate to dig up dirt on Trump, and allowing that a Ukrainian investigation would
supposedly exonerate Biden); c) that Trump made clear to Zelensky aid was contingent on these
investigations and; d) explain why the aid paid out soon after the call without any
investigation.
The base problem is Trump never said he was withholding aid in the July 25 call. The
earliest tick the Ukrainians knew the aid was being delayed was "early August" and even that is
based on anonymous
media sources who somehow have not been found to testify. Official U.S. and
Ukrainian officials instead say knowledge the funds were held up didn't get to the Ukrainians
until late August, shortly before they were released.
Monday brought the news that Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman planned to
tell impeachment investigators Wednesday that the July 25 transcript given to Congress
omitted Trump's appeals to Zelensky to investigate Biden. He was reportedly on the call, had
twice "registered internal objections about how Mr. Trump and his inner circle were treating
Ukraine, out of what he called a 'sense of duty,'" according
to a New York Times report.
Such omissions (if they are real and there is no evidence besides Vindman's own statement)
add or detract nothing from the core questions at the heart of this impeachment: did Trump
withhold aid in return for a Ukrainian investigation, and was seeking such an investigation
solely a personal political goal or something of interest to the United States?
It is important to go back to what we do know, that the aid was ultimately delivered, and
that correlation is not causation. This was the big gap in Russiagate; because A happened
before B, Democrats rushed to claim A caused B, and thus collusion!
That leads to a second base problem. Nothing happened. Trump
never asked the attorney general to contact Zelensky. It is unclear who if anyone Guiliani
spoke with, but either way the Ukrainians never investigated anything. This impeachment will be
the first in American history without any underlying actual crime taking place on the ground.
Democrats seek to impeach Trump for talking about something, and never doing something, that
itself may not be a real offense anyway. If you hear echoes of Russiagate, obstructing
something that wasn't actually obstructed, you have sharp ears.
When you have a smoking gun you usually don't need to keep searching for evidence. Knowing
the weakness in their case, it is telling Dems are engaged in a process of finding someone to
claim Trump's policy was to (not) withhold aid to force the Ukraine to do something they never
did.
They tried Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who stated, under oath and in a leaked text from the
time of the original call, there was no such quid pro quo.
The Dems then produced a series of angry people to testify they had been sidelined out of
the decision making process and thus knew very little first hand. The noisiest witness,
Ambassador William Taylor, made it clear
he was cut out of the White House's back channel for Ukrainian policy, and only knew what
insiders told him second hand. His other knowledge of the supposed quid pro quo came when he
heard "a [unnamed] staff person from the Office of Management and Budget say that there was a
hold on security assistance to Ukraine but could not say why. Toward the end of an otherwise
normal meeting, a voice on the call -- the [unnamed] person was off-screen -- said that she was
from OMB and that her boss had instructed her not to approve any additional spending of
security assistance for Ukraine until further notice."
Taylor went on even to impeach himself a little, admitting he had no evidence aid was
connected to investigation. He testified
National Security Council Senior Director Fiona Hill and NSC Director of European Affairs Alex
Vindman "reassured me that they were not aware of any official change in U.S. policy toward
Ukraine, OMB's announcement notwithstanding."
Taylor never spoke to the president or to the secretary of state. Despite his title Taylor
was not a player. His testimony was just his opinion. Deep Throat that is not.
What else? The media found a way to word-trick Ambassador Sondland's attorney into saying
what his client described in testimony "amounted to" a quid pro quo, possibly thinking they
could use a client's own lawyer's
re-characterization of testimony to impeach.
Again, there are no documents or policy papers to support the claim the policy was aid for
investigation.
A slam dunk currently rests on John Bolton, a life-long conservative nearing the end of his
public life. They hope he will testify such that the last lines of his biography will be "the
man who more than any other individual helped elect Elizabeth Warren." Sorry, Bolton, like
Flynn, Manafort, and Cohen, is not your Fredo.
Unlike with Nixon and Clinton, the House is not building on an existing law enforcement
investigation. That was supposed to be Mueller. Instead, the "investigation" is jerry-rigged in
real-time consisting of a stage-managed parade of credentialed hostile witnesses interpreting
what Trump said. It is like a room full of critics impeaching Bob Dylan out of the Hall of Fame
by telling us what his lyrics really mean to him. Opinions are not evidence.
The impeachment inquiry Democrats launched last month may ultimately hinge on a simple
question: Did President Trump try to force a foreign power (or powers) to help him take down a
political opponent, Joe Biden?
But the backdrop of their effort is far more complex and convoluted, connected not just to
Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine and related evidence but the three-year war of
attrition the Democrats have waged against the president. Their main instrument was the
Trump-Russia collusion story that roiled the capital until Special Counsel Robert Mueller
pronounced it unfounded. Now they have moved on to one or more "whistleblower" complaints
from within the intelligence community .
Given all the focus on nefarious Russia, you could be forgiven for missing the fact that
Ukraine was always at the center of the Trump-Russia affair.
Viewed in this light, the Trump-Ukraine quid pro quo bribery narrative must compete with
another explanation: Trump's determination to get to the bottom of an underhanded years-long
campaign arrayed against him. One of the first things he did after the Mueller report debunked
the collusion narrative was to call the Ukranian president and ask him to help do just
that.
The impeachment battle is not just about congressional probes and alleged presidential
strong-arming, but about the Russiagate narrative. Anti-Trump forces in the government and
media are working to vindicate their previous efforts and discredit a forthcoming Justice
Department inquiry into the origins of Russiagate by again connecting Trump and a foreign power
to a U.S. election.
I've covered the Trump-Russia story for three years. Even before these operations emerged
publicly after Trump's 2016 victory, I doubted the pre-election whisper campaign circulating
throughout the Washington press corps that held Trump was clandestinely cooperating with
Moscow.
First, the idea that Trump had for many years been a Russian ally, even an agent, was hard
to believe given that there had been no mention of this during a long career lived entirely in
the spotlight. I was especially skeptical of this claim because Trump's business concerns were
based largely in the most media-saturated city in the world, and because they involved
industries – especially real estate and casinos – that attract the attention of
legal authorities.
Family matters: Joe Biden, right, and his son Hunter at a commemoraton
for the Vice President's late son late Beau. AP Photo/Visar Kryeziu
Second, candidate Trump's proposed policies toward Russia were similar to those of the Obama
administration – and would prove tougher after he was elected – making it hard to
see how he was secretly beholden to Moscow.
I was not surprised when the special counsel concluded the story was false. Neither was it
surprising, given the amount of money, time, and prestige spent on pushing collusion, to see
Russiagate rebooted two weeks ago in the form of a whistleblower's complaint.
So far the basic facts are these: An active, and unnamed, CIA officer alleged that Trump had
sought information from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky regarding Biden's involvement in
a Ukrainian prosecution possibly involving his son Hunter. In exchange for information that,
according to the CIA officer, would assist Trump's 2020 re-election, the president would
release military aid to Ukraine.
Although the details are different – no mention this time of hookers and golden
showers – the whistleblower's central claim closely resembles the thesis laid out in the
anti-Trump dossier compiled by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele,
which the FBI used as its roadmap to collusion: That Trump took or solicited dirt on his
Democratic opponent from a foreign power in exchange for favors to that country's
government.
Once again, much of the media seem to be treating every allegation against Trump as probable
fact, while dismissing any questions and concerns as conspiracy theories.
Attorney General
William Barr and President Trump: "Our country has been through a lot," Trump told President
Zelensky. "They say a lot of it started with Ukraine." AP Photo/Alex Brandon
Although the whistleblower complaint seems to have emerged quickly, it must be viewed in
context of the long war against Trump and its numerous elements tied to Ukraine.
Recent interviews with senior sources on Capitol Hill and newly acquired documents show that
Ukraine was and continues to be central to the effort to take down Trump.
That's why Trump's most urgent request of the Ukrainian president was to assist Attorney
General William Barr in his investigation of the origins of the FBI's Trump-Russia probe.
"Our country has been through a lot," Trump told President Zelensky. "They say a lot of it
started with Ukraine."
This assertion was not wrong. And yet for all of the foreigners, including Ukrainians, who
played roles in Russiagate, this is a story about Americans with the sort of scruples,
ambitions, and labyrinthine connections found in a Dostoevsky novel.
Origins of Clinton-Tied Ukraine Dirt-Digging
It is significant, in this time of separate left and right media echo chambers, that an
early account of Hillary Clinton campaign efforts to dig up dirt on Team Trump using Ukraine
didn't originate on the right: It was a Politico
report by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern. (A repeat seems unlikely now: Vogel's current
employer, the New York Times, has dismissed Trump's claims about Ukraine's role in Russiagate
as part of a right-wing conspiracy theory.)
The Ukraine story starts no later than March 2016, when Democratic Party operative and
Ukrainian-American activist Alexandra Chalupa approached the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
for information on the Trump campaign.
As John Solomon of The Hill newspaper wrote in May, Chalupa asked Ukrainian diplomats for
"evidence that Trump, his organization and [campaign manager Paul] Manafort were Russian
assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with Putin against the U.S. interests."
Chalupa emailed Democratic National Committee officials that she was briefing U.S. media on
Manafort's work in Ukraine. One of the journalists was Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News, who would
later publish one of the key stories advancing the collusion narrative.
Ukraine's ambassador to Washington
told Solomon that Chalupa wanted to approach a member of Congress to initiate hearings on
Manafort or arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort's alleged
Kremlin ties during a visit to Washington.
Keep that in mind when Democrats and their media allies routinely suggest it is treasonous
to seek foreign aid during an election.
As Chalupa was pursuing these channels, the Clinton campaign stepped up its efforts to find
foreign dirt on Trump by hiring the Washington, D.C., firm Fusion GPS that March to compile and
distribute opposition research on Trump. One of the company's co-founders, Glenn Simpson, was a
former Wall Street Journal reporter who had written several articles about Manafort's work for
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
In a 2007 article, Simpson wrote that Yanukovych "favors closer ties with [Russian President
Vladimir] Putin's administration."
That view would inform much of the operation to come. It would use Manafort's close ties to
Yanukovych as the kernel of truth from which grew the vast Russiagate conspiracy.
From one of at least two dossiers on Paul Manafort
and Ukraine circulated by Fusion GPS.
One is an eight-page document titled "Paul Manafort – Ukraine and Lichtenstein," the
other is nine pages, titled "UPDATE – Paul Manafort." Links to Ukrainian- and
Russian-language Internet portals show that the research was compiled by someone who knew the
languages. In October 2015, Fusion GPS had brought on former Russian history professor Nellie
Ohr for Trump-Russia research. Ohr's husband, top Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr,
would later help spread Clinton-financed opposition research to the federal government, helping
prompt the Trump/Russia collusion probe.
The documents reference flight records, travel documents, and business agreements while
noting Manafort's relationships with several Ukrainian officials, including Yanukovych's chief
of staff, and oligarchs such as Clinton Foundation donor Victor Pinchuk, described as a
"Yanukovych booster."
Without evidence, one of the dossiers alleges that "the Russian government played a leading
role in promoting the Yanukovych presidency and Manafort worked closely with several Russians
during his time in Ukraine."
The other makes the speculative, if ominious-sounding, claim that "Manafort's newfound role
as campaign manager to Trump could offer Russian oligarchs close to Vladimir Putin a new way to
exert influence on Trump."
Driving the Manafort-Yanukovych Narrative
Even as Clinton operatives sought the help of Ukrainian officials, they and their allies in
the press routinely mischaracterized Yanukovych as pro-Putin, advancing the Russia collusion
narrative.
Biden at a Kyiv memorial to protesters, 2014: Later his son Hunter was hired by an ally of the just-exiled
President, questionably tarred by Clinton operatives as a Putin stooge.
Ukraine is a buffer state, caught between European neighbors to the west and Russia to the
east. Its challenge is to balance the two against each other. Failure to do so is apt to lead
to conflict, such as the present war between the Kyiv government and Russian-backed separatists
in eastern Ukraine.
After Yanukovych became president in 2010, Manafort recommended that he draw closer to the
European Union with a trade deal. Putin saw that as a threat, and gave Yanukovych a choice
between crippling economic measures and a $15 billion aid package.
Ultimately, Yanukovych rejected Manafort's advice, bowing to Putin in late 2013, touching
off protests in the Ukrainian capital that led to deadly violence.
That turmoil started a new chapter in U.S.-Ukraine relations as the Obama White House made
then Vice President Joe Biden the point man on the issue.
Biden had known Yanukovych since
2009 and spoke with him frequently during the crisis.
The Obama administration, however, had little confidence in Yanukovych. State Department
officials on the ground the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, including Assistant Secretary of State
for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland scrambled to piece together a coalition
government. Yanukovych fled his country for sanctuary in Russia in February 2014, just days
after his final phone call with Biden, when government snipers killed at least 88 protesters in
the capital.
In April 2014, Biden traveled to Kyiv with a small economic aid package, and warned the
Ukrainians to rein in corruption. A month later, his son Hunter was named to the board of
Burisma, one of Ukraine's largest independent energy companies. Although he had no experience
in the energy sector, Hunter was paid as
much as $50,000 a month for his services.
Here's where the politics get even more interesting. Burisma's owner was not a reformer, but
an
ally of the just-exiled Yanukovych, having served as his minister of natural resources.
Despite the Biden family's financial relationship with the Yanukovych circle, Clinton
operatives painted Manafort's association with Yanukovych as evidence of the Trump campaign's
pro-Putin sentiments.
In a three-day period at the end of April 2016, for instance, Slate, the
Washington Post and
Guardian all published articles alleging that Manafort's work for Yanukovych showed the
Trump team was close to Russia.
This is another reminder of the double-standard that has driven so much media coverage: the
eagerness to buy Clinton's spin on Manafort and then connect Trump to it all while dismissing
Biden's clear conflicts.
Clinton Operative Alleges a Ukrainian-Related Quid Pro Quo
Indeed, Manafort's relationship with Yanukovych became a keystone of the Trump-Russia
narrative. A July 18, 2016 Washington Post
article , for example, cited it before reporting new "evidence" that the campaign was
cozying up to Putin.
Paul Manafort, right, behind Ivanka Trump during a rehearsal at the
Republican National Convention in Cleveland. Next to the future President is Manafort's chief
deputy, Rick Gates, later indicted along with his boss.
Trump staffers, according to the article, "stripped out" the Republican National Convention
platform's call for giving Ukraine "lethal defensive weapons."
That was inaccurate
. One GOP delegate proposed an amendment calling for giving lethal aid to Ukraine. The
amendment was toned down by a Trump adviser, changing it to "appropriate assistance." The
result was that the amendment was softened but the platform's position on Ukraine was
strengthened. In office, the Trump administration, unlike Obama's, sent weapons to Kyiv.
That Post story illustrates the success of the Clinton operation in convincing many media
outlets and government agencies to interpret – and misinterpret – the Trump
campaign through the lens of Russian collusion. This, in turn, erased skepticism they should
have had in assessing the charges leveled for Clinton through Christopher Steele and Fusion
GPS.
In a July memo written after the DNC emails had been leaked during the Democrats'
convention, Steele alleged that the operation – the hack and the release of the emails
– had been orchestrated by the Russians. Then he claimed Moscow had done it with the full
knowledge of the Trump campaign. Manafort, Steele falsely claimed, was managing the
"well-developed conspiracy" for the Trump side.
Further, Steele claimed, in exchange for the DNC hack and subsequent publication of the
emails by WikiLeaks, the Trump team had agreed to sideline Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a
campaign issue. This was the Clinton campaign's first allegation of a Ukraine-related quid pro
quo. This was also false.
As Clinton operatives used Ukraine to falsely smear Trump, Manafort's ties to that country
threw the Trump campaign into disarray. On Aug. 19, 2016, Manafort resigned as campaign manager
following what the New York Times and others described as a wave of stories about his "dealings
with Russia-aligned leaders." The Times pushed the larger collusion narrative being spun by
Clinton, reporting that the Manafort dismissal "threw a spotlight on a glaring vulnerability
for Mr. Trump: his admiration for President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia."
The Times story also referenced its earlier article reporting that Manafort received illegal
cash payments for his Ukraine work. Manafort denied it.
One source for the Times story was former Ukrainian parliamentarian Serhiy Leshchenko, also
referred to in the whistleblower complaint. According to former Fusion GPS contractor Nellie
Ohr ,
Leshchenko was a source for Fusion GPS as well.
Two years later, in August 2018, Manafort pleaded guilty to tax and bank fraud connected to
his work in the Ukraine undertaken years before he joined the Trump campaign.
The Steele-Isikoff Nexus
With Manafort driven from the campaign just two months before the election, Clinton
operatives and the FBI zeroed in on another Trump adviser, Carter Page. Once again an alleged
Ukraine quid pro quo was at the center of it.
In July, Steele had alleged that Page was one of Manafort's "intermediaries" in the
"well-developed conspiracy" between Trump and Russia. The former British spy's second-hand
sources claimed that Page had met secretly with a Russian energy executive.
The executive, according to Steele, raised with Page the prospect of U.S.-Russia energy
cooperation in exchange for dropping sanctions imposed on Russia in 2014 for invading
Ukraine.
This second Ukraine-related quid pro quo was the subject of Michael Isikoff's Sept. 23 Yahoo
News article, based on information from Steele, whom Isikoff describes as an anonymous "Western
intelligence source."
A few weeks later, Steele revised his reporting on Page's meeting for a memo dated Oct. 18.
The British spy's unnamed sources changed their story, contending that the Trump adviser had
been offered a bribe if he convinced Trump to drop Ukraine-related sanctions. In a sign of how
deeply the media and FBI had accepted the Russiagate hoax, no one seemed to question that
laughably large amount of this alleged bribe – a brokerage fee on a sale of 19% of the
Russian oil giant Rosneft, which would have been worth at least tens of millions of
dollars.
On Oct. 21, the FBI obtained a warrant to spy on Page. The still heavily redacted warrant
shows that Steele's account of Page's meeting with the Russian energy executive to discuss
Ukraine sanctions was a key piece of evidence.
As supporting evidence, the bureau used Isikoff's article and two other Ukraine-related news
reports. One was the July Washington Post story alleging that the Trump campaign had weakened
the party's convention platform. The second article claimed that Trump had softened his support
for Ukraine after Page and Manafort joined the campaign.
This is one reason many consider the Steele dossier to be one of the least credible and most
successful pieces of opposition research in U.S. history.
Allegations Tie Up Incoming Trump Team
John Brennan: "High confidence" Putin had
developed a preference for Trump because of his "Russia-friendly positions" on Ukraine. AP
Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
Even as Clinton tied Trump to Russia and blamed both for hacks of the DNC servers, the Obama
administration downplayed Russian interference in the 2016 election so as not to taint
Clinton's widely expected victory. After Trump won, Obama retaliated. In late December, he
expelled Russian diplomats, closed their diplomatic facilities, and sanctioned Russia's
military intelligence service (GRU) and four of its senior officers.
A document released the following week showed why the administration had targeted the GRU.
According to the January 2017 intelligence community assessment of Russia's interference in the
2016 elections, the GRU was behind the DNC hack.
Further, then-CIA director John Brennan's handpicked teams of analysts assessed with "high
confidence" that Putin had developed a preference for Trump because of his "Russia-friendly
positions" on Ukraine.
Days later, Steele's reports were made public. According to his sources, the DNC hack was
part of a quid pro quo regarding Ukraine.
Now the connections between Trump and the Russians were lit up like a string of holiday
lights -- Obama had sanctioned the GRU because of the DNC hack, which the Russians engineered
on behalf of the Trump campaign in exchange for sidelining Ukraine as a campaign
issue.
Robert Mueller, testifying. His report made no mention of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson,
or Alexandra Chalupa. It discussed Ukraine only in relation to Manafort and Gates.
The operation continued to unfold as the FBI and DoJ pursued their counterintelligence probe
of Trump and associates, eventually leading to Mueller's appointment as special counsel.
Mueller's probe focused almost entirely on Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 election
and its possible connections to Trump. He and his team displayed no interest in exploring how
Clinton operatives had worked with foreign interests to sway the same election.
Still, Mueller's report found no evidence of collusion between the Trump circle and Russian
officials. The report makes no mention of Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, or Alexandra Chalupa.
Leshschenko appears only in a footnote. The report discusses Ukraine only in relation to
Manafort and his business associate Rick Gates.
Now, the Ukraine Chapter
But Ukraine's new starring role was still to come. The Intelligence Community's Inspector
General relayed the newly disclosed "whistleblower" complaint from the CIA analyst to the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence during a transitional period. Both DNI Dan
Coats and Deputy Director Sue Gordon had
just resigned when the whistleblower's complaint reached Acting DNI Joseph Maguire on Aug.
16, his first day on the job.
Previously, the ICIG's whistleblower's form required first-hand knowledge of the reported
concern to file a complaint. The
updated form , which was "revised after press inquiries" regarding the whistleblower's
complaint,
eliminated the requirement of first-hand knowledge. The CIA officer's complaint appears to
provide only hearsay.
Adam Schiff: Apparently knew of whistleblower complaint before he subpoenaed it.
In September, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff issued a subpoena to Maguire
to produce the complaint. Yet Schiff apparently already knew its contents. More than two weeks
earlier, he'd written on Twitter , "Trump
is withholding vital military aid to Ukraine, while his personal lawyer seeks help from the
Ukraine government to investigate his political opponent." A New York Times story last week reported that Schiff was briefed
by an aide on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint before it was filed with the
ICIG.
In driving the whistleblower chapter of the Russiagate operation, Schiff reprised the part
he played in its earlier chapters. For nearly two years the California congressman filled the
media with claims there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion that would bring
down the president.
On Sept. 13, ODNI's general counsel wrote Schiff and other leaders of the House and Senate
intelligence committees that since the whistleblower's complaint did not deal with intelligence
activities or the conduct a member of the intelligence community (i.e., the president is not a
member of the IC), it did not find it a matter of urgent concern.
Greg Miller, Washington
Post: Whistleblower news was leaked to him and other journalists who earlier shared a
Pulitzer Prize
relying on similar leaks against Trump about a Russia conspiracy, which proved unfounded.
Regardless, the subject matter, Trump's "promise" to a foreign official, was leaked for a
Sept. 18 Washington Post story
including the bylines of Greg Miller and Ellen Nakashima, two of the reporters who in February
2017 received a seminal leak in the Trump-Russia case, regarding a conversation between Trump's
erstwhile national security adviser, Michael Flynn, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
The same political operatives and journalists appear throughout the anti-Trump operation, as
do the same themes and even the same language.
The main charge in the whistleblower's complaint – that Trump solicited "interference
from a foreign country in the 2020 election" – echoes the title of the Mueller report,
"Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election . " The
whistleblower's thesis is identical to the dossier's: Trump sought dirt on a political rival
regarding Ukraine-related issues on a quid pro quo basis.
The nature of the call to Zelensky so alarmed Trump officials seeking to protect the
president, according to the unnamed CIA officer, that they stored the transcript in a secure
system usually reserved for programs like covert action. It was a detail contrived to further
smear Trump as deceptive, but Trump deputies had begun using the system after his conversations
with world leaders were leaked to the press early during the administration.
In February 2017, the Washington Post's Miller had the lead byline on a
story based on leaks of Trump's conversations with Australia's prime minister and Mexico's
president. Six months later, the Post published the entire transcripts
of both conversations in another Miller story.
It was through such national security correspondents that anti-Trump sources -- intelligence
officials -- pushed leaks of classified information and other tidbits intended to damage Trump
into the media. There it merged with other anti-Trump currents in nearly every corner of the
press, where it blossomed into Russiagate.
After a nearly two-year investigation, the special counsel found no evidence of collusion.
But given the scale of the damage done to the public sphere, clearly something had happened.
Among other things, the FBI had put a presidential campaign under surveillance.
It was logical that Trump, and millions of other Americans, wanted to know the origins of
the Russia probe and that the investigative work would be taken up by the Department of
Justice. Since DoJ and FBI officials at the highest levels were implicated, it was natural that
the attorney general himself would have a hand in the investigation.
Thus the panicked clamor coursing through the press at present is not about Joe Biden or
his son or Trump's alleged commerce with foreign powers. Rather, it is the fear that the
Russiagate bubble is likely to burst. And the fear that none of the reporters, intelligence
officials, and political operatives responsible for pushing the largest and most destructive
conspiracy theory in American history will escape the ruin.
Recently, one of my email pals sent me an incredible opinion piece from Howell Woltz at The
International Centre for Justice, in Warsaw, Poland. He is the author of " Justice Denied: The
United States vs. the People," a very interesting book about the US justice system and federal
prisons and the need for some serious reform. Occasionally, an opinion piece is so profound
that it simply MUST be disseminated to a much wider audience than a simple blog post. This is
one of such article. In this commentary, he opines on the DoJ/FBI cabal's ongoing coup against
POTUS while explaining some key connections among John Brennan , Mitt Romney, Cofer Black,
Burisma Holdings (Ukraine), Bararck Obama, Hillary Clinton, and all the rest. It fills in a lot
of gaps and explains much about what is going on with respect to the Ukraine kerfuffle.
While I can't vouch for the veracity of all the claims here, this just rings true to me and
connects a lot of very interesting dots. As usual, I caution you to "trust but verify." If
nothing else, it serves as a departure point for your own dot-connecting activities. The more
independent analysis is conducted by all, the clearer picture becomes over time. These are some
extended excerpts from Woltz's opinion piece. More than a few light bulbs may be turned on for
you after reading this. Note: this article was published on 8 October, so keep this in mind as
you read it.
Donald J. Trump is not a RINO or DC insider. He's a tough-guy billionaire from Queens, New
York and a street-fighter. When the Democrats realised last week that Trump was actually
heading up his own investigation rather than leaving it to their Deep State apparatchiks -- and
doing so directly with the leaders of Ukraine, Australia, and Italy (and perhaps the U.K.) --
they did the political equivalent of starting a fire in a theatre. House of Representatives
Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announced impeachment proceedings against the president just three hours
after stating in a speech that she would not. Speaker Pelosi had zero evidence, cause, stated
reason and lacked the required vote of the House of Representatives to do so, but announced it
anyway.
Strangely enough and what caught my attention Mitt Romney jumped on the "Impeach Trump"
train that same day. How did Nancy go from "There will be no impeachment proceedings," that
morning in New York to announcing impeachment proceedings that afternoon when she got back to
Washington, DC? Meet the Grand Master of the Deep State in America. Admitted Communist, John
Brennan, who has some serious explaining to do now that his attempted coup of U.S. President
Donald Trump has been exposed and continues! So why did Romney want to shut down any
investigation of Ukraine's role as well? That's the question that got this investigation
started and it's shocking.
Romney's National Security Advisor, Joseph Cofer Black, sits on the Board of the same
Burisma Holdings that was being investigated for corruption back in 2014, and the Vice
President and Obama Administration demanded be shut down. Why? Because Burisma was/is their
vehicle for corrupt practices in Eastern Europe. And CIA Director, John Brennan's 9/11 Deep
State partner, Cofer Black, is still the link to all that goes on there. In fact, I can state
unequivocally that Burisma is the centre of Ukraine corruption and the Democrats' shadow
organisation for corrupt activities. I live in Eastern Europe (Poland) and my sources are
first-hand. And I know this matters greatly to Mitt Romney as he is not yet done with politics.
If Black is busted, it will reflect on Romney, and it only makes sense that Cofer Black is the
Deep State 'plant' in case Romney ever rises above polishing knobs in the U.S. Senate. Romney
wants to run for President again in 2024 and if he wins, Cofer Black will be back with his
fingers on the strings either as DNI or CIA Chief of Corruption. Burisma Holdings is the hub of
U.S. Democrat activities to corrupt both Ukraine and American politics and there is proof.
Ukraine President Zelenskyy's win surprised both Brennan and Black's Deep State ops as much as
Trump's did in 2016 in America.
So who is this Cofer Black guy? Joseph Cofer Black, joined the CIA in 1974 and rose to be
Director of The National Counterterrorism Center, before joining Mitt Romney. If it were not
for researching this article, I admit, he was unknown to me as well. What a revelation. Black
was also the Head of Counterintelligence who somehow missed the 9/11 attacks on New York and
Washington, though according to The Economist , 16 foreign leaders and heads of
intelligence agencies warned him it was not only going to happen but when. Oh well. And nothing
was done about Cofer Black for this, indicating this is what the Deep State wanted. But it goes
deeper. John Brennan and this guy, Cofer Black, are how 19 terrorists got into the U.S.A. to
attack the U.S. on 9/11.
Editor Harry will jump on me or make Nurse Ratched give me a dose of Castor Oil if I say
something I can't prove, so I'm just going to quote the CIA whistleblower at the Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia CIA staff hearing, who is the source: "According to Freedom Outpost, Brennan was the CIA
station chief in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, when the 9/11 hijackers were given visas to travel to
the United States. In September 2014, a whistleblower named Greg Ford, a former military
intelligence officer, told Ground Zero Radio's Clyde Lewis that the CIA had objections to the
approval of those visas but Brennan actually overrode them."
The second in command of the CIA station was directly quoted by the whistleblower as saying,
'No way, absolutely we are not going to stamp those visas.' But CIA Saudi station chief, John
Brennan, overrode the officer in charge and ordered the visas to be stamped and issued. They
came, they learned to 'take off' an airplane but said they were not interested in 'how to
land.' Cofer Black ignored the reports about this strange behaviour, though it was made, I know
as a fact, from the people who made it. I was also a Florida-based pilot in 2001.
You know the rest of the story. America lost over 3,000 citizens that day, and I sat for an
hour trying to get past the terrorist pilots' apartment in Coral Springs, Florida. Freedom
Outpost concluded, "If it weren't for John Brennan, 9/11 may never have happened." I'd add to
that, if Cofer Black weren't the head of Counterterrorism, Brennan could not have gotten his
men in to do the job. It took (these) two to tango. That's an opinion, not news, but I'll bet
money I don't have, that I'm right as it's a no risk bet. These are partners in crime.
"Joseph Cofer Black – the former Director of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center
(1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004)."
"Mr. Black is an internationally recognized authority on counterterrorism, cyber security,
national security, and foreign affairs." (these are quotes from Burisma's website)
Brennan definitely had help in this. These terrorists had to have someone at the highest
level in U.S. Counterintelligence to let their mission come to pass and succeed by ignoring all
the warnings. They even took their flight training near my home, and I remember being locked
down in Coral Springs, FL after 9/11 where they lived for three days while the FBI went through
their apartment just a few blocks away. And this is where Romney's man, Joseph Cofer Black,
comes in. He was the partner in crime of John Brennan, (the Deep State Master), as well as
being Mitt Romney's National Security Advisor. Bad news for Mittens. And Cofer Black is the
reason Romney is desperate to have President Trump's real investigation shut down. As Obama's
CIA Director, John Brennan was also in charge of the dirty tricks campaign against
then-candidate, Donald Trump. All of that has now been uncovered by investigative reporters
Gregg Jarrett ( The Russia Hoax) and Peter Schweizer ( Secret Empires) with
enough references to satisfy Editor Harry and Nurse Ratched.
Amazingly, the plot was actually laid by the Deep State in 2014 before they even knew Trump
would be Hillary's foil in 2016. I found that part pretty amazing. The Ukraine/Russia story was
created for whomever was the candidate to run against Hillary Clinton.
For John Brennan, it really didn't matter to him who ran on the Republican side. He just
cared that whomever it was, lost to the Deep State's choice – Hillary Clinton. Brennan,
Black, James Clapper, James Comey and a host of others were prepared to make sure of it. It was
exposed just last week that Brennan flew under a fake passport to avoid detection on his trip
to set this up in Eastern Europe as early as 2015. There is no explanation for a CIA Director
to do this unless what he was doing was illegal.
Now let's go back to Joseph Cofer Black. He is Romney's Ukraine man, and Brennan's long-time
associate who is still covering here in Eastern Europe (from where I am reporting) for the Deep
State in America. Brennan came back Stateside from the Saudi Arabian CIA office the year after
arranging for the 9/11 attackers to get into America. So what did he do? He took over CIA
Counterintelligence from his partner, Cofer Black. Convenient, eh? The Counterintelligence guy
who 'missed' the 16 warnings on 9/11, and the guy who granted the attackers visas to get into
the U.S. to take pilot training and do it, swap jobs, perhaps to prevent detection? Well it
worked until now.
And history repeats. The tag team is back at it. Barack Obama chose (or was told) to make
John Brennan his CIA Director. Brennan then sets up the Russian hoax through the Ukraine
government and intel operatives covertly in 2015 to target any candidate who might face Hillary
Clinton in 2016.
Once Trump became the Republican candidate, President Obama authorised illegal spying on
Trump's campaign, we now know, because it was labeled a 'counterintelligence operation' which
can only be authorised by a President.
The script for the Ukraine/Russia hoax was actually written back in 2007 to use against
Republican candidate, John McCain. It was temporarily deployed but then shut down and recycled
when it was clear RINO McCain would get his ass handed to him by Obama in 2008 without CIA
involvement.. So, Brennan decided to use the script in 2016. The Republican's candidate would
be targeted using the same plan, according to one of Obama's own secret service agents, now
author, Dan Bongino, in his new book, Exonerated (just out last week).
The original script was written by Fusion GPS owner, Glenn Simpson. That's the same man and
company who would be paid $12 million by the Clinton Campaign, The Democrat National Committee
and the FBI in 2016 for "the Steele dossier" that caused the Russia Hoax against Trump --
though actually written years earlier. Glenn Simpson simply changed the names.
Unfortunately, there was a problem. Socialist Bernie Sanders was leading the Democrats side
over the Chosen, Hillary, and had to be eliminated. To achieve this, the Clintons literally did
a forced takeover of The Democrat National Committee and its funds. They immediately cut off
Hillary's rival, Bernie Sander's campaign (as admitted by former DNC Director, Donna Brazille,
on television) eliminating Bernie from the race.
John Brennan then began leaking the 'dossier' to Congressional Democrats, including
then-[Senate Minority Leader], Harry Reid and their media co-conspirators to begin the take
down of the Republican candidate, Donald J. Trump. Ironically, Brennan also leaked the fake
dossier to Sen. John McCain, it's original target, and McCain leaked it back to its original
source -- the FBI -- to apply for warrants to spy on Trump using their own laundered
information. The FBI literally paid for the fabricated information, leaked it to the media and
politicians who hated Trump, then used their reports and that dossier when fed back to them, to
get warrants to spy on Trump. But then the kimchee hits the fan for real. Trump gets elected!
So, who jumps over to Ukraine to protect the conspiracy from being found out? Brennan's 9/11
partner, Joseph Cofer Black
Within days of Trump's inauguration was immediately put in place in Ukraine to prevent
anyone from talking. The Board of Burisma Holdings -- the same centre of Ukraine corruption
used by Joe Biden in 2014 to enrich his kid -- was the base from which to shield the Democrat
origins of the Russia Hoax and its intel roots from any real investigation.
By February of 2017, Cofer Black was a voting member of the Board of Burisma. You'll hear
the screams around the world this week as the democrats realise that Trump has taken this
investigation on personally rather than leaving it to the deep state vermin. It's all starting
to fit together now, isn't it? So, here's what to expect.
Yes. There will be wailing a-plenty and gnashing of teeth over coming days, and this is the
point where the president's security needs to be at an all-time high, cause The Deep State is
spinning out of control and desperate. If the new leaders of the nations that aided Brennan,
Black and the Dems -- all of whom are admirers of POTUS -- have investigated the crimes of
their predecessors as Trump asked, he likely has the evidence on his desk rather than having it
hidden by the Deep State criminals.
This past Friday, it became known that President Trump had not only launched his own
investigation with foreign leaders into the 2016 Election tampering, but that it was almost
complete. As soon as that happened, the freak-out began. At 65 years of age, I've not seen one
quite like it. The Deep State was and is in paroxysms of unmitigated fear and psychosis. They
ramped up an immediate media assault using the usual outlets -- CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times
and Washington Post -- and the same exact leak specialists who put America through The Russia
Hoax.
The media spectacle on Friday past was immediately followed with a sua sponte
announcement by Speaker Pelosi that she was impeaching the President -- a power she does not
possess no matter how many cocktails she's had. A completely false narrative was spun of what
was said in President Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, knowing Trump
would never allow them to have a copy of the classified transcript to disprove their lies. But
guess what? Within 24 hours, in another act of unprecedented transparency The Donald did just
that. He released the full, unredacted transcript of the call, publicly proving them all to be
Pinocchios. And I just watched his Attorney, Rudy Giuliani, announce that he is drafting a
lawsuit to file against those who lied about his client, Donald Trump -- another unprecedented
event to my knowledge.
For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job
keeping from the American public the name of the anonymous "whistleblower" who triggered
impeachment proceedings against President Trump -- even though his identity is an open secret
inside the Beltway.
Eric Ciaramella as a class of 2004 Connecticut prep student: He later
moved on to Yale and the White House. Now he could be at the center of an impeachment storm.
Chase Collegiate School, Waterbury, Conn./The Magpie
More than two months after the official filed his complaint, pretty much all that's known
publicly about him is that he is a CIA analyst who at one point was detailed to the White House
and is now back working at the CIA.
But the name of a government official fitting that description -- Eric Ciaramella -- has
been raised privately in impeachment depositions, according to officials with direct knowledge
of the proceedings, as well as in at least one open hearing held by a House committee not
involved in the impeachment inquiry. Fearing their anonymous witness could be exposed,
Democrats this week blocked Republicans from asking more questions about him and intend to
redact his name from all deposition transcripts.
RealClearInvestigations is disclosing the name because of the public's interest in learning
details of an effort to remove a sitting president from office. Further, the official's status
as a "whistleblower" is complicated by his being a hearsay reporter of accusations against the
president, one who has "some indicia of an arguable political bias in favor of a rival
political candidate" -- as the Intelligence Community Inspector General
phrased it circumspectly in originally fielding his complaint.
Federal documents reveal that the 33-year-old Ciaramella, a registered Democrat held over
from the Obama White House, previously worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former
CIA Director John Brennan, a vocal critic of Trump who helped initiate the Russia "collusion"
investigation of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election.
Joe Biden: Invited Ciaramella
to state luncheon with Italian premier. Also invited: Brennan, Comey, Clapper. AP Photo/Matt
Rourke
Further, Ciaramella (pronounced char-a-MEL-ah) left his National Security Council posting in
the White House's West Wing in mid-2017 amid concerns about negative leaks to the media. He has
since returned to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
"He was accused of working against Trump and leaking against Trump," said a former NSC
official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
Also, Ciaramella huddled for "guidance" with the staff of House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Adam Schiff, including former colleagues also held over from the Obama era whom
Schiff's office had recently recruited from the NSC. (Schiff is the lead prosecutor in the
impeachment inquiry.)
And Ciaramella worked with a Democratic National Committee operative who dug up
dirt on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election, inviting her into the White House for
meetings, former White House colleagues said. The operative, Alexandra Chalupa, a
Ukrainian-American who supported Hillary Clinton, led an effort to link the Republican campaign
to the Russian government. "He knows her. He had her in the White House," said one former
co-worker, who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter.
Alexandra Chalupa: DNC
oppo researcher was invited to the Obama White House by Ciaramella. Afric Vision
NouvelleTV/YouTube
Documents
confirm the DNC opposition researcher attended at least one White House meeting with Ciaramella
in November 2015. She visited the White House with a number of Ukrainian officials
lobbying the Obama administration for aid for Ukraine.
With Ciaramella's name long under wraps, interest in the intelligence analyst has become so
high that a handful of former colleagues have compiled a roughly 40-page research dossier on
him. A classified version of the document is circulating on Capitol Hill, and briefings have
been conducted based on it. One briefed Republican has been planning to unmask the
whistleblower in a speech on the House floor.
On the Internet, meanwhile, Ciaramella's name for weeks has been bandied about on Twitter
feeds and intelligence blogs as the suspected person who blew the whistle on the president. The
mainstream media are also aware of his name.
Fred Fleitz, Trump adviser: "Everyone knows who
he is." fredfleitz.com/Wikimedia
"Everyone knows who he is. CNN knows. The Washington Post knows. The New York Times knows.
Congress knows. The White House knows. Even the president knows who he is," said Fred Fleitz, a
former CIA analyst and national security adviser to Trump, who has fielded dozens of calls from
the media.
Yet a rare hush has swept across the Potomac. The usually gossipy nation's capital remains
uncharacteristically -- and curiously -- mum, especially considering the magnitude of this
story, only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.
Trump supporters blame the conspiracy of silence on a "corrupt" and "biased" media trying to
protect the whistleblower from due scrutiny about his political motives. They also complain
Democrats have falsely claimed that exposing his identity would violate whistleblower
protections, even though the relevant statute provides limited, not blanket, anonymity –
and doesn't cover press disclosures. His Democrat attorneys, meanwhile, have warned that outing
him would put him and his family "at risk of harm," although government security personnel have
been assigned to protect him.
"They're hiding him," Fleitz asserted. "They're hiding him because of his political
bias."
A CIA officer specializing in Russia and Ukraine, Ciaramella was detailed over to the
National Security Council from the agency in the summer of 2015, working under Susan Rice,
President Obama's national security adviser. He also worked closely with the former vice
president.
Susan Rice: Ciaramella worked under Obama's national security adviser. AP
Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File
Federal
records show that Biden's office invited Ciaramella to an October 2016 state luncheon the
vice president hosted for Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi. Other invited guests included
Brennan, as well as then-FBI Director James Comey and then-National Intelligence Director James
Clapper.
Several U.S. officials told RealClearInvestigations that the invitation that was extended to
Ciaramella, a relatively low-level GS-13 federal employee, was unusual and signaled he was
politically connected inside the Obama White House.
Former White House officials said Ciaramella worked on Ukrainian policy issues for Biden in
2015 and 2016, when the vice president was President Obama's "point man" for Ukraine. A Yale
graduate, Ciaramella is said to speak Russian and Ukrainian, as well as Arabic. He had been
assigned to the NSC by Brennan.
He was held over into the Trump administration, and headed the Ukraine desk at the NSC,
eventually transitioning into the West Wing, until June 2017.
"He was moved over to the front office" to temporarily fill a vacancy, said a former White
House official, where he "saw everything, read everything."
The official added that it soon became clear among NSC staff that Ciaramella opposed the new
Republican president's foreign policies. "My recollection of Eric is that he was very smart and
very passionate, particularly about Ukraine and Russia. That was his thing – Ukraine," he
said. "He didn't exactly hide his passion with respect to what he thought was the right thing
to do with Ukraine and Russia, and his views were at odds with the president's policies."
"So I wouldn't be surprised if he was the whistleblower," the official said.
In May 2017, Ciaramella went "outside his chain of command," according to a former NSC
co-worker, to send an email alerting another agency that Trump
happened to hold a meeting with Russian diplomats in the Oval Office the day after firing
Comey, who led the Trump-Russia investigation. The email also noted that Russian President
Vladimir Putin had phoned the president a week earlier.
Contents of the email appear to have ended up in the media, which reported Trump boasted to
the Russian officials about firing Comey, whom he allegedly called "crazy, a real nut job."
In effect, Ciaramella helped generate the "Putin fired Comey" narrative, according to the
research dossier making the rounds in Congress, a copy of which was obtained by
RealClearInvestigations.
Ciaramella allegedly argued that "President Putin suggested that President Trump fire
Comey," the report said. "In the days after Comey's firing, this presidential action was used
to further political and media calls for the standup [sic] of the special counsel to
investigate 'Russia collusion.' "
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no conspiracy between Trump and Putin.
Ciaramella's email was cited in a footnote in his report, which mentions only
Ciaramella's name, the date and the recipients "Kelly et al." Former colleagues said the main
recipient was then-Homeland Security Director John Kelly..
House Intelligence Committee
Chairman Adam Schiff: "Whistleblower" complaint amounts to impeachable offense. AP Photo/J.
Scott Applewhite
Ciaramella left the Trump White House soon after Mueller was appointed. Attempts to reach
Ciaramella were unsuccessful, although his father said in a phone interview from Hartford,
where he is a bank executive, that he doubted his son was the whistleblower. "He didn't have
that kind of access to that kind of information," Tony Ciaramella said. "He's just a guy going
to work every day." The whistleblower's lawyers did not answer emails and phone calls seeking
comment. CIA spokesman Luis Rossello declined comment, saying, "Anything on the whistleblower,
we are referring to ODNI." The Office of the Director of National Intelligence did not respond
to requests for comment.
In his complaint ,
the whistleblower charged that the president used "the power of his office to solicit
interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election." Specifically, he cited a
controversial July 25 phone call from the White House residence in which Trump asked Ukraine's
new president to help investigate the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation the Obama
administration initiated against his campaign, citing reports that "a lot of it started with
Ukraine," where the former pro-Hillary Clinton regime in Kiev worked with Obama diplomats and
Chalupa to try to "sabotage"
Trump's run for president.
Later in the conversation
, Trump also requested information about Biden and his son, since "Biden went around bragging
that he" had fired the chief Ukrainian prosecutor at the time a Ukrainian oligarch, who gave
Biden's son a lucrative seat on the board of his energy conglomerate, was under investigation
for corruption.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff argued the
whistleblower's complaint, though admittedly based on second-hand information, amounts to an
impeachable offense, and they subsequently launched an impeachment inquiry that has largely
been conducted in secret.
The whistleblower filed his "urgent" report against Trump with the I.C. inspector general on
Aug. 12, but it was not publicly released until Sept. 26.
Prior to filing, he had met with Schiff's Democratic staff for "guidance." At first, the
California lawmaker denied the contacts, but later admitted that his office did, in fact, meet
with the whistleblower early on.
Sean Misko: One of Ciaramella's closest allies at the NSC,
now on Schiff's staff. Center for a New American Security
Earlier this year, Schiff recruited two of Ciaramella's closest allies at the NSC -- both
whom were also Obama holdovers -- to join his committee staff. He hired one, Sean Misko, in
August -- the same month the whistleblower complaint was filed.
During closed-door depositions taken in the impeachment inquiry, Misko has been observed
handing notes to the lead counsel for the impeachment inquiry, Daniel Goldman, as he asks
questions of Trump administration witnesses, officials with direct knowledge of the proceedings
told RealClearInvestigations.
Republicans participating in the restricted inquiry hearings have been asking witnesses
about Ciaramella and repeatedly injecting his name into the deposition record, angering Schiff
and Democrats, who sources say are planning to scrub the references to Ciaramella from any
transcripts of the hearings they may agree to release.
"Their reaction tells you something," said one official familiar with the inquiry.
For example, sources said Ciaramella's name was invoked by GOP committee members during the
closed-door testimony of former NSC official Fiona Hill on Oct. 14. Ciaramella worked with
Hill, another Obama holdover, in the West Wing.
During Tuesday's deposition of NSC official Alexander Vindman, Democrats shut down a line of
inquiry by Republicans because they said it risked revealing the identity of the whistleblower.
Republicans wanted to know with whom Vindman spoke within the administration about his concerns
regarding Trump's call to Ukraine. But Schiff instructed the witness not to answer the
questions, which
reportedly sparked a shouting match between Democrats and Republicans.
Determined to keep the whistleblower's identity secret, Schiff recently announced it may not
be necessary for him to testify even in closed session. Republicans argue that by hiding his
identity, the public cannot assess his motives for striking out against the president. And they
worry his political bias could color inquiry testimony and findings unless it's exposed.
Rep. Jim Jordan, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, asserted the American
people have the right to know the person who is trying to bring down the president for whom 63
million voted.
"It's tough to determine someone's credibility if you can't put them under oath and ask them
questions," he said.
Added Jordan: "The people want to know. I want to get to the truth."
Rep. Louis Gohmert:
Ciaramella was "supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its
most corrupt, and he didn't blow any whistles on their corruption." AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
In an open House Natural Resources Committee hearing last week, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
seemingly out of left field asked a witness about "Eric Ciaramella of the Obama National
Security Council," in what the Washington press corps took as a bid to out the whistleblower.
He later told a Dallas radio station he knew the whistleblower's name. "A lot of us in
Washington know who it is," Gohmert said, adding he's a "very staunch Democrat" who was
"supposed to be a point person on Ukraine, during the time when Ukraine was its most corrupt,
and he didn't blow any whistles on their corruption."
The Washington Post ran a
news story over the weekend critical of Republicans for allegedly trying to "unmask" the
whistleblower, for attempting to do the job journalists would normally do. Last week, the paper
ran an
op-ed by the whistleblower's attorneys claiming he was no longer relevant to the inquiry
and beseeching the public to let their client slip back into obscurity.
For its part, the New York Times ran a
story last month reporting details about the whistleblower's background, but stopped short
of fully identifying him, suggesting it didn't know his politics or even his name. "Little else
is known about him," the paper claimed.
On Thursday, Democrats plan a House vote on new impeachment-inquiry rules that would give
Republicans for the first time the ability to call their own witnesses. Only, their requests
must first be approved by the Democrats. So there is a good chance the whistleblower, perhaps
the most important witness of all, will remain protected from critical examination.
This and all other original articles created by RealClearInvestigations may be republished
for free with attribution. (These terms do not apply to outside articles linked on the
site.)
Yesterday, Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, an officer on loan to the National
Security Agency, testified before Congress on his feelings, and I'll underscore that word
because we already know the facts, about President Trump's conversation with Ukraine President
Zelensky. I'm pretty much in agreement with my colleague Bonchie (see
Alexander Vindman's Impeachment Testimony Is Largely Irrelevant, Stop Freaking Out About It
), as we already know what was said and what happened, the color commentary of a mid-grade
officer might sell some papers and get some clicks and create a new hero for the #Resistance,
but it is pretty close to meaningless.
Two major things came out of this: a full-throated hagiographic defense of Vindman by the
left and the media and NeverTrumpo and fewer, but vitriolic attacks, on Vindman.
This is my two cents on the controversy.
The hero tag gets used rather indiscriminately and so it has been applied to Vindman. I
don't know the guy but I can tell you a lot about him by his ribbon bar.
This is what we have:
First row:
Purple Heart
Defense Meritorious Service Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Second row:
Meritorious Service Medal
Army Commendation Medal w/3 Oak Leaf Clusters
Army Achievement Medal w/1 Oak Leaf Cluster
Third row:
National Defense Service Medal
Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal
Global War on Terrorism Service Medal
Korean Defense Service Medal
Army Service Ribbon
Army Overseas Service Ribbon w/numeral 2
There are no ribbons for combat heroism. The absence of a Bronze Star, with or without 'V'
device, indicates he got an Army Commendation Medal during his combat tour. I won't throw shade
on the "wrong time, wrong place" medal (my ROTC detachment commander was an SF officer who had
six Purple Hearts, that's what he called them), the Purple Heart, but I will note that Dan
Crenshaw got one and lost an eye. John Kerry got three and never went to a hospital. He's
served at least two tours as a field grade officer in a high-level Defense staff position. He's
only served overseas twice, once in Iraq and once in Korea. It is sort of a shock to me to see
an infantry officer wear an Army Achievement Medal. I have three and never bothered putting
them on my ribbon bar.
The primary reason I'm even mentioning this is because this bullsh** is circulating on
Twitter. It is mostly false, starting with his bio. He was commissioned via Army ROTC in
January 1999. He has never completed the Special Forces Officers Qualification Course. He has
no prior enlisted service. He has very few of the 'scare badges' attributed to him in this
tweet. This is not a ding on Vindman but it shows the lack of honesty and absence of integrity
common to his loudest defenders.
He's a foreign area officer which means he has not served in a combat unit since he was in
Iraq. I was selected to be an FAO, but I sobered up and applied for reclassification into
Operations, Plans, and Training.
Without getting into parsing words over what "hero" means, we know with great certainty that
his service in combat was average, it was meritorious but pedestrian. NTTAWWT.
The veneration for guys in uniform only attaches to people who are supporting leftist
causes. Oliver North, an actual combat stud, and John Poindexter, who had a distinguished
career, were vilified. Tulsi Gabbard was a hero until she took a 2×4 to Kamala Harris.
Now she's a Russian tool. James Comey and Robert Mueller are heroes. Michael Flynn, a guy with
an outstanding record and who, personally, saved dozens if not hundreds of American lives by
his reforming of tactical intelligence operations, is facing prison based on an indictment that
hardly passes the laugh test.
So spare me the hero bunkum. And regardless, as Greg "Pappy" Boyington was fond of saying,
"Show me a hero, and I'll show you a bum." He is right more often than we'd care to admit. The
man most responsible for the defeat of the British Army at Saratoga and turning the tide of the
war in favor of our young nation was none other than Benedict Arnold.
There is also an effort, like
this by obnoxious RINO Charlie Dent , to drape the robe of patriotism on Vindman. As Samuel
Johnson noted a couple of centuries ago, "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." He
was referring to the practice of Prime Minister William Pitt and his administration of excusing
all of their actions by an appeal to patriotism. That is what I see going on with the
impeachment process. A truly illegitimate attempt to overturn an election is underway and its
fluffers call it patriotic. Vindman may very well be a patriot. Or he could be a time-serving
staff officer working his way towards a consulting job upon retirement. Or he could be any
number of other things. I don't know and neither does Charlie Dent or anyone else opining on
the subject. What I do know is that a lot of us have had our patriotism questioned constantly
for the past three years, so sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. As they say,
#NewRules, baby. I'm not going to question Vindman's patriotism but I'm certainly not going to
run interference for him either.
While I don't subscribe to questioning Vindman's loyalty, neither do I think deification is
in order. In my view, there is a huge open question about the degree to which he's
collaborating in a partisan hit on the Commander-in-Chief. It is fair–if not
required–to ask the questions and Vindman should be answering them publicly and with
alacrity.
At a minimum, we need to know why Vindman tried to
change the transcript of the president's phone call . We need to know why a FARA registered
agent of the Ukraine government lists him as among the people they have lobbied and if that is
considered acceptable for military officers on the National Security Council. If is it
acceptable, how does Vindman's record of contacts with one known Ukrainian agent compare to
those of his peers?
And we need a clear answer on Vindman's contact with agents of the Ukraine government to
help them develop strategies to improve their standing with the administration:
I don't know about the propriety of that; it becomes decidedly improper unless he was
cleared to do so and debriefed his superiors on the conversations. This NYT clip reads, to me,
like he didn't have clearance to help the Ukraine government develop negotiating strategies and
he's trying to elide past it now. I have to say that Chuck Schumer pulling out all the stops to
protect him sort of starts the sirens flashing: Ironically, as all military officer promotions
require the president to forward a list to the Senate for their advise and consent role, if
Trump doesn't want Vindman promoted there is precious little anyone can do about it until after
Trump leaves office.
We are also being told that criticizing Vindman is anti-Semitic. But, somehow, labeling
Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian asset is not anti-Hindu.
This is the bottom line. Lieutenant Colonel Vindman decided to inject himself into the
impeachment process. That is his right, and he might see it as his responsibility. But he
should have had no illusion about how this was going to play out. I, and many others, view the
impeachment process as part of a slow-motion coup that began shortly after November 6, 2016. To
expect to enlist for the coup attempt and be treated with kid gloves is simply not reasonable.
There are legitimate questions about Vindman's actions and motives and his service does not
give him access to the Immunity Idol.
In addition to the fired Shokin's claim that President Poroshenko warned him not to
investigate Burisma because it was not in the Bidens' interest, the notes say, the prosecutor
also said he "was warned to stop" by the then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt .
The State Department declined to explain this assertion about Pyatt, who was ambassador to
Ukraine from 2013 to 2016 and now is Ambassador to Greece. The Biden presidential campaign did
not respond to a request for comment.
Recounting Shokin's version of events, the notes say he "was called into Mr. Poroshenko's
office and told that the investigation into Burisma and the Managing Director where Hunter
Biden is on the board, has caused Joe Biden to hold up one billion dollars in U.S. aid to
Ukraine." Poroshenko later told Shokin that "he had to be fired as the aid to the Ukraine was
being withheld by Joe Biden," the Giuliani interview notes say.
Trump has claimed that Vice
President Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin because he was investigating
his son's employer.
"I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really
unfair," the president said, referring to Shokin in his July 25 phone call with Ukraine's
president, Volodymyr Zelensky. That call triggered the current impeachment crisis after a CIA
whistleblower alleged that Trump had pressured the Ukrainian leader to investigate Biden in
return for military aid.
A Politico
investigation in 2017 found that officials in Poroshenko's government helped Hillary
Clinton allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, notably Paul Manafort,
who before joining the Trump campaign was a political consultant for ousted Ukrainian President
Viktor Yanukovych.
Poroshenko's administration insisted at the time that Ukraine stayed neutral in the
race.
"... Not that this should surprise anyone who is familiar with Operation Mockingbird and The New York Times' part in co-operating with the CIA to plant CIA-origin reports with reporters who were either willing volunteers or unaware innocents or to practise self-censorship to appease the CIA. ..."
"... The Deep State has little to nothing to do with "rule of law." It is simply the law of the jungle: might makes right, exercised behind the scenes by the true power brokers and their minions. It is not partisan. It does use both parties to put on a show to distract the people while owning and using major parts of both ..."
"... It is they who have us in Syria now to steal Syria's oil. It is they who were enraged that Trump, an outsider, won the election contrary to all expectations and predictions. It is they who control most of the media. They are not the friends of the American people; in fact, they are our mortal enemies. ..."
"... They have hijacked our government and our foreign policy, which they operate largely for their own interests and not in the true interests of the American people. ..."
"... They use the media to sell us on what they are doing, appealing to our pride, our patriotism, the project of spreading peace, prosperity, democracy, and freedom to the world, the project of promoting human rights, the project of prosperity--whatever works to convince us that we should be in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Syria, and Kosovo, and in hundreds of military bases around the world. They equally exploit left and right; thus dividing us, they conquer. ..."
I'm sure I'm not the only person here who sees the headlines B has linked to and other NYT
headlines (and some of the actual articles themselves, if I have the time and patience to
read them) and realised that The New York Times itself is part of the Deep State it initially
denied and now wholeheartedly supports. Not that this should surprise anyone who is
familiar with Operation Mockingbird and The New York Times' part in co-operating with the CIA
to plant CIA-origin reports with reporters who were either willing volunteers or unaware
innocents or to practise self-censorship to appease the CIA.
The Deep State has little to nothing to do with "rule of law." It is simply the law of the
jungle: might makes right, exercised behind the scenes by the true power brokers and their
minions. It is not partisan. It does use both parties to put on a show to distract the people
while owning and using major parts of both.
It is they who have us in Syria now to steal
Syria's oil. It is they who were enraged that Trump, an outsider, won the election contrary
to all expectations and predictions. It is they who control most of the media. They are not
the friends of the American people; in fact, they are our mortal enemies.
They have hijacked
our government and our foreign policy, which they operate largely for their own interests and
not in the true interests of the American people.
They use the media to sell us on what they
are doing, appealing to our pride, our patriotism, the project of spreading peace,
prosperity, democracy, and freedom to the world, the project of promoting human rights, the
project of prosperity--whatever works to convince us that we should be in Iraq, and
Afghanistan, and Syria, and Kosovo, and in hundreds of military bases around the world. They
equally exploit left and right; thus dividing us, they conquer.
This implicates State Department in the attempt to run a false flag operation. If we add that the State Department is the
key organization behind for color revolution against Trump that picture becomes even more disturbing. This is really a neocon
vipers nest.
Notable quotes:
"... This was because the public had already been shown that highly suspicious chemical attacks tended to happen when the Trump administration begins pushing for a reversal of standing US Syria policy, as I noted in April 2017 immediately following the alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun. ..."
"... "I was able to predict Douma in 2018 because it happened already almost exactly 1 year prior, at Khan Shaykhun, April 4, 2017," Cox told me on Twitter earlier today. ..."
"... And, like clockwork, on April 7 2018 dozens of civilians in Douma were killed in an incident which was quickly reported as a Syrian government chemical attack by all the usual establishment narrative managers on Syria , with everyone from the White Helmets to Charles Lister to Eliot Higgins to Julian Röpcke loudly flagging it on social media to draw the attention of mainstream news outlets who were slower to pick up the story. ..."
"... Long before any investigation into this suspicious incident could even be begun, much less completed, the US State Department declared it to have been a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government, saying "the Assad regime must be held accountable", and that Russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the attack. Which was of course mighty convenient for US geostrategic interests. ..."
"... On the 14th of April 2018, the US, UK and France launched an airstrike on the Syrian government as punishment for using chemical weapons, citing secret "intelligence" which the US government claimed gave them "very high confidence that Syria was responsible." The public has to this day never been permitted to see this intelligence. This all happened before any formal international investigation could take place. ..."
"... The OPCW conducted their investigation, and in July 2018 published an interim report saying that "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties." This ruled out sarin gas, invalidating earlier reports by Syria war pundits like Charles Lister who claimed that sarin had been used, but it didn't rule out chlorine gas. In March of this year the OPCW issued its final report saying forensics were consistent with chlorine gas use and advancing a ballistics report which strongly implicated the Assad government by implying it was an aerial drop (Syrian opposition militias have no air force). The official Twitter account for the UK Delegation to the OPCW tweeted at the time that the report "confirms chemical weapons used, demonstrating the vital importance of OPCW's work. This confirmed chlorine attack was only the latest example of Asad regime's CW attacks on its own population." ..."
"... In May of this year, a leaked internal document from the OPCW investigation was published by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media which completely contradicts the findings of the official report published in March. The leaked Engineering Assessment said that "observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest there is a higher probability both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft," which would implicate the forces on the ground in the incident rather than the Assad government. ..."
"... The OPCW indirectly confirmed the document's authenticity by telling the press that its release had been "unauthorised". Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre published an excellent thread breaking down how the document invalidates the OPCW's claims which you can read by clicking here . Establishment narrative managers had a very difficult time spinning the fact that the OPCW had taken it upon itself to hide findings from the public which dissented from its official report on an incident which preceded an international act of war upon a sovereign nation, and all the implications that necessarily has for the legitimacy of the organization's other work. ..."
"... "Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion ." ..."
"... "The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing. " ..."
"... "The interpretation of the environmental analysis results is equally questionable. Many, if not all, of the so-called 'smoking gun' chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be not naturally present in the environment' (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc). The report, in fact, acknowledges this in Annex 4 para 7, even stating the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such chlorinated organic derivatives. Yet, no analysis results for these same control samples (Annex 5), which inspectors on the ground would have gone to great lengths to gather, were reported." ..."
"... "One alternative ascribing the origin of the crater to an explosive device was considered briefly but, despite an almost identical crater (understood to have resulted from a mortar penetrating the roof) being observed on an adjacent rooftop, was dismissed because of ' the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristics'. In contrast, explosive fragmentation characteristics were noted in the leaked study ." ..."
"... "Contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Director General of the OPCW it was evident to the panel that many of the inspectors in the Douma investigation were not involved or consulted in the post-deployment phase or had any contribution to, or knowledge of the content of the final report until it was made public . The panel is particularly troubled by organisational efforts to obfuscate and prevent inspectors from raising legitimate concerns about possible malpractices surrounding the Douma investigation." ..."
The Courage Foundation , an international
protection and advocacy group for whistleblowers, has
published the findings of a panel it
convened last week on the extremely suspicious behavior of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) in its
investigation of an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria last year. After hearing an extensive presentation from a member of the
OPCW's Douma investigation team, the panel's members (including a world-renowned former OPCW Director General)
report that they are "unanimous in expressing
our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma, near the Syrian capital of Damascus
on 7 April 2018."
I'll get to the panel and its findings in a moment, but first I should provide some historical background so that readers who
aren't intimately familiar with this ongoing scandal can fully appreciate the significance of this new development.
In late March of last year, President Trump
publicly
stated that the US military would soon be withdrawing troops from Syria, causing some with an ear to the ground like
independent US congressional candidate Steve
Cox to predict that there would shortly be a false flag chemical weapons attack in that nation. This was because the public had
already
been shown that highly suspicious chemical attacks tended to happen when the Trump administration begins pushing for a reversal
of standing US Syria policy, as I
noted in April 2017 immediately following the alleged attack in Khan Shaykhun.
"I was able to predict Douma in 2018 because it happened already almost exactly 1 year prior, at Khan Shaykhun, April 4, 2017,"
Cox told me on Twitter earlier
today.
"Khan Shaykhun also occurred within days of the Trump Admin saying we're leaving Syria."
There was immediate skepticism, partly because
acclaimed journalists like Sy Hersh have
been highlighting plot holes in the official story about chemical weapons in Syria since 2013, partly because Assad would stand nothing
to gain and everything to lose by using a banned yet
highly ineffective
weapon in a battle he'd already essentially
won in that region, and partly because the people controlling things on the ground in Douma were the
Al Qaeda-linked
extremist group Jaysh-al Islam and the incredibly shady
narrative management operation known as the White Helmets. Those groups, unlike the Assad government, most certainly would stand
everything to gain by staging a chemical attack in the desperate hope that it would draw NATO powers into attacking the Syrian government
and perhaps saving their necks.
Long before any investigation into this suspicious incident could even be begun, much less completed,
the US State Department declared it to have
been a chemical weapons attack perpetrated by the Syrian government, saying "the Assad regime must be held accountable", and that
Russia "ultimately bears responsibility" for the attack. Which was of course mighty convenient for US geostrategic interests.
On the 14th of April 2018, the US, UK and France
launched an airstrike on the Syrian government
as punishment for using chemical weapons,
citing secret "intelligence" which the US government claimed gave them "very high confidence that Syria was responsible." The
public has to this day never been permitted to see this intelligence. This all happened before any formal international investigation
could take place.
The OPCW conducted their investigation, and in July 2018
published an interim
report saying that "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental
samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties." This ruled out sarin gas, invalidating earlier reports by Syria war pundits
like Charles Lister who claimed that
sarin had been used, but it didn't rule out chlorine gas. In March of this year the OPCW
issued its final report saying forensics were consistent with chlorine gas use and advancing a ballistics report which strongly
implicated the Assad government by implying it was an aerial drop (Syrian opposition militias have no air force). The official Twitter
account for the UK Delegation to the OPCW tweeted
at the time that the report "confirms chemical weapons used, demonstrating the vital importance of OPCW's work. This confirmed
chlorine attack was only the latest example of Asad regime's CW attacks on its own population."
In May of this year, a leaked
internal document from the OPCW investigation was
published by the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media which completely contradicts the findings of the official report
published in March. The leaked Engineering Assessment
said that "observations at the scene of the two locations, together with subsequent analysis, suggest there is a higher probability
both cylinders were manually placed at those two locations rather than being delivered from aircraft," which would implicate the
forces on the ground in the incident rather than the Assad government.
The OPCW
indirectly confirmed the document's authenticity by telling the press that its release had been "unauthorised". Climate Audit's
Stephen McIntyre published an excellent thread breaking down how the document invalidates the OPCW's claims which you can read by
clicking here . Establishment narrative
managers
had a very difficult time spinning the fact that the OPCW had taken it upon itself to hide findings from the public which dissented
from its official report on an incident which preceded an international act of war upon a sovereign nation, and all the implications
that necessarily has for the legitimacy of the organization's other work.
Throughout this time, critical thinkers like myself have been aggressively smeared as deranged conspiracy theorists, war crimes
deniers and genocide deniers for expressing skepticism of the establishment-authorized narrative on Douma. Which takes us to today.
The Courage Foundation panel who met with the OPCW whistleblower consists of former OPCW Director General
José Bustani (whose highly successful peacemongering
once saw the lives of his
children threatened by John Bolton during the lead-up to the Iraq invasion in an attempt to remove him from his position), WikiLeaks
editor-in-chief Kristinn Hrafnsson , Professor of
International Law Richard Falk , former British Army
Major General John Holmes , Dr Helmut
Lohrer of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, German professor
Dr Guenter Meyer of the Centre for Research on the Arab
World, and former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East Elizabeth Murray of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity.
So these are not scrubs. These are not "conspiracy theorists" or "Russian propagandists". These are highly qualified and reputable
professionals expressing deep concerns in the opaque and manipulative way the OPCW appears to have conducted its investigation into
the Douma incident. Some highlights from their joint
statement and analytical points are
quoted below, with my own emphasis added in bold:
"Based on the whistleblower's extensive presentation, including internal emails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports,
we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma,
near the Syrian capital of Damascus on 7 April 2018. We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical
analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained
conclusion ."
"The convincing evidence of irregular behaviour in the OPCW investigation of the alleged Douma chemical attack confirms doubts
and suspicions I already had. I could make no sense of what I was reading in the international press. Even official reports of
investigations seemed incoherent at best. The picture is certainly clearer now, although very disturbing. "
~ Bustani
"A critical analysis of the
final report of the Douma
investigation left the panel in little doubt that conclusions drawn from each of the key evidentiary pillars of the investigation
(chemical analysis, toxicology, ballistics and witness testimonies,) are flawed and bear little relation to the facts. "
From the section on Chemical Analysis:
"The interpretation of the environmental analysis results is equally questionable. Many, if not all, of the so-called 'smoking
gun' chlorinated organic chemicals claimed to be not naturally present in the environment' (para 2.6) are in fact ubiquitous in
the background, either naturally or anthropogenically (wood preservatives, chlorinated water supplies etc). The report, in fact,
acknowledges this in Annex 4 para 7, even stating the importance of gathering control samples to measure the background for such
chlorinated organic derivatives. Yet, no analysis results for these same control samples (Annex 5), which inspectors on the ground
would have gone to great lengths to gather, were reported."
"Although the report stresses the 'levels' of the chlorinated organic chemicals as a basis for its conclusions (para 2.6),
it never mentions what those levels were -- high, low, trace, sub-trace? Without providing data on the levels of these so-called
'smoking-gun' chemicals either for background or test samples, it is impossible to know if they were not simply due to background
presence . In this regard, the panel is disturbed to learn that quantitative results for the levels of 'smoking gun' chemicals
in specific samples were available to the investigators but this decisive information was withheld from the report ."
"The final report also acknowledges that the tell-tale chemicals supposedly indicating chlorine use, can also be generated
by contact of samples with sodium hypochlorite, the principal ingredient of household bleaching agent (para 8.15). This game-changing
hypothesis is, however, dismissed (and as it transpires, incorrectly) by stating no bleaching was observed at the site of investigation.
(' At both locations, there were no visible signs of a bleach agent or discoloration due to contact with a bleach agent' ). The
panel has been informed that no such observation was recorded during the on-site inspection and in any case dismissing the hypothesis
simply by claiming the non -observation of discoloration in an already dusty and scorched environment seems tenuous and unscientific
."
From the section on Toxicology:
"The toxicological studies also reveal inconsistencies, incoherence and possible scientific irregularities. Consultations with
toxicologists are reported to have taken place in September and October 2018 (para 8.87 and Annex 3), but no mention is made of
what those same experts opined or concluded. Whilst the final toxicological assessment of the authors states ' it is not possible
to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical ' (para 9.6) the report nonetheless concludes there
were reasonable grounds to believe chlorine gas was the chemical (used as a weapon)."
"More worrying is the fact that the panel viewed documented evidence that showed other toxicologists had been consulted in
June 2018 prior to the release of the interim report. Expert opinions on that occasion were that the signs and symptoms observed
in videos and from witness accounts were not consistent with exposure to molecular chlorine or any reactive-chlorine-containing
chemical. Why no mention of this critical assessment, which contradicts that implied in the final report, was made is unclear
and of concern. "
From the section on Ballistic Studies:
"One alternative ascribing the origin of the crater to an explosive device was considered briefly but, despite an almost identical
crater (understood to have resulted from a mortar penetrating the roof) being observed on an adjacent rooftop, was dismissed because
of ' the absence of primary and secondary fragmentation characteristics'. In contrast, explosive fragmentation characteristics
were noted in the leaked study ."
From the section titled "Exclusion of inspectors and attempts to obfuscate":
"Contrary to what has been publicly stated by the Director General of the OPCW it was evident to the panel that many of the
inspectors in the Douma investigation were not involved or consulted in the post-deployment phase or had any contribution to,
or knowledge of the content of the final report until it was made public . The panel is particularly troubled by organisational
efforts to obfuscate and prevent inspectors from raising legitimate concerns about possible malpractices surrounding the Douma
investigation."
"... Update : House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) responded to Monday's announcement, tweeting "It's been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry. Today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment . ..."
"... The resolution will authorize the disclosure of deposition transcripts as well as set forth due process rights for President Trump, according to Pelosi. It will also establish a procedure for open hearings. ..."
Update : House minority leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) responded to Monday's announcement,
tweeting "It's been 34 days since Nancy Pelosi unilaterally declared her impeachment inquiry.
Today's backtracking is an admission that this process has been botched from the start. We will
not legitimize the Schiff/Pelosi sham impeachment ."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Monday that a vote will be held this Thursday "that
affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our
committees" as part of the Democrats' impeachment inquiry, according to the
Washington Post .
House Rules Committee Chairman Jim McGovern (D-MA) said the vote would "ensure transparency
and provide a clear path forward" as their investigations continue.
The resolution will authorize the disclosure of deposition transcripts as well as set forth
due process rights for President Trump, according to Pelosi. It will also establish a procedure
for open hearings.
Pelosi sent the following letter to House Democrats (emphasis ours):
Dear Democratic Colleague,
For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have
made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry "lacks the
necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding." They argue that, because the
House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.
Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of
Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Multiple past impeachments have
gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed
that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be
"an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority." More than 300 legal
scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that " the Constitution does not mandate
the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of
Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins. "
The Trump Administration has made up this argument -- apparently out of whole cloth -- in
order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal
agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized
subpoenas.
This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing
investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment
inquiry , including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any
other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.
This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people,
authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence
to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth
due process rights for the President and his Counsel. We are taking this step to eliminate
any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness
testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of
Representatives.
Nobody is above the law.
The announcement comes after former deputy national security adviser Charles Kupperman - who
served as a deputy to former national security adviser John Bolton - filed a Friday lawsuit
seeking guidance from a federal judge as to whether he should follow the advice of the
executive branch, which has instructed him not to attend, or Congress, according to the Post
.
As the judge has yet to rule on his request, Kupperman declined to appear.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), meanwhile, said that a
former deputy national security adviser had "no basis in law" to skip a deposition Monday and
that his failure to appear was further evidence of Trump's efforts to obstruct Congress. -
Washington Post
Kupperman was on the line when President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky
held a July 25 discussion in which Trump requested investigations into Democratic rival Joe
Biden, as well as allegations of Ukrainian election meddling in 2016 to benefit Hillary
Clinton.
Regardless of what do you think about Donald Trump, what intelligence community did was a plain vanilla coup d'état approved by Obama
and coordinated by run by Brennan faction in CIA. With active participation of factions of FBI (Counterintelligence department),
Department of Justice (several highly placed officials) and State Department (which is a real neocon vipers nest so the majority of high level officials,
especially connected with the Ukrainian color revolution participated) eagerly participated in the coup.
They left too many fingerprints in this and now Barr hopefully will brings some individuals to justice for this coup.
Notable quotes:
"... I was fortunate to participate in a forum in August sponsored by the Ron Paul Institute. Here is my presentation on the attempted coup by US Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community. ..."
I was fortunate to participate in
a forum in August sponsored by the Ron Paul Institute. Here is my presentation on the attempted
coup by US Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Community.
"... You'd think that the failure of Mr. Mueller's extravaganza might have chastened them just a little - a $32 million-dollar effort starring the most vicious partisan lawyers inside-the-Beltway, 2,800 subpoenas issued over two years, 500 search warrants exercised, and finally nothing whatever to pin on Mr. Trump - except the contra-legal assertion that now he must prove his innocence. ..."
"... General Michael Flynn , for ditto? You may have noticed that General Flynn's case is shaping up to be the biggest instance of prosecutorial misconduct since the Dreyfus affair (France, 1894-1906, which badly-educated Americans most certainly know nothing about). ..."
"... Last week he put out a narrative that US Chargé d'Affaires to Ukraine Bill Taylor fired a gun-that-smoked fer sure in testimony. Except, of course, as per Mr. Schiff's usual practice, he refused to issue any actual transcript of the interview in evidence, while there are plenty of indications that Mr. Taylor's second-hand gossip was roundly refuted under counter-questioning by the non-Jacobin minority members of the House intel Committee. ..."
"... Mr. Schiff's pattern lo these many months of strife has been to claim ultimate proof of wrongdoing only to have it blow up in his face. It's a face that many Americans are sick of seeing and hearing from, and I am serenely confident that before this colossal scandal is resolved, the Congressman from Hollywood will be fatally disgraced, as was his role-model, Senator Joseph McCarthy, before him. ..."
Judging by the volume of intemperate emails and angry social media blasts that come my way, the party of impeachment seems to
be inhaling way too much gas from the smoking guns it keeps finding in the various star chambers of its inquisition against you-know-who.
You'd think that the failure of Mr. Mueller's extravaganza might have chastened them just a little - a $32 million-dollar effort
starring the most vicious partisan lawyers inside-the-Beltway, 2,800 subpoenas issued over two years, 500 search warrants exercised,
and finally nothing whatever to pin on Mr. Trump - except the contra-legal assertion that now he must prove his innocence.
When you state just that, these frothing hysterics reply that many background figures - if not the Golden Golem of Greatness himself
- were indicted and convicted of crimes by Mr. Mueller's crew. Oh yes!
The Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency was indicted for spending $400,000 on Facebook ads (and never extradited
or tried in a court-of-law). Pretty impressive victory there!
The hacking of Hillary Clinton's emails by "Russia"? Still just alleged, never proven, with plenty of shady business around
the search for evidence.
Paul Manafort, on tax evasion of money earned in Ukraine, 2014? We'll see about that as the whole filthy business of the 2014
Ukraine regime change op under Mr. Obama gets reviewed in the months ahead.
George Papadopoulos for lying to the FBI? Stand by on that one, too; still a developing story.
General Michael Flynn , for ditto? You may have noticed that General Flynn's case is shaping up to be the biggest instance
of prosecutorial misconduct since the Dreyfus affair (France, 1894-1906, which badly-educated Americans most certainly know nothing
about).
To set the record straight I'm forced to repeat something that these New Age Jacobins seem unable to process: you don't have to
be a Trump cheerleader to be revolted by the behavior of his antagonists, which is a stunning spectacle of bad faith, dishonesty,
incompetence, and malice -- and is surely way more toxic to the American project than anything the president has done . Every time
I entertain the complaints of these angry auditors, I'm forced to remind myself that these are the same people who think that "inclusion"
means shutting down free speech, who believe that the US should not have borders, who promote transsexual reading hours in the grammar
schools, and who fiercely desire to start a war with Russia.
That's not a polity I want to be associated with and until it screws its head back on, I will remain the enemy of it. In fact,
in early November I'm traveling to New York City, where the Jacobin city council has just made it a crime to utter the phrase illegal
alien in a public place, with a $250,000 penalty attached. I challenge their agents to meet me in Penn Station and arrest me when
I go to the information kiosk and inquire if they know what is the best place in midtown Manhattan to meet illegal aliens.
The volume of Jacobin hysteria ratcheted up to "11" late last week when the news broke that the Attorney General's study of RussiaGate's
origins was upgraded to a criminal investigation, and that a voluminous report from the DOJ Inspector General is also about to be
released. What do you suppose they're worried about? Naturally the Jacobins' bulletin board, a.k.a The New York Times ,
fired a salvo denouncing William Barr -- so expect his reputation to be the next battle zone for these ever more desperate fanatics.
Talk of preemptively impeaching him is already crackling through the Twitter channels. That will be an excellent sideshow.
Meanwhile, how is Rep, Adam Schiff's secret proceeding going?
Last week he put out a narrative that US Chargé d'Affaires to Ukraine Bill Taylor fired a gun-that-smoked fer sure in testimony.
Except, of course, as per Mr. Schiff's usual practice, he refused to issue any actual transcript of the interview in evidence, while
there are plenty of indications that Mr. Taylor's second-hand gossip was roundly refuted under counter-questioning by the non-Jacobin
minority members of the House intel Committee.
Mr. Schiff's pattern lo these many months of strife has been to claim ultimate proof of wrongdoing only to have it blow up
in his face. It's a face that many Americans are sick of seeing and hearing from, and I am serenely confident that before this colossal
scandal is resolved, the Congressman from Hollywood will be fatally disgraced, as was his role-model, Senator Joseph McCarthy, before
him.
"... If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge. ..."
"... There is a third possibility. What if Trump wasn't supposed to become President, according to the CIA's plans? This seems plausible to me, because during the 2016 election, it seemed to me at least that almost nobody in the US political and media establishments took Trump's candidacy seriously. Clinton was so sure she could easily beat Trump that she used her influence with the media to get Trump media coverage, in order to weaken the "serious" Republicans, one of whom everyone thought would get the nomination, like Jeb Bush. ..."
As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama
has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA
(via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we
conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge.
There is a third possibility. What if Trump wasn't supposed to become President,
according to the CIA's plans? This seems plausible to me, because during the 2016 election,
it seemed to me at least that almost nobody in the US political and media establishments took
Trump's candidacy seriously. Clinton was so sure she could easily beat Trump that she used
her influence with the media to get Trump media coverage, in order to weaken the "serious"
Republicans, one of whom everyone thought would get the nomination, like Jeb Bush.
I know you believe that Trump was somehow exactly what the US deep state needed. I don't
agree, but even if you are right, are you really sure that the CIA and the rest of the deep
state were smart enough to understand and agree that they needed someone like Trump?
"... The Democrats are the ones who are twisting the "protocols" regarding private hearings to protect the seditious liars and their lies... To paraphrase the Washington Post : "Democracy Dies In The Darkness"... The Darkness created by the shadowy deep state and those who dwell in it ! ..."
"... Without expressing any opinion on the truth or falsity of Taylor's testimony or any of it, the idea that being a West Point graduate and Vietnam vet is some kind of assurance of probity is a joke. ..."
"... Have you learned nothing from RussiaGate, from the various imperial wars on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Serbia, etc.? All these were based on flat out lies promoted by cleancut, well dressed, well spoken, impeccably credentialed monsters. Many of them veterans themselves. All of them lying without shame, and lauded for telling lies. ..."
"... You realize that we are an empire, and our institutions act the way that imperial institutions do? Imperial institutions cannot be hindered by things like honesty and "rule of law", because the empire cannot survive if its freedom of action is restrained. ..."
"... Is your anti Russian phobia a product of Slavic racism or of disliking orthodox countries or what? Why do you pro war liberals obsess over Russia so much? I think it is empire envy. ..."
"... I Keep reading about this "aid to ukraine" improperly tied to an investigation of a rival. But this "aid" to Ukraine is really just weapons isn't it? Weapons meant to stoke conflict with a nuclear power. The deep state and the pro war liberals will never let This country move past militarism ..."
I'd like to commend Rep. Gaetz for this very well justified act of 'civil disobedience' to draw attention to this farce of a travesty
of a sham of a mockery of a witchhunt. This so-called "impeachment" is totally consistent with the manufacturing of "evidence"
to justify an "investigation" of Trump's campaign to keep him from being elected as well.
I'm glad we have someone standing up to these corrupt lying leaking Democrat bullies. It would be nice if we could have an
investigation of the actual and documented illegal campaign contributions of Hillary to her attorney to Chris Steele, but that
water has passed under the bridge by now.
But if we're going to go down the rabbit hole of campaign finance law violations, I'd like to propose that the quite obvious
main and only real (non-manufactured) reason for these so-called "impeachment" hearings is to prevent Trump from being re-elected
(as opposed to investigating "corruption").
Thus the Democrats' activities are quite obviously a misappropriation of taxpayer funds and an illegal donation to the political
campaigns of the Democratic party. I demand an investigation. In secret of course.
As you rightfully said, the rule of law is a pain in the butt, after all. The double standard is infuriating.
We are coming to a point in American society where the only meaningful "truth" belongs to whoever wins. If that is true, under
those circumstances, you've got to decide whom you trust more to protect your interests. Is it Adam Schiff or Donald Trump? If
you choose not to decide, you've still made a choice. Or are elections only supposed to have consequences if Democrats win them?
Matt Gaetz is one of those few Republicans in on the fundamental truth of our country: We are an empire in decline and politics
is 100% theatre. And so he puts on one of the best shows on television.
Yeah, he is likely a nihilist, but I can't really call him a grifter any more than you could call Milo or Jacob Wohl grifters.
They are performance artists, dressing up in conservative drag and giving everyone the show of their lifetime, and they are so
dedicated to it they don't break character. In wrestling it is called kayfebe.
If you are in on the joke, these people are amazing, true heroes of late capitalism, exposing the absurdities of our commodified
democracy and news cycle.
The standards for a sitting Congressman representing 800,000 Americans should probably be a bit higher than the standards for
alt-right YouTube dancing bears.
As our country winds down and enters the end of its natural lifespan, and every country has a lifespan, don't fool yourself, because
no human creations last forever, some of the dancing bears we get aren't going to be quite as funny as Matt Gaetz, and there are
only going to be more and more of them coming out of the woodwork.
So I think we should appreciate people like him while we can, who at least elevate the art to something legitimately entertaining,
and are generally pretty harmless. "I love the president so much I may never love another president again." is an amazing line,
for instance, and I'll never understand anyone who doesn't appreciate it. That's something he put care and thought into.
People like entertainment. They elected an entertainer as president for a reason, and he is representing a lot more than 800,000
Americans. But I'm sure those 800,000 Americans are pretty happy with the entertainment they are getting from Gaetz too, even
if they might not appreciate the nuances of his performance and only like that he is "triggering the libs" or somesuch. And maybe
some of them do see how his performance implicates them too and they just don't care because it is such a fun show. I know if
Matt Gaetz were running for president (Against some neo-liberal like Buttigieg, not against someone I like) I'd be tempted to
vote for him just to add fuel to the fire.
The Democrats are the ones who are twisting the "protocols" regarding private hearings to protect the seditious liars and their
lies...
To paraphrase the Washington Post : "Democracy Dies In The Darkness"... The Darkness created by the shadowy deep state and those who dwell in it !
"The seditions liars and their lies"? Bill Taylor is a West Point graduate, decorated Vietnam vet, and was G.W. Bush's appointee
to be Ukraine ambassador. The smears aren't going to stick to him.
Like they didn't stick to Mueller, Comey, Mattis, McCain, Romney, and whoever else is the white knight of the week who will save
liberal decadence from Trump. As if!
He will be down in the mud with the rest of them, loathed by Trump's base and forgotten by the Democrats once the next savior
conservative messiah comes along. Eventually there won't be enough Never Trump zombies in the Bush establishment morgue left to
revive, and what then?
They certainly aren't going to work with the left to concentrate on substance and policy rather than the Trump news cycle,
so I imagine liberals will just all collectively die from despair
Without expressing any opinion on the truth or falsity of Taylor's testimony or any of it, the idea that being a West Point graduate
and Vietnam vet is some kind of assurance of probity is a joke.
Have you learned nothing from RussiaGate, from the various imperial wars on Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Serbia, etc.? All these
were based on flat out lies promoted by cleancut, well dressed, well spoken, impeccably credentialed monsters. Many of them veterans
themselves. All of them lying without shame, and lauded for telling lies.
Not "misspeaking", as if they were merely overenthusiastic in defense of the Freedom, but lying. And their lies killed innocent
people on a hitlerian scale.
You only don't recognize this, because you are fortunate enough to live in America, where you don't have to see your children
droned and your country destroyed because some monster claims to be bringing you the freedom.
You realize that we are an empire, and our institutions act the way that imperial institutions do? Imperial institutions cannot
be hindered by things like honesty and "rule of law", because the empire cannot survive if its freedom of action is restrained.
Is your anti Russian phobia a product of Slavic racism or of disliking orthodox countries or what? Why do you pro war liberals
obsess over Russia so much? I think it is empire envy.
If the Democrats are so concerned with confidentiality then why are the anti-Trump snippets of testimony the only things getting
leaked?
Bill Taylor's testimony was shredded in 90 seconds of cross-examination by a Republican member of the Committee. Funny, that
didn't make the time breathless coverage of the umpteenth bombshell. (Or is it "The Walls Are Closing In!" this week?
By any standard of fairness, Schiff should have recused himself due to a monumental conflict of interest. He had contact with
the main complainant prior to the filing of the complaint. A Dem Senator visited Taylor in the Ukraine several weeks ago. Nothing
to see here.
As Ben Franklin was noted as saying: "Well, Doctor, what have we got -- a Republic or a Monarchy?"
"A Republic, if you can keep it."
Well, we didn't keep it. This is purely Political Kabuki Theater. Both sides deserve to lose. At this point, with the Dems
tilting so hard left, and the Rockefeller Wing (Re-branded as NeoCons for some silly reason) of the Republicans ever-waiting for
their ascendance it remains for most of the country wish both sides could lose - if for nothing else than to just stop the noise.
"A nation is born a stoic and dies an epicurean" Will Durant
I do not trust our "betters" to hold closed door trials. After 2 years of Russia Russia Russia I don't believe a word they say.
Shiff told us he had ironclad evidence of Russian collusion, I saw him say it at the interview. He lied. When a politician says
"trust me" the last thing we should do is trust him. Open hearings, transparency, due process...we should demand
That's what they're afraid of: a veritable conga line of skeletons, loosed from the Trumpian closet, cha-chaing across the Senate
chamber in front of the whole world.
Actually that did involve intelligence NOT an impeachment. Apples and oranges. But thanks for reminding us of the lies and ineptitude
that got American's killed by Obama and Clinton in Libya. They lied and people died.
If Schiff weren't selectively leaking like a sieve, your argument might have some merit.
As it is, easily the best reason to believe they are doing as they are doing is FOR the purpose of only leaking the parts they
want.
And it goes far beyond simply "closed door" - the controls enacted are extreme, at least for the Republicans, yet somehow,
certain *very convenient* bits find their way to the press, time after time. After time. After TIME.
The whole thing is a farce, designed to allow control of the narrative, facts be hanged.
Brilliant comparison to that Animal House scene - thanks for that! The facts on the ground are so devastating to Trump than even
his most lickspittle toadies can't properly defend them, and so they scheme up weak stunts like this. The mind boggles.
I suppose all the Trump supporters would be on this very page defending Barack Obama if he called the Saudi Crown Prince in 2011
and told him that any military aid is contingent on investigating the Bush family and any business ties they have with Saudi Arabia
because Jeb Bush might run in 2012. Totally legal. No problem and nothing to see.
That is not the point. What you write is simply deflection. If any President other than Trump did this, Republicans would be (correctly)
moving to impeach and remove. So I ask again: would it have been OK if Obama called the Saudis and held up military aid until
they provided him information damaging to the Bush family?
The picture is funny, but you're on the wrong side of this, Dreher. I've finally realized why Schiff and his merry men, but especially
Schiff, give me such agita.
Let's pick a date, or an incident: Bork. Since then, long before then, but let's pick a date, the Democrats have stood for
moral anarchy . The only chance they had to show they retained a shred of principle was the Gulf War (both Gulf Wars, actually,
but let's take the second), and there their response was, at least legislatively, muted to say the least (considering their Senatorial
champion was the Lion of Chappaquiddick...) Since then it's been what? Feminism, abortion, and that more abundantly, all LGBTQ
all the time, micro regulation of speech and behavior, race hustling, and--ha ha--more unjust unnecessary wars and the destruction
of the white middle class. The soft totalitarianism we talk about in these boxes--no need to go on. The usual menu of "liberal"
horror.
And this guy is to be impeached because he cusses in public? It's not adding up for me. Schiff's behavior is outrageous (read
Kim Strassel today) but he's getting the job done. You might want to call it soft Leninism.
Not sure why so many conservatives hang their hat on Bork. This man was the guy who committed the Saturday Night Massacre, this
is who you stake your moral ground on?
Conservatives are so angry Dems stopped the guy who tried to shield Nixon from accountability? It's moral anarchy for Congress
to refuse to confirm a president's nomination for the Supreme Court? Congress is supposed to give a president's nominee a hearing
and a vote, not a rubber stamp. Congress if fully within it's constitutional rights to not confirm a president's nominee, and
it's hard to find a less fit man for the Supreme Court than Bork was.
Meanwhile your guys refused to even grant a hearing to President Obama's nominee. I guess that's OK because you don't acknowledge
the rights of Democrats under the Constitution.
You don't really think the Democrats got together to destroy Bork professionally and personally because he signed off on Nixon's
firings, do you? You can't be that dumb. If you'd like to know why, it was keeping Roe v. Wade alive. And that is moral anarchy,
pal.
You know what's moral anarchy? Supporting an immoral character like Bork because you think he's going to help you get rid of
Roe vs Wade. Kind of reminds of the deal you RWers have struck with Trump. You support a man you know is morally debased because
you think he will help you restore a white Christian conservative America.
It just boggles my mind you RWers are mad Democrats refused to confirm a man who help cover up one of the most egregious acts
an American president has ever committed. A person who would commit such an unethical act was not fit for a seat on the Supreme
Court, I shouldn't even have to say this.
And you offer an unsupported calumny. Bork was "morally debased"? By what standard? By whose standard? John Dean's? Elliot Richardson's?
Remember when they rifled through his borrowing habits at Blockbuster and it turned out he was a Fred Astaire fan? They were expecting
maybe Leni Riefenstahl. Or hoping for it. And a conspiracy is usually thought of as somewhat secret. The Lion of Chappaquiddick
was pretty up front about what he didn't like about Bork.
And I think Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus was far worse than anything Nixon did. Have fun with that one, pal.
"The Democrats have offered no plausible and persuasive rationale for holding these proceedings in secret and keeping the evidence
and testimony behind closed doors."
Other than that they're simply following the rules established by a previous Republican congress.
Below, someone wrote: "By any standard of fairness, Schiff should have recused himself due to a
monumental conflict of interest. He had contact with the main
complainant prior to the filing of the complaint."
Using that standard, Barr should have recused himself a thousand times over, no?
Coined by a Randian objectivist fantasy author. It is absolute truth, but knowing the source will become the utmost irony because
for some, it will be personal proof of it.
People will believe a lie because they're afraid it might be true, or because they want it to be true.
The Trump candidacy and tenure in office is a non-stop series of examples proving this.
Yet again, I note Rod, that there is more than one explanation over this hysterical impeach Trump nonsense.
This 'aid' is actually 'US military assistance'. Did it ever occur to you 'impeachers' that Trump may have deliberately been
avoiding such a meeting with his top 4 warmongers precisely so as to avoid US 'aid' escalating the military tension betwen Ukraine
and Russia? (and getting the US firmly tied into that fight?)
Trump was elected in part on a platform of no more foreign wars, and he seems genuinely committed to that (at least when he
thinks he can). Maybe the withheld 'aid' was all just leverage for a Biden investigation, but it may also be Trump trying not
to get pressured and bullied into more conflicts (which all prior Presidents were happy to go along with) in the face of a deep
state totally committed to a condition of forever war.
As an anti-war activist who campaigned against the Afghan and Iraq wars, in Trump's shoes I would also have tried to avoid
fueling an existing dangerous conflict that brings no benefit to my nation (other than a few arms sales) but may drag us into
a war with major nations. Same situation repeating right now in Syria - no major benefit to US in staying, and staying may drag
US into conflict between Turks and Kurds and Syria & Russia.
Not saying Trump has acted lawfully always - just that he may have been trying to avoid military escalation (at the same time
as getting dirt on Biden). Lets not jump to obvious conclusions when they may not be so obvious.
Thugs disrupting a Constitutional and legal proceeding doing the people's business in order to protect their Dear Leader -- that's
not frat-boy stuff. There's a much better "f" word to label that.
If these people were testifying in public, I'm sure the Trumpists would find a reason to oppose that as well. But I hope they
are ready for the public phase when they will need to defend Trump on the substance rather than voice procedural complaints. And
calling people like Taylor never-Trumpist "human scum" (what a classy president we have) is not going to cut it.
Democrats say these House Intelligence Committee procedures
aren't official hearings, but rather the equivalent of depositions,
meant to gather facts that will later be examined and argued over in
public hearings.
If that's the case they shouldn't be characterizing themselves as having an "impeachment inquiry." This is not in any legal
sense an impeachment. It's an inquiry without a cause...political games. The abberant activities of Dems trying to remove the
US President where there are no crimes justifies abberant reactions from the opposition. Since they are going to abuse the House
of Representatives and pursue unprincipled and unprecedented antagonism of a co-equal branch of government, why should the GOP
be idealistic and proper under such circumstances? I find Schiff to be a lot more of a problem than Gaetz.
No, it's the first stage of an inquiry. They're gathering evidence -- and Republican reps are there to question too -- that will
be used in open impeachment hearings.
Concerning Republican reps on the committee...apparently they're not getting all the evidence. If they're not it's not bi-partisan,
and it's irregular. Also, Schiff did not notify Republicans on the committee of an intelligence official who came to one of his
aides with concerns about President Trump before filing a whistleblower complaint. If that's true he's withholding evidence. I'm
sure he has a good reason for that...if you know what I mean.
October 18, 2019 By Chrissy Clark
All nine GOP members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence penned a letter to Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.,
lambasting him for hiding documents related to Democrats' impeachment inquiry.
"We are concerned that the Majority is knowingly withholding Committee documents related to your so-called 'impeachment
inquiry' from the Minority," the letter reads. " it has come to our attention that the Majority is not uploading (or providing
physical copies of) certain
Committee documents related to your 'impeachment inquiry' to its document repository, thus withholding the existence of such
documents from the Minority."
I think you don't like the Republicans playing by the same rules and tricks Democrats do. Looks different when the shoe is on
the other foot, huh? Think KFC eating and setting all night on the senate floor.
"The Democrats have offered no plausible and persuasive rationale for holding these proceedings in secret and keeping the evidence
and testimony behind closed doors. Given the character of the people in question, it is safe to assume that their reasons for
doing so are corrupt and motivated by narrowly calculated political self-interest. "
That's a heck of a leap in logic there, Kevin. And kind of incredible in light of Kevin McCarthy previously admitting on national
television that the Benghazi Select Committee's purpose was to tank Clinton's poll numbers. Would Kevin agree that committee was
corrupt then, I guess?
These are depositions, not hearings. Public hearings come later, once depositions are complete, and there's no more opportunity
for deposed subjects to coordinate details. Then a Senate trial after that, where Trump gets all the "due process" he has been
disingenuously complaining about.
It's amusing to me how it seems to be lost in all of this, that half of the people sitting in on these depositions are REPUBLICANS.
I Keep reading about this "aid to ukraine" improperly tied to an investigation of a rival. But this "aid" to Ukraine is really
just weapons isn't it? Weapons meant to stoke conflict with a nuclear power. The deep state and the pro war liberals will never
let This country move past militarism
If you supported the Schiff parody-as-truth from the other week but this bothers you, then you are an anti-Trump partisan. Conversely,
if you support this but had a problem with Schiff, you are a pro-Trump partisan. And that is okay because impeachment is a political
act. Just don't dress it up and pretend your side follows the rule of law and the other side doesn't. Both sides are engaging
in politics to convince the public. And we'll be just fine as long as both sides stick with that, and obey the constitutional
rules for impeachment. We'll only get in serious trouble if folks decide to go extra constitutional:
The picture is funny, but you're on the wrong side of this, Dreher. I've finally realized why Schiff and his merry men, but especially
Schiff, give me such agita.
Let's pick a date, or an incident: Bork. Since then, long before then, but let's pick a date, the Democrats have stood for
moral anarchy . The only chance they had to show they retained a shred of principle was the Gulf War (both Gulf Wars, actually,
but let's take the second), and there their response was, at least legislatively, muted to say the least (considering their Senatorial
champion was the Lion of Chappaquiddick...) Since then it's been what? Feminism, abortion, and that more abundantly, all LGBTQ
all the time, micro regulation of speech and behavior, race hustling, and--ha ha--more unjust unnecessary wars and the destruction
of the white middle class. The soft totalitarianism we talk about in these boxes--no need to go on. The usual menu of "liberal"
horror.
And this guy is to be impeached because he cusses in public? It's not adding up for me. Schiff's behavior is outrageous (read
Kim Strassel today) but he's getting the job done. You might want to call it soft Leninism.
Yet again, I note Rod, that there is more than one explanation over this hysterical impeach Trump nonsense.
This 'aid' is actually 'US military assistance'. Did it ever occur to you 'impeachers' that Trump may have deliberately been
avoiding such a meeting with his top 4 warmongers precisely so as to avoid US 'aid' escalating the military tension betwen Ukraine
and Russia? (and getting the US firmly tied into that fight?)
Trump was elected in part on a platform of no more foreign wars, and he seems genuinely committed to that (at least when he
thinks he can). Maybe the withheld 'aid' was all just leverage for a Biden investigation, but it may also be Trump trying not
to get pressured and bullied into more conflicts (which all prior Presidents were happy to go along with) in the face of a deep
state totally committed to a condition of forever war.
As an anti-war activist who campaigned against the Afghan and Iraq wars, in Trump's shoes I would also have tried to avoid
fueling an existing dangerous conflict that brings no benefit to my nation (other than a few arms sales) but may drag us into
a war with major nations. Same situation repeating right now in Syria - no major benefit to US in staying, and staying may drag
US into conflict between Turks and Kurds and Syria & Russia.
Not saying Trump has acted lawfully always - just that he may have been trying to avoid military escalation (at the same time
as getting dirt on Biden). Lets not jump to obvious conclusions when they may not be so obvious.
"The Democrats have offered no plausible and persuasive rationale for holding these proceedings in secret and keeping the evidence
and testimony behind closed doors. Given the character of the people in question, it is safe to assume that their reasons for
doing so are corrupt and motivated by narrowly calculated political self-interest. "
That's a heck of a leap in logic there, Kevin. And kind of incredible in light of Kevin McCarthy previously admitting on national
television that the Benghazi Select Committee's purpose was to tank Clinton's poll numbers. Would Kevin agree that committee was
corrupt then, I guess?
These are depositions, not hearings. Public hearings come later, once depositions are complete, and there's no more opportunity
for deposed subjects to coordinate details. Then a Senate trial after that, where Trump gets all the "due process" he has been
disingenuously complaining about.
It's amusing to me how it seems to be lost in all of this, that half of the people sitting in on these depositions are REPUBLICANS.
I Keep reading about this "aid to ukraine" improperly tied to an investigation of a rival. But this "aid" to Ukraine is really
just weapons isn't it? Weapons meant to stoke conflict with a nuclear power. The deep state and the pro war liberals will never
let This country move past militarism
If you supported the Schiff parody-as-truth from the other week but this bothers you, then you are an anti-Trump partisan. Conversely,
if you support this but had a problem with Schiff, you are a pro-Trump partisan. And that is okay because impeachment is a political
act. Just don't dress it up and pretend your side follows the rule of law and the other side doesn't. Both sides are engaging
in politics to convince the public. And we'll be just fine as long as both sides stick with that, and obey the constitutional
rules for impeachment. We'll only get in serious trouble if folks decide to go extra constitutional:
"... Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him. ..."
"... Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure. ..."
"... These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot. ..."
"... Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally just a few hours before MH370 went missing ..."
"... Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable papers..How democracy working in Libya? ..."
"... Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do the homework all of you readers. ..."
"... All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because that's exactly what they're doing. ..."
"... She was never supposed to lose. ..."
"... DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Biden Family foundation. ..."
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one.
During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised
transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen,
and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a few corruptioners, American and
Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural
gas, sufficient for domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians got used to pay
pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine could provide all its households with free gas for
heating and cooking, just like Libya did. Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and
very little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to European levels, and the new president
Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high. The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and
heating; and huge profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices, President Poroshenko
demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be
considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its founder and owner Mr Nicolai
Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's
appetites. He had brought in Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney General Shokin to investigate Burisma
trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and
150 thousand dollar per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax code; it can't
be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours to close the case against his son.
Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner,
paid Biden well for this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko
was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could
not keep his trap shut: by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr Shokin gave
evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers
in connection with another case, Firtash case.
... ... ...
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is
Amos J. Hochstein, a protege of former VP Joe Biden, who has served
in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine.
Together with an American citizen Andrew Favorov, the Deputy Director
of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by
Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go
via Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while the margin is collected
by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price
will be paid by the Ukrainians, while profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party.
A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta,
producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the
Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian
ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with
Audrius Butkevicius, the former Minister of Defence (1996
to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now
is a member of the notorious Institute for Statecraft, a UK
deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations, subversion of the democratic process and promoting
Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war. In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed
to the Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of his troops from Lithuania.
Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In 1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000
USD from a senior executive of a troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested on receipt of the bribe, had been
sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated the feat in 2003 during the Rose
Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought
to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars' grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught fire; allegedly
thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind:
the previous one, equally huge, torched Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios
investigated the fires, he discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't destroyed
by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the
hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this
enormous operation was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the Minister of Defence
Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr Biden. (They say Mr Matios
was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably
just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians.
The Plundering Of Ukraine By Corrupt American Democrats. Whats new. The plundering of Syria - the Golan. Genie oil - Every
leading democrat name is on that Shareholder's list. Plundering of Serbia. Kosovo, its Gold mines and Minerals. Speciality per
Madeleine Albright . Wesley Clark and the Clintons. Sniff around where the Libyan gold went....not Fort Knox
These [neoliberal] politicians are the absolute dregs of our society. Human cesspits. They make the pirates of old look
like kindergarten. And they mass murder to get the loot.
Author does not mention approx 40 tons of gold transferred to US at night, covered lorries, darkened airfield. Coincidentally
just a few hours before MH370 went missing .
Implementation of Western values and democracy cost Libia more than 134 ton of gold. Not including shares and valuable
papers..How democracy working in Libya?
Fantastic article. Thanks for Israel. Thanks God, whatever you believe or not, majority of the World citizens are good and
friendly. Were did not nuke each other despite 1% of our corrupted elites. They hold about 90% of media, can give Hollywood Oscar
Price or Nobel Price to my lovely dog. If I paid them.
Regarding the Ukraine, about 12 oligarch holding of 60% of the wealth.Today
the Ukrainian oligarch have to pay USA democrats oligarch for protection. Whatever who is Ukraine President-they must to pay
to USA.Ukraine today is like banana republic :Honduras or Guatemala with 60% of population living below poverty line. Just do
the homework all of you readers.
You will NOT see once micron of this on the lame stream Media.....nor out of the mouths of Dems anywhere.....THIS info if true
should ensure the Dem corrupt Party is dissolved and a new one using pro-USA model is erected.
That we have seen little of this story in the Wall Street Journal nor Fox News shows just who controls those networks for sure.....This
story MUST become a part of the Congressional record....ASAP.....and ALL these folks no matter which Party MUST be held accountable
for lost US Funds...OUR TAX DOLLARS. Imagine what could be done with 3 BILLION for OUR Vets or the homeless......yet you see little
exposure of this corruption any where in US papers or even conservative outfits...????
All Democrats and RINO's who are currently participating in the impeachment hoax in order to keep themselves from being
indicted, prosecuted, and imprisoned for their parts in this corruption are automatically guilty of obstruction of justice, because
that's exactly what they're doing.
DNC types always show up at these poor countries to plunder them. Haiti: Clinton Foundation. Ukraine: Clinton Foundation.
Ukraine: Biden Family foundation.
Corrupt American Democrats AND Corrupt American Republicans . . . who gave Standing Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia,
United States Capitol for the Murders and Burning Humans Alive. United States President Trump never received 5 minute Standing
Ovations in Washington, District of Columbia, United States Capitol by the Capitalist Political Party composed of two factions:
Corrupt American Republicans AND Corrupt American Democrats.
So Shamir says that Tsarev is claiming Daniluk is the "whistleblower"? A foreigner can be a whistleblower?
And " Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was informed that there is an
order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev." ?? An order to arrest Daniluk in Washington, is that the claim? Why and who would
arrest him in Washington?
We would all be better off, including the Ukrainians, if they had stayed with Russia, where they were.
My thought about Barr holding fire on Epstein is that he may have known that was a red
herring, false flag, or whatever you want to call it. That whole Epstein affair sounded like
a juicy distraction to me, in the manner of "if it bleeds it leads". When someone actually
dies who is the center of contraversial activity, you may be sure, unfortunately, that
someone, he or another, is getting close to truths that ought not see the light of day.
Somewhat in the nature of the baiting of Putin as Ukraine was beginning its time of troubles.
The old revolutionary dictum "Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes" may have
been in Barr's mind at the time of Epstein's demise.
Certainly such investigations as the one he is involved in take much time to sort out the
who-what-where in terms sufficiently damaging to become a credible enterprise. We have seen
such attempts fail in the past. I hope he takes his time and gets all his ducks in a row
before the hammer falls as fall it must. It is so vital to this country that this attempt
succeed; for if it fails only the shambles of Kiev style fisticuffs in Congress can be the
result. Not pretty.
In b's post we are reminded of the power of the press to misinform. I would suggest we
badly need divestiture of our media from the huge corporations now more wealthy than some
countries. The latter are too powerful in this country now, and they do need to be whittled
down to size. We not only need fact finders, we need eloquent voices to present those facts
to the public. We need free speech!
He is a deep state creature...his father Donald Barr was an OSS guy and original CIA
[which morphed from the wartime OSS]...
Barr senior was also Epstein's mentor and got him his start at the deeply establishment
Dalton School [and probably Epstein's handler as an asset or 'agent' as they are
called]...
So things go a bit deeper than the surface when it comes to Barr junior...and what he is
doing here...
There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore...
I would also agree with the theory that says that these two 'deep' factions ['nationalist'
vs 'globalist'] are at war...with the 'DNC-Hillary-MSM-interventionist faction' possibly on
the decline, but still powerful enough to blow up a lot of the plans that Trump and his deep
backers would like to get done...
Epstein is a whole 'nuther can of worms here and I would not be surprised if he was not
actually dead...Trump himself is deeply entangled with many of the prime players in the
Epstein web...it all depends if he is more useful alive than dead...
Btw...pulling off a deception like a fake death is kindergarten level for these kinds of
operators and the unlimited resources they possess to shape so-called 'reality' as brought to
us on our little screens...
So really I find it kind of silly that the right wingers are looking at Barr as some kind
of White Knight...there really are none of those in these circles...as much as the sheeple
would like to believe that...
re: source of "God has an infinite sense of humor"...
Was told that in 1994[?] conversation w Jerry, a fellow worker, abt the baffling condition
of Mankind. Never heard it before or since. At the time it was one of most incisive and
impinging viewpoints; it still is.
It was said to me dryly, not coy and no smile, almost plaintively as tho it would be
ignored and pass thru unrecognized. I never met a more rational or sharper mind.
Once, I remarked I was looking for an obscure book that was mentioned in another book, as
"1 of the 3 best autobios ever written in English" by someone I never heard of. J:"Who and
what?" Me:"Kropotkin and Revolutionist".
J:"Oh, sure! I think my wife still has a copy" and he brought it in next day.[An awesome
read, too!]
Thanks for your reply! I was also thinking that perhaps it was a cynical observation made
by a stoic son of a Baptist or Methodist Minister, like the retort in M*A*S*H about
how someone like that (Hawkeye, IIRC) got into the Army--"He got drafted," which caused the
audience to erupt in laughter (definitely a context-dependent joke).
flankerbandit 111
"There is a probably valid school of thought that the deep establishment has a faction that
is pro-Trump and behind the general idea of disengaging from wasteful overseas adventures,
since it is becoming clear that this is a ruinous path that the US cannot really afford
anymore..."
I think this what is occuring. And when Trump says swamp, I think it is the section of the
swamp that this faction believe set the US on a ruinous path.
Good post my friend, no wonder the demoncrazies went berserk over Trump dipping in to
their honeypot. I could never definitively find a reason for those spectacular ammunition
storage bonfires in Ukraine. I figured it was either to disable their sale or cover up
theft.
W. Gruff, thanks for the process insight.
I was long-aware the removal of the Smith-Mundt Act was loaded into the 2012 NDAA. No attempt
on Trump's watch has been made to bring a needed, modern form of it back. I didn't vote for
Trump, and until the damn looney media is reeled back into factual, in-context reporting, it
will remain obvious Trump is only expanding a variety of nefarious things on the absence of
legislation such as the S-M Act.
My intent here is not to summarize Snowden's entire interview. I want to focus on some
points he made that I found especially revealing, pertinent, and insightful.
Without further ado, here are 12 points I took from this interview:
1. People who reach the highest levels of government do so by being risk-averse. Their
goal is never to screw-up in a major way. This mentality breeds cautiousness, mediocrity, and
buck-passing. (I saw the same in my 20 years in the U.S. military.)
2. The American people are no longer partners of government. We are subjects. Our rights
are routinely violated even as we become accustomed (or largely oblivious) to a form of
turnkey tyranny.
3. Intelligence agencies in the U.S. used 9/11 to enlarge their power. They argued that
9/11 happened because there were "too many restrictions" on them. This led to the PATRIOT Act
and unconstitutional global mass surveillance, disguised as the price of being kept "safe"
from terrorism. Simultaneously, America's 17 intelligence agencies wanted most of all not to
be blamed for 9/11. They wanted to ensure the buck stopped nowhere. This was a goal they
achieved.
4. Every persuasive lie has a kernel of truth. Terrorism does exist - that's the kernel of
truth. Illegal mass surveillance, facilitated by nearly unlimited government power, in the
cause of "keeping us safe" is the persuasive lie.
5. The government uses classification
("Top Secret" and so on) primarily to hide things from the American people, who have no "need
to know" in the view of government officials. Secrecy becomes a cloak for illegality.
Government becomes unaccountable; the people don't know, therefore we are powerless to rein
in government excesses or to prosecute for abuses of power.
6. Fear is the
mind-killer (my expression here, quoting Frank Herbert's Dune ). Snowden spoke much about
the use of fear by the government, using expressions like "they'll be blood on your hands"
and "think of the children." Fear is the way to cloud people's minds. As Snowden put it, you
lose the ability to act because you are afraid.
7. What is true patriotism? For Snowden, it's about a constant effort to do good for the
people. It's not loyalty to government. Loyalty, Snowden notes, is only good in the service
of something good.
8. National security and public safety are not synonymous. In fact, in the name of
national security, our rights are being violated. We are "sweeping up the broken glass of our
lost rights" in today's world of global mass surveillance, Snowden noted.
9. We live naked before power. Companies like Facebook and Google, together with the U.S.
government, know everything about us; we know little about them. It's supposed to be the
reverse (at least in a democracy).
10. "The system is built on lies." James Clapper, the director of national intelligence,
lies under oath before Congress. And there are no consequences. He goes unpunished.
11. We own less and less of our own data. Data increasingly belongs to corporations and
the government. It's become a commodity. Which means we are the commodity. We are being
exploited and manipulated, we are being sold, and it's all legal, because the powerful make
the policies and the laws, and they are unaccountable to the people.
12. Don't wait for a hero to save you. What matters is heroic decisions. You are never
more than one decision away from making the world a better place.
In 2013, Edward Snowden made a heroic decision to reveal illegal mass surveillance by the
U.S. government, among other governmental crimes. He has made the world a better place, but as
he himself knows, the fight has only just begun against turnkey tyranny.
Governments using fear for control is nothing new.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous
to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them
imaginary.
Sorry folks. In time you will see that Snowden was, is, and always will be CIA (black
hat). The whistle blowing was a CIA attempt to shut down the NSA (white hat) leaving no one
to watch over the black hats whilst they conduct thier drug running and regime changing, and
MK ultra operations. Ask Kennedy. Oh wait CIA and daddy Bush blew his head off.
Snowden, in my opinion, is a limited hangout. Not necessarily aware of it, he could just
be a convenient dupe.
If there's this much surveillance, how in the Hell did he exfiltrate that much data AND be
able to leave the country? Why did it take so long to track him down and revoke his passport?
It makes no sense. Why didn't he go to Wikileaks, who has a proven and reliable track record
but instead went to MSM?
I think he is probably genuine in his beliefs, but still see him as a limited hangout.
He has made the world a better place
How? Uncle Scam still has all it's capabilities. That big *** data center in Utah.
Nothing's changed except we were told about it- again. Remember Drake, Wiebe and Binney
spilled the beans in 2004.
And how does a guy go from CIA janitor to effectively an NSA systems admin? Seriously, not
to **** on janitors, but how in the actual **** does that happen?
All your questions are answered in his book. Wkileaks wasn't an option because they
release en masse without any vetting. He didn't want people to die from release of some of
the docs he had.
They are just now getting to the point where they have the tech to effectively sort and
search through all that data. Plus. He tapped it from the source.
The real shame is how little resulted from the exposure. Nothing changed, no one was held
to account, and we the people did nothing. We are a nation of contented slaves, for now.
"Intelligence agencies in the U.S. used 9/11 to enlarge their power. "
And their power was supposed to be limited to foreign actors. The skinny, jug-eared, gay
guy and his acolytes thought up sinister illegal ways to extend that power to private US
citizens and the gay guy's political enemies.
Most of these problems were predicted centuries ago when the founders feared a standing
army that could be turned against the people. Now we have standing armies, and civilian
paramilitaries in every county and big city, local cops, city cops, state police. We have
ATF, FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, and dozens of other armed alphabet soup agencies.
With We THE People are gonna regain our country again and many people will die again, and
with luck all the traitors will hang by the neck until dead.
The elites who think it is their birthright to lord over us need to be reminded that they
serve us. All the communist democrats are in need of reminders and quick drop at the end of a
rope.
It's heartening to know Snowden is a martial alumni..
And speaking of tyranny, we came across a gem, a most enlightening gem thus..
"If you take me down, I'll come after you with everything I've got It will become my
life's mission."
"These are the words of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to newspaper publisher Arnon
Mozes in a recording that has become central evidence in a corruption case against Netanyahu,
as revealed Saturday by Channel 13 journalist Raviv Drucker.."
So why have we brought this to your attention?
So you may understand that Liberty is not for the lily livered. If Jefferson and Co had
been squeamish, Americans would still be serfs..
If MLK had been squeamish, negros would not be free today, to be in position to advocate
for rights..
And if Cesar Chavez had adopted cowardice, then Latinos would have no mojo to
advocate..
And if Hugo Chavez had not given his life to Venezuela, it's doubtful that Maduro would
have had a leg to stand on..
And yet, Lula is imprisoned..just like Nelson Mandela, for the best years of his
life..
My friends, mortality eventually ends, that's a certainty..what you do with yours, is
consequential, for good or ill..
When the depraved hurl threats, it means they're afraid, and in that event, increase the
artillery barrage of truth..cheers...
The digital world has become disturbingly invasive and the source of the data the
governments uses against us.
Abstain.
Get off of social media, limit net time, encrypt communications, leave our mobile devices
at home and use cash.
Anything that leaves a digital footprint is being tracked.
The loss of our privacy is the loss of our freedom.
To return democracy to the people we need to do the following:
-Term limits of 8 years at any one level of government for the politicians, diplomats,
bureaucrats and senior civil servants. If our legislators know they will spend the majority
of their working lives in the private sector they will not pass laws that solely benefit the
public sector.
-Recall legislation to hold our legislators accountable.
-Balance budget laws that require referendums to amend or repeal.
-Zero tax increase laws that require referendums to amend or repeal.
We need to return democracy to the people and we do that by demanding change at the
grassroots levels.
These days , The Shang Dynasty's moral decay quickly comes to mind, as outlined in
The Art of War : lies, deceit and diffusion were the norm; unaccountable leaders
immersed themselves in debauchery, orgies and lavish self-profiting (today's
Epsteinism in full-swing); brutally-enforced high taxes & wage thefts levied on
citizens; government's increased violence against state residents, particularly those brave
enough to resist widespread tyranny; escalated harmful interference in the country's
agricultural operations; and knee-jerked, violent responses with heavy-handed, inhuman
punishments (like SWAT teams blowing away innocents -- women & children -- over minor,
inconsequential infractions), especially violation of peoples' guaranteed civil liberties, as
well as their sovereign dignities and property rights, under the guise of ridiculously
concocted "boogeymen" nonsense.
It's also interesting that this area has more millionaires per capita than anywhere else
in America. It's not a high tech area, no manufacturing, and no big agriculture. Sucking the
tit of our taxes.
"... If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge. ..."
"... There is a third possibility. What if Trump wasn't supposed to become President, according to the CIA's plans? This seems plausible to me, because during the 2016 election, it seemed to me at least that almost nobody in the US political and media establishments took Trump's candidacy seriously. Clinton was so sure she could easily beat Trump that she used her influence with the media to get Trump media coverage, in order to weaken the "serious" Republicans, one of whom everyone thought would get the nomination, like Jeb Bush. ..."
As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama
has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA
(via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we
conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge.
There is a third possibility. What if Trump wasn't supposed to become President,
according to the CIA's plans? This seems plausible to me, because during the 2016 election,
it seemed to me at least that almost nobody in the US political and media establishments took
Trump's candidacy seriously. Clinton was so sure she could easily beat Trump that she used
her influence with the media to get Trump media coverage, in order to weaken the "serious"
Republicans, one of whom everyone thought would get the nomination, like Jeb Bush.
I know you believe that Trump was somehow exactly what the US deep state needed. I don't
agree, but even if you are right, are you really sure that the CIA and the rest of the deep
state were smart enough to understand and agree that they needed someone like Trump?
"... On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired. ..."
"... Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out. ..."
"... Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky. ..."
"... Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really "debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials. ..."
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct knowledge of the situation. ..."
"... In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the Ukrainians delivered a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych. ..."
"... Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT headline emphasized the fact: ..."
"... insisting on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. ..."
"... That term "conspiracy theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the author wishes were not true but almost certainly is. ..."
"... Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very much doubt.... ..."
"... If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these young journalists are suggesting. ..."
"... Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being lied to particularly over matters of importance. ..."
"... Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent him becoming president. That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump ..."
"... Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. ..."
"... Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions known as Russiagate began. ..."
"... I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up "dirt" on Trump ..."
"... Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out. ..."
"... It seems some corners are coming unglued if the ZH link below is any indication: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-entrapped-flynn-manipulated-evidence-clapper-allegedly-issued-kill-shot-order ..."
"... The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit "LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done... what we were told to do by the president of the United States." ..."
"... Prescient observation by Aaron Mate : "When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep State TV." ..."
"... The take away quote: "Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner." ..."
"... Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors. ..."
"... Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation. ..."
"... It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals since he is such a lousy business man. ..."
"... The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101. ..."
"... Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit. What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony. ..."
"... Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents, MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with "conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent (that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his position is a "conspiracy theory". ..."
"... Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare. For example, this was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities' version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy theorists". ..."
"... This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles. ..."
"... They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths appear to carry some validity. ..."
"... If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge. ..."
"... as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the ordinary USA persons mind... ..."
"... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc. ..."
"... i am sure biden is small potatoes in the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage, it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam when i was a teenager.. ..."
Several mainstream media have made claims that Joe Biden's intervention in the Ukraine and
the Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election are "conspiracy theories" and "debunked". The
public record proves them wrong. By ignoring or even contradicting the facts the media create
an opening for Trump to rightfully accuse them of providing "fake news".
[In late 2018], Giuliani began speaking to current and former Ukrainian officials about the
Biden conspiracy theory, and meeting with them repeatedly in New York and Europe. Among those
officials was Viktor Shokin, a former top Ukrainian prosecutor who was sacked in March, 2016,
after European and U.S. officials, including Joe Biden, complained that he was lax in curbing
corruption. Shokin claimed that he had lost his powerful post not because of his poor
performance but rather because Biden wanted to stop his investigation of Burisma, in order to
protect his son. The facts didn't back this up. The Burisma investigation had been dormant
under Shokin.
Several other
media outlets also made the highlighted claim to debunk the "conspiracy theory". But is it
correct?
We have looked into the claim that Shorkin's investigation against Burisma owner Zlochevsky
was dormant, as the New Yorker says, and found it to be false :
The above accounts are incorrect. Shokin did go after Zlochevsky. He opened two cases against
him in 2015. After he did that Biden and his crew started to lobby for his firing. Shokin was
aggressively pursuing the case. He did so just before Biden's campaign against him went into
a frenzy.
... On February 2 Shokin confiscated four large houses Zlochevsky owned plus a Rolls-Royce
Phantom and a "Knott 924-5014 trainer". (Anyone know what that is?) Ten days later Biden goes
into overdrive to get him fired. Within one week he personally calls Poroshenko three times
with only one major aim: to get Shokin fired.
... Zlochevsky had hired Joe Biden's son Hunter for at least $50,000 per month. In 2015 Shokin
started to investigate him in two cases. During the fall of 2015 Joe Biden's team begins to
lobby against him. On February 2 Shokin seizes Zlochevsky's houses. Shortly afterwards the
Biden camp goes berserk with Biden himself making nearly daily phonecalls. Shokin goes on
vacation while Poroshenko (falsely) claims that he resigned. When Shokin comes back into
office Biden again takes to the phone. A week later Shokin is out.
Biden got the new prosecutor general he wanted. The new guy made a bit of
show and then closed the case against Zlochevsky.
It is quite astonishing that the false claims, that Shokin did not go after Burisma owner
Zlochevsky, is repeated again and again despite the fact that the public record , in form of a report
by Interfax-Ukraine , contradicts it.
On Thursday Buzzfeed Newswrote
about a different Ukrainian prosecutor who in early 2019 was approached to set up meetings
with President Donald Trump's private lawyer Rudy Giuliani:
[Gyunduz] Mamedov's role was key. He was an intermediary in Giuliani's efforts to press
Ukraine to open investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and the debunked
conspiracy theory about the country's interference in the 2016 presidential election , a
collaboration between BuzzFeed News, NBC News, and the Organized Crime and Corruption
Reporting Project (OCCRP) can reveal.
The OCCRP is funded by the
UK Foreign Office, the US State Dept, USAID, Omidyar Network, Soros' Open Society, the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund and others. Most of these entities were involved in the 2014 coup
against the elected government of the Ukraine.
Is the "conspiracy theory" about Ukrainian interference in the U.S. election really
"debunked"? It is, of course, not. The facts show that the interference happened. It was requested by
the Democratic National Committee and was willingly provided by Ukrainian officials.
As Politico reported shortly after Trump had won the election, it was the Democratic
Party organization, the DNC, which had asked the
Ukrainians for dirt that could be used against the campaign on Donald Trump:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly
questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump
aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after
the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his
advisers, a Politico investigation found.
A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia , according to people with direct
knowledge of the situation.
The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort's resignation
and advancing the narrative that Trump's campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine's foe to
the east, Russia.
The Ukrainian-American who was the go between the DNC and the government of Ukraine had
earlier worked for the Clinton administration:
Manafort's work for Yanukovych caught the attention of a veteran Democratic operative named
Alexandra Chalupa, who had worked in the White House Office of Public Liaison during the
Clinton administration. Chalupa went on to work as a staffer, then as a consultant, for
Democratic National Committee. The DNC paid her $412,000 from 2004 to June 2016, according to
Federal Election Commission records, though she also was paid by other clients during that
time, including Democratic campaigns and the DNC's arm for engaging expatriate Democrats
around the world.
In March 2016 Chalupa went to the Ukrainian embassy in Washington DC and requested help from
the Ukrainian ambassador to go after Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort. In August 2016 the
Ukrainians delivered
a secret "black ledger" that allegedly showed that Manafort had illegally received money
for his previous work for the campaign of the former Ukrainian president Yanukovych.
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to
Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the
disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included
election officials.
"Paul Manafort is among those names on the list of so-called 'black accounts of the Party
of Regions,' which the detectives of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine are
investigating," the statement said. "We emphasize that the presence of P. Manafort's name in
the list does not mean that he actually got the money, because the signatures that appear in
the column of recipients could belong to other people."
The provenance of the ledger is highly dubious. It was allegedly found in a burned out
office of Yanukovych's old party:
The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic
covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party
of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev.
...
The accounting records surfaced this year, when Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament
who said he had received a partial copy from a source he did not identify, published line
items covering six months of outlays in 2012 totaling $66 million. In an interview, Mr.
Leshchenko said another source had provided the entire multiyear ledger to Viktor M. Trepak,
a former deputy director of the domestic intelligence agency of Ukraine, the S.B.U., who
passed it to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Anti-corruption groups in Ukraine said the black ledger detailing payments was probably
seized when protesters ransacked the Party of Regions headquarters in February 2014.
The pages from the ledger, which had come from anonymous sources probably
supported by John Brennan's CIA , were never proven to be genuine. But the claims were
strong enough to get Manafort fired as campaign manager for Donald Trump. He was later
sentenced for unrelated cases of tax evasion.
Serhin A. Leshchenko, the member of the Ukrainian parliament who published the dubious
ledger, was rabidly anti-Trump. Shortly after providing the "secret ledger" he talked with the
Financial Times and promised to continue to meddle in the U.S. election. The FT
headline emphasized the fact:
The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming
leader of the country's biggest ally has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider
political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene,
however indirectly, in a U.S. election.
...
Mr. Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue with their efforts
to prevent a candidate - who recently suggested Russia might keep Crimea, which it annexed
two years ago - from reaching the summit of American political power.
"A Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy," Mr
Leshchenko, an investigative journalist turned MP, told the Financial Times. "For me it was
important to show not only the corruption aspect, but that he is [a] pro-Russian candidate
who can break the geopolitical balance in the world."
...
If the Republican candidate loses in November, some observers suggest Kiev's action may have
played at least a small role.
A Democratic Party operative asked the Ukrainian ambassador to find dirt on Trump's campaign
manger Paul Manafort. A few month later a secret "black ledger" emerges from nowhere into the
hands of dubious Ukrainian actors including a 'former' domestic intelligence director.
The ledger may or may not show that Manafort received money from Yanukovych's party. It was
never verified. But it left Trump no choice but to fire Manafort. Ukrainian figures who were
involved in the stunt openly admitted that they had meddled in the U.S. election, promised to
do more of it and probably did.
The Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is well documented. How the Buzzfeed
News author can claim that it is a "debunked conspiracy theory" is beyond me.
1. The Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions
of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of
offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.
2. Assistance shall include: (a) taking the testimony or statements of persons; (b)
providing documents, records, and other items; (c) locating or identifying persons or items;
(d) serving documents; (e) transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes;
(f) executing searches and seizures; (g) assisting in proceedings related to immobilization
and forfeiture of assets, restitution, and collection of fines; and (h) any other form of
assistance not prohibited by the laws of the Requested State.
3. Assistance shall be provided without regard to whether the conduct that is the subject
of the investigation, prosecution, or proceeding in the Requesting State would constitute an
offense under the laws of the Requested State.
When Trump
asked the current Ukrainian President Zelensky to help with an investigation into the above
matters he acted well within the law and within the framework of the treaty. It was certainly
not illegitimate to do that.
But when mainstream media deny that Biden's interference in Ukraine's prosecutor office is
suspect, or claim that the Ukraine did not interfere in the U.S. elections, they make it look
as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not in this case. To use
it a basis of an 'impeachment inquiry' is political bullshit.
Making these false claims will come back to haunt those media outlets. Sooner or later the
public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the already low trust in the
media even more.
Posted by b on October 26, 2019 at 17:51 UTC |
Permalink
"Sooner or later the public will recognize that those claims are false. It will lessen the
already low trust in the media even more."
More precisely, there exit Trump-friendly media with millions of followers, so insisting
on innocence of Biden will have a political cost. Not to mention leftist media reminiscing
how Senator Biden championed the cause of MBNA (credit cart giant) when it was also a
generous employer of his dear son. Of course, given the size of Delaware, it could be just a
coincidence.
Thanks b for providing the nitty gritty details of this sorry saga. That term "conspiracy
theory" has been so widely abused that, to me at least, it now means something that the
author wishes were not true but almost certainly is.
What is certain is that if Biden is selected as the Dem candidate and ends up as President,
the GOP (if it retains influence in Congress) will open an investigation into his actions on
behalf of his son. Russia-gate is the gift that keeps on giving!
Thanks b, for the reality check.
Joe Biden needs to STFU, and go away. He and his ilk are part of the problem, not the
solution. The rulers of America insist on pushing this sycophant for the empire down our
throats. And, he can take HRC and her crowd with him. It's high time for some new blood, IF, TPTB, will even allow that to happen, which I very
much doubt....
Thanks for another informative and insightful commentary, B. It's like a drink of cool, clean
water after staggering through a volcanic landscape full of fumaroles belching sulfurous
plumes of superheated gas.
Sometimes my hobby horses merrily hop along under me without any effort on my part. I just
hang onto the reins and howl. So: it's bad enough that the US mass-media
consent-manufacturers, aka the CIA/Deep State's "Mighty Wurlitzer", gin up endless propaganda
to discredit the facts you mention; their mission is to fool enough of the public that
there's no "there" there, and prop up Biden's presidential campaign in the bargain.
But what increasingly bugs me is so-called "alternative" news outlets and independent
journalists buying into the spin that Trump and his associates are using the pretext of
investigating corruption as a means to illegally and illicitly "dig up dirt on political
rivals". Put the other way around, they concede that Biden and other Team Obama honchos are
indeed "dirty", and that their Ukraine adventure was reprehensibly illicit or illegal and
self-serving-- but they return to faulting Trump for impermissibly exploiting these
circumstances in order to gain political advantage.
It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi are careful
to affirm that Trump et al 's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power. But, sadly,
even journalists like Aaron Maté, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, and Michael Tracey have
echoed this rote condemnation.
My guess is that this arises from two acronyms: incipient TDS, which compels even
"alternative" US journalists to regard Trump as the "heel" in the staged
"professional"-wrestling scam of US electoral politics. Also, CYA; I suspect that these
relatively young, professionally vulnerable journalists are terrified of coming off as
"defending" or "excusing" Trump, lest they trigger wrathful excoriation from their peers and
the hordes of social-media users whose custom they cultivate.
This is why I appreciate your clarity and forthrightness on this fraught topic.
Rereading your post, and agreeing with some it, I find I disagree less with its conclusions
than on first reading.
If you were referring to Trump's convo with Zelensky specifically, reasonable people might
disagree over whether that was an abuse of power or sleazy and dumb (in being
unnecessary)--which of course shouldn't mean the Bidens get a pass here, which none of these
young journalists are suggesting.
But where I would disagree is if you were suggesting that Taibbi, Mate and Blumenthal are
making obligatory objections to Trump more generally, in order to curry favour with their
peers. I think each of them would readily reel off lists of things (more substantive than
Ukrainegate -- and probably not including Russia collusion) that they think Trump should be
castigated, impeached and perhaps prosecuted for.
Well, there you have it--proof that BigLie Media indeed specializes in publishing Big Lies
that ought to reduce such outlets to the status of Tabloids. Of course, the media is free to
lie all it wants within the limits of slander and libel, but most people don't like being
lied to particularly over matters of importance.
Larry Johnson has a piece at SST on a CIA task force set up to compromise Trump and prevent
him becoming president.
That Trump avoided all the traps set for him (even the Mueller investigation could pin
nothing on Trump) and won the election says a bit for Trump. He definitely is more than the
twitter reality TV persona that he puts up as a public face.
With the Barr investigation, it looks like the non Trump section of the swamp will be drained
in the near future.
Possibly an irrelevant point, but Shokin's replacement Lutsenko was the prosecutor who
resurrected the "deceased", self declared journalist, Arkady Babchenko. The story was full of
plot twists, involving a Boris German/Herman, who was Russian. B kept Us regaled with events.
I'd post a link, but have witnessed too many thread expansions too risk it.
I think a lot of people give the MSM too much credit. Of course editorials etc. can influence
people's thinking but the media, and journalists in general, are loathed by the people who
voted for Trump. It's a big reason he was elected.
Ort @ 8 said;"It doesn't surprise me that talented but co-opted journalists like Matt Taibbi
are careful to affirm that Trump et al's conduct is manifestly an abuse of power."
Co-Opted, or truthful, depending on what you believe. You, have every right to your
opinion, but, when push comes to shove, think I'll give my opinion being swayed or not, by
giving more credibility to the five names you've decided to "shade".
DJT has a record of behavior, and so do the five you've mentioned. My choice is clear,
I'll believe the five..
Alexandra Chalupa's connection to the thinktank The Atlantic Council should be borne in mind
in the developing discussion in the comments forum. Her sister Irena is or has been a
non-resident Senior Fellow there. Irena Chalupa has also been a senior editor at Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty.
Also the founder and CEO of the Crowdstrike company in charge of cybersecurity for the DNC
during the 2016 presidential election campaign was Dmitri Alperovich who is a Senior Fellow
at The Atlantic Council. It was Crowdstrike who came up with the idea that Trump had to be
under the Kremlin's thumb and from there the hysterical witch-hunt and associated actions
known as Russiagate began.
I'm surprised that at this point in time, Bellingcat has not been included in digging up
"dirt" on Trump, Manafort or anyone Manafort supposedly had connections with who is also
mentioned in the "black ledger" but maybe that's because with the garbage that Bellingcat has
so delivered, Eliot Higgins and company can't be trusted any more. Their masters should have
known though, that when you give your subordinates base material to work with, they can only
come up with base results: garbage in, garbage out.
Thanks for your ongoing documentation of the political criminality in the US b. The recent events are playing out like a two-bit soap opera rerun in a nursing home for
America's brainwashed. Maybe Trump could start a new TV game show called Apprentice Corruption and instead of
saying "Your Fired!" it could be "Your Guilty!"
As an American it is difficult to watch the country that I was taught such good things
about in school be exposed as a criminal enterprise running cover for the elite cult that
owns global private finance and manipulates Western not-so-civilized culture.
I hope all this BS we are going through wakes up enough of the semi-literate public to
overthrow the criminal sect and restore the Founding Fathers motto and concept of E Pluribus
Unum.
Lee Stranahan of Radio Sputnik has been reporting on Alexandra Chalupa's role for a number of
years now. I hope he gets proper credit as this story comes out.
Given the fact that she got a first hand look at the Outlaw US Empire's injustice system and
its tie-in with BigLie Media, the comments by the now back in Russia Maria Butina carry some legitimate weight that're
worth reading: "'I believe that the Americans are wonderful people, but they have lost their legal
system,' Butina said. 'What is more, they are routinely losing their country. They will lose
it unless they do something'.... "'I am very proud of my country, of my origin,' Butina stressed. 'And I come to realize it
more and more.'"
Should I bold the following, maybe make the lettering red, and put it in all caps:
"They are routinely losing their country."
I know this is an international bar, but the general focus has long been on the Outlaw US
Empire. IMO, Maria Butina is 100% correct. The topic of this thread is just further proof of
that fact. As I tirelessly point out, the federal government has routinely violated its own
fundamental law daily since October 1945. The media goes along with it robotically. And aside
from myself, I know of no other US citizen that's raised the issue--not Chomsky, not Zinn,
not anyone with more credentials and public accessibility than I. I sorta feel like Winston
Smith: Am I the only one who sees and understands what's actually happening?! Well, I've
shared what I know, so I'm no longer alone. But that's not very satisfying, nor is it
satisfactory.
The take away quote from a Matt Taibbi twit
"LOL. Barack Obama is going to love this interview his former DIA James Clapper just gave to
CNN about the Durham probe: "It's frankly disconcerting to be investigated for having done...
what we were told to do by the president of the United States."
"
Prescient observation by Aaron Mate :
"When CNN & MSNBC now cover the criminal inquiry into conduct of intel officials in
Russia probe, they are literally covering their employees -- John Brennan (MSNBC); James
Clapper, Andrew McCabe, James Baker (CNN). I avoid the term, but it's appropriate here: Deep
State TV."
Sure, he sees it, many of us barflies see it, but it's the public within the Outlaw US
Empire that must see and understand this dynamic. If they don't or won't, then
Butina's words are even more correct--They are losing their country.
The take away quote:
"Joe Biden intervened at least two times on matters his son Hunter's firms was being paid to
lobby on, according to government records reviewed by the Washington Examiner."
The merry-go-round scenario you post would indicate a broken state. Biden's been in office
for 43 years, Trump 3 yrs... the potential for dirt is large, mix it with even larger GOP
vengeance should that scenario arise and this will drag on through the decades.
Part and parcel of democracy. Western style democracy at least. Perhaps others can set
theirs up better, though allways, the achilles heel of democracy is information, or media.
Who oversees ensuring voters recieve accurate information.
It took complaints from the public and investigated them. They did not have power to bring
charges, but for a time findings were made public. Once it got onto a money trail it would
keep following and that would lead to other money trails. It was a state agency and had to
stop at state borders but most money trails led to federal politics. It was defanged when
they came too close to federal politics.
Something like this in a countries constitution could work though it could be corrupted the
same as anything else.
Indeed, the guilty are hiding in plain sight. It appears sinister, and is, but I think its a
positive development of late, as it would suggest that big media are scrambling to preserve
the status quo by legitimising these deep state actors.
It wasn't so long ago these deep state types would rather steer clear of the media. Now
they are out there earning bread driving the narrative. Are these deep state media faces a
tactical last resort...?
Obama orchestrated the regime change operation in Ukraine. As we know from Wayne Madsen's
little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama has been a CIA asset since he was a
suckling babe. To promote containment of the Russian menace, the US got in bed with Ukrainian
fascists and successfully exploited political tensions in that country resulting in the
removal of the duly elected Yanukovitch. A right wing billionaire then took the reigns and
Putin orchestrated a referendum in Crimea in retaliation that resulted in its return to
Russia. The Crimeans were and continue to be happy, happier than the rest of Ukrainians under
Kiev neo-fascist free market exploitation.
It is natural that neo-fascist Ukrainians would express their disapproval of Trump, who was making nice with Putin. No
matter what his motives were, he was bucking US anti-Russian policy. I liked Trump at that time for this willingness to end a
Cold War policy sponsored by the US military industrial complex. You can cal it "deep state" if you like. It's not deep and
it's not a shadow government. It's the war party. It's the elite profiting from weapons manufacture. Trump has no principles
except expedience and his pro-Russian stance is likely owing to the money laundering he's been doing for Russian criminals
since he is such a lousy business man. Putin and other Russian kleptocrats saved Trump boy's bacon. So it's very
confusing when bed actors do good things.
Biden is no doubt quite corrupt. But that's got little to do with Trumps quid pro quo with
Ukraine. You say that Ukrainian interference in US elections is well documented. You don't
offer any documents, b. Anti-Putin Ukrainians were naturally anti-Trump. So what? Where's the
beef? Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel bills and gave
the world Chernobyl, interfered in US elections.
Your defense of Trump is getting tiresome. He's a criminal with no respect for the US
Constitution and he deserves to be impeached. This is not to say that Joe Biden or his drug
addict son are not also shit stains. I am just dismayed that you, an ostensibly intelligent
independent commentator would go to bat for an ignoramus like Trump.
The general charge against Trump is that he was "digging up dirt" on opponents. Well
laddy-dah. So what. Welcome to Politics 101.
President Harry Truman probably received as much flak as any politician ever did,
especially after he canned war-hero General MacArthur. But Truman wasn't a candy-ass current
politician complaining about dirt-digging. No, he gave back more than he got, in spades.
What was "give-em-hell" Harry Truman's attitude? Some Truman quotes:
--"I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."
--"It's the fellows who go to West Point and are trained to think they're gods in uniform
that I plan to take apart"
--"I didn't fire him [General MacArthur] because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he
was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three quarters of them
would be in jail."
-- "I'll stand by [you] but if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen ."
That's what Trump is doing and will probably continue to do with fake news. (And he coined
the phrase.)
I'll repeat what I posted here some days ago: this is not a battle between truth vs lies, but
between which is the truth that will guide the USA for the forseeable future.
Empires don't act on facts: they are all-powerful, so they sculpt reality as they see fit.
What determines this is class struggle: the inner contradictions of a society that results
in a given consensus, thus forming a hegemony.
It's not that the liberals deny Biden did what he did, but that they disagree with Trump's
interpretation over what he did. This is what the doctrine of the vital center is all about:
some facts are more facts than others, prevailing the one which maintains the cohesion of the
empire.
There's a battle for America's soul; the American elite is in flux: Russia or China?
In 1984 , the narrative was now 100% in your face and everything had to be
manipulated to match it, which apparently hadn't been needed previously. But we aren't told
if that was done as a "last resort." I would think not given continuing polls showing ongoing
distrust of media, thus the difficulty of manufacturing consent. Look at the great popularity
enjoyed by Sanders amongst 18-30 year-olds who get most of their information online or via
social media and the measures being taken to try and manipulate those realms. Then there're
efforts to counter the misinformation and manipulation by numerous activists, many of which
get cited here.
Another thought: They're out front now because the Establishment's deemed the fight to
control the narrative's being lost, and they've been drafted to rectify the situation. If
correct, they ought to keep failing.
The international nature of this bar and its many flies is that mostly (from what I read)
they have an immense respect for the rule of law. It is this singular concept that we trust
will transcend religion and the quasi religiosity of political allegiances.
The rule of law is a deity-like singularity that embraces all beings equally, or
should. Assaulting that legitimate expectation of the law applying equally is what confronts us
daily in so many ways and when it is observed being assaulted by the highest office bearers
in political and corporate life that we barflies get mighty annoyed. The gross vista of assumed immunity demonstrated by Nixon is equaled by the antics of the
Clinton foundation and its Directors. Each and every one of them.
But it is far worse than that as the assault on the rule of law is daily carried out by
the mafias that infest our societies, the corrupt and violent police that cant/wont protect
our citizens, the international warmongering criminal classes that propagandise us to accept
warring as a legitimate exercise of power even though we recognise it as a crime against
humanity.
So when we see the deplorable state of media and jurisprudence and fairness we can only
think as Maria Butina does "that we are routinely losing our countries" and I would add our
civil societies. The latter is vastly more concerning than the former IMO.
Again, not surprised at all. Pro-democratic/anti-Trump media write articles (obviously
made-to-order) to whitewash already badly discredited Biden, and present all the arguments in
favor of his dark connections with Ukraine as a kind of "conspiracy theory". This is a common
practice. Not having sufficient competence to reasonably refute the arguments of opponents,
MSM (as well as all sorts of "experts") immediately mark the position of opponents with
"conspiracy theory" (there are also other options to choose from: "Putin's agent", "Putin's
useful idiot", "Kremlin's agent", "pro-Russian propaganda", etc.). It is assumed that this
makes unnecessary/optional (and even "toxic") all further conversations with the opponent
(that is, there is no need to answer him, to prove something with facts, etc.), because his
position is a "conspiracy theory".
Western MSM are actively using this simplest propaganda technique of information warfare.
For example, this
was the case when reporting on events in Syria - those journalists, the media, experts
who did not agree with the lie of MSM about Assad's use of the chemical weapons
were declared "conspiracy theorists" (and also "Assad apologists"). This method was
also used to cover "the Skripal case" - those who questioned the British authorities'
version of the "Novichok poisoning" were declared "conspiracy
theorists".
When I see words like "conspiracy theory" in the headlines and see what media use them,
then, you know, it's all clear. No chance for such articles/media to be taken seriously.
@32 jadan quote "Show me how that little piss ant country that can't even pay its fuel
bills...." are you familiar with the name porkoshenko, or any other one of the numbers of
kleptomaniacs in positions of power in the ukraine? how do you think they got their, if
''that little piss ant country' can't even pay it's bills? i am sure you are capable of
adding 2 + 2...
b isn't defending trump here.. he's highlighting how corrupt the msm is! it looks like you
missed that.. check the headline..
This is the way the controlled media works. They provide half a story, half truths, straw-man
facts, selective quotes and 'expert' comment, opinion and unwarranted assumption presented as
fact that all together cover the spectrum from black to white, spread across the many titles.
They also disseminate a fine dusting of lies and actual truth here and there. The result is
the public have a dozen 'truths' to pick from, none of which are real, while the outright
lies and actual truths get dismissed as not credible and the half-truths and straw-man truths
appear to carry some validity. If you look for it you can find it applying in almost every
bit of 'news', if it is in any way controversial, whether it is partisan politics, Climate
Change or Brexit to give examples.
As we know from Wayne Madsen's little book, "The Manufacturing of a President", Obama
has been a CIA asset since he was a suckling babe.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge.
Ukraine was just one hell of a honey pot that too many couldn't resist visiting.
Kind of like Russia (Uranium One and HRC) or China (Biden for a start).
Giulani is going to be very busy - he still hasn't produced anything that wasn't already
published, but I bet he has much more.
... smart enough to understand and agree that they needed someone like Trump?
Yes, I do think they are smart enough and agreed to act in their collective best interest.
Kissinger first wrote of MAGA in a WSJ Op-Ed in August 2014. Trump entered the race in June
2015, IIRC.
Do you think that Trump - who failed at multiple businesses - just woke up one day and
became a political and geopolitical genius? As a candidate he said he'd "take the oil" and
now, more than 3 years later, he has! LOL.
And JUST AFTER the Mueller investigation formally ends, Trump ONCE AGAIN solicits a
foreign power to interfere in a US election. The biggest beneficiary? Deep State BIDEN! Who
now gets all the media attention.
FYI Wm Gruff makes your same point often: that Deep State mistakes demonstrate that they
couldn't possible pull of a Trump win (if that's what they wanted). I disagree.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I very much doubt that anyone will go to jail - or serve any meaningful jail time if they
do - over the Deep State shenanigans. Nor will people 'wake up' and see how they've been
played anytime soon. Even the smarter, more savvy denizens of the moa bar have much
difficulty connecting dots. Dots that they don't want to see.
If Obama was CIA, and GW Bush was CIA (via daddy Bush), and Clinton was CIA (via Arkansas
drug-running and the Presidency), and Bush Sr was CIA ... then what can we conclude about
Trump? 1) he's also CIA, or 2) he's a willing stooge
Trump at first threw down the gauntlet to the spies and proclaimed his autocratic
prerogative when God held off the rain for his inauguration (!) but now he would gladly get
on his knees between Gina Haspel's legs if the CIA would only help him stay in power.
What
distinguishes Obama from other presidents is the degree to which he was manufactured. He made
it to the WH without much of a political base. Control of the political context, media and
process, launched Obama to the top. It was fulfillment of the liberal American dream. It was
a great coup. Talk about the "deep state"! It's staring us all in the face.
Oh, but Deep State DID interfere.
FACT: Deep Stater Hillary colluded with DNC against Sanders. ( But she would NEVER
participate in collusion that caused her to lose an election./sarc LOL)
And now pro-Trump people say Clapper, Brennan, and Comey interfered in the 2016 election
OR committed treason by trying to unseat the President!
So we can talk about Deep State interference . . . as long as it follows the partisan
narrative that's been established for us.
I have news for you. USA Presidents use strong coercive persuasive arguments or means of
speech ALL THE TIME. And always have. Sometimes they can be subtle and allude to an action
that might make them happy and sometimes they can be blunt. Its a presidential thing. It is
what statespeople do when they 'negotiate' for their desired outcome.
It is not illegal or corrupt. It is power nakedly exercised. Just because Biden is a
candidate for the same presidential role does not confer immunity for Biden's graft in favor
of his son a few years back. You make a mockery of your position.
One USA President visited Australia once and when confronted with a roadblock of
demonstrators seeking peace in Vietnam demanded of the Australian Premier to "drive over the
bastards". That didn't happen but the President continued to drive all over the Vietnamese
innocents.
Trump may be a grifter and a scumbag but there are warmongers well ahead of him in the cue
for justice. Take Hillary Clinton for example. She is a ruthless killer and the greatest
breach of USA national Security ever with her Secretary of State emails held on an unsecured
server in her closet.
The same powers some call "deep state," are the same powers that have given us ALL modern day
presidents, probably from FDR on.
IMO, they are nothing more, nothing less than the "captains of commerce", who, through the
vast accumulation of wealth by monopoly, buy our "representatives" to legislate rules and
regulations to benefit themselves.
Our so-called "leaders" work for them, with very few exceptions, and transcends all
political parties, and now also the Supreme Court.
$ has been ruled speech, unlimited $ is allowed to be given to politicians for elections.
How could anything but massive corruption take place under this kind of system?
they make it look as if Trump did something crazy or illegal. He does plenty of that but not
in this case.
You suffer from TDS. What on Earth are you talking about here? Plenty of that? Say what?
Why do you undercut your entire point in your article with this little piece of utter
nonsense?
Name one thing that Trump that has done that is illegal. Name one thing that is crazy. Stop apologizing to the crazies by denigrating Trump. Your entire article was all about
how none of the bs is true. And then you put your own brand of bs in there at the end. Cut it
out.
@ 54 jadan... thanks for your comments... i am feeling more philosophical tonight, as i don't
have a gig and have some time to express myself a bit more here.. first off, i don't like any
of these characters - trump, biden, and etc. etc.. i have no horse in the game here, and it
sounds like you don't either.. your comment- "The issue is Trump's extortion of Ukraine, not
Biden's extortion of Ukraine." i can go along with that until i reflect back onto what
increasingly looks like an agenda to get trump even prior to when he was elected, at which
point i want to say why are we only examining trump in all of this? who gets to decide what
the issue is, or as Caitlin Johnstone lets to say - who gets to decide what the narrative is
here? i don't have an answer for this, but those who appear to be taking a side in all of
this - including you with the quote i make - seem to think that it has to be the issue of
trumps extortion of Ukraine, verses what appears to me the CIA - Dem party extortion of the
ordinary USA persons mind...
let me back up... Has mccarthyism version 2 come to life since the advent of what happened
in the Ukraine from 2014 onward?? is the issue of a new cold war with Russia been on the
burner for at least 5 or more years here and began before trump was even considered a
potential candidate for the republican party? did Russia take back Crimea, which wasn't
supposed to happen? is this good for military industrial complex sales? and etc. etc..
so, i don't think it is fair to only consider the latest boneheaded thing trump did when i
consider the bigger picture unfolding here.. now, maybe you think i am a trump apologist... i
am just saying what the backdrop looks like to me here.. i am sure biden is small potatoes in
the bigger picture here, but if taking a closer examination of what took place in ukraine
leading into 2014, with the victoria nulands and geoffrey pyatts and etc. etc. of usa
diplomatic corps, usa dept of state and etc. could lead to a better understanding of how the
usa has went down the road it has for the past 60 years of foreign policy on the world stage,
it would be a good start... so, to me - it ain't about trump.. it is about usa foreign policy
and how it has sucked the big one on the world stage for at least since the time of vietnam
when i was a teenager..
i suppose it depends on the time frame one wants to take.. my time frame will be
considered an evasion of the moment to some, but it is how i see it.. sure, trump is scum,
but the bigger issue to me is the usa's foreign policy agenda.. anything that can pull back
the covers on that would be an extremely good thing... now, perhaps this is the straw that
broke trumps back and the deep state will not tolerate being scrutinized.. that i could
understand, but i am not going to be putting it all on trump as the reason the covers have to
remain on all the shit the usa has been responsible for on the world stage to date and
especially the past 10 years.. i am not able to blame trump for all of that.. and as you can
see, i would prefer to get down to the nitty gritty of who is zooming who here... the msm for
all intensive purposes is complicit in duping the american public.. that to me is the gist of
b's comment here, not that he is cheer-leading for trump.. i just don't see it that way...i'm
definitely not!
Money quote: “Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts."
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine; the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils. ..."
"... Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016; one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment, discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen. ..."
"... The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive. ..."
"... Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally allied with Clinton camp. ..."
"... In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits. ..."
"... The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and politicians. ..."
"... The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. ..."
"... If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War childhood out of my head long enough to laugh. ..."
A talk with Oleg Tsarev reveals the alleged identity of the "Trump/Ukraine Whistleblower"
Israel Shamir October
25, 2019 2,400 Words 6 Comments Reply
Top Dems are involved in the plundering of the Ukraine: new names, mind-boggling accounts.
The mysterious 'whistleblower' whose report had unleashed the impeachment is named in the
exclusive interview given to the Unz Review by a prominent Ukrainian politician, an
ex-Member of Parliament of four terms, a candidate for Ukraine's presidency, Oleg Tsarev.
Mr Tsarev, a tall, agile and graceful man, a good speaker and a prolific writer, had been a
leading and popular Ukrainian politician before the 2014 putsch; he stayed in the Ukraine after
President Yanukovych's flight; ran for the Presidency against Mr Poroshenko, and eventually had
to go to exile due to multiple threats to his life. During the failed attempt to secede, he was
elected the speaker of the Parliament of Novorossia (South-Eastern Ukraine). I spoke to him in
Crimea, where he lives in the pleasant seaside town of Yalta. Tsarev still has many supporters
in the Ukraine, and is a leader of the opposition to the Kiev regime.
Oleg, you followed Biden story from its very inception. Biden is not the only Dem
politician involved in the Ukrainian corruption schemes, is he?
Indeed, John Kerry, the Secretary of State in Obama's administration, was his
partner-in-crime. But Joe Biden was number one. During the Obama presidency, Biden was the US
proconsul for Ukraine, and he was involved in many corruption schemes. He authorised transfer
of three billion dollars of the US taxpayers' money to the post-coup government of the Ukraine;
the money was stolen, and Biden took a big share of the spoils.
It is a story of ripping the US taxpayer and the Ukrainian customer off for the benefit of a
few corruptioners, American and Ukrainian. And it is a story of Kiev regime and its dependence
on the US and IMF. The Ukraine has a few midsize deposits of natural gas, sufficient for
domestic household consumption. The cost of its production was quite low; and the Ukrainians
got used to pay pennies for their gas. Actually, it was so cheap to produce that the Ukraine
could provide all its households with free gas for heating and cooking, just like Libya did.
Despite low consumer price, the gas companies (like Burisma) had very high profits and very
little expenditure.
After the 2014 coup, IMF demanded to raise the price of gas for the domestic consumer to
European levels, and the new president Petro Poroshenko obliged them. The prices went sky-high.
The Ukrainians were forced to pay many times more for their cooking and heating; and huge
profits went to coffers of the gas companies. Instead of raising taxes or lowering prices,
President Poroshenko demanded the gas companies to pay him or subsidise his projects. He said
that he arranged the price hike; it means he should be considered a partner.
Burisma Gas company had to pay extortion money to the president Poroshenko. Eventually its
founder and owner Mr Nicolai Zlochevsky decided to invite some important Westerners into the
company's board of directors hoping it would moderate Poroshenko's appetites. He had brought in
Biden's son Hunter, John Kerry, Polish ex-President Kwasniewski; but it didn't help him.
Poroshenko became furious that the fattened calf may escape him, and asked the Attorney
General Shokin to investigate Burisma trusting some irregularities would emerge. AG Shokin
immediately discovered that Burisma had paid these 'stars' between 50 and 150 thousand dollar
per month each just for being on the list of directors. This is illegal by the Ukrainian tax
code; it can't be recognised as legitimate expenditure.
At that time Biden the father entered the fray. He called Poroshenko and gave him six hours
to close the case against his son. Otherwise, one billion dollars of the US taxpayers' funds
won't pass to the Ukrainian corruptioners. Zlochevsky, the Burisma owner, paid Biden well for
this conversation: he received between three and ten million dollars, according to different
sources.
AG Shokin said he can't close the case within six hours; Poroshenko sacked him and installed
Mr Lutsenko in his stead. Lutsenko was willing to dismiss the case of Burisma, but he also
could not do it in a day, or even in a week. Biden, as we know, could not keep his trap shut:
by talking about the pressure he put on Poroshenko, he incriminated himself. Meanwhile Mr
Shokin gave evidence that Biden put pressure on Poroshenko to fire him, and now it was
confirmed. The evidence was given to the US lawyers in connection with another case, Firtash
case.
What is Firtash Case?
The Democrats wanted to get another Ukrainian oligarch, Mr Firtash, to the US and make him
to confess that he illegally supported Trump's campaign for the sake of Russia. Firtash had
been arrested in Vienna, Austria; there he fought extradition to the US. His lawyers claimed it
is purely political case, and they used Mr Shokin's deposition to substantiate their claim. For
this reason, the evidence supplied by Shokin is not easily reversible, even if Shokin were
willing, and he is not. He also stated under oath that the Democrats pressurised him to help
and extradite Firtash to the US, though he had no standing in this purely American issue. It
seems that Mrs Clinton believes that Firtash's funds helped Trump to win elections, an
extremely unlikely thing [says Mr Tsarev].
Talking about Burisma and Biden; what is this billion dollars of aid that Biden could
give or withhold?
It is USAID money, the main channel of the US aid for "support of democracy". First billion
dollars of USAID came to the Ukraine in 2014. This was authorised by Joe Biden, while for
Ukraine, the papers were signed by Mr Turchinov, the "acting President". The Ukrainian
constitution does not know of such a position, and Turchinov, "the acting President" had no
right to sign neither a legal nor financial document. Thus, all the documents that were signed
by him, in fact, had no legal force. However, Biden countersigned the papers signed by
Turchynov and allocated money for Ukraine. And the money was stolen – by the Democrats
and their Ukrainian counterparts.
Two years ago, (that is already under President Trump) the United States began to
investigate the allocation of 3 billion dollars; it was allocated in 2014, in 2015, in 2016;
one billion dollars per year. The investigation showed that the documents were falsified, the
money was transferred to Ukraine, and stolen. The investigators tracked each payment,
discovered where the money went, where it was spent and how it was stolen.
As a result, in October 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a criminal case for
"Abuse of power and embezzlement of American taxpayers' money". Among the accused there are two
consecutive Finance Ministers of the Ukraine, Mrs Natalie Ann Jaresko who served 2014-2016 and
Mr Alexander Daniluk who served 2016-2018, and three US banks. The investigation caused the
USAID to cease issuing grants since August 2019. As Trump said, now the US does not give away
money and does not impose democracy.
The money was allocated with the flagrant violation of American law. There was no risk
assessment, no audit reports. Normally the USAID, when allocating cash, always prepares a
substantial package of documents. But the billions were given to Ukraine completely without
documents. The criminal case on the embezzlement of USAID funds had been signed personally by
the US Attorney General, so these issues are very much alive.
Sam Kislin was involved in this investigation. He is a good friend and associate of
Giuliani, Trump's lawyer and an ex-mayor of New York. Kislin is well known in Kiev, and I have
many friends who are Sam's friends [said Tsarev]. I learned of his progress, because some of my
friends were detained in the United States, or interrogated in Ukraine. They briefed me about
this. It appears that Burisma is just the tip of the scandal, the tip of the iceberg. If Trump
will carry on, and use what was already initiated and investigated, the whole headquarters of
the Democratic party will come down. They will not be able to hold elections. I have no right
to name names, but believe me, leading functionaries of the Democratic party are involved.
Poroshenko was aware of that; he gave orders to declare Sam Kislin persona non grata. Once
the old man (he is over 80) flew into Kiev airport and he was not allowed to come in; he spent
the night in detention and was flown back to the US next day. Poroshenko had been totally
allied with Clinton camp.
And President Zelensky? Is he free from Clintonite Democrats' influence?
If he were, there would not be the scandal of Trump phone call. How the Democrats learned of
this call and its alleged content? The official version says there was a CIA man, a
whistle-blower, who reported to the Democrats. What the version does not clarify, where this
whistle-blower was located during the call. I tell you, he was located in Kiev, and he was
present at the conversation, at the Ukrainian President Zelensky's side. This man was (perhaps)
a CIA asset, but he also was a close associate of George Soros, and a Ukrainian high-ranking
official. His name is Mr Alexander Daniluk . He is also the man
the investigation of Sam Kislin and of the DoJ had led to, the Finance Minister of Ukraine at
the time, the man who was responsible for the embezzlement of three billion US taxpayer's best
dollars. The DoJ issued an order for his arrest. Naturally he is devoted to Biden personally,
and to the Dems in general. I would not trust his version of the phone call at all.
Daniluk was supposed to accompany President Zelensky on his visit to Washington; but he was
informed that there is an order for his arrest. He remained in Kiev. And soon afterwards, the
hell of the alleged leaked phone call broke out. Zelensky administration investigated and
concluded that the leak was done by Mr Alexander Daniluk, who is known for his close relations
with George Soros and with Mr Biden. Alexander Daniluk had been fired. (However, he did not
admit his guilt and said the leak was done by his sworn enemy, the head of president's
administration office, Mr Andrey Bogdan , who allegedly framed
Daniluk.)
This is not the only case of US-connected corruption in Ukraine. There is Amos J. Hochstein , a protege of former
VP Joe Biden, who has served in the Barack Obama administration as the Assistant Secretary of
State for Energy Resources. He still hangs on the Ukraine. Together with an American citizen
Andrew Favorov
, the Deputy Director of Naftogas he organised very expensive "reverse gas import" into
Ukraine. In this scheme, the Russian gas is bought by Europeans and afterwards sold to Ukraine
with a wonderful margin. In reality, gas comes from Russia directly, but payments go via
Hochstein. It is much more costly than to buy directly from Russia; Ukrainian people pay, while
the margin is collected by Hochstein and Favorov. Now they plan to import liquefied gas from
the United States, at even higher price. Again, the price will be paid by the Ukrainians, while
profits will go to Hochstein and Favorov.
In all these scams, there are people of Clinton and spooks who are fully integrated in the
Democratic Party. A former head of CIA, Robert James Woolsey, now sits on the Board of
Directors of Velta , producing Ukrainian
titanium. Woolsey is a neocon, a member of the Project for the New
American Century (PNAC), pro-Israel think-tank, and a man who relentlessly pushed for Iraq
war. A typical Democrat spook, now he gets profits from Ukrainian ore deposits.
One of the best Ukrainian corruption stories is connected with Audrius Butkevicius , the former
Minister of Defence (1996 to 2000) and a Member of the Seimas (Parliament) of post-Soviet
Lithuania. Mr AB is supposedly working for MI6, and now is a member of the notorious Institute for
Statecraft , a UK deep state propaganda outfit involved in disinformation operations,
subversion of the democratic process and promoting Russophobia and the idea of a new cold war.
In 1991 he commanded snipers that shoot Lithuanian protesters. The kills were ascribed to the
Soviet armed forces, and the last Soviet President Mr Gorbachev ordered speedy withdrawal of
his troops from Lithuania. Mr AB became the Minister of Defence of his independent nation. In
1997 the Honourable Minister of Defence "had requested 300,000 USD from a senior executive of a
troubled oil company for his assistance in obtaining the discontinuance of criminal proceedings
concerning the company's vast debts", in the language of the court judgement. He was arrested
on receipt of the bribe, had been sentenced to five years of jail, but a man with such
qualifications was not left to rot in a prison.
In 2005 he commanded the snipers who killed protesters in Kyrgyzstan, in Georgia he repeated
the feat in 2003 during the Rose Revolution. In 2014 he did it again in Kiev, where his snipers
killed around a hundred men, protesters and police. He was brought to Kiev by Mr Turchinov, who
called himself the "acting President" and who countersigned Joe Biden's billion dollars'
grant.
In October 2018 the name of Mr AB came up again. Military warehouses of Chernigov had caught
fire; allegedly thousands of shells stored for fighting the separatists had been destroyed by
fire. And it was not the first fire of this kind: the previous one, equally huge, torched
Ukrainian army warehouses in Vinnitsa in 2017. Altogether, there were 12 huge army arsenal
fires for the last few years. Just for 2018, the damage was over $2 billion.
When Chief Military Prosecutor of Ukraine Anatoly Matios investigated the fires, he
discovered that 80% of weapons and shells in the warehouses were missing. They weren't
destroyed by fire, they weren't there in the first place. Instead of being used to kill the
Russian-speaking Ukrainians of Donetsk, the hardware had been shipped from the port of Nikolaev
to Syria, to the Islamic rebels and to ISIS. And the man who organised this enormous operation
was our Mr AB, the old fighter for democracy on behalf of MI6, acting in cahoots with the
Minister of Defence Poltorak and Mr Turchinov, the friend of Mr
Biden. (They say Mr Matios was given $10 million for his silence).
The loss was of Ukrainian people, and of US taxpayers, while the beneficiaries were the Deep
State, which is probably just another name for the deadly mix of spooks, media and
politicians.
The globalist criminal elites will not be held responsible for any of these crimes. They're
bound together by ties of blackmail forged by guys like Epstein, mutually assured
incrimination in serial swindles which cross Left and Right political boundaries and literal
murder in the case of guys like Seth Rich. The cozy proximity of recently-murdered Epstein
himself to crypto-converso AG Barr's family only makes me more certain that they will get
away with this heist like they've done with dozens of other billion-dollar swindles.
If they were only stealing money it would be bad enough, but the fact that these same
grifters are our "diplomats" and warmakers is positively Orwellian. Watching these petty
hoodlums play nuclear chicken with Russia so they can squeeze more shekels from the supine
Ukraine would be laughable if I could get the first-strike nightmares of my Cold War
childhood out of my head long enough to laugh.
Who will hold then responsible? The country appears to have been entirely taken over by
crookish spooks and politicians.
The US is now confirmed as a cleptocracy.
Ukraine is corrupted by outsiders (those who are not Ukrainian/Russian). In past centuries
there was a simple but effective answer to foreigners corrupting their country. The Cossacks
would sharpen up their sabres. saddle up their horses and have a slaughter. It was effective
then and would be effective today. Get rid of those who are not Slavic.
The State Department is a neoliberal Trojan horse in the USA government, with strong
globalist ethos. They will sabotage any change of foreign policy. and they intend to kick the
neoliberal can down the road as long as possible. They are the same type of neoliberals as Joe
Biden and Hillary Clinton. Probably less corrupt them those two, but still.
They are imperial soldiers par excellence; these whole life concentrated on serving the
imperial interests, and strive for the strengthening and expansion of neoliberal empire via
opening new markets for the expansions of US based multinationals, staging wars and color
revolutions to overthrows the governments which resists Washington Consensus, etc.
They probably can't be reformed, only fired, or forced into retirement. 72 years old neocon
stooge Taylor is just the tip of the iceberg.
From Wikipedia: He directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair . Following that
assignment, he went to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special
Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO From 1992 until 2002 Taylor served with the rank of
ambassador coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union , followed by an assignment in
Kabul coordinating U.S. and
international assistance to Afghanistan . In 2004 he was transferred to
Baghdad as Director of the
Iraq Reconstruction Management Office
Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be United States ambassador to
Ukraine while he was serving as Senior Consultant to the Coordinator of Reconstruction and
Stabilization at the Department of State. [10] He was
confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was
sworn in on June 5, 2006. At the time Taylor assumed responsibilities at the embassy it was, with
over 650 employees from nine U.S. government departments and agencies, the fifth-largest
bilateral mission in Europe
Notable quotes:
"... As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry Democrats and Republicans alike. ..."
"... One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term, coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment, mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. ..."
"... Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on Trump. ..."
"... Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine as a white knight. ..."
"... Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions. Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point. ..."
"... ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is now in the open? ..."
"... Vice President Mike Pence told Laura Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress." ..."
As William Taylor's testimony about Ukraine creates shock waves in Washington, a
self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has largely operated
unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil, or even subvert,
the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that should worry
Democrats and Republicans alike.
President Donald Trump campaigned and was elected on a platform of improved relations with
Russia. Yet, three years after his election, no real improvement has materialized and, if
anything, they have deteriorated. Why?
One reason is that those who seek to repair the damage caused by a thirty-year
deterioration in trust and cooperation face an uphill battle against what recently has been
given the colloquial name, "the Blob." The term,
coined by Obama White House staffer Ben Rhodes, refers to the foreign-policy establishment,
mostly located in Washington, DC and constantly focused on the putative decline of American
influence abroad. It has been distinguished by its unwillingness, or inability, to reconsider
or reprioritize national interests that were first defined after World War II, and then
continued, by and large, on auto-pilot after the end of the Cold War. Now Trump is
taking a wrecking ball to
this world order. But a self-anointed mandarin class or, if you prefer, deep state, that has
largely operated unmolested until the advent of Trump now appears to believe that it can foil,
or even subvert, the policies of a president it deems unfit for office, a development that
should worry Democrats and Republicans alike.
Another reason is that Trump himself has been largely indifferent to who assumes
positions in his administration, calculating that by sheer force of will he, and he alone, can
be the decider. In September, Trump referred to his search for a fresh national security
adviser in the following terms: "It's great because it's a lot of fun to work with Donald
Trump, and it's very easy, actually, to work with me. You know why it's easy? Because I make
all the decisions. They don't have to work." This insouciant approach has now boomeranged on
Trump.
Enter William B. Taylor, Jr. Taylor has been the U.S. Chargé d 'Affaires Ukraine
since June of this year (having previously held the position of ambassador 2006–2009),
and yesterday he testified behind-closed-doors as part of the House impeachment inquiry into
Trump. Taylor, as his testimony made clear, was able to observe first-hand many of the
Trump administration's ham-fisted moves to extract, in one form another, concessions from
Ukraine. But however clumsy and counterproductive Trump's moves may have been, Taylor offered
an overly simplistic survey of events in the region. Indeed, his Manichean introductory and
concluding remarks suggested that he views Russia as an inveterate enemy of America and Ukraine
as a white knight.
In his opening statement, Taylor emphasized that Ukraine is a strategic partner of the
United States that is "important for the security of our country as well as Europe," as well as
a country that is "under armed attack from Russia." Well, yes. But this sweeping description
occludes more than it reveals. Foreign policy is rarely a morality play and the fairy-tale
that Taylor presented was more redolent of a post–Cold War cold warrior who, like too
many of his colleagues at the foreign desk, are committed to retrograde thinking, than of an
official offering an incisive look at a complex and troubled region. It is not as though
Ukraine, where Taylor served as ambassador during the George W. Bush administration, has ever
been free from the plague of corruption or murky machinations by local competing factions.
Reflexively taking the side of Ukraine does not serve American interests any more than trying
to pummel it for political favors. The testimony of Taylor and other State Department witnesses
before the House Intelligence Committee is a case in point.
Will anything change n ow that the fight between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy is
now in the open? On Tuesday night, Vice President Mike Pence told Laura
Ingraham , host of Fox's The Ingraham Angle , "There is no question when President
Trump said we were going to drain the swamp, but an awful lot of the swamp has been caught up
in the State Department bureaucracy and we're just going to keep fighting it. And we are going
to fight it with the truth." For his part, Evans thinks that there is a modicum of hope for
improved relations with Moscow. "Taylor will have to resign now," he says. "We might even see a
moderation of the uncritical support for Ukraine, as some of the ugly underside starts to
emerge, although anti-Russian sentiment is the mother's milk of Congress."
Hunter DeRensis is a reporter at the National Interest .
There was always an element of this in US foreign policy. Teddy Roosevelt took the
opportunity of the Navy Sec being out for the weekend to send orders for the Asiatic
Fleet to move to position to attack the Philippines. The returning Sec was appalled, but
it was too late. For that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming President in due
time.
Forty years later, the US oil embargo on Japan happened the same way. The boss away
for the weekend, the deputy ordered it, and then left his bosses the options of
supporting it or appearing weak and appearing to make a concession by withdrawing it. For
that adventure, he was rewarded by becoming Sec of State in due time.
The pattern is not new. Doing it domestically is new. Doing it to remove a President
is new. Doing it to reverse a US election is new, though reversing foreign elections that
way by the same people was routine.
If we are to fix this, we need to face that it is a problem very deeply embedded. It
is not new, and does not have recent nor shallow roots.
"What goes unmentioned is that many of the dead are Eastern Ukrainians with deep
language and cultural connections to Russia, who acted upon secessionist impulses only
after the emergence of the new regime in Kiev."
This is true. Putin/Lavrov team gets a lot criticism for that in Russia. Maybe, of all
those Kalibrs going to Raqqa, Syria, just a few could make a detour to Lvov, Ukraine, for
demonstration purposes? While I greatly respect the diplomatic acumen of the Russian
leadership, i think support for pro-Russia East Ukrainians has been insufficient. More
could and should have been done. Donbass people were allowed to receive Russian passports
recently, so hopefully this will change things for the better, and more Russian support
will arrive, but we will see. West won't like a more pro-active Russian approach, but
since Russia-West relations won't improve in a foreseeable future, Russia can safely
discard Western opinion and agree to disagree on this particular matter.
According to Deng Xiaoping's maxim, we should "seek truth from facts," and after three
years Trump recognizes the fact that it is in U.S. national interest to avoid great power
conflict either with China or Russia. If we were to be honest and "seek truth from facts"
judging Putin with fairness by his action, we would see that Putin's intellect and
character have benefitted the international community at large in every regions across
the globe. Sadly, the American mandarin class is like Mao's Chinese Gang of Four who
insisted on continuing with outdated Cold War political ideology. Americans would never
vote for any chaos president, and Trump realizes that in time for 2020.
Russia has its own fair share of neo-naztis, so what?
Ukrainian neo-nazis (Azov etc.) get paided and armed by the Ukrainian state.
On Wednesday, New York Rep. Max Rose, who chairs the
counterterrorism subcommittee, submitted a letter to the State
Department, co-signed by 39 members of Congress . It urged the department
to designate Azov Battalion (a far-right paramilitary regiment in
Ukraine), National Action (a neo-Nazi group based in the U.K.), and
Nordic Resistance Movement (a neo-Nazi network from Scandinavia) as
terrorist organizations .
The reason they think Azov is neo-nasti organization is because the suspect in
Christchurch mosque got military
training in Ukraine.
I think this is typical illustration of the "Post hoc" fallacy.
There are no records of Azov perpetuating anti semitic or anti muslim actions in
Ukraine, so it is not clear if there is a relation.
Russia, on the other hand, openly peddling supremacy - Russian civilization, Russian
world, Russian character, Russian language - are the best and superior to anything
else.
"... "What they did was treasonous, OK? It was treasonous," he told author Doug Wead for his upcoming book, " Inside Trump's White House: The Real Story of His Presidency." ..."
President Trump has ratcheted up his claim that the Obama White House spied on his 2016 campaign, charging in a new book that
it was a "treasonous" act by the former Democratic president.
"The interesting thing out of all of this is that we caught them spying on the election. They were spying on my campaign. So you
know? What is that all about?" said Trump.
"I have never ever said this, but truth is, they got caught spying. They were spying," said Trump who then added, "Obama."
In 2017, Trump tweeted that he felt the Obama White House "had my wires tapped" in Trump Tower. He later said he didn't mean it
literally but that he felt his campaign was being spied on.
Attorney General William Barr earlier this year said he was looking into whether "improper surveillance" may have occurred in
2016.
He has tasked a prosecutor to look into Obama officials and other officials who sparked the Russia collusion investigation into
Trump after a report showed no collusion. New reports on that investigation described it as "criminal" in nature.
"It turned out I was right. By the way," Trump told Wead in excerpts provided to Secrets.
"In fact, what I said was peanuts compared to what they did. They were spying on my campaign. They got caught and they said,
'Oh we were not spying. It was actually an investigation.' Can you imagine an administration investigating its political opponents?"
said the president.
In the book, Trump said that the Russia investigation undercut his presidency.
" Anybody else would be unable to function under the kind of pressure and distraction I had. They couldn't get anything done.
No other president should ever have to go through this. But understand, there was no collusion. They would have had to make something
up," he said.
Technically, it was sedition, unless Trump can show that Obama was acting for a foreign power. There definitely were foreign
powers involved, the question is who was in charge?
The attempt to circumvent democracy and ensure Hillary's victory in the elections with falsified Russian collusion allegations
along with a constant communist media bombardment to discredit Trump, absolutely constitutes treason. What you need to understand
is that socialist progressives serve a different god - lucifer - and a different nation - Israel; that they do not have your best
interests at heart is a given.
Everything they do is to undermine traditional morality and the moral fabric that holds civilization together. Ordo Ab Cao.
Flynn's story became a classic story of FBI entrapment...
Notable quotes:
"... The Federalist ..."
"... According to the 37-page motion , a team of " high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president's National Security Advisor, not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity -- they already had tapes of all the relevant conversations about which they questioned Mr. Flynn -- but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they could allege as false ." ..."
"... Notably, Lisa Page lied to the DOJ, saying that she didn't recall whether she took part in editing Flynn's 302 form . ..."
"... Then, quoting from a sealed statement by Strzok, Powell reveals that over next two weeks, there were "many meetings" between Strzok and [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe to discuss "whether to interview [] National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and if so, what interview strategies to use." ..."
"... Another startling claim in Powell's filing references a purported conversation between former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, which claims Clapper told the reporter "words to the effect of 'take the kill shot on Flynn,' after Ignatius reportedly obtained the transcript of Flynn's phone calls. ..."
"... Lastly, Powell's filing also notes that US District Judge Rudolph Contreras, who recused himself after accepting Flynn's guilty plea, had a personal relationship with Peter Strzok , according to text messages. ..."
FBI Entrapped Flynn With Manipulated Evidence As Clapper Allegedly Issued 'Kill Shot' Order: Court Docs by
Tyler Durden Sat, 10/26/2019 - 11:30 0 SHARES
A bombshell court filing from Michael Flynn's new legal team alleges that FBI agents altered a '302' form - the official record
of the former national security adviser's interview - that resulted in the DOJ charging him with lying to investigators.
Early last week Flynn attorney Sidney Powell filed a sealed reply to federal prosecutors' claims that they have satisfied their
requirements for turning over evidence in the case. A
minimally redacted copy of the
reply brief was made public late last week, revealing the plot to destroy Flynn , as reported by
The Federalist 's Margot Cleveland.
According to the 37-page motion , a team of " high-ranking FBI officials orchestrated an ambush-interview of the new president's
National Security Advisor, not for the purpose of discovering any evidence of criminal activity -- they already had tapes of all
the relevant conversations about which they questioned Mr. Flynn -- but for the purpose of trapping him into making statements they
could allege as false ."
At the heart of the matter is the 302 form 'documenting' an FBI interview in which Flynn was asked about his conversations with
former Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Powell alleges that FBI lawyer Lisa Page edited her lover Peter Strzok's account of the
interview - texting him, "I made your edits."
"On February 10, 2017, the news broke -- attributed to 'senior intelligence officials' -- that Mr. Flynn had discussed sanctions
with Ambassador Kislyak, contrary to what Vice President Pence had said on television previously." Following this leak, "overnight,"
Flynn's 302 was changed -- and substantively so. " Those changes added an unequivocal statement that 'FLYNN stated he did not'
-- in response to whether Mr. Flynn had asked Kislyak to vote in a certain manner or slow down the UN vote."
" This is a deceptive manipulation " Powell highlighted, " because, as the notes of the agents show, Mr. Flynn was not even
sure he had spoken to Russia/Kislyak on this issue . He had talked to dozens of countries." The overnight changes to the 302 also
included the addition of a line, indicating Flynn had been question on whether "KISLYAK described any Russian response to a request
by FLYNN."
But the agent's notes do not include that question or answer, Powell stressed, yet it was later made into the criminal offense
charges against Flynn . And "the draft also shows that the agents moved a sentence to make it seem to be an answer to a question
it was not ," Powell added.
Here's Powell describing how they know the 302 form was altered:
Notably, Lisa Page lied to the DOJ, saying that she didn't recall whether she took part in editing Flynn's 302 form .
Laying the groundwork
Leading up to the interview with Flynn, the text messages reveal that the FBI wanted to capitalize on news of the 'salacious and
unverified' Steele dossier - and whether they "can use it as a pretext to go interview some people," Strzok texted Page.
Then, quoting from a sealed statement by Strzok, Powell reveals that over next two weeks, there were "many meetings" between
Strzok and [FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe to discuss "whether to interview [] National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and
if so, what interview strategies to use." And "on January 23, the day before the interview, the upper echelon of the FBI met to
orchestrate it all . Deputy Director McCabe, General Counsel James Baker, Lisa Page, Strzok, David Bowdich, Trish Anderson, and
Jen Boone strategized to talk with Mr. Flynn in such a way as to keep from alerting him from understanding that he was being interviewed
in a criminal investigation of which he was the target."
Next came "Comey's direction to 'screw it' in contravention of longstanding DOJ protocols," leading McCabe to personally call
Flynn to schedule the interview . Yet none of Comey's notes on the decision to interview Flynn were turned over to defense. Even
Obama-holdover "Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates candidly opined that the interview 'was problematic' and ' it was not always
clear what the FBI was doing to investigate Flynn ," Powell stressed. Yet again, the prosecution did not turn over Yates' notes,
but only "disclosed a seven-line summary of Ms. Yates statement six months after Mr. Flynn's plea."
-The Federalist
'Kill Shot'
Another startling claim in Powell's filing references a purported conversation between former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and Washington Post reporter David Ignatius, which claims Clapper told the reporter "words to the effect of 'take the
kill shot on Flynn,' after Ignatius reportedly obtained the transcript of Flynn's phone calls.
Clapper's spokesman told Fox News that he "absolutely did not say those words to David Ignatius," adding "It's absolutely
false" and "absurd."
Powell claims that Ignatius was given the Flynn-Kislyak call transcripts by a Pentagon official who was also Stefan Halper's "handler."
Halper - who was
paid over $1 million by the Obama administration - was one of many spies the FBI sent to infiltrate the Trump campaign.
Halper, in 2016, contacted several members of the Trump campaign including former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos
and former aides Carter Page and Sam Clovis.
"The evidence the defense requests will eviscerate any factual basis for the plea and reveal the conduct so outrageous --
if there is not enough already -- to mandate dismissal of this prosecution for egregious government misconduct ," Powell wrote.
-
Fox News
Lastly, Powell's filing also notes that US District Judge Rudolph Contreras, who recused himself after accepting Flynn's
guilty plea, had a personal relationship with Peter Strzok , according to text messages.
"The government knew that well in advance of Mr. Flynn's plea that Judge Contreras was a friend of Peter Strzok and his recusal
was even discussed in an exchange of multiple texts," writes Powell, referencing Strzok-Page texts discussing Strzok and Contreras
speaking "in detail" about anything "meaningful enough to warrant recusal."
"The government knew that well in advance of Mr. Flynn's plea that Judge Contreras was a friend of Peter Strzok and his recusal
was even discussed in an exchange of multiple texts."
The USA is a real leader in technology and arm production. This is the country that created
PC, Internet and smartphones, which changed the world. So technical supremacy paves the way to
imperial behaviour.
CIA is one of the most powerful tools of the empire, the force that is instrumental in
peeking the USA on globalist path now (looks at Russiagate) .
The path of U.S.-Israeli arrogance and domination, with its various dimensions, and with
its direct and indirect extensions and alliances, which is witnessing military defeats and
political failures, reflected successive defeats for the American strategies and plans, one
after the other. All this has led [the U.S.] to a state of indecision, retreat, and inability
to control the progress of events in our Arab and Islamic world. There is a broader
international context for this – a context that, in its turn, helps to expose the
American crisis, and the decline of the [U.S.] unipolar hegemony, in the face of pluralism,
the characteristics of which are yet to be stabilized.
"The crisis of the arrogant world order is deepened by the collapse of U.S. and
international stock markets, and by the confusion and powerlessness of the American economy.
This reflects the height of the structural crisis of the model of capitalist arrogance.
Therefore, it can be said that we are in the midst of historic transformations that foretell
the retreat of the USA as a hegemonic power, the disintegration of the unipolar hegemonic
order, and the beginning of the accelerated historic decline of the Zionist entity.
After World War II, the U.S. has adopted the leading, central hegemonic project. At its
hands, this project has witnessed great development of the means of control and unprecedented
subjugation. It has benefited from an accumulation of multi-faceted accomplishments in
science, culture, technology, knowledge, economy, and the military, which was supported by an
economic political plan that views the world as nothing but open markets subject to the laws
of [the U.S.].
"The most dangerous aspect of Western logic of hegemony in general, and the American logic
of hegemony in particular, is their basic belief that they own the world, and have the right
to hegemony due to their supremacy in several fields. Thus, the Western, and especially
American, expansionist strategy, when coupled with the enterprise of capitalist economy, has
become a strategy of a global nature, whose covetous desires and appetite know no bounds.
The barbaric capitalism has turned globalism into a means to spread disintegration, to sow
discord, to destroy identities, and to impose the most dangerous form of cultural, economic,
and social plunder. Globalization reached its most dangerous phase, when it was transformed
into military globalization by the owners of the Western hegemony enterprise, the greatest
manifestation of which was evident in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq, to
Palestine, and to Lebanon.
There is no doubt that American terrorism is the source of all terrorism in the world. The
Bush administration has turned the U.S. into a danger threatening the whole world, on all
levels. If a global opinion poll were held today, the United States would emerge as the most
hated country in the world.
The most important goal of American arrogance is to take control of the peoples
politically, economically, and culturally, and to plunder their resources.
"... The official GOP talking points are that the Impeachment trial is a Deep State partisan witch hunt, being conducted in private and the equivalent of a coup or an attempt to overturn the 2016 elections. This is just being done to create some image that those talking points are substantiated. ..."
"... The impeachment is an Intelligence Community (aka Deep State) operation condoned by the Dems. They have decided to widen the scope to include lots of crimes, rather than just the phone call/funding block issue. This ups the ante, as Trump could easily get out of that, but being continuously assaulted with new claims will be much more difficult. Thus, transforming his investigation into the completely QueenOfWarmongers rubbish known as RussiaGate into a criminal probe with supeona power and so forth creates a counter narrative which Trump can use to defend himself. ..."
"... As for handcuffs, my targets would be Bush, Cheney, Clapper and Brennan, and possibly Mueller too (see his 'management' of the Anthrax attacks). ..."
"... Brennan in cuffs will require his partners in crime at the Oval Office meeting of the principles in late 2016 to be led away in handcuffs also. The 2016 Oval Office meeting which launched the FISA court referral will necessarily implicate the POTUS. ..."
"... Tax evasion took down gangster Al Capone. Like Al Capone a lesser charge will have John Brennan viewing the world through iron bars. For the intelligence community to actively attempt to decide an election and then actively attempt the coup of a President is damn, damn, damn serious but it pales in comparison to the 9/11 false flag. John Brennan stood at the apex of the 9/11 treachery (interestingly, Robert Mueller was involved too, but his role appears limited to the cover up). It appears John Brennan will get away with 9/11. ..."
"... In other words the Mueller investigation literally was a conspiracy theory. Any mass media organization that discusses "conspiracy theories" but fails to point out this biggest one of them all is engaged in deliberate deceit. ..."
"... I suspect that John Bolton is in fact the mastermind behind this fake "whistleblower" stunt. it's the sort of action Bolton would do as the master bureaucrat, spread false rumors of what the call between Trump and Zelensky contained among his subordinates and Neocon fellow travellers to feed into the narrative of a corrupt deal with Zelensky to derail Trumps plans in Ukraine and Russia and feed the Democrats impeachment push. Trump declassifying the transcript of the conversation probably caught him by surprise and threw a wrench into his plans since Trump has refused to declassify documents in the past and the State Department probably would have argued that Trump not declassify the conversation. ..."
"... In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt. ..."
Justice Department officials have shifted an administrative review of the Russia
investigation closely overseen by Attorney General William P. Barr to a criminal inquiry,
according to two people familiar with the matter. The move gives the prosecutor running it,
John H. Durham, the power to subpoena for witness testimony and documents, to convene a grand
jury and to file criminal charges.
In contrast these formulations in Bezos' blog on the very same issue are confusing me.
The federal prosecutor tapped by Attorney General William P. Barr to examine the origins of
the FBI's probe of President Trump's 2016 campaign is conducting an investigation officials
consider criminal in nature, according to a person familiar with the matter.
...
The significance of officials deeming Durham's probe "criminal" is difficult to determine by
itself.
...
It was not immediately clear whether officials' consideration of his work as criminal
represented a shift in the seriousness of his investigation or whether a grand jury had been
convened.
Durham's work is considered as criminal? The investigation itself has committed a crime? The
attorney is a criminal?
One wonders if this choice of phrasing was intended to be ambiguous.
Anyway.
I for one will cheer when Durham puts handcuffs on John Brennan.
Posted by b on October 25, 2019 at 12:09 UTC | Permalink
The official GOP talking points are that the Impeachment trial is a Deep State partisan
witch hunt, being conducted in private and the equivalent of a coup or an attempt to overturn
the 2016 elections. This is just being done to create some image that those talking points
are substantiated.
In order to understand this, you need to start with impeachment, and then look at what is
behind that.
The impeachment is an Intelligence Community (aka Deep State) operation condoned by
the Dems. They have decided to widen the scope to include lots of crimes, rather than just
the phone call/funding block issue. This ups the ante, as Trump could easily get out of that,
but being continuously assaulted with new claims will be much more difficult. Thus,
transforming his investigation into the completely QueenOfWarmongers rubbish known as
RussiaGate into a criminal probe with supeona power and so forth creates a counter narrative
which Trump can use to defend himself.
This seems pretty obvious.
The more interesting thing is, why did Polosi take on the impeachment inquiry? Well, it
will burn Biden, which is probably good because he's lost it. And, it will create all this
anti-Trump sentiment. But, her job, via the DNC is to get a nominee who will keep the status
quo and defeat Trump. They are currently putting their apples in the Warren bucket. This is
acceptable to the powers behind the scenes (MIC/Oil/...) as she will do the least amount of
change.
But, Polosi and the core Dems bigger problems are Burnie and Gabbard. They represent
radical change and the powers that should not be will do whatever they can to prevent that.
And, the bigger problem there is that Bernie's strategy is to create a movement which will
continue to engage. From his 2016 campaign you get AOC and Omar who are also radical. Thus,
this is a threat which will need to be constantly fought. And, with the lack of engagement by
the younger generation with the standard media outlets, they are even harder to control.
Now that the cat is out of the bag about RussiaGate, I imagine that the powers that be are
pissed off with QueenOfWarmongers for her stupid claims about Gabbard and Stein being Russian
assets. Flogging a dead horse (does not make it run faster). This just further enrages those
who are for more radical change.
Meanwhile, the "gang of four" are learning, independently and from Bernie, how power works
in DC. This represents a further challenge.
As for handcuffs, my targets would be Bush, Cheney, Clapper and Brennan, and possibly
Mueller too (see his 'management' of the Anthrax attacks).
IMO this investigation of the Mueller investigation is one part revenge and the rest is
gathering the evidence against Trump in order to bury it ahead of Trumps reelection. The full
Mueller report nor the evidence to produce it have been released and with this new
investigation controlled by Trumps protector it never will be while Barr and Trump are still
in power.
The conservative ruling power elite are staging a coup in America in order to establish
permanent conservative minority control of the levers of power and they see this as their
last best hope of achieving that goal. Buckle up this is going to get ugly as the
conservatives are starting to panic.
Brennan in cuffs will require his partners in crime at the Oval Office meeting of the
principles in late 2016 to be led away in handcuffs also. The 2016 Oval Office meeting which
launched the FISA court referral will necessarily implicate the POTUS. However, I don't
see these events materializing because compared to the president Trump replaced, Trump has
been far less urbane, educated and civil. All we usually ask of presidents is to be cool and
sophisticated when ordering the drone murders of our fellow U.S. Citizens, case in point as
ordered by Barack Obama with the 8-year old Nasser al Awlaki and her 16-year old brother,
Abdulrahman.
Tax evasion took down gangster Al Capone. Like Al Capone a lesser charge will have John
Brennan viewing the world through iron bars. For the intelligence community to actively
attempt to decide an election and then actively attempt the coup of a President is damn,
damn, damn serious but it pales in comparison to the 9/11 false flag. John Brennan stood at
the apex of the 9/11 treachery (interestingly, Robert Mueller was involved too, but his role
appears limited to the cover up). It appears John Brennan will get away with 9/11.
But, like Al Capone, John Brennan will live out his life caged up with his own kind.
With any luck this may all lead back to Obama, he is a truly evil man who (literally) got
away with murder. Perhaps if he got dragged away in handcuffs with Trump, Brennan et al then
we'd finally get a true assessment of his time as president...
From the early days of Russiagate I expected that the truth would never come out. (This is
the US of A, after all) Democrats would continue to live in their media
shaped delusions. (I am a Green Party voter). What truth did come out would be shaped by the
media to keep the Democratic voters steadfast in their heartfelt delusions.
Reuters has an article linked from their front page that is similar in intent to the
Bezo-blog that b has pointed out. I tried to choose a couple of paragraphs from the Reuters
article so that you would get the intent of it, but it is the *whole* thing, so read it.
**While reading it** try and see the article from the viewpoint of a brainwashed Democrat.
The article was designed to feed confirmation bias.
Read the whole thing, please.
Here are two unsurprising paragraphs:
Democrats and some former law enforcement officials say Barr is using the Justice
Department to chase unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that could benefit the Republican
president politically and undermine former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia
investigation.
Mueller's investigation found that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump,
and led to criminal convictions of several former campaign aides. But Mueller concluded
that he did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal conspiracy with Russia.
The short of it: They're now already acting like a bunch of cockroaches scrambling when
the light's turned on, all looking to pin the blame on someone else.
He'd also love to see leading media propagandists charged, something I wholeheartedly
agree with. (Though I'd string up all the propagandists for much worse crimes than
Russiagate, which like "impeachment" was never anything more than retarded political
theater.)
Only two options here folks: Either the Washington Bezos Post is a) staffed
by deliberate liars or it is b) staffed by morons who cannot construct a comprehensible
sentence.
Well, there is a third possibility: c) Both of the above.
The US is now a country that has a growing cabal of current and past leadership that are
criminally complicit in deceiving the American public as is detailed in the Joe Rogan
Experience #1368 - Edward Snowden video that is almost 3 hours long....see Petri comment # 67
in Open Thread for link.....this is not Snowden the glitz movie but Snowden the very
intelligent and humanistically patriotic person.
The recent phase of deception, according to Snowden has its roots in the 3 letter spy
agencies having overstepped constitutional bounds after 9/11. While the deception about
monitoring of Americans is criminal, its long term underlying goal is, and has been, to cover
up the take over of America by the international cult behind private finance led empire.
In case all missed the slow frog boiling transition, what use to be a country that was
established to be by and for the people (E Pluribus Unum) has now been turned into a tool of
unilateral financial control of the world that is faltering because China/Russia, et al are
not going along with the program.
The ongoing deception house of cards is collapsing as Might-Makes-Right can no longer hold
it together. The demise of the private finance/property/inheritance centered social contract
of the West is not a straight forward collapse as we are seeing, but collapsing it is.
How so very interesting to watch unfold.....as Snowden would encourage you, each of us has
our opportunity to play our part in evolving our society.....play your part without fear like
Snowden encourages and has provided such moving example of.
I find it impossible to get my hopes up that justice will ever be served to anyone in a
position of authority or malign influence in this country because they're all part of the
same Kabuki theater designed to keep us divided, confused, and unable to coalesce around a
strategy to confront them.
These investigations are always the stalling tactic they use to keep one side hoping for
justice while making the opposing side feel that it's the victim of a witch hunt, and
invariable both sides will be disappointed in the results while the power structure will
remain intact.
The only time anything resembling "justice" is served is when some low-level persons with
enough name recognition to make headlines, i.e. Martha Steward or these celebrity parents who
paid to get their kids into college, are sacrificed in order to maintain the illusion of a
functioning justice system. In reality the justice system we have is nothing more than
another line in the phalanx of defense the ruling elites (see: globalists, capitalists,
zionists) have built to protect their corrupt position of power.
Nobody who lies us into wars, orchestrates terrorist attacks (real or synthetic) against
us, or smuggles heroin from Afghanistan to a city near you as part of a domestic
destabilization campaign will ever get into trouble until we bring that trouble directly to
them outside of official channels.
To your list of indictments of Mueller you might add his role in the run up to 9/11 and in
its (non)investigation; the Whitey Bulger travesty in Boston; Uranium One. I'm sure there's
more. Precisely contrary to the Paladin of integrity portrait of Mueller, the Swamp would
have so much on this guy as to make him a safe pair of hands with the Russiagate IO. Who else
(unless senile) would want that turkey on their record?
Fuzzball @ 6--
And to your list of other perps, we might consider adding:
Cheryl Mills, Clinton counsel
Susan Rice
Samantha Power
Comey the canary
Clinton herself
Glenn Simpson
and Mr. No-Scandal himself, Hoops and change $$ cha-ching.
That WashPost article, born to confuse, is bizarre. Good catch.
As for Durham, is it known here that he has a track record of covering up for CIA
misdeeds: viz. , briefly, torture and destruction of evidence of torture? A pretty odd
choice for Trump to have made to uncover the plot against him.
"...Mueller ... did not have enough evidence to establish a criminal
conspiracy..."
In other words the Mueller investigation literally was a conspiracy theory. Any mass
media organization that discusses "conspiracy theories" but fails to point out this
biggest one of them all is engaged in deliberate deceit.
In a seismic legal filing, lawyers for Michael Flynn, Donald Trump's former national
security adviser Michael Flynn, have produced evidence they allege points to a "plot to set
up an innocent man and create a crime" – conduct "so shocking to the conscience and
so inimical to our system" they argue the case against him must be dismissed.
In the document, Flynn's lead legal representative Sydney Powell contends the very
foundation of his prosecution, a 24th January 2017 FBI interview in which the Bureau
alleges he lied about speaking with Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak in December
2016.[.]
[.]
"I made your edits" to Michael Flynn's 302 -- his FBI report from the interview Mueller
used to convict him
This is a long inteview with Angelo Codevilla, a conservative writer, academic, and card
carrying member of the Borg. I first ran into him around the time Russia went in to save
Assad, in Asia Times. Some interesting views on the Borg, Russiagate, Snowden, Syria,
Kissinger, etc.
Once upon a time if a person having a superior position in government or business got caught
in an indisgression that impugned his/her honor, the individual would pull their pistol from
their desk drawer and solve the problem as that was deemed the right & proper course of
action -- the honorable thing to do to redeem one's self.
Thus once discovered after his first incident, for example, Bill Clinton would have spared
us all much crap by ending his days while Governor of Arkansas; and before him, Nixon; and
before him, Ike; and before him, Truman; Boeing's CEO; etc.
Alas, there's no sense of honor held by those seeking high office or corporate leadership.
Perhaps the only such person to ever have publicly expressed any contrition for his position
was Andrew Carnegie in his Gospel of Wealth .
But Philanthropy cannot ever atone for violation of the public trust. Even gangsters have
a Code of Honor, but US politicians and all too many bureaucrats--nah: their code is anything
goes in the pursuit of power. IMO, it's such Moral Bankruptcy that gnaws at most of us
barflies regardless of our politics. The Ds are just as guilty as the Rs but none ever go to
jail or get impeached, although occasionally one resigns. On more than one occasion, I've
thought it best just to liquidate the entire governing structure, instruments and denizens of
the federal government and begin again from scratch.
It seems fair to observe that the transition from the Depression to the final depravity of
WW2 must have collectively damaged/shifted the nation's moral center, or is that merely
wishful thinking in order to deal with the reality that at bottom the USA is a massively
immoral construct that must constantly lie to itself lest it wake up to its depravity. How
would kids today even sense that? Easy, through the utterly depraved levels of violence
present within things deemed games that teach how to dehumanize and kill other humans at a
very young age. So, it's actually very simple: A sick, depraved society produces a sick,
depraved government and businesses. One wonders what sort of entity is In God We Trust.
A number of weeks ago I was sent an email by one of my state Senators, Jeff Merkley. I shared
that email with fellow barflys as well as my response. Just today I received a "response" to
my rant about our failing country and below is that email which I think is indicative of how
lost America has become.....this is from what many would consider to be one of the
"better/progressive/representative of the people" Senators in the US....sigh
"
Dear James,
Thank you for contacting me to share your views about President Trump and the impeachment
inquiry opened in the House of Representatives. I appreciate hearing from you on this serious
issue.
I have heard from Oregonians in large numbers expressing their concerns about statements
made and actions taken by President Trump. I have also heard from some Oregonians who oppose
the impeachment inquiry. I would much prefer that the Senate take up the many House-passed
bills to address the real needs of working Oregonians, but I also believe we have a sworn
constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law and ensure that federal office-holders are
using their powers for the public interest, not their own.
Testimony and accounts from a number of people directly involved in U.S. foreign policy
lay out extensive efforts by President Trump and his aides to pressure the Ukrainian
government to investigate President Trump's political opponents and, it appears, to condition
U.S. aid on whether Ukraine succumbed to that pressure. The president also publicly called on
the governments of both Ukraine and China to investigate his political opponents during a
press conference on the White House lawn.
These actions are deeply concerning. The goal of U.S. foreign policy should always be to
protect American interests and American security. We cannot sacrifice those core objectives
for any individual's political or personal gain. The Founders were worried about exactly this
scenario, of a president corrupting U.S. foreign policy to serve himself, rather than the
American public, and explicitly discussed it during the Constitutional Convention as a prime
rationale for impeachment.
I also believe that the detailed case laid out by the Special Counsel of obstruction of
justice by the President warrants impeachment. Over 1,000 former federal prosecutors of both
parties have written to Congress to say that any other individual would be indicted on
multiple felony counts based on the evidence compiled by the Special Counsel.
I believe in those words carved above the Supreme Court, "Equal Justice Under Law." If the
Department of Justice will not indict a sitting president then impeachment is the only avenue
available to ensure that nobody, not even the president, is above the law.
Impeachment should never be taken lightly, and never be used as a tool of partisan
politics. Disliking a president or their policy choices is not grounds for impeachment, but a
president corrupting his office and subverting the rule of law is. If the House does take the
solemn step of impeaching the President, I will work to ensure that there is a fair trial in
the Senate that presents the American people with a complete picture of the evidence and the
appropriate context to understand its significance.
I will continue to fight for an America where every individual – no matter how
powerful – is held accountable to the law. America's founders created the impeachment
process precisely for that reason.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and your engagement in our democracy.
I hope you continue to contact me about issues that matter to you.
All my best,
Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator
"
So the kabuki hiding the cult of global private finance empire continues
"Equal Justice Under Law" Why wasn't that applied to Obama and Clinton since Merkley was
Senator then? What about Pelosi for not doing her duty to impeach George W Bush? And as we
all know, the list could go on and on. As I wrote above @24, Immorality rules the roost.
There're an average of 135 suicides daily within the USA, but none of them are politicos.
IMO, they need to do their part too and not leave it up to veterans.
Senator Merkley's letter, although sounding nice and righteous, fails to address the
selectivity in "Equal justice under law" that plagues this judicial system, hence rendering
it useless. If there was equality in justice, they should go back to the crimes of Reagan,
the Bushes, the Clintons and Obama before they get to Trump. By the way, Trump is guilty of
many crimes and I'm not discounting them, worst of all posing as a president.
The exhibit below is just a sample of how the deep state is working feverishly to get
their agenda back on tack. John Bolton who is the embodiment of the rot and filth that that
exist in American politics is now throwing more fuel into this fire.
Goes to show that there is no line between the democrats and republicans. These animals
are all woven from the same cloth.
Brennan knows where all the bodys are buried, much as I'd like to see him behind bars,
Its about as likely as me keeping Unicorns in my back paddock.
Sorry, the game is delay, delay and delay.
Its a threat and warning from Trump, but a bluff, because it simply will not happen.
@Bemildred #23
Second the reference.
And I add this snippet: bold is David Samuels, not bold is Angelo Codevilla
There was one quote, I forget who it came from, but it came out of an interaction of one
of the reasonably high-up war planners in the Defense Department and a journalist for, I
think it was, The Atlantic. And the quote was that power creates its own reality. So it
doesn't matter what we say, because even if it's not true now, by the time we're finished
we will make it true. And therefore there is no real difference between statements that are
true or false, as long as we make them.
Do you have the sense that a similar attempt to manufacture reality was at play in
what at this point are the still-unknown interactions between the CIA, the FBI, and the
Obama White House with regard to the surveillance of Donald Trump's associates, and the
attempt to suggest some vast Putin-Trump conspiracy to game American elections, and
whatnot?
I don't think that it went that far. Or I should say, I don't think the people involved
thought about it that deeply.
I would agree.
I think what you had was a small pooling of resources to tweak the news cycle with
regard to the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, which then turned into
something very major.
After the election.
After the election. It was, like Watergate, a minor attempt to gain marginal advantage.
Which then, unintended by the people involved at the time, became something very big, which
escaped everyone's control.
I believe that there are a whole bunch of people in Washington right now who are quaking
in their boots because the House Intelligence Committee has shaken loose some of the
documents involved. Because in the long run there are no secrets in Washington. And one can
then wonder about the quality of the people who imagined that the things they did could
remain secret.
It really was a marvel. The idea was that if we all say it together long enough and we
shout it loud so nothing else can be heard, then it will become the effective truth,
Machiavelli's verita effettuale. But I mean, there is a limit to this. I have some close
personal friends who are more on the left, and I said to them: OK. Where's the evidence?
Who did what when to whom? Where are the quids and where are the quos? What's going on
here? And all they could say is, "Well, the investigation is going on."
What is not clear is just how much of the reality will come into the public's
consciousness.
Whose fault is this?
The fault here is not of Democrats on the left. The fault here is of Donald Trump and
his friends who have refused to enforce the most basic laws here. The most obvious one is
Section 798, (18 U.S. Code), the simple comment statute. Now anybody in the intelligence
business knows that this is the live wire of security law. It is a strict liability
statute. It states that any revelation, regardless of circumstance or intent, any
revelation period, of anything having to do with U.S. communications intelligence is
punishable by the 10 and 10. Ten years in the slammer, and $10,000 fine. Per count.
Now the folks who went to The Washington Post and The New York Times in November and
December of 2016 and peddled this story of the intelligence community's conclusion that
Trump and the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, these people ipso facto violated
§798.
Considering these matters are highly classified, and that the number of the people
involved is necessarily very small, identifying them is child's play. But no effort to do
that has been made.
@ Posted by: Michael Droy | Oct 25 2019 18:08 utc | 28
I doubt it (the second part) -- are you familiar with the depth of delusion of his
supporters? It's all about perception; they never noticed the underlying reality of his
tenure, so why would they start? They'll be more than happy to attribute it all to Agent
Orange or whoever becomes their subsequent bête noire/obsessive hate figure.
>Why not the whole shebang?! They all have blood on their hands.
> Posted by: Barovsky | Oct 25 2019 13:45 utc | 11
Because there would be no one left to give orders to the peons! How would we know what to do
without self-important Dear Leaders incorrectly telling us how to do our jobs, like at
Boeing?
Yes they all have blood on their hands. The motto "We must all hang together or we shall
surely all hang separately" comes to mind, except that there is no honor among these thieves.
Instead the DC Dunces have formed a circular firing squad, and everyone is waiting to see who
will shoot first.
Here's a report saying the slogan to be used in protests this weekend against Trump is
"Nobody is Above the Law." Unfortunately, that's one of the biggest of all BigLies. If that
were true, then we wouldn't be having this Impeachment free-for-all at all because Trump and
all his predecessors would already be in jail along with most of Congress, numerous
bureaucrats and businesspeople. It's a crying shame I'm barred from commenting at the website
I cited, but that's because I called out the crimes of Obama and Clinton, et al--talk about
double standards and total lack of credibility. If I were to attend one of the protests, I'd
carry a placard calling out the BigLie. If any barflies do, I hope they'll carry a similar
placard as the wholesale lack of applying the law is at the root of our collective corruption
problem.
The Jeff Bozo Propaganda Rag article was written by one Matt Zapotosky who covers Justice
Dept issues for the newspaper's national security team. He has a Bachelor of Journalism
degree from Ohio University.
Does this background seem to MoA barflies to be a bit odd? Shouldn't writers specialising
in Justice Dept issues have some understanding of the legal system and its operations, to the
extent of having law degrees themselves? Does the national security team at WaPo not smell as
if it's stacked to the rafters with intel agents telling people what to write?
One wonders also what Journalism students are taught at universities in Western countries
these days.
How is it that Trump demonstrators, whether for him or against him, are unable to notice the
Empire's world-wide killing machine that never sleeps? Huge crowds around the world shouted
"Hands Off Iraq" before the 2003 invasion. What happened to them? Did they all get too old
and sick to do anything anymore?
I used to know a journalism professor. He said most of his students were preparing for a
corporate career in public relations. Not many were interested in learning how to reveal the
crimes of the empire.
It was similar with a labor law class I audited a long time ago. I was the only
labor-oriented student. The rest were headed for "human resources management" or to be
corporate anti-labor lawyers.
There aren't enough handcuffs for all of these treasonous, criminal scum going back a hundred
years. May I suggest hemp rope? It's reusable and environmentally friendly.
thanks b... it is hard to see this getting traction if the msm is unwilling to address the
news in an unbiased manner, or leaves out critical information on what is taking place inside
the political system of the usa and the role that the cia-fbi has played in creating the
mueller investigation... thus the question of just who is Joseph Mifsud, remains off the
radar of most, in spite of how important this question about who he is in all of this...
disobedient media was asking this same question back in an article from april 4 2018 -
All Russiagate Roads Lead To London As Evidence Emerges Of Joseph Mifsud's Links To UK
Intelligence
i just can't see the msm cooperating here and that means trumps pushback on all this is
going to be hard to get traction unless something changes.. it will be framed as 'trump
trying to evade the impeachment process on him'...
so just where is joseph mifsud and what role has he played in all this? the dem crowd
claim he is russian intel! who is he and what agencies was he connected to? he played George
Papadopoulos
like a fiddle.. what agency was he working for? we need to know the answer to this to get
some traction here..
It is all following the predictions of the mysterious Q-anon, who has not been heard from
since the message board 8 Chan was taken off-line in the wake of mass shootings and the MSM
claiming right-wing white supremacists etc used 8 Chan for manifestos of their sick views
(despite using FaceBook, Twitter, general internet etc as well).
There were - in the 3570 'Q drops' (posts) from 29 Oct 2017 to 2 Aug 2019 - many
indications that Q was a group of US military intelligence agents who had close access to the
Trump administration and were using 8 Chan as a back channel communication to the public to
circumvent the MSM. At least that is the narrative and it is worth doing your own research to
see what you think.
Q predicted a week or so before it happened that mass shootings would be used for that
purpose to silence this back channel - but that the 'plan' would still go ahead - involving
Barr, Durham and Horowitz to take down the 'deep state', starting by exposing and prosecuting
the 'Russiagate' fake conspiracy as the planned coup of the DNC-Clinton
campaign-FBI-CIA-elements within UK&Australia-CNN-MSNBC-NYT-WaPo etc.
That 'plan' seems to be now unfolding - right according to plan.
@16 psychohistorian
The eternal powers available inside a constant state of emergency. Bush enabled Obama enabled
Trump. Especially via the post 9-11 editions of the sure-to-be-passed NDAA, signed into the
next year, l sometimes on the eves of midnight before the turn of the new year.
Have listened to half the Rogan-Snowden podcast so far. It's the stuff we all know is
happening, but the fine detail of how we got here are just so compelling.
If Google knows what you had for breakfast then 'In Don We Trust'
re ...One wonders what sort of entity is In God We Trust.
There was an explanation that fit/s the observed scene quite closely and even yields/ed
some prescient results. When I 1st heard it, my pause-button locked:
This is smoke and mirrors to take the heat off Trump after Juliani's "drug deal" didn't
deliver. They have tried this before with Rosenstein and couldn't even get an indictment out
of the grand jury. A judge just ordered the elease of the Muller evidence that Barr has been
deperatly trying to hide. If it shows that Barr was hiding it to protect the Trump clan the
gig is up on this whole tin foil hat cult Briebart and Fox have been manufacturing.
@karlof1 (26) If Pelosi had tried to impeach GW Bush, presumably for starting a war against
Iraq on false pretenses, the process would have severely damaged members of the Democratic
caucus, all but one of whom were complicit in approving that war. They did not formally
authorize or declare war, but they most definitely supported it. It's the same with
Russiagate and involves some of the same characters. The last thing they want is to have
their own complicity in a deep state/Clinton plot exposed.
Johnson had mentioned this being in the works some time ago. Looks like a section of the
swamp will be drained in a ig way - perhaps leaving Trumping a very powerful position for his
next term... which may not be a good thing.
Looks like Trump's opponents will be trying to use the media against him and the
investigation.
Although they have the media onside, if the investigation is above board then the Trump
faction will have the military. It was a fairly major conspiracy to prent Trump gaining
office and then trying to remove him from office that also involved foreign powers. If it
comes under subversion or something like that,then I take it the military may be able to act
to enforce the investigation findings.
Will be interesting.
Ukrainegate involves much more egregious crimes than Russiagate.
How exactly have we come to this? It is now an "abuse of power"
to investigate corruption. There is nothing suspicious whatsoever
about the timing of Trump's request to Zelensky. He had to wait till
a more favorable administration came to power in Ukraine to make the
request and Biden had already announced his candidacy by then. Poroshenko
has been accused of accepting a 100 million dollar bribe to terminate the
investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden. What is Burisma anyway? Has
it ever produced a single cu. ft. of gas or a single barrel of oil? Or
was it a front for money laundering and all the rest of the stories about it
are a crock of shit? Where does it get all the cash to throw at sleazy
politicians and their creepy relatives? The federal government is a vast
criminal conspiracy desperately trying to cover ut its crimes. Ukraine
is a monumental crime scene. The entire country should be cordoned off with
police tape. Under the Obama administration, a Walpurgisnacht of demonically
possessed democrats and some republicans,descended upon Ukraine in a satanic
orgy of rape, looting, pillage and corruption.
"At some point the lawyers for the media companies will wake up and realize that spreading
lies on behalf of people facing criminal charges could expose them to obstruction charges as
well."
Quote is from linked article at
@Posted by: james | Oct 25 2019 20:52 utc | 46
Thank you, that sounds valid to me. Links would be helpful. I usually have limited
connections to those sources as I am not a fan. I do like the intrepid musings of amazing
polly when she is outing the maxwell/epstein team and their captured media.
Thanks for your reply! Wasn't that a George Carlin quip or perhaps from Cache-22
?
Rob @47--
Thanks for your reply! As you'll know if you've read enough of my writings here, I hold
both Ds & Rs in contempt and judge them unfit to govern as most are guilty of one or more
crimes, and at the very least of subverting the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
On the current Syria thread, I wrote why that's so
here .
evilempire @50--
"The federal government is a vast criminal conspiracy desperately trying to cover ut[sic]
its crimes."
That's an excellent summation of its behavior since 1945. I'd go back further in time, but
I haven't found enough evidence to prove a bi-partisan criminal conspiracy prior to then,
although the collusion between FDR and Wendell Willkie in 1940 merits further
investigation.
Agree "it is pretty crazy". What's more crazy is if you read through the sometimes riddle
like nature of 'Q' - it is all predicted in detail: www.qmap.pub
Two sides of the Deep State at civil war - nationalist-industrial/military/DIA (with Fox
News and some alt-media) versus globalist-financial-industrial/CIA/FBI (with most MSM).
ia @ 17 said; "The only time anything resembling "justice" is served is when some low-level
persons with enough name recognition to make headlines, i.e. Martha Steward or these
celebrity parents who paid to get their kids into college, are sacrificed in order to
maintain the illusion of a functioning justice system. In reality the justice system we have
is nothing more than another line in the phalanx of defense the ruling elites (see:
globalists, capitalists, zionists) have built to protect their corrupt position of power."
While we here on B's set are following his He done it, no she did it, sure enough they did it
script. the drivers behind the the political actors are the corporate sponsors. How about
lets discussing them?
I want to know more about Burisma Holdings in the Ukraine,
who are the oil companies in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Gaze, and Lebanon Egypt etc. ?
It is interesting to study drug trafficking in Afghanistan.
The politicians are corporate driven yet no one is working that angle. Politicians are
immune, but private corporate persons are not. Lets look at wall street how do they play in
this..
And so Moon of Alabama finally you have uncovered the trolls. Finally you have exposed Jack
and Donkey. It took a long while. All that time the doubts were sown but we were never taken
in. I would speculate that they sent money... B. has to survive.
And so Moon of Alabama finally you have uncovered the trolls. Finally you have exposed Jack
and Donkey..." Lochearn@59
Any references? I do hope that you are right. Last week I described them as the Mutt 'n' Jeff
of trolling on this site.
@48/49 peter au... interesting speculation.. will wait and see what comes of all this..
@ 60 ben... would you say the same of mueller who was head of the fbi at the time of 9-11?
what does he know and when did he know it? lots of hidden bodies in both these peoples
pasts... maybe one's actions can even out the others here?
to Rob #47 - and you all. I believe that Pelosi's husband works high up in the MIC. Just as
Teresa May's hubby did. The May family picked up a little extra coin on the bombing of Syria
re the "poisoned spies." Just so, Feinstein's hubby is a RE dealer/developer in SanFran. When
the US Post Office got knee capped who do you suppose bought up the prime lovely
old Post office? It's all pretty sick - and has been going on for decades. Term limits and
public campaign financing is the
only solution. Never happen, but "never say never."
"I have determined that Ukraine has made progress in providing adequate and effective
protection of intellectual property rights. Accordingly, it is appropriate to terminate the
suspension of the duty-free treatment," Trump said in a proclamation on Friday."
I suspect that John Bolton is in fact the mastermind behind this fake "whistleblower"
stunt. it's the sort of action Bolton would do as the master bureaucrat, spread false rumors
of what the call between Trump and Zelensky contained among his subordinates and Neocon
fellow travellers to feed into the narrative of a corrupt deal with Zelensky to derail Trumps
plans in Ukraine and Russia and feed the Democrats impeachment push. Trump declassifying the
transcript of the conversation probably caught him by surprise and threw a wrench into his
plans since Trump has refused to declassify documents in the past and the State Department
probably would have argued that Trump not declassify the conversation.
"The US is now a country that has a growing cabal of current and past leadership that are
criminally complicit in deceiving the American public"
Obama legalized deceiving the American public in his 2012 NDAA, when "Constitutional Law
Professor" Obama repealed the Smith-Mundt Act, the propaganda ban that had been in effect
since around 1948. He literally legalized lying to us. Bet you never heard of it. Reporter
Michael Hastings blew the whistle on this and we all know what happened to him. https://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5
And this all will be heard and judged by Judge Emmet Sullivan, who has asked Flynn several
times to consider retracting his guilty plea because the judge smelled a rat:
Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
unleashed his fury before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He
fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've never seen anything approaching
the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case."
It was the culmination of a disastrous prosecution: the public corruption case against
former U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK).
Stevens was convicted in October 2008 of violating federal ethics laws by failing to
report thousands of dollars in gifts he received from friends. But a team of prosecutors
from the U.S. Department of Justice is accused of failing to hand over key exculpatory
evidence and knowingly presenting false evidence to the jury.
The Stevens case is a cautionary tale. It reminds lawyers and nonlawyers alike of the
power and failures of our legal system and those who have sworn to uphold the rule of law.
At the center of the story are real people: an old and powerful politician, a crack defense
team, determined prosecutors, and their supervisors.
"This is a fascinating case study for all lawyers," says criminal defense lawyer Stanley
M. Brand, a partner at Brand Law Group, P.C. "In these high-stakes cases, both sides can
get pretty aggressive and push the envelope. It's great to be aggressive -- it's great to
push, but this case reminds people that they have to observe the limits and the rules."
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to
turn over evidence. Then, after the jury convicted Stevens, the Justice Department
discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial
misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced
that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of
the case. Judge Sullivan insisted that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too
numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation. He appointed
Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate
whether members of the trial team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
Starting w/evilempires comment, which is Wow. Then Miss Lacy, maybe goldherder too but not
sure, to Kadath and then Willow and pogohere I'm not sure I'm at b's site. Great comments.
But certainly not the norm. Things that makes one go hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm...welcome, btw.
"This article seems to contradict many of the points in the link you posted."
No doubt, and it's from 2014. I've read half-a-dozen versions of Biden in Ukraine, all of
them different. That one is all one guy talking, so not much as evidence of anything. But
interesting. Another one had Kolomoisky as the master hand behind the Burisma deception, and
the nominal boss as cutout for him. The guy I posted doesn't mention that. They all seem to
agree it's about gas though. I notice that 2014 piece you posted says Kerry was involved too,
but he would be being SoS.
It stinks any way you slice it. The main thing I take from it at the moment is the big
explosion it caused when Trump went after it is indicative of it's political importance. A
weapon in the war in DC. Poor Zelenski, he is caught in the middle. A comedian.
Did you have a point of view about it, or just sussing out mine?
Fellow barflies, please stop disrespecting other well-behaved patrons whose opinions you find
unappealing.
If you don't like certain commenters' opinions, check the author before reading each
comment.
Some here previously complained about JR being "one note". Well, arguably, we can
characterize psycho and circe similarly. But, they each speak up to remind us of their fairly
unique (at least one this board) perceptions and how new events relate to their mental model
of how things work. I find each of their viewpoints interesting and plausible, as well as
yours -- except when you're making unjustified negative personal remarks.
My opinion right now is that the article you linked may be major
disinformation. Zlochevsky wasn't even the owner of Burisma in 2012.
The article at nakedcapitalism and even b have reported that the owners
were Kolomoiski and perhaps Pinchuk.
evilempire @77: Yes, Naked Capitalism is pretty scrupulous. I tend to think it's Kolomoiski
too, thanks for sharing you view and the link. I was wondering what people here would think
about it.
"... "I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt." ..."
"... "We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where the media would have played such a role? ..."
"... "I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said. ..."
The anti- Trump "Resistance" has devastated core American
institutions and broken longstanding political norms in seeking to defeat and now oust from office President Donald Trump, said Kimberley
Strassel, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and member of the Journal's editorial board.
"And this, to me, is the irony, right? We've been told for three years that Donald Trump is wrecking institutions," Strassel
said in an interview with The Epoch Times for the "American Thought Leaders" program.
" But in terms of real wreckage to institutions, it's not on Donald Trump that public faith in the
FBI and the
Department of Justice has precipitously fallen.
That's because of Jim Comey and Andy McCabe. It's not on Donald Trump that the Senate confirmation process for the Supreme Court
is in ashes after what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. It's not on Donald Trump that we are turning
impeachment into a partisan political tool."
The damage inflicted by the anti-Trump Resistance is the subject of Strassel's new book, "Resistance (At All Costs): How Trump
Haters Are Breaking America."
Strassel uses the term "haters" deliberately, to differentiate this demographic from Trump's "critics."
In Strassel's view, all thoughtful critics of Trump - and she counts herself among them - would look at Trump the same way that
they have examined past presidents - namely, to call him out when he does something wrong, but also laud him when he does something
right.
" The 'haters' can't abide nuance. To the Resistance, any praise - no matter how qualified - of Trump is tantamount to American
betrayal, " Strassel writes in "Resistance (At All Costs)."
She told The Epoch Times: "Up until the point at which Donald Trump was elected, what happened when political parties lost is
that they would retreat, regroup, lick their wounds, talk about what they did wrong.
"That's not what happened this time around. Instead, you had people who essentially said we should have won."
From the moment Trump was elected, this group believed Trump to be an illegitimate president and therefore felt they could use
whatever means necessary to remove him from office , Strassel said.
'Unprecedented Acts'
"One thing I try really hard to do in this book is enunciate what rules and regulations and standards were broken, what political
boundaries were crossed, because I think that that's where we're seeing the damage," Strassel said.
The "unprecedented acts" of the Resistance have caused the public to lose trust in longstanding institutions such as the FBI,
the CIA, and the Department of Justice, and cheapened important political processes like impeachment, she said.
The Resistance fabricated and pushed the theory that it was Trump's collusion with Russia that won him the presidency, not the
support of the American people, and lied about the origins of the so-called evidence -- the Steele dossier -- that was used by the
FBI to justify a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign, Strassel said.
"We have never, in the history of this country, had a counterintelligence investigation into a political campaign," she said.
In an anecdote that Strassel recounts in her book, she asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.)
if there was anything in America's laws that could have prohibited this situation.
Nunes, who had helped write or update many laws concerning the powers of the intelligence community, replied, "I would never have
conceived of the FBI using our counterintelligence capabilities to target a political campaign.
"If it had crossed any of our minds, I can guarantee we'd have specifically written: 'Don't do that.'"
In Strassel's view, the Resistance is partially fueled by deep-seated anger, or what others have termed "Trump derangement syndrome"
-- an inability to look rationally at a man so far outside of Washington norms.
But at the same time, in Strassel's view, much of the Resistance is motivated by a desire to amass political power using whatever
means necessary.
"That involves removing the president who won. That involves some of these other things that you hear them talking about now:
packing the Supreme Court, getting rid of the electoral college, letting 16-year-olds vote," she said.
"These are not reforms. Reforms are things that the country broadly agrees are going to help improve stuff. This is changing
the rules so that you get power, and you stay in power."
The impeachment inquiry into the president, based on his phone call with Ukraine's president, is just another example of how the
Resistance is violating political norms and relying on flimsy evidence to try to remove him from office, she said.
Testimony in the inquiry has taken place behind closed doors, led by three House committees, and Democrats have so far refused
to release transcripts from the depositions of former and current
State Department employees.
"[Impeachment] is one of the most serious and huge powers in the Constitution. It was meant always by the founders to be reserved
for truly unusual circumstances. They debated not even putting it in because they were concerned that this is what would happen,"
Strassel said.
In the impeachment inquiries against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Strassel said, American leaders "understood the great importance
of convincing the American public that their decision to use this tool was just and legitimate.
"So if you look back at Watergate, they had hundreds of hours of testimony broadcast over TV that people tuned into and watched.
It's one of the reasons that Richard Nixon resigned before the House ever held a final impeachment vote on him, because the public
had been convinced. He knew he had to go," she said.
But now, instead of access to the testimonies, the public is receiving only leaked snippets and dueling narratives.
"You have Democrats saying, 'Oh, this is very bad.' And Republicans saying, 'Oh, it's not so bad at all.' What are Americans
supposed to think?" Strassel said.
Bureaucratic Resistance
Within the federal bureaucracy, there is a "vast swath of unelected officials" who have "a great deal of power to slow things
down, mess things up, file the whistleblower complaints, leak information, actively engage against the president's policies," Strassel
said.
"It's their job to implement his agenda. And yet a lot of them are part of the Resistance, too," she said.
Data shows that in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, government bureaucrats overwhelmingly contributed toward the
Clinton campaign over the Trump campaign.
Ninety-five percent, or about $1.9 million, of bureaucrats' donations went to Clinton, according to
The Hill's analysis of donations from federal workers up until September 2016. In particular, employees at the Department of
Justice gave 97 percent of their donations to Clinton. For the State Department, it was even higher -- 99 percent.
"Imagine being a CEO and showing up and knowing that 95 percent of your workforce despises you and doesn't want you to be there,"
Strassel said.
Strassel pointed to when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, publicly questioned
the constitutionality of Trump's immigration ban and directed Justice Department employees to disobey the order.
"It was basically a call to arms," Strassel said. "What she should've done is honorably resigned if she felt that she could
not in any way enforce this duly issued executive order.
"It really kicked off what we have seen ever since then: The nearly daily leaks from the administration, the whistleblower
complaints," as well as "all kind of internal foot-dragging and outright obstruction to the president's agenda."
According to a
report by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, in Trump's first 126 days in office, his administration
"faced 125 leaked stories -- one leak a day -- containing information that is potentially damaging to national security under the
standards laid out in a 2009 Executive Order signed by President Barack Obama."
Activist Media
Strassel says the media has played a critical role in bolstering the anti-Trump Resistance.
"I've been a reporter for 25 years," Strassel said.
"I've always felt that the media leaned left. That wasn't a surprise to anyone. "But what we've seen over the past three years
is something entirely different. This is the media actively engaging on one side of a partisan warfare. It's overt."
Along the way, the media have largely abandoned journalistic standards, "whether it be the use of anonymous sources, whether it
be putting uncorroborated accusations into the paper, whether it's using biased sources for information and cloaking them as neutral
observers," she said.
Among the many examples of media misinformation cited in Strassel's book is a December 2017 CNN piece that claimed to have evidence
that then-candidate Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr. had been offered early access to hacked emails from the Democratic National
Committee. But it turned out
the date was wrong . Trump
Jr. had received an email about the WikiLeaks release one day after WikiLeaks had made the documents public.
"If it hurts Donald Trump, they're on board," Strassel said. And in many cases, the attacks on Trump have been contradictory.
"He's either the dunce you claim he is every day or he's the most sophisticated Manchurian candidate that the world has ever
seen. You can't have it both ways.
"He's either a dictator and an autocrat who is consolidating power around himself to rule with an iron fist, or he's the evil
conservative who's cutting regulations."
Contrary to claims of authoritarianism, Trump has significantly decreased the size of the federal government. Notably, he reduced
the Federal Register, a collection of all the national government's rules and regulations, to the lowest it's been since Bill Clinton's
first year in office.
"You can't be a libertarian dictator," Strassel said.
In addition to the barrage of attacks on Trump, the media has actively sought to "de-legitimize anybody who has a different viewpoint
than they do, or who is reporting the facts and the story in a way other than they would like them to be presented."
"They would love to make it sound as though none of us are worthy of writing about this story," she said.
"The media is supposed to be our guardrails, right? When a political party transgresses a political boundary, they're supposed
to say 'No, that's beyond the pale.'"
Instead, "they indulged this behavior," Strassel said.
"We had a media cheerleading the FBI for meddling in American politics. Can you ever imagine a time in American history where
the media would have played such a role?
"In a way, I blame that for so much else that has gone wrong."
Long-Term Consequences
Strassel says the actions taken by the Resistance will have long-term consequences for America.
"I keep warning my friends on the other side of the aisle: Think about the precedent you are setting here," Strassel said.
For example, if Joe Biden wins the presidency in 2020
but Republicans take back the House, would the Republican-dominated House immediately launch impeachment proceedings against Biden
for alleged corruption in Ukraine?
"I wouldn't necessarily use the word [corruption], but there's a lot of Republicans who happily would. And if they thought
they'd get another shot at the White House, why not?" Strassel said.
It's short-term thinking, she said, just like Sen. Harry Reid's decision in 2013 to drop the number of votes needed to overcome
a filibuster for lower-court judges.
"Did he really stop to think about the fact that it paved the way for Republicans to get rid of the filibuster for Supreme
Court judges?" Strassel said.
If there's any rule in Washington, "it's that when you set the bar low, it just keeps going lower," Strassel said.
"Donald Trump is going to be president for at most another five years. But the actions and the destruction that's coming with
some of this could be with us for a very long time," she said.
"Should anyone allow their deep disregard for one particular man to so change the structure and the fabric of the country?"
"... As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a scoundrel and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened before in history. ..."
It was interesting to watch the Cable News divas go incandescent under the glare of their
own gaslight late yesterday
when they received the unpleasant news that the Barr & Durham
"review" of RussiaGate had been officially
upgraded to a "criminal investigation."
Rachel Maddow's trademark pouty-face got a workout as she strained to imagine " what
the
thing
is that Durham might be looking into."
Yes, that's a riddle, wrapped in a mystery,
inside an enigma, all right with a sputtering fuse sticking out of it. Welcome to the Wile E. Coyote
Lookalike Club, Rache. You'll have a lot of competition when the Sunday morning news-chat shows rev
up.
Minutes later, the answer dawned on her:
"It [
the thing
] follows the wildest conspiracy theories from Fox News!"
You'd think that someone who invested two-plus years of her life in the Mueller report, which blew
up in her pouty-face last spring, might have felt a twinge of journalistic curiosity as to the
sum-and-substance of the thing. But no, she just hauled on-screen RussiaGate intriguer David Laufman,
a former DOJ lawyer who ran the agency's CounterIntel and Export Control desk during the RussiaGate
years, and also helped oversee the botched Hillary Clinton private email server probe.
"They have this theory," Rachel said, "that maybe Russia didn't interfere in the election ."
"It's preposterous," said Laufman, all lawyered up and ready to draw a number and take a seat
for his own grand jury testimony.
Over in the locked ward of CNN, Andy Cooper and Jeff Toobin attempted to digest the criminal
investigation news as if someone had ordered in a platter of shit sandwiches for the green room just
before air-time.
Toobin pretended to not know exactly who the mysterious Joseph Misfud was,
and struggled to even pronounce his name: " Mifsood? Misfood ? You mean the Italian professor?"
No Jeff, the guy employed by several "friendly" foreign intelligence agencies, and the CIA,
to sandbag Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, and failed. I guess when you're at the beating
heart of TV news, you don't have to actually follow any of the stories reported outside your locked
ward, and maybe entertain a few angles outside your
purview
, i.e. your range of thought and
experience.
Next Andy hauled onscreen former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (now a
paid CNN "contributor") to finesse a distinction between the "overall investigation of the Russian
interference" or "the counterintelligence investigation that was launched by the FBI."
Consider that Mr. Clapper was right in the middle between the CIA and the FBI. Since he is known to be
a friend of Mr. Comey's and a not-friend of Mr. Brennan's one can easily see which way Mr. Clapper is
tilting. One can also see the circular firing squad that this is a setup for. And, of course, Mr.
Clapper himself will be a subject in Mr. Durham's criminal case proceedings. I predict October will be
the last month that Mr. Clapper draws a CNN paycheck -- as he hunkers down with his attorneys awaiting
the subpoena with his name on it.
The
New
York Times story
on this turn of events Friday morning is a lame attempt to rescue former FBI
Director Jim Comey by pinning the blame for RussiaGate on the CIA, shoving CIA John Brennan under the
bus.
The Times report says: "Mr. Durham has also asked whether C.I.A. officials might have
somehow tricked the F.B.I. into opening the Russia investigation." There's the next narrative for you.
Expect to hear this incessantly well into 2020.
I wonder if there is any way to hold the errand boys-and-girls in the news media accountable for
their roles as handmaidens in what will be eventually known as a seditious coup to overthrow a
president.
We do enjoy freedom of the press in this land, but I can see how these birds merit
charges as unindicted co-conspirators in the affair.
One wonders if the various boards of
directors of the newspaper and cable news outfits might seek to salvage their self-respect by firing
the executives who allowed it happen. If anything might be salutary in the outcome of this hot mess,
it would be a return to respectability of the news media.
As for impeachment, ringmaster Rep. Adam Schiff is surely steaming straight into his own
historic Joe McCarthy moment when somebody of incontestable standing denounces him as a fraud and a
scoundrel
and the mysterious workings of nonlinear behavior tips the political mob past a
criticality threshold, shifting the weight of consensus out of darkness and madness. It has happened
before in history. Two centuries before Joe McCarthy, the French national assembly suddenly turned on
the Jacobins Robespierre and St. Just after their orgy of beheading 17,000 enemies. The two were
quickly dispatched themselves to the awe of their beloved guillotine and the Jacobin faction was not
heard of again -- until recently in America, where it first infected the Universities and then sickened
the polity at large almost unto death
Battle of Blair... on Thu, 10/24/2019 - 7:10pm The same media that can't stop
chanting Russian interference, has completely ignored
this bombshell.
A recent investigation from independent news outlet Middle East Eye (9/30/19) uncovered
that a senior Twitter executive is, in fact, an officer in the British Army's 77th Brigade, a
unit dedicated to psychological operations (psyops), propaganda and online warfare.
I had to take note that later down the article it also read:
In September, Twitter suspended multiple accounts belonging to Cuban state media. And
along with Facebook and YouTube, it also suspended hundreds of Chinese accounts it claimed
were attempting to "sow political discord in Hong Kong" by "undermining the legitimacy" of
the protest movement. These social media giants have already deleted thousands of Venezuelan,
Russian and Iranian accounts and pages that were, in their own words, "in line with" those
governments' positions. The message is clear: Sharing opinions that do not fall in line with
official US doctrine will not be tolerated online .
I found this quite interesting because I was just permanently banned from Twitter for saying
to a propagandist media writer that "corporate whores gotta corporate whore."
According to Tracey, Ukrainegate flows out of Russiagate
Notable quotes:
"... MT makes his best point, IS Trump's deal with Mexico corrupt too? It helps his reelection, so is everything he does to help his re-election corrupt? If you're in the camp orange-man bad than anything he does is corruption. This IS politics, it turns out Trump is really good at it and the IA's don't like it. ..."
"... Trump believes he's investigating corruption. Biden was an afterthought based on Biden's video showing he literally demanded action in return for a billion dollar loan. ..."
"... Trump is head of DOJ. Remember Obama used the FBI, CIA and State Dept against Trump after Trump was the nominee. The Dem double standard is frightening. (and yes, I'm a Dem - but I'm honest) ..."
"... How does giving Ukraine lethal weapons to murder eastern Ukrainians make America safer??? ..."
"... Ukraine is a pawn in a cynical geopolitical game. ..."
"... The US uses Ukraine to target and destabilize Russia. It's evil and insane. And the American people are completely ignorant of how their government's reckless policies endanger world stability. US and NATO warmongers have amassed more troops on Russia's border than Nazi Germany did before the WW2 invasion. ..."
"... Who's the aggressor? Who's trying to start WW3? One mistake, one mishap and BAM...WW3.... Wake the F* #K Up!!!!! ..."
Hunter Biden slept with his brothers widow, got caught with a crack pipe, multiple drivers
licenses and a badge in his car, was thrown out of the military for drugs. You can certainly
understand why a Ukranian Energy company jumped at the chance make him a director.
it is almost like the democrats have decided
to impeach trump from day 1 and are trying to see what sticks ti impeach him- 1) Russia - no
didnt work 2) stormy daniels- no didnt work 3) Michael Cohen- no dint work 4) Ukraine- ??
Thanks to dem establishment Trump is going to win 2020 again. Only Tulsi or Bernie can defeat
Trump and they deface them..Stupid party
38:00MT makes his best point,
IS Trump's deal with Mexico corrupt too? It helps his reelection, so is everything he does to
help his re-election corrupt? If you're in the camp orange-man bad than anything he does is
corruption. This IS politics, it turns out Trump is really good at it and the IA's don't like
it.
I just think the phone call was clear. Trump believes he's investigating corruption.
Biden was an afterthought based on Biden's video showing he literally demanded action in
return for a billion dollar loan.
Trump is head of DOJ. Remember Obama used the FBI, CIA and State Dept against Trump
after Trump was the nominee. The Dem double standard is frightening. (and yes, I'm a Dem -
but I'm honest)
How does giving Ukraine lethal weapons to
murder eastern Ukrainians make America safer??? How does the US/NATO war machine
provoking Russia on its border make America safer?
Hint...It doesn't! Ukraine is a pawn in a cynical geopolitical game.
The US uses
Ukraine to target and destabilize Russia. It's evil and insane. And the American people are
completely ignorant of how their government's reckless policies endanger world stability. US
and NATO warmongers have amassed more troops on Russia's border than Nazi Germany did before
the WW2 invasion.
Who's the aggressor? Who's trying to start WW3? One mistake, one mishap and
BAM...WW3.... Wake the F* #K Up!!!!!
I support you, Michael Tracey! I know Cenk fired you for opposing Russiagate and nearly
destroyed your career -- don't give up, you have real anti establishment cred now, there will
always be an audience!
The effort to find (or create) impeachable offense against President Donald Trump has
now moved from the subjects of the Mueller investigation -- collusion with Russia and obstruction
of justice -- to alleged recent political "sins": "quid pro quo" with Ukraine and obstruction of
Congress.
The goal of the impeach-at-any-cost cadre has always been the same: impeach and remove
Trump, regardless of whether or not he did anything warranting removal.
The means -- the
alleged impeachable offenses -- have changed, as earlier ones have proved meritless. The search for
the perfect impeachable offense against Trump is reminiscent of overzealous prosecutors who target
the defendant first and then search for the crime with which to charge him.
Or to
paraphrase the former head of the Soviet secret police to Stalin: show me the man and I will find
you the crime.
Although this is not Stalin's Soviet Union, all civil libertarians should be concerned about an
Alice in Wonderland process in which the search for an impeachable crime precedes the evidence that
such a crime has actually been committed.
Before we get to the current search, a word about what constitutes an impeachable crime under
the constitution, whose criteria are limited to treason, bribery or other high crimes and
misdemeanors. There is a debate among students of the constitution over the intended meaning of
"high crimes and misdemeanors." Some believe that these words encompass non-criminal behavior.
Others, I among them, interpret these words more literally, requiring at the least criminal-like
behavior, if not the actual violation of a criminal statute.
What is not debatable is that "maladministration" is an impermissible ground for
impeachment.
Why is that not debatable? Because it was already debated and explicitly
rejected by the framers at the constitutional convention. James Madison, the father of our
Constitution, opposed such open-ended criteria, lest they make the tenure of the president subject
to the political will of Congress. Such criteria would turn our republic into a parliamentary
democracy in which the leader -- the prime minister -- is subject to removal by a simple vote of no
confidence by a majority of legislators. Instead, the framers demanded the more specific
criminal-like criteria ultimately adopted by the convention and the states.
Congress does not have the constitutional authority to change these criteria without
amending the Constitution.
To paraphrase what many Democratic legislators are now saying:
members of Congress are not above the law; they take an oath to apply the Constitution, not to
ignore its specific criteria. Congresswoman Maxine Waters placed herself above the law when she
said:
"Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is. There is no law that dictates
impeachment. What the Constitution says is 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' and we define that."
So, the question remains:
did President Trump commit impeachable offenses
when he spoke on the phone to the president of Ukraine and/or when he directed members of the
Executive Branch to refuse to cooperate, absent a court order, with congressional Democrats who are
seeking his impeachment?
The answers are plainly no and no.
There is a constitutionally
significant difference between a political "sin," on the one hand, and a crime or impeachable
offenses, on the other.
Even taking the worst-case scenario regarding Ukraine -- a quid pro quo exchange of
foreign aid for a political favor -- that might be a political sin, but not a crime or impeachable
offense.
Many presidents have used their foreign policy power for political or personal
advantage.
Most recently, President Barack Obama
misused his power in order to take
personal revenge against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the last days of his second
term, Obama engineered a one-sided UN Security Council resolution declaring that Israel's control
over the Western Wall -- Judaism's holiest site -- constitutes a "flagrant violation of
international law." Nearly every member of Congress and many in his own administration opposed this
unilateral change in our policy, but Obama was determined to take revenge against Netanyahu, whom
he despised. Obama committed a political sin by placing his personal pique over our national
interest, but he did not commit an impeachable offense.
Nor did
President George H. W. Bush
commit an impeachable offense when he
pardoned Caspar Weinberger and others on the eve of their trials in order to prevent them from
pointing the finger at him.
This brings us to President Trump's directive with regard to the impeachment investigation.
Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the
Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders.
Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not
by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an
impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their
demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by
calls for impeachment.
So, the search for the holy grail of a removable offense will continue, but it is
unlikely to succeed. Our constitution provides a better way to decide who shall serve as president:
it's called an election.
Several rich and powerful Dems have said the best chance to remove
Trump is by hoping for a big recession. When asked about the
damage to people's lives, they responded it would be worth it. It
shows they care nothing about the little people, just about their
own power and wealth. The godless leftists think they can take
over easily once Trump is out of their way. They doubt any
conservatives will put up a fight, just roll over on the couch and
change the channel. It will be very sad if this is true.
Coup d'Impeachment ers Pelosi and Schiff have lied to congress and
to the American public. Congress is not censuring, sanctioning,
expelling or prosecuting them for their crimes.
How do citizens
do what congress should, but for RICO reasons and concealing their
crimes, do not? Sue like JW to build a case and take it to a
judge? The coup has already established that judges can overrule
decisions by the President. The openly criminal Speaker claims her
position is "coequal" to the President, therefore her decisions
and the gangster congress can be overturned the same way. If there
are enough straight, vertebrate judges.
Any members of congress who commit felonies or treason can be
hauled off at any time.
What to do about the openly hostile, openly comped, complicit,
accessory MSM?
"... All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire, pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world. ..."
"... That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners," and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security." ..."
"... The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans. That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap. ..."
"... There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism. A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist foreign policy to our land. ..."
The chaos arising from U.S. interventionism in Syria provides an excellent opportunity to explore the interventionist mind.
Consider the terminology being employed by interventionists: President Trump's actions in Syria have left a "power vacuum," one
that Russia and Iran are now filling. The United States will no longer have "influence" in the region. "Allies" will no longer be
able to trust the U.S. to come to their assistance. Trump's actions have threatened "national security." It is now possible that
ISIS will reformulate and threaten to take over lands and even regimes in the Middle East.
This verbiage is classic empire-speak. It is the language of the interventionist and the imperialist.
Amidst all the interventionist chaos in the Middle East, it is important to keep in mind one critically important fact: None of
it will mean a violent takeover of the U.S. government or an invasion and conquest of the United States. The federal government will
go on. American life will go on. There will be no army of Muslims, terrorists, Syrians, ISISians, Russians, Chinese, drug dealers,
or illegal immigrants coming to get us and take over the reins of the IRS.
Why is that an important point? Because it shows that no matter what happens in Syria or the rest of the Middle East, life will
continue here in the United States. Even if Russia gets to continue controlling Syria, that's not going to result in a conquest of
the United States. The same holds true if ISIS, say, takes over Iraq. Or if Turkey ends up killing lots of Kurds. Or if Syria ends
up protecting the Kurds. Or if Iran continues to be controlled by a theocratic state. Or if the Russians retake control over Ukraine.
It was no different than when North Vietnam ended up winning the Vietnamese civil war. The dominoes did not fall onto the United
States and make America Red. It also makes no difference if Egypt continues to be controlled by a brutal military dictatorship. Or
that Cuba, North Korea, and China are controlled by communist regimes. Or that Russia is controlled by an authoritarian regime. Or
that Myanmar (Burma) is controlled by a totalitarian military regime. America and the federal government will continue standing.
America was founded as a limited government republic, one that did not send its military forces around the world to slay monsters.
That's not to say that bad things didn't happen around the world. Bad things have always happened around the world. Dictatorships.
Famines. Wars. Civil wars. Revolutions. Empires. Torture. Extra-judicial executions. Tyranny. Oppression. The policy of the United
States was that it would not go abroad to fix or clear up those types of things.
All that changed with the conversion of the federal government to a national-security state and with the adoption of a pro-empire,
pro-intervention foreign policy. When that happened, the U.S. government assumed the duty to fix the wrongs of the world.
That's when U.S. officials began thinking in terms of empire and using empire-speak. Foreign regimes became "allies," "partners,"
and "friends." Others became "opponents," "rivals," or "enemies." Events thousands of miles away became threats to "national security."
That's when U.S. forces began invading and occupying other countries, waging wars of aggression against them, intervening in foreign
wars, revolutions, and civil wars, initiating coups, destroying democratic regimes, establishing an empire of domestic and foreign
military bases, and bombing, shooting, killing, assassinating, spying on, maiming, torturing, kidnapping, injuring, and destroying
people in countries all over the world.
The results of U.S. imperialism and interventionism have always been perverse, not only for foreigners but also for Americans.
That's how Americans have ended up with out-of-control federal spending and debt that have left much of the middle class high and
dry, unable to support themselves in their senior years, unable to save a nest egg for financial emergencies, and living paycheck
to paycheck. Empire and interventionism do not come cheap.
The shift toward empire and interventionism has brought about the destruction of American liberty and privacy here at home. That's
what the assassinations, secret surveillance, torture, and indefinite detentions of American citizens are all about -- to supposedly
protect us from the dangers produced by U.S. imperialism and interventionism abroad. One might call it waging perpetual war for freedom
and peace, both here and abroad.
There is but one solution to all this chaos and mayhem -- the dismantling, not the reform, of the Pentagon, the military-industrial
complex, the vast empire of foreign and domestic military bases, and the NSA, along with an immediate end to all foreign interventionism.
A free, peaceful, prosperous, and harmonious society necessarily entails the restoration of a limited-government republic and a non-interventionist
foreign policy to our land.
"... The main take away for me came towards the end where Snowden outlines the special legal conditions and laws that the US government enforces to control presentation of evidence in these cases. These same 'servant' thugs who are stepping into the now 3rd-world UK court system and pulling the strings on Australia's Assange. The same crew that Snowden worked with and blew the whistle on (apparently). ..."
"... Snowden makes great bravado about being willing to go back to the USA and face the music -- if only he could say in court why he did it (something the legal Act prohibits apparently). In this, and a few other matters of history, I find him less than genuine. Is/was he a plant? .... I'm still out with the jury on that. ..."
Indeed Orwell's "1984" referred to the UK as "Airstrip One" and this Brexit fiasco surely
proves that Outside Influences not only run the Judiciary when necessary, but also plant
poison on doorknobs when it suits them.
The ever servile Australian government to the empire du jour does nothing to honor their
passport pledge. We would have to assume it qualifies as Orwell's "Airstrip Two"
In contrast to Assange's predicament (and Manning I assume), the main point of this post
is to mention the recent Joe Rogan interview of Edward Snowden (touting his book) --
http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/edward-snowden
Nearly three hours of mostly Snowden rambling on. I stayed with it to the end. A few items
of interest but mostly just noise. I found him initially somewhat suspicious -- by the end I
was more neutral. However, what a display of American arrogance and ingratitude. The Russian
government has saved his bacon and has given him refuge with great freedoms he would not have
in the USA -- or Airstrip One ... or, HK, or any South American backyard colony. And yet he
makes no attempt to thank them and even virtually panders to the American anti-Russian meme.
He has even dabbled in Russian opposition politics via local newspaper comments. What an
ungrateful guest! (Or still an agent @ work?) I would entirely understand the Russians
putting him on a plane back to the USA tomorrow. Ungrateful little character, imo. And says a
lot about the way Americans treat the external world from inside their little fishbowl.
Simply a doormat for convenience.
The main take away for me came towards the end where Snowden outlines the special legal
conditions and laws that the US government enforces to control presentation of evidence in
these cases. These same 'servant' thugs who are stepping into the now 3rd-world UK court
system and pulling the strings on Australia's Assange. The same crew that Snowden worked with
and blew the whistle on (apparently).
Snowden makes great bravado about being willing to go back to the USA and face the music
-- if only he could say in court why he did it (something the legal Act prohibits
apparently). In this, and a few other matters of history, I find him less than genuine.
Is/was he a plant? .... I'm still out with the jury on that.
"... Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless it was from Trump from Trump's mouth, then it's hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever. ..."
Certainly the people appointed by a president are not merely proxies for the president. They
are expected to have their own minds and agendas to some extent. This should not run to the
extent of subverting the president, but it often has, if not always. At the same time, it is
reasonable for appointees and beaurocrats to attempt to subvert the president if the
president is clearly wrong. The big problem is that such subversion is not only commonplace,
but is not typically for good reasons.
Yes, it was disturbing yesterday to observe a strain in the comments that were diatribes
against Trump's character--a vehemence to dismiss or heavily discount Trump's every move. If
this is the continued attitude it's logical to expect an equal. Opposite reaction from Trump
supporters, that is expect a self-defeating lose of votes for opposing candidates. People
take their heroes to heart notwithstanding too many are often miserable characters.
Lets now see how jackrabbit will counter argue b's analysis point by point in an effort to convince us its all KABUKI. But
then again why not preach to his own choir at his new blog where folks can revel in Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt? One wonders.
I think the same is happening in Kiev and Ukraine.
The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of military aid was
contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the
2016 election, contradicting President Trump's denial that he used the money as leverage
for political gain.
Who told him? Some State Dept. apparatchik? Unless it was from Trump from
Trump's mouth, then it's hearsay and evidence of nothing whatsoever.
Acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. testified behind closed doors in the House
impeachment probe of Trump that he stands by his characterization that it was "crazy" to
make the assistance contingent on investigations he found troubling.
Who says the assistance was contingent on investigations? And what was troubling
about the investigations? If it had been Trump who'd paid for opposition research by a
foreign govt. or ic the demands for impeachment would have been even shriller.
Upon arriving in Kyiv last spring he became alarmed by secondary diplomatic channels
involving U.S. officials that he called "weird," Taylor said, according to a copy of his
lengthy opening statement obtained by The Washington Post.
Well, there you have it. The State Dept going outside regular channel and
talking to who? Would intervention by Giuliani be described as "secondary diplomatic
channels". Nah, so it's State Dept. officials. Time to clear out Soggy Bottom!
Supporting neoliberalism is the key treason of contemporary intellectuals eeho were instrumental in decimating the New Deal capitalism,
to say nothing about neocon, who downgraded themselves into intellectual prostitutes of MIC mad try to destroy post WWII order.
Notable quotes:
"... More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. ..."
"... "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration. ..."
"... In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates' devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles sounds! ..."
"... In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other 'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time." ..."
"... In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him. ..."
"... His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ." ..."
"... From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm is erupting in every corner of cultural life today. ..."
"... Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned by the court of diversity." ..."
"... Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit." ..."
"... Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason ..."
"... In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity." ..."
"... The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. ..."
"... In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things, this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual divisions ..."
"... Granted, the belief that there is "Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science": these are among today's talismanic fetishes. ..."
"... Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism." The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational animus in the mid-1940s. ..."
"... Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce, anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity." ..."
"... The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. ..."
"... There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual in favor of the group ..."
"... To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection of culture to anthropology. ..."
"... In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than Shakespeare." ..."
"... The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? ..."
"... . Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference: Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value ..."
"... The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim." ..."
"... "'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children and of the detractors of the West. ..."
"... There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. ..."
"... As the impassioned proponents of "diversity" meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom. ..."
"... Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but the idea of a world common to all men." ..."
On the abandonment of Enlightenment intellectualism, and the emergence of a new form of Volksgeist.
When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture, the life of the mind loses all meaning. -- Alain Finkielkraut,
The Undoing of Thought
Today we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere. Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities
for re-establishing our former ignorance? -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
I n 1927, the French essayist Julien Benda published his famous attack on the intellectual corruption of the age, La Trahison
des clercs. I said "famous," but perhaps "once famous" would have been more accurate. For today, in the United States anyway,
only the title of the book, not its argument, enjoys much currency. "La trahison des clercs": it is one of those memorable phrases
that bristles with hints and associations without stating anything definite. Benda tells us that he uses the term "clerc" in "the
medieval sense," i.e., to mean "scribe," someone we would now call a member of the intelligentsia. Academics and journalists, pundits,
moralists, and pontificators of all varieties are in this sense clercs . The English translation, The Treason of the Intellectuals
,
1 sums it up neatly.
The "treason" in question was the betrayal by the "clerks" of their vocation as intellectuals. From the time of the pre-Socratics,
intellectuals, considered in their role as intellectuals, had been a breed apart. In Benda's terms, they were understood to
be "all those whose activity essentially is not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice
of an art or a science or a metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages." Thanks to such men,
Benda wrote, "humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was an honor to the human species, and
formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world."
According to Benda, however, this situation was changing. More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to
the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal
of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. The attack on the universal went forward
in social and political life as well as in the refined precincts of epistemology and metaphysics: "Those who for centuries had exhorted
men, at least theoretically, to deaden the feeling of their differences have now come to praise them, according to where the sermon
is given, for their 'fidelity to the French soul,' 'the immutability of their German consciousness,' for the 'fervor of their Italian
hearts.'" In short, intellectuals began to immerse themselves in the unsettlingly practical and material world of political passions:
precisely those passions, Benda observed, "owing to which men rise up against other men, the chief of which are racial passions,
class passions and national passions." The "rift" into which civilization had been wont to slip narrowed and threatened to close
altogether.
Writing at a moment when ethnic and nationalistic hatreds were beginning to tear Europe asunder, Benda's diagnosis assumed the
lineaments of a prophecy -- a prophecy that continues to have deep resonance today. "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual
organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in
the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little
more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the
greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration.
J ulien Benda was not so naïve as to believe that intellectuals as a class had ever entirely abstained from political involvement,
or, indeed, from involvement in the realm of practical affairs. Nor did he believe that intellectuals, as citizens, necessarily
should abstain from political commitment or practical affairs. The "treason" or betrayal he sought to publish concerned the
way that intellectuals had lately allowed political commitment to insinuate itself into their understanding of the intellectual vocation
as such. Increasingly, Benda claimed, politics was "mingled with their work as artists, as men of learning, as philosophers." The
ideal of disinterestedness, the universality of truth: such guiding principles were contemptuously deployed as masks when they were
not jettisoned altogether. It was in this sense that he castigated the " desire to abase the values of knowledge before the values
of action ."
In its crassest but perhaps also most powerful form, this desire led to that familiar phenomenon Benda dubbed "the cult of success."
It is summed up, he writes, in "the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas
the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt." In itself, this idea is hardly novel, as history from the Greek
sophists on down reminds us. In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates'
devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts
Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully
pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles
sounds!
In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles
espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism
by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other
'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things
were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time."
In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him.
To appreciate the force of Benda's thesis one need only think of that most influential modern Callicles, Friedrich Nietzsche.
His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and
evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real
problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all
values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated
but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ."
Benda understood that the stakes were high: the treason of the intellectuals signaled not simply the corruption of a bunch of
scribblers but a fundamental betrayal of culture. By embracing the ethic of Callicles, intellectuals had, Benda reckoned, precipitated
"one of the most remarkable turning points in the moral history of the human species. It is impossible," he continued,
to exaggerate the importance of a movement whereby those who for twenty centuries taught Man that the criterion of the morality
of an act is its disinterestedness, that good is a decree of his reason insofar as it is universal, that his will is only moral
if it seeks its law outside its objects, should begin to teach him that the moral act is the act whereby he secures his existence
against an environment which disputes it, that his will is moral insofar as it is a will "to power," that the part of his soul
which determines what is good is its "will to live" wherein it is most "hostile to all reason," that the morality of an act is
measured by its adaptation to its end, and that the only morality is the morality of circumstances. The educators of the human
mind now take sides with Callicles against Socrates, a revolution which I dare to say seems to me more important than all political
upheavals.
The Treason of the Intellectuals is an energetic hodgepodge of a book. The philosopher Jean-François Revel recently
described it as "one of the fussiest pleas on behalf of the necessary independence of intellectuals." Certainly it is rich, quirky,
erudite, digressive, and polemical: more an exclamation than an analysis. Partisan in its claims for disinterestedness, it is ruthless
in its defense of intellectual high-mindedness. Yet given the horrific events that unfolded in the decades following its publication,
Benda's unremitting attack on the politicization of the intellect and ethnic separatism cannot but strike us as prescient. And given
the continuing echo in our own time of the problems he anatomized, the relevance of his observations to our situation can hardly
be doubted. From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands
for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues
to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm
is erupting in every corner of cultural life today.
In 1988, the young French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut took up where Benda left off, producing a brief
but searching inventory of our contemporary cataclysms. Entitled La Défaite de la pensée
2 ("The 'Defeat' or 'Undoing' of Thought"), his essay is in part an updated taxonomy of intellectual betrayals. In this
sense, the book is a trahison des clercs for the post-Communist world, a world dominated as much by the leveling imperatives
of pop culture as by resurgent nationalism and ethnic separatism. Beginning with Benda, Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent
strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century
German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that
of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned
by the court of diversity."
Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit."
Quoting the French historian Joseph Renan, he describes the idea as "the most dangerous explosive of modern times." "Nothing," he
writes, "can stop a state that has become prey to the Volksgeist ." It is one of Finkielkraut's leitmotifs that today's multiculturalists
are in many respects Herder's (generally unwitting) heirs.
True, Herder's emphasis on history and language did much to temper the tendency to abstraction that one finds in some expressions
of the Enlightenment. Ernst Cassirer even remarked that "Herder's achievement is one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of the
philosophy of the Enlightenment."
Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction
of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason. Finkielkraut opposes this just as the
mature Goethe once took issue with Herder's adoration of the Volksgeist. Finkielkraut concedes that we all "relate to a particular
tradition" and are "shaped by our national identity." But, unlike the multiculturalists, he soberly insists that "this reality merit[s]
some recognition, not idolatry."
In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes
the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive
worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity."
The Undoing of Thought resembles The Treason of the Intellectuals stylistically as well as thematically. Both
books are sometimes breathless congeries of sources and aperçus. And Finkielkraut, like Benda (and, indeed, like Montaigne), tends
to proceed more by collage than by demonstration. But he does not simply recapitulate Benda's argument.
The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still
had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much
attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. Finkielkraut's distinctive contribution is to have taken the
measure of the cultural swamp that surrounds us, to have delineated the links joining the politicization of the intellect and its
current forms of debasement.
In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things,
this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual
divisions.
The humanizing "reason" that Enlightenment champions is a universal reason, sharable, in principle, by all. Such ideals have not
fared well in the twentieth century: Herder's progeny have labored hard to discredit them. Granted, the belief that there is
"Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular
chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science":
these are among today's talismanic fetishes.
Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism."
The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason
and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other
absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer
and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational
animus in the mid-1940s.
Safely ensconced in Los Angeles, these refugees from Hitler's Reich published an influential essay on the concept of Enlightenment.
Among much else, they assured readers that "Enlightenment is totalitarian." Never mind that at that very moment the Nazi war machine
-- what one might be forgiven for calling real totalitarianism -- was busy liquidating millions of people in order to fulfill
another set of anti-Enlightenment fantasies inspired by devotion to the Volksgeist .
The diatribe that Horkheimer and Adorno mounted against the concept of Enlightenment reminds us of an important peculiarity about
the history of Enlightenment: namely, that it is a movement of thought that began as a reaction against tradition and has now emerged
as one of tradition's most important safeguards. Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce,
anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity."
The chief enemy of Enlightenment was "superstition," an omnibus term that included all manner of religious, philosophical, and
moral ideas. But as the sociologist Edward Shils has noted, although the Enlightenment was in important respects "antithetical to
tradition" in its origins, its success was due in large part "to the fact that it was promulgated and pursued in a society in which
substantive traditions were rather strong." "It was successful against its enemies," Shils notes in his book Tradition (1981),
because the enemies were strong enough to resist its complete victory over them. Living on a soil of substantive traditionality,
the ideas of the Enlightenment advanced without undoing themselves. As long as respect for authority on the one side and self-confidence
in those exercising authority on the other persisted, the Enlightenment's ideal of emancipation through the exercise of reason
went forward. It did not ravage society as it would have done had society lost all legitimacy.
It is this mature form of Enlightenment, championing reason but respectful of tradition, that Finkielkraut holds up as an ideal.
W hat Finkielkraut calls "the undoing of thought" flows from the widespread disintegration of a faith. At the center of that faith
is the assumption that the life of thought is "the higher life" and that culture -- what the Germans call Bildung -- is its
end or goal.
The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many
anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed
with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. "It
is," he writes, "the first time in European history that non-thought has donned the same label and enjoyed the same status as thought
itself, and the first time that those who, in the name of 'high culture,' dare to call this non-thought by its name, are dismissed
as racists and reactionaries." The attack is perpetrated not from outside, by uncomprehending barbarians, but chiefly from inside,
by a new class of barbarians, the self-made barbarians of the intelligentsia. This is the undoing of thought. This is the new "treason
of the intellectuals."
There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's
scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual
in favor of the group . "Their most extraordinary feat," he observes, "is to have put forward as the ultimate individual liberty
the unconditional primacy of the collective." Western rationalism and individualism are rejected in the name of a more "authentic"
cult.
One example: Finkielkraut quotes a champion of multiculturalism who maintains that "to help immigrants means first of all respecting
them for what they are, respecting whatever they aspire to in their national life, in their distinctive culture and in their attachment
to their spiritual and religious roots." Would this, Finkielkraut asks, include "respecting" those religious codes which demanded
that the barren woman be cast out and the adulteress be punished with death?
What about those cultures in which the testimony of one man counts for that of two women? In which female circumcision is practiced?
In which slavery flourishes? In which mixed marriages are forbidden and polygamy encouraged? Multiculturalism, as Finkielkraut points
out, requires that we respect such practices. To criticize them is to be dismissed as "racist" and "ethnocentric." In this secular
age, "cultural identity" steps in where the transcendent once was: "Fanaticism is indefensible when it appeals to heaven, but beyond
reproach when it is grounded in antiquity and cultural distinctiveness."
To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection
of culture to anthropology. Finkielkraut speaks in this context of a "cheerful confusion which raises everyday anthropological
practices to the pinnacle of the human race's greatest achievements." This process began in the nineteenth century, but it has been
greatly accelerated in our own age. One thinks, for example, of the tireless campaigning of that great anthropological leveler, Claude
Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss is assuredly a brilliant writer, but he has also been an extraordinarily baneful influence. Already in
the early 1950s, when he was pontificating for UNESCO , he was urging all and sundry to "fight against ranking cultural differences
hierarchically." In La Pensée sauvage (1961), he warned against the "false antinomy between logical and prelogical mentality"
and was careful in his descriptions of natives to refer to "so-called primitive thought." "So-called" indeed. In a famous article
on race and history, Lévi-Strauss maintained that the barbarian was not the opposite of the civilized man but "first of all the man
who believes there is such a thing as barbarism." That of course is good to know. It helps one to appreciate Lévi-Strauss's claim,
in Tristes Tropiques (1955), that the "true purpose of civilization" is to produce "inertia." As one ruminates on the proposition
that cultures should not be ranked hierarchically, it is also well to consider what Lévi-Strauss coyly refers to as "the positive
forms of cannibalism." For Lévi-Strauss, cannibalism has been unfairly stigmatized in the "so-called" civilized West. In fact, he
explains, cannibalism was "often observed with great discretion, the vital mouthful being made up of a small quantity of organic
matter mixed, on occasion, with other forms of food." What, merely a "vital mouthful"? Not to worry! Only an ignoramus who believed
that there were important distinctions, qualitative distinctions, between the barbarian and the civilized man could possibly
think of objecting.
Of course, the attack on distinctions that Finkielkraut castigates takes place not only among cultures but also within a given
culture. Here again, the anthropological imperative has played a major role. "Under the equalizing eye of social science," he writes,
hierarchies are abolished, and all the criteria of taste are exposed as arbitrary. From now on no rigid division separates masterpieces
from run-of-the mill works. The same fundamental structure, the same general and elemental traits are common to the "great" novels
(whose excellence will henceforth be demystified by the accompanying quotation marks) and plebian types of narrative activity.
F or confirmation of this, one need only glance at the pronouncements of our critics. Whether working in the academy or other
cultural institutions, they bring us the same news: there is "no such thing" as intrinsic merit, "quality" is an only ideological
construction, aesthetic value is a distillation of social power, etc., etc.
In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the
name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and
say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than
Shakespeare."
Those whom Finkielkraut calls "postmodernists," waving the standard of radical chic, declare that Shakespeare is no better than
the latest fashion -- no better, say, than the newest item offered by Calvin Klein. The litany that Finkielkraut recites is familiar:
A comic which combines exciting intrigue and some pretty pictures is just as good as a Nabokov novel. What little Lolitas read
is as good as Lolita . An effective publicity slogan counts for as much as a poem by Apollinaire or Francis Ponge . The
footballer and the choreographer, the painter and the couturier, the writer and the ad-man, the musician and the rock-and-roller,
are all the same: creators. We must scrap the prejudice which restricts that title to certain people and regards others as sub-cultural.
The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high
culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? Anyone
who thinks so should take a moment to recall the major exhibition called "High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture" that the Museum
of Modern Art mounted a few years ago: it might have been called "Krazy Kat Meets Picasso." Few events can have so consummately summed
up the corrosive trivialization of culture now perpetrated by those entrusted with preserving it. Among other things, that exhibition
demonstrated the extent to which the apotheosis of popular culture undermines the very possibility of appreciating high art on its
own terms.
When the distinction between culture and entertainment is obliterated, high art is orphaned, exiled from the only context in which
its distinctive meaning can manifest itself: Picasso becomes a kind of cartoon. This, more than any elitism or obscurity,
is the real threat to culture today. As Hannah Arendt once observed, "there are many great authors of the past who have survived
centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version
of what they have to say."
And this brings us to the question of freedom. Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar
to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference:
Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of
the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value.
For the postmodernist, then, "culture is no longer seen as a means of emancipation, but as one of the élitist obstacles to this."
The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism
promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is
a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change
one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim."
What Finkielkraut has understood with admirable clarity is that modern attacks on elitism represent not the extension but the
destruction of culture. "Democracy," he writes, "once implied access to culture for everybody. From now on it is going to mean everyone's
right to the culture of his choice." This may sound marvelous -- it is after all the slogan one hears shouted in academic and cultural
institutions across the country -- but the result is precisely the opposite of what was intended.
"'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children
and of the detractors of the West." The irony, alas, is that by removing standards and declaring that "anything goes," one does
not get more culture, one gets more and more debased imitations of culture. This fraud is the dirty secret that our cultural commissars
refuse to acknowledge.
There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common
humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. "A careless indifference to grand
causes," Finkielkraut warns, "has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force." As the impassioned proponents of "diversity"
meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom.
Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but
the idea of a world common to all men."
Julien Benda took his epigraph for La Trahison des clercs from the nineteenth-century French philosopher Charles Renouvier:
Le monde souffre du manque de foi en une vérité transcendante : "The world suffers from lack of faith in a transcendent truth."
Without some such faith, we are powerless against the depredations of intellectuals who have embraced the nihilism of Callicles as
their truth.
1The Treason of the Intellectuals, by Julien Benda, translated by Richard Aldington, was first published in 1928.
This translation is still in print from Norton.
2La Défaite de la pensée , by Alain Finkielkraut; Gallimard, 162 pages, 72 FF . It is available in English, in
a translation by Dennis O'Keeffe, as The Undoing of Thought (The Claridge Press [London], 133 pages, £6.95 paper).
Roger Kimball is Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and President and Publisher of Encounter Books. His latest book
is The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press)
Former national security officials fight back as Trump attacks impeachment as 'deep
state' conspiracy
"What is happening currently is not normal," said Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who served as
a U.S. intelligence officer on Russia and Eurasia before stepping down in 2018. "This
represents a deviation from the way that these institutions regularly function. And when the
institutions don't work, that is a national security threat."
She was among 90 national security veterans who signed an open letter published Sunday
in support of the anonymous whistleblower who filed a complaint that Trump had acted
improperly in asking the Ukrainian president to investigate Biden in a July phone
call.
Trump has attempted to intimidate other government officials into not cooperating by
casting those who offered information to the whistleblower as "close to spies." The open
letter emphasized that the whistleblower "is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
Victor Pinchuk. Ukranian Parliament member.
Atlantic Council board member
$25 million in charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation
Atlantic Council is a partner with Burisma
How systemic was the corruption within the Obama administration, and who was really pulling
the strings?
and all of its connections in Ukraine with ByeDone's son etc. I was going to essay it, but
it's better if you all just read the whole thing. It's really really good.
Looks like a testimony of a member of Nuland neocons clique.
A reasonable Trump administration gesture of delaying military aid now is interpreted as a
pressure on Zelensky government. But not everybody in Zelensky government is interesting in the
USA military aid; most including probably Zelensky himself understand that this carrot s the way
US neocon push Ukraine in self-destructive game of to catching hot potatoes from the fire to
advance the USA strategic anti-Russian interests in the region.
Trump is right that Ukraine participated in Russiagate, but he is wrong that Poroshenko
administration acted as a supplementary force in Russiagate on its own initiative: in reality
Poroshenko was the USA marionette fully controlled from Washington and would do anything to
please Obama administration.
Notable quotes:
"... "He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they 'tried to take me down.' ..."
"Second, in May of this year, I became concerned that a negative narrative about Ukraine,
fueled by assertions made by Ukraine's departing Prosecutor General, was reaching the President
of the United States, and impeding our ability to support the new Ukrainian government as
robustly as I believed we should."
"Fifth and finally, I strongly supported the provision of U.S. security assistance,
including lethal defensive weapons, to Ukraine throughout my tenure."
...While Volker said Biden did not come up explicitly in his conversations, he made a point
of defending the former vice president in his remarks. "I have known former Vice President
Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice
President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me," he wrote. "I know him as a man
of integrity and dedication to our country."
... ... ...
Volker also testified that while he was aware that the Trump administration
had put a hold on needed military aid to Ukraine at the same time that he was connecting
Giuliani with Zelensky's government, "I did not perceive these issues to be linked in any way."
Volker said that "no reason was given" for the holdup, but it concerned him; he "stressed"
to staff at the State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council that the aid
was vital to Ukraine's security, "deterrence of Russian aggression," and Ukraine's relationship
with the US.
"That said, I was not overly concerned about the development because I believed the decision
would ultimately be reversed," Volker told Congress, citing the "unanimous position" of
Congress, the State Department, the Pentagon, and the NSC in favor of restoring the aid. "I
knew it would just be a matter of time."
...On his contacts with Rudy Giuliani, Volker said he became aware early this year about "an
emerging, negative narrative about Ukraine in the United States, fueled by accusations made by
the then–prosecutor general of Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, that some Ukrainian citizens may
have sought to influence" the 2016 presidential election in the US, "including by passing
information that was detrimental to" Trump, which they hoped would reach Hillary Clinton's
campaign.
"I believed that these accusations by Mr. Lutsenko were themselves self-serving, intended to
make himself appear valuable to the United States, so that the United States might weigh in
against his being removed from office by the new government," Volker said.
...Volker told Congress that he learned in May this year that Giuliani planned to travel to
Ukraine to look into the unsubstantiated allegations that Biden had used his position as vice
president to benefit his son Hunter Biden. Volker said he contacted Giuliani to say that
Lutsenko was not credible -- Volker said they had a brief phone call, but didn't say how
Giuliani responded. Giuliani later canceled his trip. Volker noted that Giuliani claimed at the
time that Zelensky was surrounded "by enemies of the United States," a sentiment that Volker
said he "fundamentally disagreed" with.
...Giuliani came up repeatedly in Volker's conversations with Zelensky and the Ukrainian
president's administration. Volker said he had a private conversation with Zelensky in early
July, and told Zelensky that a "negative view" of Ukraine -- one that Giuliani held -- was
"likely making its way to" Trump. A week later, Volker met with Yermak, the Zelensky aide, who
asked to be connected to Giuliani.
...
Volker also testified to Congress that he met with Trump in May and suggested that
the president invite Zelensky to the White House, arguing Zelensky could help clean up
corruption in Ukraine. But Volker said that Trump was "very skeptical" of Zelensky at the
time.
"He said that Ukraine was a corrupt country, full of 'terrible people.' He said they
'tried to take me down.' In the course of that conversation, he referenced conversations
with Mayor Giuliani," Volker said. "It was clear to me that despite the positive news and
recommendations being conveyed by this official delegation about the new President, President
Trump had a deeply rooted negative view on Ukraine rooted in the past. He was clearly receiving
other information from other sources, including Mayor Giuliani, that was more negative, causing
him to retain this negative view."
Michael McFaul was the key person in failed "white color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012
designed to prevent reelection of Putin. h was recalled soon after Putin elections. So his praise
instantly suggests that the other person might be a color revolution specialist as well
In this sense his participation in Ukrainegate is just a top of his long carier as colore
revolution specialist. Ukrainegate does looks like the second Maydan.
Michael
McFaul, who served as the US ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2014, called Taylor, who he's
known for three decades, "just a consummate public servant."
"I do remember when he was ambassador to Ukraine he saw the bigness of the moment -- this is
well before Russia annexed Crimea and went into Donbass -- that fighting for sovereignty for
Ukraine and democracy and anti-corruption, he was very committed to that," McFaul said.
"... This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected" mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. ..."
"... Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard, they aren't easing up. ..."
"... Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington ..."
"... Excuse me, the voting going on up there for sanctions on Russia for various bogus things has been pretty much unanimous and bipartisan. ..."
The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their
wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.
– Arundhati Roy
Last week, Hillary Clinton called Tulsi Gabbard (and Jill Stein) Russian agents on a podcast. More
specifically :
"I'm not making any predictions, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the Democratic primary and
are grooming her to be the third-party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians," said Clinton, apparently referring to Rep.
Gabbard, who's been accused of receiving support from Russian bots and the Russian news media. "They have a bunch of sites and
bots and other ways of supporting her so far." She added: "That's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because
she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset -- I mean, totally. They know they can't win without a third-party candidate.
So I don't know who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a vigorous third-party challenge in the key states
that they most needed."
Tulsi subsequently responded to this slanderous accusation with a series of devastating blows.
Her tweets set off a firestorm, and even if you're as disillusioned by presidential politics as myself, you couldn't help but
cheer wildly that someone with a major political platform finally stated without any hint of fear or hesitation exactly what so many
Americans across the ideological spectrum feel.
Of course, this has far wider implications than a high profile feud between these two. The "let's blame Russia for Hillary's loss"
epidemic of calculated stupidity driven by Ellen-Democrats and their mouthpieces across corporate mass media began immediately after
the election. I know about it on a personal level because this website was an early target of the neoliberal-led new McCarthyism
courtesy of a ridiculous and libelous smear in the Washington Post over Thanksgiving weekend 2016 (see:
Liberty Blitzkrieg Included on Washington Post Highlighted Hit List of "Russian Propaganda" Websites) .
This is when it became clear it wasn't just political operatives pushing fake news about Russian influence, but that "respected"
mass media would be leading the charge for them. The rest is pretty much history. MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, etc have been
spewing outlandish Russiagate nonsense for three years straight, and despite the complete failure of special counsel Robert Mueller
to find any evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, these agents of empire refuse to stop. The whole charade seems more akin to an intelligence
operation than journalism, which shouldn't be surprising given the proliferation of former intelligence agents throughout mass media
in the Trump era.
Former CIA Director
John Brennan
(2013-17) is the latest superspook to be reborn as a TV newsie. He just
cashed in at
NBC News as a "senior national security and intelligence analyst" and served his first expert views on last Sunday's edition of
Meet the Press .
The Brennan acquisition seeks to elevate NBC to spook parity with CNN, which employs former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and former CIA Director
Michael Hayden
in a similar capacity.
Other, lesser-known national security veterans thrive under TV's grow lights. Almost too numerous to list, they include
Chuck Rosenberg
, former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James B. Comey, and
counselor to former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III;
Frank Figliuzzi , former chief of FBI counterintelligence;
Juan Zarate , deputy national security adviser under Bush, at NBC; and
Fran
Townsend , homeland security adviser under Bush, at CBS News.
CNN's bulging roster also includes former FBI agent Asha Rangappa
; former FBI agent James Gagliano
; Obama's former deputy national security adviser
Tony Blinken ; former House
Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers ; senior
adviser to the National Security Council during the Obama administration
Samantha Vinograd ; retired CIA operations officer
Steven L. Hall; and
Philip Mudd , also retired from the CIA.
Americans like to sneer at more transparently unfree societies around the world, but when you think about the disturbing implications
of former spooks delivering news to the public, one can't help but conclude that mass media in 2019 looks like a gigantic propaganda
campaign targeting U.S. citizens. Moreover, as can be seen by the recent attacks by Clinton and her allies in the media on Gabbard,
they aren't easing up.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue. Why are they doing this? Why is Clinton, with zero evidence whatsoever, falsely calling
a sitting U.S. Congresswoman, a veteran with two tours in Iraq, and someone polling at only 2% in the Democratic primary a "Russian
asset." Why are they so afraid of Tulsi Gabbard?
It's partly personal. Tulsi was one of only a handful of congressional Democrats to set aside fears of the Clintons and their
mafia-like network to endorse Bernie Sanders early in 2016. In fact, she
stepped
down from her position as vice-chairman of the Democratic National Committee to do so. This is the sort of thing a petty narcissist
like Hillary Clinton could never forgive, but it goes further.
Tulsi's mere presence on stage during recent debates has proven devastating for the Ellen Degeneres wing of the Democratic party.
She effectively ended neoliberal darling Kamala Harris' chances by simply telling the truth about her horrible record, something
no one else in the race had the guts to do.
In other words, Tulsi demolished Kamala Harris and put an end to her primary chances by simply telling the truth about her on
national television. This is how powerful the truth can be when somebody's actually willing to stand up and say it. It's why the
agents of empire -- in charge of virtually all major institutions -- go out of their way to ensure the American public is exposed
to as little truth as possible. It's also why they lie and scream "Russia" instead of debating the actual issues.
But this goes well beyond Tulsi Gabbard. Empire requires constant meddling abroad as well as periodic regime change wars to ensure
compliant puppets are firmly in control of any country with any geopolitical significance. The 21st century has been littered with
a series of disastrous U.S. interventions abroad, while the country back home continues to descend deeper into a neo-feudal oligarchy
with a hunger games style economy. As such, an increasing number of Americans have begun to question the entire premise of imperial
foreign policy.
To the agents of empire, dominant throughout mainstream politics, mega corporations, think-tanks and of course mass media, this
sort of thought crime is entirely unacceptable. In case you haven't noticed, empire is a third-rail of U.S. politics. If you dare
touch the issue, you'll be ruthlessly smeared, without any evidence, as a Russian agent or asset. There's nothing logical about this,
but then again there typically isn't much logic when it comes to psychological operations. They depend on manipulation and triggering
specific emotional responses.
There's a reason people like Hillary Clinton and her minions just yell "Russia" whenever an individual with a platform criticizes
empire and endless war. They know they can't win an argument if they debate the actual issues, so a conscious choice was made to
simply avoid debate entirely. As such, they've decided to craft and spread a disingenuous narrative in which anyone critical of establishment
neocon/neoliberal foreign policy is a Russia asset/agent/bot. This is literally all they've got. These people are telling you 2+2=5
and if you don't accept it, you're a traitorous, Putin-loving nazi with a pee pee tape. And these same people call themselves "liberal."
Importantly, it isn't just a few trollish kooks doing this. It's being spread by some of the most powerful people and institutions
in the country, including of course mass media.
This inane verbal vomit is considered "liberal" news in modern America, a word which has now lost all meaning. Above, we witness
a collection of television mannequins questioning the loyalty of a U.S. veteran who continues to serve in both Congress and the national
guard simply because she dared call out America's perpetually failing foreign policy establishment.
To conclude, it's now clear dissent is only permitted so long as it doesn't become too popular. By polling at 2% in the primary,
it appears Gabbard became too popular, but the truth is she's just a vessel. What's really got the agents of empire concerned is
we may be on the verge of a tipping point within the broader U.S. population regarding regime change wars and empire. This is why
debate needs to be shut down and shut down now. A critical mass of citizens openly questioning establishment foreign policy cannot
be permitted. Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor. The national
security state doesn't want the public to even think about such topics, let alone debate them.
Ultimately, if you give up your capacity for reason, for free-thought and for the courage to say what you think about issues of
national significance, you've lost everything. This is what these manipulators want you to do. They want you to shut-up, to listen
to the "experts" who destroy everything they touch, and to be a compliant subject as opposed to an active, empowered citizen. The
answer to such a tactic is to be more bold, more informed and more ethical. They fear truth and empowered individuals more than anything
else. Stand up tall and speak your mind. Pandering to bullies never works.
* * *
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. To make this a successful, sustainable thing consider the following options. You can become
a Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
For those of us who grew up during the Cold War going to Russia is intense. I have never been so scared in my life as when
that plane touched down at Pulkovo 2. And I though Dulles was a shithole.
Russians love art and they have fantastic museums and fantastic architecture. Food is a bit sketchy but you can make do. No
fat women there that I saw. In fact, you will see some of the most beautiful women in the world there. Trust me on that.
Pelosi is smart enough to know that all roads lead to Putin. But is she smart enough to know that're not just American and
its 'allied' Western 'roads', but now its all the roads in the world.
Because the world finally understands that Putin is the only peacemaker on the scene. And that most of the disputes the international
community is saddled with are a direct result of American foreign policy and the excesses of its economy.
The world is tired of being dragged through Hell at the whim of a handful of American neocon devotees of Paul Wolfowitz and
the fallacious Wolfowitz Doctrine which was credited with having won the Cold War for the West and has been in effect ever since.
Except there seems to be some doubt now who actually won the Cold War with America scrambling to get out of Syria, leaving
behind a symbolic force of a couple of thousand troops.
That's the reason for everything that's going on America today. Russia, under Putin, has turned the tables on Congress, the
neocons, the warmongers, and those politicians and elite who want the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil to continue to
be destabilized by intranational, neighborly hatreds, by terrorism and by America's closest ally, Israel to continue to expand
its borders with its policy of settlements. This problematic situation is scrupulously avoided in America and the West's MSM,
and can only be seen in foreign media. Which brings us back to Putin.
Is he following the strategies of Sun Tzu, who advises you to
'appear weak when you are strong and strong when you are weak.'
'all warfare is based on deception'
'victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first then try to win.'
Hillary Clinton is obviously testing the waters for a last-minute, swoop-in candidacy. She sees Biden deflating and realizes
there's nobody to keep the Democratic nomination firmly in corporate hands. She wants them to beg her, though.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
In other words, Russia bashing by Jewish-controlled politicians and in Jewish-controlled Western media
is simply PAYBACK .
I am a Russian Agent. Well, not formally but act as one. Only in elections though as Russia forbids (after losing 30 million
dead in WW2) any military or violent interference. Agent may be too strong a word as my actions reflect the beauty of Russian
literature, music and philosophy. (qv Kropotkin, Rimsky Korsakoff etc. etc.) Maybe a spokesman?
In this coming election vote for the agent of your choice. Gabbard, Trump, (Cackles, hang on and wait for this one) or Biden
( on whom we await a conversion). This agency stuff is fun. Can't wait.
The quid pro quo for many Deep State bureaucrats comes after they are no longer in office as typified by jobs as "experts"
with the corrupt news networks. Comey was a senior vice president for Lockheed Martin before returning to Washington.
Trump is outing them all and they are out to destroy him.
If the Russians are so bad, why did we give them our Uranium? Hillary and corrupt Washington Swamp dwellers in action. How
many in Congress opposed the deal? We need Trump to be reelected to Make America Great Again.
I remember in the 80's Democrats would mercilessly lampoon and make fun of Conservatives for their (at the time) hard-line
stance against the Soviet Union and how we should just get over it: peace, love and b*llsh*t. My how times have changed.
You need a scorecard to keep track these days. Barry lampooned Mitt for speaking against the Russians, like they were the 'good
guys' (ahem, 'tell Vlad' and Kills power reset button) Make up your ******* minds people.
Thank you for bringing my attention to Russia. Had it not been for your constant denunciations, I probably would never have
investigated that nation to the extent that I have, and that would have been my loss. Allow me to explain.
As a permanent student of human history and culture, I've traveled to, and studied many different nations, from Japan, China
and Thailand, to Europe, Latin America and the Middle East, but somehow I managed to completely miss Russia. Of course I was familiar
with the Western narrative concerning communism and the USSR - I grew up with that - but I never fully understood Russian culture
until, by your actions, you forced me to look into it.
I've since studied their history intently, and have studied their language to the point where I can at least make myself understood.
I've spoken to Russian expats, read numerous books, watched their TV shows, listened to their music, and have kept a close eye
on current events, including the coup in Ukraine and Russia's response to that event. At this point I feel well enough prepared
to travel to Russia and I'm looking forward to my upcoming trip with great anticipation.
I operate on the basic premise that I'm nobody special - that there are thousands of people just like me with a deep interest
in human affairs, who, like myself, have been prompted to investigate a culture that, for various reasons, has been largely overlooked
in the West. So, on my own and their behalf I thank you for providing the impetus to focus our attention in that regard. It's
probably not what you intended, but it is what it is. Thanks to you, many hundreds, if not thousands of people have now undertaken
a study of Russia and her people, and that can only be a good thing, as the more we know about each other, the less we have to
fear, and the less likely we are to come into conflict with one another.
Bravo well written and right on the mark. If Tulsi wasn't a gun grabber and openly supported the 2nd Amendment she would be
a front runner, only a few steps behind Trump. And by the way, don't trust those 2% Polls. We all know the polls are pure ********.
When one Colonel Gary Powers was shot down in his USAF U2 spy plane in 1960 and captured alive he was asked by his then KGB
interrogators what the difference was between the Republican and Democratic parties.......and he admitted to being at a loss to
explain that there was any fundamental difference at all.
Therein lies the root problem with the American political system. All through the process it arrives at the same outcomes and
it doesnt matter who you vote for.
It could be argued that it is in effect a one party system as both are indistinguishable from each other ultimately as they
push the America PLC agenda.
The entire system is held captive by secretive and "invisible" unelected groups who call the shots and if you push too hard
they have you killed one way or another.....all the esoteric secret societies of any significance are represented.
The question therefore is this; Is America any different to China other than the wallpaper coverings?
To paraphrase Mark Twain; If voting really mattered they wouldn't let you do it.
Those on the fence need to be bullied and manipulated into thinking dissent is equivalent to being a traitor
This is true with Trumptards on this comments board. They unquestionably follow lies, manipulative, and hollow Trump doctrine
without thinking.
Just yesterday there was and idiot spewing out that 'Assange was treasonous' before engaging his cerebral matter to realise
you cannot be a traitor against a country that's not yours.
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans
toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at
that, gussied up as "saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about running again,
with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any
chance for a Democratic candidate to reach into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has
been lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the
café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, often wrote.
His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that madness (Trump Derangement in modern
terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet came into being to push tailored
ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter
and in the Times , is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and crazier stuff.
What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering
to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells!
They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all.
Easy ;-) Weaken the Deep State (aka drain the swamp). Remove three factors driving
impeachment: Obama mafia, Clintons mafia and Brennan mafia. Neutralizing them probably mean
(imperfect but workable) vaccine against impeachment derangement.
The author does not understand that neoliberal coup d'état against Trump is driven by
the burning desire to kick the can down the road and ignore the crisi of neoliberalism that led
to Trump election (as well as Brexit and Orban in Europe)
Notable quotes:
"... The idea that Americans are steps away from squaring off across the field at Gettysburg is something that should only exist in satire. It would be hilarious, except that such fantasizing is influencing the actual future of our country. We have crossed a line where rationality is in the rearview mirror. Most of us have lost track of the constitutional crises that have never actually happened since the first one was declared, over the non-issue of Trump losing the popular vote in 2016. ..."
"... What was it last week? Sharpiegate? Or the hotel in Scotland? Or an impeding war with Iran/North Korea/China? Or treason? Or something about security clearances? The Kurds were a thing in 2017 and again now. Paul Krugman of the New York Times first declared that Trump was going to destroy the economy in 2016 , and has written the same article regularly ever since, most recently just last week . It doesn't seem to matter that none of these things have actually proven to be true. Learned people are saying them again and again. ..."
"... It wasn't supposed to be this way. The fantasy was to use Robert Mueller's summer testimony about Trump being a literal Russian asset to stir up the masses -- Mueller Time, Baby! Congress would go home for August recess to be bombarded by cries for impeachment, and then autumn would feature hearings and revelations amplified by the Blue Check harpies leading up to, well, something big. ..."
"... Desperation makes for poor strategy. Think back just two weeks and no one had heard of any of this. Yet Dems and the media took America from zero to 100 nearly overnight as if this was another 9/11. With the winter caucuses approaching, Dems in search of a crime groped at something half slipped under the door and half bundled up by clever lawyers to be slipped under the door. Mueller was a lousy patsy so a better one needed to be found in the shallow end of the Deep State pool. It wasn't much but it was going to have to be made good enough. ..."
"... The details will come out and they will stink. The first whistleblower had some sort of prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democrat. Given that he is a CIA analyst, that suggests a member of Vice President Biden's White House team, Cory Booker's Committee on Foreign Relations, or maybe Kamala Harris's Select Committee on Intelligence. ..."
"... The so-called second whistleblower appears to actually be one of the sources for the first whistleblower. That's a feedback loop , an old CIA trick where you create the appearance of a credible source by providing your own confirming source. It was tried with the Steele Dossier where the original text given to the FBI appeared to be backed up by leaks filtered through the media and John McCain's office. ..."
"... It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all. ..."
"... And of course MSNBC hires Brennan whose CIA spied on Congress when it was investigating torture. No principles here at all. ..."
"... When they put State power brokers over the will of the people and love of country, it equals Ideology. What they really worship is the ideology itself. All of the various actors are just tools in service of that cause. ..."
"... a lot of the call was about Crowd Strike, not that anyone noticed ..."
"... The Democrats are doing the impossible by making Trump look good by comparison. ..."
"... As I think we all have come to understand, the Swamp is disconnected from mainstreet, [it is] a world all its own. Point being, neither side realizes most Americans have tuned this whole issue out. Two years of Russia gate led to exhaustion. My bigger concern going forward after Americans get a chance to vote in 2020, is, is this how we are destined to be governed ? ..."
"... Bush, Obama, and Trump have all committed vastly larger crimes and in our twisted political culture these don’t matter. Remember when centrist liberals claimed to care about torture and war under false pretenses? ..."
"... And all these former intelligence goons like Brennan are embraced on the liberal cable networks, even if the now beloved intelligence community tortured prisoners, lied about it, and spied on Congress. ..."
"... Had DT used withheld military aid to strong-arm Ukraine to do something in the national interest, then it would have been business as usual. Everyone expects a President to wheel, deal, lie and cheat for the nation. ..."
"... The public knew what Trump was about from the very beginning. That he was bumptious, impetuous, always shooting from the hip and often saying stupid things. And yet he was nominated by one of the two major parties, then turned around and beat the candidate of the other major party. What does that say about this country, other than its citizens elected a real estate businessman turned TV star with no political experience whatsover as president ..."
"... It's all a diversion (among many others) from what we should all be talking and doing something about anyway. It's all part of a sick game the global elites entertain and enrich themselves with. ..."
"... 'Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America' - Peter van Buren, Oct 14, 2019 'We should have a revolution in this country!' - Donald Trump, Nov 6th, 2012 ..."
Can any of the Democratic candidates pull America back from this
madness?
Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America. This
began after Trump
retweeted a pastor saying impeachment would cause a "civil war-like fracture in this
Nation." Never mind that it was a retweet, and never mind that the original statement used
"like" to make a comparison. The next headline was
set: Trump Threatens Civil War If He's Impeached. Newsweek
quoted a Harvard Law professor saying that the "threat" alone made Trump impeachable.
Another
headline asked: "If Trump's Rage Brings Civil War, Where Will the Military Stand?"
Blowing up some online nonsense into a declaration of war tracks with the meme that Trump
will
refuse to leave office if defeated in 2020, or will declare himself
the winner even if he loses, sending coded messages
to armed minions. "Trump Is Going to Burn Down Everything and Everyone," reads the headline
from a NASDAQ-listed media
outlet . "Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he'll bring it
down,"
wroteTheNew York Times.
That's just what the MSM is saying; it gets worse the further off the
road you drive . "Trump
is going to try everything, Fox is going to try everything, and they're going to both further
the injuring of societal reality and inspire dangerous individuals to kill and maim," Jared
Yates Sexton, a well-known academic, tweeted on
September 28 . "There's a vast number of people in this, people who have been taught their
whole lives that they might need to kill in case of a coup or corrupt takeover," he continued.
"Trump and Republicans signal to them constantly. They're more than ready to see this as the
occasion."
The idea that Americans are steps away from squaring off across the field at Gettysburg
is something that should only exist in satire. It would be hilarious, except that such
fantasizing is influencing the actual future of our country. We have crossed a line where
rationality is in the rearview mirror. Most of us have lost track of the constitutional crises
that have never actually happened since the first one was declared, over the non-issue of Trump
losing the popular vote in 2016.
What was it last week? Sharpiegate? Or the hotel in Scotland? Or an impeding war with
Iran/North Korea/China? Or treason? Or something about security clearances? The Kurds were a
thing in
2017 and again now. Paul Krugman of the New York Times first declared that Trump was going
to destroy the economy in
2016 , and has written the same article regularly ever since, most recently just last
week . It doesn't seem to matter that none of these things have actually proven to be true.
Learned people are
saying them again and again.
Those who oppose Trump have convinced themselves they must impeach for something , and if
all of Russiagate (remember that? It's like Aunt Edna's brief failed marriage, only not
mentioned at the dinner table) wasn't enough, then Democrats will impeach over a phone call to
a minor world leader.
It wasn't supposed to be this way. The fantasy was to use Robert Mueller's summer
testimony about Trump being a literal Russian asset to stir up the masses -- Mueller Time,
Baby! Congress would go home for August recess to be bombarded by cries for impeachment, and
then autumn would feature hearings and revelations amplified by the Blue Check harpies leading
up to, well, something big.
Were rationality still in vogue, it would be hard to imagine that Democrats would consider
the Ukraine call impeachable. But they closed out Russiagate like the OJ Simpson murder trial,
certain Trump had gotten away with so much that they had to catch him at something else to make
it even.
Desperation makes for poor strategy. Think back just two weeks and no one had heard of
any of this. Yet Dems and the media took America from zero to 100 nearly overnight as if this
was another 9/11. With the winter caucuses approaching, Dems in search of a crime groped at
something half slipped under the door and half
bundled up by clever lawyers to be slipped under the door. Mueller was a lousy patsy so a
better one needed to be found in the shallow end of the Deep State pool. It wasn't much but it
was going to have to be made good enough.
The details will come out and they will stink. The
first whistleblower had some sort of prior working relationship with a current 2020
Democrat. Given that he is a CIA analyst, that suggests a member of Vice President Biden's
White House team, Cory Booker's Committee on Foreign Relations, or maybe Kamala Harris's Select
Committee on Intelligence.
The so-called
second whistleblower appears to actually be one of the sources for the first whistleblower.
That's a
feedback loop , an old CIA trick where you create the appearance of a credible source by
providing your own confirming source. It was tried with the
Steele Dossier where the original text given to the FBI appeared to be backed up by leaks
filtered through the media and John McCain's office.
So forget everything about this cooked-to-order crisis except the actual thing impeachment
would turn on: the transcript of Trump's call. It does not matter what one, two, or 200
whistleblowers, former Obama officials, or talking heads "
think " about the call. There it is, the actual words, all pink and naked on the Internet
for everyone to read. Ukraine did not investigate Biden. Trump did not withhold aid. The
attorney general was
not involved. DOJ ruled there was
no violation of the law. It has little to do with Pompeo or Pence (though Pompeo was
on the call ). You and the Congress pretty much have it all in the transcript. It's
bathroom reading,
five pages .
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of
ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health
care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at that, gussied up as
"saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about
running again, with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions
has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any chance for a Democratic candidate to reach
into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has been
lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat
poet, often wrote. His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that
madness (Trump Derangement in modern terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet
came into being to push tailored ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in
knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter and in the Times ,
is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and
crazier stuff. What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like
Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering to strangers at what a mess this had all become:
"Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells! They bade
farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at
all.
You are the idiot if you think Peter doesn't know what the Mem-Con was. He was one of the
first to explain exactly how the process works. It's as close to an actual recording as it
gets and all parties sign off on the "Memo Of Communication" stating it's accurate before
it's saved.The idiots are the ones who think it's not accurate, grasping at straws doesn't
help you. But it does serve to make a point, YOU like bobbleheaded Shift realize that the
Transcript, as it stands, does not point to anything illegal so you like Shift make stuff up.
Each and every time you guys make the claim that it's not a real transcript it's a
admission that even YOU don't think what's in the call is illegal. Think about that one for a
second.
OH and you can claim that he did it to "punish his political opponents" all you like,
that's just spin, just as anyone can much more easily spin this as Trump's duty to find out.
Anything that requires mindreading isn't actual evidence and the "spin" in this case is
exactly that. Unless you crawl into his head you don't know if he did it to hurt Biden or
Help America, so either way we are left with his call as the only real evidence, the one you
yourself think was altered to the point where it no longer shows wrongdoing.
It’s clear that you are suffering from the Impeachment Derangement Virus as mentioned
in the article.
The President’s calls to world leaders were being leaked all throughout the
beginning of his presidency. That is a national security issue and so they added an extra
layer of security using a password protected system that had been used by previous
administrations. Your fantasy about the contents “alarming staffers” is absolute
nonsense because even in the “whistleblower” statement it states that other calls
to world leaders were also being put into this secured system. The fact that other calls are
being put into this system shows just how delusional your fantasy about this call being
special in some way, truly is.
As for the texts, as the author stated the opinion of what a diplomat THINKS is the
motivation is proof of absolutely nothing especially when that diplomat is told point blank
in the next text that his opinion is not factual.
Rational people understand all this. Those with Impeachment Derangement Virus do not.
DT is a populist, in an age where politics is all about withholding from the people what they
most want, because the people's instincts are deemed by the liberal consensus to be too
"deplorable" to follow.
Another great example is Brexit. The elite made the foolish mistake of asking the people of
the country what they wanted, and have spent 3 years tying things in ridiculous knots to
avoid the outcome the people voted to have.
Trump won the game according to the game's rules, but if you're gonna start opining about
what "The People" want, it kinda seems like you need to at least start by addressing the part
where millions more of The People voted for Trump's opponent.
Trump is not a populist, he is an opportunist and a nationalist who wants everyone to
recognize his greatness.
He is using the rubes to that end, he doesn’t care what happens to you.
DT ran as a populist and is unpopular. HC ran as a technocrat and her political machine
broke. Therefore both lost in 2016, in ways most personally humiliating to each.
This cloak and dagger nonsense is all about trying to give an air of authority to this
ridiculous plot to impeach Trump. This issue does however show just how disturbingly far left
the USA has become, when leftists worship spy chiefs as the ultimate authority figures.
To all the leftists here that think that people like Clapper or Brennan are in any way
respected or in any way seen as legitimate, think again.
Broadly speaking the Left doesn't trust the intelligence community or the police any further
it can throw them. It says something about the sad state of affairs we are in that the Left
is now supporting its traditional enemy in order to save the Republic from the traitorous
ra*ist the Right has put in the White House.
Sorry, but no. Trump is a terrible human being, but that broad left you speak of is composed
of mainstream centrist liberals and various people further left. Centrist liberals have
demonstrated no moral consistency on the crimes committed by the intelligence community or
the interventionist state in general.
They claimed to be outraged by such things during the
Bush era, then forgot about them or even switched sides when Obama came in. They
wouldn’t dream of impeaching Bush for war crimes ( and become furious when
Obama’s are pointed out) but they think Trump’s use of the office to obtain dirt
on Biden is a matter of principle. Think about that. War crimes are trivial. Look forward,
not back. The use of Trump’s powers to obtain dirt against Biden— not acceptable.
And of course MSNBC hires Brennan whose CIA spied on Congress when it was investigating
torture. No principles here at all.
How many times did you hear "seventeen intelligence agencies proven it! ZOMG!" while the
RussiaGate conspiracy theory was au courant?
For that matter, I was frequently treated to the spectacle of Team D partisans insisting
that any questioning of "our intelligence community" was ipso facto "treason".
As if it were our patriotic duty to unquestioningly accept anonymous statements from
perjurers (NSA), torturers (CIA) and entrapment artists (FBI) all with a long track record of
lying and talking about supposed evidence that we are not allowed to see.
When they put State power brokers over the will of the people and love of country, it equals
Ideology. What they really worship is the ideology itself. All of the various actors are just
tools in service of that cause.
Laughing Well,
you might want to actually read those messages . . . seeing them is one thing reading them
is another. If i were a democratic supporter --- you bet i would be alarmed.
The cat is getting of the bag and the cat is covered in unsavory behavior by the state
department and the supporters of the Ukrainian revolution against a democratic state and ally
of the US.
A cabal that nearly sent the Ukraine into a complete civil war ----- encourage and
participated in by the previous admin. under the direct leadership of the Sec of State, Madam
Hillary Clinton.
Its very damning but who is damned was not in office at the time.
Quiz for the day:
Does this “whistleblower” even exist? Or is it a composite creation of the
CIA, Schiff and Co?
Did Schiff and friends turn ghostly white when Trump called their bluff by releasing the
transcript?
Is Pelosi’s new found reticence a result of her self annoyance that she let herself
get talked into this new debacle and payback is to let Schiff shift in the wind dangling over
the thought that no one in the CIA wants to walk the plank for him?
Do the Democrats and their allies in the deep state increasingly look like the Keystone
Kops?
What is referred to commonly as the “transcript” is a U.S. government memorandum
of conversation. Over the course of my 24 years at the State Department I saw and wrote many
of them as the official record of conversations. At the White House level, voice recognition
software is used to help transcribe what is being said, even as one or more trained note
takers are at work. Afterwards the people who listened to the call have to sign off on the
accuracy and completeness of the document. It is the final word on what was said in that
call.
though in a less forward manner the policies of candidates, including foreign policies and
their implications are always at issue regarding selection.
It may be unseemly to have it brazenly broadcast, but illegal -- not. The real question
here is whether members of the democratic and republican party solicit, incite, encourage a
violent revolution in the Ukraine against a democratic ally of the US and in so doing,
encourage and engage in graft, theft or illegal influence, such as demanding the removal of a
prosecutor attempting to regain some stability and investigative power into how that
incitement corrupted and disrupted Ukrainian politics. In otherwords, have member of the US
colluded with certain forces in the Ukraine to over throw a democratically elected
government, that the international community and the Ukrainians indicated was fair. This
activity goes well beyond supplying weapons and post posters, but involved bribing, and
removing government officials. Unlike the consideration in Iran, which was an inside coupe,
the Ukrainnian affair seems to have been led and run by the US and Europeans, political,
economic and intelligence members. And it seems to include a company that used similar
tactics in the US to incite suspcion by using falsified computer data, accuasations of
hacking in an attempt to falsey accuse the US candidate of colluding with the Russians
because part of his agenda was to reduce tensions in between, the Ukraine, Russia and the
US.
And peaceful negotiations threatened to uncover those violations of international law by
members of the US and Eurpoean communities in which US citizens used the unstable environment
in the Ukraine which they fostered to engage in graft.
Could not have said it better myself. We are truly in bizzaro-World.
The Bidens are scooping
up as much IMF (read American) cash as they can in Ukraine with some more on the side in
China, and all the shrieking is about Trump who asked the leader of a country, to cooperate
in investigating an ongoing criminal investigation (a lot of the call was about Crowd Strike,
not that anyone noticed).
We have a treaty with Ukraine which obligates exactly that. The
Biden's activity is about as bald a case of corruption and bribe-taking as one could imagine.
Barr is investigating the nauseating deep-state origins of Russia-gate, but in today's World
I'm not that confident that the truth will ever come out. Trump is stupid, but his enemies
are far, far worse.
The rabid drivel dripping from the mouths of the lib-Dem-media regarding Trump's supposed
existential threat to the universe -- complete with idiotic hysteria about refusing to leave
office and so forth -- is yet another example of their habit of projection, namely accusing
others of tactics and threats that they themselves routinely employ.
They're the ones who refused to accept the results of the 2016 election, after their
criminal attempt to subvert the campaign of one of the candidates, and they've put us through
three years of what Peter Van Buren correctly calls "madness" ever since -- like 3-year olds
rolling on the floor kicking and screaming because they didn't get their way.
They've got the media, the Ruling Class, the Deep State, and most of the power brokers on
their side, and yet laughably portray themselves as victims and targets of oppression. They
are doing serious damage to this country and they are worthy of contempt, which is what I
feel for them.
The Democrats are doing the impossible by making Trump look good by comparison. When Trump
finally wakes up to the fact that his opponents will never relent until he is in jail, along
with his family, he will respond in ways that will abrogate what little remains of this
constitutional democracy. Many will support him because of the opposition's overreach. Will
it rise to the level of a civil war? Will millions take to the streets if Adam Schiff is
jailed for treason? I doubt it. That's the hole the Democrats are digging for themselves and
the country.
As I think we all have come to understand, the Swamp is disconnected from mainstreet, [it is] a
world all its own. Point being, neither side realizes most Americans have tuned this whole
issue out. Two years of Russia gate led to exhaustion. My bigger concern going forward after
Americans get a chance to vote in 2020, is, is this how we are destined to be governed ?
I think that in the desire to attack this column about Ukrainegate, people ignored the
earlier point, which is that some liberals are unhinged. Go back and read it. I think that
part is right.
I also think Trump tried to use his office to obtain dirt on a political foe, which is
impeachable imo. But here is my problem.
Bush, Obama, and Trump have all committed vastly
larger crimes and in our twisted political culture these don’t matter. Remember when
centrist liberals claimed to care about torture and war under false pretenses? That is long
gone. Bush is a lovable figure now. Centrist liberals never did care about Obama’s
crimes—drone strikes, Yemen, arming terrorists in Syria. They are more likely to
despise whistleblowers like Snowden than care about mass surveillance. Trump’s war in
Yemen was ignored by most liberals until Khashoggi’s murder and then many of them
seriously seem to think Trump started it. It still doesn’t interest them that much. You
can’t impeach Trump for complicity in genocide without looking at what other Presidents
have done, so best focus on Ukrainegate.
And all these former intelligence goons like Brennan are embraced on the liberal cable
networks, even if the now beloved intelligence community tortured prisoners, lied about it,
and spied on Congress.
Oh, I forgot one thing. As shoddy as Trump’s behavior is, notice how we just accept
that we should be arming yet another side in what is in part a civil war in the Ukraine.
That’s just what we do.
I am not defending conservatives. Most conservatives, with some honorable exceptions, are
worse. But the whole political system is run by competing morally repugnant factions.
Excuse me,
a little integrity is in order here ----- The current president inherited these wars, and while he must take responsibility for them
during his tenure, they aren't his.
And oddly enough as much as I opposed the previous executive, They weren't a part of his
agenda until he chose interventionists as part his admin. He owns them lock stock and barrel
-- he should have declined to add Sec Clinton and her interventionists.
The issue with outsiders is that in attempts to placate insiders derails their agenda.
Which, if it's even true, is germane to a blatant attempt to leverage and extort them into doing so... why?
"Trump did not withhold aid."
Trump absolutely did withhold aid, until conspicuously releasing that hold for unstated reasons a couple of days after
learning of the whistleblower communicating with Congress. I guess his concerns about "corruption" just suddenly evaporated,
said the ostrich to the hole.
"The attorney general was not involved."
That remains to be seen, though...
"DOJ ruled there was no violation of the law."
...he still has plenty of ways to try and shield his client. I like how you offer this, like Bill Barr's DOJ has a shred of
credibility for objective application of the law right now.
"It has little to do with Pompeo or Pence (though Pompeo was on the call)."
How on Earth do you know this? There's growing evidence that Pence absolutely WAS in-the-know to some extent, and Pompeo is
actively assisting with the WH attempts to stonewall the unambiguous, Constitutionally granted impeachment powers of the
House, by telling his employees not to respect lawful subpoenas for testimony and documents.
It must give TAC writers like Larison heartburn to see Peter's terrible arguments so prominently displayed on the website
every week.
What this article fails to appreciate is that the majority of Americans are suffering from
Trumpzaustion. We are tired of the daily barrage of tweets, corruption, graft,
patronage, incompetence, incivility, lies, emoluments, edicts by Tweet, destruction of
alliances, lies, racism, sexism, obstinacy, impulsive executive decisions that turn sour,
disregard for science and expertise generally, lies, nepotism, narcissism, vulgarity,
hypocrisy, and did I mention lies?
This administration is annoying, costing many of us time and treasure, and like a migraine
headache, we just want it to go away.
Yes, the media and Democrats want to degrade any Republican Politician's powers by any means
necessary. They have done that to all past Republican Presidents going back to Nixon.
On the other hand, Trump gives them all of the ammo that they need to promote their
narrative. He is a caricature of the narcissistic, corrupt, crony capitalist Republican that
the media loves to sell to the public.
For crying out loud, the very next day after the Mueller probe ended, Trump appeared to
try to pressure a foreign nation to help him get reelected. If you don't recognize that Trump
gives his enemies ammo by his own reckless behaviour, then you may be in denial.
Had DT used withheld military aid to strong-arm Ukraine to do something in the national
interest, then it would have been business as usual. Everyone expects a President to
wheel, deal, lie and cheat for the nation. But the favors he extorted from Ukraine were personal . That's not in the unwritten rules.
Trump is being impeached for doing the wrong quid pro quo. This is the world we
live in.
The public knew what Trump was about from the very beginning. That he was bumptious,
impetuous, always shooting from the hip and often saying stupid things. And yet he was
nominated by one of the two major parties, then turned around and beat the candidate of the
other major party. What does that say about this country, other than its citizens elected a
real estate businessman turned TV star with no political experience whatsover as president.
A
"cri de coeur?" Perhaps. This thing of ours doesn't work anymore . There are a lot of things
wrong with this country but one thing seems increasingly and disturbingly clear: our system
of government, which was put into place via a document written in the late 18th century is
not responsive to the needs of the 21st. So much needs to be changed, starting with:
1.) De-emphasizing the office of Presidency, which has increasingly become more a source
of entertainment rather than enlightenment (to the extent that ANY president has ever been
"enlightened"). There was a very good reason why the first article of the US Constitution
refers to the legislature and not to the executive (or, for that matter, to the
judiciary).
2.) Instituting a multi-party system rather than the current farce--which has long since
become archaic.
Perhaps the time has at last come for a second Constitutional Convention, because the
rules no longer fit the game. A constitution prepared in 1787 when the US was still an
agrarian society consisting of 13 states from Maine to Florida and from the Atlantic seaboard
to the Alleghenies with a total population of less than 4 million may simply not be
responsive to the US of 2019, an advanced, information based, society consisting of 330
million (and counting) situated on a land mass of nearly 3.8 million square miles. Either we
may have to re-think what it means to govern ourselves in the 21st century or--and I shudder
at the thought-- perhaps the concept of what we call "the United States of America" may no
longer be tenable.
It was, after all is said and done, only meant to be an experiment.
"So forget everything about this cooked-to-order crisis except the actual thing impeachment
would turn on: the transcript of Trump’s call. It does not matter what one, two, or 200
whistleblowers, former Obama officials, or talking heads “think” about the call.
There it is, the actual words, all pink and naked on the Internet for everyone to read.
Ukraine did not investigate Biden. Trump did not withhold aid. The attorney general was not
involved. DOJ ruled there was no violation of the law. It has little to do with Pompeo or
Pence (though Pompeo was on the call). You and the Congress pretty much have it all in the
transcript. It’s bathroom reading, five pages."
How dare you suggest reality be considered on this matter. And it may be more ironic than
what went on before --- but there are plenty of places and reasons to find humor --
even if the humor is the result of tragedy.
"“Before Trump will allow himself to be chased from the temple, he’ll bring it
down,” wrote The New York Times."
Laughing.
Now there's an interesting reference --- Samson in the Temple ---
I couldn't give a bucket of methane emitting cow dung whether Trump is impeached or not. It's all a diversion (among many
others) from what we should all be talking and doing something about anyway. It's all part of a sick game the global elites entertain and enrich themselves with.
Have a gander at this recent interview by Greg Hunter and Dr. Paul Craig Roberts -
https://usawatchdog.com/oli... - I may not agree with all of the conclusions the good Dr.
has drawn but a lot of what he says does have a ring of truth to it based on my own
independent research into a various aspects of our so-called civilization.
Unfortunately for the Dems, not one of them has one tenth of Trump's charisma and ability to
campaign. He doesn't need to be right all the time, his personality will carry him through,
and the more the Dems plot, the smaller they look. Is there anyone in world to put him in the
shade?
'Once intelligent people are talking about actual civil war in America' - Peter van Buren,
Oct 14, 2019
'We should have a revolution in this country!' - Donald Trump, Nov 6th, 2012
"... Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint . ..."
"... The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, the Washington Examiner has reported . ..."
"... later emerged that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The Washington Post concluded that Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false. ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
"... Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an illegal spying operation on the president. ..."
"... It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on intelligence ..."
"... Image credit: Caricature by Donkey Hotey via Flickr , CC BY-SA 2.0 . ..."
"... Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence. ..."
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an impeachment of
the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being thrown out there
are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it
later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false.
"
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House, recruiting
his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing the rules so
they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the lunatic
efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding their own
business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence
, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in The Lives of
Others . It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
Image credit:
Caricature by Donkey Hotey via
Flickr
,
CC BY-SA
2.0
.
Seems every day brings a new revelation about Democratic efforts to rig an
impeachment of the president. The false claims and astonishing conflicts of interest being
thrown out there are piling up fast.
The latest, from the San Francisco Examiner, exposes House Intelligence Committee chairman
Adam Schiff's choice of staffers, who it turns out were
two disgruntled Deep-Staters from the White House
who had actually worked with the
so-called "whistleblower":
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018,
was hired in February,
while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's
committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted
his
complaint
.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and
who has expertise in Ukraine,
the Washington Examiner has reported
.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a
phone conversation
between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to
a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff's staff. He had previously informed the CIA's
legal counsel's office.
Schiff
initially denied
he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on
Sep. 17: "We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it later emerged that a member of his staff
had spoken to
the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The
Washington Post
concluded that
Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false."
Grace, 36,
was hired
to help Schiff's committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump
accused Schiff
of
"stealing people who work at White House." Grace
worked at the NSC
from 2016 to 2018 in
U.S.-China relations and
then briefly
at the Center for a New American
Security think tank, which
was founded by
two former senior Obama administration officials.
So these people were all buddies beforehand, and this would explain why the so-called
whistleblower had been sneaking around with Schiff's staff before he made his whistleblower
complaint.
And that came only after someone with influence was able to get the inspector general of the
Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going.
More and more, this sounds like a pre-planned setup. One Trump operative has a very good
summary of what seems to have been really going on as these anything but exculpatory stories
mount:
Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House,
recruiting his staffers, having them recruit their whistleblowers, grooming them up, changing
the rules so they could file their complaints, and then lying that they knew anything about the
lunatic efforts to get President Trump impeached. See, they were just standing there, minding
their own business when all this stuff happened. Everything that did happen was just...a
coincidence.
Experienced intelligence operatives, and apparently this Trump operative has this sort of
background, like to say there are no coincidences.
As facts continue to roll out, it's getting more and more obvious that Schiff's operation
was to orchestrate this impeachment scenario all along, going into high gear with the flame-out
of the Mueller investigation.
Trump's been having a bad time with public opinion in the wake of the Schiff operation
orchestrating the media coverage as well. But the facts on the ground suggest it was all an
illegal spying operation on the president.
And that's a far more concrete crime than anything Trump is accused of committing. Right
now, Schiff has 109 congressional representatives
signed on to GOP rep. Andy
Biggs of Arizona's
call to condemn and censure Schiff for this sick little illegal
freelance operation to spy on Trump.
It's an abuse of his office, for sure, given that Schiff is supposed to be focused on
intelligence, not on being one of those creepy secret police characters in
The Lives of
Others
. It's also an outrageous misuse of taxpayer dollars. In light of this Schiff spy
operation, and if Democrats don't want some backatcha next time there's a Dem in office with a
Republican House, it really ought to be every last one of them signed up to that Biggs
list.
"... inspector general of the Intelligence Community (IGIC) to change the rules about whistleblowers needing no firsthand
knowledge about the wrongdoing they were supposedly reporting. Once that rules change was put
into place, the whistleblower got going." Doesn't that beg the question IF Atkinson had any past
relationships with any of these people in his former position? I believe I read somewhere that
Atkinson somehow was involved in the Steele Dossier from his former job.
Our government has always operated this way. Nothing new here. It only seems "run worse" because the results are out in the
open for all to see. Whereas, the same thing could be done in secret and you'd never know
about it (the changes in the rules).
Which do you prefer? The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?
I'm sorry to say we have only these two choices. The sloppy American way is preferable to
me because it's the better part of our openly democratic republic and our Constitution.
The current problems and distractions we are dealing with are the result of Biden,
Schiff, and the Democrat's attempts to be secretive about what they're doing. So, we have to
wonder why these people don't want their actions to be known.
We should delight in seeing such illegitimate secrets exposed.
"...The sloppy American way, or the secretive Chinese way?"
What difference does it make if the criminals
are never indicted? The fact that I know of don't know makes no difference. We know
politicians are dirty scum, anyway..
But I think it's not good enough to just accept rampant corruption, surely things
could be better than this?
Also, it's not so much the Dems in question but the entire system.
And I see little evidence that the system is changing.
Though as you point out, one big shift is that more of us have become aware of how
bad it is.
And as you point out, it's always been that way, going back at least to 1913... but
more like forever and with all systems.
And if it is forever and all systems, then maybe it's better we DON'T get to see
all the dirty laundry all the time, including that nothing is done about it. Maybe
better not to know! Maybe that's the only way to make the country 'great' again!?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on domestic
soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside the US of
A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Also, there is no "transcript" of any conversation between Trump and any other head of
state. Because there is no recording or verbatim typed record (such as a court reporter would
make) due to diplomatic protocols agreed by all parties.
There are only informal notes taken by witnesses at the time of the call. (Unless Snowden
is correct about the private contractors working for the NSA).
As for anti Russian propaganda, look first to the UK, who have been at it for several
hundred years, and who are in the habit of knighting American Republican presidents who take
orders from the square mile and Downing street, or whitehall and Balmoral castle.
The new cold war is an international project aimed at demonising Putin, who god knows is
no saint, but who is also no dummy. Unlike the image Trump likes to cultivate. Has anyone
noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press has become on
their behalf?
Executive order 12333, 1981, prohibits the CIA from spying on American citizens on
domestic soil, or internationally, except as incidental to terrorist investigations outside
the US of A.
The POTUS is the first citizen.
Why has no one in any part of the press, right, left, or center pointed out this simple
fact?
Has anyone noticed how clumsy the CIA has gotten lately? Or, how hysterical the press
has become on their behalf?
You answered your own questions. The law is for sheeple, Deep State does not give a hoot
about the laws, constitution, and the rest of the niceties.
@AnonFromTN
Limpet bombs on Japanese tanker, in the arabian sea, failed coup in Vn, Skripal case, etc.
Are the clumsy examples i was thinking of. They behave as if there is no internet. Not sure
if they are even aware that everything they do is being watched and evaluated from 100
different points of view.
But yeah, i know, most questions do contain an intrinsic answer.
"... It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine." ..."
"... This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic. ..."
"... It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide. Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past. ..."
"... Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war. ..."
"... What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest within the ruling elites. ..."
"... Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate. ..."
"... Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages. ..."
"... Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. ..."
"... Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity. ..."
"... The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render him more controllable. ..."
"... Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration ..."
"... Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars ..."
"... This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the Rubicon. That sealed his fate ..."
"... "Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde. ..."
"... ...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. ..."
"... If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible, as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ". ..."
This article was first published on February 21, 2017, one month after Donald Trump was sworn in as president, more than two-and-a
half years ago. What was true then is even truer now, and so I am reprinting it with this brief introduction since I think it describes
what is happening in plain sight today.
Now that years of Russia-gate accusations have finally fallen apart, those forces intent on driving Trump from office have had
to find another pretext. Now it is Ukraine-gate, an issue similar in many ways to Russia-gate in that both were set into motion by
the same forces aligned with the Democratic Party and the CIA-led Obama administration.
It was the Obama administration who engineered the 2014 right-wing, Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine as part of its agenda to undermine
Russia. A neo-liberal/neo-conservative agenda. This is, or should be, common knowledge. Obama put it in his typically slick way in
a 2015 interview with CNN's Fareed Zakiria, saying that the United States "had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine."
This is Orwellian language at its finest, from a warmonger who received the Nobel Prize for Peace while declaring he was in support
of war. That the forces that have initiated a new and highly dangerous Cold War, a nuclear confrontation with Russia, demonized Vladimir
Putin, and have overthrown the elected leader of a country allied with Russia on its western border, dares from the day he was elected
in 2016 to remove its own president in the most obvious ways imaginable seems like bad fiction. But it is fact, and the fact that
so many Americans approve of it is even more fantastic.
Over the past few years the public has heard even more about the so-called "deep state," only to see its methods of propaganda
become even more perversely cynical in their shallowness.
No one needs to support the vile Trump to understand that the United States is undergoing a fundamental shift wherein tens of
millions of Americans who say they believe in democracy support the activities of gangsters who operate out in the open with their
efforts to oust an elected president.
We have crossed the Rubicon and there will be no going back.
In irony a man annihilates what he posits within one and the same act; he leads us to believe in order not to be believed;
he affirms to deny and denies to affirm; he creates a positive object but it has no being other than its nothingness."
Jean-Paul Sartre
It is well known that the United States is infamous for engineering coups against democratically elected governments worldwide.
Voters' preferences are considered beside the point. Iran and Mosaddegh in 1953, Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, Indonesia and Sukarno
in 1965-7, Allende in Chile in 1973, to name a few from the relatively distant past.
Recently the Obama administration worked their handiwork in Honduras and Ukraine. It would not be hyperbolic to say that overthrowing
democratic governments is as American as apple pie. It's our "democratic" tradition – like waging war.
What is less well known is that elements within the U.S. ruling power elites have also overthrown democratically elected governments
in the United States. One U.S. president, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated because he had turned toward peace and opposed the forces
of war within his own government. He is the lone example of a president who therefore was opposed by all the forces of imperial conquest
within the ruling elites.
Others, despite their backing for the elite deep state's imperial wars, were taken out for various reasons by competing factions
within the shadow government. Nixon waged the war against Vietnam for so long on behalf of the military-industrial complex, but he
was still taken down by the CIA, contrary to popular mythology about Watergate.
Jimmy Carter was front man for the Tri-Lateral Commission's deep-state faction, but was removed by the group represented by George
H. Bush, William Casey, and Reagan through their traitorous actions involving the Iran hostages.
The emcee for the neo-liberal agenda,
Bill Clinton, was rendered politically impotent via the Lewinsky affair, a matter never fully investigated by any media.
Obama, CIA groomed, was smoothly moved into power by the faction that felt Bush needed to be succeeded by a slick smiling
assassin who symbolized "diversity," could speak well, and played hoops. Hit them with the right hand; hit them with the
left. Same coin: Take your pick – heads or tails. Hillary Clinton was expected to complete the trinity.
But surprises happen, and now we have Trump, who is suffering the same fate – albeit at an exponentially faster rate – as his
predecessors that failed to follow the complete script. The day after his surprise election, the interlocking circles of power that
run the show in sun and shadows – what C. Wright Mills long ago termed the Power Elite – met to overthrow him, or at least to render
him more controllable.
These efforts, run out of interconnected power centers, including the liberal corporate legal boardrooms that were the backers
of Obama and Hillary Clinton, had no compunction in planning the overthrow of a legally elected president.
Soon they were joined by their conservative conspirators in doing the necessary work of "democracy" – making certain that only
one of their hand-picked and anointed henchmen was at the helm of state. Of course, the intelligence agencies coordinated their efforts
and their media scribes wrote the cover stories. The pink Pussyhats took to the streets. The deep state was working overtime.
Trump, probably never having expected to win and as shocked as most people when he did, made some crucial mistakes before the
election and before taking office. Some of those mistakes have continued since his inauguration.
Not his derogatory remarks about minorities, immigrants, or women. Not his promise to cut corporate taxes, support energy companies,
oppose strict environmental standards. Not his slogan to "make America great again." Not his promise to build a "wall" along the
Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it. Not his vow to deport immigrants. Not his anti-Muslim pledges. Not his insistence that
NATO countries contribute more to NATO's "defense" of their own countries. Not even his crude rantings and Tweets and his hypersensitive
defensiveness. Not his reality-TV celebrity status, his eponymous golden tower and palatial hotels and sundry real estate holdings.
Not his orange hair and often comical and disturbing demeanor, accentuated by his off the cuff speaking style.
Surely not his massive wealth.
While much of this was viewed with dismay, it was generally acceptable to the power elites who transcend party lines and run the
country. Offensive to hysterical liberal Democrats and traditional Republicans, all this about Trump could be tolerated, if only
he would cooperate on the key issue.
Trump's fatal mistake was saying that he wanted to get along with Russia, that Putin was a good leader, and that he wanted to
end the war against Syria and pull the U.S. back from foreign wars.
This was verboten. And when he said nuclear war was absurd and would only result in nuclear conflagration, he had crossed the
Rubicon. That sealed his fate.
Misogyny, racism, support for Republican conservative positions on a host of issues – all fine. Opposing foreign wars, especially
with Russia – not fine.
Now we have a reality-TV president and a reality-TV coup d'etat in prime time. Hidden in plain sight, the deep-state has gone
shallow. What was once covert is now overt. Once it was necessary to blame a coup on a secretive "crazy lone assassin," Lee Harvey
Oswald. But in this "post-modern" society of the spectacle, the manifest is latent; the obvious, non-obvious; what you see you don't
see. Everyone knows those reality-TV shows aren't real, right?
It may seem like it is a coup against Trump in plain sight, but these shows are tricky, aren't they? He's the TV guy. He runs
the show. He's the sorcerer's apprentice. He wants you to believe in the illusion of the obvious. He's the master media manipulator.
You see it but don't believe it because you are so astute, while he is so blatant. He's brought it upon himself. He's bringing himself
down. Everyone who knows, knows that.
I am reminded of being in a movie theatre in 1998, watching The Truman Show, about a guy who slowly "discovers" that he has been
living in the bubble of a television show his whole life. At the end of the film he makes his "escape" through a door in the constructed
dome that is the studio set.
The liberal audience in a very liberal town stood up and applauded Truman's dash to freedom. I was startled since I had never
before heard an audience applaud in a movie theatre – and a standing ovation at that. I wondered what they were applauding. I quickly
realized they were applauding themselves, their knowingness, their insider astuteness that Truman had finally caught on to what they
already thought they knew. Now he would be free like they were. They couldn't be taken in; now he couldn't.
Except, of course, they were applauding an illusion, a film about being trapped in a reality-TV world, a world in which they stood
in that theatre – their world, their frame. Frames within frames. Truman escapes from one fake frame into another – the movie. The
joke was on them. The film had done its magic as its obvious content concealed its deeper truth: the spectator and the spectacle
were wed. McLuhan was here right: the medium was the message.
This is what George Trow in 1980 called "the context of no context."
Candor as concealment, truth as lies, knowingness as stupidity. Making reality unreal in the service of an agenda that is so obvious
it isn't, even as the cognoscenti applaud themselves for being so smart and in the know.
The more we hear about "the deep state" and begin to grasp its definition, the more we will have descended down the rabbit hole.
Soon this "deep state" will be offering courses on what it is, how it operates, and why it must stay hidden while it "exposes" itself.
Right-wing pundit Bill Kristol tweets:
Liberal CIA critic and JFK assassination researcher, Jefferson Morley, after defining the deep state, writes:
With a docile Republican majority in Congress and a demoralized Democratic Party in opposition, the leaders of the Deep State
are the most – perhaps the only – credible check in Washington on what Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) calls Trump's "wrecking ball
presidency."
These are men who ostensibly share different ideologies, yet agree, and state it publically, that the "deep state" should take
out Trump. Both believe, without evidence, that the Russians intervened to try to get Trump elected. Therefore, both no doubt feel
justified in openly espousing a coup d'etat. They match Trump's blatancy with their own. Nothing deep about this.
Liberals and conservatives are now publically allied in demonizing Putin and Russia, and supporting a very dangerous military
confrontation initiated by Obama and championed by the defeated Hillary Clinton. In the past these opposed political factions accepted
that they would rotate their titular leaders into and out of the White House, and whenever the need arose to depose one or the other,
that business would be left to deep state forces to effect in secret and everyone would play dumb.
Now the game has changed. It's all "obvious." The deep state has seemingly gone shallow. Its supporters say so. All the smart
people can see what's happening. Even when what's happening isn't really happening.
"Only the shallow know themselves," said Oscar Wilde.
Edward Curtin Edward Curtin writes, and his
writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public intellectual for the general public, not as a
specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an impossibility and therefore sees all his work as
an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is edwardcurtin.com
Frank Speaker
I remember this excellent piece the first time around. It's indeed even more pertinent today,
Martin Usher
...The first step in dealing with this is to combat ignorance and misinformation. There may not be one undeniable truth but we
can certainly squash blatant mis-truths. This arena isn't just political -- our culture has a habit of reworking our past in a
contemporary image and so subtly warping the lessons of history. Hollywood is a prime offender but then its no surprise to discover
that the original master of propaganda, Goebbels, recognized that entertainment that pushed cultural values was a far more powerful
tool for propaganda than the media that was, and still is, traditionally associated with propaganda.
John Deehan
If you read Professor Antony C Sutton's books about Wall Street, the Bolshevik Revolution and Hitlers rise to power, it is possible,
as Sutton did, to examine the methodology, ideology and psychology of the string pullers in depth. For exposing them, Hutton was
as he said " persecuted but not prosecuted ".
nottheonly1
Sadly though, an old wisdom brings itself into this ludicrous scenery. It also makes the comparison with the Truman show so apt.
You can't fix stupid.
"... Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia (and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes. ..."
The transcript of President Trump's July 25 telephone conversation with Ukraine's recently
elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, has ignited the usual anti-Trump bashing in American
political-media circles, even more calls for impeachment, with little, if any, regard for the
national security issues involved. Leave aside that Trump should not have been compelled to
make the transcript public and ask: Which, if any, foreign leaders will now feel free to
conduct personal telephone diplomacy with an American president directly or indirectly, of the
kind that helped end the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, knowing that his or her comments might
become known to domestic political opponents? Consider instead only the following undiscussed
issues:
§ Even if former vice president Joseph Biden, who figured prominently in the
Trump-Zelensky conversation, is not the Democratic nominee, Ukraine is now likely to be a
contested, and poisonous, issue in the 2020 US presidential election. How did the United States
become so involved in Ukraine's torturous and famously corrupt politics? The short answer is
NATO expansion, as some of us who opposed that folly back in the 1990s warned would be the
case, and not only in Ukraine. The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in
2013 -- 14 resulted in the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country's constitutionally
elected president Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass. All
those fateful events infused the Trump-Zelensky talk, if only between the lines.
§ Russia shares centuries of substantial civilizational values, language, culture,
geography, and intimate family relations with Ukraine. America does not. Why, then, is it
routinely asserted in the US political-media establishment that Ukraine is a "vital US national
interest" and not a vital zone of Russian national security, as by all geopolitical reckoning
it would seem to be? The standard American establishment answer is: because of "Russian
aggression against Ukraine." But the "aggression" cited is Moscow's 2014 annexation of Crimea
and support for anti-Kiev fighters in the Donbass civil war, both of which came after, not
before, the Maidan crisis, and indeed were a direct result of it. That is, in Moscow's eyes, it
was reacting, not unreasonably, to US-led "aggression." In any event, as opponents of eastward
expansion also warned in the 1990s, NATO has increased no one's security, only diminished
security throughout the region bordering Russia.
§ Which brings us back to the Trump-Zelensky telephone conversation. President Zelensky
ran and won overwhelmingly as a peace-with-Moscow candidate, which is why the roughly $400
million in US military aid to Ukraine, authorized by Congress, figured anomalously in the
conversation. Trump is being sharply criticized for withholding that aid or threatening to do
so, including by Obama partisans. Forgotten, it seems, is that President Obama, despite
considerable bipartisan pressure, steadfastly refused to authorize such military assistance to
Kiev, presumably because it might escalate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict (and Russia, with its
long border with Ukraine, had every escalatory advantage). Instead of baiting Trump on this
issue, we should hope he encourages the new peace talks that Zelensky has undertaken in recent
days with Moscow, which could end the killing in Donbass. (For this, Zelensky is being
threatened by well-armed extreme Ukrainian nationalists, even quasi-fascists. Strong American
support for his negotiations with Moscow may not deter them, but it might.)
§ Finally, but not surprisingly, the shadow of Russiagate is now morphing into
Ukrainegate. Trump is also being sharply criticized for asking Zelensky to cooperate with
Attorney General William Barr's investigation into the origins of Russiagate, even though
the role of
Ukrainian-Americans and Ukraine itself in Russiagate allegations against Trump on behalf of
Hillary Clinton in 2016 is now well-documented
.
We need to know fully the origins of Russiagate, arguably the worst presidential scandal in
American history, and if Ukrainian authorities can contribute to that understanding, they
should be encouraged to do so. As I've argued repeatedly, fervent anti-Trumpers must decide
whether they loathe him more than they care about American and international security. Imaging,
for example, a Cuban missile -- like crisis somewhere in the world today where Washington and
Moscow are militarily eyeball-to-eyeball, directly or through proxies, from the Baltic and the
Black Seas to Syria and Ukraine. Will Trump's presidential legitimacy be sufficient for him to
resolve such an existential crisis peacefully, as President John F. Kennedy did in 1962?
Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York
University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book War
With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate is available in paperback and
in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now in
their sixth year, are available at www.thenation.com.
Trump is an agent of the Deep State, playing good cop to the bad cop Deep State. I have been
saying this since mid April 2017. His multitude of actions belie his promises. Trump is a
quisling to his supporters.
Here is an excellent article that comports with my view of Trump.
I am puzzled why Cohen is permitted to publish in the Nation. Is it due to his marriage
to its publisher or to the magazine's remnant infatuation with the Soviet state? Just
asking.
The whole situation is a rather ironic
Prof. Cohen is certainly one of America's most eminent Russia scholars, and I think that
for decades he was regarded as one of the most left-leaning ones, regularly denounced for his
leftism by all the Neocons and other rightwingers. I remember I used to see him on the PBS
Newshour, sometimes paired with a conservative critic of the Soviets. I'd guess that past
history plus being married to the publisher of The Nation is what gives him his
residual foothold there.
I'd suspect that if someone had told him a couple of decades ago that by the late 2010s
he'd be blacklisted from the MSM and denounced as a "Russian agent," he probably would have
been greatly saddened at the disheartening turn in American society, but not totally shocked.
He probably would have regarded such a scenario as having a 10% possibility.
But if someone would have told him that the people denouncing and blacklisting him would
have been the *liberal Democrats* and some of their most "excitable" elements would be
accusing him of being a "Neo-Nazi White Supremacist Russian Agent" he would have thought the
entire country had gone on LSD.
It's sad that our entire country has gone on LSD
The whole situation is actually a perfect parallel to the various past American purges
I've often covered in my articles:
Russia is the excuse for US actions in the Ukraine as it was in the ME.
What is America without a big bad boogeyman like Russia?.
Certainly not a “Superpower’ defending the world.
Without enemies like Russia we would be nothing but big rich country.
And all the Neos and Zios and politicians would have to use Viagra instead of war to squirt
out their poison.
A lot of countries like the Ukraine have gotten a lot of US taxpayer money by
‘standing up to a Russian takeover’….and are laughing all the way to
their bank.
How did the United States become so involved in Ukraine’s torturous and famously
corrupt politics?
The short answer is NATO expansion <= maybe something different? I like pocketbook
expansion..
NATO Expansion provides cover and legalizes the private use of Presidential directed USA
resources to enable a few to make massively big profits at the expense of the governed in
the target area.
Behind NATO lies the reason for Bexit, the Yellow Jackets, the unrest in Iraq and Egypt,
Yemen etc.
Hypothesis 1: NATO supporters are more corrupt than Ukraine officials.
Hypothesis 2: NATO expansion is a euphemism for USA/EU/ backed private party plunder to
follow invade and destroy regime change activities designed to dispossess local Oligarchs
of the wealth in NATO targeted nations? Private use of public force for private gain comes
to mind.
I think [private use of public force for private gain] is what Trump meant when Trump
said to impeach Trump for investigating the Ukraine matter amounts to Treason.. but it is
the exactly the activity type that Hallmarks CIA instigated regime change.
A lot of intelligence agency manipulation and private pocketbook expanding corruption
can be hidden behind NATO expansion.. Please prove to me that Biden and the hundreds of
other plunders became so deeply involved in Ukraine because of NATO expansion?
It is more than ironic that the Dems (and their like-minded cronies in Big Media) are up in
arms over Trump’s attempt in find ‘dirt’ about Joe Biden when the
‘dirt’ looks and smells like actual corruption. Have laws been broken? Was
Biden selling influence through his son? Stranger things have happened. At the very least,
it looks as though Joe Biden crossed an ethical line. This will likely cost him the
nomination.
Similarly, the news media should–if it was doing its job–pursue leads that
would help find the source behind the missing server and the Fake News that helped justify
the toxic and duplicitous ‘Russiagate’ investigation. But they’d rather
pursue Trump instead. I have never witnessed a more partisan and bloodthirsty Fourth
Estate.
Why is the media so utterly uninterested in finding out who/how the fake
Putin-Trump ‘conspiracy’ was cooked up in the first place? Doesn’t it
make sense the Trump would want to find out more? Justice demands it. False intelligence
can sow chaos and start wars.
Consider, for instance, the manufactured lies (Saddam’s phantom WMD, links to 911,
etc) that were used to justify Zio-America’s annihilation of Iraq. What intelligence
agency cooked up these falsehoods? Who spoon-fed these fairy tales to G.W. Bush and Colin
Powell?
Not only have these questions never been answered, they are seldom even asked! The Deep
State has gone rogue. And Big Media is covering it up.
This whole ridiculous drama may profit the Dem’s in the longer term — that is,
by removing that corrupt, dementia ridden nit-wit Biden from the presidential
competition.
As president, Biden would be a greater sock puppet than even GWB…of course,
“sock puppet” maybe just what the Dem’s want….
The key question is what is the gain in separating Ukraine from Russia, adding it to NATO,
and turning Russia and Ukraine into enemies. And what are the most likely results, e.g. can
it ever work without risking a catastrophic event?
There are the usual empire-building and weapons business reasons, but those should
function within a rational framework. As it is right now, the most likely outcome of the
Western initiative in Ukraine will be substantially lower living standards than there would
be otherwise for most Ukrainians. And an increase in tensions in the region with inevitable
impact on the business there. So what exactly is the gain and for whom?
@Ron Unz Thanks to Tucker Carlson’s show, some folks on the left like Cohen, Mate
and Greenwald, are more likely to get air time on Fox News than MSNBC and CNN.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United
States has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly
government to reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect
that the Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally,
this puts Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from
sitcom star to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump’s base; it is the
grotesque, constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that
will return him to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have
always been of better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever
happened to trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to
engineer domestic regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
Russia hating is the lynchpin of oligarchic deepstate MIC MSM propaganda. Take that
away and the fat cats are revealed as the naked face of evil that they are. Hating Russia
(and China) supposedly justifies all their crimes.
The Washington-led attempt to fast-track Ukraine into NATO in 2013–14 resulted in
the Maidan crisis, the overthrow of the country’s constitutionally elected president
Viktor Yanukovych, and to the still ongoing proxy civil war in Donbass.
Which exemplifies the stupidity and arrogance of the American
military/industrial/political Establishment — none of that had anything to do with US
national security (least of all antagonizing Russia) — how fucking hypocritical is it
to presume the Monroe Doctrine, and then try to get the Ukraine into NATO? — none of
it would have been of any benefit whatsoever to the average American.
"... It's a major unanticipated consequence of the digital "revolution." It has gotten us stuck looking backward at events, obsessively replaying them, while working overtime to spin them favorably for one team or the other, at the expense of actually living in real time and dealing with reality as it unspools with us. If life were a ballgame, we'd only be watching jumbotron replays while failing to pay attention to the action on the field. ..."
"... The stupendous failure of the Mueller Investigation only revealed what can happen when extraordinary bad faith, dishonesty, and incompetence are brought to this project of reinventing "truth" -- of who did what and why -- while it provoked a counter-industry of detecting its gross falsifications. ..."
"... Perhaps you can see why unleashing the CIA, NSA, and the FBI on political enemies by Mr. Obama and his cohorts has become such a disaster. When that scheme blew up, the intel community went to the mattresses, as the saying goes in Mafia legend and lore. The "company" found itself at existential risk. Of course, the CIA has long been accused of following an agenda of its own simply because it had the means to do it. It had the manpower, the money, and the equipment to run whatever operations it felt like running, and a history of going its own way out of sheer institutional arrogance, of knowing better than the crackers and clowns elected by the hoi-polloi. The secrecy inherent in its charter was a green light for limitless mischief and some of the agency's directors showed open contempt for the occupants of the White House. Think: Allen Dulles and William Casey. And lately, Mr. Brennan. ..."
Here's one big reason that America is driving itself batshit crazy : the explosion of computerized records, emails, inter-office
memos, Twitter trails, Facebook memorabilia, iPhone videos, YouTubes, recorded conversations, and the vast alternative universe of
storage capacity for all this stuff makes it seem possible to constantly go back and reconstruct reality. All it has really done
is amplified the potential for political mischief to suicide level.
It's a major unanticipated consequence of the digital "revolution." It has gotten us stuck looking backward at events, obsessively
replaying them, while working overtime to spin them favorably for one team or the other, at the expense of actually living in real
time and dealing with reality as it unspools with us. If life were a ballgame, we'd only be watching jumbotron replays while failing
to pay attention to the action on the field.
Before all this, history was left largely to historians, who curated it from a range of views for carefully considered introduction
to the stream of human culture, and managed this process at a pace that allowed a polity to get on with its business at hand in the
here-and-now -- instead of incessantly and recursively reviewing events that have already happened 24/7. The more electronic media
has evolved, the more it lends itself to manipulation, propaganda, and falsification of whatever happened five minutes, or five hours,
or five weeks ago.
This is exactly why and how the losing team in the 2016 election has worked so hard to change that bit of history. The stupendous
failure of the Mueller Investigation only revealed what can happen when extraordinary bad faith, dishonesty, and incompetence are
brought to this project of reinventing "truth" -- of who did what and why -- while it provoked a counter-industry of detecting its
gross falsifications.
This dynamic has long been systematically studied and applied by institutions like the so-called "intelligence community," and
has gotten so out-of-hand that its main mission these days appears to be the maximum gaslighting of the nation -- for the purpose
of its own desperate self-defense. The "Whistleblower" episode is the latest turn in dishonestly manipulated records, but the most
interesting feature of it is that the release of the actual transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call did not affect the "narrative"
precooked between the CIA and Adam Schiff's House Intel Committee. They just blundered on with the story and when major parts of
the replay didn't add up, they retreated to secret sessions in the basement of the US capitol.
Perhaps you can see why unleashing the CIA, NSA, and the FBI on political enemies by Mr. Obama and his cohorts has become
such a disaster. When that scheme blew up, the intel community went to the mattresses, as the saying goes in Mafia legend and lore.
The "company" found itself at existential risk. Of course, the CIA has long been accused of following an agenda of its own simply
because it had the means to do it. It had the manpower, the money, and the equipment to run whatever operations it felt like running,
and a history of going its own way out of sheer institutional arrogance, of knowing better than the crackers and clowns elected by
the hoi-polloi. The secrecy inherent in its charter was a green light for limitless mischief and some of the agency's directors showed
open contempt for the occupants of the White House. Think: Allen Dulles and William Casey. And lately, Mr. Brennan.
The recently-spawned NSA has mainly added the capacity to turn everything that happens into replay material, since it is suspected
of recording every phone call, every email, every financial transaction, every closed-circuit screen capture, and anything else its
computers can snare for storage in its Utah Data Storage Center. Now you know why the actions of Edward Snowden were so significant.
He did what he did because he was moral enough to know the face of malevolence when he saw it. That he survives in exile is a miracle.
As for the FBI, only an exceptional species of ineptitude explains the trouble they got themselves into with the RussiaGate fiasco.
The unbelievable election loss of Mrs. Clinton screwed the pooch for them, and the desperate acts that followed only made things
worse. The incompetence and mendacity on display was only matched by Mr. Mueller and his lawyers, who were supposed to be the FBI's
cleanup crew and only left a bigger mess -- all of it cataloged in digital records.
Now, persons throughout all these agencies are waiting for the hammer to fall. If they are prosecuted, the process will entail
yet another monumental excursion into the replaying of those digital records. It could go on for years. So, the final act in the
collapse of the USA will be the government choking itself to death on replayed narratives from its own server farms.
In the meantime, events are actually tending in a direction that will eventually deprive the nation of the means to continue most
of its accustomed activities including credible elections, food distribution, a reliable electric grid, and perhaps even self-defense.
The current CIA talking point is that it is illegal for the President to seek foreign
assistance for his campaign. One might also slant it that the President of the United States
has an obligation to the people who elected him to require an allied, friendly government to
reopen the investigation of Biden because there is adequate reason to suspect that the
Democrats are running yet another corrupt criminal for President. Incidentally, this puts
Zelensky in a very awkward position, as one of the backers of his transition from sitcom star
to President of Ukraine was a principal in Burisma
It is not the threat of impeachment that will energize Trump's base; it is the grotesque,
constant character assassination in the (largely CIA manipulated) media that will return him
to the White House. The American people have a sense of fairness. They have always been of
better character than the reprobates we are allowed to vote for. Whatever happened to
trusting the democratic process, instead of using intelligence assets to engineer domestic
regime change?
History is not made by nice guys. Trump has torn a big hole in the tissue of lies about
what this country is and what it stands for, and that is too much for those who make their
living deceiving us.
www.aejmc.org
/home/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Journalism-Quarterly-1973-Donohue-652-9.pdfofmassmedia as interdependent
parts of a total social system in which they share facets of controlling, and being controlled by, other subsystems. A major purpose
of this paper is to relate the subsystems of massmedia to the total pattern of social organization and social control
and to point up the crucial nature of
Massmedia are media forms designed
to reach the largest audience possible. They include television, movies, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, records, video games
and the internet. Many studies have been conducted in the past century to measure the effects of massmedia on the
population in order to discover the best techniques to influence it.
https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion
The Central Intelligence Agency has made use of massmedia assets, both foreign and domestic, for its covert operations.
In 1973, the Washington Star-News reported that CIA had enlisted more than thirty Americans working abroad as journalists, citing
an internal CIA inquiry ordered by CIA director William E. Colby.
Bill Barr: This is not decay. This is organized
destruction. Schiff was essentially running an illegal spy operation against the White House. Trade Deal With China Is a Blockbuster
"... When propaganda is cleverly engineered, people don't even recognize it as propaganda: welcome to the USSR, the United States of Suppression and Repression. The propaganda in the U.S. has reached such a high state that the majority of people accept it as "Pravda" (truth), even as their limbic system's BS detector is sensing there is a great disturbance in the Force. ..."
"... To give some examples: healthcare is over 18% of the nation's GDP, yet it makes up only 8.7% of the Consumer price Index. Hundreds of thousands of families have to declare bankruptcy as a result of crushing healthcare bills, but on the CPI components chart, it's a tiny little sliver just a bit more than recreation (5.7%). ..."
"... "Facts" are a funny thing when the data sources and massaging of that data are all purposefully opaque. Again, inflation is a lived-world example of how "official facts" are clearly massaged to support an essential narrative -- that inflation is so low it's basically signal noise, while in the real world it has impoverished the bottom 95% to a startling (but unmentionable) degree. ..."
"... This is what happened to this site in the bogus PropOrNot propaganda campaign of 2016, in which every alternative-media website that questioned the "approved narratives" was labeled "fake news" in a classic propaganda trick of labeling dissenters as propagandists to misdirect the citizenry from the actual propaganda (PropOrNot), which by the way was heavily promoted on page one by Jeff Bezos' propaganda mouthpiece, The Washington Post . (Who's your daddy, WP "journalists"?) ..."
"... Fake news, indeed. Those individuals who support the "approved narratives" and orthodoxies win gold stars, and so virtue-signaling is now the nation's most passionate hobby. (Shades of the Stasi...) ..."
"... In the wake of the 1976 Church Committee revelations on the institutional lawlessness and corruption of the FBI and CIA, the idea that former CIA propagandists and spy masters would be on TV as "commentators" would have been laughed off as a bad joke. Yet here are Clapper, Brennan et al, the "most likely to lie, obfuscate, rendition and propagandize" individuals in the nation welcomed as "experts" who we should all accept as trustworthy Big Brother. (Ahem) ..."
"... Welcome to the USSR: the United States of Suppression and Repression , where your views are welcome as long as they parrot "approved narratives" and the corporate-state's orthodoxies. "Facts" are only welcome if they lend credence to the "approved narratives" and orthodoxies. ..."
We're all against "fake news," right? Until your content is deemed "fake news" in a "fake news" indictment without any evidence,
trial or recourse.
When propaganda is cleverly engineered, people don't even recognize it as propaganda: welcome to the USSR, the United States
of Suppression and Repression. The propaganda in the U.S. has reached such a high state that the majority of people accept it as
"Pravda" (truth), even as their limbic system's BS detector is sensing there is a great disturbance in the Force.
Inflation is a good example. The official (i.e. propaganda) inflation rate is increasingly detached from the real-world declines
in the purchasing power of the bottom 80%, yet the jabbering talking heads on TV repeat the "low inflation" story with such conviction
that the dissonance between the "official narrative" and the real world must be "our fault"--a classic technique of brainwashing.
To give some examples: healthcare is over 18% of the nation's GDP, yet it makes up only 8.7% of the Consumer price Index.
Hundreds of thousands of families have to declare bankruptcy as a result of crushing healthcare bills, but on the CPI components
chart, it's a tiny little sliver just a bit more than recreation (5.7%).
Then there's education, which includes the $1.4 trillion borrowed by student debt-serfs--which is only part of the tsunami of
cash gushing into the coffers of the higher-education cartel. Yet education & communication (which presumably includes the Internet
/ mobile telephone service cartel's soaring prices) is another tiny sliver of the CPI, just 6.6%, a bit more than fun-and-games recreation.
As for housing costs, former Soviet apparatchiks must be high-fiving the Federal agencies for their inventive confusion of reality
with magical made-up "statistics." To estimate housing costs, the federal agency in charge of ginning up a low inflation number asks
homeowners to guess what their house would rent for, were it being rented--what's known as equivalent rent.
Wait a minute--don't we have actual sales data for houses, and actual rent data? Yes we do, but those are verboten because they
reflect skyrocketing inflation in housing costs, which is not allowed. So we use some fake guessing-game numbers, and the corporate
media dutifully delivers the "pravda" that inflation is 1.6% annually--basically signal noise, while in the real world (as measured
by the Chapwood Index) is running between 9% and 13% annually. How
the Chapwood Index is calculated )
As the dissonance between the real world experienced by the citizenry and what they're told is "pravda" by the media reaches extremes,
the media is forced to double-down on the propaganda , shouting down, marginalizing, discrediting, demonetizing and suppressing dissenters
via character assassination, following the old Soviet script to a tee.
(Clearly, the CIA's agitprop sector mastered the Soviet templates and has been applying what they learned to the domestic populace.
By all means, start by brainwashing the home audience so they don't catch on that the "news" is a Truman Show simulation.)
In 2014, Peter Pomerantsev, a British journalist born in the Soviet Union, published
Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible: The Surreal Heart of the New Russia which drew on his years working in Russian
television to describe a society in giddy, hysterical flight from enlightenment empiricism. He wrote of how state-controlled Russian
broadcasting "became ever more twisted, the need to incite panic and fear ever more urgent; rationality was tuned out, and Kremlin-friendly
cults and hatemongers were put on prime time."
Now, he's written a penetrating follow-up,
This Is Not Propaganda: Adventures in the War Against Reality that is partly an effort to make sense of how the disorienting
phenomena he observed in Russia went global. The child of exiled Soviet dissidents, Pomerantsev juxtaposes his family's story
-- unfolding at a time when ideas, art and information seemed to challenge tyranny -- with a present in which truth scarcely appears
to matter.
"During glasnost, it seemed that the truth would set everybody free," he writes. "Facts seemed possessed of power; dictators
seemed so afraid of facts that they suppressed them. But something has gone drastically wrong: We have access to more information
and evidence than ever, but facts seem to have lost their power."
"Facts" are a funny thing when the data sources and massaging of that data are all purposefully opaque. Again, inflation is
a lived-world example of how "official facts" are clearly massaged to support an essential narrative -- that inflation is so low
it's basically signal noise, while in the real world it has impoverished the bottom 95% to a startling (but unmentionable) degree.
This is the reality as inflation has eaten up wages' purchasing power:
Families
Go Deep in Debt to Stay in the Middle Class Wages stalled but costs haven't, so people increasingly rent or finance what their
parents might have owned outright Median household income in the U.S. was $61,372 at the end of 2017, according to the Census
Bureau. When inflation is taken into account, that is just above the 1999 level.
We're all against "fake news," right? Until your content is deemed "fake news" in a "fake news" indictment without any evidence,
trial or recourse. This is what happened to this site in the bogus PropOrNot propaganda campaign of 2016, in which every alternative-media
website that questioned the "approved narratives" was labeled "fake news" in a classic propaganda trick of labeling dissenters as
propagandists to misdirect the citizenry from the actual propaganda (PropOrNot), which by the way was heavily promoted on page one
by Jeff Bezos' propaganda mouthpiece, The Washington Post . (Who's your daddy, WP "journalists"?)
Meanwhile, back in reality, the primary source of data here on oftwominds.com is 1) the Federal Reserve data base (FRED) 2) IRS
data and 3) content and charts posted by the cream of the U.S. corporate media Foreign Affairs, Wall Street Journal and the New York
Times.
Fake news, indeed. Those individuals who support the "approved narratives" and orthodoxies win gold stars, and so virtue-signaling
is now the nation's most passionate hobby. (Shades of the Stasi...)
In the wake of the 1976 Church Committee revelations on the institutional lawlessness and corruption of the FBI and CIA, the
idea that former CIA propagandists and spy masters would be on TV as "commentators" would have been laughed off as a bad joke. Yet
here are Clapper, Brennan et al, the "most likely to lie, obfuscate, rendition and propagandize" individuals in the nation welcomed
as "experts" who we should all accept as trustworthy Big Brother. (Ahem)
What if every employee in the corporate media who was paid (or coerced) by the FBI, NSA, CIA etc. had to wear a large colorful
badge that read, "owned by the FBI/CIA"? Would that change our view of the validity of the "approved narratives"?
Welcome to the USSR: the United States of Suppression and Repression , where your views are welcome as long as they parrot
"approved narratives" and the corporate-state's orthodoxies. "Facts" are only welcome if they lend credence to the "approved narratives"
and orthodoxies.
For example, corporate earnings are rising. Never mind estimates were slashed, that was buried in footnotes a month ago. What
matters is Corporate America will once again "beat estimates" by a penny, or a nickel, or gasp, oh the wonderment, by a dime, on
earnings that were slashed by a dollar when "nobody was looking." Meanwhile, back in reality, the bottom 95% have been losing ground
for two decades. But don't say anything, you'll be guilty of "fake news."
Bolton Opposed Ukraine Investigations; Called Giuliani "A Hand Grenade" by
Tyler Durden Tue, 10/15/2019 - 12:25 0 SHARES
Former national security adviser John Bolton was 'so alarmed' by efforts to encourage Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and 2016
election meddling that he told an aide, Fiona Hill, to alert White House lawyers, according to the
New York Times
.
When Hill confronted Sondland, he told her that he was 'in charge' of Ukraine, "a moment she compared to Secretary of State Alexander
M. Haig Jr.'s declaration that he was in charge after the Ronald Reagan assassination attempt, according to those who heard the testimony,"
according to the Times.
Hill says she asked Sondland on whose authority he was in charge of Ukraine, to which he replied 'the president.' She would later
leave her post shortly before a July 25 phone call with Ukraine's president which is currently at the heart of an impeachment inquiry.
Meanwhile, the Times also notes that "House Democrats widened their net in the fast-paced inquiry by summoning Michael McKinley,
a senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who abruptly resigned last week, to testify Wednesday."
Career diplomats have expressed outrage at the unceremonious
removal of Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch from Ukraine after she came under attack by Mr. Giuliani, Donald Trump Jr. and
two associates who have since been arrested on charges of campaign violations.
Three other Trump admin officials are scheduled to speak with House investigators this week, including Sondland - who is now set
to appear on Thursday. On Tuesday, deputy assistant secretary of state George Kent will testify, while on Friday, Laura K. Cooper
- a a deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia policy, will speak with lawmakers as well.
Looks like we have our whistleblower. My only question is, how does one whistle with such a bristly moustache draping their
hairlip?
So now we have Mr. Neocon and Mr. Liddle Kidz conjugating as the strangest of bedfellows? How will this play to their respective
bases? Are we to assume these people think this nations top law enforcement agent (POTUS) is to abdicate his duties therewith
just because the criminal is (at least according to our two tiered justice system) supposed to be beyond reproach?
Mr. Bolton, bright and determined as he is, has hitched his wagon to mad mare galloping full tilt over a precipice.
Looking for a return of uranium one to the headlines soon. In due time we will stich this Russia/Ukraine narrative back together
from a patchwork of facts. You traitors are fucked...royally fucked...and you know it.
So, Mr bolton, explain to us in simple terms how you appraise America's security and her related interests. Your camp is in
eclipse.
John Bolton:
"I was appauled...just flabbergasted...that the president was concerned that our intelligence apparatus was politicized to
the extent that its highest echelons were arrayed in an attempt to subvert a lawful and legitimate election. Never mind that six
other nations were tasked with abetting this treasonous plot...this is an outrage!!! The whole point of intelligence agencies
is to skirt the law with impunity, and once we (the unelected permanent breacracy) tell one of our minions like Biden or Hillary
that they're permanently immune from prosecution, we can't have some earnest pact of Patriots running around demanding law and
order."
What a sorry bunch of cretians.
We were so close...so close...to losing it all. But since the enemy is making clear we're playing zero sum, we're going to
end up with everything.
Brace yourself, California. If I were you, I'd study the legal framework of Reconstruction. Your plight will be of a kind.
Your state has been engaged in a systematic attempt to overthrow the government. Your leaders will be appointed for a generation
after this all comes out. Don't look to Beijing to save you...they kinda have their hands full.
So, I guess Bolton is no longer collecting free money like Hunter Biden was. I get it now how all these politicians have kids
overseas and open foreign corporations which our tax money goes in to by way of cutting deals overseas public officials to line
their pockets with our money. This how they get into government poor and become very rich! Giuliani is pointing this fact out
to the public with Trump and the swamp HATES IT!
The public now knows how these corrupt PUBLIC OFFICIALS in America have been fleecing the tax payers. This is a major hit on
the swamp.
Trump & Giuliani we're behind you thank you for showing us how the swamp has been ******* us for all these years.
Understand that the reason Schitt head won't allow public hearings is because the former Ambassador to Ukraine--Volker, shot
this whole **** fest down when he testified. There is no "there" there.
Bolton and the others are crying because of Trump's pull out. The left jumped on the war bandwagon under Billary a long time
ago. Necons work both parties.
If Bolton dislikes Guiliani that's the best endorsement of Rudy I can imagine. Bolton is a complete warmongering traitor who,
like McShitstain, desires a nice case of brain cancer.
Go Rudy, expose the corrupt Demonrats! We deplorables love human hand grenades. That's why we elected the Donald, and you apparently
are the perfect lawyer for our great God emperor.
"Schiff simply does not have the gravitas that a weighty procedure such as impeachment requires," Biggs wrote in an opinion
piece for Fox News. "He has repeatedly shown incredibly poor judgment. He has persistently and consistently demonstrated that
he has such a tremendous bias and animus against Trump that he will say anything and accept any proffer of even bogus evidence
to try to remove the president from office."
When does the monkey cage's screeching become a "seditious conspiracy"?
Treason, insurrection, sedition etc come under 18 USC Ch 115. As I learned this AM the
statute the Rosenbergs were tried and executed under.
I suggest the media, Comey, Schiff, Pelosi cabal (their rumorblower tools) are running
a Seditious Conspiracy (not protected in 5 USC 2302 on whistleblower protection.
I suspect Durham and Barr look in to 18 USC Ch. 115 for the indictments they will deliver
soon.
The running sedition to oust Trump demands prosecution.
In regard to the kerfuffle to unseat Trump these past three years, I quote Murrow from a TV
documentary on Joseph McCarthy:
"the line between investigating and persecuting is a very fine one, and the junior Senator
from Wisconsin (in this case the media DNC house of representatives monkey cage) has stepped
over it repeatedly."
"... We also know that Ukraine played heavily in this conspiracy and still does and ANY legitimate investigation into the origins of this criminal adventure MUST involve the Ukraine. ..."
"... We also know that those implicated in this unholy adventure are and have been dragging their feet on any investigation and have actually worked to deter it. ..."
I have no problem with criticism, but what we see mostly here is name calling and
disparagement as a substitute for reasoned debate. Let us simply COMPARE Trump's actions with
any other president on a level field. Now few want to do that. They say Obama, Bush or
Clinton are irrelevant, but they are NOT if we are talking of impeachment, of FAILURE to
uphold the responsibilities of office. Progressives want Trump IMPEACHED and removed from
office for supposedly investigating a political rival and are going so far as to say it is
illegitimate because it wasn't an official state action, WHEREAS Obama used ALL of the powers
of government to investigate and KNOWINGLY, FALSELY and PUBLICLY ACCUSE Trump of heinous
crimes.
Further, Trump is accused of withholding money from Ukraine to pressure them to come up
with FALSE evidence against Biden, when there is NO proof that he either pressured them or
that ANY FALSE evidence was generated. AS with the leaked democrat emails, somehow the
content was deemed irrelevant due to the supposed means of acquisition.
What we know is, that Russia-gate was a scam perpetrated from the highest levels of
government and enabled by the media.
We also know that Ukraine played heavily in this conspiracy and still does and ANY
legitimate investigation into the origins of this criminal adventure MUST involve the
Ukraine.
We also know that those implicated in this unholy adventure are and have been dragging
their feet on any investigation and have actually worked to deter it.
What is transparent is that Trump is trying to uncover what really happened in the last
election and there are considerable forces trying to stop him. Clear for anyone to see. and
many see it clearly, and with great fear in their hearts.
If the coup has less than 70% they have no more than the CNN crowd.
Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. Bashing Trump for going
after his corrupt opponent Biden is not selling!
Crooked media coverage fools 50% of the people all the time, especially when 35% of the
are duped by Pelosi, Schumer and Biden usually they are suffering from Trump Derangement
Syndrome.
Democrats; shady neocons equate not arming the corrupt regime in Ukraine to "security".
Siding with corruption is a huge threat to US security!
Many of us who turn down polls will never again vote for a democrat.
"Equating Ukraine to US security is false and not selling the coup. "
I would say more: calling foreign interference of Ukraine in the US election in case of
Biden is an insult to the intelligence of US voters.
This is the level of chutzpah almost equal to claiming orphan privileges after killing
both parents.
After 2014 Ukraine with its marionette government 'midwifed' by Ms. Nuland (Google
Nulandgate) is a colony for all practical purposes; the country governed directly from the US
embassy ( Washington Obcom as locals sarcastically call it as it performs functions similar
to the CPSU offices in the past).
For all key matters it's Washington who decided that policy Ukraine will pursue. That
decides the issue of interference once and forever. Under Obama Ukraine participated in
anti-Trump coup d'état. How this marionette government can pursue independent policy
as for the USA is beyond my understanding of the situation.
What is funny is that Biden was Obama's viceroy in Ukraine all that time up to election of
Trump. He also was the best friend on Yanukovich and his political mentor (that's probably
why Yanukovich ended his career is such a way; which such friends, who needs the enemies
;-)
The main feature of the democrat coup the foundation of the party is corruption.
This aspect of the party demanded that Clinton run against Trump, rather than on any
policy. Shew hid the neocon militarism, attacking Trump deplorables as isolationists.
The Ukraine connection is money for family members of democrat elites. A most corrupt
regime the image of not supporting the corruption is a democrat defined national security
issue!
The US ust sell Javelin tank busters to Ukraine so they can keep their Russian sectors and
plunder them to pay Biden's (Romney kid, Pelosi kid) son.
This coup is about plunder and it is not Trump whose plunder is at stake!
CNN journalists are "soldier of the Party" in best Bolshevik's style...All this noise about
Biden is just trivializing the fact that he is a war criminal. And in this sense replacing him
with his son on the ballot would be an improvement ;-)
Of note, CNN Senior Justice Correspondent Evan Perez says that former VP Joe Biden has a
problem.
" Now I'll tell you this. Joe Biden has a problem. Because his son was trading in his name.
It looks bad. It smells bad. It's not illegal. Nothing is illegal about it How do you go and
say that Donald Trump is the person? Get him out of here, and convict him, when your son is
doing the same shit."
The big question that I want to know is does this even embarrass the so called CNN
"journalists"? Are they ashamed at what they have become or are they just actors playing a
part and completely disconnected from journalism altogether?
Here it is folks, the final arbiters of truth in our society discussing how to ********
America and blow smoke up the *** of their cult followers and tell them it is in information.
At this point I look at anyone who parrots the CNN narrative as a zombie, some people won't
be able to be saved.
Hunter Biden's jobs as pay for play for his daddy's efforts in congress go back a long
ways. Burisma and China were just two of many:
Although Trump repeatedly has hammered Hunter Biden's ties to China and Ukraine, the
latest cloud of suspicion came as Republicans pointed to resurfaced 2008 reports in The
New York Times and The American
Spectator . The articles, written as Barack Obama and John McCain vied for the White
House, found that Hunter Biden received consulting fees from the financial services company
MBNA from 2001 to 2005 -- while his father, then a senator, was pushing successfully for
legislation that would make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection.
The precise amount of the payments was unclear, but a company official once said Hunter
Biden was receiving at least a $100,000 per year retainer, The Times reported. Hunter Biden
previously had been an executive at MBNA beginning in 1996, but the consulting fees came
years after his departure from the company as a full-time employee.
Aides to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama at the time denied that any lobbying
had occurred, and insisted the payments were proper.
Yet another female neocon hawk of the mold of Samantha Power. Hillary have found not only
Nuland, but several of them ;-) She denied that Nulandgate create a civil war in Ukraine to
advance the US geopolitical goals. She also denied influencing Ukrainian leadership, while in
reality Ukraine now is governed from the US embassy (which is sometimes called by locals called
Washington Obcom) . Such a hypocrite.
As for "do not prosecute" list -- do not believe anything government officials say
until it is officially denied.
And that EuroMaydan actually promote corruption to the level unheard during Yanukovich tenure
but with different players.
Notable quotes:
"... creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and profit. ..."
"... the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ..."
"... the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin ..."
"... As Mr. Lutsenko, the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false ..."
"... Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else. ..."
"... I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me. ..."
"... With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr. Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our anti-corruption policy in Ukraine. ..."
The Revolution of Dignity, and the Ukrainian people's demand to end corruption, forced the
new Ukrainian government to take measures to fight the rampant corruption that long permeated
that country's political and economic systems. We have long understood that strong
anti-corruption efforts must form an essential part of our policy in Ukraine; now there was a
window of opportunity to do just that.
Why is this important? Put simply: anti-corruption efforts serve Ukraine's interests. They
serve ours as well. Corrupt leaders are inherently less trustworthy, while an honest and
accountable Ukrainian leadership makes a U.S.-Ukraine partnership more reliable and more
valuable to the U.S. A level playing field in this strategically located country -- one with a
European landmass exceeded only by Russia and with one of the largest populations in Europe --
creates an environment in which U.S. business can more easily trade, invest and
profit. Corruption is a security issue as well, because corrupt officials are vulnerable
to Moscow. In short, it is in our national security interest to help Ukraine transform into a
country where the rule of law governs and corruption is held in check.
Two Wars
But change takes time, and the aspiration to instill rule-of-law values has still not been
fulfilled. Since 2014, Ukraine has been at war, not just with Russia, but within itself, as
political and economic forces compete to determine what kind of country Ukraine will become:
the same old, oligarch-dominated Ukraine where corruption is not just prevalent, but is the
system? Or the country that Ukrainians demanded in the Revolution of Dignity -- a country where
rule of law is the system, corruption is tamed, and people are treated equally and according to
the law? During the 2019 presidential elections, the Ukrainian people answered that question
once again. Angered by insufficient progress in the fight against corruption, Ukrainian voters
overwhelmingly elected a man who said that ending corruption would be his number one priority.
The transition, however, created fear among the political elite, setting the stage for some of
the issues I expect we will be discussing today.
... ... ...
I arrived in Ukraine on August 22, 2016 and left Ukraine permanently on May 20, 2019.
Several of the events with which you may be concerned occurred before I was even in
country.
Here are just a few:
the release of the so-called "Black Ledger" and Mr. Manafort's subsequent resignation
from the Trump campaign;
the Embassy's April 2016 letter to the Prosecutor General's Office about the
investigation into the Anti-Corruption Action Center or AntAC ; and
the departure from office of former Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin .
Several other events occurred after I was recalled from Ukraine. These include:
President Trump's July 25 call with President Zelenskiy;
All of the discussions surrounding that phone call; and
Any discussions surrounding the reported delay of security assistance to Ukraine in
Summer 2019.
During my Tenure in Ukraine
As for events during my tenure in Ukraine, I want to categorically state that I have
never myself or through others, directly or indirectly, ever directed, suggested, or in any
other way asked for any government or government official in Ukraine (or elsewhere) to
refrain from investigating or prosecuting actual corruption. As Mr. Lutsenko, the former
Ukrainian Prosecutor General has recently acknowledged, the notion that I created or
disseminated a "do not prosecute" list is completely false -- a story that Mr. Lutsenko,
himself, has since retracted.
Equally fictitious is the notion that I am disloyal to President Trump. I have heard
the allegation in the media that I supposedly told the Embassy team to ignore the President's
orders "since he was going to be impeached." That allegation is false. I have never said such
a thing, to my Embassy colleagues or to anyone else.
Next, the Obama administration did not ask me to help the Clinton campaign or harm the
Trump campaign, nor would I have taken any such steps if they had.
I have never met Hunter Biden, nor have I had any direct or indirect conversations
with him. And although I have met former Vice President Biden several times over the course
of our many years in government, neither he nor the previous Administration ever, directly or
indirectly, raised the issue of either Burisma or Hunter Biden with me.
With respect to Mayor Giuliani, I have had only minimal contacts with him -- a total
of three that I recall. None related to the events at issue. I do not know Mr. Giuliani's
motives for attacking me. But individuals who have been named in the press as contacts of Mr.
Giuliani may well have believed that their personal financial ambitions were stymied by our
anti-corruption policy in Ukraine.
"... I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single ******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich if they want to. ..."
"... It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as CIA head wasn't he? ..."
"... CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?! ..."
It's both pathetic and laughable that Democrats, the mainstream press, and Trump critics are
referring to the CIA agent who turned in Trump for his telephone call with Ukraine President
Volodymyr Zelensky as a "whistleblower."
It's pathetic because it denigrates real whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, John Kiriakou,
Chelsea Manning, Thomas Drake, and William Binney. Those people are the courageous ones. They
risked their careers, their liberty, and even their lives to expose criminal wrongdoing within
the national-security state agencies they were working for.
That's not what that supposed CIA agent did when he filed his complaint against Trump. He
didn't blow the whistle on his agency, the CIA, by exposing some secret dark-side practices,
such as MK-Ultra drug experimentation on unsuspecting Americans, secret assassinations of
Americans, secret assets within the mainstream press, or secret destruction of torture
videotapes of incarcerated inmates at a top-secret CIA prison center in some former Soviet-bloc
country.
If he had done that, the CIA would have come after him with all guns blaring, just as the
national-security establishment has gone after Snowden and those other genuine whistleblowers.
In fact, that's how one can usually identify a genuine whistleblower. That's obviously not
happening here. Instead, the national-security establishment is hailing this "whistleblower" as
being a brave and courageous hero for disclosing supposed wrongdoing by Trump, not by the
CIA.
That anti-Trump CIA agent isn't a whistleblower at all. Instead, he's nothing more than a
spy and a snitch. He is obviously a spy. After all, he works for the CIA, the premier spy
agency in the world. And by turning in Trump in an obvious attempt to get him into trouble,
he's also obviously a snitch.
A "gotcha" moment
In fact, the entire episode has a "gotcha" feeling to it. For almost three years, Americans
have been made to suffer under a constant stream of speeches, commentaries, op-eds, and
editorials about what Trump rightly called the "collusion delusion" theory. Democrats, the
mainstream press, and Trump critics were 100 percent certain that their real-life hero Robert
Mueller, the special counsel, was going to find evidence that Trump conspired with Russian
officials to deny Hillary Clinton her rightful place as president of the United States. They
had impeachment plans set in place, ready to go.
And then Mueller dashed their hopes. His report disclosed that the collusion delusion was
the biggest conspiracy theory in U.S. history, one openly promoted by Democrats, the mainstream
press, and Trump critics on a daily basis for almost three years.
All they needed and wanted was an opportunity -- any opportunity -- to apply their
impeachment process to another set of a facts. Fortunately for them, Trump himself gave them
that opportunity. That supposed CIA agent was ready with a "gotcha!" and proceeded to snitch on
Trump with his "whistleblower" complaint.
Trump is obviously a smart man, both businesswise and politically. But to make that
telephone call to Zelensky and request him to investigate Joe Biden, while holding up a foreign
aid package to Ukraine, immediately after being exonerated by Mueller of the collusion delusion
allegation, was about the dumbest thing he could do. How could he not realize that his enemies
would be looking for any opportunity to set their impeachment process into motion against
him?
The likely explanation lies with arrogance and hubris. After Trump got his exoneration on
the collusion delusion accusation, he figured that he was now all-powerful and could do
whatever he wanted. The fact that he was, at the same time, exercising such dictatorial powers
as raising tariffs, starting trade wars, building his Berlin Wall along the border, and
imposing sanctions and embargoes, all without the consent of Congress, was also making him feel
omnipotent and untouchable. His admiration for foreign dictators no doubt filled his mind with
the same sense of totalitarian, untouchable power.
That's what likely caused Trump to give his enemies the "gotcha" episode for which they were
clearly thirsting. Trump turned out to be his own very worst enemy.
National security
enmity toward Trump
Despite his campaign rhetoric against "endless wars," Trump has kept U.S. troops in
Afghanistan and the Middle East, where they have continued to kill, die, and wreak massive
destruction. He has also authorized the continuation of the Pentagon's and CIA's assassination
program. He has also continued the Pentagon's and CIA's indefinite detention and torture center
at Guantanamo Bay. He has done nothing to rein in the NSA and its secret surveillance schemes.
The fact is that Trump's term in office, despite his "America First" rhetoric, has proven to be
nothing more than a continuation of the Bush-Obama administrations.
That's what he should be impeached for, but unfortunately his critics feel that those high
crimes don't rise to the level of impeachable offenses.
But it's also true that Trump has failed to demonstrate the complete deference to authority
of the national-security establishment that Hillary Clinton and other Washington, D.C.,
political elites have. Trump's failure to bend the knee to the national-security establishment
made him suspect from the very beginning, especially since the Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, and
the FBI were certain that their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, was going to be the new
president.
Thus, there has been a war between Trump and the national-security establishment from even
before he was elected and especially after he was elected. In a remarkable moment of candor and
honesty, Congressman Charles Schumer, commenting on the war between Trump and the
national-security establishment, stated, "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence
community -- they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
One way of getting back at Trump is, of course, through assassination, a power that the
Supreme Court has confirmed that the national-security state wields against American citizens,
so long it is necessary to protect "national security."
Another way of getting back at Trump is smear tactics through the use of assets within the
mainstream press. The CIA's Operation Mockingbird comes to mind.
Coup through
impeachment
And other option to get back at Trump is through impeachment and conviction, especially
through assets within Congress. But before any collusion-delusion proponent cries "conspiracy
theory," recall that President Eisenhower warned Americans in his 1961 Farewell Address about
the threat that the "military-industrial complex" poses to the liberties and democratic
processes of the American people. Actually, Ike planned to use the term
"military-industrial-congressional complex" but changed his mind at the last minute. He was
referring to the intimate, integrated relationship between members of Congress and the
Pentagon, CIA, and NSA. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, Eisenhower is not perceived to
be a "conspiracy theorist," the term that the CIA popularized to keep people from examining the
Kennedy assassination too closely.
Speaking of the Kennedy assassination, early in his administration Trump announced that he
intended to comply with the deadline for releasing the CIA's long-secret records relating to
the assassination. At the very last minute, Trump folded and granted the CIA's request for
continued secrecy.
Why did Trump do that?
One possibility is that he became convinced that "national security" would be jeopardized if
the American people were to see the CIA's long-secret JFK assassination records.
Another possibility is that he struck some sort of secret negotiated deal with the CIA.
A third possibility is that he figured that if he would ingratiate himself with the CIA in
the hope that they would leave him alone. If that was the case, Trump might well go down as one
of the most naïve presidents in history.
I have no sympathy for Trump anymore. He hasn't had Sessions or Barr induct one single
******* person guilty of treason or sedition in a 3 years. Prosecutors can indict a ham
sandwich if they want to.
If we have no rule of law anymore, then **** it. It's time to abolish our entire
government and start from scratch under the Declaration of Independence.
Maybe Trump was naive not to realize how much the entrenched elites were against him
and what he represented.
And maybe the entrenched elites don't realize how deeply so many of us deplorables hate
them . Let's see how D.C. -- the Senate and the Supreme Court -- defuse the coming Civil
War. Because the House and the Executive have already staked out their positions ... AND SO
HAVE WE.
Fraud Trump ( President "Gun Control" ) and the CIA are best buddy's!!!
It was Fraud Trump, who helped re-fill the swamp, by putting Torturer Gina Haspel in as
CIA head wasn't he?
They ( Along with their democrat/republican Comrades ), are working together for their
Rothschild Israeli/NWO masters, to Try and undermine the American people and Enslave the
world!
Please don't fall for this phony Good Cop/Bad Cop "Theatre"...Fraud Trump and the CIA are
one and the same!
CIA vs Trump is a false dichotomy dilemma. They both work hand-in-glove in a production
made to deceive the masses. What the masses are really unaware of is the propaganda lies
echoed out at them without a single shred of doubt against these claims. Why are we so
gullible as to not ask "why" for the many presentations en posed upon us?!
Here is as awkward question: why are we not allowed to simply ask what is truly ailing us
and why in many countries the mere doubt or questioning will lend one in prison. What kinds
of "truths" demand prison time for simply asking questions?!
We've lost WWII. Western societies are no longer exceptional, if they were so to begin
with (the traitors made sure of that). We must reform and address the one true problem at our
midst: Jewish tyranny!
A man, unlike ANY politician since dared to put the interests of his people ahead of
anything else. Whether you agree or disagree, have an open mind to revisit this case; perhaps
you will now see what you missed previously.
Left and Right is nothing but Reality TV for the masses. They are two sides of a coin, in
the end its still one coin!
They are funded on both sides from the same people, one side is funded openly the other is
through NGOs to hide the "investment" donation.
To believe they are truly after Trump is BS, the "left" wants in, by getting him "out" but
the people funding it all are just using the "left" as muscle to keep Trump "inline" doing
their bidding! If it was a Democrat they couldn't keep inline they would do the same thing,
in the end its all just another way to keep society divided so they can further control us
and strip away more freedom,power and money/assets and we agree to give it away when asked
under the BS lie of protecting us from some made up enemy/threat, and we fall for it every
time like a mouse to glue paper!
If Snowden and Assange showing us how bad we have been betrayed didn't wake us up to
rebel, nothing will!
It would be a whole different story if the info they released was being debated for truth,
but they have been openly confirmed on everything they released and we still go along with
this DeepState monster that has basically imprisoned us all, some with bars/cells some
without but all imprisoned and lacking Free will/freedom we as a nation are suppose to
have!
The fact that we still surrender more and more of this freedom daily without any outcry
from the population is mindboggling. How bad does it have to get to get some fight out of the
populas? It is even more worrying that there is no MSM that will independently report what we
know as fact so we can unite.
This is coup d'état, no question about it. What is the level of connection of Adam
Schiff and the CIA?
Notable quotes:
"... Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that lasted just a few minutes? ..."
"... Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references? ..."
"... What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate? ..."
1. Why did the "whistleblower" write an 800+ word memo describing President Trump and
President Zelensky's call based on second-hand information gleaned from a conversation that
lasted just a few minutes?
2. Why did the "whistleblower" wait 18 days to file the complaint after describing the call
as "frightening" in their memo?
3. Why and when did the "whistleblower" communicate with Rep Adam Schiff's staff before
filing the complaint?
4. Why did the "whistleblower" hide from the ICIG that they met with Rep Adam Schiff's staff
by not checking the box on the whistleblower form indicating they had spoken to Congress?
5. Why didn't Rep Adam Schiff tell us his staff had met with the "whistleblower?"
6. Why didn't the "whistleblower" just give his memo to the Inspector General, instead
of a seven page complaint dressed up with extraneous citations and media references?
7. Why is Rep Adam Schiff holding hearings, depositions, and interviews behind closed
doors?
8. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff release the transcripts of these interviews, instead of leaking
cherry-picked information that fits his narrative?
9. Why won't Rep Adam Schiff take questions from the press after these interviews, like
Republicans have done?
10. Why does Speaker Pelosi think we need to “strike while the iron is hot,”
instead of taking time for serious and thorough investigative fact-finding?
11. Why is Speaker Pelosi scared to have a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry like
it’s been done every other time?
12. Why do Democrats keep making up the rules as they go along, instead of following a fair
process?
13. What work did the “whistleblower” do with a 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate?
14. Why do Democrats and the media keep falsely claiming President Trump pressured Ukraine?
President Zelensky has repeatedly said that he wasn't pushed.
15. Why don't Democrats trust the American people to choose the President? The election is
less than 13 months away.
16. Why won't Democrats focus on helping the country, instead of attacking the President
with this unfair and partisan process?
17. Why won't the media ask these questions to Rep Adam Schiff or Speaker Pelosi?
Dems not troubled by truth. Their mind control media believes in itself as the new God
that the morons bow down to and will abandon their children for. Their brainwashed radical
left will trample their own mothers to get into a fight to the death for their demonic cause
of grabbing power for the furtherance of their selfish sponsors.
This is the train of darkness that unwittingly delivered the first people POTUS reaction.
The train drivers are very powerful and are long established as the puppet masters. They are
scheming 24/7 on multiple fronts to distract their enemy called democracy and further embed
themselves within every internal organ and nerve fiber. But they are not immutable.
The capture of democracy is a goal that they must achieve. The attack is obviously
coordinated and multi-faceted. The tool of brainwashing will target the children, like the
Nazi program called "Hitler Youth" but with a neolibic dogma.
One man stands alone against the deep state and its swamp and media and mind control and
infiltration. Can he trust anyone to watch his back?
This is really a travesty. Every day we hear about this. The President is being tried by
the press - with only one side being heard. How the hell is this fair?
to most on this thread democrats want to take all they can via taxes, then borrow what
they can't raise in taxes, democrats will cause widespread poverty, sickness and will sponsor
**** educational standards, encourage perversion and pay minorities taxpayer dollars to buy
their votes - even though minorities are no more special than any social grouping (other than
the perverts in the lbGTQ++ community who are special in a mentally retarded way) democrats
sponsor criminal behavior by refusing to punish it and so on and so forth,
trump at least promotes reward for effort, by giving back some taxes to individuals and
makes American corporate tax rates consistent with global corporate tax rates, has shitcanned
the stealth taxes on healthy people via Obamacare, and inspires people left behind by the
constant march to socialism that the US has endured for the last fifty years (via welfare
benefits, scholastic indoctrination, social housing programs, medicare/medicaid programs that
taxpayers could have got for half the price they paid - and half the debt liabilities run up
in trust funds.
so..has trump got the federal government completely out of peoples lives? no, but he at
least wants taxes on the country to 18% of GDP and not the 40% targeted by the howler monkeys
on the left.
it is not a choice of two equal evils. it is the choice between YOU paying 18% of your
income or 40%.
Finally, if RAF Croughton were an annex to the US Embassy and if Mr Sacoolas were a
diplomat, the cars of both he and his wife would have diplomatic CD plates. Mrs Sacoolas was
not driving a diplomatic car – an obviously vital fact in this case, again omitted from
all mainstream media reporting.
... ... ...
This fake "diplomatic immunity" needs to be challenged in court, but I am not sure anyone
except Harry Dunn's family has the locus to do this. Their son was killed by the wife of a spy
and to avoid political embarrassment about his activities, the government has falsely connived
at a status of diplomatic immunity and then pretended to be trying to get Mrs Sacoolas back.
That is an awful lot to take in for people in a terrible state of grief. After losing a son,
the cognitive dissonance involved in uncovering state secrets, and learning that the state is
malevolent and senior ministerial office holders are liars, is a huge hurdle to surmount. The
Dunn family have first to summon the will to fight it, and then to avoid the attempts to hug
them in the suffocating embrace of an establishment lawyer – believe me the powers that
be will be covertly thrusting one at them – who will advise them they are most likely to
make progress if they rock no boats.
The only people I know of who effectively enjoy secret diplomatic immunity are spies from
CIA/NSA like Jonathon Sacoolas or from Mossad like Shai Masot . There are not any other
categories of pretend diplomats having immunity, and the elaborate charade to pretend that
there are is a nonsense. It must not distract from the fact that the claim that the government
can grant US and Israeli intelligence agencies diplomatic immunity at will is a lie. The
government is acting illegally here. There is no legislation that covers Raab in allowing Mrs
Sacoolas to kill – albeit accidentally – with impunity.
I pray both the government and Mrs Sacoolas will be brought to account. I hope Mr and Mrs
Dunn find what peace they can with their loss, and are able to remember with due warmth the
eighteen wonderful years that I am sure they had with their son.
* * *
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the
Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, Craig's blog has no
source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary
subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every
article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate. Subscriptions to
keep Craig's blog going are gratefully received .
The term "centrist" is replaced by a more appropriate term "neoliberal oligarchy"
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly, suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps. ..."
"... So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House in the first place. ..."
"... For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed path. ..."
"... In a recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point: Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as foreordained. ..."
"... Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much) change. ..."
"... These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy. ..."
"... "For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely. ..."
"... how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal oligarchy" who preceded him? ..."
"... Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the question not only goes unanswered, but unasked. ..."
"... To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie. Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed, apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse "to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war to economic inequality." Just so. ..."
"... Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's what Hillary thought too. ..."
"... Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars. ..."
"... Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no better than last time. ..."
"... I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the price that's going to have to be paid. ..."
"... At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight of hand there corporate Dems. ..."
There is blood in the water and frenzied sharks are closing in for the kill. Or so they
think.
From the time of Donald Trump's election, American elites have hungered for this moment. At
long last, they have the 45th president of the United States cornered. In typically ham-handed
fashion, Trump has given his adversaries the very means to destroy him politically. They will
not waste the opportunity. Impeachment now -- finally, some will say -- qualifies as a virtual
certainty.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of
Representatives have passed the point of no return. The time for prudential judgments -- the
Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good. To back
down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. TheNew York
Times, The Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
So, as President Woodrow Wilson, speaking in 1919 put it, "The stage is set, the
destiny disclosed. It has come about by no plan of our conceiving, but by the hand of God." Of
course, the issue back then was a notably weighty one: whether to ratify the Versailles Treaty.
That it now concerns a "
Mafia-like shakedown " orchestrated by one of Wilson's successors tells us something about
the trajectory of American politics over the course of the last century and it has not been a
story of ascent.
The effort to boot the president from office is certain to yield a memorable spectacle. The
rancor and contempt that have clogged American politics like a backed-up sewer since the day of
Trump's election will now find release. Watergate will pale by comparison. The uproar triggered
by Bill Clinton's "
sexual relations " will be nothing by comparison. A de facto collaboration between
Trump, those who despise him, and those who despise his critics all but guarantees that this
story will dominate the news, undoubtedly for months to come.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go
essentially unattended. So while Congress considers whether or not to remove Trump from office,
gun-control legislation will languish, the deterioration of the nation's infrastructure will
proceed apace, needed healthcare reforms will be tabled, the military-industrial complex will
waste yet more billions, and the national debt, already at $22 trillion --
larger, that is, than the entire economy -- will continue to surge. The looming threat posed by
climate change, much talked about of late, will proceed all but unchecked. For those of us
preoccupied with America's role in the world, the obsolete assumptions and habits undergirding
what's still called " national
security " will continue to evade examination. Our endless wars will remain endless and
pointless.
By way of compensation, we might wonder what benefits impeachment is likely to yield.
Answering that question requires examining four scenarios that describe the range of
possibilities awaiting the nation.
The first and most to be desired (but least likely) is that Trump will tire of being a
public piñata and just quit. With the thrill of flying in Air Force One having
worn off, being president can't be as much fun these days. Why put up with further grief? How
much more entertaining for Trump to retire to the political sidelines where he can tweet up a
storm and indulge his penchant for name-calling. And think of the "deals" an ex-president could
make in countries like Israel, North Korea, Poland, and Saudi Arabia on which he's bestowed
favors. Cha-ching! As of yet, however, the president shows no signs of taking the easy (and
lucrative) way out.
The second possible outcome sounds almost as good but is no less implausible: a sufficient
number of Republican senators rediscover their moral compass and "do the right thing," joining
with Democrats to create the two-thirds majority needed to convict Trump and send him packing.
In the Washington of that classic 20th-century film director Frank Capra, with Jimmy Stewart
holding
forth on the Senate floor and a moist-eyed Jean Arthur cheering him on from the gallery,
this might have happened. In the real Washington of "Moscow Mitch"
McConnell , think again.
The third somewhat seamier outcome might seem a tad more likely. It postulates that
McConnell and various GOP senators facing reelection in 2020 or 2022 will calculate that
turning on Trump just might offer the best way of saving their own skins. The president's
loyalty to just about anyone, wives included, has always been highly contingent, the people
streaming out of his administration routinely making the point. So why should senatorial
loyalty to the president be any different? At the moment, however, indications that Trump
loyalists out in the hinterlands will reward such turncoats are just about nonexistent. Unless
that base were to flip, don't expect Republican senators to do anything but flop.
That leaves outcome No. 4, easily the most probable: while the House will impeach, the
Senate will decline to convict. Trump will therefore stay right where he is, with the matter of
his fitness for office effectively deferred to the November 2020 elections. Except as a source
of sadomasochistic diversion, the entire agonizing experience will, therefore, prove to be a
colossal waste of time and blather.
Furthermore, Donald Trump might well emerge from this national ordeal with his reelection
chances enhanced. Such a prospect is belatedly insinuating itself into public discourse. For
that reason, certain anti-Trump pundits are already showing signs of going wobbly,
suggesting , for instance, that censure rather than outright impeachment might suffice as
punishment for the president's various offenses. Yet censuring Trump while allowing him to stay
in office would be the equivalent of letting Harvey Weinstein off with a good tongue-lashing so
that he can get back to making movies. Censure is for wimps.
Besides, as Trump campaigns for a second term, he would almost surely wear censure like a
badge of honor. Keep in mind that Congress's
approval ratings are considerably worse than his. To more than a few members of the public,
a black mark awarded by Congress might look like a gold star.
Restoration Not Removal
So if Trump finds himself backed into a corner, Democrats aren't necessarily in a more
favorable position. And that aren't the half of it. Let me suggest that, while Trump is being
pursued, it's you, my fellow Americans, who are really being played. The unspoken purpose of
impeachment is not removal, but restoration. The overarching aim is not to replace Trump with
Mike Pence -- the equivalent of exchanging Groucho for Harpo. No, the object of the exercise is
to return power to those who created the conditions that enabled Trump to win the White House
in the first place.
Just recently, for instance, Hillary Clinton
declared Trump to be an "illegitimate president." Implicit in her charge is the conviction
-- no doubt sincere -- that people like Donald Trump are not supposed to be president.
People like Hillary Clinton -- people possessing credentials
like hers and sharing her values -- should be the chosen ones. Here we glimpse the true
meaning of legitimacy in this context. Whatever the vote in the Electoral College, Trump
doesn't deserve to be president and never did.
For many of the main participants in this melodrama, the actual but unstated purpose of
impeachment is to correct this great wrong and thereby restore history to its anointed
path.
In a
recent column in The Guardian, Professor Samuel Moyn makes the essential point:
Removing from office a vulgar, dishonest and utterly incompetent president comes nowhere close
to capturing what's going on here. To the elites most intent on ousting Trump, far more
important than anything he may say or do is what he signifies. He is a walking, talking
repudiation of everything they believe and, by extension, of a future they had come to see as
foreordained.
Moyn styles these anti-Trump elites as "neoliberal oligarchy", members of the post-Cold War political
mainstream that allowed ample room for nominally conservative Bushes and nominally liberal
Clintons, while leaving just enough space for Barack Obama's promise of hope-and-(not-too-much)
change.
These "neoliberal oligarchy" share a common worldview. They believe in the universality of freedom as
defined and practiced within the United States. They believe in corporate capitalism operating
on a planetary scale. They believe in American primacy, with the United States presiding over a
global order as the sole superpower. They believe in "American global leadership," which they
define as primarily a military enterprise. And perhaps most of all, while collecting degrees
from Georgetown, Harvard, Oxford, Wellesley, the University of Chicago, and Yale, they came to
believe in a so-called meritocracy as the preferred mechanism for allocating wealth, power and
privilege. All of these together comprise the sacred scripture of contemporary American
political elites. And if Donald Trump's antagonists have their way, his removal will restore
that sacred scripture to its proper place as the basis of policy.
"For all their appeals to enduring moral values," Moyn writes, "the "neoliberal oligarchy" are deploying
a transparent strategy to return to power." Destruction of the Trump presidency is a necessary
precondition for achieving that goal. ""neoliberal oligarchy" simply want to return to the status quo
interrupted by Trump, their reputations laundered by their courageous opposition to his
mercurial reign, and their policies restored to credibility." Precisely.
High Crimes and Misdemeanors
The U.S. military's "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad at the start of the Iraq War, as
broadcast on CNN.
For such a scheme to succeed, however, laundering reputations alone will not suffice.
Equally important will be to bury any recollection of the catastrophes that paved the way for
an über -qualified centrist to lose to an indisputably unqualified and
unprincipled political novice in 2016.
Holding promised security assistance hostage unless a foreign leader agrees to do you
political favors is obviously and indisputably wrong. Trump's antics regarding Ukraine may even
meet some definition of criminal. Still, how does such misconduct compare to the calamities engineered by the "neoliberal
oligarchy" who preceded him? Consider, in particular, the George W. Bush
administration's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 (along with the spin-off wars that followed).
Consider, too, the reckless economic policies that produced the Great Recession of 2007-2008.
As measured by the harm inflicted on the American people (and others), the offenses for which
Trump is being impeached qualify as mere misdemeanors.
Honest people may differ on whether to attribute the Iraq War to outright lies or monumental
hubris. When it comes to tallying up the consequences, however, the intentions of those who
sold the war don't particularly matter. The results include
thousands of Americans killed; tens of thousands wounded, many grievously, or left to
struggle with the effects of PTSD; hundreds of thousands of non-Americans killed or injured ;
millions displaced ;
trillions of dollars expended; radical groups like ISIS empowered (and in its case
even formed
inside a U.S. prison in Iraq); and the Persian Gulf region plunged into turmoil from which it
has yet to recover. How do Trump's crimes stack up against these?
The Great Recession stemmed directly from economic policies implemented during the
administration of President Bill Clinton and continued by his successor. Deregulating the
banking sector was projected to produce a bonanza in which all would share. Yet, as a
direct result of
the ensuing chicanery, nearly 9 million Americans lost their jobs, while overall unemployment
shot up to 10 percent. Roughly 4 million Americans lost their homes to foreclosure. The stock
market cratered and millions saw their life savings evaporate. Again, the question must be
asked: How do these results compare to Trump's dubious dealings with Ukraine?
Trump's critics speak with one voice in demanding accountability. Yet virtually no one has
been held accountable for the pain, suffering, and loss inflicted by the architects of the Iraq
War and the Great Recession. Why is that? As another presidential election approaches, the
question not only goes unanswered, but unasked.
Sen. Carter Glass (D–Va.) and Rep. Henry B. Steagall (D–Ala.-3), the co-sponsors of
the 1932 Glass–Steagall Act separating investment and commercial banking, which was
repealed in 1999. (Wikimedia Commons)
To win reelection, Trump, a corrupt con man (who jumped ship
on his own bankrupt casinos, money in hand, leaving others holding the bag) will cheat and lie.
Yet, in the politics of the last half-century, these do not qualify as novelties. (Indeed,
apart from being the son of a sitting U.S. vice president, what made Hunter Biden
worth $50Gs per month to a gas company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch? I'm curious.) That
the president and his associates are engaging in a cover-up is doubtless the case. Yet another
cover-up proceeds in broad daylight on a vastly larger scale. "Trump's shambolic presidency
somehow seems less unsavory," Moyn writes, when considering the fact that his critics refuse
"to admit how massively his election signified the failure of their policies, from endless war
to economic inequality." Just so.
What are the real crimes? Who are the real criminals? No matter what happens in the coming
months, don't expect the Trump impeachment proceedings to come within a country mile of
addressing such questions.
Exactly. Trump is the result of voter disgust with Bush III vs Clinton II, the presumed
match up for a year or more leading up to 2016. Now Democrats want to do it again, thinking they can elect anybody against Trump. That's
what Hillary thought too.
Now the Republicans who lost their party to Trump think they can take it back with
somebody even more lame than Jeb, if only they could find someone, anyone, to run on that
non-plan.
Trump won for lack of alternatives. Our political class is determined to prevent any
alternatives breaking through this time either. They don't want Trump, but even more they
want to protect their gravy train of donor money, the huge overspending on medical care (four
times the defense budget) and of course all those Forever Wars.
Trump could win, for the same reasons as last time, even though the result would be no
better than last time.
LJ , October 9, 2019 at 17:01
Well, yeah but I recall that what won Trump the Republican Nomination was first and
foremost his stance on Immigration. This issue is what separated him from the herd of
candidates . None of them had the courage or the desire to go against Governmental Groupthink
on Immigration. All he then had to do was get on top of low energy Jeb Bush and the road was
clear. He got the base on his side on this issue and on his repeated statement that he wished
to normalize relations with Russia . He won the nomination easily. The base is still on his
side on these issues but Governmental Groupthink has prevailed in the House, the Senate, the
Intelligence Services and the Federal Courts. Funny how nobody in the Beltway, especially not
in media, is brave enough to admit that the entire Neoconservative scheme has been a disaster
and that of course we should get out of Syria . Nor can anyone recall the corruption and
warmongering that now seem that seems endemic to the Democratic Party. Of course Trump has to
wear goat's horns. "Off with his head".
Drew Hunkins , October 9, 2019 at 16:00
I wish the slick I.D. politics obsessed corporate Dems nothing but the worst, absolute
worst. They reap what they sow. If it means another four years of Trump, so be it. It's the
price that's going to have to be paid.
At a time when a majority of U.S. citizens cannot muster up $500 for an emergency dental
bill or car repair without running down to the local "pay day loan" lender shark (now
established as legitimate businesses) the corporate Dems, in their infinite wisdom, decide to
concoct an impeachment circus to run simultaneously when all the dirt against the execrable
Brennan and his intel minions starts to hit the press for their Russiagate hoax. Nice sleight
of hand there corporate Dems.
Of course, the corporate Dems would rather lose to Trump than win with a
progressive-populist like Bernie. After all, a Bernie win would mean an end to a lot of
careerism and cushy positions within the establishment political scene in Washington and
throughout the country.
Now we even have the destroyer of Libya mulling another run for the presidency.
Forget about having a job the next day and forget about the 25% interest on your credit
card or that half your income is going toward your rent or mortgage, or that you barely see
your kids b/c of the 60 hour work week, just worry about women lawyers being able to make
partner at the firm, and trans people being able to use whatever bathroom they wish and male
athletes being able to compete against women based on genitalia (no, wait, I'm confused
now).
Either class politics and class warfare comes front and center or we witness a burgeoning
neo-fascist movement in our midst. It's that simple, something has got to give!
"The president is dropping by the city on Thursday for one of his periodic angry
wank-fests at the Target Center, which is the venue in which this event will be inflicted
upon the Twin Cities. (And, just as an aside, given the events of the past 10 days, this one
should be a doozy.) Other Minneapolis folk are planning an extensive unwelcoming party
outside the arena, which necessarily would require increased security, which is expensive.
So, realizing that it was dealing with a notorious deadbeat -- in keeping with his customary
business plan, El Caudillo del Mar-a-Lago has stiffed 10 cities this year for bills relating
to security costs that total almost a million bucks -- the company that provides the security
for the Target Center wants the president*'s campaign to shell out more than $500,000.
This has sent the president* into a Twitter tantrum against Frey, who seems not to be that
impressed by it. Right from when the visit was announced, Frey has been jabbing at the
president*'s ego. From the Star-Tribune:
"Our entire city will stand not behind the President, but behind the communities and
people who continue to make our city -- and this country -- great," Frey said. "While there
is no legal mechanism to prevent the president from visiting, his message of hatred will
never be welcome in Minneapolis."
It is a mayor's lot to deal with out-of-state troublemakers. Always has been."
This is not about Trump. This is not even about Ukraine and/or foreign powers influence on
the US election (of which Israel, UK, and Saudi are three primary examples; in this
particular order.)
Russiagate 2.0 (aka Ukrainegate) is the case, textbook example if you wish, of how the
neoliberal elite manipulates the MSM and the narrative for purposes of misdirecting attention
and perception of their true intentions and objectives -- distracting the electorate from
real issues.
An excellent observation by JohnH (October 01, 2019 at 01:47 PM )
"It all depends on which side of the Infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are
too obscure and byzantine."
There are two competing narratives here:
1. NARRATIVE 1: CIA swamp scum tried to re-launch Russiagate as Russiagate 2.0. This is
CIA coup d'état aided and abetted by CIA-democrats like Pelosi and Schiff. Treason, as
Trump aptly said. This is narrative shared by "anti-Deep Staters" who sometimes are nicknamed
"Trumptards". Please note that the latter derogatory nickname is factually incorrect:
supporters of this narrative often do not support Trump. They just oppose machinations of the
Deep State. And/or neoliberalism personified by Clinton camp, with its rampant
corruption.
2. NARRATIVE 2: Trump tried to derail his opponent using his influence of foreign state
President (via military aid) as leverage and should be impeached for this and previous
crimes. ("Full of Schiff" commenters narrative, neoliberal democrats, or demorats.)
Supporters of this category usually bought Russiagate 1.0 narrative line, hook and sinker.
Some of them are brainwashed, but mostly simply ignorant neoliberal lemmings without even
basic political education.
In any case, while Russiagate 2.0 is probably another World Wrestling Federation style
fight, I think "anti-Deep-staters" are much closer to the truth.
What is missing here is the real problem: the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA (and
elsewhere).
So this circus serves an important purpose (intentionally or unintentionally) -- to disrupt
voters from the problems that are really burning, and are equal to a slow-progressing cancer in the
US society.
And implicitly derail Warren (being a weak politician she does not understand that, and
jumped into Ukrainegate bandwagon )
I am not that competent here, so I will just mention some obvious symptoms:
Loss of legitimacy of the ruling neoliberal elite (which demonstrated itself in 2016
with election of Trump);
Desperation of many working Americans with sliding standard of living; loss of meaningful
jobs due to offshoring of manufacturing and automation (which demonstrated itself in opioids
abuse epidemics; similar to epidemics of alcoholism in the USSR before its dissolution.
Loss of previously available freedoms. Loss of "free press" replaced by the neoliberal
echo chamber in major MSM. The uncontrolled and brutal rule of financial oligarchy and allied
with the intelligence agencies as the third rail of US politics (plus the conversion of the
state after 9/11 into national security state);
Coming within this century end of the "Petroleum Age" and the global crisis that it can
entail;
Rampant militarism, tremendous waist of resources on the arms race, and overstretched
efforts to maintain and expand global, controlled from Washington, neoliberal empire. Efforts
that since 1991 were a primary focus of unhinged after 1991 neocon faction US elite who
totally controls foreign policy establishment ("full-spectrum dominance). They are stealing money from
working people to fund an imperial project, and as part of neoliberal redistribution of wealth up
Most of the commenters here live a comfortable life in the financially secured retirement,
and, as such, are mostly satisfied with the status quo. And almost completely isolated from
the level of financial insecurity of most common Americans (healthcare racket might be the
only exception).
And re-posting of articles which confirm your own worldview (echo chamber posting) is nice
entertainment, I think ;-)
Some of those posters actually sometimes manage to find really valuable info. For which I
am thankful. In other cases, when we have a deluge of abhorrent neoliberal propaganda
postings (the specialty of Fred C. Dobbs) which often generate really insightful comments from the
members of the "anti-Deep State" camp.
Still it would be beneficial if the flow of neoliberal spam is slightly curtailed.
In one of the exchanges with US ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, dated September 9, Taylor
spells out what would become the Democrats' argument for impeachment:
As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help
with a political campaign.
It's time Dems try to bring in Ambassador Bill Taylor.
Taylor *twice* texts about a direct quid pro quo between military aid and Ukraine helping Trump
rig our election.
There's a *reason* Taylor thought there was a quid pro quo.
Sondland's admonishment of Taylor –
"I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's
intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind."
– is somehow being
held up as an admission of wrongdoing, along with his request for a phone call instead of continued
texts.
Just like that, all of a sudden, the controversy about the so-called
"whistleblower"
who
may have colluded with House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff (D-California) before filing his
complaint – based on hearsay – is declared
"irrelevant"
and the texts are held up as the Holy
Grail of impeachment proceedings.
At this point, whistleblower complaint is irrelevant. Transcript of
Trump-Zelensky call and texts from Volker, Sondland et al released yesterday is all one needs to
show clearly Trump misconduct .
It's curious how the same treatment was not given a few months ago to the anti-Trump text messages
of FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, when the entire media establishment twisted itself into
pretzels to explain that when Strzok said
"we'll stop"
Trump from becoming president what he
really meant, you see, was something totally innocuous and not sinister at all
.
House Republicans have blasted the diplomatic texts as "cherry-picked" by the other party, and
argued that the closed-doors testimony of Kurt Volker, former US special envoy to Ukraine who
participated in the exchanges, painted a completely different picture.
We noticed the original tweet was deleted after we posted our fact check.
Reading the
transcript
of Volker's opening statement, obtained and published Friday by investigative reporter
John Solomon and the Federalist, seems to back that claim. Volker testified he did not bring up the issue
of a hold on military aid with the Ukrainians until late August, when it was first reported in the media
– and long after the Trump-Zelensky phone call. Nor was he made aware of any reference to former VP Joe
Biden or his son until the transcript of the call was released on September 25.
Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani
"stressed that all he wanted to see was for Ukraine to investigate
what happened in the past and apply its own laws,"
Volker also explained.
On the issue of holding up military aid, Volker admits he was conducting his own policy, in line with
the consensus in Washington, rather than obeying the president who appointed him:
"I became aware of a hold on Congressional Notifications about proceeding with that assistance on
July 18, 2019, and immediately tried to weigh in to reverse that position I was confident that this
position would indeed be reversed in the end, because the provision of such assistance was uniformly
supported at State, Defense, NSC, the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the expert community in
Washington."
Yet the most overlooked text in the batch is from Volker to Giuliani, dated August 9, asking for a
phone call "to make sure I advise Z [Zelensky] correctly as to what he should be saying."
To the impeachment-bent Democrats, what's objectionable here is the substance of Volker's instruction
– namely, the alleged
"election meddling"
in investigating the Bidens (and Ukraine's role in
2016, which they are eager never to mention). What should be objectionable is the fact that a US diplomat
is stage-whispering to the freshly elected president of an ostensibly sovereign country. Not that it
would be the first time.
Way back in
April 2016
, President Barack Obama argued that the US stood for the
"principle that nations like
Ukraine have the right to choose their own destiny."
Left unsaid was that such choices would only be
honored if they aligned with US beliefs and objectives – and subject to
"color revolution"
and
regime change if not, which is just what happened in February 2014 in Kiev.
The fact that neither Democrats and Republicans are raising that issue with Volker's testimony and the
texts just goes to show that neither have a problem with the US acting like an empire, and Ukraine being
its vassal. That is what is truly damning about all of this, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
President Donald Trump has continued to hammer Democratic efforts to impeach him, this time
accusing the party of "continuing to interfere in the 2016 election" as well. "Not only are
the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are continuing to interfere
in the 2016 Election," Trump tweeted on Saturday. "They must be stopped!"
Not only are the Do Nothing Democrats interfering in the 2020 Election, but they are
continuing to interfere in the 2016 Election. They must be stopped!
The president has called the impeachment investigation against him – which centers
around allegations he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky into reopening a
corruption investigation into Joe Biden's son Hunter's business dealings in the country –
"fake" and a "phony witch hunt," designed to oust him before the 2020 race.
Rather than suggesting that Democrats were traveling through time to meddle in the 2016
election all over again, the second half of the president's tweet refers to his belief that the
impeachment drive was concocted to distract from Attorney General William Barr's efforts to
investigate the origins of the counterintelligence probe against his campaign.
Trump has accused the US' intelligence agencies of "spying" on his 2016 campaign and
obtaining a FISA wiretapping warrant under false pretenses. Barr's office received a draft
report of this alleged FISA abuse from the Justice Department's Inspector General two weeks
ago.
Several top Democrats have released text messages between US officials which they claim
expose the Trump administration's drive to 'coerce' the Ukrainian government to target Joe
Biden, for purely political reasons obviously. The Democratic chairs of the House Intelligence,
Oversight and Foreign Affairs Committees released the messages in a letter to fellow
representatives late Thursday.
The
letter features over a dozen text messages between US diplomats – including former
Trump administration envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker, Ukrainian embassy official Bill Taylor, EU
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, as well as the president's personal attorney Rudy
Giuliani.
"The president and his aides are engaging in a campaign of misinformation and
misdirection in an attempt to normalize the act of soliciting foreign power to interfere in our
elections," the chairmen wrote.
Even more astonishing, he is now openly and publicly asking another foreign power
– China – to launch its own sham investigation against the Bidens to further his
own political aims.
Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress would launch an impeachment inquiry over
the allegations the president sought to "shake down" his Ukrainian counterpart, unifying
six separate committee probes under one umbrella.
This isn't about a Campaign, this is about Corruption on a massive scale! https://t.co/DOCvfM8eqi
President Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing amid the controversy, arguing that
there is nothing illicit about requesting an ally to investigate potential corruption. He has
stressed that Biden himself publicly bragged about threatening to withhold US loan
guarantees to Ukraine unless the country fired its head prosecutor, who happened to be
investigating the gas firm that hired Biden's son, Hunter.
What is fascinating in the texts is the 4 attempts that Bill Taylor made to entrap
Sondland-beginning less than a week after Shifty's staffer Thomas Eager met with Bill in
Ukraine.
A showdown between the White House and Democrats is in full swing with the former penning a
letter declaring it would not cooperate with an "illegitimate" and "unconstitutional"
impeachment inquiry conducted in secret. The
letter , published on Tuesday evening, condemned the impeachment initiative in the harshest
terms yet, arguing it deprived President Trump of "constitutionally mandated due
process," and that the inquiry lacked legal legitimacy, as it was never authorized by a
House vote.
Congressional Democrats have flouted the Constitution and all past bipartisan precedent
under the guise of an "impeachment inquiry."
You have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses,
to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and
many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans.
"You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the
separation of powers," the letter continued "All of this violates the Constitution, the
rule of law, and every past precedent ." [emphasis in original]
The White House accused Democrats of using impeachment as a tool to not only "undo the
democratic results" of the previous election, but to "influence" the upcoming
contest as well, citing the words of Congressman Al Green (D-Texas), who in May expressed
concerns that "if we don't impeach the President, he will get reelected."
The letter also notes that ranking Republican committee members had not been granted the
same subpoena powers as the Democratic chairmen leading the impeachment process – as they
were during previous inquiries – slamming the process as unfair and
"one-sided."
Earlier on Monday, the Democratic committee chairs issued a subpoena to compel the testimony
of EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, a key figure in the inquiry, after the White House signaled
that it would block his appearance before Congress. The Trump administration appears to be
doubling down on that move, arguing in the letter that it will simply not comply with future
subpoenas.
Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of
fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be
expected to participate in it.
Going along with the inquiry under its "current unconstitutional posture" would
"inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the
separation of powers," the letter said, adding that Democrats have "left the president
no choice" but to refuse to cooperate.
The missive is the White House's latest response to intensifying impeachment efforts
spearheaded by House Democrats, who launched the proceedings late last month accusing Trump of
pressuring the President of Ukraine to probe into the activities of former Vice President Joe
Biden and his son in the country.
Several Democratic opponents shot back at the document, some denouncing the move as an act
of obstruction.
"The White House letter is only the latest attempt to cover up his betrayal of our
democracy, and to insist that the President is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi in a statement on Tuesday, adding the president had "normalize[d]
lawlessness."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Called the House Rules Committee office this morning. In order for House Rules to change
after they pass at the start of the session – in this case January 2019 –
there would have to be a vote taken. In looking at the House Resolution ( https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/6/all-actions
) all actions occurred in Jan. this year so no vote to amend has been taken. That doesn't
mean that Nan won't use this wonk's paper to bolster her position OR that a particular
committee didn't change their rules. But according to the person I spoke with, the standing
House Rules can not be changed without a vote.
The gentleman also said that Congressional Research Service papers are just that –
interpretations/research on a particular subject that do not hold any legislative weight.
They are requested anonymously so there probably isn't a way to trace who
requested this particular paper or how it ended up being authored by Rybicki (one of seven
she's written this year). Additional little tidbit is that the papers can be requested by
members of Congress or their staff members.
While trying to figure it out on my own found this chilling little factoid from the Rules
Committee page re: bills considered under a "special rules" scenerio ( https://rules.house.gov/about archived here:
http://archive.fo/VIK1C ):
"The Committee has the authority to do virtually anything during the course of consideration
of a measure, including deeming it passed. The Committee can also include a self-executed
amendment which could rewrite just parts of a bill, or the entire measure. In essence, so
long as a majority of the House is willing to vote for a special rule, there is little that
the Rules Committee cannot do. " (emphasis mine)
That makes the House Rules Committee more powerful that the full house voting on "special
rules" bills. Well doesn't that just sound .wrong.
No doubt many surprises lie ahead. Yet the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives have passed the point of no
return. The time for prudential judgments -- the Republican-controlled Senate will never convict, so why bother? -- is gone for good.
To back down now would expose the president's pursuers as spineless cowards. The
New York Times,
the
Washington Post,
CNN,
and
MSNBC
would not soon forgive such craven behavior.
As this process unspools, what politicians like to call "the people's business" will go essentially unattended.
Notable quotes:
"... It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out to the Ukrainian government to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates . Considering that both of those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle. ..."
As the phony
impeachment
investigation
targeting President Donald Trump rumbles on, there really is no definitive list of questions that
as yet remain unanswered. Were anyone to compile such a list, it would probably start with five
questions that strike at the heart of the entire affair.
These questions clarify whether the current process is being conducted correctly or is
colored by partisan hostility
– and, indeed, whether the Russian "collusion" investigation
was similarly tainted.
1. Ukraine-DNC Connection?
It seems curious, to say the least, that neither the FBI nor former special counsel Robert
Mueller discovered the successful 2016 efforts by the Democratic National Committee to reach out
to the
Ukrainian
government
to provide dirt on Trump and his campaign associates
.
Considering that both of
those investigations were focused on uncovering a possible conspiracy with a foreign power to
influence the presidential election, why was the Ukraine-DNC connection not looked into? It can
only be gross incompetence or a deliberate decision to overlook that vital piece of the puzzle.
2. Anonymous Witnesses?
The so-called whistleblower who came forward with a complaint about the nature of the
president's phone conversation with the new Ukrainian president is hardly a credible witness
since he or she had no firsthand knowledge of the call. Democrats are already making elaborate
but secretive plans to extract testimony from this individual. Can his or her identity be kept
from the public – and from the president – indefinitely?
The president's opponents cannot possibly believe that they can impeach Trump using
secondhand allegations provided by an anonymous source. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has vowed
that, if Democrats refuse to identify this "whistleblower," then he will ensure that any Senate
impeachment trial will do so. Further, it would be necessary for the identities of White House
sources from whom the whistleblower claims to have obtained information to be exposed.
Regardless of laws and rules designed to protect whistleblowers, any formal impeachment
cannot be based upon testimony from unknown persons. Given that Democrats, since day one of the
Trump presidency, have made no secret of their desire to impeach the president, the entire
credibility of such an effort would stand or fall on complete transparency. The American public
and the president himself deserve nothing less than to know the identities of the accusers and
the sources from which they drew their information.
3. Another Whistleblower?
At least one additional whistleblower has now come forward, according to reports, but does
this fact change anything? Indeed, the outrage over the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelensky appears even more fabricated the more that anonymous individuals
come forward with complaints. Already, it is highly suspicious that almost three weeks passed
between the phone call itself and the filing of a
complaint
about
what was said. Additional complaints filed even later hardly bolster the credibility of the case
against Trump.
4. Schiff's Role?
How has Rep. Adam Schiff's (D-CA) role in this latest assault upon the president compromised
the entire process? Schiff has been less than forthcoming about his knowledge of events or the
extent to which his own staffers worked with the whistleblower even before any complaint was
filed with the intelligence community's inspector general.
Adam Schiff
As if the congressman were not already looking foolish and dishonest, his performance at a
recent hearing was reason enough for Schiff to be compelled to recuse himself. During the event,
he read out his own version of what Trump said to Zelensky – which bore no resemblance to the
now-public transcript. The very idea that Schiff has either the capability or the desire to
conduct a fair and objective investigation is utterly laughable.
5. Window Of Opportunity?
Finally, how big is the window of opportunity for congressional Democrats to impeach the
president? They may have so far avoided making the process official, but articles of impeachment
must, at some point, be brought to the floor of the House for a vote.
Once the opposition party chooses its presidential nominee, the campaign for the White House
begins in earnest, and impeaching Trump during an election campaign is going to be seen as
purely an attempt to influence the 2020 election – even by those Americans who do not already
see it as such.
Democrats, therefore, have around eight months to conclude their investigations, draw up
articles of impeachment, and bring them up for debate and a vote. The holiday season will take a
bite out of that time, so the clock is ticking. The chances of impeachment going before the
Senate before the 2020 Democratic National Convention are slim to none.
These five basic questions, when answered objectively,
determine whether there is any
realistic chance of Trump's enemies removing him from office before the next election
or
this entire
exercise
is,
for Democrats, a
political catastrophe.
The public isn't buying any of this because people are
desensitized after hearing for 3 years that Trump will be gone in
days, the walls are closing in, etc. 3 years of that **** and it
was all nonsense. Remember how every Friday was going to be the
day that Mueller dropped the dime on Trump? You can't do that for
years and expect people to have any ***** left to give. That
shipped has sailed.
I want to know about
Burisma
. It is at the heart of the
matter.
I want a timeline of their recent activities, board of
directors etc. Why was their money seized in London? Who
released it and why? Who asked Biden to join the board and why?
Both Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky have said the impeachment
tactic a a major mistake. Chomsky says the Dems have not discussed
jobs, economy, etc even once. They have only satisfied their own
shallow egos by screaming "RussiaGate" "Impeachment" etc.
according to Chomsky.
This latest impeachment effort is as phony as all get out. It is
for show to the Democratic base and it is guaranteed to fail. As
long as Trump is handling the Epstein investigations. Heat from
democrats is going to be completely manageable.
http://quillian.net/blog/an-epstein-deal-is-in-place/
Yeah, the whole Biden corruption stuff has been debunked just like the Trump-Putin
conspiracy. But lots of people still believe one debunking or the other. It all depends on
which side of the infowars you find yourself. The facts themselves are too obscure and
byzantine.
And while we're at it, get a handle on what Hunter Biden, Biden's bundler, and the CIA
friendly former president of Poland were all doing on Burisma's board ostensibly with no
knowledge of it all from Obama's point man on Ukraine--Joe Biden.
'Why do the CIA assassins and coup-plotters love this "whistleblower"?'
" Ninety former national security officials under the Obama and Bush administrations -- and
three who served for a period under Donald Trump -- have signed an "Open Letter to the American
People" defending the CIA officer, as yet unidentified, whose whistleblower complaint has
become the basis for the House of Representatives opening an impeachment inquiry into the
president.
The signers "applaud the whistleblower not only for living up to that responsibility but
also for using precisely the channels made available by federal law for raising such
concerns."
They further claim, "A responsible whistleblower makes all Americans safer by ensuring that
serious wrongdoing can be investigated and addressed What's more, being a responsible
whistleblower means that, by law, one is protected from certain egregious forms of
retaliation."
They draw the conclusion that the anti-Trump whistleblower's identity must be protected at
all costs, writing that "he or she has done what our law demands; now he or she deserves our
protection."
This professed defense of whistleblowing as a critical function of democracy would be more
convincing if it did not come from high officials in the administration that prosecuted more
leakers and whistleblowers than all previous US administrations combined.
The signers include former CIA directors John Brennan, Michael Hayden and Michael Morell,
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ,
former Defense Undersecretary Michele Flournoy, former Undersecretary of State for Political
Affairs Wendy Sherman (Obama's point-woman on Ukraine). Bush administration officials who
signed the letter include Matthew G. Olsen, former head of the Justice Department's National
Security Division, and Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary for policy,
Department of Homeland Security. Among the former Trump aides who signed is Andrea
Kendall-Taylor, former deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the
National Security Council.
These officials had a much different attitude toward genuine American whistleblowers like
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden and John Kiriakou, who exposed crimes of US imperialism.
Manning supplied WikiLeaks with Pentagon files documenting US war crimes in Iraq and
Afghanistan as well as State Department cables showing US conspiracies against governments
around the world. Snowden brought to light NSA spying on the entire world. Kiriakou exposed CIA
torture in secret overseas prisons during the "war on terror."
None of these genuine whistleblowers received any form of protection. On the contrary, they
were rebuffed in their efforts to expose atrocities by the US military-intelligence apparatus
and felt compelled to release the information to the public. For their courageous actions, they
have been brutally persecuted." [snip]
"In a recent commentary in Consortium News , Kiriakou noted the contrast between his
own treatment and that accorded the "whistleblower" in the Ukraine case. He wrote, "If he's a
whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career
is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing." [snip]
"In other words, the former CIA agent suggests, the entire "whistleblower" complaint against
Trump is likely an operation directed by higher-level officials at the agency.
Similar questions are raised in a remarkable
article posted Monday on the website of Rolling Stone magazine, written by its main
political writer Matt Taibbi."
And if you haven't seen it already:
"Meet the Press" anchor Chuck Todd grills senator: "You don't trust the FBI and CIA?", Barry
Grey, wsws.org
And of course Grey speaks to the irony and hypocrisy afoot with Senators Ron Johnson and
Chris Murphy as well:
"When Johnson evaded Todd's questions concerning Trump's bullying of Ukraine to advance his
personal electoral chances, and instead repeatedly raised the Clinton campaign's collaboration
with Ukrainian officials against Trump, Todd exclaimed as though in exasperated disbelief:
" Do you not trust the FBI? You don't trust the CIA? "
Johnson replied, "Absolutely not," to which Todd responded incredulously, "You don't trust
any of those agencies?" [snip]
"The Democrats and their media chorus present what was rightly known as America's "Murder,
Incorporated," along with its domestic counterpart, the FBI, as pillars of "democracy,"
improbable as this would seem to anyone familiar with the criminal history of these
organizations. They evidently believe that the public is infinitely gullible and suffering from
collective memory loss.
These, after all, are the organizations that justified the war in Iraq on the basis of the
Big Lie of "weapons of mass destruction." They created the fraudulent narrative of the "war on
terror" to justify aggressive wars in Afghanistan, the Middle East and North Africa that killed
millions and destroyed entire societies . Meanwhile, in Libya and Syria, they funded and
collaborated with Al Qaeda-linked terrorist militias in wars for regime-change.
The CIA has engineered coups and installed military dictatorships and far-right regimes all
over the world. It would take many volumes to detail all of the lies and crimes of these
pillars of the "deep state" against the people of the United States and the entire world."
[snip]
"Todd's next guest was Senator Chris Murphy (Democrat from Connecticut), who co-sponsored
with Johnson the bill to provide more arms to Kiev. Murphy repeatedly attacked Johnson for a
lack of "patriotism."
The final guest was John Brennan -- now a senior national security and intelligence analyst
for NBC -- whom Todd presented as a national hero unjustly slandered and victimized by Trump
and his political allies. Introducing the 25-year veteran of the CIA, who served as deputy
executive director under George W. Bush and director under Barack Obama, Todd asked: "And how
would you explain to somebody, you have been completely character assassinated and eviscerated
Do you understand how you got here?"
Brennan replied that he has indeed been "pilloried as an example of the deep state." To
which Todd exclaimed indignantly: "Well, at this point, it's a campaign to destroy the
credibility of the intelligence community. Even now, Senator Johnson would not affirm that he
trusted the CIA and FBI right now. What does that say about those two agencies right now and
their ability to conduct the work of protecting America?"
Brennan took the opportunity provided by Todd to denounce the "disinformation" that is
"inundating the airwaves," singling out "social media platforms," with the implication that
media sources that do not disseminate the CIA line should be shut down or censored. "
Grey finishes with a brief resumé of Brennan's fascistic Imperial crimes.
"This entire country should be scared that at a moment when we need patriots, what we are
getting is blind partisan loyalty." pic.twitter.com/Fvq2OAriKo
'We Absolutely Could Not Do That': When Seeking Foreign
Help Was Out of the Question https://nyti.ms/30Lkzni
NYT - Peter Baker - October 6
WASHINGTON -- One day in October 1992, four Republican congressmen showed up in the Oval
Office with an audacious recommendation. President George Bush was losing his re-election
race, and they told him the only way to win was to hammer his challenger Bill Clinton's
patriotism for protesting the Vietnam War while in London and visiting Moscow as a young
man.
Mr. Bush was largely on board with that approach. But what came next crossed the line, as
far as he and his team were concerned. "They wanted us to contact the Russians or the British
to seek information on Bill Clinton's trip to Moscow," James A. Baker III, Mr. Bush's White
House chief of staff, wrote in a memo (*) later that day. "I said we absolutely could not do
that."
President Trump insists he and his attorney general did nothing wrong by seeking damaging
information about his domestic opponents from Ukraine, Australia, Italy and Britain or by
publicly calling on China to investigate his most prominent Democratic challenger. But for
every other White House in the modern era, Republican and Democratic, the idea of enlisting
help from foreign powers for political advantage was seen as unwise and politically
dangerous, if not unprincipled.
A survey of 10 former White House chiefs of staff under Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush,
Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama found that none recalled any circumstance under
which the White House had solicited or accepted political help from other countries, and all
said they would have considered the very idea out of bounds.
"I served three presidents in the White House and don't remember even hearing any
speculation to consider asking for such action," said Andrew H. Card Jr., who ran the younger
Mr. Bush's White House and was the longest-serving chief of staff in the last six
decades.
William M. Daley, who served as commerce secretary under Mr. Clinton and chief of staff
under Mr. Obama, said if someone had even proposed such an action, he probably would
"recommend the person be escorted out of" the White House, then fired and reported to ethics
officials.
Other chiefs were just as definitive. "Did not happen on Reagan's watch. Would not have
happened on Reagan's watch," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, his last chief of staff. "I would
have shut him down," said Leon E. Panetta, who served as Mr. Clinton's chief of staff and Mr.
Obama's defense secretary.
The sense of incredulity among White House veterans in recent days crossed party and
ideological lines. "This is unprecedented," said Samuel K. Skinner, who preceded Mr. Baker as
chief of staff under Mr. Bush. Other chiefs who said they never encountered such a situation
included Thomas F. McLarty III and John D. Podesta (Clinton) and Rahm Emanuel, Denis R.
McDonough and Jacob J. Lew (Obama).
History has shown that foreign affairs can be treacherous for presidents, even just the
suspicion of mixing politics with the national interest. As a candidate in 1968, Richard M.
Nixon sought to forestall a Vietnam peace deal by President Lyndon B. Johnson just before the
election.
Associates of Mr. Reagan were accused of trying to delay the release of hostages by Iran
when he was a candidate in 1980 for fear that it would aid President Jimmy Carter, but a
bipartisan House investigation concluded that there was no merit to the charge. Mr. Clinton
faced months of investigation over 1996 campaign contributions from Chinese interests tied to
the Beijing government.
In none of those cases did an incumbent president personally apply pressure to foreign
powers to damage political opponents. Mr. Trump pressed Ukraine's president this summer to
investigate involvement with Democrats in 2016 and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
while holding up $391 million in American aid. Mr. Trump has said he was simply investigating
corruption, not trying to benefit himself.
"The right way to look at it is the vice president was selling our country out," Rudolph
W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, said in an interview on Sunday. Mr. Trump was
fulfilling his duty, he said. "I don't see what the president did wrong."
Mr. Giuliani has been leading Mr. Trump's efforts to dig up evidence of corruption by the
Democrats in Ukraine, meeting with various officials and negotiating a commitment by the
newly installed government in Kiev to investigate conspiracy theories about Ukrainian
involvement in the 2016 election and supposed conflicts of interest by Mr. Biden.
Told that past White House chiefs of staff said any legitimate allegations should be
handled by the Justice Department, not the president, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's if you can
trust the Justice Department. My witnesses don't trust the Justice Department, and they don't
trust the F.B.I." He added that he would not have either until Attorney General William P.
Barr took over.
Mr. Barr has contacted foreign officials for help in investigating the origin of the
special counsel investigation by Robert S. Mueller III into Russian interference and ties
with Mr. Trump's campaign, part of an effort to prove that the whole matter was a "hoax," as
the president has insisted.
Mr. Trump defends himself by saying that other presidents have leaned on foreign
governments for help. That is true, but when other presidents have pressured counterparts and
even held up American assistance to coerce cooperation, it has generally been to achieve
certain policy goals -- not to advance the president's personal or political agenda.
As an example, Mr. Trump often cites Mr. Obama, who was overheard telling President Dmitri
Medvedev of Russia in 2012 that he would have more "more flexibility" to negotiate missile
defense after the fall election. While that may be objectionable, it is not the same thing as
asking a foreign government to intervene in an American election.
"They assume everybody's as sleazy and dirty as they are, which is not the case," Mr.
Emanuel said.
Mr. Trump points to Mr. Biden, arguing that the former vice president was the one who
abused his power by threatening to withhold $1 billion in American aid to Ukraine unless it
fired its prosecutor general.
Mr. Biden's son Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company,
earning $50,000 a month. The company's oligarch owner, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been a subject
of cases overseen by the prosecutor, and so Mr. Trump contends that Mr. Biden sought the
prosecutor's ouster to benefit his son.
As a matter of appearances, at least, the former vice president's family left him open to
suspicion. Even some of his defenders say it was unseemly for Hunter Biden to seemingly trade
on his family name. The elder Mr. Biden has said he never discussed his son's business
dealings in Ukraine with him, but some Democrats suggest he should have if only to prevent
just such a situation from arising.
For all of that, however, no evidence has emerged that Mr. Biden moved to push out the
prosecutor to benefit his son. No memo or text message has become public linking the two.
None of the American officials who were involved at the time have come forward alleging any
connection. No whistle-blower has filed a complaint.
In pressing for the prosecutor's ouster, Mr. Biden was carrying out Mr. Obama's policy as
developed by his national security team and coordinated with European allies and the
International Monetary Fund, all of which considered the Ukrainian prosecutor to be
deliberately overlooking corruption.
Indeed, at the time Mr. Biden acted, there was no public evidence that the prosecutor's
office was actively pursuing investigations of Burisma, although Mr. Zlochevsky's allies say
the prosecutor continued to use the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from the
oligarch and his team.
The 1992 episode involving Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker provides an intriguing case study in the
way previous administrations have viewed seeking political help overseas. At the time, Mr.
Bush was trailing in the polls and eager for any weapon to turn things around.
Representatives Robert K. Dornan, Duncan Hunter and Duke Cunningham of California and Sam
Johnson of Texas urged the president to ask Russia and Britain for help.
Mr. Dornan, reached last week, said Mr. Baker offered no objections during the meeting.
"Baker sat there in the Oval Office like a bump on a log," he recalled. "He said nothing." If
Mr. Baker advised Mr. Bush not to reach out to foreign governments, then he did so after the
congressmen had left, Mr. Dornan said.
Mr. Dornan said that was a mistake and that Mr. Bush should have done as Mr. Trump has.
"The bottom line from me was, 'If you don't do this, Mr. President, leader of the free world,
you will lose,'" Mr. Dornan said. "And he didn't do it and he lost. Baker cost Bush that
second term."
As it was, Mr. Baker and some of his aides got in trouble anyway because State Department
employees searched Mr. Clinton's passport file to determine whether he had ever tried to
renounce his American citizenship. They found no such evidence, but an independent counsel
was appointed to investigate whether the search violated any laws.
The attorney general who requested the investigation? Mr. Barr, in his first tour running
the Justice Department. The independent counsel who was appointed? Joseph diGenova, a lawyer
now helping Mr. Giuliani look for information in Ukraine. In the passport case, Mr. diGenova
concluded that no laws had been broken and that he should never have been appointed in first
place.
As for seeking help from Russia and Britain, Mr. Baker declined to comment last week, but
his peers said he did exactly as they would have. "It would have been ludicrous at that stage
to do anything," Mr. Skinner said. "Baker's decision was obviously the right one."
* Read the 1992 Memo President George Bush's Team
Sent About Seeking Foreign Help to Beat Bill Clinton
When Republican congressmen suggested Mr. Bush reach out to Russia or Britain for
information that could help him win his re-election race against Bill Clinton, James A. Baker
III, then the White House chief of staff, wrote this memo.
This is pretty superficial: Ukraine is vassal state dully controlled by Washington (kind of
Puerto Rico); what foreign influence we are talking about ?
Peter Baker just repeats Clinton camp talking points.
Ukrainian security establishment and probably large part of Ukrainian Congress (Rada) is
probably fully controlled by CIA.
So anything Ukrainian side was doing to interfere with the US election has to be ordered
from Washington, DC (which was done by "Obama regime", who wanted dirt of Trump team)
The CIA
officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out
the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out all of us."
Notable quotes:
"... If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president, then his career is probably over. ..."
From a former CIA whistleblower: "If he's a whistleblower, and not a CIA plant whose task it is to take down the president,
then his career is probably over. Intelligence agencies only pay lip service to whistleblowing. A potential whistleblower
is supposed to go through the chain of command as the current whistleblower did...
So even if he is a legitimate whistleblower, the CIA officer who contacted the IG on Trump will never be trusted internally
again. The view in Langley will be, "If he's willing to rat out the president of the United States, he'd be willing to rat out
all of us." https://consortiumnews.com/2019/09/30/john-kiriakou-what-was-this-cia-officer-thinking/
Strange, very strange and suspicious, too, particularly since Mike Morrell, former head of the CIA, helped start the campaign
against Trump?
Do we really want spooks meddling in domestic politics?
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
A CIA employee who lodged a whistleblower complaint over President Trump's request that Ukraine
investigate former Vice President Joe Biden
has a "professional relationship with one of
the 2020 candidates,"
according to the
Washington
Examiner
's
Byron York - citing a source familiar with last Friday's impeachment inquiry
interview with Inspector General Michael Atkinson.
Now we know why House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) won't release the
transcript...
"
The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship
with one of the Democratic candidates
," said York's source.
"What [Atkinson] said was that the whistleblower self-disclosed that he was a registered
Democrat and that he had a prior working relationship with a current 2020 Democratic presidential
candidate," said a
third
person with knowledge of the testimony.
All three sources said Atkinson did not identify the Democratic candidate with whom the
whistleblower had a connection. It is unclear what the working or professional relationship
between the two was.
In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on
the whistleblower's part, "
such evidence did not change my determination that the
complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible,' particularly given the other
information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review
."
Democrats are certain to take that position when Republicans allege that the
whistleblower acted out of bias
. Indeed, the transcript of
Trump's
July 25 call
with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a public document, for all to
see. One can read it regardless of the whistleblower's purported bias. -
Washington
Examiner
In short, a registered Democrat on the CIA payroll went to Adam Schiff's committee, who referred
him to a Democratic operative attorney, who helped him file a whistleblower complaint on a form
which
was altered to allow second-hand information
.
Update:
Former State Department official Peter Van Buren told
Tucker
Carlson
on Monday that
the second 'whistleblower' is simply the the source for the
original 'second-hand' complaint.
(h/t Gateway Pundit)
"... New Knowledge's victory lap was short-lived. On December 19, a New York Times story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017 special election for the US Senate. ..."
"... Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to support a write-in candidate instead. ..."
"... In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet. ..."
US cyber-security experts have blamed Russia for meddling in American elections since 2016.
Now it has emerged that authors of a Senate report on 'Russian' meddling actually ran a "false
flag" meddling operation themselves. A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee
released a report accusing Russia of depressing Democrat voter turnout by targeting
African-Americans on social media. Its authors, New Knowledge, quickly became a household
name.
Described by the New
York Times as a group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has
ties to both the US military and intelligence agencies. Its CEO and co-founder Jonathon Morgan
previously worked for DARPA, the US military's advanced research agency. His partner, Ryan Fox,
is a 15-year veteran of the National Security Agency who also worked as a computer analyst for
the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). Their unique skill sets have managed to attract
the eye of investors, who pumped $11 million into the company in 2018 alone. Morgan and Fox
have struck gold in the "Russiagate" racket, which sprung into being after Hillary
Clinton blamed Moscow for Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2016. Morgan, for example, is
one of the developers of the Hamilton 68 Dashboard, the online tool that purports to monitor
and expose narratives being pushed by the Kremlin on Twitter. The dashboard is bankrolled by
the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for Securing Democracy – a collection of Democrats
and neoconservatives funded in part by NATO and USAID.
It is worth noting that the 600 "Russia-linked" Twitter accounts monitored by the
dashboard are not disclosed to the public, making it impossible to verify its claims. This
inconvenience has not stopped Hamilton 68 from becoming a go-to source for hysteria-hungry
journalists, however.
From the way it was formed to the secrecy of its "methods" to the blatantly false
assumptions on which its claims rest, "Hamilton68" is probably the single most successful
media fraud & US propaganda campaign I've seen since I've been writing about politics.
It's truly shocking.
New Knowledge's victory lap was short-lived. On December 19, a New York Times
story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created a fake army of Russian bots, as well as
fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in Alabama's 2017
special election for the US Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake
Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several
Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to
support a write-in candidate instead.
In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had "orchestrated an elaborate 'false
flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by
a Russian botnet."
It worked. The botnet claim made a splash on social media and was further amplified by
Mother Jones , which based its story on expert opinion from Morgan's other dubious
creation, Hamilton 68.
Ultimately, Moore ended up losing the race by a miniscule 1.5 percentage points –
making his opponent Doug Jones the first Democrat to represent Alabama in the US Senate in over
25 years.
Money trail and weak apologies
Things got even weirder when it turned out that Scott Shane, the author of the Times piece,
had known about the meddling for months, because he spoke at an event where the organizers
boasted about it!
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement
Technologies, a group run by Mikey Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar.
Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to suppress Republican
votes, " enrage" Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a "false flag" to hurt
Moore. He dubbed it "Project Birmingham."
This gets even weirder: NYT reporter @ScottShaneNYT , who broke the
Alabama disinfo op story, learned of it in early September when he spoke at an off-the-record
event organized by one of the firms that perpetrated the deception https://t.co/gIAytOh2yy
The money for the venture came from a $750,000 contribution to AET by Reid Hoffman, the
billionaire co-founder of LinkedIn and a big Democrat donor. Once that emerged, Hoffman offered
a public apology for his connection to the shady operation, but insisted that he didn't know
what his money was going towards.
" I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing ," Hoffman
said in a statement.
"For that reason, I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET -- the organization I did
support -- more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would
reject."
As for Shane, he told BuzzFeed that he was "shocked" by the revelations, but had
signed a nondisclosure agreement at the request of AET, so he could not talk about it
further.
Spin and denial
Shane's spin on the tale was that New Knowledge "imitated Russian tactics" as part of
an "experiment" that had a budget of "only" $100,000 and had no effect on the
election. Yet these tactics are only considered "Russian" because New Knowledge and
similar outfits said so! Moreover, New Knowledge's budget in Alabama was greater than the
reported amount spent by "Russians" on the 2016 US presidential election, yet Moscow's
alleged meddling was supposed to be decisive, while New Knowledge's failed?
New Knowledge responded to the Times story by insisting that the "false flag"
operation was actually a benign research project. In a statement posted on Twitter, the
company's CEO claimed that its activities during the Alabama Senate race were conducted in
order to "better understand and report on the tactics and effects of social media
disinformation."
Morgan emphasized that he in no way took part in an influence campaign, and warned people
not to mischaracterize his "research."
While the New York Times seemed satisfied with his explanation, others pointed out that
Morgan had used the Hamilton 68 dashboard to give his "false flag" more credibility
– misleading the public about a "Russian" influence campaign that he knew was
fake.
New Knowledge's protestations apparently didn't convince Facebook, which announced last
week that five accounts linked to New Knowledge – including Morgan's – had been
suspended for engaging in "coordinated inauthentic behavior."
Meddlers
unmasked
The final nail in the coffin of Morgan's story came on Thursday, when the leaked secret
after-action report from "Project Birmingham" was published online, showing that those
behind the Alabama campaign knew perfectly well what they were doing and why.
BREAKING: Here's the after-action report from the AL Senate disinfo campaign.
So, it turns out there really was meddling in American democracy by "Russian bots."
Except they weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg, but from the offices of Democrat
operatives chiefly responsible for creating and amplifying the "Russiagate" hysteria
over the past two years in a textbook case of psychological projection.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
"... My belief is that many things are classified for the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much. ..."
"... In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten worse since the 2014 coup. ..."
"... That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides. ..."
"... And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to work. ..."
"... For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with. ..."
"... The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to be Trump's prison bride. ..."
"... The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence. ..."
"A second whistleblower is now considering filing a complaint about President Donald Trump's
conduct regarding Ukraine, the New York
Times reported Friday.
This whistleblower has "more direct information about the events than the first
whistle-blower," according to the Times. It's a claim that, if true, could bolster the
credibility of the initial complaint that triggered the Democrats' impeachment inquiry into
whether Trump solicited election interference from Ukraine.
The first whistleblower's complaint, which was released in redacted
form to the public in late September , alleged that on a July 25 phone call Trump pressured
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to push for investigations into potential 2020 rival Joe
Biden." Vox
------------
The lawyer representing this person states that he has "multiple whistleblowers" as clients.
Ah! How clever! Are all these public spirited citizens career employees of the CIA? Little
birds still twittering in the trees in my back garden tell me they are. This sounds like a CIA
conspiracy designed to force Trump from office. The WH and NSC staffs are peopled by some
political appointees and a horde of career people detailed from various departments of the
Executive Branch; CIA, Defense, State, Justice , Treasury, etc. The lending agency selects the
people who are lent. The opportunity for someone like Brennan who still has a lot of faithful
followers at CIA to plant a group of informants and operatives in Trump's WH has been evident
and remains so.
My instincts and the application of Occam's Razor lead me to the conclusion that there is an
"operations room" somewhere that is coordinating the efforts to remove Trump from office in
what does amount to a "soft coup d'etat." A fair minded person looking back over Trump's term
will see that the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration
and have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies.
This cannot be accidental and it will continue through his second term if he has one. Trump is
leader of a counter-revolution of the Deplorables. From the point of view of the Globalist Left
Trump must be removed and prevented from doing things like packing the federal judiciary with
pro-Deplorable judges. Stay tuned. PL
I have no connections with the CIA and I considered Trump to be incompetent ever since he
came down that escalator and continued downhill. I would think that many in the government
would agree with me and would have more firsthand knowledge of his misdeeds. So, it is
probably more of a consensus than conspiracy at hand.
Many see the income inequality as a big problem and unsustainable. We don't want the
historical remedies, which were the French and Russian revolutions. The good news is that
there are important discussions about it...
Unlike you I know a great deal about CIA. I have two medals from them for assistig their
overseas ops in specific cases. The fact that you are sympathetic to their campaign to eject
Trump from office means little. You have always hated Trump.
Do you wish to hold Deplorables accountable for Trump, in what way?
I can excuse Trump a great deal of his unconventional style and behavior for exactly one
reason; he was legitimately elected, according to the Constitution, to the office he
presently holds. This, together with the huge turnouts at his rallies, is evidence that a
sizeable segment of the population does not consider him corrupt and in fact still ardently
believe that he has their best interests at heart. Who am I to disagree?
If the Dems can produce real evidence of corruption then impeachment will be
appropriate. But what we are seeing right now is a plot to use impeachment as the
continuation of democracy by other means - heck Rep. Al Green even said so out loud. The Deep
State wants rid of Trump, but last time I looked, in the absence of High Crimes, it is still
the People who get to make this decision.
A while back our host came up with a brilliant alternative motto for the CIA;
"L'état, c'est nous". It seems clear that elements in the CIA now want to accomplish
regime change domestically. I hope that Trump accomplishes what JFK could not and scatters
them to the winds.
Sir,
Can you kindly tell me what specific crimes were perpetrated by Pres Trump say in comparison
to Pres Bush (starting an illegal war on trumped up charges in Iraq and many others including
use of torture) or by Pres Obama (overlooking the banksters fraud on the American people or
starting the illegal Libya operation). So you are willing to give the above two saints a
pass, and hold Trump for a higher standards, I am wondering what is this higher standard?
By all means, impeach him for high crimes. I don't know what those would be, and neither do
you. The Borg wants him gone because he is a disrupter to the established corrupt status quo
of both parties. I didn't vote for him in '16, but plan to in '20. Tulsi Gabbard is the only
Dem I would consider voting for.
Y'know, Biden isn't really "the candidate" at present, but simply an aspirant. So why is it a
big deal if in a phone call Trump suggests some sort of Douchebaggery on Biden's part was in
play with the deal involving the sinecure for his cokehead son? And furthermore, it seems to
me that Trump would relish having Biden, the eternal weak sister, as his opponent in next
year's election. So, the idea that this is a campaign tactic by Trump, to me just doesn't
pencil out. As for the WH lawn thing? Injudicious maybe, but I'd like to hear a cogent
explanation of why it's a violation of law.
Nancy has the majority in the House. 235 members in her caucus. All she needs is 218 votes
to send the Bill of Impeachment to the Senate for a trial. This charade they are playing by
not having a full House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry is to prevent the minority from
having any voice in the proceedings. This is NOT about high crimes. This is an attempt at
political decapitation. As Democrat Rep. Al Green said - we need to impeach him or else he'll
be re-elected. Nancy and her posse don't want the American electorate from making their
choice if Trump should have a second term.
The big question is if 20 Republican senators will join all the Democrats in convicting
Trump? We know guys like Romney will, who else will join him from the GOP side?
An attack on democracy he claims. Yet he was one of the chief advocates of the Russia
Collusion hysteria wherein the Obama administration used both domestic & foreign
intelligence to ACTUALLY INTERFERE in an election. That was an attack on the very foundation
of our Republic.
Former CIA director John O. Brennan, whose security clearance was revoked by president Trump,
was given six minutes to talk on today's Meet the Press program on the NBC television
network--
"....the attempts to undermine and bring him down began the day after his inauguration and
have continued ever since in wave after wave of accusations and press induced frenzies."
Sir
Other than tweet furiously, my perception is that Trump has not fought back. Considering
the persistence of the putschists, I would have expected him to have been far more ruthless,
aggressive and pointed in taking the battle to the Deep State.
I don't understand what happened to the CIA. It has morphed from "a university gone to war"
to some kind of bizarro globalist socialist anti-American ideals HQ with a neocon twist. Did
that happen under Obama?
Does anyone know when the Dems started investigating Trump? Was it during the campaign? Or
the day after the election? Did they receive help from a British
intel operator? Silly me I've just assumed all of the lead contenders investigate
the competition.
It was never a "university gone to war." The first generation were OSS men from the
elites. The next generation of leaders were former military intelligence enlisted operatives
whom the elites recruited from the services as people who would do the hard work for them.
Want me to name them? The present generation are antifa types who have infiltrated the
system. They are Brennan and Clapper's natural allies. You do remember that Brennan voted for
Gus Hall?
There is no "line" in this case. Trmp is not a threat to the constitution. He has done
nothing to threaten the constitution. You leftists are simply attempting to eject him from
office qlong with your allies in the Deep State and the media, some of them in Fox News.
It's a war of Globalists Vs Nationalism/Populism. And Trump is in the way of the
Globalists who wants their Totalitarian Iron Fist Rule over all humanity.
Trump and Putin both advocate Nationalism Vs Globalist Tyranny.
I keep hearing the talking point 'that everyone, the EU, IMF (and of course God Almighty),
wanted Shokin removed because he was corrupt, that this was not Biden's idea'. Have any of
these elite stepped up and publicly said, 'I wanted Shokin dismissed'? I wish someone in the
MSM would ask Biden how he got the idea to pressure for Shokin's removal, who else did he
discuss this with.
Regarding the Deep State
By that I mean the permanent bureaucracy in our Intelligence Community that believes they
have a right/duty to enforce orthodoxy on neer-do-well elected officials; not a hidden govt.
(IMO they are incapable of governing, they can only destroy). Their main weapon is, surprise, information warfare, selectively leaking partly true info to
a compliant MSM. This is extremely effective. How would a President combat this?
Why doesn't the President use his power of declassification to either release the full
context of the leak or to declassify past operations that the IC would find embarrassing. I
would never, under any circumstances, favor releasing info that would harm the security of
the U.S., especially for political reasons. My belief is that many things are classified for
the benefit of the IC Community. The guy from Judicial Watch said as much.
I claim no special knowledge of the CIA, but Ukraine is a place that I know well.
Everyone in the Ukrainian government is corrupt, from the postman and the fire department
all the way up to the president. Everything there is for sale, everything, everywhere, all
the time.
Of course Shokin, the fired prosecutor, was corrupt. Everyone knows it.
In fact, I would not be at all surprised if Shokin were investigating Burisma Holdings
simply to shake down the owners. That's just business in Ukraine. Things have only gotten
worse since the 2014 coup.
That said, there is no reason to hire a cokehead failson like Hunter Biden for a $600K a
year no-show job, except for the political cover he provides.
And when Shokin was fired - his replacement was just as corrupt, but the replacement left
Burisma Holdings alone. The Ukrainians got the message. And as soon as that happened, Joe
Biden suddenly stopped caring about corruption in Ukraine. In other words, the political
cover (the "krysha" as they call it there) worked exactly the way it was supposed to
work.
For that matter, Trump doesn't care about corruption in Ukraine, either. Anyone who thinks
otherwise should not buy bridges. The only thing Trump cared about was getting the Ukrainians
to provide him with a stick to beat his political opponents with.
The consideration for Ukrainian assistance was more weapons to use to sell surreptitiously
or to butcher the civilians on Donbass with. And Zelensky sounded like he was auditioning to
be Trump's prison bride.
As far as I am concerned, none of the parties come out of this looking good at all.
The difference in my mind is that in 'Russiagate' the evidence was a frame up to get Trump
impeached. The 'evidence' in this particular case seems more in what I assume almost every
political entity from the local school board on up in trying to dig up dirt on the
opposition. He does not appear to be asking anyone to 'fix' the evidence.
The 'whistleblower' feels to tale be more in the 'tattletale' category than someone at real
risk for their job and safety.
Trump solicited a campaign contribution from a foreign power and withheld congressionally
approved military aid in an act of extortion. The transcript is 7 freaking pages. If you are
okay with this you are a traitor.
Further, last night he did what Putin wanted him to do in respect to Syria and Kurdistan -
and this will like result in our ally being annihilated. If you are okay with this you are a
traitor.
You just do not understand the reality basking in your delusional neoliberal Grand
Myth.
Ukraine is not a sovereign state. At least since 2014. It is a a vassal state totally (I
mean totally) controlled from Washington, DC. Including country security services. Kind of
Puerto Rico.
Ukraine is not an independent country. It is a de-facto colony of the USA. Trump just ordered
his subordinate (in a very polite ) term to conduct investigation of criminal behaviour of Biden
family.
When the framers of the constitution gave Congress the power to impeach a president, one of
the high crimes they had in mind was acceding to what Alexander Hamilton called "the desire in
foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils". James Madison argued for
impeachment lest a president "might betray his trust to foreign powers".
The second question is whether Trump did this. The answer is also an unqualified yes. In the
published version of his phone conversation with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy,
Trump asks for the "favor" of digging up dirt on Joe Biden.
Trump is much more than the kid with his hand in the cookie jar, like a brat he smashed the
cookie jar and said "What cookie Jar? Biden did it!"
And the GOP wimps are there, either nodding in agreement, or looking the other way..
Well.. Total Sociopath, then, maybe even a full-on Psychopath.
Anti-social-personality disorders in the highest scale -so to speak- always are there
since childhood. Psychopaths are as such genetically, from birth. Unlike sociopaths.
Sociopaths usually have become as such through things/trauma's experienced in life. Their
initially healthy front-cortex is usually either damaged, or has less influence on their
behaviour. In Psychopaths, the front cortex doesn't function at all it seems, or at
sùch a low level that it can be considered absent. Psychopaths usually have a history
of seriously harming animals, people, insects, around them for fun since childhood.
End-result almost the same, though. Complete and utter lack of empathy, ( though,
Sociopaths often dó have empathy for their direct family/relatives, where Osychopaths
even lack thàt.) stratospherically elevated sense of superiority, prone to
uncontrolled ( sometimes even violent and murderous) tantrums when things do not go as he/she
wants/demands etc... Enjoyment in the suffering of others. No conscience to speak of etc.
The brand value was all he wanted and that has multiplied. It was always win-win.
Heh. I wonder if you underestimate the ruthlessness of the establishment. Once stripped of
the (so far surprisingly robust) protections afforded by elected office I imagine it's more
likely he'll be hounded to his grave pour dencourager les autres than ignored as
merely a spent pol. I doubt they'll observe the decencies of the mafia and leave his family
alone either.
The US is a tinpot republic that ever since the Patriot Act has virtually reduced all
citizens to enemies of a paranoid state, untl proven otherwise.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of an
impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
all the patriot act did was tell the American people that the government doesn't give a
"hoot" about the US constitution (specifically the 4th amendment). If the American people
wish to trade their freedom for their security, then the constitutionally legal way to do
that is with another amendment effectively repealing the fourth.
In a strange sort of way a president like Trump seems like the ideal sort of man to head
such a dysfunctional system (because it reflects how uncivilised it is).
The American public have been groomed for years, mainly through cutting education budgets, to
accept this kind of president. The pesky internet tends to even things up, but people need to
want to use it. They certainly will when their buying power drops.
Put another way - even if a piece of political theatre does take place (in the shape of
an impeachment) it is only a matter of time before Trump is replaced by an unequally
unappetising leader who will resume business as usual with powers that really control US
economic and military policy.
It goes in a pendulum swing. Bush, Obama, Trump, Someone Else... It's not so much a right
left swing as an Idiot-swing. What the American public want is someone they can admire. Many
people admired Obama but so do many people admire Trump. They're not the same people. What
Obama promised, and delivered, was get the USA out of the shock of 2007-08 and put it back on
its feet again after Bush spent all that money on the Irak war. This keeps everyone happy, as
a large part of the US economy is from consumption. It also keeps a part of industry happy,
as they need to be able to export and import. The public is not happy with a weak dollar, nor
tarifs that both push import prices up. Bush kept the arms industry very happy, for obvious
reasons and Trump's constant tension-building abroad sort of does the same. But it still
comes down to how happy the public is and how much they can or refuse to be manipulated.
They're a bit wiser now.
Newsflash: Politics the world over is a cesspool. History and Ancient history says it has
always been so. Names and places, incidents and scandals are in no short supply to confirm
nothing much has changed in the modern world.
"Politics is a dirty business" is the understatement of all time. While many
politicians are indeed working in the interests of their constituents, many more are not and
political parties have only one interest - themselves.
If you want an indication of how much the table is tilted, witness the recent announcement
that it's ok for politicians to lie when trying to increase their support. If that doesn't
tell us all we need to know - about the links between politics and business, or the
fundamental lack of morals inherent in all politics, of the contempt the public are held in,
I don't know what will.
Yeah but they changed the rules to bypass a vote on an impeachment inquiry specifically to
prevent the accused due process & the ability to challenge the accusations.
In other words they'll vote to impeach after preventing opposing evidence, in this case
the Obama administration meddling in 2016 with the Ukraine's help & the Biden pay for
play operation laughably conducted under the guise of rooting out corruption in
Ukraine.
As grizzled old prosecutor Rudy Giuliani said he learnt early on if you want to find where
the corruption is ignore everything else, follow the money, and it all leads straight to the
Bidens.
That didn't take long. There we have it. The Dems are totally justified conducting a kangaroo
court show trial because 'there is no opposing evidence'.
But then what? Is there any core of decent politicians left to rule the country? Who? The
GOP crooks? The Clinton gang? The Bidens whose son is peddling political influence in corrupt
countries? Peloisi and Schumer who are up to their eyeballs in dirty money from AIPAC and are
savaging the few clean young politicians in their own party ? There's no end to it.
Tulsi Gabbard is the only person running that has the moral authority to run this nation
and the ability to get the required votes in order to win. Doing that is going to extremely
difficult since the media is controlled by the corporations and the corporations don't want
her. Ike warned us about the military industrial complex over 50 years ago and she is the
first candidate to openly challenge its authority since that warning.
We truly have lost all sense today, from the USA to the UK, these two nations have most
certainly lost the plot, I suppose the writing was always on the wall. Most of us are for our
neighbours no matter their class, colour or religion, most of us want a civilised society
where we have the necessities in live, decent wages, health care, education. Services that
protect us. Shame the actual few keep voting against these things, whether that be from their
misery, ignorance or whatever the latest excuse is, those of us who want to return to dignity
and work towards progress must vote the charlatans out.
Western democracy is dying of greed, consumerism and power madness. Xi and Putin can't
believe their dumb luck at how the US and UK are falling apart. People in places like Eastern
Europe, Taiwan, etc., may start wondering whether they should gather winter coats and heavy
shoes and have a talk with their children.
Sleaze, greed, bigotry, and cowardice were common in both parties.
Joe and Hunter Biden Handed Trumps Dual Freebies
Goldberg's column is unusually honest for a Democrat like Goldberg. It includes two
important admissions about Joe and Hunter Biden's poor judgment in dealing with Ukrainian
matters.
As all this was happening, Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the board of Burisma Holdings, a
natural gas company that Zlochevsky co-founded, at some points earning $50,000 a month.
Zlochevsky might have thought he could ingratiate himself with the Obama administration by
buying an association with the vice president. All available evidence suggests he was
wrong.
We need to put Hunter Biden's $50,000 per meeting in perspective, he began receiving it in
2014, when the purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita GDP figure for Ukraine was slightly
over $8,500. In a single month, Hunter Biden received fees over six times what a typical
Ukrainian received in a year. Hunter Biden had no relevant expertise to be on the Ukrainian
firm's board of directors. The only disagreement I have with Goldberg's description is her use
of the word "earning" instead of "received." Hunter Biden does not "earn" his money. He makes
money off those who seek to get in good with his dad. The Trump children, of course, have
super-charged this sleaze.
Hunter's one real job miraculously led to his ludicrously rapid promotion to EVP of a major
bank. The bank, of course, was a major contributor to his dad. Hunter's miraculous advancement
to EVP is a typical sleazy payoff to elite politicians' kids. Both parties do it. The sole
reason Zlochevsky hired Hunter was to try to influence favorably his dad and the Obama
administration. This too is typical elite sleaze. Yes, we should remember that Trump's spouse,
children, and their spouses, make Hunter look like a highly competent saint when it comes to
cashing in on their tawdry Trump ties.
Goldberg correctly notes the modest nature of the sleaze in the Bidens' case. There is no
evidence that hiring Hunter Biden ingratiated the Ukrainian firm with the Obama administration.
There is no evidence that hiring Hunter Biden ingratiated the Ukrainian firm with Joe Biden.
Joe Biden's successful effort to fire the corrupt non-prosecutor increased the chances
that the Ukrainian government would sanction the firm. Trump's claim that the fired prosecutor
was an anti-corruption hero investigating Hunter's purported corruption is a double lie.
Trump's attacks on Joe and Hunter Biden are lies. This should not surprise us. First, Trump
always lies. Second, Joe and Hunter Biden's sketchy actions are not crimes or ethical
violations. They may be 'corrupt' in the broad sense of that word in everyday usage, but not in
the legal sense of statutes against corruption. Trump, therefore, has substituted lies for the
nuanced reality.
Sadly, the fact that Trump's attacks on both Bidens are lies does not mean that either acted
at the minimum level of integrity we should demand. Goldberg implicitly admits Joe Biden's
fundamental failure through her effort to excuse it.
It's not hard to imagine why Biden didn't press Hunter. The Biden boys and their father
had been through hell together. Hunter has said his first memory was waking up in the
hospital next to his older brother, Beau, after the car crash that killed their mother and
baby sister. He grew up to be a troubled man, his life pockmarked by addiction and
failure.
Beau died of brain cancer a few months before Biden
traveled to Ukraine to push the government to crack down on corruption. It's not shocking
that, at a moment when his family was consumed by grief, Biden wasn't inclined to confront
his surviving son.
We can agree with Goldberg's sympathy for Joe Biden while recognizing that he displayed
terrible judgment. He put himself in an obvious apparent conflict of interest when he chose to
take the lead in the Obama administration's effort to replace Ukraine's corrupt prosecutor.
Biden volunteered to take that role. There was no need to do so. The Obama administration and
the various European and international organizations that agreed with the need to fire him had
a host of effective leaders with the leverage to get him fired.
Joe Biden's Problems Dealing with Hunter Biden's Demons
The sympathetic accounts stressing Joe Biden's concerns with protecting Hunter Biden miss
three related point. The common denominator is that Joe has acted in a manner sure to harm
Hunter. The first point is the nature of Joe's special concerns about Hunter.
Mr. Biden nearly did not run for president because of the effect it would have on his
family -- and particularly on Hunter Biden and his children, according to multiple advisers
to the former vice president. Hunter Biden has struggled for years with substance addiction
and had recently gone through a very public divorce from his first wife.
As parents and humans, it is easy to sympathize with Hunter and Joe Biden. We also have to
discuss how an immensely powerful father who desperately wishes to be President needs to
address his surviving son's demons. We can start with the fact that Joe had no good answer
available. Sometimes, all the available options range from bad to terrible. Hunter is an
alcoholic. He repeatedly abuses hard drugs. He cheated on the women he professed to love. That
pattern of abuse had a number of obvious, deeply harmful implications. He lied, probably
hundreds of times, to the people who loved him most. That pattern is inherent to abusing
alcohol and drugs and cheating on the women you say you love. The pattern of lies means that no
one close to Hunter could believe him without being repeatedly deceived.
The decades-long pattern of alcoholism and hard drug abuse meant that Hunter was frequently
unable to meet his family and business responsibilities. He washed out of the National Guard
because he continued using drugs even when he knew the Guard would test him for drug use. Yes,
like millions of Americans he 'struggled' with addiction – without success. The odds that
he has put his loved ones' lives in danger by driving or providing child care while impaired
approach certainty. Given the tragic history of the Bidens that began with the fatal car crash,
this must have terrified the entire family. Hunter is not in control of his life. Drugs and
alcohol control his life. He was not loyal to the central member of his family – his
spouse. Joe knew from repeated, bitter experience that he could not rely on Hunter's word,
judgment, restraint, or moral compass.
These facts were essential for Joe to take into account when considering what to do about
Ukrainian events. He knew he could not trust whatever Hunter told him about his Ukrainian
business deal. Again, the key is to understand that Hunter's demons meant that Joe had no good
choices. Even if Joe recused himself from all Ukrainian matters, Hunter was likely to embarrass
him. Joe has stated publicly that he did not discuss Hunter's business involvements with
Hunter, which is a strategy that invites apparent conflicts of interest and scandal. Joe knew
that no company of integrity would put Hunter on its board of directors and pay him $50,000 a
meeting. Hunter had no meaningful expertise, no knowledge of Ukrainian matters, a history of
sketchy hires and promotions by those hoping to buy influence with his politically powerful and
ambitious dad, and a history of screwing up royally.
Hunter, of course, has a Yale law degree and is an adult. He knew better than to take the
Ukrainian position and cash. Throughout his adult life, however, Hunter has been willing to
take advantage of his dad's name and contacts. We can be sympathetic with Hunter's demons, but
we also need to hold him accountable for his record of terrible decisions.
Joe knew that the Ukrainian company hired Hunter for one reason – he was Joe's son.
Joe knew that was a terrible reason to hire Hunter. Joe knew that hiring Hunter indicated that
the Ukrainian firm lacked integrity. Joe chose to take the administration's lead on Ukrainian
events in circumstances he knew created an apparent conflict of interest with Hunter and his
Ukrainian firm. Joe knew that there was no reason why Hunter needed to accept the sketchy
Ukrainian firm's over-the-top largess and no reason why Joe had to take the Obama
administration's lead in implementing its Ukrainian policies.
Joe knew that the apparent conflict of interest would expose Hunter and Joe to attack by
Joe's political enemies – and that Hunter's addictions and record put Joe and Hunter in a
position where they could not effectively fight back. Joe knew Hunter was particularly
vulnerable to political attack and humiliation.
Summing it Up: Both Bidens Gifted Trump Freebies
Joe knew the action he could take that guaranteed venomous partisan attacks on Hunter was
running for president. No one has ever doubted Joe's ambition to be President. What we do not
understand is what Joe's policy passion is. His statement of why he is running cannot be true.
No one rational believes that electing Joe as President would turn Moscow Mitch into a
bipartisan legislator eager to pass Biden's legislative agenda. It is fine to yearn for a
'Kumbaya' bipartisan fantasy world. Even in that fantasy, few of us have any sense what
legislation Biden thinks McConnell would support that Democrats would not find odious.
Joe knew that the Democratic Party was rich in talent. He did not have to run for President
to save the Party or the Nation. Joe knew that he and Hunter had each gifted Trump Ukrainian
freebies. Joe knew that his infamous 'electability' mantra ignored both freebies that Trump was
sure to exploit.
The next to last thing Joe should have done was add to the incentive to attack Hunter by
creating gratuitously an apparent conflict of interest by taking the lead role in firing the
corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor. The absolute last thing Joe should have done if he wanted to
protect Hunter from attack was to run for president. Joe's decision to run made it a certainty
that Trump would concentrate his attacks on Hunter – and Joe's apparent conflict of
interest in gratuitously taking the administration's lead on firing the Ukrainian prosecutor
given Hunter's cashing in on the Ukrainian firm's desire to buy influence. Joe's ambition
trumped Joe's desire to protect Hunter.
Even more bizarre, while it has been clear for months that Trump was setting up to attack
Joe and Hunter Biden's far from excellent Ukrainian adventures, Joe's response to those attacks
has been feeble. Joe's 'electability' trope has died – and Joe is the one that killed it.
If Joe cannot manage an effective response to Trump lies he has known are coming for months,
imagine what will happen in a debate when Trump hits him with unexpected smears. Trump's smears
will be lies, but few believe that Biden will prove agile and tough in counterpunching against
novel Trumpian lies.
It is Impossible to Compete with Trump or the Democrats' Unintentional Self-Parody
We need to step back for a moment and stress the unbelievable chutzpah of Trump
claiming that his passion for ending corruption explains his obscene perversion of the powers
of government to extort other nations to create – not reveal – dirt on his
political opponents. The Trump administration is the most corrupt in U.S. history. Relatives of
the corrupt cabinet members that made the Harding and Grant administrations infamous can
rejoice that their forbearers have become relatively less infamous. Trump is profoundly corrupt
and he loves his fellow corrupt autocrats like Putin. The willingness of Republican enablers to
repeat his corruption excuse for urging other nations to investigate his political opponents is
simply another in the long line of examples proving that they have betrayed America and their
oath of office.
The Obama administration, however, had its own geyser of hypocrisy when it came to the way
it phrased its demands that Ukrainian officials fire their top anti-corruption prosecutor. The
hypocrisy is not that they unjustly insisted that Ukrainian leaders fire the prosecutor.
The evidence is conclusive that the prosecutor was, at best, a coward who refused to prosecute
elite corrupt officials and CEOs. The hypocrisy is that at the same time the Obama
administration was (correctly) pointing out the need to fire prosecutors who refuse to
prosecute the most elite business fraudsters, the Obama administration's top prosecutor was
refusing to prosecute our elite fraudsters.
The key character we should be talking about is Eric Holder, President Obama's Attorney
General. No one has commented on the chutzpah of the Obama administration demanding
Ukraine fire Viktor Shokin, its top prosecutor, for failing to prosecute Ukraine's most elite
criminals that had corrupted the entire system. Goldberg explains:
"Shokin was seen as a single point of failure clogging up the system and blocking
corruption cases," a former official in Barack Obama's administration told me. Vice President
Joe Biden eventually took the lead in calling for Shokin's ouster.
"We weren't pressing Ukraine to get rid of a tough prosecutor, we were pursuing Ukraine to
replace a weak prosecutor who wouldn't do his job," Mr. Biden said.
Mr. Volker in his deposition defended Mr. Biden's work in Ukraine and pointed out that the
prosecutor was corrupt and worked to shield favored people from prosecution, rather than go
after wrongdoers, according to the person familiar with his testimony.
The international effort to remove Shokin, who became prosecutor general in February 2015,
began months before Biden stepped into the spotlight, said Mike Carpenter, who served as a
foreign policy adviser to Biden and a deputy assistant secretary of defense, with a focus on
Ukraine, Russia, Eurasia, the Balkans, and conventional arms control.
As European and U.S. officials pressed Ukraine to clean up Ukraine's corruption, they
focused on Shokin's leadership of the Prosecutor General's Office.
"Shokin played the role of protecting the vested interest in the Ukrainian system," said
Carpenter, who traveled with Biden to Ukraine in 2015. "He never went after any corrupt
individuals at all, never prosecuted any high-profile cases of corruption."
That demonstrated that Poroshenko's administration was not sincere about tackling
corruption and building strong, independent law enforcement agencies, said Heather Conley,
director of the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a
Washington-based foreign policy think tank.
I have not found any article that points out the obvious hypocrisy of the Obama
administration demanding that a nation's top prosecutor be fired for failing to prosecute the
nation's most powerful, corrupt, and destructive elite financial criminals. The hypocrisy of
Obama praising Holder while demanding Shokin's 'head' was epic. To fix a problem one must first
admit it and resolve to fix it. Instead, Holder and Obama went with the preposterous lie that
there were no fraudulent elite bankers, so they brought no prosecutions of the elite bankers
whose frauds drove the GFC.
President Obama and Vice President Biden ignored that hypocrisy. The media continue to
ignore the hypocrisy. Trump and the Republicans ignore the hypocrisy. We need to emphasize that
in addition to refusing to prosecute elite banksters, the Trump administration has reduced
white-collar prosecutions even below Obama's pathetic record. Worse, Barr and Trump are making
it clear that while their elite contributors can loot with impunity, the Department of Justice
now threatens to prosecute corporations that oppose Trump on obviously pretextual grounds.
If Holder had prosecuted the elite banksters, Trump would have been defeated in the
election. The refusal to prosecute the banksters who gained immense wealth by leading frauds
and predation, along with the massive bank bailout, was a critical contributor to the public
rage that gave Trump his Electoral College victory.
Hillary Clinton's gratuitous decision to enrich herself through secret speeches to two of
the world's most fraudulent banks – Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank – gifted
freebies essential to Trump's election. Clinton advisers repeatedly warned her that the
Republicans would use the secret paid speeches as a mace to attack her. She and Bill Clinton
were, through tens of millions of dollars in speech fees, already wealthy. She had no financial
need to take money from two of the world's most destructive criminal enterprises. Her greed
trumped her ambition, so she ignored her advisers' warnings and did the secret speeches. Those
freebies gifted the election to Trump.
Why, given that bitter failure by the 2016 Democratic candidate who won her Party's
nomination based on her purported 'electability' would Biden gift Trump a freebie? From the
beginning of this campaign, Biden's paramount claim has not been policies, but his purportedly
unique 'electability.' The highly electable do not give the Trumps of the world freebies to
bash them during the election contest. The highly electable do not stare like a deer mesmerized
by a car's headlights when Trump lies about them and their children on a daily basis. They do
not simply counterpunch – they unleash a devastating assault on the lies and smears,
Trump's corruption, and Trump's hypocrisy.
The blowback from Trump is going to be incredible, whether he gets removed or not.
Basically the narrative will be that Democrats got foreign governments help to fuel
opposition research against him in 2016 and then used rumor and hearsay from that research to
wage a two year long investigation that ultimately debunked his culpability.
Now Democrats are impeaching him for trying to get to the bottom of that disinformation
campaign.
Correct or not, Trump thrives on victimization. His supporters will lap it up and be
angry, very angry. Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot by constantly publicizing
'evidence' that could never be substantiated which is why Mueller refused to prosecute. Worse
much of that 'evidence' was probably fabricated by foreign sources.
Sadly this has degenerated into a finger pointing exercise. With Ukraine as corrupt as it
is, Democrats could have bought any fabrications they wanted and now Trump can, too. Finding
the truth will remain a distant mirage.
Correct or not, Trump thrives on victimization. His supporters will lap it up and be
angry, very angry. Democrats basically shot themselves in the foot by constantly publicizing
'evidence' that could never be substantiated
== end ==
This is simply brilliant. IMHO.
For now, he's losing the battle for public opinion.
... ... ...
A 41 percent approval rating is obviously not good. Morning Consult released a
state-by-state poll yesterday showing Trump with net negative approval in Arizona, Iowa,
Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin, all of which he won in 2016. He is hovering around the
break-even point in Florida and Georgia.
This story has a long way to go, and much of it will depend on how well Democrats conduct
their impeachment inquiry. Currently, though, things are going quite poorly for Donald
Trump.
Indeed. Among presidents, several indicted (which is what the House does, essentially),
NONE convicted by the Senate. The only prez who resigned might have been convicted, but then
received a pardon. It's an inherently political process. And this time around, it's as if
GOPsters are fighting for the very existence of their party.
The US society is too polarized for David Leonhardt's arguments to hold any value. He just
regurgitated a typical neoliberal camp propaganda.
Which, of course, resonates with True Believers in this camp. But it is not enough.
Biden's criminal extortion can't be denied. He boasted of this racket on a public occasion.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? First, he is prone to gaffe; second, he
probably considered himself untouchable like Mrs Clinton and other people of her circle.
In 2014 Obamoids removed the legitimate president by using the full spectre of illegal
operations, and Joe Biden became Obama viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the
coup d'état was a "crime against peace", but nobody speaks of that
Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike, the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in creating fake Russiagate accusations. People in Kiev say that CrowStrike
honcho Alperovich had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server
allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President
Mr. Zelensky.
BTW Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred of Russia, could cook the case of Russian
meddling, but it had to be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain. It might
well be Joe Biden, or Brennan.
IMHO Ukrainegate is viewed by the majority of people, who try to understand the situation
and not blindly follow MSM propaganda, as another stage of the intelligence agencies' color
revolution against Trump, as Russiagate 2.0.
Be interesting to see what, if anything, China does about trump's request for campaign aid.
"We Had the Quid, Now We Have the Quo
Ukraine has gotten its $400 million in military assistance and its visit to the White
House, where President Zelensky dutifully reported that he had felt no pressure from the
Trump administration to open an investigation into the Biden family. So this, I suppose, is
just an amazing coincidence:
'Ukraine's new chief prosecutor said Friday his office will conduct an "audit" of an
investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that had recruited Hunter Biden for its
board.
Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka reiterated at a news conference Friday that he knows
of no evidence of criminal activity by Biden. He said that he is aware of at least 15
investigations that may have touched on Burisma, its owner Nikolai Zlochevsky, an associate
named Serhiy Zerchenko, and Biden, and that all will be reviewed. He said no foreign or
Ukrainian official has been in touch with him to request this audit.'
See? Ryaboshapka has been on vacation on Mars for the past few months and just got back.
And when he did, he immediately turned around to his deputy and said, "Hey, we really need to
audit the investigations of Burisma. It just seems like the right thing to do."
Private prisons, detention centers, Saudi Arabia, Russia, ... these deals were all made
before the election in 2016. Who amongst Trump's circle made them? This is what needs be
brought out.
"... This mess will also have the effect of taking (the now strangely silent) Biden off the 2020 board on the grounds of credibility or even criminality. ..."
"... Sanders and Warren will then, prematurely, have to move up the board one place and move further into the spotlight. That will suit Trump very well, and indirectly, Gabbard. ..."
"... I suspect Gabbard is being held in reserve for the VP slot, since the top slot contenders are all crazy and will need some balance on the ticket. ..."
"... I note that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form (link below) includes the following on page 2: ..."
"... I also note at the bottom of the form that the last revision date was August this year. Just before 12th August perhaps? Now that second tick box choice looks rather out of place on a whistleblower form to me. I'd be interested in seeing the previous version of the form and finding out who revised it. ..."
"... Why have 2 links, is this the old form? Maybe someone here can confirm what the pre August 2019 report form looked like. If the IGIC get caught gerrymandering their website and reporting processes to cover up this latest attempt to get at Trump we'll should see some real fireworks. ..."
"... Stephen McIntyre (a sometime commentator here on Russiagate) whose Twitter I linked to above has had his investigation of the form doctoring picked up already. He thinks it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature of the rumorblower's report. ..."
"... It appears that this is a political act to enable the steady erosion of the administrations' ability to govern effectively for as long as the circus is in town. The gamble is, among others, that the steady drumbeat of the parade of hearings, inquiries and misstatements of fact continuing through the campaign season will: ..."
"... That said, this should be sufficient evidence to warrant the IG's suspension, and investigation by an IG for the IG's office. We shouldn't be holding our breath. ..."
"... Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to investigate Biden. The fact is that there is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. ..."
"... But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?" Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes? ..."
"... Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause). ..."
"... I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup" movement, probably triggered more than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace with the Russians. She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in ..."
"... Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, overseeing the secretive workings of America's national security apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials file whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress. ..."
"... You may want to read this, including the linked documents, and rethink your comment: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story ..."
"... Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties. ..."
"... Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here? ..."
"... Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know. ..."
"... I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance at the ballot box and that a majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of Trump overall except for a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic. ..."
"... https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/a-dumpster-fire-on-a-garbage-barge/ "UkraineGate, son of RussiaGate..." ..."
"... I have no comment to this latest "production" of the Democratic Party. That is because Adam Schiff pushed it out of the political and into the dramatic with his rendition (he called it a parody) of a Mob Boss. ..."
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
Now that we have seen the whistleblower complaint filed by a CIA officer against President Trump, there should be little doubt
that it is a fraud and represents an abuse of the whistleblower process. I know genuine whistleblowers (e.g., Bill Binney, Kirk Wiebe,
Ed Loomis, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, etc.) and have been one myself. I am familiar with the kind of information one must possess
(or should possess) in order to initiate a complaint. This complaint does not even meet the stupid standard. It is a trumped up complaint.
This CIA officer who filed the complaint has no direct evidence or knowledge. He heard things from other people. He was not party
to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript. Instead, he cited public media as "corroboration" for his allegations,
including reports by John Solomon.
The whistleblower is supposedly an analyst. Pray to God he is not. If this is an example of this clown's analytical chops then
we now know why the CIA has been on the downward slide. Rather than focus on evidence and facts, this guy relied on rumor. The egregious
conduct of the whistleblower is exceeded by the incompetence of the Intelligence Community Inspector General. When the complaint
was filed a competent professional IG would have dismissed it immediately because it was based on hearsay. If we follow his logic,
every single Presidential conversation with a foreign leader that involves discussion of a policy or issue an analyst does not support
could/should become an IG investigation. That is not an intelligence function no matter how sincerely or fiercely the complainant
believes their beef merits attention.
It would appear that the Democrats who plotted with this CIA officer were counting on Donald Trump to claim executive privilege
on his conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky and, based on the same privilege, withhold the whistleblower complaint.
Whoops!! Trump did not play ball. He preempted the Democrat Kabuki theater by releasing the relevant documents and transcripts.
President Trump pre-empted the ability of the Democrats to accuse him of illegal acts by citing his refusal to turnover documents.
How can anyone claiming whistleblower status be allowed to file a complaint on something about which they have no direct knowledge?
The entire premise of the intelligence community is the access to reliable sources, i.e., people who have direct knowledge of what
they are reporting on. The Dems are in a state of flacid erectus.
To appreciate the lies of the so-called Whistleblower, let us compare his claims with what actually transpired:
The Whistleblower Claims:
The President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020
U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President's
main domestic political rivals.
I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike I guess you have one
of your wealthy people The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think
you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and
I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a
man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's
very important that you do it if that's possible. . . .
The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find
out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the
prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.
COMMENT--At no time did President Trump say anything about the 2020 election or the need to do something to Biden to preempt
his ability to run for the Democrat nomination. Trump's request was specifically about what happened in light of Joe Biden's public
claim--I REPEAT, PUBLIC CLAIM--that he used the threat of withholding aid from Ukraine unless they fired the Ukrainian prosecutor
who was investigating the company that hired Joe's cocaine head son, Hunter.
The Whistleblower Claims:
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries,
the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader
to take actions to help the President's 2020 reelection bid:
• initiate or continue an investigation2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;
• assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 20 I 6 U.S. presidential election originated
in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated
the DNC's networks in 2016; and
• meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney
General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
What Zelensky Actually Said about Hunter and Joe Biden:
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation.
. . He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation
of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation
of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would
be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to
the United States from Ukraine as far I as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told
me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the
previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough. . . .
I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy,
there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence.
I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation.
President Zelensky is asking President Trump for more help and strongly agreeing with Trump that the U.S. Ambassador was acting
as a foe of Ukraine. To reiterate--the issue of corruption by Joe Biden and his spawn was already in public and was an issue for
Ukraine, not just Trump. Again, not one word about the 2020 election or the Democrat scramble to find a candidate. No threat by
Trump to withhold aid. No quid pro quo of any type. Joe Biden is on the record in public demanding Ukraine do what Biden wants
or else the U.S. would withhold $1 Billion dollars in aid.
The Whistleblower lied. Not a single mention was made of "locating and turning over DNC servers." This is a complete fabrication
by the so-called Whistleblower.
President Zelensky noted that his people had already spoken with Rudy Giuliani and voiced not one single concern about that. And
Zelensky said that his Government would fully cooperate with a U.S. law enforcement investigation.
Worth noting that John Solomon of the Hill is out tonight with documents that expose Joe Biden as a liar in this matter.
The heart of the Whistleblower complaint is a lie. The analyst reported hearsay but, as you can read for yourself, was not what
was said on that call.
This is an outrageous abuse by the intelligence community. The CIA cannot and should not be trusted. This analyst is an incompetent
who does not know how to distinguish between fact and suspicion.
This mess will also have the effect of taking (the now strangely silent) Biden off the 2020 board on the grounds of credibility
or even criminality.
Sanders and Warren will then, prematurely, have to move up the board one place and move further
into the spotlight. That will suit Trump very well, and indirectly, Gabbard. If this is part of some DNC strategic plan then
it's not well thought out for this reason alone.
I suspect Gabbard is being held in reserve for the VP slot, since the top slot contenders are all crazy and will need some
balance on the ticket.
Is Gabbard that craven she will allow her political future go into free fall, hooking her wagon to any of the doomed to fail
Democrat candidates. She cannot win 2020 on her own - she needs the Democrat machine behind her. But she has earned no points
to be leading it. Yet.
I note that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form (link below) includes the following on page 2:
I know about the information I am disclosing here and:
[] I have direct and personal knowledge
[] I heard about it from others
I also note at the bottom of the form that the last revision date was August this year. Just before 12th August perhaps? Now
that second tick box choice looks rather out of place on a whistleblower form to me. I'd be interested in seeing the previous
version of the form and finding out who revised it.
Why have 2 links, is this the old form? Maybe someone here can confirm what the pre August 2019 report form looked like.
If the IGIC get caught gerrymandering their website and reporting processes to cover up this latest attempt to get at Trump we'll
should see some real fireworks.
Stephen McIntyre (a sometime commentator here on Russiagate) whose Twitter I linked to above has had his investigation of
the form doctoring picked up already. He thinks it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature
of the rumorblower's report.
just found this myself. you were well ahead of the curve on this one! & it is seriously damning, imo. when you're basically forced
to bend or alter the rules in order to gain any kind of advantage, you've basically admitted that you can't win honestly...
frustrating that this information, & similar information, will simply go unmentioned in the msm. back in the day, the msm would
spin things that ran counter to the narrative. today? they simply ignore them...
Well done, and thank you to Barbara Ann and to all those, like Col. Lang, who put their time and talent to creating & maintaining
sites like this that are civic virtue in action.
It appears that this is a political act to enable the steady erosion of the administrations' ability to govern effectively
for as long as the circus is in town. The gamble is, among others, that the steady drumbeat of the parade of hearings, inquiries
and misstatements of fact continuing through the campaign season will:
A) Result in an actual conviction. (unlikely)
B) Result in a Democratic controlled Senate, House and/or Presidency (moot point)
3) Insurance policy -- gain control the Senate after 2020, so that the impeachment test is judged under new leadership. (They
probably believe this)
Rules of evidence? Due process? Cross examination? What a strange idea.
As far as his leadership of the movement/counterrevolution? Maybe he's just the catalyst-the precursor. But he saw the zeitgeist
and picked up the ball and ran with it. isn't that what demagogues do?
Not clear that this is incompetence on the complainant's part or the IG's, or the media's for that matter. While incompetence
aplenty is in evidence, that evidence speaks to how clumsily they do it, rather than to why they have reached the decision to
participate in this. That said, this should be sufficient evidence to warrant the IG's suspension, and investigation by an
IG for the IG's office. We shouldn't be holding our breath.
Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to investigate Biden. The fact is that there
is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. You don't
need to know anything about the Ukranian prosecutor or what he was doing. You don't need to know anything about Biden's son or
the son's business dealings. You just have to listen to Biden himself tell the story.
Two facts are plain in the story as Biden tells it. That he coerced compliance as to Ukraine's internal governance, and that
he used $1 billion of US foreign aid money as an instrument of extortion in order to do it. He himself says so.
President Trump says in that phone call that, "What Joe Biden did was shameful," a statement with which I cannot help
but agree. The media's comment in their followup was a stunning, "There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong."
Bill H, Joe Biden served as the point man for the Obama administration's effort to root out some of the corruption rampant in
the Ukrainian government. The IMF and EU were also pushing this. This was probably the only non-shameful aspect of our terribly
misguided and implemented policies concerning Ukraine. I'm still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make
Sevastopol into a NATO naval base. Screwed the pooch on that one, didn't we?
Biden boasted of bullying the Poroshenko government into getting rid of chief prosecutor Victor Shokin, a notoriously corrupt
individual who refused to investigate corruption by oligarchs and government officials. Shokin stymied any investigation into
Mykola Zlochevsky and Burisma. His stonewalling led to a Britsh fraud and money laundering case against Zlochevsky and Burisma
to fall apart. In my opinion Zlochevsky hired Hunter Biden in an effort to protect himself from US efforts to root out corruption.
This didn't help Zlochevsky or Shokin. The US and Biden still pushed for the firing of Shokin and the investigation of Zlochevsky
and Burisma in spite of Hunter's position at Burisma.
The Trump-Guliani effort to paint the story as Joe Biden shielding his son from prosecution is a pure fabrication. Biden was
part of the whole ugly Ukraine mess orchestrated by the Nuland-Clinton crowd at DOS and fully supported by Obama, but Biden's
part in the firing of Shokin was a rare bright spot in that mess. Hunter Biden's accepting the position and money from Burisma
is an embarrassment, but far from a crime.
Now that's an interesting re-direction of focus, TTG.
But "Hunter accepting money = embarrassment, but far from crime?" Is the whole mess, beginning with Nuland Kagan, which
had to have been directed by H Clinton which had to have been directed by Obama -- embarrassments or crimes?
By what right, based on rule of law and principles of UN Charter that proscribe a nation's involvement in the domestic affairs
of another nation, does the US presume to " root out some of the corruption rampant in the Ukrainian government?"
Matthew Vadum points out (totally news to me) that a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 actually OBLIGATES
the US to interfere in Ukraine's system of justice (and vice versa, which should give us all pause).
K, you might want to stick with the actual language, instead of your odd interpretation stating the US is "required to interfere
in Ukraine's system of justice".
Here is the treaty language from your link:
Article 1 that "[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty,
in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters."
In my defense, I am NOT a lawyer and only threw the article out there for the consideration of others.
Like most normal Americans, I am blithely unaware of all the ways our country has been drawn into the machinations of parts
of the world where I believe we don't belong.
These spiderwebs are now two decades old. Trump walked right into them. Now at least we see them for what they are, or are
beginning to see their outline in the dark.
Artemisia, The whole Obama Ukrainian fiasco would be a fascinating subject for investigation. The decade long Orange Revolution
project was a high water mark in As Obama's point man on this project, Biden would have a lotto sweat over such an investigation.
However, his part in getting Shokin fired is not part of his problem. Shokin slow rolled the investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky
for years. He even fired one of his assistants who was trying to push the investigation along. His firing was a good thing.
In spite of this, some think Trump was referring to Shokin when he talked about a "very good" and "very fair" former Ukrainian
prosecutor in his phone call to Zelensky. Trump may have fallen for Shokin's version of events.
Zlochevsky hired Hunter most likely as an insurance policy given that his father was Obama;s point man for Ukraine. He probably
hoped that would force the US and Biden to back off. Ukrainian business and politics have been notoriously corrupt since soon
after the breakup of the Soviet Union so Zlochevsky's move was in line with modern Ukrainian culture, just as Shokin's antics
as chief prosecutor.
It doesn't have to be a crime to be relevant in the context of the 2016 and 2020 elections. If we are so easily confused as to
what has actually been going on Ukraine, that both parties are hopelessly smeared in the scent of corruption and failure, what
exactly are we doing there? Why are we giving them billions?
And if you are not convinced that $50k a month in pay off for a do-nothing connected American board member is actually a crime,
what do you make about the $1.5B from the Bank of China? Is that also excusable?
You are free to loathe Trump, but right now the very fabric of our Constitution is at stake and Trump is not the only pouring
kerosene on it.
That's accurate - 100%. I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup" movement, probably triggered more
than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace
with the Russians. She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in. But I have grown cynical. This Wednesday
night article in the NY Times strengthened my outlook in such regard, especially the passage I quote below:
Quote:
Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, overseeing the
secretive workings of America's national security apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials
file whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress.
Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released to the public? And while we're at
it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary, Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with
various parties.
Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between Hunter and Burisma was. On paper
what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent
experience was being discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural gas business
or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?
Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund launched by Hunter and John
Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE
firm before. I work in the investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to raise
$100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring
minds want to know.
Blue Peacock, I'd like to get the read out on all those conversations. So far, all we have is the "F the EU" phone call between
Nuland and Pyatt. I'd also like to get a readout of Trump's one on one discussions with Putin. I wonder how they compare with
his conversation with Zelensky.
The real deal between Hunter and Burisma was that his hiring was supposed to serve as a shield for Burisma, Zlochevsky and
Shokin. Unfortunately for them, the shield failed when the US and Biden went after Shokin in spite of Hunter's bogus seat on the
board of Burisma. Hiring Hunter was clearl an attemp to influence, just as the massive flows of donations to the Clinton Foundation
when Hillary appeared to be on the ascendency, and all the foreign and domestic money now flowing into Trump properties. It doesn't
mean it will work, but it is a clear effort to buy favor. I would not be surprised that the Chinese money to Hunter was the same
thing.
I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance at the ballot box and that a
majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of
Trump overall except for a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic.
Have we really reached the stage where an American Praetorian guard picks our President and the ballot box and electoral
college become Imperial window dressing?
I'm a left leaning Independent but I hope that the Democrats get a tremendous whipping at the ballot box in 2020. I plan to
do my small part in that.
I have no comment to this latest "production" of the Democratic Party. That is because Adam Schiff pushed it out of the political
and into the dramatic with his rendition (he called it a parody) of a Mob Boss.
Jean Paul Sartre is enjoying this wherever he may be. We are now truly living in the realm of the absurd and there seems to
be "no exit."
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower complaint, I immediately looked at
the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033. Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under
the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of
the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning
the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail or that there is no toilet tissue
in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject
of an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or his phone calls
is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more
NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at
this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt.
You wrote this: He was not party to the phone conversation and did not have access to the transcript .
and yet on page #3 the WB wrote this:
. I was not the only non-White House official to receive readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State Dept
and IC officials were also briefed on their contents of the call ...( abbreviated for easy typing )
Am I missing something since POTUS keeps mentioning second hand info whilst it looks like the WB did have a readout?
Hearsay is any statement used to prove the truth of the matter asserted. It can be confusing. For example. Assume I was in an
automobile accident. Moments after the accident, I said to the other driver "You ran the red light." In court, a witness who heard
my statement cannot testify about it if that testimony is being used to prove the other party ran the red light. The matter being
asserted is the other driver ran the red light. The witness is testifying to prove the light was red. It is a hearsay statement.
However, if I were claiming to have been knocked unconscious for a week by the accident, my "You ran the red light" statement
would not be hearsay if the same witness was testifying to prove I was conscious after the accident. Here, the statement is not
being used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (The other driver ran a red light) but to show I wasn't knocked unconscious
by the accident.
There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule which would takes about 3-weeks of a law school evidence class to explain. I
don't have the time..
Here, the so-called whistleblower is claiming that others told him what was said during the call. That is hearsay, (a statement
used to prove the truth of the matter asserted, aka-what was said is true.) If he heard to call himself, it wouldn't be hearsay
as to what he heard. If he read the transcript, then him testifying about what he read would not be hearsay either.
Since the public have access to the transcript now the questions then becomes was Trump's request inappropriate during the call,
was there a quid pro quo, are any of the assertions by the whistleblower accurate, was this a legitimate complaint or was it a
political statement to gin up controversy?
Since the "intelligence activity whistleblower complaint" had nothing to do with an "intelligence activity" as was legally required,
the drafting and filing of this particular "intelligence activity whistleblower complaint" were political acts. They accomplished
their mission in that Trump was forced to release the call and the complaint to the public, instead of him delaying and Congress
leaking them. The complaint has resulted in what appears to be an attempt to impeach Trump, so politically it was very successful.
If it were a legitimate complaint, the DNI could look into the problem and fix it. That's why these types of complaints must
concern activities and individuals that the DNI is responsible for, so the responsible government official, the DNI, can fix the
problem. As this complaint is illegitimate, because the DNI can do nothing about the problem, no government official will investigate
because none has the authority to do so.
Instead, Congress will investigate with an eye towards impeaching the President. Will we discover truthful answers to your
questions, either from Trump or Congress' investigation? I have no idea. Personally, I doubt it.
If the matter is as serious as alleged..then how can one take anything said by Mr. Schiff seriously when he jokes about the whole
conversation , according to his own words ,after the spectacle he made.
I'm starting to see Trump as the Joker incarnate. Any sane effort to take down the deep state would have been quickly quashed,
but he has them all shooting themselves in the foot.
It is starting to appear that foreign policy under Obama and the Democrats was simply a government sponsored money laundering
operation. The gig being that a certain percentage of the money the US and other governments gave to Ukraine was then sent back
to Democratic/Liberal supporters in the form of salaries or contracts. I would imagine most NGO's who support Democratic or Liberal
governments are in part funded this way, they then in turn use the money to support their re election efforts. I would imagine
the reason the Democrats are holding up many of Trump's nominations for embassy positions is that much of this was run through
those offices.
I suppose this is how AIPAC has become such a force in American politics, money sent to support Isreal is sent back through
contracts and salaries and other assorted shenanigans. This has been going on for over 50 years, no wonder they are so entrenched
in the US government policy machine.
I could not figure out why Canada's current PM Trudeau, given his fathers penchant not to involve Canada in any foreign disputes,
especially those the US was involved with, was so eager to get involved in the Ukraine. Of course its obvious now why he appointed
Freeland who is of Ukranian background to the position of Minister of foreign affairs. They both have ties to the Atlantic Council
and other NGO's who are associated with Ukraine in some fashion. The allegation being that the Liberal party has in part been
funding its re-election bid with some of the money sent to Ukraine and funneled back the Biden way. Of course it will never be
investigated properly up here as both the senior management of the RCMP, the judicial system and the media are full of liberal
appointed or promoted hacks.
I would imagine that it goes further than the Ukraine as well, in fact any country that the US provides aid to has to be under
suspicion. I always wondered why the Dutch and the Australian's were so interested in the Ukraine and the airliner that was shot
down, bet this goes much deeper than we have been allowed to see so far.
I believe this was a running joke for a season on "Veep." It was a pretty funny one, but if you are right it was all too true
(hence as funny as Schiff's "parody").
Time for the classic Ronald Reagan face down of the Democrat politics of personal destruction smear machine .......".aw shucks,
there you go again".
And with that, Reagan ended and closed down the assaults. Time to get our of the weeds the Democrats keep planting that are
keeping far too many of us on the defensive. Just tell them ...aw shucks, there you go again.
Their modus operandi is established, their intent is confirmed, they just switch out body parts now hoping there is an Achillies
heel in there somewhere.
0) I have carefully read the 2019-08-25 "urgent concern" of the Complainant.
It is a carefully-written, very-well-documented account of what its author believes are, essentially, impeachable offenses.
It is in fact quite useful, giving such a good account of one view of things.
It is a big, big mistake to attack it merely on the grounds that it is reporting things other people have said, i.e., "hearsay".
Such attacks, while true, do not detract from its argument.
There are, however, several other ways to attack its argument.
1) First, he is clearly giving only one side of things.
It is crucial to obtain a balanced, more accurate, view of things by giving the other side of the argument, as John Solomon does
in what is linked to above.
Hopefully other countervailing views can be expressed.
2) Point out flaws in his reporting, as LJ has done so well above.
3) Ask the question "So what?"
The writer, and practically all of the media I have read, essentially assumes the equation: "US national security" = "Preventing Russian domination of Ukraine".
My view: This is not merely wrong, but insane.
What on earth does US national security have to do with the territorial boundaries or geopolitical orientation of Ukraine?
Look, in the 1970s I was very involved with supporting US national security.
What did that mean back then?
It meant, for example, preventing West Germany, with its vast industrial and scientific capabilities, from becoming part of the
Communist block.
That would really have changed the geopolitical balance between
"The First World" and
"The Second World" , to use terminology in use back then.
Does anyone really believe that Russian domination of the Ukraine would have the same effect on geopolitics as the USSR controlling
the FRG (i.e., West Germany).
Ukraine is not West Germany.
As I said, that is really insane.
Yet we see both reporters and columnists in, for example, the Washington Post claiming the Ukraine is vital to the U.S.
national interest.
See, for example this ludicrously overwrought recent David Ignatius column:
"Trump compromised our security for his gain." .
"Compromised our security"? Please, David.
4) On the corruption issue:
Think about it. If Hunter Biden's last name had been Smith, and he, even with the work and educational background that he did
have,
(see
this article for an extremely detailed, 27-page, examination of that)
had been just the son of some nondescript middle-manager in America. would he EVER have been have been put on the Board of Directors
of Burisma?
Never in a million years.
So the only reason he was put there was because of the position of his father, Joe Biden.
Now ask another question:
Assume that the Obama administration had valid reasons for wanting the dismissal of the Ukrainian prosecutor Shokin.
Why was Joe Biden given the job of pressuring for that dismissal?
Why not, say, SecState John Kerry?
Or some other member of the administration.
Maybe even Obama himself.
Why was Joe given that job? Especially considering the connection between his son and Burisma, which was generally considered
part of the Ukraine corruption mess.
So why on earth didn't Joe say,
"Sorry, I have a family connection there. Better have someone else put the pressure on."?
Evidently WaPo and most of the rest of the media doesn't see a problem there, but it is very strange that they do not see
the problem.
5) One final point: The "dirty" point.
The media is playing a word game, by consistently, and I mean really consistently, describing any effort to examine and publicize
the issues Solomon raised above as "Dirt" , as in "digging up dirt".
Why prejudice the effort to shed some sunlight on such issues as "digging for dirt".
After all WaPo 's motto is "Democracy dies in darkness".
So why call the effort to shine some light on the Biden/Ukraine connection as "digging for dirt"?
The hypocrisy is plain for me to see, if not for the people at WaPo .
I have to say, I have become rather a pariah since shifting reluctantly (post-election) into the Trump camp. My spouse and
I absolutely cannot talk about it at all, since the last time we did I ended up spending several days camping out at a friend's
place. I have one close friend from college who has taken a similar trajectory and we are like shipwrecked soulmates in the midst
of a violent storm (that doesn't end!).
It means the world to me to be able to read so many well-thought out posts and comment threads. It is much better then Twitter
(I have exiled myself from Facebook).
Persuasive, but it will only convince those who wish to be convinced. Your number 3 is right on. It is insane beyond words. Possibly
downright evil. On why use Biden? I guess because it is the executive branch. Obama had washed his hands of Ukraine and all things
Russia related, so his supporters say, having abnegated to State, Defense and CIA. Poor excuse, but that's the tale that's been
going around. So sending the VP is a way to put some real sting into it? So it will be said.
But your point is exceedingly well taken. Pat Buchanan, while going over some of your ground, cleverly avoids attempting a
rigorous demonstration in favor of showing the effective political damage being done.
Quote:
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why
was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor
whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of the potential corruption of Hunter Biden,
and of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics
between now and New Hampshire.
Endquote
There are some very astute remarks in that column's comment thread
.
My question is why this Ukraine brouhaha NOW? The timing of why the media wurlitzer is spun is always interesting to me.
Trump's call with Zelensky took place in July just after Mueller published his report. Trump suspects that folks in Ukraine
may have information regarding Crowdstrike and the DNC server "hacking". So it is a legitimate request IMO considering attacks
on him, his kids and his administration around Russia Collusion. The whistleblower made his complaint now. Why? Who actually wrote
the complaint as Robert Willmann notes in an earlier thread it was likely a lawyer. It seems it was coordinated with the House
Democrats and the MSM as they both latched on to it with similar talking points immediately in a highly coordinated manner.
My speculation is that they didn't count on Trump immediately declassifying and releasing it to the public and further going
on the attack along with Rudy to paint Biden and his son in the vortex of potential corruption.
Now we are back to he said, she said and the usual confusion. It would be good to read opinions on what was the goal here as
the bar to an impeachment conviction is very high. No President in the history of our country has been convicted by the Senate.
What were the political motives for the Russia Collusion redux with this Ukraine "quid pro quo"?
Sundance thinks Lawfare wrote it. The 'whistleblower' is simply the delivery platform for their latest weapon. Given the legalistic
style, their involvement in Russiagate and the similar modus operandi this seems a reasonable guess. Lawfare themselves (who are
clearly Resistance central) are already trumpeting success.
Why now? The Kavanaugh smear fell apart. This was the next Trump "scandal" on the Democrat's Roladex. There will be more until
Nov 2020, and there after. We know this now, so no cause for alarm. Even Saul Alinksy warned about over-playing your hand. Democrats
have over-played their hand.
IMO the Clinton apparat has been at the root of much that has happened. It still exists and hopes for a stalemate in the Democratic
nomination process.
The irony here is that Trump originally beat the Republicans. You know, Bush/Cheney and company. If the Democrats had played by
the assumption that the enemy of my enemy is my friend and tried to at least work around Trump and let him stew in his own juices,
rather than taking the low road and just throwing as much mud as possible, they would be in far better shape than they are. What
if a Democrat ever becomes president, ever again? How would they govern, given the destruction to the system, they are engaging
in? It is much easier to tear down, than build up.
If I were to guess the direction of this country, it will be that disaster capitalism/predatory lending comes home to roost and
those with the largest piles of treasuries, likely bought pennies on the dollar, when the debt bubble bursts, will be trading
them for the remaining public assets, facilitated by those functionaries who know who their future employers are.
Then we find out what true oligarchy is.
What is the back story about breaking news reports that Whistleblower statute and complaint form was very recently revised that
now allows second-hand reporting.
Was there also a problem with back-dating this complaint to slip under the new policy? So much for the "hearsay" rebuttal under
these very new, brand new, new guidelines.
John Solomon Has another article on The Hill. The gist being:
"Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents -- many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its
legal troubles -- conflict with Biden's narrative.
And they raise the troubling prospect that U.S. officials may have painted a false picture in Ukraine that helped ease Burisma's
legal troubles and stop prosecutors' plans to interview Hunter Biden during the 2016 U.S. presidential election."
A year after his appointment, the replacement prosecutor dropped the case against Burisma. Now Ukraine is in the clutches of
the IMF. This looks like a future of austerity and privitization of the countries resources. The Bidens are just the public faces
of a deeper corruption.
"... The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency ..."
"... The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the military industry complex trough! In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress freedom. ..."
"... With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self determination". ..."
"... In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog) the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of Czechoslovakia in 1938! ..."
"... This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019 claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats ever! ..."
Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
It Is Time for the United States to Stand Up to China in Hong Kong
Tweets aren't enough. Washington must make clear that it expects Beijing to live up to its
commitments -- and it will respond when China does not.
By ELIZABETH WARREN
[ Shocking and appalling; unethical and immoral; discrediting. The intemperate comments of an imperial-minded candidate for the presidency. ]
The democrat coup/impeach/coup machine suffers is bi-polar disorder. Every they way fill the
military industry complex trough!
In their war manic state they supress freedom fighters, and arm their jailers, in their
war depress state they support rioters in Hong Kong. If Donbass rebels were in Macao they would get US support, in Dobass the US will suppress
freedom.
With Ukraine, because the democrat neocons want to surround Russia, US national security
arms Ukriane to forcibly put down Donbass as they attempt some form of "self
determination".
In the case of Hong Kong because US is enemy to the PRC (Red China at Menzie Chinn blog)
the US is all for self determination, like Hitler was for pulling Sudetenland out of
Czechoslovakia in 1938!
This bipolar morality fits with deep state surveillance on Trump in 2016 and in 2019
claiming Trump doing it to Biden so that Trump/DoJ cannot fight corrupt (all) democrats
ever!
This "corruption" meme is simply hilarious. Even the deplorables cannot believe it is true.
Well, other than the brain dead.
"On Friday, though, the GOP Ratchets Up Pressure on Biden and Schiff narrative train got
derailed a bit. One blow was delivered by CNBC's Eamon Javers, who asked Trump the simple
question of which other cases of alleged corruption he is pursuing besides the one that
involves his potential 2020 election opponent. In reply, Javers got what by Trump standards
is a straight-up acknowledgment of having been stumped:
MSNBC
✔
@MSNBC
Replying to @MSNBC
WATCH: @EamonJavers: "Have you asked foreign leaders for any corruption investigations
that don't involve your political opponents?"
President Trump: "You know, we would have to look"
Then Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney articulated the implication of that non-answer in
what, by Romney standards, was a devastating frontal attack:
Mitt Romney
✔
@MittRomney
When the only American citizen President Trump singles out for China's investigation is
his political opponent in the midst of the Democratic nomination process, it strains
credulity to suggest that it is anything other than politically motivated.
171K
9:02 AM - Oct 4, 2019
Mitt Romney
✔
@MittRomney
Replying to @MittRomney
By all appearances, the President's brazen and unprecedented appeal to China and to
Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden is wrong and appalling.
84.5K
9:02 AM - Oct 4, 2019
Romney is stating the obvious: All the available evidence -- including the evidence
supplied by Trump -- says the president tried to use Ukraine to do a political hit job for
him; none of the evidence supports the alternative theory that this was part of an earnest
anti-corruption crusade. But the fact that Romney is the one who stated it provides a tiller
for evenhanded journalists and non-zealot voters to hold amid the swirling storm of alternate
reality disinformation that the rest of his party is emitting.
The [neo]liberal mob was standing around with their torches and pitchforks in a state of
shock.
Doctor Mueller, the "monster hunter," had let Trumpenstein slip through his fingers.
The supposedly ironclad case against him had turned out to be a bunch of lies made up by
the Intelligence Community, the Democratic Party, and the corporate media.
Russiagate was officially dead . The President of the United States was not a Russian
secret agent. No one was blackmailing anyone with a videotape of Romanian prostitutes peeing
on a bed where Obama once slept.
All that had happened was, millions of liberals had been subjected to the most elaborate
psyop in the history of elaborate deep state psyops which, ironically, had only further
strengthened Trumpenstein, who was out there on the Portico balcony, shotgunning Diet Cokes
with one hand and shaking his junk at the mob with the other.
"... Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion. He famously admitted that: ..."
"... The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote: ..."
"... The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but nobody speaks of that, noticed Joe Lauria . ..."
"... Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. ..."
"... People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia. President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr Zelensky. ..."
"... The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents' chat had been published ..."
"... How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing cricket. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. ..."
"... People in Kiev say that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian president may default on IMF loans. ..."
"... The Ukrainians like to back winners; once they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance, the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps? ..."
"... "Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia respectively. ..."
"... You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his country and the world. ..."
"... Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing. Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class. Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people will. No one likes being cheated or betrayed. ..."
"... The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite camp. ..."
"... Adam Schiff received campaign contributions from a Ukrainian donor/host at a fundraiser. All solid citizens, especially the host, an arms dealer. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi also received funding for her campaign in the Ukraine and other Democrats may have as well. ..."
The Borderlands of the Ukraine have been a decisive battlefield for centuries. Here
Stockholm, Berlin and Moscow vied for dominance. Karl XII had lost here to Peter the Great;
Stalin defeated Hitler; now the Clintonites are likely to suffer in the Ukraine their ultimate
defeat. The Democrats had made their biggest political mistake of the century in attacking
Trump for the Biden affair -- that is, if the Americans retain any common sense.
Vice-President Biden extorted millions of dollars in personal bribes from the vulnerable
Ukrainian client state. When this sordid affair came under investigation, he blackmailed
Ukrainians, using his position and American taxpayer money to force the sovereign state to fire
its Attorney General for investigating the bribes.
Instead of covering their face in shame and dismissing Biden as a potential party candidate
in the 2020 race, the Dems led by the superannuated Mrs Pelosi decided to impeach the President
for uncovering this rogue. In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to
save a criminal by attacking the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning . This was
the model for the Dems in their impeachment attempt.
Biden's criminal extortion wasn't a secret. He boasted of this racket at a public occasion.
He famously admitted
that:
I said, I'm telling you [the Ukrainian leaders], you're not getting the billion dollars. I
said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about
six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not
fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they
put in place someone who was solid at the time.
The Ukrainians put in place someone who was solid at the time, so solid that he terminated
the investigation of Burisma oil company. This company was the vessel to transfer bribes to VP
Biden, via his son Hunter Biden. John Solomon of The Hill wrote:
"U.S. banking records show Hunter Biden's American-based firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners
LLC, received regular transfers into one of its accounts -- usually more than $166,000 a
month -- from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President
Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with
Russia."
The fired prosecutor Mr Viktor Shokin
said that Biden fils had been under investigation. After he was dismissed due to
Biden père interference, the money continued to pour out of poor Ukrainian pockets
to well-stuffed Biden coffers. My Kiev acquaintances had a memory of a good-for-nothing young
man, keen on coke and broads, who by himself would never get such a salary.
You would ask, why Biden admitted to the crime? He considered himself untouchable like Mrs
Clinton and other people of her circle. Mischievous President Trump decided to prosecute Biden
for bribery and extortion, as if he were an ordinary mortal. This was a direct threat to the
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats, Liberals,
Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State). This challenge caused them to
abandon caution and to start a furious pre-emptive campaign against cocky Trump.
Their accusation is outright ridiculous: they claim Trump's intention to bring Corrupt Joe
to justice was criminal per se , as Biden was a likely contender for the Dem nomination.
As it happens, the US Constitution didn't find it fit to provide likely contenders with full
immunity for past and future crime prosecutions. It's just the Clintonites were used to be
above the law. Indeed, for three years President Trump avoided to touch them. Crimes of Mrs
Clinton were well known, from the simple affair of the email server to the Libya murders.
It was expected victorious Trump would unleash the law against the defeated dowager for Mrs.
Clinton's role in the Obama administration's decision to allow the Russian nuclear agency
to buy a uranium mining company . Conservatives have long pointed to donations to the
Clinton family foundation by people associated with the company, Uranium One, as proof of
corruption, reported the New
York Times . The Clintonites saved the old lady's skin by starting the Russiagate
hoax. In 2016 election debate Trump told Clinton that, if he was in charge of the nation's
laws, "you'd be in jail". But a year later he was in charge, and she wasn't in jail, not even
charged. The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with
Russia did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence.
Now the Clintonites decided to repeat their feat and began impeachment procedure hoping it
will keep Trump busy and away from uncovering the Ukrainian Hell's Kitchen.
What actually had happened in the Ukraine? In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime
change in this former Soviet republic. They removed the legitimate president by using the full
spectre of illegal operations. The Ukraine became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their
viceroy in the Ukraine. Biden's involvement in the coup d'état was his biggest crime, but
nobody speaks of that, noticed
Joe Lauria . They had turned Ukraine against Russia and instigated the civil war in the
East of the poor country, despite strong efforts of president Putin to keep Russia out of
Ukrainian turmoil. But they also gave a thought to personal profiteering, like they did in
Russia in 1990.
Joe Biden had been treated royally in Kiev. He was asked to chair government meetings and
proudly sat on the Presidential seat. The Ukrainians are not famous for their subtlety. Nice
people, but rather simple ones, even by East European measure. They became involved in 2016
election campaign on the Clintonite side. There is no doubt VP Biden was the man who directed
this "foreign involvement in the US elections". The obliging Ukrainians delivered to him the
dirt on Paul Manafort, and Manafort went to jail.
The Ukraine is the second home for CrowdStrike , the cyber-security company that was
instrumental in accusing Russia of meddling. Its founder and head, a Russian Jew and American
citizen Dmitry Alperovich is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max
Boot. People in Kiev say he had built the case against Russia on the strength of a single
server allegedly used for hacking the DNC. The server is located in the Ukraine, not in Russia.
President Trump asked for its whereabouts in his conversation with the Ukrainian President Mr
Zelensky.
The subject of the server makes many people in the Clintonite camp extremely nervous. They
already
marked it with "conspiracy" marker, meaning you may not touch it. In another "conspiracy
debunking" item they
created a straw man, saying "the notion that there is some missing "server," and that the
server might exist somewhere -- like in Ukraine -- has no basis in reality. The DNC's network
consisted of many servers and computers". However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC
server, but the server allegedly used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language
traces, and it was presented as a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the
Ukraine also use Russian as their working language, and this allowed the Russia-hating Jew an
opportunity to create the whole chain of "proofs" of Russian hackers' activity with fancy
names. Recovery of the server would put paid to the whole myth of Russian hacking, and would
make the Clintonite case untenable.
Alperovich, obsessed with his hatred, could cook the case of Russian meddling, but it had to
be ordered and utilized by somebody up the feeding chain, most probably Joe Biden. And now Joe
Biden, the real criminal, who took bribes and blackmailed the friendly state officials, who
orchestrated foreign involvement in the US elections, went on to become the leading contender
for Dem party.
The Dems claimed Trump threatened to withdraw funds from the Ukraine if they won't cooperate
with the US enquiry. This claim had been debunked after the full transcript of two Presidents'
chat had been published. But even if it were sterling truth, it would be business as usual for
the US. You probably remember the threats of cutting aid that were issued by the US
representative in the UN in order to force sovereign states to vote for Israel. The execrable
Nicky Haley
said , 'The US will be taking names', and Donald Trump
added his own threats to cut aid.
How could they find fault in Trump allegedly threatening to cut aid to Ukraine if they think
Biden was perfectly all right for doing exactly that? But these guys aren't playing
cricket.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them are
tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President Trump. In
the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President Zelensky
promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in Clintonite
camp.
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund,
the powerful bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine. Just this year, Kiev has to
pay six billion dollars to the IMF to remain solvent, and IMF refused to refinance it. The
loans were mainly stolen by the gang of the former President, Mr Poroshenko. People in Kiev say
that about 1.7 billion dollars of the latest loan had been pocketed by the American supporters
of Poroshenko, meaning Joe Biden and his ilk. Now Mr Kolomoysky suggests the new Ukrainian
president may default on IMF loans.
Kolomoysky is also the only oligarch who is not in bed with the liberals. The balance of
power in the Ukraine is not in favour of Trumpers. The Ukrainians like to back winners; once
they made a mistake supporting Mrs Clinton, as they were sure she would win. Perhaps they will
make this mistake again. It would depend on the actual Dem contender. Joe Biden had cooked his
goose by taking too many bribes in the Ukraine, but another contender may have a better chance,
the Ukrainians think. Mrs Warren, perhaps?
They even fiddle with the idea of Mrs Hillary Clinton running again and winning this time.
The Ukrainian oligarchs, and first of all Mr Victor Pinchuk, a Jewish billionaire from Dnepro
city, No. 1 among the rich Ukrainians, would do anything for her. He contributed many millions
to her fund; he finances the Atlantic Council, the Clintonite think-tank, fighting against
Russia and Euro-sceptics. He is 'the wealthy businessman' Trump referred to in his talk with Mr
Zelensky. Judging by Trump's interest in the Ukrainian server, the President is aware that the
old lady is still able to do some mischief, and his promise to take her to jail is still
unfulfilled.
It is possible in the presidential race 2020, the Dems will use drafting technique, as the
long-distance runners (or bikers, or cross-country skiers) do. The first leading contender (in
our case, Biden) would get the flak, get exhausted, and in the last moment he would withdraw
from the race yielding the nomination to his well-rested comrade, be it Warren or Clinton or
whoever. Bearing that in mind, Trumpers could keep some of the ammo they have on Biden (and
there is a lot to find in the Ukraine) until (or rather if) he gets the nomination.
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one might
conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the Clintonite
Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA and
FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
The key mode of operation: aggressively, and very loudly, accuse your opponents of
whatever crimes you are committing. Flip reality upside down.
The mainstream media have thoroughly obstructed all lines of investigation into facts
which contradict the Clintonite narrative. And Silicon Valley is working furiously to shut
down any discussion in alternative media on the Internet which addresses these issues.
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United States?
Great summary. There is also that one billion dollars the Biden clan got from China. More
from my blog:
Jun 7, 2016 – The $5 Billion Coup
I thought the claim that the USA spent $5 billion to organize a coup to take control of
Ukraine was a wild estimate. I recently found this 2013 video where the semi-covert coup
manager from Hillary's State Department, rabid neocon Victoria Nuland, spouts nonsense and
states that $5 billion was spent! I love the Chevron sponsorship symbol in the
background.
For those unfamiliar with the massive Uranium one Clinton bribery scandal, here is a hot
story that disappeared from our news, from my blog:
Dec 16, 2018 – Rogue FBI
As a follow-up to my December 2nd blog post, our major media failed to report that last
week:
"The Justice Department and FBI have missed a Wednesday deadline to provide information
about the government's mysterious raid on a former FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower's home
last month. Sixteen FBI agents on Nov. 19 raided the home of Dennis Nathan Cain, who
reportedly gave the Justice Department's Inspector General (IG) documents related to the
Uranium One controversy and potential wrongdoing by former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton.
The documents in question allegedly showed that federal officials failed to investigate
possible criminal activity related to Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Rosatom, a Russian
nuclear company. Its subsidiary purchased Canadian mining company Uranium One in 2013.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, whose panel has oversight of
the Justice Department, penned a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray and Justice
Department IG General Michael Horowitz, requesting information on the justification for the
raid. Grassley gave Wray and Horowitz until Dec. 12 to respond to his request. That deadline
has come and gone, and neither the FBI nor DOJ has produced any documents or response."
Why would a coke head like Hunter Biden, with a string of failed ventures with shady
characters and living in the US have been sought out for a position on the board of a Ukraine
gas company?
Even "if" Biden did not secure that job for is son and his son was 'sought out' by the
Ukraine gov or the company owners because they thought that contact would help them
Then Biden is still guilty of putting his son's advancement above obvious 'conflicts of
interest' in letting him assume the job.
Don't know about others but when I was growing up in teen years I was constantly schooled
by my father to 'not put myself in ' company or situations' that could lead to my being
associated with anything questionable that might happen.
I would think that should have been how Biden viewed his son taking the Ukraine company
position..
But then again Biden is both stupid and without any ethics. And so much for his free
speech support LOL
The Biden Campaign Is Demanding That TV Execs Stop Booking Guiliani
During this time, Hunter Biden was busy making a living in his father's wake.
He began working at MBNA bank, one of Delaware's largest employer, in 1996. He left to become
a lobbyist in 2001, though he continued receiving consulting fees from the bank. For years,
beginning in the late '90s, Joe Biden had been a top Democratic supporter of a controversial
bankruptcy bill that aided issuers of credit card debt, like MBNA, by making it harder for
borrowers to seek bankruptcy protections. The consulting fees to Hunter continued until 2005,
when the bankruptcy bill finally passed with Joe's support.
At his new firm, Oldaker, Biden & Belair, Hunter also lobbied for the music-sharing
service Napster while the Judiciary Committee, on which Joe sat, took on digital music piracy
and represented public universities seeking congressional earmarks. The Bidens have said that
Hunter avoided lobbying his father. In 2008, The Washington Post reported that, as a senator,
Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became
his running mate and that another lobbyist at Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for
an earmark for the University of Delaware
Biden and his wife, Jill, have set about providing for themselves, earning more than $15
million in the two years following the end of his vice presidency in early 2017"'
Do me a favor did Biden say to Obama ????? .." Obama had sought more than $3.4 million in
earmarks for Hunter's clients before Joe became his running mate and that another lobbyist at
Hunter's firm had successfully lobbied Joe for an earmark for the University of Delaware"
So some Jewish oligarchs are for the Clintons (Biden Dems etc) and other Jewish oligarchs are
for Donald the Orange (Repugs etc) It seems uncannily just like the situation in the US with
good ole Sheldon and Haim. A cynic might even suggest that it was a type of a pincer movement
or a case of good cop/bad cop. Either way I suspect than none of the aforementioned
characters give a rodents patootie about Joe Six-pack and the American people.
Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the President, is an
enemy of Clintonites. He also stands against IMF, International Monetary Fund, the powerful
bankers' body that issued many loans to the Ukraine.
Really? Sure he is agains bankers. Who are you fooling Shamir? Come on, get real. This is
intra-Jewish affair. Kolomoysky is as bad for Ukraine as the Clintonites.
"In the well-remembered flick Dirty Harry the lawyers tried to save a criminal by attacking
the policeman who didn't observe the niceties of a Miranda warning. This was the model for
the Dems in their impeachment attempt."
I want to be careful here because many people don't grasp the value of what the justice is
really all about. At it core the Constitution is by design intended to limit government
intrusion. The Miranda expectation is not a dodge. Its primary if fencing the abridgement of
a citizens personal space on a whim. In reality Miranda is probably not strong enough. It is
not a trick to cover up criminal behavior.
And the democrats call for impeachment is not in any way related to Miranda, not as simile
or metaphor.
" The ruse of Russiagate worked wonders: the President accused of collusion with Russia
did not dare to charge his adversary with this very offence."
If this depiction of events is remotely true (I haven't personally researched it), one
might conclude that the cunning, ruthlessness, brazenness, greed and malice of the
Clintonite Democrats is off the charts -- of Mafia or Stalinist caliber.
One might also conclude that, with their command of the Deep State (especially the CIA
and FBI) and mainstream media, they will come out the winner in this game.
"I now think that Trump WILL be impeached in the House."
-- Richard Spencer, Sept. 27, 2019
More from Richard Spencer on the Ukraine impeachment matter:
[Hide MORE]
"[Trump] still has 90% approval among Republicans. These Senators, though, they'll go with
the wind. They certainly could do it [vote to remove Trump from office], but something
dramatic would have to change."
"Trump will be impeached but will be let off by the Senate, and he will likely benefit
from this process because we're going to be talking about this [impeachment drama] and kind
of defending him, not criticizing him. So I think Trump ultimately will benefit."
"I'm rather shocked. This whole Ukraine thing is so weak . The Mueller and
Russia hysteria has apparently gone out the window, or it's kind of background to this. We've
now moved on to this -- phone call."
"I've seen this transcript I can only look at and laugh. It's basically Trump being Trump.
He is praising this comedian that won a miraculous victory "
"In 2014, Clintonites had managed the regime change in this former Soviet republic. Ukraine
became a Clintonite colony, and Joe Biden their viceroy in Ukraine.
They instigated the civil war"
-- Let them rot in hell for the destroyed lives of the innocent civilians.
In a morally healthy society, these criminals would suffer anathema and ostracism. In a
morally unhealthy society well.
Kolomoysky is the beneficial owner of the company, Burisma Holdings, that Hunter Biden
supposedly worked for. All the MSM is pretending that the previous owner, Mykola Zlochevsky,
is the one who hired Biden – an obvious lie. The Wikipedia supports this Zionist lie:
It is important to realize that this company has acquired licenses to exploit Ukraine's
largest gas field through dishonest means. The bribes paid to father Biden are much greater
than what the son received. In any case, these bribes are a tiny fraction of the value of
these gas fields.
This gas company is in a position to greatly profit from any deterioration in
Russian-Ukrainian relations.
An extension and exacerbation of the civil war in the east of that country will lead to a
shortage of gas. Shortage of gas leads to higher prices for consumers. War-profiteering at
the expense of the poorest country in Europe.
@Sean
McBride Sean, I agree with what you say – mostly. The fact that we are reading Mr
Shamir's excellent appreciation here shows that not all Westerners are mugs, though.
The bigger question is: how much does it really matter what crimes and tricks are played
in Washington? I am reminded of J.G. Ballard's superb short story "Manhole 69", about an
experiment to see if men could be treated and trained to do without sleep. They succeed, but
are found one morning in a state of catatonic withdrawal. To them, the whole world has shrunk
and collapsed down to a tiny bubble surrounding each person's body, so that – with no
external source of stimuli – their minds shut down.
Similarly, the more fascinated the Swamp creatures get with their own navels, the less
their intrigues matter to anyone outside their little personal bubble. By and by, they may
look up to notice that the world has gone on without them.
Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and
counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very
cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be "reformed","improved", nor "limited" in
scope, simply because of their innate criminal nature." onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no
way to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from
those of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
"The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the
kind of man whose ideas are idiotic" H.L.Mencken
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure" Robert LeFevere
"Why should any self-respecting citizen endorse an institution grounded on thievery?
For that is what one does when one votes. If it be argued that we must let bygones be
bygones, see what can be done toward cleaning up the institution of the State so that it
might be useful in the maintenance of orderly existence, the answer is that it cannot be
done; you cannot clean up a brothel and yet leave the business intact. We have been voting
for one "good government" after another, and what have we got?" Frank Chodorov, Out of
Step (1962)
"Joe Biden , the Hawk " by Branko Marcetic in the Jacobin Magazine , " If you're looking for
a president with a track record of foreign intervention , expanding the surveillance state
and steadfastly backing Israel despite its war crimes Joe Biden is your guy ."
@EliteCommInc.
Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda.
The mention of Miranda is in reference to a fictional screenplay. What else you got over
there?
@NoseytheDuke
True (and funny). George Eliason has written a couple of pieces concerning the recent history
of the Ukraine connection with the US deepstate and its campaigns such as Russiagate and the
current impeachment push:
[Crowdstrike's] founder and head, a Russian Jew and American citizen Dmitry Alperovich
is a pathological Russia hater on the model of Masha Gessen and Max Boot.
Try as I might, I was hard pressed to confirm the ethnic origin of Dmitry Alperovich. But
Israel Shamir was kind enough to put that mystery to rest. Thanks Israel!
"Make no mistake about it: UKRAINEgate is very real, but not the false narrative pushed by
the media. Trump tricked the Democrats into blowing wide open their own Ukraine scandal under
Obama. Just how big is that? It will expose BIDENgate. Which will expose the real RUSSIAgate
conspiracy. Which will then expose Clinton's EMAILgate and SERVERgate
scandals. Which will in turn expose Deep State and their International Banking Cartel
sponsors. Even the Illuminati hidden hand may be revealed as never before along with the
forever veiled Black Nobility."
-- Intelligence Analyst & Former U.S. Army Officer
I'm not a "Q" follower or one who believes Trump is some kind of 5D chess player, but for
the life of me I could not see how UKRAINEgate would not come back to bite the Democrats in
the ass. I guess we'll just have to wait and see if the above statements are true. http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=128744#more-128744
The Ukraine is a corrupt zionist controlled government just like the zionist corrupt ZUS
government so it is no surprise that the zionist backed Bidens would be feeding at the trough
just as they feed off the American taxpayers, corruption is as corruption does and that is
how zionists control governments.
Why would a coke snorting loser like Hunter Biden be given millions from a Ukrainian company
when he doesn't even speak the language? Same reason the Clintons used to get $500k for
"speeches". Give us a millions to our fraudulent charity and we will give you millions of tax
payer money.
@APilgrim" .There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or
coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it's not just unnecessary,
but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that's increasingly true as technology
advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to
order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous .":
Are we moving towards the consolidation of a Soviet-style regime in the United
States?
No it's already an upgraded Owellian regime that relies on 24/7 brainwashing. The Soviet
regime could repress people through violence or the threat of it. They could never convince
people that there really are 52 sexes or the need to bring in tens of millions of illegals
and replace the population with foreigners.
Bidengate is killing the blind Dems. Will he be in the Oct 15 debate or forced out before
that? For once, it may be worth watching as the other Dems will profit when he is out. Like
vultures they will seek his campaign donors and voters. The lying mainstream media can't make
this pig look pretty. Biden was already going to lose based on his failing mental abilities.
Now, he is really toast. The phony impeachment claims are killing the Dems also. It seems
they are suicidal this election and want to make SURE Trump wins in a landslide.
An 'independent' Ukraine is nothing more than a preponderantly Jewish directed outpost for
the Anglo-Zionist Empire. It is always going to be raped, and then charged for the service of
the rape, by those who run the Anglo-Zionist Empire.
@Whitewolf
Correct. The WASP-created and currently WASP+Jews administered Anglosphere, the Anglo-Zionist
Empire (which controls Western Europe and all of Latin America it wants to control), is today
much worse off in many ways than the USSR ever was.
Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?
What no one is talking about here is the much bigger crime against humanity that the
Obama administration committed by engineering the catastrophic Ukraine Civil War. Not only
did Biden's warmongering tear apart that country, that continuing war served to re-start
the Cold War with Russia. How calamitous for the world community of nations is that
intentional outcome designed by the Obama-Biden-Clinton-Nuland war-making team?!
Which means that the recent UKRAINEgate is really about stifling Trump's initiative to
get to the bottom of BIDENgate because that will inevitably lead to the root cause of the
real UKRAINEgate, not the current fake one. It ought to be apparent how the Left is
co-opting real scandals with fake scandals by even using the same memes and MSM
emotionally-charged language. Deep State knows that the ensuing confusion is simply far too
great for the average American voter to comprehend as the true story is so obfuscated by
the CIA-controlled Mockingbird Media.
Clintonites? A clintonite would be a follower and not an equal partner in crimes. And
Clintons maybe everything else but powerful they are not. Let's call it the Cabalites. For
they are members of a cabal (not to be confused with Jews though certainly there are Jews in
it along with a ton of non Jews) and equal participants in crimes such as Biden corruption.
Biden was/is Obama errand boy and as such got paid his share of the thirty pieces of silver.
It's a cabal, deep and secretive with octopus like reach that has the government cornered
with Democrats and their counterparts, the Republicans!
This remains to be seen. I'm not optimistic considering the massive propaganda
loudspeakers being brought out to steer the narrative. The Clintons and Biden, among others,
have been irredeemably corrupt their entire lives yet have had a sense of impunity
throughout, a well grounded sense since nothing has ever touched them. The rottenness of all
of it makes one's head swim. All of them have also been fond of committing war crimes
overseas, killing and displacing millions of people everywhere, which is even worse than
their financial flimflam. American democracy, what a joke, way different in reality than the
garbage they taught us in school.
Only slow people, aka the willing slaves called the voting class, believe a difference exists
between democrats and republicans. The rich know better.
The US staged a Nazi coup in Ukraine and wanted to station the navy in the Crimea. Before
that, the US had the dying Soviet Union hand over Crimea to Ukraine for free, out of love of
Russia.
Clearly both Republicans and Democrats see the law as a tool to enrich themselves and harm
their "enemies."
@Alfred
Shamir, and now you, mention bribes to Joe Biden. Is there documentation in one of your links
about those bribes? (Shamir cited nothing.) I don't doubt it, but can't share empty
allegations. (D0es Shamir think this is common knowledge? Or does he just never back up his
claims.)
This is such a hoax conspiracy that I question why they allow this op-ed to be printed.
Without bank and tax records to prove it , why would you make these fictitious claims? You' d
be better off tracking Trumps financials and building on those facts. Good luck with that.
@Bastien
McCormick Was the de-nuclear treaty enforced by both US and Russia over Ukraine a US plot
as well?
Face it, a jew currently runs Ukraine, the national socialists are bidding their times in
every parts of the world, waiting for a chance to save this post-1945 world.
"Shamir isn't saying that the Miranda ruling itself is a ruse. Clearly, the article states
that Clintonites are using misdirection as a ruse. Russiagate is also a ruse, and is
unrelated to Miranda."
There is nothing in this matter that can be remotely associated with Miranda. By
referencing Miranda as like the collusion accusations the author is making the comparison
between the two. Such as lawyer uses Miranda to draw attention away from the case.
That is a false comparison, even if the person is actually guilty of the accusation.
Miranda says, the state cannot proceed to abuse a citizens ignorance of the process to
prosecute, The citizen is entitled to know how to protect himself/herself from state
authority – period. It is a legal standard.
There is no legal standard for the collusion accusation. It is not linked even remotely to
the Constitutional protections of citizens. Your response is circular self reinforcing and
flawed logic coming and going. The liberals are not claiming a legal standard -- they are
merely slinging mud. Because even if the president were in fact colluding, it would not
provide a legal basis that the liberals and democrats lost the election as result.
Furthermore, even if they colluded by sharing information that alone is not a crime.
Unlike collusion, Miranda is a legal standard that upon violation moots a case because of
the governments abuse of power --
nothing at all like manufacturing a lie to cover incompetence, face saving or illegal
activity (including conspiring with foreign powers to start violent revolutions among
sovereign nations, i.e. Syria, the Ukraine, Libya, etc.) in office, or ineffective campaign
choices.
The collusion argument does reflect the kind of circular rhetoric in defending this
authors false comparison.
For the lovers of the IQ : the collective , national , IQ of white blond ukraruinas , polacks
, and other ex-soviets specimens is much much lower than mexicans . Puro pendejos .
Did anyone actually believe that Biden is not corrupt? Or that Ukraine is not corrupt? Or
that Porky and his appointees are not corrupt? If these people exist, they must be either
remarkably naïve or simply retarded.
@anon It's
untrue that Lutsenko, appointed by his buddy Porky, has no legal experience. Yes, he has no
legal education. But he spent some time in jail, which counts as legal experience.
Clintonites (let us use this nickname for the power variously described as Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State).
All but one: Igor (Benny) Kolomoysky, a maverick Jewish oligarch and a friend of the
President, is an enemy of Clintonites.
a "maverick" eh?
Kind of like John McCain, huh?
As Truth3 mentioned,
"Kolomoisky is one of Rothschild's front men."
Yep.
However, the server Trump asked about is not the DNC server, but the server allegedly
used to hack DNC server. It had left some Russian-language traces, and it was presented as
a proof of Russian involvement. But Alperovich's hackers in the Ukraine also use Russian as
their working language
What's with all this misdirection?
Assange has all but said the DNC data was given to him by Seth Rich, [RIP]
There was no 'Russian (or Ukrainian) hacking. Rich was pissed that 'corrupt Hillary' had
shut out Bernie in the primaries. He had a motive.
What, pray tell- would be the motive of the corrupt, Obama State Dept. installed-
Ukrainians, (working for the Clintonites) to expose Hillary's corruption? (and their
own)?
Eh?
"Maverick" Kolomoysky is a Zionist, Jewish supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater- in the mold
of Khodorkovsky . A couple of Rothschild stooges installed to loot Ukraine and Russia
respectively.
The "maverick' is conducting himself in perfect, parallel alignment with the "Democrats,
Liberals, Internationals, financiers, Masters of Discourse or Deep State", (i.e. the
Clintonites) that hate Putin's guts, and would like to see him dead.
In fact, there are deep ties between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and the
'Maverick'.
The Maverick owns the television station where Zelensky performed his comedy routine.
I'd say in all probability that Zelensky is the Maverick's boy. Which would go a long way
toward understanding why Putin is staying at arms length from the comedian.
All of this rot and corruption and its effects on ZUS politics is why I looked forward to
getting some insights from Mr. Shamir.
@Sean
McBride Spencer might say some things that are valid and even things that pro-Whites
agree with but he's still controlled opposition just like David Duke.
Its common knowledge that most politicians are crooked lying thieving bastards but the
brazenness of Biden is truly astounding. His boasting about the Ukraine affair should cost
him 10 years in prison if there was truly justice in America. But just like Hildabeast
Clinton they know no matter what they say or do they are a protected class in this God
forsaken country.
congrats issy, marvelous work.. while i read your column, i was also watching the clive owen
film "the international". i couldn't tell which one's more thrilling; possibly yours, because
your story is real!
all these show, that the fight between "patriots and globalists" (as pres. trump put it in
his UN speech: "the future belongs to patriots, not to globalists!") is flaring up.
globalist agendas like climate change and the EU are on the retreat, nevertheless
globalists seem not to leave the arena without bitter fighting.
patriots may be the last hope for earth to survive in the form known to us, but they are
more vital for america herself. why? -- because the "democraps and rebloodicans" with their
globalist agendas were growing to be disgusting in the eyes of many ordinary american people
before trump. remember, trump is a guy from the outside of the "political establishment",
don't get fooled by that he imitates the "rebloodican"!
for many american people, and for reasons above, the american federal government had
morphed into an alien body, regardless of the voters' political will, pushing its own alien
globalist agenda and endless wars.
4-5 years ago, there was the talk of secession.. american states should leave the union en
masse to cancel a useless federal govt. and summon a new continental convention. a new
constitution will be proclaimed which allows the states to fire any president or congress,
who don't heed to states' (people's) calls to come to senses, by a majority vote. i don't
know how widespread that discussion was.. i know, it exists. and if trump is unsuccessful
somehow or gets imprisoned, that danger still looms.
it may seem unimportant, what happens to america; but remember, she is the flagship of the
western civilization. for all people on earth, what happens to the u.s.a. will this or that
way affect what happens to them. regards..
@Smith
Yes.
I would love to see BO hoisted on this petard along with Biden.
Why should Biden be the only one to take the fall for BO, the Clintons, Nuland, etc.?
Actually, that logic doesn't seem quite kosher to me -- doesn't the actual truth/reality
count for something?
Its quite logical the 'appearance ' of a conflict of interest can lead to questioning
motives that's why judges 'recluse' themselves in cases where they have ties to anyone or
anything involved in the case.
Since you cant peer into the mind of someone who has the 'appearance 'of conflicting interest
the best approach is to remove said person from any involvement in the search for the
truth.
@Sean
McBride One issue that stuns me is that snarky comments of Chelsea Clinton to the
President, publicly made and without one ounce of fear. He tweeted something about the
Biden/Ukraine impeachment hoax was part of the biggest political scam, and this repellent
little beast shot back:
Yes, you are.
Readers here know, and certain members of the media know (Ammanpour, Anderson Cooper who
have actually traveled without fixers and entourages)
that if the daughter of a past PM or President smarted off to Erdogan, Xi or Rouhani on a
social media account,
she would likely disappear, be tortured or her children would be snatched for a few weeks,
to get her "mind right".
Chelsea Clinton is a repulsive slob who has no achievements other than inviting an actual
human sex trafficker to her marriage to a fat, sullen Jew that is unemployed.
Trump needs to go full thug. He needs to go completely bananas bat shit and have Biden's
son indicted TODAY.
From his first day, I was certain that it was a catastrophic error not to indict Hillary
Clinton and her accomplices. She never let up, and it appears she may just win yet.
@Johnny Walker
Read "Am I the only one who finds it strange Obama was never mentioned by Mr. Israel?"
No! Not the only one.
But in the case of Shamir I chalk it up to his focusing on the Biden details -- not on the
big Barry picture. Surely the buck for this whole thing comes to rest like a stinking turd on
Barack Obama's desk. It all occurred on his watch, overseen by his State Dept.
Or perhaps not on his desk.
Obama must owe major Jewish chits in Chicago. Rahm Emanuel, anyone?
I am kind of flailing here, but when I think Chicago and Dem party and Obama I think Rahm
Emanuel and Penny Pritzker, and when I think Rahm Emanuel I think dual citizen and dad was a
Zionist terrorist. What does all of that have to do with the Ukraine? I don't know!!
Plenty of Jewish oligarchs there . .
Biden is corrupted. Clinton is corrupted. But Trump is corrupted too for the following
reasons (among others):
1. Timing: He has not investigated Biden nor Clinton for almost 3 years. Now that Biden
seems likely Democrat nominee, he suddenly becomes so keen to investigate, while still
ignoring (or not pushing for) investigation of Clinton (who is not running).
2. Corruption: Trump appears corrupted too when he tries to use US aids as leverage to get
Ukraine to start the ball rolling on something that can benefit his re-election. This is
almost no difference than what Biden did.
3. Vengeance: Instead of letting the machinery of Justice and State departments work at
their own pace, Trump looks vengeful when he and his personal lawyer Giuliani are intimately
involved.
The end results is that Trump supporters becomes more convinced of Biden/Clinton/Democrats
wrong doing, and the Democrat supporters becomes more convinced of Trump's corruption and
guilt. So, the country hardens the divide and more people lose confidence of politicians.
Here's Scott Ritter , Iraq weapons inspector who objected to calling off the Iraq
inspections. .
My Letter From Joe Biden
Author's note: The 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq by a U.S.-led coalition
will go down in history as one of the greatest geopolitical disasters in modern history.
Then-Sen. Joe Biden was in a unique position to prevent this war from happening. That he
chose not to speaks volumes about the man who now seeks to become the next president of the
United States. My personal experiences with Biden from 1998 to 2002 provide a window into the
character of the man that Americans should familiarize themselves with before considering
whether to give him their support.
Scott Ritter
[MORE]
"I envy your position. I sincerely do. I envy the ability to have such clarity on this
issue."
Listening to those words, coming as they were from Sen. Joe Biden, one of the most vociferous
defenders of the policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I knew I was in for a grilling.
It was Sept. 15, 1998. I was seated, alone, at a table reserved for witnesses, giving
testimony to a joint session of the Senate foreign relations and armed services committees
about the reasons behind my resignation as a chief weapons inspector with the United Nations
Special Commission (UNSCOM), charged with overseeing the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) programs. Arrayed before me were some of the most powerful people in
the United States, if not the world. The combined membership of these two committees totaled
36 senators, a little over a third of the entire membership of that esteemed body. More than
20 were present at the hearing and, over the course of the next hour and a half, I was
questioned in detail by 17 of them, none of whom seemed to object to my presence more than
Biden.
"Let me ask you a question," Biden continued. "Do you think you should be the one to be
able to decide when to pull the trigger?"
By Aug. 28, I had received a call from the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee,
requesting my presence on Sept. 3 before a joint session of that committee and the Committee
on Foreign Relations.
Biden, however, had taken umbrage over the fact that the hearing had been allowed to go
forward without the presence of either the secretary of state or secretary of defense to
offer balance, especially when, as he couched the issue, I was trying to push the United
States to war with Iraq. "Isn't that what this is about?" he demanded. And despite my answers
to the contrary, Biden proceeded to lecture me on the limitations of my position as an
inspector. "I respectfully suggest that [the secretaries of state and defense] have
responsibilities slightly above your pay grade that's why they get paid the big bucks. That's
why they get the limos and you don't." The issue, Biden said, was more complex than simply a
question of "Old Scottie Boy didn't get in." It was a decision "above my pay grade," and the
jobs of those charged with making that decision were "a hell of a lot more complicated than
yours." It was about as insulting an experience one could imagine, and it took all my
willpower to sit there and take it unflinchingly
Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican, who said, "We realize, Major Ritter, as far as we
know, that you did not have a limousine; you did not make the big bucks we understand that,
like sergeants and junior officers and people who carry the rifles and actually do the
fighting and do the inspecting, that you may have a perspective that the big-bucks people
don't."
But rather than allow the inspections to run their course, the Clinton administration
instead used the work of UNSCOM to deliberately provoke a confrontation, seeking to inspect a
sensitive facility belonging to the Baath Party based upon old intelligence information that
had long since expired. The goal was to get the Iraqis to deny inspectors access to the site.
When Iraq instead agreed to allow inspectors inside the facility, the Clinton administration
immediately ordered all UNSCOM inspectors out of Iraq, before initiating a 72-hour bombing
campaign, Operation Desert Fox,
Biden, later declined to talk to me directly, instead dispatching a senior member of the
minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee to meet with me. This meeting was a
singular disappointment. The staffer began by calling me a traitor for speaking out about
Iraq and took umbrage when I backed up my claims with documents. "You are not supposed to
have these materials," he said. "They are classified, and you are a traitor for publicizing
the information they contain."
After reminding the staffer that he was walking a very
dangerous line in calling a former officer of Marines a traitor, I pointed out that the
information I cited was from my time as an inspector, and was not classified in any way.
The staffer agreed that the article was fact-based, even if he disagreed with its
conclusion. "But this isn't about facts. This is about politics, and Senator Biden will not
go against the policies of the Clinton administration, even if those policies are
failing."
Biden convened his hearing, which sought the testimony of witnesses hand-picked to sustain
the desired conclusion that Iraq was a threat worthy of war. He then went on to vote in
support of the use of military force against Iraq -- a sharp contrast to the position he took
in 1991.
You are 100% bang on with this article, Mr. Shamir. If anyone should be impeached, it's Joe
Biden and his criminal enterprise, otherwise known as his family. Joe Biden should be
pre-emptively impeached before he has even bigger chance to do even more damage to his
country and the world.
I also agree that all of this is a deep state operation against Trump. Why the deep state
doesn't like Trump? Because they are afraid that he is going to blow their cover about the
supposedly "liberal" US. It's all phony, but that's all they got, fake liberalism to keep the
proles quiet in order not to demand real social improvements in their "democracy", instead of
senseless voting in fixed elections.
The "catastrophic error" was allowing the Mueller/Russia farce to drag on and on, with the
media and hack political/pundit class shitting on him daily, questioning the legitimacy of
his election and robbing him of nearly all presidential authority -- he showed himself to be
an easy mark, which is one reason they haven't let up -- he should have given Mueller six
months and not a day more, then very publicly fired the lot of them -- but he didn't have the
balls and this is the result -- instead he kisses Jew ass and bleats on and on about low
black and Hispanic unemployment -- then he acts surprised when they still hate his guts and
show him zero respect -- what's the point of being President and having the power of the
presidency if you're not going to use it?
@d dan This
a zionist tactic, divide and conquer, it is not good enough for the zionists that they
control the ZUS government, the zionists like to see their puppets tear each other apart, is
a continual zionist recreation.
The mockingbird mainstream whore media is unrelenting in its coordinated effort to coverup
the crimes of creepy Joe Biden and his son Hunter, whilst hoisting the blame for said crimes
on President Trump who had the audacity to request that the crimes of Joe and Hunter be
investigated.
September 20, 2019 Video of Joe Biden admitting that he bribed the Ukrainian President
with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son
@eah I see
Trump's tactical error differently. He needed to take a shot at the big money with a series
of antitrust cases against big tech, big banks and investment banks, big media.
It would have been very popular, and he would have been hitting the correct targets.
Trump
is a stupid cuck, a miserable pussy. That's why he can't get anything done. He TALKS big ..but then he rolls over every time. The biggest loss is on immigration/demographics. He isn't going to do anything about
it.
He responds to jewing by bending over more .and the jews respond by reaming his ass even
HARDER.
If he'd just stand up to them and tell them to fuck off, the whole world would be better
for it.
@Robert
Dolan Yea, Trump is not very good, but the cackling hyena would have been atrocious. It's
too bad we are reduced to choosing between shit and even bigger shit, but is it quite clear
which shit was bigger in 2016. It looks like it's going to be just as clear in 2020, as Dems
did everything to remove even half-decent candidates.
Best damn thing said about the Trump and Biden corruption fight..
Its everybody pilgrims everybody.
Just read thru to see ALL the US politicos and Elites involved in the huge money pit
corruption that is Ukraine. There are dozens of them. Protecting the Ukraine from Russia is
the guise for getting stinking rich for those using their office or connections to congress
or the StateDept.
ITS THE CORRUPTION THAT HAS BECOME NORMALIZED IN THE US BABY CAKES!
Don't waste your time with partisan bullshit defending Trump or Biden.
Notice how Eliz Warren is skyrocketing.
Because she's talking about government corruption and the middle class.
Most people .that have a brain at all will unite against corruption ..no matter which party
they support .there will be tunnel vision knuckle draggers who wont .but most people
will.
No one likes being cheated or betrayed.
There was little chance that the Trump Administration could prosecute Clinton Inc. without a
widespread hue and cry of political vengeance being leveled: Likewise with the Bidens.
As I've commented in UR a few times before, Trump should hand out Presidential Pardons to
the scurvy lot of them; they'll never be prosecuted for their misdeeds, so why not tar them
with pardons that spell out those misdeeds in gleeful detail.
This isn't partisan oppo war. Kurt Volker, the virgin they threw into the volcano when Biden
got burned? I knew him back when he disappeared into CIA. Think he quit, and just happened to
show up in all these sensitive jobs?
McCain's ventriloquist, then senior ratfuck officer
assigned to Dmytro Firtash? This is just more of the same shit, CIA picks up their
presidential Ken dolls and shakes them around like they're talking to each other.
Biden's
role as poster boy for corruption is all-you-can-steal, but don't imagine he has agency or
discretion or anything.
The forthcoming Presidential race is becoming a global affair, it seems. In so many
countries the US influence had been delivered by agents of Clintonite clan, and all of them
are tempted to do what the Clintonites ask, that is to help them to undermine President
Trump. In the Ukraine, the struggle of Clintonites and Trumpers is far from over. President
Zelensky promised President Trump to help him; but the oligarchs of the Ukraine are in
Clintonite camp.
The Clintonite clan can be better described as the Western Global(ist) Deep State. Whether
it's the global white genocide project or the global CO2 control initiative, it's glaringly
obvious that a lot of "our" political representatives are getting their marching orders from
a half-hidden group of wannabe masters of the universe.
The scary part is that a lot of those politicians are unflinchingly pushing unpopular and
ultimately political-career-ending policies. That's how much their loyalty lies on the side
of these enemies of humanity.
@renfro I
would only insert the note that all this mess started by Carter moving into Somalia.
I was really puzzled by that. Only years after I did realize that it was long term plan for
destabilization of Muslim power
@Realist I
guess you don't have the proper reverence for "Bite-Me". Every other story ever written about
that slimeball mentions that he lost a wife and child in an auto accident right after he won
his first election to the US Senate. He's been trafficing off of it for nearly fifty years
now. Sometimes he says the accident was caused by a drunk driver (not true). The family of
the other driver has been trying to get him to stop making that claim, but I guess it brings
more sympathy.
If you love Jews for Israel Vote for Joe.
Did you know that our constitution is based on Jewish values?
I didn't know that but Joe says it is.
Strange there's not a single Jew among the signers of the Del of Indep. or the Constitution.
Biden: 'Jewish heritage is American heritage'
excerpts
"The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential
part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage," he said.
"The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized
influence per capita as all of you standing before you, and all of those who went before me
and all of those who went before you."
"So many notions that are embraced by this nation that particularly emanate from over 5,000
years of Jewish history, tradition and culture: independence, individualism, fairness,
decency, justice, charity.
Jews have also been key to the evolution of American jurisprudence, he continued,
namedropping Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan. "You literally
can't. You can't talk about the recognition of rights in the Constitution without looking at
these incredible jurists that we've had."
"Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us, us, me – as much or more
than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," he said.
"We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions" of Jews in
America, Biden added, but it's deeper "because the values, the values are so deep and so
engrained in American culture, in our Constitution."
"So I think you, as usual, underestimate the impact of Jewish heritage. I really mean
that. I think you vastly underestimate the impact you've had on the development of this
nation. We owe you, we owe generations who came before you," he said."
I don't think Nancy would impeach if she could not get a conviction. Why would Republican
Senators say no to Trumps head on a platter? He's not one of them. The House will impeach and
the Senate will convict.
Then what? Then the Clinton/Bush/Obama crime family and their paymasters will remain safe
and in charge of the Federal Government. Safe from Orange Man and the Deplorables I mean.
Russia, China and Iran are another matter.
Unless U.S. Atty Barr has something really good up his sleeve. Does anybody here think
Barr will actually do anything? Other than not inditing Comey?
Today America is governed by an Organized Criminal Enterprise. a take over that began with
then Vice President Bush after his bungled assasination of Ronald Regan. However, it wasn't a
complete failure as it resulted in Bush (a Rockefeller asset) actually running the WH, and
subsequently winning the presidency.
Bill Clinton (a possible Rockefeller offspring, who for
all his Democratic party trappings is a CIA (Bush) creation who was treated by G. Bush like
a favored nephew, and both benefitted greatly in partnership international narcotics
trafficking.
After Bill it was George's son's turn, after that came Rockefeller's next choice
Obama. Trump interrupted the Rockefeller reign, but he has problems too steming from his
accepting Russian mafia money in the late 80s early 90's, to save his real estate empire.
They, the Russian/Ukrainians, needed a brand name through which to launder money into the
states, looted from mother Russia, and Trump filled that need to a T. So today we're
witnessing a fight between the Russian mafia crooks including a reluctant but fatally comprimised Trump, and the Rockefeller's communist crooks, all for control of America, her
banks and military, and ultimately the world.
@Justvisiting
I understand the approach; it would be very popular with Joe 6-Pack. Big Media has been
exposed: watch Giuliani and George Stepinshitalopolous. The Naked Deceit of the MSM has been
laid bare. I think that in future, many will look back and see that a simple win as you
suggest was not doable;the lack of executive control of the Alphabet agencies and Civil
Bureaucracy is near non-existent at this point. 2020 will break the will of the Democrat
Party. Two years of controlling the House and Senate could actually allow for this type of
activity because the way was cleared to do so in the first term.
What the Dems did was go spastic for 3 years screaming Russia to hide Ukraine. I'm sure
there is more dirt in Ukraine and China and .Notice Trump has 2 personal lawyers that he has
briefed to handle items he could normally count on a Cabinet Secretary to do? Why? These are
not, I suggest, normal times. The C_A, Brennan, Clapper and others are in full court press.
But now it's the 4th period and they are out of gas (sorry, bad sports metaphor).
Trump could get impeached. The Senate would look at it. Rule it is spurious and throw it out.
Then McConnell could say: 'What about this CFR video, Biden, Ukraine what about that?" Trump
gets elected in 2020 with a landslide after gaining significant sympathy and support. The
MORE INSANE the MOCKINGBIRD CIA media behaves, the more people are leaving the Democrat Party
and the more Independents see Trump as the only game in town.
Who is their to vote for: Biden, Warren, Booker, Bernie? The Left has no one except Gabbard
and they don't trust her. Kamala Harris has lost all heart. Killary Clinton or Big Mike
Obama? The voters would reject both. They have nothing.
@Sean
McBride I have a colleague, who I believe to be a psychopath, who always backs the person
he thinks will win in our organization's power struggles.
He has been very successful, and
leads a happy and celebrated life. I would urge all of you to consider his example, think
first of your families, and desist from backing a losing cause.
America is mostly lost. We
can keep it alive in our homes, but our political culture is, and will remain, an alien
culture, that renounces the vision of our founders.
@Rurik
Rurik,
good or bad, Mr Kolomoysky is the only one Ukr oligarch who is against IMF and against
Clintonites. Good or bad, he is not considered as anti-Putin, or anti-Russian in the Ukraine.
If he is connected to the nefarious entity called Rothschild, this omnipotent Rothschild did
not help him when the other bankers took over his bank.
The world is not that simple, Rurik. You see a Jew and you presume he is a Zionist, Jewish
supremacist, unhinged Putin-hater and Rothschild stooge. With this presumption, you do not
have to read at all.
@Cato A
question to consider: has America been a Masonic project from the start? Has it been a
Masonic project all along? Has there always been a radical disconnect between America's overt
agenda and a hidden agenda?
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of
the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.
"We don't call him shifty Schiff for nothing," said Mr. Trump. "He's a shifty dishonest
guy."
Mr. Schiff's aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer's accusations, Mr.
Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to the inspector general for the intelligence
community, Michael Atkinson, and advised him to seek legal counsel.
Mr. Schiff never saw the full complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would
deliver to Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Boland said. -NYT
GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling
the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet.
"... the text does not read the way government people write. It sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist "connecting the dots," a Maddow exclusive combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions. Sure, maybe the whistleblower had help writing it, but that's not the point. The point is that the complaint was written for the media. It was written to be leaked. It wasn't even about an intelligence matter. Maybe that's why the DOJ quickly rejected its accusations, and why both the Times ..."
"... If the whistleblower really is an analyst, he is not a very good one. He mixes second-hand sources with public ones to mimic a weary Dem narrative of foreign election help much like the Steele Dossier . The complainant witnessed nothing himself and produced no primary documents. The sourcing is as vague as "more than half a dozen officials have informed me of various facts." No law is cited because none applied; the whistleblower simply recorded his interpretation into bullet points, like the punchlines from Russiagate no one laughed at. ..."
"... The whistleblower's expected testimony will be played as high drama but actually it is meaningless; he has an opinion but his accusations were made without hearing the call or reading the transcript. At least he's in good company: Nancy Pelosi also declared her support for impeachment before she'd heard the call or seen the transcript. ..."
"... Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the nominee . Goodbye then to all the minor Dems, see you in 2024, perhaps running against Mike Pence after Trump's second term ..."
"... The case is weak, though with their House majority, that might not stop the Dems from impeaching a president just months ahead of an election based on a partisan interpretation of a few words to a minor world leader. ..."
"... Democrats are taking that road instead of talking about jobs, health care, immigration, or any of the other issues voters do care about. ..."
"... Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of ..."
the whistleblower complaint before the thing was
leaked to the Washington Post . The original complaint was passed from the
Intelligence Community Inspector General to the DOJ, which determined there was no crime and
closed the case. Officials found that the transcript did not show that Trump had violated
campaign finance laws by soliciting a thing of value, such as the investigation, from a foreign
national. Even as Democrats bleat about how corrupt the DOJ is, at some point during any
impeachment, they will need to make clear what evidence they have that finds crime where DOJ
did not. No one is above the law, sure, but which law exactly are we talking about here?
Trump is apparently no better at cover-ups than he is at extortion. He got no dirt on Biden
even as Ukraine pocketed its aid money (Ukraine, in fact, knew
nothing about the aid being frozen while Trump supposedly was shaking them down), and his
so-called cover-up concluded with him releasing in unprecedented fashion both the complaint and
the transcript. For a cover-up to even begin, you have to have something to cover, and a phone
call that led nowhere doesn't need to be covered up. In fact, it's on the internet right
now.
Advertisement
But the complaint says that the transcript was moved from one secure computer server inside
the White House to an even more secure server. That's a cover-up! Not discussed is that
Congress had no more access to the first server than the second. Exactly who was blocked from
seeing the transcript when it was on the more secure system who would have had access to it
otherwise? It seems the main person who suddenly couldn't grab the transcript was the
whistleblower. To make all this work, Democrats either have to argue for
less cybersecurity or impeach for over-classification. And of course, the Obama
administration also stored records of select presidential
phone calls on the exact
same server .
Bottom line: Trump asked the Ukrainian president to take calls from Bill Barr and Rudy
Giuliani to talk about corruption, a bilateral issue since the Obama administration with or
without Hunter Biden. There was no quid pro quo. Maybe a good scolding is deserved, but sloppy
statesmanship is not high crimes and misdemeanors.
Something else is wrong. The whistleblower is a member of the intel community (the New
York Times says CIA), but the text does not read the way government people write. It
sounds instead like an op-ed, a mediocre journalist "connecting the dots," a Maddow exclusive
combining anonymous sources with dramatic conclusions. Sure, maybe the whistleblower had help
writing it, but that's not the point. The point is that the complaint was written for the
media. It was written to be leaked. It wasn't even about an intelligence matter. Maybe that's
why the DOJ quickly rejected its accusations, and why both the Times and
the Huffington Post praised the writing, commenting on how much clearer the complaint was
than Mueller's legalese.
And that's a problem. A whistleblower complaint is meant to point out violations of law in
the language of prosecutors. It is legalese. A complaint requires data and references.
The evidence I needed to explain waste in Iraq's
reconstruction ended up at over 230
published pages. Daniel Ellsberg's
Pentagon Papers originally ran into multiple volumes to prove that the government lied
about Vietnam. Ed Snowden needed terabytes of data to demonstrate NSA illegality.
If the whistleblower really is an analyst, he is not a very good one. He mixes
second-hand sources with public ones to mimic a weary Dem narrative of foreign election help
much like the
Steele Dossier . The complainant witnessed nothing himself and produced no primary
documents. The sourcing is as vague as "more than half a dozen officials have informed me of
various facts." No law is cited because none applied; the whistleblower simply recorded his
interpretation into bullet points, like the punchlines from Russiagate no one laughed
at.
The whistleblower's expected
testimony will be played as high drama but actually it is meaningless; he has an opinion
but his accusations were made without hearing the call or reading the transcript. At least he's
in good company: Nancy Pelosi also declared her support for impeachment before she'd heard the
call or seen the transcript.
Here's where things stand. After three years of trying to keep Trump from assuming office,
then cycling through ways to throw him out, this plops onto the field. If an impeachment vote
comes, it will literally be with Trump having only a few months left in his term. This is no
longer about overturning 2016; it is about circumventing 2020, fear by the Democrats of what
will happen if they let the deplorables vote again. Is the Dem slate that weak? They are acting
as if they have nothing to lose by trying impeachment.
Pity Nancy Pelosi, who tried to hold back her colleagues. Now instead of answering the needs
of constituents, Democrats will instead exploit their majority in the House to hold hearings
that will likely lead to a show vote that would have embarrassed Stalin. History will remember
Pelosi as the mom who, after putting up with the kids' tantrums for hours, finally gave in only
a few blocks from home. She'll regret spoiling dinner over a hefty glass of white wine, but
what could she do: they just wouldn't shut up and her nerves were shot. Have you had
to listen to AOC complain from the back seat for two hours in traffic?
The last thing Joe Biden needed was more baggage. It'll take awhile for him to realize it,
but he's done, doomed by kompromat never actually found. Impeachment will so dominate
the media that no one will listen to whatever the other primary Dems have to say. Kamala Harris
in the midst of all this was so desperate for attention she was still trying to drum up support
for impeaching Brett
Kavanaugh .
Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the
nominee . Goodbye then to all the minor Dems, see you in 2024, perhaps running against Mike
Pence after Trump's second term .
The case is weak, though with their House majority, that might not stop the Dems from
impeaching a president just months ahead of an election based on a partisan interpretation of a
few words to a minor world leader. Impeachment didn't even come up in the last Democratic
debate, yet heading into the early caucuses, the faces of the party will be Adam Schiff and the
agita-driven Hillary. Democrats are taking that road instead of talking about jobs, health
care, immigration, or any of the other issues voters do care about.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of We Meant
Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People ,
Hooper's War: A Novel of WWII Japan , and Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the 99
Percent.
"... Schiff's hate for Trump and hate for Russia, can be easily explained by the money he appears to received from his oligarch patron, who has an agenda to neo-liberalize Ukraine, and profit from the pillage started in Maidan in 2014. ..."
When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff's When in doubt follow the money. Congressman Schiff's
well
documented Putin obsession may have something to do with his billionaire, military complex, oligarch patron from Ukraine.
In a Zerohedge post yesterday, chronicling the latest Adam Schiff idiocy, where the Democrat Congressman spoke to a crowd at
the University of Pennsylvania,
declaring Russian ads promoted the Second Amendment during the 2016 election "so we will kill each other" commenter
AlaricBalth linked some interesting information on Schiff's underlying motivation behind his Russia hysteria
Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff's anti-Russian narrative is carefully orchestrated
by his Ukrainian handlers Adam Schiff is an owned hatchet man of Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Schiff's anti-Russian narrative
is carefully orchestrated by his Ukrainian handlers
https://mobile.twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/843864725062664197
"TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam Schiff" "TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam Schiff" "TASTE OF UKRAINE RECEPTIONfor Adam
Schiff" http://politicalpartytime.org/party/34974/ Pasternak,
who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture
and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two
countries and has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine's strategic economic importance among Members of Congress.
Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members
of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US security. Pasternak, who was raised and educated in
Ukraine before immigrating to the United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active
in both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially
active building awareness of Ukraine's strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since political protests broke
out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic
importance of Ukraine to European and US security. Pasternak, who was raised and educated in Ukraine before immigrating to the
United States, is a passionate promoter of Ukrainian culture and business. He has been active in both Los Angeles and Washington,
D.C. to support increased bilateral ties between the two countries and has been especially active building awareness of Ukraine's
strategic economic importance among Members of Congress. Since political protests broke out across Ukraine in late 2013, Pasternak
has worked to personally inform and educate Members of Congress about the geostrategic importance of Ukraine to European and US
security.
Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff's connection to Pasternak and George Soros Jack Posobiec tweeted in March 2017 on Schiff's
connection to Pasternak and George Soros
Hi @RepAdamSchiff! Why did Soros-tied Ukraninan Arms Dealer Igor Pasternak hold a fundraiser for you? #ComeyHearing Hi @RepAdamSchiff!
Why did Soros-tied Ukraninan Arms Dealer Igor Pasternak hold a fundraiser for you? #ComeyHearing
PIN IT Who is Who is Who is Schiff's patron, Igor
Pasternak? He is a Ukraine globalist, military industrialist who was curiously spotted in Maidan, Kiev in 2014 for "diplomatic
reasons" during the US/CIA sponsored coup.
PIN IT
Founded 27 years ago in the U.S., the Aeroscraft Corporation (Aeros) has grown from a small aerostat production manufacturer
to a leading FAA-certified airship producer and R&D firm for the aerospace industry. Aeros has achieved multiple FAA airship
type certificates and operates with an FAA Production Certificate, while featuring a product line that includes advanced airships
and tethered aerostats utilized in commercial and government applications throughout the world. Learn more at
http://www.aeroscraft.com.
A Ukrainian billionaire oligarch, with military industrial complex contracts, funding Adam Schiff's campaign dinners at $2,500
a plate no wonder Schiff is pushing the Russia fear mongering so hard.
Schiff's hate for Trump and hate for Russia, can be easily explained by the money he appears to received from his oligarch
patron, who has an agenda to neo-liberalize Ukraine, and profit from the pillage started in Maidan in 2014.
Perhaps its time to shine a little bit of light on Adam Schiff's Ukraine collusion.
Ukrainegate is all about power of deep state to control the narrative
Notable quotes:
"... That is what this is all about. It always is. Then-editor Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post, when it looked like the Iran-Contra matter might break Ronald Reagan's presidency, after his 49-state landslide, chortled, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate." ..."
"... This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to challenge or dispossess it. ..."
To ensure the investigation was done swiftly, she took the franchise from Nadler and his
judiciary committee and handed it to Adam Schiff and the intelligence committee. Now she is
urging a narrowing of the articles of impeachment to just one -- Trump's request of Ukraine's
president to look into the Bidens.
Pelosi's hope: Have one House vote on a single article of impeachment by year end; then send
it on to the Senate for trial and be done with it. This is Nancy Pelosi's fast track to
impeachment of Trump and ruination of his presidency. But, to be sure, she is "heartbroken"
about all this.
For three years, the media-deep state axis has sought to overturn the election of 2016 and
bring down Trump, starting with Russia-gate. Now it appears to have tailored and weaponized the
impeachment process.
That is what this is all about. It always is. Then-editor Ben Bradlee of The Washington
Post, when it looked like the Iran-Contra matter might break Ronald Reagan's presidency, after
his 49-state landslide, chortled, "We haven't had this much fun since Watergate."
This is what the deep state does to outsiders Middle America sends to Washington to
challenge or dispossess it.
How should the Republican Party and Trump's base respond?
Recognize reality. Whether or not Trump was ill-advised to suggest to the president of
Ukraine that passing on the fruits of the investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, the end game
is bringing down Trump, democracy's equivalent of regicide.
While the "whistleblower," whose memo is the basis of these impeachment hearings, is well on
his way to Beltway beatification, no campaign to depose the president can be allowed to cloak
itself in anonymity indefinitely, for one man's whistleblower is another man's seditionist.
Whom did the whistleblower collaborate with to produce his memo? What is his background?
What are his biases? The people have a right to know. And democracy dies in darkness, does it
not?
Not until 30 years after Watergate did we learn the "whistleblower" known as "Deep Throat"
was a corrupt FBI veteran agent who leaked grand jury secrets to The Washington Post to
discredit acting Director Pat Gray and thereby become FBI director himself.
His identity was sheltered for three decades. For whose benefit?
Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process but should give their
troops time to recognize the stakes involved, organize a defense and repel this latest
establishment attempt to overthrow a president elected to come to the capital to corral that
establishment.
Force all the Democratic candidates for president to take a stand on removing Trump for high
crimes -- over a nebulous phone call to Kiev.
And the U.S. Senate should refuse to take up and should return to the House any bill of
impeachment done in a short-circuited and savagely partisan manner, as this one is being done.
There should be no rush to judgment.
If the election of 2020 is going to be about President Trump, tell the nation that the
people will decide his political fate in November 2020, and that of Joe Biden if Democrats
believe he is as pure as the driven snow and choose to nominate him.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and
Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
Pelosi is speaker in name only she runs nothing. She is old and addled , a real dumbass. In
fact most of Congress is that way. The Deep State is the real power anyway.
Perhaps this farce is all about Trump's recalcitrance over Iran.
Trump was supposed to do a 'Libya' to Iran by now. There is grumbling that he's too
worried about his own re-election, to follow through with the quid pro quo.
He was ousted from his role amid disputes over foreign policy.
Pelosi's hope: Have one House vote on a single article of impeachment by year end; then
send it on to the Senate for trial and be done with it. This is Nancy Pelosi's fast track
to impeachment of Trump and ruination of his presidency.
Pelosi has been in the DC swamp long enough to know that a Republican controlled Senate is
going to use any Senate Trial to their own ends.
So what does Senate Trial actually mean? Short answer, whatever Mitch Connell wants
it to mean.
Given how badly Adam Schiff is comprimised, there can be little doubt he will be
subpoenaed and forced give testimony under oath with the penalty of Justice Department
investigation for perjury if he lies. Will he:
-- Take the 5th to avoid perjury?
-- Refuse to testify?
Pelosi has to know that this will be bad for the Democrat party. So, "Why is she doing
it?"
Fortunately the author has already provided the correct answer:
But to Pelosi this was looking like a loser, a dead end, a formula for failure followed
by a backlash against House Democrats and her own removal as speaker in January 2021, if
not before.
After advising against this, and only reluctantly going along, she has laid the trail of
blame directly "The Squad" including AOC. Who is the greatest threat to Pelosi? Could it be
AOC?
Pelosi's first priority is Pelosi. She is acting to minimize harm and maximize gain to
Pelosi. Is anyone surprised?
To be honest, this makes her like most other politicians (1).
@Robert
Dolan What should make your head hurt is that the powers that be can make false
allegations against anyone, can provide fake witnesses and documents to back up their
allegations, can slander their name all over the mass media, can get them removed from their
job, and may be able to get them sent to prison.
Anyone.
This may appear to be about Trump, but it is not.
This is about every single living breathing person.
If you are not afraid you are not paying attention.
Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process but should give their
troops time to recognize the stakes involved, organize a defense and repel this latest
establishment attempt to overthrow a president elected to come to the capital to corral
that establishment.
I'm sure there is no shortage of Repubes who think letting Trump get the heave-ho will
allow them to get back to serious government; if Trump gets the heave-ho, they will find
themselves wandering in the desert longer than the last go-round following the Dems' capture
of the government in 1933. The thing about importing millions of new voters from south of the
border is that you get an electorate already accustomed to a century of one-party rule.
"Republicans should not allow Democrats to fast-track this process "
Oh, no doubt. Republicans should also slap down one of their own, Mitch McConnell, for
fast tracking Chuckie Schumer's Senate resolution to turn the whistleblower's complaint over
to Schiff's Star Chamber without debate from republicans in the Senate.
Did you miss that one, Pat? It was reported in NYmag's Intelligencer:
"One of the most pressing questions of the hectic Tuesday involved why Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell chose to counter his block-everything legacy and fast-track the
resolution. (McConnell chose to "hotline" the motion, meaning he bypassed normal Senate
procedures to move Schumer's request to a vote without floor debate.) "
This surpasses the GOP's reputation of being the stupid party and shows them as the ally
of their "loyal opposition", doesn't it? Shouldn't republicans also try to keep their own
team members from handing the democrats whatever they want for their impeachment scam?
Thank you for this article. I hope to God the Senate does exactly as you say they should,
which is to quickly and unceremoniously toss any such single-issue impeachment article back
over the fence to the House. And I hope to God Trump wins re-election decisively and the
House crazies are tossed out on their ears. Is it too much to hope and pray that there are
still enough sane voters in the country? You don't have to love Trump to see that putting him
back in office and flipping the House to Republican would be a well-deserved rebuke to the
likes of Schiff, Pelosi, the Squabs, Never-Trumpers, and the Deep State intent on deposing
the duly-elected President against the will of the people.
@Realist
"Old and addled, a real dumbass?" That perfectly describes the focus of Trump's infamous
phone call – Joe Biden. I can't believe that that senile old man is still in the race,
or was allowed to run in the first place.
"... As The Times reports, "The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide did not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else." ..."
"... GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet. ..."
"... Finally, if this process seems vaguely familiar, it's because it should be: as the Federalist's Sean Davis writes, this is a carbon copy of what happened with Christine Blasey Ford's accusations aimed at sabotaging Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation. ..."
While President Trump is now accusing Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) of 'helping to write' a CIA
whistleblower's complaint at the heart of an impeachment inquiry, the New York Times is out
with a Wednesday article designed to put distance between the House Intelligence Committee
Chairman and the accusation - suggesting Schiff had no more than a vague sneak peek .
As The Times
reports, "The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B.
Schiff of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President
Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed
a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide did
not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else."
So - according to the Times, Schiff kinda sorta knew what the whistleblower said, and a
House Intel Committee aide told him (or her) to get an attorney - Andrew Bakaj - who "interned
for Schumer in the spring of 2001 and for Clinton in the fall of the same year," per
The Federalist .
The Times goes to great lengths to explain that nothing was untwoard.
"Like other whistle-blowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled committees, the whistle-blower contacted the committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community," said
Schiff spokesman Patrick Boland.
Trump, meanwhile, is gunning for Schiff.
On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said Mr. Schiff should be forced to resign for reading a parody of
the Ukraine call at a hearing, an act Mr. Trump has called treasonous and criminal.
"We don't call him shifty Schiff for nothing," said Mr. Trump. "He's a shifty dishonest
guy."
Mr. Schiff's aides followed procedures involving the C.I.A. officer's accusations, Mr.
Boland said. They referred the C.I.A. officer to the inspector general for the intelligence
community, Michael Atkinson, and advised him to seek legal counsel.
Mr. Schiff never saw the full complaint or knew precisely what the whistle-blower would
deliver to Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Boland said. -NYT
GOP spokeswoman Elizabeth Harrington, meanwhile, responded to the Times ' article - calling
the whistleblower saga 'COLLUSION' and a 'CON JOB' in a Wednesday afternoon tweet.
Finally, if this process seems vaguely familiar, it's because it should be: as the
Federalist's Sean Davis writes, this is a carbon copy of what happened with Christine Blasey
Ford's accusations aimed at sabotaging Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation.
"The Democratic head of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam B. Schiff
of California, learned about the outlines of a C.I.A. officer's concerns that President
Trump had abused his power days before the officer filed
a whistle-blower complaint ," adding "the original accusation was vague," and "The aide
did not share the whistle-blower's identity with Mr. Schiff or anyone else."
Of course Schiff would say that? What? Does the NYT think Schiff and the democrats would
actually admit it?
The Federalist: Federal law doesn't provide any whistleblower protections to intel
operatives who refuse to first provide their allegations to the ICIG and instead go outside
the statutory process to leak their allegations to partisan activists.
...Even Truman was lamenting the CIA after creating it! a D.N.I? really? a top *****?
almost as powerful as the Attorney General?! Let them draw swords on one another......
Question - What is the purpose of this facade, this FAKE wrestling match between Trump and
the Elites?
Answer - To get conservatives invested in a false left-right political paradigm, to co-opt
and fracture the liberty movement, and ultimately to chain us to Trump so that the
credibility of conservatism goes down with him and the economic collapse that will be falsely
blamed on him.
To those out there who have awoken to the FRAUD that is Trump, your time to speak loudly,
clearly, and consistently is NOW. Fight for the truth like your life depends upon it -
because it does. If enough of us turn the tables and successfully detach ourselves from Trump
- the Elite will be at a severe disadvantage.
Yes- you will be attacked. You will be downvoted. But what's more important to you -
popularity or knowing that you stood up for what was right? Remember, courage is contagious
and silence is acquiescence. I know there are more of you out there - please get off the
fence and come join us. NOW.
BREAKING: Judicial Watch: DOJ Docs Show Rosenstein Advising Mueller 'the Boss' Doesn't
Know About Their Communications. Shows massive collusion and plotting by Rosenstein and
Muller, behind administrations back, and collusion with democrats and press.
"These astonishing emails further confirm the dishonest corruption behind Rosenstein's
appointment of Robert Mueller," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The emails also
show a shockingly cozy relationship between Mr. Rosenstein and anti-Trump media
reporters."
The whistleblower protection law (which Obama never let get in the way of his reprisals) law
says the spook must have "reasonably believed" Trump did wrong. How do you get there with a
trained swamp creature of the CIA?
Wow! Please expound on "the Unitary Executive 'theory'.
Is it treason or an impeachable theory?
Send links that are no main stream DNC printing presses.
Why don't the House start with putting the spook hiding behind hearsay protections on the
stand?
That would clear up the issue without spending 40 months with a deep state left over
trying to get people to 'breech process' and go to jail.
Why don't the House bring the spook's hearsay sources on the stand?
Since Nov 2016 the DNC tools have been Sherlock Holmesing Trump and anyone near him to
attempt a coup. Impeachment is not an end it is the coup conspirators process.
The spook rumor blower deserves no privacy, until he is proven separate from the DNC coup
conspirators.
The only protectable "referral" from a swamp creature is a referral against the swamp!
(The only control that Congress has over
the President is its power to impeach him.)
The unitary executive theory is a theory of US constitutional law holding that the US
president possesses the power to control the entire executive branch. The doctrine is rooted
in Article Two of the United States Constitution, which vests "the executive power" of the
United States in the President. ... (Wikipedia)
Attorney General William Barr has been criticized for his capacious view of executive
power. It's a view that some other conservatives also hold, and also that some progressives
hold, generally dependent upon which party occupies theWhite House.
But Barr's performance last week as he released the Mueller report betrayed a view of the
presidency that goes well beyond mainstream constitutional theories. If his influence is
allowed to become a legitimate position, the damage to the rule of law in America could far
out-last the drama of the Mueller report itself.
Since at least the 1980s, many conservatives have adhered to a unitary executive theory of
executive power. The theory is based on Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution: "The
executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." That means
just the president, and the executive power can't be fractured and reassigned to various
commissions and committees as Congress was fond of doing through most of the 20th century.
Under unitary executive theory, all executive officers have to be, in some way or another,
accountable to the president. ...
IMO, the explanation offered above
is the 'weak form' of the theory.
The strong form, as I noted, is
that Congress' only recourse for an
over-stepping president is impeachment.
Let's begin with ISIS. In many different ways, I documented, on the CSS, beyond a a shadow
of a doubt that Hillary and McCain started ISIS. Hillary made the first move, as I previously
documented, by paying "blood money" to a small band of terrorists when she was on the board at
LaFarge. This gave birth to the financial backing that ISIS needed to get started. Their money
was used to entice other impoverished Muslims to join ISIS just like how American teens join
street gangs. This is not a secret and has been widely reported. McCain, while he was the head
of the Senate Intelligence Committee, blocked the destruction of American military equipment
left behind in Iraq. This was deliberate and illegal, as by law, when the American military
abandons a theater of war, the weapons are destroyed so our enemies, or potential enemies
cannot procure needed muscle. McCain's actions led to the small ISIS remnant suddenly appearing
out of seemingly nowhere, to become armed to the teeth. Previously and with the help of former
PSYOPS officer, Scott Bennett, I was able to piece together this scenario. However, many other
outlets reached the same conclusion.
Why was ISIS created? ISIS was a transportation arm and a protection arm of drug trafficking
coming out of Afghanistan. They protected some of the distribution points while carrying out
terrorist activities which serves as an effect cover for their drug operation which is their
main duty. They have also evolved into an effective and well-armed militia, thanks to the CIA,
John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
The only thing that has changed since the war in Afghanistan began is that the heroin
traffic has grown to the world's biggest supply. Our US troops serve the purpose of protecting
various drug lords drug distribution centers. How does this operation escape the scrutiny of
Congress? It doesn't, to be perfectly blunt. The reason that we are still in Afghanistan is
because the Epstein/CIA/Mossad operation has compromised key American politicians. In a sense,
Epstein's Island was the center of the new (1984 style) Ministry of Truth. Entice key
politicians like Adam Schiff, photograph him with underage girls, and you have a powerful ally
in Congress. Multiple this strategy several times over and there is no danger that the war in
Afghanistan will ever end. For George W. Bush, his complicity covered up his cocaine habit. For
"Bathhouse Barry" as he was called, his seedy underworld Chicago lifestyle remains hidden as
long as he leaves the war alone. At the center of all of this complicity is Jeffrey Epstein and
spin off operations which exist to exact compliance through the blackmailing process. Hillary's
connection to ISIS and ultimately the Epstein empire keeps her out of prison. These forces
extracted Epstein from prison and this explains why the guards were not in position when the
extraction occurred. It is explains why the video footage, which was required in a suicide
watch situation, are "not available". It explains why Hillary has never stood trial.
Now, here comes Donald Trump. In two recent occasions he has threatened to withdraw troops
from Afghanistan. The infighting that would occur between the existing Afghan drug lords would
collapse the system and cut into the might profits of the heroin empire. Hence, we have yet
another attempt to remove Trump from power because he is not fully on board with these types of
CIA led operations. And make no mistake about it, according to long-term sources, when we are
talking Afghanistan, we are talking about world domination with many key politicians. This is a
Deep State operation.
Why not just kill Trump? The answer is simple. In 1963, there was no Independent Media (IM)
except for the likes of people like Josiah Thompson and the late Jim Marrs. These men never let
go of the assassination. Jim taught the first class on JFK assassination of the University of
Texas. It took 30 years and a major movie to fully awaken the American people, that on behalf
of David Rockefeller, Alan Dulles, LBJ, J Edgar Hoover and Richard Nixon orchestrated the plot
to kill JFK because of the threat he posed to the Federal Reserve, the nuclear arms race and of
course JFK was opposed to the heroin cash cow known as Vietnam. The South Vietnamese President
was assassinated three weeks before JFK because both men were not on board with sending troops
into Southeast Asia to protect the drug trafficking of the Golden Triangle run by covert
operations of the CIA. Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia was Afghanistan, before the Afghan war. If
there was an IM in 1963, this crime would have been solved by Christmas of the same year (30
days after the assassination). If Trump were to be assassinated, the IM would be all over this
and the American people would more than likely rise up and the Deep State cannot afford this.
So, covert operations must be employed by the CIA. This President must go before the election.
This was the same exact thinking when JFK was assassinated. If JFK were to get a second term,
he could irreparable harm to the Deep State of the day. The same is true for Trump. His border
policies alone, could cost the globalists drug-trafficking trade, run by the CIA and the
Mossad, billions of dollars. Since the Russian collusion did not result in impeachment, the
Ukraine plot was hatched. The plot is being led by Adam Schiff. Why Schiff? Because he is
compromised, deeply compromised as in Deep State compromised. He is implicated in Epstein
Island according to my best source. Because Trump is not fully on board and never has been with
the Afghan War, he has faced the Russian collusion and now the nothing burger of Ukraine-gate
and Schiff is leading the charge. The complicity of every American politician is being brought
to bear. If you have noticed that until the past few days, Pelosi was dragging her feet on
impeachment because she knows if it fails, her party is dead. Pelosi is implicated in border
drug trafficking and stealing water out of Northern California and sending it to Communist
China. Even Bill Maher is opposed to this course of action by the Democrats with regard to
impeachment. He sees the end of the Democratic Party if impeachment fails. Clearly, Maher did
not get the memo. It is impeachment at all costs. The Deep State is reeling, and this is their
Kamikaze attack. It is all or nothing.
These facts, listed above, have been fully communicated. However, what follows is not as
well-known and is serving to fuel the Ukrainian frame up of Trump. I have information that
comes out of the intel community that has shed light on this situation. In fact, this
information is reverberating in the intel community. It is suppressed as I write these words
and CNN and the rest of the MSM are scrambling to create a diversion that will take eyes off of
what you are going to read right here.
My insider source, and the info was partially confirmed by another source, implicates
Congressman Adam Schiff in a plot to overthrow the US government beginning with Donald Trump.
Schiff is part of group, fronting for CIA/Mossad interests in drug trafficking.
Schiff is a compromised man. He is deeply implicated in the shenanigans of the Epstein
child-sex-trafficking empire according to the source. As many world-wide politicians are,
Schiff is being blackmailed by Epstein-related interests with a political agenda.
Schiff has another issue that he needs to cover up and it has to do with Ukraine. I have
been told by this inside source that Adam Schiff was in league with Hunter Biden and corrupt
Ukrainian officials and that Schiff received hundreds of thousands of dollars to steer
Congressional oversight away from Ukraine. Why? Because the Ukrainian revolution was CIA
inspired. Why? Because the CIA and the Mossad wanted their drug trafficking to extend to the
Silk Road and Putin told the CIA where to go and what to do when they got there. Subsequently,
the CIA initiated a coup in Ukraine and installed wholly corrupt EU figures in the power base
of the country. This was something that the CSS reported on extensively when this was
occurring. Ukraine is one of Russia's main source for natural gas and the loss of Russian
revenue related to this revolution in Ukraine. And what did Putin do, he retaliated and
occupied Crimea. The previously identified Democrats moved into the vacuum and began to profit
from the criminal enterprises that sprang up as a result of what was happening in Ukraine. Some
of these figures includes Mitt Romney, Jeff Flake and Hunter/Joe Biden.
The readers may have noticed that Mitt Romney has seemingly come out of nowhere to enter
this controversy and go after Trump. If that seemed out of place to you, as it did to me, there
was a very good reason for this. Mitt Romney has been after Trump since day one. Additionally,
Jeff Flake who mysteriously resigned from the Senate and did not seek re-election has
periodically surfaced to attack Trump and he has done so again over the Ukrainian issue. Why?
Why are Flake, Romney and Schiff all on the attack? Why were 500 words deleted from the
transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky in order to create the illusion that Trump
was obstructing justice? The answer is that Flake and Romney were involved in Hunter Biden's
criminal enterprise in Ukraine. They are all at risk. That is why these people are taking front
and center against Trump.
My insider source did not give me the following information, but it must be related. It was
announced, or should I say, purposely leaked, that Barr and Trump are looking for an
international conspiracy with regard to American Deep State interests. This goes back to an
Epstein international blackmailing operation. Trump is playing chicken with the Deep State. I
recently scoffed when it was suggested to me that the Deep State was in a near-collapsed state.
I am no longer skeptical. I am certain that Joe Biden, former President Obama, the late John
McCain, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation and many others are deeply compromised and
it is on the verge of coming out and the Epstein blackmail enterprise may not be able to stop
the disclosures.
And what about Schiff? Why is he leading the charge? Because he is willing to commit treason
than risk going to jail for the rest of his life.
I will conclude these revelations with tweets from Trump that clearly shows he is in
agreement with what is reported here.
"Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be
mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to
Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest
for Treason?" tweeted Trump.
Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be
mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to
Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest
for Treason?
The Fake Whistleblower complaint is not holding up. It is mostly about the call to the
Ukrainian President which, in the name of transparency, I immediately released to Congress
& the public. The Whistleblower knew almost nothing, its 2ND HAND description of the call
is a fraud!
Twice, the President mentioned arresting Schiff for treason. He knows of what I have written
about in this report.
Also, Joe Biden is done. As these facts surface and his complicity in covering up for his
son, Hunter, further surfaces, Elizabeth Warren will emerge as the candidate for the Democratic
Party. What a joke! She cannot win! That is why Hillary, as I have said 22 prior times in print
and in podcasts, will emerge as the candidate. If she cannot win, civil war will follow. We are
in the middle of a Bolshevik Revolution.
Oh, and one more thing. The CIA changed its whistleblower forms in late August to allow
so-called whistleblowers to use hearsay statements. Wouldn't we all agree that this is a little
bit too coincidental? And in the musical words of the late Tom Petty, which fully applies to
the CIA's complicity here "Let's get to the point and roll another joint". These CIA demons are
killing our children with their drug operations.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
"... If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment? ..."
"... One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike. ..."
"... Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time for the election. Buckle up, indeed. ..."
"... The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger" ..."
"... The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent, but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. ..."
"... Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were ratting on the CIA. ..."
"... I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed. The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't. ..."
"... And Pelosi, when asked by the CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" ..."
"... There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have to look no further than her constituency, the donor class. ..."
"... Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's harmful acts to date. ..."
"... Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever, brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous. ..."
"... In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected. ..."
"... Once is the intra-elite competition between the intelligence community and Trump. ..."
"... Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue town than any other candidates. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it. ..."
"... The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks, of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism. One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct about the "Noise" part. ..."
"... The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses, more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has supported those policies in the past. ..."
"... Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political, which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against. ..."
"... And not a word about Clinton approving arms sales while Secretary of State and accepting gifts to their foundation? ..."
"... What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch. ..."
"... That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in office. ..."
"... Yes, Pelosi put the Intelligence Committee (Schiff) in charge, as opposed to the Judiciary Committee (Nadler). Odd. ..."
"... Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family! Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits. ..."
"... Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! ..."
"... Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later normalized and rationalized all this, of course.) ..."
"... In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for losing. ..."
"... Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than ever? ..."
"... It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves, that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway ..."
"... a world in which it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment. ..."
"... Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings will happen behind closed doors. ..."
"... Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the republicans or Trump (other than bombast). ..."
"... Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. ..."
"... As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership. His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the cause. ..."
"... Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence, halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged in US media? ..."
"... I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere. ..."
"... Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter ..."
"... Here, Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or political refuge. ..."
"... The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama. ..."
"... Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of the lies. Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful, prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME. ..."
"... I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to watch that theater live on a 60 inch screen. ..."
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden," said Biden's
brother James according to
this Politico story about how the Biden family cashes in on their well-placed relative.
... ... ...
If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that
say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment?
Two traps for a party that much of the nation depends on to rid them of the man the last
election elevated to power. Two reasons for independent voters -- those not Party loyalists,
not blue-no-matter-who, not Never-Trumpers, voters who never turn out for elections or rarely
do -- to not turn out for this one, when their voice and vote is needed most in this greatest
of watershed years
.
What's decided now, in this year and the next, will set the course of the nation and the
world for a dozen years to come -- or a dozen millennia if the chaos predicted by the most
pessimistic among us takes root and grows. After all, social and political chaos is a breeding
ground for authoritarian "solutions." We don't need any of those, and this may be the last
electoral chance to avoid them.
To reiterate a comment in the recent Water Cooler (this article is a better forum):
One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying
impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose
the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike.
Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine
about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation
origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be
trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time
for the election. Buckle up, indeed.
Yes, I've been wondering this also. The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow
too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so
it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger", as @InquiringMind
put it during the latest Water Cooler.
A recent decision was made by the intelligence organs to allow reporting of second-hand
information and be titled a whistleblower for your efforts. it is acceptable to spy (which
this is an example of, since it is not whistleblowing) and listen to conversations saying
they heard this or that was happening, report that through legal channels, and have it
accepted BECAUSE IT APPEALS POLITICALLY to the agency or the particular representative.
The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to
service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent,
but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free
flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. We're getting wise
– not completely, not with any assuredness that our info is complete, but enough to
cause tremendous doubt and distrust of the messaging coming from government and media
propagandists.
To me, the danger of this period is exactly the lack of organized opposition, politically
at home and among the nations of the globe, to this onslaught and flooding of the ears with
lies that become real due to that repetition. We are not united, and the convenient and quick
answers are flawed. The Communist Party was deeply flawed, and the International a craven
defender of Stalin, but we could certainly use some organization similar to fight this neocon
cancer now, before it metastisizes into worse, if that is possible. That being said,
impatience drives tribal thinking, already invading academia and the few public intellectuals
existing. I await the working classes hitting their limit. Buckle up, indeed
Hey, I'm not posing an answer, and see fear of one everywhere, so don't thank me. There is
a inchoate and diffuse anger brewing "out there", but it does not reflect our measured,
rather moderate knowledge of crime and abuse of power we observe daily. It will, given the
money and influence of the right wing, push over to such violent reaction it will make the
1930s seem like a birthday party. The left, or what is loosely left of it, badly needs
discipline and structure, but its traditional organs have been rent asunder and are not
trustworthy.
A thinktank? New party? Dunno it has to have room to grow, and our secret-sauce parties
and intel outfits have "six ways from Sunday" to mess with any of it. Clarity of political
thought seems to come from crisis and being cornered, but that clarity is not guaranteed to
be "healthy", babies going with the bath water-wise. Bernie is a short-term stopgap to the
bleeding IF he can wrap his mind around the movement and an understanding of the immediate
threats to its existence- i.e., the DNC.
Regarding the first sentence of your comment: The requirements of the law never changed,
the whistleblower used an old form anyway, and the recently changed form has been
replaced.
In any case, the IG's process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not
by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been
virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the
2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations
were credible and that Congress should be notified.
Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were
ratting on the CIA. This hearsay would be laughed out of a court of law absent other proof.
Further, I think we can dismiss the IG investigation as being anything not pressured by
establishment types threatened by Trump's vendetta against Obama and his wing of the neo-lib
global corporation, as it promises to open the can of worms that both parties are united in
foreign policy and who we deal with, and that unity spills over into McCarthy-like reaction
to any unpredictability and unreliability such as Trump's. We can't "get him" on his real
crimes, as that would leave all "them guys" exposed.
I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the
conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed.
The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't.
And Pelosi, when asked by the
CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" It will be extremely interesting to see how
much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators who will be casting decisive votes.
Thirty-three Republicans Senators will be excused and given cover. Is there a thirty-fourth
with the cojones to vote against removal and against the CIA's efforts to impose a color
revolution on American soil?
If this is really about 2020 then Democrats are even more stupid than I'm inclined to
believe. Krystal Ball said this morning that only 35% of the public supports impeachment. All
this effort will do is rile up Trump supporters. I recall what happened in the 1998 midterms
after the Clinton impeachment. There's every reason to believe this will turn around and bite
the Democrats in 2020.
Pelosi and Schumer are fine with that. If Democrats were to actually win, they'd have to
govern, and they can't do that.
There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have
to look no further than her constituency, the donor class.
From their perspective there has been too many uncomfortable policy debates, including
climate change, occurring on the campaign trail. As with Russiagate all of these discussions
will vanish from the corporate media.
Also, some of the donors have stated they will not donate to the Dems, and may in fact
donate to Trump, if Warren gets nominated.
Finally, purely for display of party unity, protecting Joe Biden, even if it brings him
down will have value. Also, this specific charge will not bring up any of other former "suits" illegal
actions.
Inasmuch as polling showing the combined popularity of Sanders and Warren exceed 30% while
Biden is down to 19%, if you can end with a inconclusive first round of voting at the
Democratic Convention, you can bring in the Supers and name the person of your choice.
As to the question of 'why now?', my guess is because the 'resistance' types see the
writing on the wall that they are going to lose with anybody but Sanders as the candidate,
and they aren't about to allow Sanders to win. RussiaRussiaRussia, porn stars, and everything
else they tried didn't work and they've got nothing else that would give the public at large
something to vote for .
As to that writing on the wall, I will offer some very anecdotal evidence, but I found it
telling. A few days ago I went to a rural county fair. Now granted these fairs likely attract
a more conservative crowd, however this particular fair was in the most liberal county in the
state. Took a look at the exhibition hall at the fair, full of quilts, 4th grade artwork,
canned tomatoes, etc. as well as booths for both the Republican and Democrat parties.
At the Democrat party booth, they had put out poster boards with a list of issues and you
were supposed to put a little round sticker next to the issue you felt was most important.
Boring policy wonk stuff. I don't even remember if anyone was manning the booth when we
stopped by, but if they were they made no attempt whatsoever to speak with us. My wife put
one sticker on a poster and walked away and we were the only people there at the time. In
fairness, clearly there had been people there earlier since there were a lot of stickers
stuck to posters.
At the Republican booth, there were a number of people in line engaging with those manning
the booth. And rather than just pining little stickers on a poster, the Republicans were
handing out Trump 2020 swag and letting people get photos with a big Trump cutout. IDoing fun
stuff. Walking around the fair later I saw one of the few Hispanics in attendance (this is a
very white county in an extremely white state) sporting a Trump 2020 tote bag as he and his
wife walked through the fair.
If I were to base a prediction on the evidence alone, I would say Trump and the Elephants
are going to hand the Asses their asses in 2020 and they can feel it coming.
I really don't see how this doesn't blow up in their faces, but they've got nothing
else.
This is my feeling on it. It's the Democrats' Benghazi, a string of congressional hearings
designed to produce dirt on Trump to sink him in the election. Actual impeachment and removal
is nahgunnahappen, as that requires 67 senators, which would require all Democrats in the
Senate, both independents, and 20 Republicans . It would be a minor miracle if five
Republicans signed onto impeachment.
However, with dirt slinging as the only useful outcome possible, it shows how incompetent
Pelosi is by limiting the inquiry to just the Ukraine business. The damning dirt could come
in any form out of any corner of Trump's ongoings, so why would you limit the dirt digging to
something that, on the face of it, doesn't scream it went any deeper than Trump's
implication. Especially as it didn't happen that long ago.
God, this is so stupid. Look, perhaps it is because I live in a different continent or I
have a twisted turn of mind but I am seeing something completely different at work here. Is
Trump Corrupt? Of course he is but in a completely ham-fisted way that makes it blatantly
obvious. With Trump you always have low expectations. But Thomas Neuburger talks about ICE
deaths, Puerto Rico, the Muslim ban but so what? Obama was guilty of far worse but no
Democrats will criticize him for any of it. An example? If you cover up an international war
crime such as torture, that is an international crime too and Obama definitely covered up for
the CIA tortures and "looked forward". And one ramification for that was the US now having a
ex-torturer as head of the CIA.
So here is my take. The past few months Americans were finally having subjects like
healthcare and college debt forgiveness getting some air time and some serious traction. The
Democrat candidates were being forced to give answers on their positions on such ideas. But
now? The Democrats have introduced impeachment which has all the success prospects of
Russiagate. Expect copious amounts of verbal diarrhea in the next few months which will allow
for no time for discussion of subjects like healthcare anymore. The DNC will shout down
anyone trying to do so by shouting "Impeachment!". And when the elections rock around in a
year's time and there is finally some minor space to start talking about such subjects, the
DNC will tell progressives "You know, you should have really brought this up in 2019 while
there was time to talk about it. Your bad."
Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the
Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's
harmful acts to date.
I tell people that Trump is a minor league con man because so many people assert that he
is a con man
Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was
prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company
friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever,
brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not
prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous.
In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected.
Obama is in a con man league of his own, as he benefits from the left's form of Obama
Derangement Syndrome.
Interesting that attacking trump on this is attacking Biden did dem elites give up on him?
don't see how he can survive, which seems to open the field for Warren sanders if so, not
what donors want, pelosi musta been forced by blue dogs cia.
Maybe good for sanders he needs rest, the stents will require recovery msm can't focus away
from impeach to celebrate his health problems
How long? Say one month?
Hopefully the dems great white hope Biden will be down and out by primaries Bernie might find
help in the south this time where it was a wall last time
Ca dem elites don't want Bernie, but electorate doesn't want Kamala
And Tulsi back on stage with her useful to focus on wars.
I think this vectors the right direction, Rev Kev. White noise to drown out clearly
articulated messages. If any of this were about actual evidence, Binney would've been called
to undercut the Crowdstrike assertions.
There are a couple of things that seem real. Once is the intra-elite competition between
the intelligence community and Trump. Epstein cracked a door and some light got through.
Trump seems to have taken the standard operating procedures personally.
Despite this, Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks
serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue
town than any other candidates.
The endgame comes with the primaries. Sander's campaign income has a verisimilitude with
greater weight than the polls. Even polls which aren't specifically rigged can't cope with
modern communications. The problem is, with electronic vote-flipping on top of old-school
methods, unless the paper ballots get in (which is against status quo interests), how can it
be made clear the vote is being rigged? Could public gatherings outside the polling places be
enough to offer an alternative count?
Plus, Sanders has set himself up as TINA. He has not spread his wealth of four decades of
credibility to anyone else. No Hindu is getting the Oval, so Gabbard is a gadfly, not an
option. Trump and the top three Democratic candidates could all actually die of old age.
The only thing I'd actually put a bet on in all this is that Trump will not be removed
from office via impeachment.
I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to
overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it.
The real determinate is which people 'care' about it. The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks,
of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism.
One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White
Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct
about the "Noise" part.
According to Ball in the "Rising" video, the percentage of people who support impeachment
is 35%. That pretty much covers all the "partisan hacks" you refer to.
To the average voter? This is just noise and nonsense. Regardless of how impeachment ends
(and one doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that it will go nowhere), the concerns and
the anger of average voters are not going away.
Ditto, Ambrit- a rational response bestride the not caring noise.
The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders
is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses,
more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has
supported those policies in the past.
Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing
govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on
the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of
policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political,
which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against.
Right now, probably true. However, we've been victim to propaganda many times before
– WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.etc. We have an apparatus that has honed its abilities
to reach millions immediately through TV, press, video, websites, that puts former agit-prop
to shame. We have been swarmed with the same message, basically allowing those caught in lies
previously to suddenly be believed today, "because"
The truth of any proposition comes down to its provenance and our ability to get tired of
the repetition and cacophony surrounding us, thus surrendering the ground. If enough believe
the initial message, if enough see their bread buttered by it, then the rest of us are prone
to that surrender unless an outside agency we CAN rely on exists.
It is sad to say that "not caring" becomes a positive. 50% of the voting public does not
vote, and most who vote do not care if their vote is even counted properly. Do not care
equals no democracy at all.
What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally
discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and
they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's caucus finally made her do what she despises doing. That it should
benefit her party leadership's choice to replace Donald Trump is, of course,
coincidental.
There's still the nit that there's been no congressional vote authorizing her impeachment
inquiry, which will keep the process in the courts and delay proceedings longer than
necessary.
Ms. Pelosi's actions bring to mind the contradictory naval order, proceed with all
deliberate speed. It is a sign that the admirals acknowledge the necessity of doing
something, but tell their commanders it's on them if it goes South.
That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and
prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much
as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in
office.
California is the vanguard of the "Resistance" to Trump. Pelosi is from California, as is
Schiff. Two of the Intelligence Committee members are also from California (Jackie Speier and
Eric Swalwell) as the LA Times pointed out a few days ago ("
California to play an outsize role in impeachment inquiry of Trump "). This is probably
why the whole impeachment inquiry is centered in the Intelligence committee and not the
Judiciary.
Various Obama officials live or work in California. For example, Eric Holder was hired by
the California Legislature to fight Trump. David Plouffe, who works with the Chan Zuckerberg
Initiative among other Silicon Valley groups, is helping a liberal group called ACRONYM with
anti-Trump digital messaging.
Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was
married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family!
Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits.
Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! The Wash Post even
had a fantasy piece about "President Pelosi" just a few days ago.
Thanks for that, saved me a bit of rushed commenting because I was going to quickly
comment on it before I noticed you had already.
California has 6 of the 24 members of the House Intelligence Committee: 4 of those 6
members hold 100% of Democratic (Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff) and Republican (Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes) leadership roles; there are 4 out of 14 in the total Democratic membership,
and 2 out of 10 in the Republican membership.
Also, Californian members make up 100% of the House membership of the Gang of Eight, , 2
Democratic and 2 Republican: respectively, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff; and Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes.
And lastly, both California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris (despite her
newbiness), are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the only State to have both Senators as
members.
As a decades long California resident, what sickens me the most about this is California
legislators (overwhelmingly Democratic Party, but may as well be Republican given the
stunning inequality/austerity imposed in California) preside over the highest numbers of
unsheltered homeless in the country. A full third of California residents have been forced
onto Medi-Cal (where millions can't find a treating doctor for the life of them), or don't
qualify (despite not being able to afford their rents), yet can't afford any insurance.
Concurrently, State Legislators and that duplicitous, slimy creep Newsom just signed off on
an Obama inspired California
Healthcare Mandate Penalty , although there were crickets at California's Franchise Tax
Board when it came to following the IRS in going after Facebook's stunning and blatant 2010
Ireland Asset transfers Tax evasion (to the tune of billions now, and next to impossible to
determine what the current status of it is), they would much rather go after their
increasingly impoverished populace who can't afford a CPA, let alone an attorney.
> In other words, the rightness of impeachment was never a consideration for Democratic
Party leaders.
Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the
table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless
surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later
normalized and rationalized all this, of course.)
So one would not have expected principle or the "rule of law" or any of those other
shibboleths to enter into the liberal Democrat decision-making process. It never does.
This person starts out with an establishing remark that convicts Trump, and goes on from
there. Unlike a true impeachment process, no 'real' groundwork is laid down. Furthermore, by
half-heartedly mentioning "issues" with the Pelosi formulation, in effect, that Biden is just
as bad as Trump, the author lays the groundwork for the 'impeachment' of both Party's "main"
candidates. The piece reminds me of the logic of the Alice in Wonderland trial: "Sentence
first – verdict afterwards." All this, my cynical sensibility reminds me, sotto voice,
for an insane Queen.
Impeachment has always been a political process. After all, it is a function of the Congress,
the prototype of politics. To take the authors buttressing point, that the 'essence' of
impeachment should be the pure logic of the deeds in question casts the entire process of
impeachment in the light of virtue signalling. How else would a disinterested observer
characterize a process where the process itself is not initiated with the anticipation of a
useful outcome? In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for
losing.
This piece, if any, shows plainly the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American
political process today. The two "leading" candidates of the "rival" Partys are both
delineated to be frauds, figuratively and literally. Turning the mentioning of the earlier
English Parliamentary 'version' of impeachment on, as it were, it's head, one is lead to
consider that only something as all encompassing and determinative as an actual bloodletting
will be of any use to the Nation.
Be very careful what you ask for. You might get it.
"Impeachment is the Constitution's version of the English Civil War, minus the war."
It could be argued that getting rid of a Prime Minister via a vote of no confidence is
orders of magnitude simpler than impeachment. In fact, it seems to happen about every ten or
twenty years on average in the UK. And no civil war required either.
The best analogue of today with then is that the English Civil War did not just remove the
Royalist leadership of the time, but an entire generation of Royalists. Does America really
want a twenty year interregnum?
We are already in the Interregnum. Trump was 'none of the above'. People talked about a
'clown car' and then Trump showed that a clown could actually accede to power, insofar as a
clown can manage the role. The Democrats responded with a clown show of their own. It's a
circus, although the clowns are pretty malign. Maybe people like that. Meanwhile, serious
people with serious political proposals, like Sanders, are on the outside looking in.
Someone's going to have to break a window.
Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's
changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly
filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than
ever?
All I can think of is that the Clinton derangement syndrome – the bitterness and
perceived injustice that the anointed one didn't get anointed – still has an iron grip
on the psyche of the DC Daristocrats. They're stone drunk on hatred, spite, and lust for
revenge and are hallucinating in broad daylight that they've got the hook to sell it.
I like the idea that this is all a clever ruse to keep the focus away from sanity in
health care etc., but it just doesn't look like they have that much sense. From the UK to the
the US, everyone's going nuts.
I bet it's good for fund raising, those I know who are most embarrassed by trump have a
fair amount of money and currently they are very excited. Whatever it is, it's not bernie (or
should I say &@cking bernie), it's not M4A, and it's not student loans, as commented on
above this line
It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves,
that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for
all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert
attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway
There is a huge amount of pressure from the public to get rid of Trump any way possible
and a lot of that, ironically, has been manufactured by the democrats themselves. That, I
suspect, combined with Hillary syndrome, is more what's behind this than the criminal, but
lucid, plan to obscure the popularity of programs benefiting the public.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the last 5 years of commentary then -- there's been
plenty of substance offered by those who are just as powerless as you.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
It's not clear the Democrats would notice any impropriety. What would be tearing them
apart is that they didn't get a seat at the trough (on the board) as well.
I would say 'Joe Biden's son's integrity' and 'the dubious right-wing Democratic Party
CIA-led arms sales-drive policy in the Ukraine.'
I don't think that Biden himself is particularly corrupt; the guy really is a terrible
hack. And I don't think legal corruption is necessarily what's at issue, but a world in which
it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and
help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment.
The wider context–villifying Russia, cleaning up Ukraine enough to justify
consorting with fascists and the far-right to keep all the balls in the air, needs to be
exposed.
There is a right way to do impeachment, and this ain't it. They could investigate the
Trump administrator for its rampant corruption – it's a very target-rich environment.
Instead, Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and
offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House
Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings
will happen behind closed doors.
So, they think that they're going to remove the duly elected
President behind closed doors, and they think the population will be okay with this? Do they
really live in such a bubble that they think people trust their judgment enough to do this?
It boggles the mind.
Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot
on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the
democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the
republicans or Trump (other than bombast).
Also, just a thought, having this discussion behind closed doors makes sense if Pelosi is
hoping they will come to their senses.
As to the right or wrong way to do impeachment, I think the democrats like the republicans
are simply beyond that or any notion of it other than the residue of dim memory that ends up
entirely as the decorative part in public speeches. I suspect they are quite simply oblivious
to such niceties as anything being wrong with using impeachment as a weapon rather than as a
means for justice.
I'm pretty sure Pelosi doesn't want it and wanted to repeat her 2007 play, but she doesn't
have 2008 certainty to offer (keep the powder dry I know but this was what that was about).
Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. The people who missed brunch
aren't exactly rationale or going to have this explained to them behind closed doors. Pelosi
has been slowly losing with the caucus, but most of the members are terrible and vulnerable
to an AOC-esque challenge especially in safe seats which most of the seats are. Again without
theven #resistance, safe seat Team Blue types are very vulnerable.
Adding that, imo, the rank and file voters did the work of electing Democrats to a House
majority, motivated partly by Clinton revenge, but also by policy issues. There's been
noticeable dismay in the corners of twitter where I wander at Pelosi's taking so long to act,
the inept performances of the few hearings so far, and now the proposed narrow focus.
my take is they're never actually going to pass articles of impeachment, which would hand
the process over to McConnell in the Senate. It will stay in the House and they will attempt
to nab Trump or perhaps one of his sidekicks like Giuliani on obstruction of the House
investigation. This is by now a fairly transparent strategy, and we will find out what the
elusive PA swing voter thinks of it soon enough.
As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership.
His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the
cause.
Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy
running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence,
halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged
in US media?
I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of
Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting
the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere.
Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will
not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not
declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter.
Here,
Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of
Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud
armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any
consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions
emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or
political refuge.
Wasn't the power to go to war exclusively reserved for Congress, to try to make sure that
the country wouldn't go to war on a lark? And wasn't the Bill of Rights enshrined to make
sure that the U.S. Government could not put people to death, at least without due
process?
I realize that this might mean that Congress would have had to impeach presidents left and
right. So be it; enlisted women and men can be severely punished for killing innocent people
(and for far less, such as disobeying orders). Why should presidents and vice-presidents
escape responsibility for high crimes of unjustifiable homicide (and, I must add,
countenancing torture)?
The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare
achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any
brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama.
Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of
the lies.
Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful,
prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME.
Is this the last desperation Hail Mary by the Democratic Party and the National Security
State to save themselves?
Has it already happened?
I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew
McCabe
has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to
watch that theater live
on a 60 inch screen.
"I never expect rationality from the Swamp, I will always be suspicious."
I agree. Some kind of strange Circus with sad clowns like Schiff. Just look at the holes
in the impeachment case (and info about possible links to Brennan CIA faction that became
stronger each days) using which any serious attorney can easily make Schiff to regret him
zeal:
In other words, Pelosi Dems implicated themselves more then they implicated Trump. Clearly
Team Blue elites need #RESISTANCE happy because now it's their [only] base. Wall Street will
prefer Trump to the current top Dem Candidate (Biden and Sanders are history now)
I think it's a colossal mistake, and Pelosi all-in game will blow in her face. They want
to take Trump out of the race but in reality they just increased chances of his re-election
dramatically.
What you are seeing is the neoliberal Democrats are finally discovering that they actually
need the voters that they've been dissing for decades.
And they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
In a very real sense, this impeachment gambit (Biden was pawn sacrificed) is a partisan
war between faction of the US elite where there are real penalties for losing.
The war which so far Trump is winning unless Senate acts in Pelosi way.
According to a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the
whistleblower contacted the committee before raising concerns about alleged wrongdoing with
the intelligence community inspector general.
"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on
how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community,"
Patrick Boland, the spokesman, wrote in a statement.
"Consistent with the Committee's longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately
advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel."
The New York Times first reported that Schiff "learned about the outlines" of the
whistleblower's concerns before the complaint was filed, after the soon-to-be whistleblower
approached a committee aide with vague allegations of wrongdoing by Trump. The aide then
shared some of that message with Schiff, according to the Times.
... ... ...
"Well, I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further: I think he
probably helped write it. Okay? That's what the word is. And I think it's -- I give a lot of
respect for the New York Times for putting it out," Trump said.
"At no point did the Committee review or receive the complaint in advance," Boland wrote
in the statement. He declined to elaborate when asked what exactly Schiff knew about the
account before the complaint was filed.
According to a spokesperson for House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, the
whistleblower contacted the committee before raising concerns about alleged wrongdoing with the
intelligence community inspector general.
"Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and
Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how
to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community," Patrick
Boland, the spokesman, wrote in a statement. "Consistent with the Committee's longstanding
procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector
General and to seek legal counsel."
The New York Times first reported
that Schiff "learned about the outlines" of the whistleblower's concerns before the complaint
was filed, after the soon-to-be whistleblower approached a committee aide with vague
allegations of wrongdoing by Trump. The aide then shared some of that message with Schiff,
according to the Times.
... ... ...
"Well, I think it's a scandal that he knew before. I'd go a step further: I think he
probably helped write it. Okay? That's what the word is. And I think it's -- I give a lot of
respect for the New York Times for putting it out," Trump said.
"At no point did the Committee review or receive the complaint in advance," Boland wrote in
the statement. He declined to elaborate when asked what exactly Schiff knew about the account
before the complaint was filed.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
So we have three elements of the CIA operation Russiagate II: Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi and unknown person who authorized the
change in the form.
Notable quotes:
"... House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff supposedly sat on the 'whistleblower' complaint for over a month. ..."
"... By the way, the term whistleblower is a terrible misnomer, but everyone's using it, can't undo that anymore. Still, you can't be a CIA agent, be planted somewhere, leak on what goes on there and then be labeled a whistleblower. That works only if you share CIA secrets. ..."
"... Niceties aside, it appears that Schiff sat on the complaint since August 12 . First question is: why? But there are other questions as well. Two weeks ago, Schiff complained that acting DNI chief Joseph Maguire refused to share the contents of the complaint with Congress. But Maguire did that only after consulting with his legal counsel: ..."
"... Note the date. Also note the term 'urgent'. Which didn't keep Schiff from sitting on it for 5-6 weeks. And note that Schiff knew what was in the complaint, despite Politico reporting that "the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved Trump or other senior executive branch officials." ..."
"... Okay, so why did he sit on the letter? Is it possible this has been a set-up all along? Snippet no. 2 became known on September 24 ..."
"... Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting. ..."
"... The internal properties of the newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form, which the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the public. ..."
"... Why were the changes made? Who authorized them? Can anyone who hears something from their gossipy aunt now become a whistleblower? Can the aunt? ..."
"... Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress [..] With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of impeachment. A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there has always been a full house vote until now. ..."
"... "Pelosi called for impeachment without having seen the transcript or the complaint. That will forever be weird." ..."
"... PS: I don't get the attention for the whistleblower. The only interesting parties involved are the people who fed him/her their info. Are they also CIA by any chance? Let's ask them. ..."
Over the past few days, a series of snippets have appeared that each make me think: can this be true? The first such snippet is
that House Intelligence Committee head Adam Schiff supposedly sat on the 'whistleblower' complaint for over a month.
By the way, the term whistleblower is a terrible misnomer, but everyone's using it, can't undo that anymore. Still, you can't
be a CIA agent, be planted somewhere, leak on what goes on there and then be labeled a whistleblower. That works only if you share
CIA secrets.
Niceties aside, it appears that
Schiff sat on the complaint since August 12 . First question is: why? But there are other questions as well. Two weeks ago, Schiff
complained that acting DNI chief Joseph Maguire refused to share the contents of the complaint with Congress. But Maguire did that
only after consulting with his legal counsel:
Schiff ripped Maguire for breaching a law that requires him to share with Congress any whistleblower complaint deemed urgent
by the intelligence community's inspector general. He said the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved
Trump or other senior executive branch officials.
But DNI general counsel Jason Klitenic insisted in a letter to Schiff on Tuesday that Maguire had followed the letter of
the law in blocking the transmission of the complaint to Congress. The whistleblower statute governing his agency, he said, only
applies when the complaint involves a member of the intelligence community. Because it was aimed at a person outside the intelligence
community, he said, the whistleblower statute does not apply to this scenario.
Under the statute, Klitenic stated, deeming a whistleblower complaint "urgent" is only valid when it applies to conduct
by someone "within the responsibility and authority" of the DNI. Therefore, he said, after consulting with the Justice Department,
he determined the complaint did not qualify as an "urgent" concern requiring transmittal to Congress.
Note the date. Also note the term 'urgent'. Which didn't keep Schiff from sitting on it for 5-6 weeks. And note that Schiff knew
what was in the complaint, despite Politico reporting that "the confluence of factors led him to believe the complaint involved
Trump or other senior executive branch officials."
Okay, so why did he sit on the letter? Is it possible this has been a set-up all along? Snippet no. 2 became known on September
24:
Between May 2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers provide
direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding
the August submission of a whistleblower complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires
potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct, first-hand knowledge of the alleged
wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until after the transcript of Trump's
July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates
the first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have zero direct knowledge
of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from others."
The internal properties of the newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form, which the intelligence community inspector
general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document
was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the
public.
Here's what the requirements looked like before the changes:
Why were the changes made? Who authorized them? Can anyone who hears something from their gossipy aunt now become a whistleblower?
Can the aunt?
And then a few days ago there was this little tid-bit, snippet no. 3, which seems to fit right into a pattern:
Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi for the 116th congress [..]
With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess, those rules are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct
the articles of impeachment. A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there has
always been a full house vote until now.
The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if the formal process was followed the minority (republicans) would have
enforceable rights within it. Without a vote to initiate, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up without any participation
by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was always the plan that was visible in Pelosi's changed House
rules.
Anyone can be a whistleblower, all it takes is for the intelligence community to express an interest in your aunt's gossip. And
then anything anyone says can be used to draw up an article of impeachment. Which can then be voted on by the Democrat majority in
Congress, and accepted.
Which has no practical meaning, obviously, because there will be no Senate majority to actually impeach Trump. It's pure theater.
And anyway, impeached for what? For asking Ukraine assistance in investigating 2016 election meddling? Sure, you can rephrase that
as "digging up dirt", but isn't that phrasing by now a purely partisan thing and hence worthless?
I see two options. A few days ago I wrote: "Pelosi called for impeachment without having seen the transcript or the complaint.
That will forever be weird." If that is true, as we've been led to believe by both the protagonists and the press, it is weird
indeed. But now there is another option on the table.
Namely, that Pelosi has known the contents of the complaint since August 12, when the 'whistleblower' wrote to Adam Schiff, or
soon thereafter. And that she, too, sat on it. Urgent or not. And then a few days ago went all-in for impeachment. No matter what
the exact details here are, it very much looks like a well-prepared operation, step by step.
I started out with the term Twisted Pair for the US and UK, because both countries raise the question: how are they going to remain
governable? Leave or Remain, GOP or Democrat, the trenches are being dug deeper fast. The only way forward appears to be even deeper
divides. GOP and Democrats are a Twisted Pair all by themselves.
PS: I don't get the attention for the whistleblower. The only interesting parties involved are the people who fed him/her
their info. Are they also CIA by any chance? Let's ask them.
"... With so much deceit and shenanigans, it is best politicians let the voters decide in the next election rather than continue this circus. The article below argues the average American doesn't care if Trump isn't perfect and if the Democrats want him out they should offer up a better alternative. ..."
"... Globalist SES Infiltration, Subversion, De Facto Police State Coup D'Etat https://aim4truth.org/2018/01/03/deep-state-shadow-government-revealed-senior-executive-service/ ..."
"... I would call it a coup except I think it happened several decades ago. What is left is a shell. ..."
"... If that feels rotten, then you may start to understand why the world does like the USA not so much. ..."
"... This is clearly an attempted coup, i.e., removal of a duly elected President by force instead of by any legitimate political process. The leftists and RINOs have been trying by the most subversive of means to get rid of Trump even before he took office. ..."
"... Isn't it a matter of record who created and ordered the implementation of the revised whistleblower form? I know it was secretly uploaded two days before the blower blew (9/24), but why now and who said to? ..."
You don't need to be a supporter of President Trump to be concerned about the efforts to remove him from office. Last week House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced impeachment proceedings against the President over a phone call made to the President of Ukraine.
According to the White House record of the call, the President asked his Ukrainian counterpart to look into whether there is any
evidence of Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election and then mentioned that a lot of people were talking about how former US Vice
President Joe Biden stopped the prosecution of his son who was under investigation for corruption in Ukraine.
Democrats, who spent more than two years convinced that "Russiagate" would enable them to remove Trump from office only to have
their hopes dashed by the Mueller Report, now believe they have their smoking gun in this phone call.
It this about politics? Yes. But there may be more to it than that.
It may appear that the Democratic Party, furious over Hillary Clinton's 2016 loss, is the driving force behind this ongoing attempt
to remove Donald Trump from office, but at every turn we see the fingerprints of the CIA and its allies in the US deep state.
In August 2016, a former acting director of the CIA, Mike Morell, wrote an extraordinary article in the New York Times accusing
Donald Trump of being an "agent of the Russian Federation." Morell was clearly using his intelligence career as a way of bolstering
his claim that Trump was a Russian spy – after all, the CIA should know such a thing! But the claim was a lie.
Former CIA director John Brennan accused President Trump of "treason" and of "being in the pocket of Putin" for meeting with the
Russian president in Helsinki and accepting his word that Russia did not meddle in the US election. To this day there has yet to
be any evidence presented that the Russian government did interfere. Brennan openly called on "patriotic" Republicans to act against
this "traitor."
Brennan and his deep state counterparts James Comey at the FBI and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper launched
an operation, using what we now know is the fake Steele dossier, to spy on the Trump presidential campaign and even attempt to entrap
Trump campaign employees.
Notice a pattern here?
Now we hear that the latest trigger for impeachment is a CIA officer assigned to the White House who filed a "whistleblower" complaint
against the president over something he heard from someone else that the president said in the Ukraine phone call.
Shockingly, according to multiple press reports the rules for CIA whistleblowing were recently changed, dropping the requirement
that the whistleblower have direct, first-hand knowledge of the wrongdoing. Just before this complaint was filed, the rule-change
allowed hearsay or second-hand information to be accepted. That seems strange.
As it turns out, the CIA "whistleblower" lurking around the White House got the important things wrong, as there was no quid pro
quo discussed and there was no actual request to investigate Biden or his son.
The Democrats have suddenly come out in praise of whistleblowers – well not exactly. Pelosi still wants to prosecute actual whistleblower
Ed Snowden. But she's singing the praises of this fake CIA "whistleblower."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer once warned Trump that if "you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from
Sunday at getting back at you." It's hard not to ask whether this is a genuine impeachment effort or a CIA coup!
The WhatDoesItMean has earned a bad reputation over the years and I've avoided it as dis-info. But in recent months it seems
to had done a turn around and is providing good info.
both of whom are becoming increasingly alarmed over the grave military implications of what is now occurring -- the evidence
of which is being kept hidden from the American people by their socialist Democrat Party leaders and their leftist mainstream
media lapdogs
If the CIA is this brazen on so many attempts...and with no accountability yet, you could argue the coup already happened.
This is what a country run by a bunch of intelligence ppl looks like.
Epstein is not the top. Above Epstein are Soros, the Queen of England, and the Rockefeller/Rothschild's crime families. They
are the head of the Satanic (NOT JEWISH) "New World Order". Hey artisant when in hell are you going to actually get way down in
the rabbit hole and find out who is really behind globalism? You spout off the most stupid crap that takes you into mindless racism.
We as a corporate fascist socialist nation are much higher than Israel on the globalist hierarchy. They own our monetary system,
our corporate government with 22 trillion national debt, the military, and the intelligence alphabet agencies who are their right
enforcement arm.
Currently, a full-scale propaganda war rages with many Americans hell-bent on convincing the rest of us what is really going
on. I think it is clear we have reached the point where people are either outraged, simply concerned or take the attitude this
is all a big nothing burger or much ado about nothing.
With so much deceit and shenanigans, it is best politicians let the voters decide in the next election rather than continue
this circus. The article below argues the average American doesn't care if Trump isn't perfect and if the Democrats want him out
they should offer up a better alternative.
CIA finally coming home to roost. Never known to respect law or human rights outside the US now CIA applying "regime change"
inside the US. If that feels rotten, then you may start to understand why the world does like the USA not so much.
This is why the CIA is going to die under Haspel. I just read 3 dozen tweets on Sebastian Gorka's trip to Italy with Barr...None
of these liberals have a clue on what is going on in Italy...Which means they haven't a clue about the real Russia hoax and the
setup with Papadopolous. This says everything about our division in America.
The media has kept these people in the dark and this is why I keep saying the media companies need to be investigated and charged
with crimes.
The CIA and NSA are rogue foreign invaded and occupied) enemies of the State and should be surrounded by the military and seized
as a national security threat and a dangerous enemy. Everyone should be thrown out of the buildings controlled and occupied by
them and filled with military police until those who are true traitors can be identified and and arrested, including former employees
who still have highest level security access.
This is clearly an attempted coup, i.e., removal of a duly elected President by force instead of by any legitimate political
process. The leftists and RINOs have been trying by the most subversive of means to get rid of Trump even before he took office.
They have abandoned the peaceful political process and that leaves only force as a means to settle differences of opinion.
My hope is that the impeachment effort will backfire on the leftists in the House. Not only will they energize Trump's base,
but they will look bad to the rest of the non-communist public. And a bonus will be that Trump will be able to blame any pre-election
decline in the stock market and/or economy on the uncertainty created by their reckless and unjustified impeachment actions. (My
take is that the stock market is teetering on the edge of a cliff.)
This should be an interesting year between now and the elections with this impeachment **** show and what might come out of
the Justice Department relating to spygate and who was involved in it.
I almost fell like I am watching a new Game of Thrones episode.
Worst case is that Trump is actually removed from office and Civil War II breaks out. Best case is Trump wins by a landslide
in 2020 and Trump supporters take the House and improve their position in the Senate followed by a huge swamp drain during Trump's
second term.
They are not Judeo. They hide behind that term but have absolutely no bloodline connection to the Tribe of Judah from the Middle
East, they do not worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, or Moses. They worship Satan.
That you use that term shows your vast ignorance of the real enemies behind the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. It was funded
and orchestrated by the Rothschild/Rockefeller Satanic bankers. The Rothschild's are Khazarian Satanist who funded Marx and Engels
communist socialist creators!
This is how CIA toppled a duly elected Iranian government in 1953 and now we refuse to understand, why Iranians don´t like
us and don´t want our "democracy".
Sometimes you have to wonder if the CIA learned its lessons from the Kennedy Assassination, and decided this would be a more
humane way. As much as John Brennan hates Trump, I am sure he would disagree with me on that. Brennan is out for blood.
Time for Trump to declare martial law and have the military arrest all these treasonous cowards and pussies in the CIA, FBI,
and Demoncratic party. We'll just see how 'deep' their state is. Btw, Soros and Obama will be part of those arrests along with
Shillary and Billy Bob Clinton.
Its easy to find the guilty individuals as they protest the loudest.
99% of all Americans already recognize this as a coup. You just have to know which half is rooting for the coup to be successful,
and the ones who are rooting for failure.
'Impeachment Inquiry' is just a fancy schmancy label for it all, that third world countries can't be bothered with, when they
overthrow their President or dictator. At least those banana republics are honest about what they are actually doing when performing
their version of the overthrow.
The entire US Beast of Gog&Babylon Roman Catholic Church/Synagogue of Satan Vatican FedScam Rothschild/Rockefeller Pyramid's
Satanic Fifth Column must, with precision, be 'tagged and bagged,' fully expropriated, its principals hanged for Treason, the
remainder banished from Our Holy Land.
CIA/FBI/NSA is just an 'action branch' of mechanics and operatives, who too must hang.
Need to cut the head off the snake,ie the deep deep state, the ones who's names are not even uttered in fear of reprisal, the
rest are just actors in this theater of the absurd.
Damn good point. Trump praised Wikileaks all through his campaign. A great investigation into Epstein and his connections to
Clinton, Mossad, Orwellian crime detection software and 9/11.
More than half of the country realizes this is a Deep State coup, led by Brennan's CIA traitors. If they get away with this,
our country is all but finished, we have to bring all hands on deck to defeat these treasonous scum. We will support President
Trump 110% and pray that the white hats in Washington will have the goods on all the traitors.
Isn't it a matter of record who created and ordered the implementation of the revised whistleblower form? I know it was
secretly uploaded two days before the blower blew (9/24), but why now and who said to? That name should be at least on Fox
from 8:00-11:00 for the next 3 weeks, while Lindsey is sending out subpoenas like barf at a sat night frat party. Let em flow
Senator.
President Trump took to Twitter Sunday night to continue to air his grievances surrounding
the impeachment inquiry, amplifying the remarks of his allies, who have made delivered
various warnings and denouncements about the impacts of impeachment, including the
possibility of a "Civil War-like fracture in this nation."
He used a series of tweets to quote Fox News contributor Robert Jeffress, a pastor who
invoked the Civil War in his comments on the cable network Sunday night.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
....Election, and negate the votes of millions of Evangelicals in the process. They know
the only Impeachable offense that President Trump has committed was beating Hillary Clinton
in 2016. That's the unpardonable sin for which the Democrats will never forgive him.....
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will
never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will
never heal." Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews
Jeffress suggested he had never seen Evangelical Christians more upset over any issue
than the impeachment of Trump.
A fellow GOP lawmaker tweeted last night that Trump's use of the quote was "beyond
repugnant." Representative Adam Kinzinger said Sunday that he could have "never imagined such
a quote to be repeated by a President."
Nixon would have been okay if he used the FBI and CIA like Obama did.
Nixon did not enjoy the watering down of the Bill of Right from the Patriot Act, who use
was perfected by Obama's deep state and the permanent war/spying swamp.
"... After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental" organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation, and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today. ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government involvement. ..."
"... It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement in Hong Kong for years. ..."
"... Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream media? ..."
"... The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups that there was a reduction in their power. ..."
"... The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. ..."
Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your Twitter account has just been closed. Why?
Daniel McAdams: In August I was watching a segment of the Sean Hannity program while at a friend's house and noticed that despite
an hour of Hannity ranting against the "deep state" in the US, he was wearing a lapel pin bearing the seal of the US Central Intelligence
agency, which most would agree is either the center or at least an important hub of the US "deep state" itself. I tweeted about
this strange anomaly and as a comment to my own Tweet on it I happened to say that Hannity is "retarded." Twitter informed me
that I had committed "hateful conduct" for "promoting violence against or directly attacking or threatening other people on the
basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability,
or disease." It is clear on its face that I did none of these. I used a non-politically correct term to ridicule Hannity for attacking
the "deep state" while wearing the symbols of the deep state on his very lapel.
It is clear that Twitter is deeply biased against any voices outside the mainstream, pro-empire perspective. As a leading Tweeter
in opposition to interventionist US foreign policy, I had long been targeted by those who enable and enforce Twitter's political
biases. Look at who Twitter partners with and you will understand why I was banned for a transparently false reason: the US government-funded
Atlantic Council and other similar organizations are working with Twitter to eliminate any voices challenging US global military
empire.
In your opinion, what exactly is the role of the CIA in the regime changes of some countries around the world?
From its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency carried the dual role of analyzing
intelligence for its customers in the Executive Branch of the US government and conducting covert actions and operations in pursuit
of (claimed) US foreign policy goals. The history of CIA action in post-war Europe is extensive and includes founding front organizations
to prop up socialist and far-left publications and institutions as a challenge to Soviet communism as well as backing far-right
groups and political parties and even violent terror organizations to directly confront communism and overturn elections where
communists made gains.
After the Cold War and the defeat of Soviet Communism, where one would expect a reduction if not elimination of such a
global secret warfare organization, the CIA only ramped up its operations overseas. Today the CIA is merely one arm in a multi-faceted
US "regime change" apparatus that includes the US State Department, USAID, and, very importantly, US government-funded "non-governmental"
organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy and its sub-grantees. This "regime change apparatus" uses CIA methods
developed during the Cold War (by "experts" like Gene Sharp and others) such as mobilization, training, subterfuge, agitation,
and propaganda. We saw this apparatus at work in events like the "Arab Spring" and before it in the overthrow of the Milosevic
government in Yugoslavia. We saw it in the Ukraine coup of 2014 and we see it in Venezuela and in Hong Kong today.
The practical value to the United States of such operations is less than zero, the costs to the American taxpayer are enormous,
and the immorality of manipulating the globe toward an outcome preferred by Washington's elites is self-evident.
When we see the generalized NSA surveillance, do you think we live in a democracy or a tenebrous fascist regime?
Americans have been manipulated by the elites in government and its allies in state propaganda (otherwise known as the "mainstream
media") to accept, particularly post-9/11, the deeply anti-American proposition that we must yield our privacy and Constitutionally-guaranteed
civil liberties to a government that promises it will not abuse its increased power over us but will only use it to keep us safe.
These promises have been over and over again proven to be lies. Government is not targeting terrorism or terrorists: they are
targeting average American citizens.
Americans were told that only terrorists' phone calls would be intercepted, but then Edward Snowden revealed that all of our
phone calls are intercepted. Americans were mad for a few weeks but then Washington promised "reform" of the PATRIOT Act in the
form of the FREEDOM Act and everybody calmed down. Even though the FREEDOM Act is actually worse than the PATRIOT Act because
it legalized all of the illegal activities that were taking place under the PATRIOT Act. "Reform" in Washington means obfuscation
and perception manipulation.
Likewise, Americans seeking to travel within their own country have been forced to allow strangers to invade and touch the
most private areas of their bodies – and their children's bodies! American sheep just bow to the authorities and keep watching
their freedoms stolen from them, murmuring to themselves as they are raped by the authorities, "well I have nothing to hide "
You mentioned one time Operation Mockingbird, where the CIA manipulated journalists in the 1950s. In your opinion, does the CIA
continue to use these same practices today?
I have no doubt that the CIA continues to maintain a close relationship with both mainstream and independent journalists. This
is critical to establishing and controlling the narrative in each foreign "crisis." It is no accident that each mainstream media
outlet – regardless whether left-wing or right-wing or any wing - has the exact same perspective on events like the Ukraine coup
or the Venezuela attempted coup, or Hong Kong protests. Part of this is the US "deep state" or "national security state" and part
of it is the increasing integration of US corporate entities into the US government. Major media outlets are owned by US corporations
that also own weapons manufacturing companies and cannot be trusted to report on events objectively. Similarly, virtually every
US mainstream media outlet employs "former" members of the US intelligence community to "explain" foreign events to their viewers.
When is the last time a credible non-interventionist or pro-peace analyst has been featured in any mainstream media outlet?
As in Soviet times, any view at odds with Washington's "party line" is simply disappeared. When independent media outlets begin
gaining traction and challenging the narrative, they are "de-platformed" on social media and even from their Internet service
providers under the recommendations of US government-funded NGOs like the Atlantic Council or the German Marshal Fund.
Is not what is currently happening in Hong Kong a CIA manipulation targeting China in the context of the Trump administration's
economic war?
There is plenty of evidence of US government involvement in the Hong Kong protests. That does not mean that every single
body out in the street is in the pay of the CIA. That is the red herring argument of those who are determined that we never see
the US government hand in unrest overseas. Or to ridicule as "conspiracy theorists" those who point out obvious US government
involvement.
It is undeniable that the US government has been involved in grooming, training, and funding the anti-Beijing movement
in Hong Kong for years. They don't even hide it: you can easily find on USAID and National Endowment for Democracy website
the level of funding the US government provides these organizations and political parties. And when these party leaders come to
Washington, they are received by the US Vice President, Secretary of State, Speaker of the House, and other high-ranking US government
officials. Which foreign opposition movements that Washington does not support are given such treatment?
Imagine a movement dedicated to overthrowing the US political order that was funded by the Chinese, whose activists regularly
went to Beijing for training in organization and mobilization, and whose leaders met with leading members of the Chinese Communist
Party. How would such a movement in the United States be viewed by the US government? How would it be portrayed by the US mainstream
media?
You mentioned a US-supported coup when you talked about Venezuela. In your opinion, does the US administration continue the same
interventionist policy to destabilize Latin American countries?
Any Latin American government not in Washington's constellation has been and is targeted for destabilization and overthrow.
We saw this with the 2009 coup in Honduras, whose architect was then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We see it in Cuba. We
see it in Venezuela. We saw it with Ecuador, where a government wary of US persecution of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was
"changed" in favor of a regime that handed Assange over to the authorities in exchange for a few billion dollars from the IMF.
Do what Washington says and get paid; oppose Washington and get overthrown. That is the foreign policy of the US empire. And like
the Soviet empire that preceded it, it is a policy doomed to failure.
Why in your opinion does the United States always need an enemy? Is not there a danger of world war when we see the multitude
of US imperialist interventions around the world?
The US has ceased being a republic and has become a national security state. The US national security state enriches its
elites – be they in the military-industrial complex, the think tanks, or the media – at the expense of middle class and working-class
America. It does this by promoting an "enemy scenario" whereby the American people are made to believe that if they ever challenge
the US military budget – larger than the next seven military budgets combined – they are not only putting themselves and their
families at risk, but they are deeply unpatriotic and anti-American. The US national security state fought an 18-year "war on
terror" which only seemed to generate more terrorists! Intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria to "fight terrorism" resulted
in more, not less, al-Qaeda and ISIS. It was not until Russia and Iran stood up in 2015 and began fighting these US-backed groups
that there was a reduction in their power.
After the Russian and Iranian success in beating back the jihadist threat in Syria, the 2017 US national security strategy
did an Orwellian about-face and abandoned the "war on terror" in favor of a declaration that our new enemies were again our old
enemies: China and Russia. It is literally Orwell's 1984: "we are at war with Eastasia. We had always been at war with Eastasia."
What do you think about the North Korean and Iranian case, where the Trump administration lacks a clear vision and where some
neoconservatives are pushing for a war?
There are few consistencies in President Trump's foreign policy. One emerging consistency, however, is that he seems genuinely
reluctant to take the country into a bona fide war. He's happy with sending a few dozen Tomahawk missiles into the Syrian countryside,
but when faced with an actual robust response to any US strike, he to this point has chosen de-escalation. This may be a function
of his keen eye for politics rather than any philosophical or moral concerns, but it to this point seems thematic. The problem
is that by surrounding himself with neoconservatives – and make no mistake his replacement for Bolton is at least as much a neocon
as the Mustached One himself – the president is isolating himself from any inputs advising military constraint when facing crises
overseas. That is why many of us were so much hoping that Bolton would be replaced with a Realist like Col. Douglas Macgregor.
There is a big danger that the president will be cornered by a lack of non-war options to the next crisis simply because he gives
no quarter to non-war voices in his administration.
When we consider the plight of activists and whistleblowers, such as Assange, Snowden, etc. can we still talk about freedom of
speech and human rights? Shouldn't we mobilize more to support these activists and others around the world?
The plight of Snowden and Assange and all of the persecuted whistleblowers and truth-tellers is the plight of what is life
of our liberty, freedom, and even Western civilization. When all dissent is quashed, imprisoned, tortured, we are left with only
the Total State. The Total State, as we know from history, brooks no dissent because it can only maintain power by continuing
the illusion that it alone is the source of truth. Thus any voice challenging the Total State, as the embodiment of truth, must
on its face be a lie. Why would truth allow lies to undermine it? Why would any sane person oppose "the people" as represented
in their Soviet government? Surely such a person would be insane and need of treatment rather than a citizen raising a legitimate
question or differing opinion.
This is what we are facing in the US today. A Total State, where opposing views are de-platformed and disappeared. Where truth-tellers
are jailed and tortured – pour servir d'avertissement aux autres (to serve as a warning to others).
What is your assessment of the Trump Presidency and what do you think of its foreign policy?
The Trump Presidency thus far has been an enormous disappointment. The president had the opportunity to name a top-notch
foreign policy and national security team that would reflect and carry out his stated policies as a candidate – getting along
with Russia, NATO skepticism, opposition to endless war, etc – but once in power he has again and again drawn from that same neoconservative
cesspool that no matter who is elected always find its way to positions of power and influence. He did not chart a wise course
in building a solid administration of professionals who agree with him – and there are plenty to choose from – and instead he
actually hired an entire team of people who not only disagree with his stated positions, but they actually publicly ridicule them
and work against them. It is unprecedented in my memory to see those who serve the president publicly undermining his stated positions,
yet Bolton and Pompeo never hesitated or hesitate to do just that. This is an enormous missed opportunity for President Trump
and for the United States.
You have been an advisor to Congressman Ron Paul and you are doing an excellent job as Director of the Ron Paul Institute for
Peace and Prosperity. Can you explain to our readers what the missions of this institute are?
Our mission as a non-profit educational institution is to make the case for a non-interventionist foreign policy and the restoration
of our civil liberties at home. We are the continuation of the Ron Paul liberty movement. To that end, we publish thousands of
articles making the case for non-interventionism on our website, we broadcast a daily Ron Paul Liberty Report, and we hold conferences
throughout the country bringing together a broad coalition of Americans – and non-Americans – to learn and promote peace and prosperity!
* * *
Daniel McAdams is executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-host of the "Ron Paul Liberty
Report," a daily live broadcast. He served for 12 years on Capitol Hill as foreign affairs and national security advisor to former
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former
communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer.
"No one is above the law," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
as she announced the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump over the Ukraine matter. The
phrase has become a Democratic mantra in the new impeachment push. But it could, in the end,
serve to highlight the weakness of the Democratic strategy.
The reason is, by stressing that Trump is not "above the law," Democrats are basing their
case against the president on the argument that he broke the law and must be held accountable.
But it's not at all clear that Trump broke any laws in the Ukraine matter. In the face of a
vigorous Republican defense, any argument on that question is likely to end inconclusively.
Democrats might better say, "No president is above impeachment," which lacks punch but is
more accurate. Doing so, however, would emphasize the political nature of the battle and could
make it more difficult for Democrats to win broad support for removing Trump. So they say "No
one is above the law." But what, exactly, does that mean?
In his analysis of the case, the intelligence community's inspector general, Michael
Atkinson, wrote that Trump might have violated campaign finance laws. "U.S. laws and
regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or
donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," Atkinson
wrote. "Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or
receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national, directly or indirectly, in
connection with a Federal, State, or local election."
That is, it appears, the strongest legal case against the president. Remember, in an
impeachment, no one is talking about criminal charges, so Justice Department guidelines that
the president cannot be indicted are irrelevant. The issue is whether Democrats will seek to
show that Trump violated the law, in order to strengthen their case that he must be impeached
and removed from office.
The problem is that the campaign finance question is highly debatable. The Democratic case
is this: Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate allegations that Joe
Biden and son Hunter Biden were involved in corruption in Ukraine. Any information Zelensky
provided to Trump would be a "thing of value" and thus an illegal foreign campaign
contribution.
"I think it's absurd," Bradley Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chair and a
frequent critic of campaign finance laws, said in an email exchange. "If 'anything of value'
were interpreted so broadly, it would mean that foreign governments are consistently violating
the ban in foreign spending, whenever they take official actions that may benefit one candidate
or another. Similarly, Americans would have to report such activity to the FEC. That is clearly
not the law."
"Absent the partisan juices that Trump sets off," Smith concluded, "no election law attorney
would ever say otherwise."
Smith's view of current campaign finance law reflects the attitudes of many Republicans and
conservatives. They see the laws as an infringement on political speech and see attempts to
broadly interpret those laws as a way to tighten limits on speech. (By the way, they have felt
that way for decades; it has nothing to do with Trump.)
A more practical analysis of what is wrong with applying the "things of value" standard in
the Trump-Ukraine case came from, of all places, the Mueller report. The special counsel's
prosecutors considered charging Trump campaign officials, including Donald Trump, Jr., with a
campaign finance violation in relation to the infamous June 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting. The
Mueller report contained a detailed analysis of the issues involved and the reasons why the
special counsel's prosecutors concluded they could not make a winning case.
The issue involved Russians offering allegedly incriminating information on Hillary Clinton
to the Trump campaign. Even if Mueller believed he could convince a jury that the information
was a "thing of value" -- in effect, an illegal campaign contribution -- he had to concede that
"no judicial decision has treated the voluntary provision of uncompensated opposition research
or similar information as a thing of value that could amount to a contribution under
campaign-finance law."
Mueller was also unable to show that the Trump campaign officials knew the law enough to
know that accepting information might violate campaign finance statutes. Finally, Mueller had
no confidence that he could prove the offered information was actually worth anything. (The law
requires prosecutors to prove the information was worth at least $2,000 for a misdemeanor
charge and at least $25,000 for a felony charge.)
Discussing the Mueller Trump Tower issue, the former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy
wrote : "So, while there might be some conceivable scenario in which acquiring information
from a foreign source for use in a campaign could be a federal crime, it is highly unlikely --
so unlikely that some Type A prosecutors wisely decided that the huzzahs they'd have gotten for
indicting the president's son were outweighed by the humiliation they'd endure when the case
inevitably got thrown out of court."
Weak as it is, the campaign finance violation case appears to be the Democrats' best chance
of showing Trump broke the law. But there are other possible cases. Some suggest Trump might
have solicited a bribe by offering foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden. That
would be an extraordinarily difficult argument to make.
Others suggest Trump obstructed justice -- another long shot. And still others suggest Trump
was involved in a conspiracy, which would require a showing not only that the president
committed crime but that he conspired with others to do it. Yet another long shot.
The bottom line is, it will be very, very hard for House Democrats to show that Trump
committed a crime in the Ukraine affair. Which is why some Democrats seem to be moving toward
accusing Trump of engaging in misconduct that is more difficult to define, like violating his
oath of office or betraying his country. Those are charges that seem solemn and weighty, but
are also fuzzy enough to use without getting into any detailed -- and losing -- legal
argument.
The Constitution says a president "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." There has been a very
long debate on what that means. To lay ears, it sounds like the president must be shown to have
committed a crime to be impeached and removed from office. But the framers did not define "high
crimes and misdemeanors," and it is up to Congress to decide whether a president should be
impeached, and, if so, on what grounds.
So far, Democrats have not helped their cause by accusing Trump of criminal behavior. "No
man is above the law" sounds good, but it requires the impeachers to make a case that the
president did, indeed, break the law. In coming days, look for Democrats to seek an easier
route.
This is deep state operation, Russiagate II, pure and simple
Stephen Miller proved to be formidable debater. His jeremiad against the Deep State at 12:55 was brilliant. Former South
Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy says people have stopped sharing information with the House Intelligence Committee because
Chair Adam Schiff is the most deeply partisan member who is "leaking like a sieve"
The problem with Pelosi bold move is that she does not have votes for impeachment, but the dirt uncovered might sink any
Democrat changes for 2020
Notable quotes:
"... Stephen Miller is amazing at wrestling and smacking down this Democratic Operative Chris Wallace ..."
"... Wallace is a minion of the globalists. ..."
"... Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States. Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN. ..."
"... Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy Official Docs and State Department Docs. ..."
"... Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't. ..."
Stephen Miller is CORRECT -- there is no more integrity and confidence in government
affairs when it can be turned into ammunition against the President of the United States.
Chris Wallace really ought to work for CNN.
Chris Wallace Incorrect. We have the Docs that expose the corruption on the part of the
Biden. We have his legal team basically threatening the new prosectutor saying in lawyer
speak "Hey you saw how we got the last prosecutor fired? I'd suggest you cooperate with us or
you will get fired next" .450 pages from Biden's son legal team at Burisma, Ukrainian Embassy
Official Docs and State Department Docs.
Wallace you sir you are a paritsan hack. Anyone can
read the docs too thats whats sad. I'm only 70 pages in and its bad for the Biden's jailtime
bad.
Also last time I checked Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch he can direct
anyone to go find anything, and I haven't seen one person show me where he can't.
Seems that the opposition press wants us to display mob outrage to make Trump foreign
policy for him.
The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the
regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over.
A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI.
It takes a lot more than some good at grammar NYTimes writer to substantiate claims that
allegations against the former VP and his son's cushy Ukraine oligarch job are
unsubstantiated. That is work for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when
Biden was VP. Out of context is no reason to make a conclusion.
Why I support impeachment. The evidence will be put out and the solicitors will argue on
complete evidentiary lines. It is getting to be anything Trump wants to do they find some
phony reason to be outraged.
I did a 20 minute telephone poll today. They called me! You can count on one respondent
"strongly opposed" to impeachment for trying to get to the bottom of Biden family
corruption.
"A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and
FBI."
No. Nothing new here. This is just Russiagate II. Same actors, same methods.
But it is unclear to me why they even bothered? Trump folded long ago, In April 2017 to be
exact. And before impeachment, his chances in 2020 were far from certain. Especially against
Warren.
Also Biden should not even be discussed anymore. At this point he is history.
Warren now is the official frontrunner. Which is probably the only good thing emerging out
of this CIA-inspired mess.
The democrats are in the midst (started when Obama ignored the source of the fallacious
dossier which started the FISA spying on a campaign) of a strategic blunder. The polling on
Ukrainegate show it is libelously political. Democrat respondents largely see it serious,
independents are about 40% and GOP about 30%. This nugatory+, political ambush is not playing
well to independents!
No one is asking if this nugatory, political ambush the CIA/democrats are using to run a
circus in congress is troubling about Biden. As you say Biden is history, as are the
democrats' chances in 2020 for every national office.
Ukraine's most recent popularity among cold warriors started when Bill Clinton decided that
NATO should surround Russia. Coincidental with breaking and continuity of certain oligarchs'
fortunes. up Serbia.
Then the pro West coup in 2014....
Maybe as part of the impeachment the house could go in to what US was doing in Kyiv up to
and through the coup.
Note in the article Javelin systems are a foreign military sales case, run by the DoD,
"approved" by Depts of Commerce and State.
Javelin, guided anti tank missile system, is not solely a defensive weapon unless you look
at U S Grant on Richmond as a defensive campaign...... Reply Monday, September 30, 2019 at 06:50 AM ilsm said in reply to
Fred C. Dobbs... "Deductive reasoning" within the media message is mob control.
"It ain't what you know... it's what you know that ain't so"#. Keep reading the mainstream
media!
Given enough time [and strategy wrt 2020 election] we will get to the bottom of Obama's
"criminal influence" on 2016 election.
It takes a lot more to debunk the Biden, Clinton, Nuland, Obama Ukraine drama. To my mind,
Ukraine needs to be clean as driven snow* to "earn" javelins to kill Russian speaking
rebels.
Why do US from Obama+ fund rebels in Syria (Sunni radicals mainly) and want to send tank
killers to suppress rebels where we might get in to the real deal?
# conservatives have been saying that about the 'outrage' started by the MSM for
decades.
Thank you for your courage and skills in defensing your views while being a minority in a
somewhat hostile to your views blog community.
In Trump impeachment, Pelosi "no one is above the law" stance could backfire on
hypocritical Democrats in such way that Warren, unfortunately, might lose the election. Her
own stupidity of jumpling on impelachment bandwagon does not help either. She would be better
off pretending being neutral. That just proved again that she is a mediocre politician. I
still like her due to her
"The two income trap" book(2004) and anti-Wall-Street stance. In a sense, she is better Trump
then Trump ;-).
People living in a glass house should not throw stones: most senior members of Obama
administration (including Obama himself) belong to jail. As war criminals (Hillary, Obama,
Nuland, Kerry, etc), pay for play fraudster and violator of rules for handing classified
information(Hillary). For forming a criminal gang with explicit goal to reverse the results
of the election and conduct snooping of Trump inner cycle (Brennan, Clapper, Mueller, Comey,
McCabe, Samantha Power, etc). Protection of other members of administration criminality
(Loretta Lynch, Bruce Ohr, etc) And that's only a tip of the iceberg.
Nobody here can even imagine the amount of dirt and criminal actions Obama administration
accumulated by their actions in Ukraine. Which might soon surface, if Trump is really as
vindictive as opponents are trying to present him.
Look at amazing interview of Stephen Miller at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXUWHk7sqe0
for possibilities. Stephen Miller proved again that he is really sharp guy far superior to
this old neoliberal hen Wallace... And a very dangerous opponent for this overconfident
jerk.
The truth is that Obama administration supported a neo-fascist party and cooperated with
and financed and later armed neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine to achieve geopolitical victory over
Russia (other important players in this dirty game were Germany, Poland and Sweden).
"Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar. "
Of course, one would only welcome that Pelosi just dived head on into Ukrainian mud
(Michelle Obama might not happy, though).
Trump is serious opponent in mud wrestling for Pelosi (5'5, 131 pound) and not only
because he is 6'2, 236 pounds.
The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worm starting from
Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
).
And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate
(including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition
of war crimes.
If Trump wants, not a single member of Obama administration can emerge unscathed from
this. He can tarnish Obama legacy forever in a way Iraq war and Abu Ghraib tarnished forever
Bush II administration.
He also can sink Brennan by asking Zelensky to open archives with protocols of talks with
Ukrainian officials during Brennan visits to Kiev.
Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members of
Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands.
I think Team Pelosi at the behest of the intelligence services freaked out when they saw
Trump going to Ukraine to get to the bottom of the allegations against him. They have created
their narrative Russiagate being conveniently replaced by Ukrainegate. They will aggressively
push their narrative through the mainstream media.
Trump, if he gets organized, will push his narrative through Fox and the conservative echo
chamber.
So far, advantage Democrats/CIA. Pretty good for a hapless bunch of politicians
incapable of putting together a message coherent enough to win an election!
However, there is a lot of information out there to raise questions about what Biden was
really up to in Ukraine:
As I noted earlier, the plot is Byzantine. The winner will be the side with the most
superficially plausible story. But both Trump and Biden are likely to be damaged severely in
the process and for that we can be grateful.
As Schumer said "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six
ways from Sunday at getting back at you," "So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this," he added.
Trump Was Repeatedly Warned That Ukraine Conspiracy Theory
Was 'Completely Debunked' https://nyti.ms/2mUMP99
NYT - Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Maggie Haberman
and Peter Baker - September 29
WASHINGTON -- President Trump was repeatedly warned by his own staff that the Ukraine
conspiracy theory that he and his lawyer were pursuing was "completely debunked" long before
the president pressed Ukraine this summer to investigate his Democratic rivals, a former top
adviser said on Sunday.
Thomas P. Bossert, who served as Mr. Trump's first homeland security adviser, said he told
the president there was no basis to the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, intervened in the
2016 election and did so on behalf of the Democrats. Speaking out for the first time, Mr.
Bossert said he was "deeply disturbed" that Mr. Trump nonetheless tried to get Ukraine's
president to produce damaging information about Democrats.
Mr. Bossert's comments, on the ABC program "This Week" and in a subsequent telephone
interview, underscored the danger to the president as the House moves ahead with an inquiry
into whether he abused his power for political gain. Other former aides to Mr. Trump said on
Sunday that he refused to accept reassurances about Ukraine no matter how many times it was
explained to him, instead subscribing to an unsubstantiated narrative that has now brought
him to the brink of impeachment.
The latest revelations came as the impeachment inquiry rushed ahead at a brisk pace. The
House chairman taking the lead said that the whistle-blower who brought the matter to light
would testify soon and that a subpoena for documents would be issued early this week to
Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer who spearheaded the effort to find dirt
on Democrats in Ukraine. In a letter to the acting director of national intelligence, lawyers
for the whistle-blower requested stepped-up efforts to ensure his safety, citing "serious
concerns we have regarding our client's personal safety."
As Democrats pressed forward, a new poll showed that a majority of Americans supported an
impeachment inquiry for the first time, a worrying development for a White House that until
now has been able to make the argument that the public opposed impeaching Mr. Trump. A senior
White House aide tried to turn the tables by arguing that Mr. Trump was the real
whistle-blower because he was uncovering Democratic corruption.
As Republicans struggled to defend the president on Sunday, Mr. Bossert's remarks offered
a hint of cracks in the Republicans' armor. While Mr. Bossert was forced out in 2018 when
John R. Bolton became national security adviser, he has remained publicly loyal until now to
a president who prizes fealty above all else.
"It is completely debunked," Mr. Bossert said of the Ukraine theory on ABC. Speaking with
George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Bossert blamed Mr. Giuliani for filling the president's head with
misinformation. "I am deeply frustrated with what he and the legal team is doing and
repeating that debunked theory to the president. It sticks in his mind when he hears it over
and over again, and for clarity here, George, let me just again repeat that it has no
validity."
He added that pressing Ukraine's president was disturbing, but noted that it remained
unproven whether Mr. Trump's decision to withhold aid to Ukraine was tied to the demand for
investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.
"It is a bad day and a bad week for this president and for this country if he is asking
for political dirt on an opponent," Mr. Bossert said. "But it looks to me like the other
matter that's far from proven is whether he was doing anything to abuse his power and
withhold aid in order to solicit such a thing." On Twitter on Sunday evening, he added that
he did "not see evidence of an impeachable offense."
Other former aides said separately on Sunday that the president had a particular weakness
for conspiracy theories involving Ukraine, which in the past three years has become the focus
of far-right media outlets and political figures. Mr. Trump was more willing to listen to
outside advisers like Mr. Giuliani than his own national security team.
Mr. Trump has known Mr. Giuliani, the former New York mayor, for years and likes his
pugnacious approach and the fact that he never pushes back, said one former aide, who like
others asked not to be identified discussing internal matters. Mr. Giuliani would "feed Trump
all kinds of garbage" that created "a real problem for all of us," said the former aide.
House Democrats may try to explore that as they move expeditiously in their inquiry.
Representative Adam B. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on
Sunday that the whistle-blower whose complaint rocked Washington last week would testify
"very soon" and that Mr. Giuliani would be ordered to turn over documents.
Mr. Schiff, a former prosecutor who is the de facto chief of the inquiry, also issued a
pointed warning to Mr. Trump and the White House, who have a history of blocking
congressional requests for witnesses and records. "If they're going to obstruct, then they
are going to increase the likelihood that Congress may feel it necessary to move forward with
an article of obstruction," he said on "This Week."
Mr. Trump continued his bellicose attacks on his accusers. "I want Schiff questioned at
the highest level for Fraud & Treason," he wrote on Twitter. And he threatened the
whistle-blower, who is protected by law from retribution. "Was this person SPYING on the U.S.
President? Big Consequences!"
Republicans have had a tough time defending Mr. Trump and have mostly tried to redirect
the conversation to suggest that Mr. Biden engaged in wrongdoing. Representative Steve
Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 Republican in the House, repeatedly changed the subject on
Sunday when Chuck Todd, the moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," pressed him on whether he
believed a summary transcript of the Ukraine call merited further investigation. ...
(Wikipedia: Tom Bossert was officially appointed to the post of Homeland Security Advisor
(officially titled the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism)
on January 20, 2017, the date of President Trump's entrance into office. ...
On April 10, 2018, Bossert resigned a day after John R. Bolton, the newly-appointed
National Security Advisor, started his tenure.)
Central to the charges made by Democrats is that Trump was "pressuring" Zelensky to
investigate Biden. The fact is that there is absolutely no need to investigate Biden. The
story he has told out of his own mouth is sufficient in itself. You don't need to know
anything about the Ukranian prosecutor or what he was doing. You don't need to know anything
about Biden's son or the son's business dealings. You just have to listen to Biden himself
tell the story.
Two facts are plain in the story as Biden tells it. That he coerced compliance as to
Ukraine's internal governance, and that he used $1 billion of US foreign aid money as an
instrument of extortion in order to do it. He himself says so.
President Trump says in that phone call that, "What Joe Biden did was shameful," a
statement with which I cannot help but agree. The media's comment in their followup was a
stunning, "There is no evidence that Joe Biden did anything wrong."
That's accurate - 100%. I see this move of Pelosi's as furtherance of the "Ukraine coup"
movement, probably triggered more than by constitutional concerns by fears of cutting of
military aid to Ukraine and fears of Zelensky's potential for making peace with the Russians.
She comes across in this episode as a US intelligence stand-in. But I have grown cynical.
This Wednesday night article in the NY Times strengthened my outlook in such regard,
especially the passage I quote below:
Quote:
Long before she was speaker, Ms. Pelosi served as the top Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee, overseeing the secretive workings of America's national security
apparatus and helping to draft the law that governs how intelligence officials file
whistle-blower complaints, and how that information is shared with Congress.
EndQuote.
Maybe we should have all the Obama & Biden conversations with Poroshenko also released
to the public? And while we're at it what about releasing all the conversations that Hillary,
Ms. Nuland, John McCain and all those involved with Ukraine had with various parties.
Are there any conflict of interest laws in DC? We don't know what the REAL deal between
Hunter and Burisma was. On paper what we've seen was he got paid for being a board member at
Burisma. That doesn't even pass the laugh test as Hunter's most recent experience was being
discharged from the Navy reserve for being a coke head. He had no experience in the natural
gas business or corporate strategy or even corporate governance in the US let alone in
Ukraine. What was the real quid pro quo here?
Then there is the deal with the Chinese who invested $1.5 billion in a private equity fund
launched by Hunter and John Kerry's stepson. That too smells since neither of them had any
experience running any pool of capital nor having worked at a PE firm before. I work in the
investment management business and I know the near impossibility for a first time manager to
raise $100 million let alone $1.5 billion and from all people the Chinese government. What
was the real quid pro quo here? Inquiring minds want to know.
TTG - apologies for butting in but this is still something that has not been put past doubt -
" I'm still convinced one of the ultimate goals of that fiasco was to make Sevastopol
into a NATO naval base."
The precise aims of the tragic Ukrainian venture are still unclear. They can be deduced
but not evidenced. That is as far as I know also the case with Sevastopol.
The only written evidence I've seen in that case is the US Navy project to upgrade a
school, which I doubt is one of the reasons for your view.
There was no evidence in the tender documents of adaptation of the school for military
purposes and similar renovations contracts had been put out to tender elsewhere. It's also
scarcely likely that had the school been intended for military purposes the US Navy would
have advertised the fact in 2013.
Nevertheless it's clear that had the venture in the Ukraine worked the Russians would
sooner or later have been deprived of the use of their Sevastopol base. It may be safely
assumed therefore that that was one object of the venture. Do you believe that as well as
that there was a plan to replace it with a US Navy base? It would surely have been a most
vulnerable one.
English Outsider, I don't think the Sevastopol school renovation was part of a desire to
remove the Russian fleet from the port or eventually replace than with NATO vessels. It was
just one of many little civil projects we sponsored as part of our overall Ukraine project.
But I assume the goal of Russia out and NATO in at Sevastopol was a major goal of our
Ukrainian venture. I think the Russians sensed this as well and this was a driving force in
their decision to seize the Crimea when they did.
Thanks, TTG. Decidedly an off-topic enquiry of mine in this complex and fascinating thread,
I'm afraid. But what happened in 13/14/15 is a subject that for me remains central.
You mentioned earlier the Nuland tape - perhaps the moment when it truly became impossible
for anyone to pretend that the Neocon narrative on the Ukraine was valid. But it didn't seem
to make a lot of odds in the long run. It's a sobering thought that that narrative still
holds for most.
I am really getting sick of these coup attempts. The Democrats must feel they have no chance
at the ballot box and that a majority of Americans will accept a coup. I don't think the
propaganda is working as well as they think it is. I'm not a fan of Trump overall except for
a couple of his policies but I am a fan of our Republic.
Have we really reached the stage where an American Praetorian guard picks our President
and the ballot box and electoral college become Imperial window dressing?
I'm a left leaning Independent but I hope that the Democrats get a tremendous whipping at
the ballot box in 2020. I plan to do my small part in that.
As part of the Trump administration's Sunday talk-show blitz trying to deescalate the
Ukraine whistle-blower crisis, White House adviser and senior xenophobe Stephen Miller spoke
with Fox News' Chris Wallace about how the president, once again, is not the bad guy in a
scandal in which he was caught doing bad things. This time around, as Trump faces an
impeachment inquiry for withholding aid to Ukraine while pressuring President Volodymyr
Zelenksy to investigate the business dealings of Hunter Biden (followed by the
administration's attempt to cover up the exchange), Miller went on Fox News Sunday to inform
the public that the president is the only option for real democracy in America.
"Do you want a democracy in this country or do you want a deep state?" Miller asked and
answered. "It's a binary choice for the American people." He may have forgotten the word
"false" in there before "binary."
Miller also attacked the intelligence officer who reported Trump's behavior, lamenting
that the term "whistle-blower" has been appointed to them. To Miller, it's an "honorific that
this individual most certainly does not deserve. A partisan hit job does not make you a
whistle-blower just because you go through the Whistle-blower Protection Act." Of course, by
protocol, that's exactly what this individual is, as confirmed in Thursday's testimony from
the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, who stated that the
whistle-blower acted "by the book and followed the law."
During the Fox News Sunday interview, Miller also offered a galaxy-brain take on Trump's
role in the developing scandal, claiming that the president is the real whistle-blower in
the crisis. "The president of the United States is the whistle-blower and this individual is
a saboteur trying to undermine a democratically elected government," Miller said.
It's a perspective that does contain some truth, although one might need to zoom out much
further than Miller intends for the comparison to be helpful. If Trump is a whistle-blower,
then he's telling on himself, revealing just how corrupt a presidency can get when all legal
and ethical concerns are dropped at the expense of personal gain.
Trump refuses to condemn Obama's coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he
would, and the worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he'd be
fighting for truth, and not just for himself.
Biden extorted a $2 million dollar payoff from the Ukraine laundered by putting his
totally unqualified coke head son on the Board of Directors of a the National Gas Company of
the Ukraine.
Then Biden took a $1.5 million dollar payment laundered through multiple off shore wire
transfers.
Military Tech was transferred to China
Then Biden sold his Office of VP to the Chinese for $1.5 Billion Dollars
the payment was laundered as an investment in a Hedge Fund created by his coke head son
and Kerry's step son. .
"Notably, the younger Biden sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma - collecting
$50,000 per month despite having no previous experience in the field, nor being an investor.
His only qualification appears to have been a very connected daddy - who happened to threaten
to withhold $1 billion in US loan guarantees unless Ukraine's top prosecutor, who was
investigating Burisma, was fired. "
By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president he ordered then-Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company
that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forgo a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that
Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Today, I write to express concern about another Obama-era CFIUS-approved transaction which
gave control over Henniges, an American maker of anti-vibration technologies with military
applications, to a Chinese government-owned aviation company and China-based investment firm
with established ties to the Chinese government. As with the Uranium One transaction, there
is cause for concern that potential conflicts of interest could have influenced CFIUS
approval of the Henniges transaction...
The direct involvement of Mr. Hunter Biden and Mr. Heinz in the acquisition of Henniges by
the Chinese government creates a potential conflict of interest. Both are directly related to
high-ranking Obama administration officials. The Department of State, then under Mr. Kerry's
leadership, is also a CFIUS member and played a direct role in the decision to approve the
Henniges transaction. The appearance of potential conflicts in this case is particularly
troubling given Mr. Biden's and Mr. Heinz's history of investing in and collaborating with
Chinese companies, including at least one posing significant national security concerns. This
history with China pre and post-dates the 2015 Henniges transaction.
Former vice president Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden partnered with infamous mobster Whitey
Bulger's nephew and former secretary of state John Kerry's stepson for his lucrative business
deal with the Bank of China, according to reporter Peter Schweizer's latest book.
Schweizer points
to the business deal with state-owned Bank of China, a $1.5 billion private equity
investment, as a possible reason why the current presidential candidate has adopted a
conciliatory attitude toward China. The lucrative deal between the Bank of China and Hunter
Biden's company was inked in 2013 just weeks after Joe Biden brought his son along on an
official trip to China.
Schweizer also lays out the interesting cast of characters who partnered with Biden for
the deal, such as the Thornton Group consulting firm, which is headed by James Bulger. The
son of Massachusetts state senator Billy Bulger, James is named after his uncle James
"Whitey" Bulger, who was
killed in prison late last year after a decades-long career in the mob that landed him on
the FBI's Most Wanted list.
Also partnered with Biden is Chris Heinz, the stepson of John Kerry. Biden and Heinz
control Rosemont Seneca Partners, the private equity firm that received billions of
investment dollars from China.
A representative for Heinz says his involvement in the deal has been "misreported." He
says that neither he nor his firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, had any role in the deal. He
says an unaffiliated second firm, Rosemont Seneca Bohai, is the firm doing business with Bank
of China, and that Heinz is not involved. The representative also says Heinz has never been
to China.
Schweizer, whose latest book Secret
Empires examines the tactics used by political elites to accumulate wealth while in
power, calls the timeline of Hunter Biden's business dealings with China as his father shaped
foreign policy from the White House "shocking," but points out that nobody knew enough to
raise any questions.
"If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son -- who
has scant experience in private equity -- clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm
of the Chinese government, that's because it is," Schweizer writes. "Until the publication of
my book no one knew the deal took place. Indeed, it took me and a team of seasoned
investigators nearly two years to unearth and report the facts."
CEO of the company is Taras Burdeinyi [1] and
chairman of the board is Alan Apter. [2] A number
of non-Ukrainian directors were appointed in 2014, including Aleksander Kwaśniewski ,
former President of the Republic
of Poland , appointed in January 2014. [12] In
February 2016, Joseph Cofer Black , the Director of
the American CIA's Counterterrorist Center (CTC)
(1999–2002) in the George W. Bush administration and
Ambassador at
Large for counter-terrorism (2002–2004)
joined Burisma's Board of Directors. [13] Also Karina
Zlochevska, daughter of Mykola Zlochevskiy, is a member of the board. [2]
Other members of the board are Christina Sofocleous, Riginos Charalampous, and Marina
Pericleous. [14]
On 18 April 2014, Hunter Biden , the son of then-US vice
president Joe Biden ,
was appointed to the board of Burisma Holdings. [15] He left the
company in April 2019. [4] At
the same time, one of the board members was Devon Archer, a former senior adviser to
John Kerry 2004
presidential campaign . [16]
In October 2011, Black was chosen by Romney to serve as "Special Adviser" on all foreign
policy issues. [32
AND today we also learn the Pencil Neck Schit's major campaign contributor is a Ukrainian
arms dealer. No wonder Schit was upset with Trump for messing with his sugar daddy.
It seems that perhaps only Trump did not have some sort of financial ties to the
Ukraine.
Surely, it's a complex article. But the U. S. intervention has created, participated in
mayhem during this past decade where mayhem need not have happened. The best thing to do is
withhold money from Ukraine as POTUS did (is Congress a body that presses money into foreign
governments' hands whether they need it or not--what about Americans? It's OUR MONEY!).
Then the Ukraine government can find a new way to deal with their internal problems. Maybe
it's working with Russia. Russia is much closer to the United States. We have our own
problems such as a modern "Opium War" waged against us at the Mexican border. We need a good
barrier there. We need to start taking care of OUR OWN!
AND you also know why certain rinos like Mitt are opposing Trump....they are just as deep
into this **** as any dem. I am surprised that Hitlery wasn't getting some sort of skim on
all this action in the Ukraine.....maybe a lot more to come out.
The Ukraine looks like a real tar baby.....turns out Schit's major donor is a Ukrainian
arms dealer.....
AND then there is our old friend the CIA up to its neck. No wonder they needed a spy on
Trump and a fabricated report. Obviously they have a lot to hide.
"... The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history. ..."
"... While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally expected to support Johnson's impeachment. ..."
"... Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent." ..."
"... as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies. ..."
"... The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense." ..."
"... Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks. They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and even assassination." ..."
"... The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death." ..."
"... "I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ." ..."
"... Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished. ..."
When the GOP madly went after President Andrew Johnson, Senator Edward G. Ross ruined his own career to thwart them.
•
March 11, 2019
Senator Edmund G. Ross As Robert Mueller's pending report looms heavily over Washington, many are darkly speculating about a new
era in our history. When have there been so many investigations, such rank partisanship, such indifference to justice and the rule
of law?
Actually we have been here before.
The myth that our present moment is somehow more scandalous than any other is easily dispelled by reading John F. Kennedy's
book Profiles in Courage , which details the political bravery of eight largely unsung individuals from congressional history.
One story in particular stands out as the perfect antidote for our time: that of Edmund G. Ross, senator from Kansas. In 1868,
the United States came perilously close to impeaching its seventeenth president, Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, because the Republican
majority in Congress was at odds with him over how to handle the defeated Southern states. Ross bucked his party, followed his conscience,
and cast a vote against articles of impeachment. He was vilified at the time; decades later, he would be hailed as having saved the
republic.
While previous impeachment efforts had been defeated, on February 24, 1868, the House of Representatives adopted articles
of impeachment by a tremendous margin -- every single Republican voted in the affirmative. With that hurdle cleared, the charges
moved to the Senate, where they were presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. Ross was a Republican, and was naturally
expected to support Johnson's impeachment.
"Public opinion in the nation ran heavily against the President; he had intentionally broken the law and dictatorially thwarted
the will of Congress!" writes Kennedy.
After the president was effectively indicted by the House, the Senate trial proceeded and high drama riveted the nation. "It was
a trial to rank with all the great trials in history -- Charles I before the High Court of Justice, Louis XVI before the French Convention,
and Warren Hastings before the House of Lords," writes Kennedy. Yet there were two elements missing: "the actual cause for which
the President was being tried was not fundamental to the welfare of the nation; and the defendant himself was at all times absent."
The actual causes for impeachment sound somewhat obscure to today's ears, although the tenth article, which alleged that Johnson
had delivered "intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues against Congress [and] the laws of the United States," sounds
positively Trumpian. The first eight articles concerned the removal of Edwin M. Stanton as secretary of war in supposed violation
of the Tenure of Office Act. The ninth article alleged that Johnson's conversation with a general had violated an Army appropriations
act. The eleventh was something of a catch-all for the rest.
The counsel for the president argued convincingly that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional. And even if there had been
a violation of the law, Stanton would have needed to submit to being dismissed and then sued for his rights in the courts -- something
that had not happened.
From Profiles in Courage :
as the trial progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the impatient Republicans did not intend to give the President
a fair trial on the formal issues upon which the impeachment was drawn, but intended instead to depose him from the White House
on any grounds, real or imagined, for refusing to accept their policies.
Telling evidence in the President's favor was arbitrarily excluded. Prejudgment on the part of most Senators
was brazenly announced. Attempted bribery and other forms of pressure were rampant. The chief interest was not in the trial or
the evidence, but in the tallying of votes necessary for conviction.
At the time, there were 54 members of the Senate, which meant 36 votes were required to secure the two thirds necessary for Johnson's
conviction. There were 12 Democratic senators, so the 42 Republicans could afford only six defections.
The mood and tenor in Washington, according to David Miller DeWitt's The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson , was that
of a city under siege. "The dominant part of the nation seemed to occupy the position of public prosecutor, and it was scarcely in
the mood to brook delay for trial or to hear the defense."
The city was thronged by the "politically dissatisfied and swarmed with representatives of every state of the Union, demanding
in a practically united voice the deposition of the President," writes Kennedy. "The footsteps of anti-impeaching Republicans were
dogged from the day's beginning to its end and far into the night, with entreaties, considerations, and threats."
Ross and other doubters were "daily pestered, spied upon, and subjected to every form of pressure. Their residences were carefully
watched, their social circles suspiciously scrutinized, and their every move and companions secretly marked in special notebooks.
They were warned in the party press, harangued by their constituents, and sent dire warnings threatening political ostracism and
even assassination."
The New York Tribune reported that Ross in particular was "mercilessly dragged this way and that by both sides, hunted
like a fox night and day and badgered by his own colleagues ."
While both sides publicly claimed Ross as their own, the senator himself kept a careful silence. His brother received a letter
offering $20,000 if he would reveal Ross' mind. The morning of the fateful vote, spies followed Ross to breakfast, and 10 minutes
before the vote, a colleague from Kansas warned him that support for "acquittal would mean trumped up charges and his political death."
That day in the Senate, as Ross would later write, "the galleries were packed. Tickets of admission were at an enormous premium.
The House had adjourned and all of its members were in the Senate chamber. Every chair on the Senate floor was filled ."
The broad eleventh article of impeachment would command the first vote. By the time the call came to Ross, 24 "guilty" votes had
already been pronounced. As Kennedy writes, "Ten more were certain and one other practically certain. Only Ross's vote was needed
to obtain the thirty-six votes necessary to convict the President. But not a single person in the room knew how this young Kansan
would vote."
"I almost literally looked down into my open grave," writes Ross. "Friendships, position, fortune, everything that makes life
desirable to an ambitious man were about to be swept away by the breath of my mouth, perhaps forever. It is not strange that my answer
was carried waveringly over the air and failed to reach the limits of the audience, or or that repetition was called for ."
"Then came the answer again in a voice that could not be misunderstood -- full, final, definite, unhesitating and unmistakeable:
'Not guilty.' The deed was done, the President saved, the trial as good as over and the conviction lost. The remainder of the roll
call was unimportant; conviction had failed by the margin of a single vote and a general rumbling filled the chamber ."
When the second and third articles of impeachment were read 10 days later, Ross also pronounced the president "not guilty."
Neither Ross nor any of the other six Republicans who voted for Johnson's acquittal were ever reelected to the Senate. When
they returned to Kansas, Ross and his family were ostracized, attacked, and impoverished.
Kennedy writes:
Who was Edmund G. Ross? Practically nobody. Not a single public law bears his name, not a single history book includes his
picture, not a single list of Senate "greats" mentions his service. His one heroic deed has been all but forgotten. Ross chose
to throw [his future in politics] away for one act of conscience.
Yet even if he fell into obscurity, history would vindicate Ross. Twenty years after the fateful vote, Congress repealed the Tenure
of Office Act, and the Supreme Court later held that "the extremes of that episode in our government" were unconstitutional.
Prior to Ross's death, the American public realized its errors too, and the same Kansas papers that had once denounced and defamed
Ross declared that his "courage" had "saved" the country "from calamity greater than war, while it consigned him to a political martyrdom,
the most cruel in our history ."
Kennedy does a wonderful job recounting this momentous episode, with the rich suspense and colorful imagery that it deserves.
Ross's words jump from the page as if they were written for our own age, and his bravery in the face of partisan political pressure
has withstood the test of time.
To end with Ross's own words:
In a large sense, the independence of the executive office as a coordinate branch of the government was on trial . If the President
was to step down a disgraced man and a political outcast upon insufficient proofs and from partisan considerations, the office
of President would be degraded, cease to be a coordinate branch of the government, and ever after be subordinated to the legislative
will. If Andrew Johnson were acquitted by a nonpartisan vote America would pass the danger point of partisan rule and that intolerance
which so often characterizes the sway of great majorities and makes them dangerous.
We should bear that in mind today.
Barbara Boland is the former weekend editor of the Washington Examiner . Her work has been featured on Fox News, the
Drudge Report, HotAir.com, RealClearDefense, RealClearPolitics, and elsewhere. She's the author of Patton Uncovered , a book
about General Patton in World War II. Follow her on Twitter @BBatDC
.
"... The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador, Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President Obama. ..."
The FBI knew the
Steele dossier was nonsense before they used it to get the FISA court to issue the warrant
to begin spying on Carter Page leading to the Russia collusion hoax. John Solomon of
The Hill found a second document that the FBI knew contained false information, but they
used it to get the search warrant against Paul Manafort anyway.
Per Solomon:
The second document, known as the "black cash ledger," remarkably has escaped the same
scrutiny, even though its emergence in Ukraine in the summer of 2016 forced Paul Manafort to resign as
Trump's campaign chairman and eventually face U.S. indictment.
In search warrant affidavits, the FBI portrayed the ledger as one reason it resurrected a
criminal case against Manafort that was dropped in 2014 and needed search warrants in 2017
for bank records to prove
he worked for the Russian-backed Party of Regions in Ukraine.
There's just one problem: The FBI's public reliance on the ledger came months after the
feds were warned repeatedly that the document couldn't be trusted and likely was a fake,
according to documents and more than a dozen interviews with knowledgeable sources.
When
the NY Times reported the news about the ledger, they positioned it as a big scandal as
they do with almost everything associated with Donald Trump:
Handwritten ledgers show $12.7 million in undisclosed cash payments designated for Mr.
Manafort from Mr. Yanukovych's pro-Russian political party from 2007 to 2012, according to
Ukraine's newly formed National Anti-Corruption Bureau. Investigators assert that the
disbursements were part of an illegal off-the-books system whose recipients also included
election officials.
( ) The papers, known in Ukraine as the "black ledger," are a chicken-scratch of Cyrillic
covering about 400 pages taken from books once kept in a third-floor room in the former Party
of Regions headquarters on Lipskaya Street in Kiev. The room held two safes stuffed with $100
bills, said Taras V. Chornovil, a former party leader who was also a recipient of the money
at times. He said in an interview that he had once received $10,000 in a "wad of cash" for a
trip to Europe.
Nazar Kholodnytsky, Ukraine's top anti-corruption prosecutor, told John Solomon that he had
told his State Dept contacts and FBI agents that his colleagues who found the ledger thought it
was bogus around the same time the Times published the story late August 2916.
"It was not to be considered a document of Manafort. It was not authenticated. And at that
time it should not be used in any way to bring accusations against anybody," Kholodnytsky
said, recalling what he told FBI agents.
This is the second incident of Obama's State Department ignoring Ukraine evidence.
Two months ago we
learned that senior member of Ukraine's Prosecutor General's International Legal
Cooperation Dept. told John Solomon that since last year, he's been blocked from getting visas
for himself and a team to go to the U.S. to deliver evidence of Democratic party wrongdoing
during the 2016 election to the DOJ. The senior prosecutor Kostiantyn Kulyk never got an
answer, and he says it's because the visas were blocked by the U.S. Ambassador. The Ambassador,
Marie L. Yovanovitch is a career diplomat (since 1986) who served under both Democratic and
Republicans and was appointed to her present position in August 2016 by former President
Obama.
Solomon gives some more examples of the FBI being told the ledger was as real as a
three-dollar bill. But that's when it gets really dicey because according to three of Solomon's
sources, Mueller's team of political hitmen and the FBI were given copies of one of the
warnings.
Because they knew the ledger was false Mueller and the FBI couldn't use the ledger to
establish probable cause to investigate Manafort because it " would require agents to discuss
their assessment of the evidence -- and instead cited media reports about it." Even though the
feds assisted on one of those stories as sources
For example, agents mentioned the ledger in an affidavit
supporting a July 2017 search warrant for Manafort's house, citing it as one of the reasons
the FBI resurrected the criminal case against Manafort.
"On August 19, 2016, after public reports regarding connections between Manafort, Ukraine
and Russia -- including an alleged 'black ledger' of off-the-book payments from the Party of
Regions to Manafort -- Manafort left his post as chairman of the Trump Campaign," the July
25, 2017, FBI agent's affidavit stated.
Three months later, the FBI went further in
arguing probable cause for a search warrant for Manafort's bank records, citing a
specific article about the ledger as evidence Manafort was paid to perform U.S. lobbying work
for the Ukrainians.
"The April 12, 2017, Associated Press article
reported that DMI [Manafort's company] records showed at least two payments were made to DMI
that correspond to payments in the 'black ledger,' " an FBI agent
wrote in a footnote to the affidavit.
Guess who helped the AP with their story -- the DOJ's Andrew Weissmann who later moved to
the special prosecutor's office and became Mueller's chief hit-man.
So just as they had done in the anti-Trump investigation "the FBI cited a leak that the
government had facilitated and then used it to support the black ledger evidence, even though
it had been clearly warned about the document."
Whether or not Paul Manafort deserved to be jailed is irrelevant. Part of the search
warrants against him were lies that the prosecutors knew were false. The judgments against him
should be tossed out because they contain the fruit of the poisonous tree. Our justice system
promises equal justice for all, but the FBI and Special Prosecutor cheated in the case of
Manafort.
How a Shadow Foreign Policy in Ukraine Prompted
an Impeachment Inquiry https://nyti.ms/2m0n5aY
NYT - Kenneth P. Vogel, Andrew E. Kramer
and David E. Sanger - September 28
WASHINGTON -- Petro O. Poroshenko was still the president of Ukraine earlier this year
when his team sought a lifeline. With the polls showing him in clear danger of losing his
re-election campaign, some of his associates, eager to hold on to their own jobs and
influence, took steps that could have yielded a signal of public support from a vital ally:
President Trump.
Over several weeks in March, the office of Ukraine's top prosecutor moved ahead on two
investigations of intense interest to Mr. Trump. One was focused on an oligarch -- previously
cleared of wrongdoing by the same prosecutor -- whose company employed former Vice President
Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s son. The other dealt with the release by a separate Ukrainian law
enforcement agency to the media of information that hurt Mr. Trump's 2016 campaign.
The actions by the prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, did not come out of thin air. They were the
first visible results of a remarkable behind-the-scenes campaign to gather and disseminate
political dirt from a foreign country, encouraged by Mr. Trump and carried out by his
personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani. In the last week their engagement with Ukraine has
prompted a formal impeachment inquiry into whether the president courted foreign interference
to hurt a leading political rival.
The story of how Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani operated in Ukraine has emerged gradually in
recent months. It was laid out in further detail in the past week in a reconstructed
transcript of Mr. Trump's phone call this summer with a new Ukrainian president and in a
complaint filed by a whistle-blower inside the United States government.
Along with documents and interviews with a wide variety of people in Ukraine and the
United States, the latest revelations show that Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani ran what amounted
to a shadow foreign policy in Ukraine that unfolded against the backdrop of three elections
-- this year's vote in Ukraine and the 2016 and 2020 presidential races in the United
States.
Despite the findings of United States intelligence agencies and the Justice Department
that Russia was responsible for interfering in the 2016 election, Mr. Trump was driven to
seek proof that the meddling was linked to Ukraine and forces hostile to him, even fixating
on a fringe conspiracy theory suggesting that Hillary Clinton's missing emails might be found
there.
Backed by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani, who once aspired to be secretary of state, sought to
tar Mr. Biden with unsubstantiated accusations of impropriety, while he and associates
working with him in Ukraine on the president's agenda pursued their own personal business
interests.
With the political landscape scrambled by Mr. Poroshenko's defeat in April and the arrival
of a new cast of Ukrainian officials, the approach pursued by Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Trump
undercut official United States diplomacy.
And the signals sent by Mr. Trump -- long skeptical of the strategic value of backing
Ukraine against Russia, its menacing neighbor to the east -- complicated efforts by the new
Ukrainian government to fortify itself against Moscow.
The intensifying overlap this summer between Mr. Trump's political agenda in Ukraine and
his official foreign policy apparatus is now at the center of an impeachment inquiry that
will examine whether the president of the United States directed or encouraged his
subordinates to lean on a vulnerable ally for personal political gain.
Among the subjects covered in a subpoena sent Friday by House Democrats to Secretary of
State Mike Pompeo and demands for depositions from American diplomats was Mr. Trump's
decision to freeze a $391 million military aid package to Ukraine this summer not long before
his July 25 call with Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who defeated Mr.
Poroshenko this spring.
Democrats are also looking into the recall in the spring of the United States ambassador
to Kiev, Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career foreign service officer who was seen as
insufficiently loyal to Mr. Trump by some of his conservative allies. On Friday evening, the
State Department's special envoy for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, abruptly resigned, not long after
receiving a summons from House Democrats to sit for a deposition in the coming week.
Mr. Trump has dismissed the impeachment investigation as another "witch hunt."
In an interview on Friday, Mr. Giuliani defended his efforts to push the Ukrainians to
investigate Mr. Biden, his son, Hunter Biden, and others. He asserted that he was not doing
it to try to influence the 2020 presidential election, though Mr. Biden is a leading
contender for the Democratic nomination to challenge Mr. Trump.
"I was doing it to dig out information that exculpates my client, which is the role of a
defense lawyer," he said.
Mixing Business and Politics
In the months before the steps taken in March on the politically explosive investigations
sought by Mr. Trump, Mr. Giuliani had met at least twice with the man who would become a
central figure in his efforts and a target of criticism in both countries: Mr. Lutsenko, 54,
Ukraine's top prosecutor.
First at a meeting in New York and later in Warsaw, Mr. Giuliani pushed Mr. Lutsenko for
information about -- and investigations into -- a pair of cases of keen interest to his
client.
They included the Bidens' activities in Ukraine and the release during the 2016 campaign
of incriminating records about Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's campaign chairman. Mr. Giuliani
said early this year he had become increasingly convinced that the Manafort records were
doctored and disseminated by critics of Mr. Trump to sabotage his campaign, and later used to
spur the special counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
No evidence supports this idea and Mr. Manafort's own retroactive filings under the
Foreign Agents Registration Act corroborated the Ukrainian documents, which also matched
financial records in the United States.
Still, it was not long before Mr. Trump, sensitive to any questions about the legitimacy
of his 2016 victory, began echoing Mr. Giuliani's language about what they viewed as the
Ukrainian origins of the Russia investigation.
But Mr. Trump and Mr. Giuliani had also taken a growing interest in the role played by Mr.
Biden, as vice president, in the dismissal of a previous Ukrainian prosecutor who had
oversight of investigations into an oligarch who had served in a previous Ukrainian
government and whose company had employed Hunter Biden. No evidence has surfaced that the
former vice president intentionally tried to help his son by pressing for the dismissal of
that prosecutor, whose ouster was being sought by other Western governments and institutions
concerned about corruption in the Ukrainian government.
In their first meeting, in January, Mr. Lutsenko later told people, Mr. Giuliani called
Mr. Trump and excitedly briefed him on the discussions. And once Mr. Lutsenko's office took
procedural steps to advance investigations involving the Manafort records and the oligarch
linked to Hunter Biden, Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Trump and their allies aggressively promoted
stories about the developments to conservative journalists at home, further turning a foreign
government's action to the president's advantage.
"As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges," Mr. Trump wrote on
Twitter in March, echoing the headline of one of the first such pieces by a Trump-friendly
journalist.
Mr. Giuliani had seemed to slide eagerly into his new role. After his hopes of becoming
secretary of state were dashed -- in part, former administration officials said, because of
his extensive foreign business ties -- he became a personal lawyer for Mr. Trump when the
president came under scrutiny by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.
Mr. Trump was publicly lobbying his own Justice Department for an investigation of Mrs.
Clinton and other Democrats. When he got no satisfaction on that score, Mr. Giuliani
volunteered to take on the role of independent investigator, empowered by nothing other than
Mr. Trump's blessing.
Mr. Giuliani rejected the suggestion that he was interfering in the execution of American
foreign policy, noting that Mr. Volker and the State Department eventually helped connect him
with a top aide to Mr. Zelensky.
"If they were concerned, I don't think they would ask me to handle a mission like this
that's sensitive," he said. "I feel perfectly comfortable with what we did in Ukraine."
Ukraine was familiar ground to Mr. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor and presidential
candidate who had built a thriving consulting and security business.
Mr. Giuliani's activity on behalf of Mr. Trump allowed him to maintain, and increase, his
marketability to prospective clients around the world. Hiring him came to be seen as a way to
curry favor with the Trump administration. ...
Kurt Volker, Trump's Envoy for Ukraine,
Resigns https://nyti.ms/2mex0tH
NYT - Peter Baker -September 27
WASHINGTON -- Kurt D. Volker, the State Department's special envoy for Ukraine who got
caught in the middle of the pressure campaign by President Trump and his lawyer, Rudolph W.
Giuliani, to find damaging information about Democrats, abruptly resigned his post on
Friday.
Mr. Volker, who told Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Friday that he was stepping down,
offered no public explanation, but a person informed about his decision said he concluded
that it was impossible to be effective in his assignment given the developments of recent
days.
His departure was the first resignation since revelations about Mr. Trump's efforts to
pressure Ukraine's president to investigate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and
other Democrats. The disclosures have triggered a full-blown House impeachment inquiry, and
House leaders announced on Friday that they planned to interview Mr. Volker in a deposition
on Thursday.
Mr. Volker, a widely respected former ambassador to NATO, served in the part-time, unpaid
position of special envoy to help Ukraine resolve its armed confrontation with
Russia-sponsored separatists. He was among the government officials who found themselves in
an awkward position because of the search for dirt on Democrats, reluctant to cross the
president or Mr. Giuliani yet wary of getting drawn into politics outside their purview.
The unidentified intelligence official who filed the whistle-blower complaint that brought
the president's actions to light identified Mr. Volker as one of the officials trying to
"contain the damage" by advising Ukrainians how to navigate Mr. Giuliani's campaign.
Mr. Volker facilitated an entree for Mr. Giuliani with the newly elected government in
Ukraine, acting not at the instruction of Mr. Trump or Mr. Pompeo, but at the request of the
Ukrainians, who were worried because Mr. Giuliani was seeking information about Mr. Biden and
other Democrats and had denounced top Ukrainian officials as "enemies of the president."
...
(CNN) -- Former US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker plans to appear at his deposition
next Thursday in front of the House Foreign Affairs committee, according to a source familiar
with his plans.
The source would not say if the White House is seeking to use executive privilege to
constrict Volker in terms of what he can say or provide.
Volker's appearance before the committee was announced just hours before the news broke
Friday evening that he had resigned.
Volker didn't offer a comment when contacted Saturday by CNN.
The former US special envoy is expected to face tough questioning after finding himself in
the middle of the controversy surrounding the intelligence whistleblower who had alleged a
coverup by the White House over a call made by President Donald Trump to Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelensky. That whistleblower also mentioned Volker's name in his complaint when
discussing interactions between himself and Trump's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani,
concerning pushing Ukraine to look into activities of Joe Biden's son, Hunter.
There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe or Hunter Biden. ...
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar.
As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political
consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential
elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals...
Caught between the clashing geopolitical ambitions of Russia and the West, Ukraine has for
years had to balance competing outside interests and worked hard to cultivate all sides, and
also rival groups on the same side -- no matter how incompatible their agendas -- with offers
of money, favors and prospects for career advancement."
For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be
fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any
corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he
brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right!
All we know for certain is, like Mark Twain once said, "An honest politician is somebody
who, when he is bought, stays bought." IMO, this is how we need to interpret any story that
is sourced from the Ukraine.
Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of
the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative
about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck!
Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying
to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious
Ukranian sources.
So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which
can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the
Ukraine.
Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative
they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the
intelligence services.
Personally, I hope they both embarrass themselves to the point where we can finally be rid
of both sides.
"... Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about the official full house impeachment vote. The Lawfare group and DNC far-left activists were ecstatic at the selection. Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the institution of the DOJ who worked diligently to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations. ..."
"... Speaker Pelosi has authorized the House committees to work together under the umbrella of an "official impeachment inquiry." The House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together leading this process. ..."
"... From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles. Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a corruption angle; Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an obstruction angle ..."
"... Pelosi's earlier House Rule changes now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article assembly process. The minority will have no voice. This is quite a design. ..."
"... Once the articles are drawn up, Schiff and Nadler will vote to approve them out of committee. Democrats control the majority so the articles will easily pass out of committee. Then the articles must come before a full house vote. The current two-week recess is the period where Pelosi has instructed her team to return to their districts and sell the reasoning and purpose for the upcoming vote. Speaker Pelosi will hold that vote. ..."
"... It is more than likely the vote will pass through the House on party lines. Once Pelosi achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached. ..."
"... While the technical reason for the recess is to celebrate the Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, it is now obvious the sequence of events has been constructed specifically toward these impeachment efforts. ..."
"... "The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article itself." ( more ) ..."
"... Schiff, Cummings and Engel will be more urgently assembling the Corruption articles based on the purposefully constructed Trump-Ukraine whistleblower leak and subsequent document production. Hence, the depositions during the break. ..."
"... When the 116th congress returns from their break on October 15th, 2019, the Articles of Impeachment will have already been assembled: [ House Calendar Link ] ..."
"... Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they coordinate all endeavors with their media allies. The narrative assembly and usefulness by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public interest and make the most money therein. ..."
"... There will likely be more articles other than just " obstruction of justice " (Muh Russia) and " corruption of office " (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible. Emoluments may also play a role. ..."
"... The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on them. ..."
"... The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption agenda. Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to celebrate the impeachment of President Trump. ..."
"... The Dems seem to be outmaneuvering the repubs and Trump at this point. If things go anywhere near what this author proposes and I think much of it will, the truth won't matter all that much just trumped up charges on the grand stage of deceit. ..."
"... The Senate trial is going to be really bad for a lot of people including some Republicans. ..."
"... Clearly her purpose is to destroy the administration. That is, basically, and ACT of War. Who the hell are we engaged in fighting. Her actions must have sponsorship. Who is it attacking the United States of America.? ..."
"... Pelosi and her Democrat minions in Congress should be terminated for belligerence and incompetence. The American virtue of real work is a foreign concept to these professional phonies. They made up this power-play drama so they can play an evil game and be irresponsible thugs at the expense of real, hardworking Americans. ..."
Pelosi's House Rule Changes are Key Part of "Articles of Impeachment", Being Drafted Over Next
Two Weeks
Back in December 2018 CTH noted the significant House rule changes constructed by Nancy Pelosi
for the 116th congress seemed specifically geared toward impeachment. {
Go
Deep
} With the House going into a scheduled calendar recess,
those
rules
are now being used to subvert historic processes and construct the articles of
impeachment.
A formal vote to initiate an "impeachment inquiry" is not technically required; however, there
has always been a full house vote until now. The reason not to have a House vote is simple: if
the
formal process
was followed the minority (republicans) would have enforceable rights
within it. Without a vote
to initiate
, the articles of impeachment can be drawn up
without any participation by the minority; and without any input from the executive. This was
always the plan that was visible in Pelosi's changed House rules.
Keep in mind Speaker Pelosi selected former insider DOJ official
Douglas Letter
to
be the Chief Legal Counsel
for the House. That becomes important when we get to the part about
the official full house impeachment vote. The
Lawfare
group
and
DNC far-left activists
were ecstatic
at the selection. Doug Letter was a deep political operative within the
institution of the DOJ who
worked
diligently
to promote the weaponized political values of former democrat administrations.
Speaker Pelosi
has authorized
the
House committees to work together under the umbrella of an "official impeachment inquiry." The
House Intelligence (Schiff) and Judiciary Committees (Nadler) are currently working together
leading this process.
From recent events we can see the framework of Schiff compiling Trump-Ukraine articles
and Nadler compiling Trump-Russia articles. Trump-Ukraine via Schiff will likely focus on a
corruption
angle;
Trump-Russia via Nadler will likely focus on an
obstruction
angle.
How many articles of impeachment are finally assembled is unknown, but it is possible to see the
background construct as described above. Unlike historic examples of committee impeachment
assembly, and in combination with the lack of an initiation vote, Pelosi's
earlier
House Rule changes
now appear intentionally designed to block republicans during the article
assembly process. The minority will have no voice. This is quite a design.
Once the articles are drawn up, Schiff and Nadler will vote to approve them out of
committee. Democrats control the majority so the articles will easily pass out of committee. Then
the articles must come before a full house vote. The current two-week recess is the period where
Pelosi has instructed her team to return to their districts and sell the reasoning and purpose for
the upcoming vote. Speaker Pelosi will hold that vote.
It is more than likely the vote will pass through the House on party lines. Once Pelosi
achieves a vote of passage on any single article President Trump is considered impeached.
Back to this two-week break. While the technical reason for the recess is to celebrate the
Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah, it is now obvious the sequence of events has been
constructed specifically toward these impeachment efforts.
There are 31 House districts currently held by Democrats which President Trump won in 2016;
Pelosi is giving those members an opportunity to make their impeachment case to their constituents
now, but failure to support the effort is likely not optional for all except a few of the most
tenuously vulnerable. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Majority Whip James Clyburn will
assemble enough votes for impeachment.
While those house members are explaining to their constituents, back in DC the committee work on
the articles will collate. On Friday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff,
Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings, and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel,
issued a subpoena demanding a slew of Ukraine-related documents from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
by Oct. 4th. The committees also scheduled depositions with five State Department officials between
Oct. 2 and Oct. 10.
Notice that
with
the rule changes
the minority will not be participating in these depositions. The republicans
will likely have no idea what is happening therein.
As Chad Pergram notes:
"The subpoenas are part of a two-pronged strategy by Democrats. Get the information to help
tailor the articles of impeachment, or convert a refusal to comply into an impeachment article
itself." (
more
)
Chairman Nadler (Judiciary) almost certainly already has his
Obstruction
articles
assembled using prior testimony, depositions and relying heavily on the Mueller report.
However, Chairmen Schiff, Cummings and Engel will be more urgently assembling the
Corruption
articles
based on the purposefully constructed Trump-Ukraine whistleblower leak and subsequent document
production. Hence, the depositions during the break.
The Democrats are going to act fast. Remember, by design Speaker Pelosi has this set up so that
Republicans don't even participate in the impeachment process. There are no republicans
participating in the assembly of the articles of impeachment. Stunningly, and as an outcome of
those
earlier rule changes
, there is no minority voice in
this process.
When the 116th congress returns from their break on October 15th, 2019, the Articles of
Impeachment will have already been assembled:
[
House
Calendar Link
]
Speaker Pelosi has to give the media some reference point to say the republicans were included
in the process, so she will likely have mid to late October destined for the committee chairs to
have
committee debate
on their pre-assembled articles. This will give the impression of
minority participation, but it will be for optics only.
Democrats are keen optical strategists and narrative engineers; and as you know they
coordinate all endeavors with their media allies.
The narrative assembly and usefulness
by media to drive a tactical national political message will hit heavily in this mid/late October
time-frame. This will allow the executive suites (media) to capture/stir-up maximum public
interest and make the most money therein.
There will likely be more articles other than just "
obstruction of justice
" (Muh Russia)
and "
corruption of office
" (Muh Ukraine), but those two are easily visible. Emoluments
may also play a role.
The articles of impeachment will then be voted out of each committee; and after a significant
dramatic pause for maximum political value, Speaker Pelosi will present days of House debate on
them.
The media will construct television sets to broadcast the house impeachment debates, and
the Democrat candidates will use this time to spotlight their angelic policies and anti-corruption
agenda. Big Dollar Democrats will bring in their activist groups from around the nation to
celebrate the impeachment of President Trump.
Then, once Pelosi is certain the maximum political benefit has been achieved, she will announce
the date for the Full House Vote on Articles of Impeachment. We can be certain the date will be
filled with maximum drama and
made-for-tv
effect complete with Speaker Pelosi bringing
back the big gavel for a grand presentation and a full house vote.
[
Chad
Pergram
] As always, it's about math. The current House breakdown is 235 Democrats, 199
Republicans, and one independent: Rep. Justin Amash, I-Mich. To pass anything in the House, 218
yeas are needed.
That means Democrats can only lose 17 votes from their side and still have enough to pass an
article of impeachment. Amash has endorsed impeachment, so let's say the magic number is
actually 16. If the president is to be impeached, that means Democrats could have 15 of their
own voting for articles of impeachment while representing a district which Trump carried in
2016.
A House floor vote to impeach the President is kind of like an indictment, codified in
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. If the House votes to impeach, Article 1, Section 3 of
the Constitution sends the article(s) to the Senate for a trial presided over by Chief Justice
of the United States John Roberts. (Note Roberts' proper title. This is one of the reasons the
Chief Justice is "of the United States," and not just the "Supreme Court.") (
more
from Chad Pergram
)
The same people who will stand jaw-agape as this House Impeachment process is happening are the
same people who denied it was likely when CTH originally showed the rule changes, road-map, and
impeachment schedule
in
January
.
Now . having said all that, perhaps just perhaps .
Bill Barr is well aware of the
Machiavellian scheme
constructed and executed by Nancy Pelosi.
Perhaps, just perhaps, that is why the IG Horowitz report has been delayed . As
in, hold it back until Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and Cummings fire their impeachment cannons.
Maybe
It seems awful
Trusty plan-like
for me; but it's possible.
Perhaps the ultimate counter to protect and defend the office of the presidency from this
pre-planned, Lawfare assisted, impeachment effort
is to wait until the Democrats
are going to launch their tactical impeachment nukes, and then
fire for effect
with the
declassification documents etc.!
Hey, I'm trying to provide an optimistic ending here.
The Dems seem to be outmaneuvering the repubs and Trump at this
point. If things go anywhere near what this author proposes and I
think much of it will, the truth won't matter all that much just
trumped up charges on the grand stage of deceit.
Hopefully the american people see through this utter ******** and waste of our
taxes and kick the dems out of office.
Trump wants a vote and this process Pelosi has to know this. Keep
digging idiots. The Senate trial is going to be really bad for a
lot of people including some Republicans.
My opinion as an American is that this woman is conducting
treason, right in the faces of all Americans. Clearly her purpose
is to destroy the administration. That is, basically, and ACT of War. Who the hell are we engaged in fighting. Her actions must have
sponsorship. Who is it attacking the United States of America.?
Pelosi and her Democrat minions in Congress should be terminated
for belligerence and incompetence. The American virtue of
real work is a foreign concept to these professional
phonies. They made up this power-play drama so they can play an
evil game and be irresponsible thugs at the expense of real,
hardworking Americans.
Pelosi is vile. Her minions are
the laziest and most worthless trash ever to be in
government. Remove them, take away their government benefits,
punish their incompetence.
Opening the Thursday's hearing to question acting DNI Joseph Maguire, Rep. Adam Schiff
(D-CA), put on an act to
make people watching believe he was reading directly from the transcript of the President Trump
call with the Ukraine President. But Schiff made up fictional dialog in an apparent effort make
a benign phone conversation into something it wasn't, and convince the viewing public that the
President did something wrong. Andy Biggs
To many including Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) this was unacceptable. The day after the hearing,
he
introduced a motion to censure and condemn Adam Schiff's latest lies.
"During yesterday's hearing, Chairman Schiff's opening statement included a blatantly
false retelling of President Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president. Democrats
previously initiated an impeachment inquiry, which leads to one of the most serious,
constitutional duties of Members of Congress: removal of the President of the United States.
Through this process, if the President has committed high crimes or misdemeanors, Congress
may overturn the election of the President and the will of the American people. It is
therefore inexcusable to toy with the process and mislead the American public with such a
statement."
Here is the test of the resolution
Condemning and censuring Adam Schiff, Representative of California's 28th Congressional
District
Whereas, President Trump released the transcript of a call between him and the
President of Ukraine;
Whereas, President Trump subsequently released the whistleblower complaint of August 12,
2019;
Whereas, in a September 26, 2019, hearing on the whistleblower complaint, House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff purported to relay the content of the phone call to the American
people;
Whereas, instead of quoting directly from the available transcript, Chairman Schiff
manufactured a false retelling of the conversation between President Trump and President
Zelensky;
Whereas, this egregiously false and fabricated retelling had no relationship to the call
itself;
Whereas, these actions of Chairman Schiff misled the American people, bring disrepute upon
the House of Representatives, and make a mockery of the impeachment process, one of this
chamber's most solemn constitutional duties;
Whereas, for more than two years, Chairman Schiff has spread false accusations that the
Trump Campaign colluded with Russia;
Whereas on March 20, 2017, then Ranking Member Schiff read out false allegations from the
Steele dossier accusing numerous Trump associates of colluding with Russia;
Whereas, then-Ranking Member Schiff falsely claimed in a March 2017 interview to have "more
than circumstantial evidence of collusion with Russia;
Whereas, then-Ranking Member Schiff negotiated with Russian comedians who he believed to be
Ukrainian officials to obtain materials to damage the President of the United States
politically;
Whereas, members of the Intelligence Committee have lost faith in his objectivity and
capabilities as Chairman, with every Republican member on the Committee having signed a letter
calling for his immediate resignation as Chairman;
Whereas, Chairman Schiff has gravely hindered the ability of the Intelligence Committee to
fulfill its oversight responsibilities of the Intelligence Community, an indispensable pillar
of our national security.
Resolved, That --
The House of Representatives censures and condemns Representative Adam Schiff for conduct
that misleads the American people in a way that is not befitting an elected Member of the
House of Representatives;
Representative Adam Schiff will forthwith present himself in the well of the House for
the pronouncement of censure; and
Representative Adam Schiff will be censured with the public reading of this resolution by
the Speaker.
Bravo Rep. Biggs. While I doubt Nancy Pelosi will ever allow this motion to be voted on,
it's worth the try.
I think Team Pelosi at the behest of the intelligence services freaked out when they saw
Trump going to Ukraine to get to the bottom of the allegations against him.
They have created their narrative Russiagate being conveniently replaced by Ukrainegate.
They will aggressively push their narrative through the mainstream media.
Trump, if he gets organized, will push his narrative through Fox and the conservative echo
chamber.
So far, advantage Democrats/CIA. Pretty good for a hapless bunch of politicians incapable
of putting together a message coherent enough to win an election!
As I noted earlier, the plot is Byzantine. The winner will be the side with the most
superficially plausible story. But both Trump and Biden are likely to be damaged severely
in the process and for that we can be grateful.
Concerns about Biden are all false narrative specifically injected to generate hysteria:
Biden is a dream opponent for Trump. The best he can expect.
Ukraine is a client state in which intelligence services are controlled by CIA, who has their
people on the floor. So the leaker invents the risks: "I am also concerned that these actions
pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine the U.S. Government's efforts to deter and
counter foreign interference in U.S. elections."
The document also looks like an attempt of cover-up of Crowdstrike efforts and DNC (and the
make the the key to the document -- Brennan people smelled something) : "assist in purportedly
uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election
originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over
servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security
firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's
networks in 2016; and"
The leaker also overplay the natural efforts of WH to hide Trump lack of diplomatic skills
and bulling of Zelensky: "In the days following the phone call, I learned from multiple U.S.
officials that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the
phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced -- as
is customary -- by the White House Situation Room"
The key new question is "did Crowdstrike transferred images of DNC servers to Ukraine for the
analysis? "
Also document dances around the fact that Poroshenko government in tandem in Us embassy was
trying to undermine Trump
Notable quotes:
"... that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv -- specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who had criticized Mr. Lutsenko's organization for its poor record on fighting corruption -- had allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies' pursuit of corruption cases, including by providing a "do not prosecute" list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their "evidence" about the 2016 U.S. election; ..."
I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute "a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Order" that "does not include differences of
opinions concerning public policy matters," consistent with the definition of an "urgent
concern" in 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(G). I am therefore fulfilling my duty to report this
information, through proper legal channels, to the relevant authorities.
I am also concerned
that these actions pose risks to U.S. national security and undermine theU.S. Government's
efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S. elections.
... ... ...
Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an
initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his
personal interests. Namely, he sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help
the President's 2020 reelection bid. According to the White House officials who had direct
knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to, inter alia:
initiate or
continue an investigation 2 into the activities of former Vice President Joseph
Biden and his son, Hunter Biden; assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian
interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific
request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike,3 which initially
reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC's networks in 2016; and meet or speak with
two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani
and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.
The President also praised Ukraine's Prosecutor General, Mr. Yuriy Lutsenko, and suggested
that Mr. Zelenskyy might want to keep him in his position. (Note: Starting in March 2019, Mr.
Lutsenko made a series of public allegations -- many of which he later walked back -- about the
Biden family's activities in Ukraine, Ukrainian officials' purported involvement in the 2016
U.S. election, and the activities of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv. See Part IV for additional
context.)
The White House officials who told me this information were deeply disturbed by what had
transpired in the phone call. 2 They told me that there was already a "discussion
ongoing" with White House lawyers about how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the
officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the President abuse his office for personal
gain.
The Ukrainian side was the first to publicly acknowledge the phone call. On the evening of
25 July, a readout was posted on the website of the Ukrainian President that contained the
following line (translation from original Russian-language readout):
"Donald Trump expressed his conviction that the new Ukrainian government will be able to
quickly improve Ukraine's image and complete the investigation of corruption cases that have
held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States."
Aside from the above-mentioned "cases" purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the
2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other "cases" were
discussed.
Based on my understanding, there were approximately a dozen White House officials who
listened to the call -- a mixture of policy officials and duty officers in the White House
Situation Room, as is customary. The officials I spoke with told me that participation in the
call had not been restricted in advance because everyone expected it would be a "routine" call
with a foreign leader. I do not know whether anyone was physically present with the President
during the call.
In addition to White House personnel, I was told that a State Department
official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call. I was not the only non-White
House official to receive a readout of the call. Based on my understanding, multiple State
Department and Intelligence Community officials were also briefed on the contents of the call
as outlined above. IV. Circumstances leading up to the 25 July Presidential phone call
Beginning in late March 2019, a series of articles appeared in an online publication called
The Hill. In these articles, several Ukrainian officials -- most notably, Prosecutor General
Yuriy Lutsenko -- made a series of allegations against other Ukrainian officials and current
and former U.S. officials. Mr. Lutsenko and his colleagues alleged, inter alia:
In a report published by the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) on 22
July, two associates of Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Kyiv in May 2019, and met with Mr.
Bakanov and another close Zelenskyy adviser, Mr. Serhiy Shefir.
that they possessed evidence
that Ukrainian officials -- namely, Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine Artem
Sytnyk and Member of Parliament Serhiy Leshchenko -- had "interfered" in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election, allegedly in collaboration with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv
that the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv -- specifically, U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who
had criticized Mr. Lutsenko's organization for its poor record on fighting corruption -- had
allegedly obstructed Ukrainian law enforcement agencies' pursuit of corruption cases, including
by providing a "do not prosecute" list, and had blocked Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to
the United States expressly to prevent them from delivering their "evidence" about the 2016
U.S. election; and that former Vice President Biden had pressured former Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko in 2016 to fire then Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in
order to quash a purported criminal probe into Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company on
whose board the former Vice President's son, Hunter, sat. In several public comments, Mr.
Lutsenko also stated that he wished to communicate directly with Attorney General Barr on these
matters. The allegations by Mr. Lutsenko came on the eve of the first round of Ukraine's
presidential election on 31 March. By that time, Mr. Lutsenko's political patron, President
Poroshenko, was trailing Mr. Zelenskyy in the polls and appeared likely to be defeated. Mr.
Zelenskyy had made known his desire to replace Mr. Lutsenko as Prosecutor General.
On 21 April, Mr. Poroshenko lost the runoff to Mr. Zelenskyy by a landslide. See Enclosure
for additional information.
Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko are two of Mr. Lutsenko's main domestic rivals. Mr. Lutsenko
has no legal training and has been widely criticized in Ukraine for politicizing criminal
probes and using his tenure as Prosecutor General to protect corrupt Ukrainian officials. He
has publicly feuded with Mr. Sytnyk, who heads Ukraine's only competent anticorruption body,
and with Mr. Leshchenko, a former investigative journalist who has repeatedly criticized Mr.
Lutsenko's record. In December 2018, a Ukrainian court upheld a complaint by a Member of
Parliament, Mr. Boryslav Rozenblat, who alleged that Mr. Sytnyk and Mr. Leshchenko had
"interfered" in the 2016 U.S. election by publicizing a document detailing corrupt payments
made by former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych before his ouster in 2014. Mr. Rozenblat
had originally filed the motion in late 2017 after attempting to flee Ukraine amid an
investigation into his taking of a large bribe. On 16 July 2019, Mr. Leshchenko publicly stated
that a Ukrainian court had overturned the lower court's decision.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Ukrainian news outlet The Babel on 17 April that Ambassador
Yovanovitch had never provided such a list, and that he was, in fact, the one who requested
such a list.
Mr. Lutsenko later told Bloomberg on 16 May that former Vice President Biden and his son
were not subject to any current Ukrainian investigations, and that he had no evidence against
them. Other senior Ukrainian officials also contested his original allegations; one former
senior Ukrainian prosecutor told Bloomberg on 7 May that Mr. Shokin in fact was not
investigating Burisma at the time of his removal in 2016.
See, for example, Mr. Lutsenko's comments to The Hill on 1 and 7 April and his interview
with The Babel on 17 April, in which he stated that he had spoken with Mr. Giuliani about
arranging contact with Attorney General Barr.
In May, Attorney General Barr announced that he was initiating a probe into the "origins" of
the Russia investigation. According to the above-referenced OCCRP report (22 July), two
associates of Mr. Giuliani claimed to be working with Ukrainian officials to uncover
information that would become part of this inquiry. In an interview with Fox News on 8 August,
Mr. Giuliani claimed that Mr. John Durham, whom Attorney General Barr designated to lead this
probe, was "spending a lot of time in Europe" because he was "investigating Ukraine." I do not
know the extent to which, if at all, Mr. Giuliani is directly coordinating his efforts on
Ukraine with Attorney General Barr or Mr. Durham.
A widely criticized Ukrainian prosecutor
piqued Mr. Trump's and Mr. Giuliani's interest by floating allegations to The Hill -- but then
backtracked. In the July 25 phone call, Mr. Trump was apparently referring to Mr. Lutsenko when
he told the Ukrainian president that, "I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he
was shut down and that's really unfair." It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had
met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: once in New York in late January and again in
Warsaw in mid-February. In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in
late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of
Mr. Giuliani. On 25 April in an interview with Fox News , the President called Mr.
Lutsenko's claims "big" and "incredible" and stated that the Attorney General "would want to
see this."
On or about 29 April, I learned from U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the situation
that Ambassador Yovanovitch had been suddenly recalled to Washington by senior State Department
officials for "consultations" and would most likely be removed from her position.
Around the
same time, I also learned from a U.S. official that "associates" of Mr. Giuliani were trying to
make contact with the incoming Zelenskyy team. On 6 May, the State Department announced that
Ambassador Yovanovitch would be ending her assignment in Kyiv "as planned." However, several
U.S. officials told me that, in fact, her tour was curtailed because of pressure stemming from
Mr. Lutsenko's allegations. Mr. Giuliani subsequently stated in an interview with a Ukrainian
journalist published on 14 May that Ambassador Yovanovitch was "removed...because she was part
of the efforts against the President."
On 9 May, The New York Times reported that Mr. Giuliani planned to travel to
Ukraine to press the Ukrainian government to pursue investigations that would help the
President in his 2020 reelection bid.
In his multitude of public statements leading up to
and in the wake of the publication of this article, Mr. Giuliani confirmed that he was focused
on encouraging Ukrainian authorities to pursue investigations into alleged Ukrainian
interference in the 2016 U.S. election and alleged wrongdoing by the Biden family. On the
afternoon of 10 May, the President stated in an interview with Politico that he
planned to speak with Mr. Giuliani about the trip. A few hours later, Mr. Giuliani publicly
canceled his trip, claiming that Mr. Zelenskyy was "surrounded by enemies of the [U.S.]
President...and of the United States."
On 11 May, Mr. Lutsenko met for two hours with President-elect Zelenskyy, according to a
public account given several days later by Mr. Lutsenko. Mr. Lutsenko publicly stated that he
had told Mr. Zelenskyy that he wished to remain as Prosecutor General.
See, for example, the above-referenced articles in Bloomberg (16 May) and OCCRP (22
July).
I do not know whether these associates of Mr. Giuliani were the same individuals named in
the 22 July report by OCCRP, referenced above.
See, for example, Mr. Giuliani's appearance on Fox News on 6 April and his tweets
on 23 April and 10 May. In his interview with The New York Times , Mr. Giuliani stated
that the President "basically knows what I'm doing, sure, as his lawyer." Mr. Giuliani also
stated: "We're not meddling in an election, we're meddling in an investigation, which we have a
right to do... There's nothing illegal about it... Somebody could say it's improper. And this
isn't foreign policy -- I'm asking them to do an investigation that they're doing already and
that other people are telling them to stop. And I'm going to give them reasons why they
shouldn't stop it because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may
turn out to be helpful to my government."
Starting in mid-May, I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned by
what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani's circumvention of national security decision making processes
to engage with Ukrainian officials and relay messages back and forth between Kyiv and the
President.
These officials also told me:
that State Department officials, including Ambassadors
Volker and Sondland, had spoken with Mr. Giuliani in an attempt to "contain the damage" to U.S.
national security; and that Ambassadors Volker and Sondland during this time period met with
members of the new Ukrainian administration and, in addition to discussing policy matters,
sought to help Ukrainian leaders understand and respond to the differing messages they were
receiving from official U.S. channels on the one hand, and from Mr. Giuliani on the other.
During this same timeframe, multiple U.S. officials told me that the Ukrainian leadership
was led to believe that a meeting or phone call between the President and President Zelenskyy
would depend on whether Zelenskyy showed willingness to "play ball" on the issues that had been
publicly aired by Mr. Lutsenko and Mr. Giuliani. (Note: This was the general understanding of
the state of affairs as conveyed to me by U.S. officials from late May into early July. I do
not know who delivered this message to the Ukrainian leadership, or when.) See Enclosure for
additional information.
Shortly after President Zelenskyy's inauguration, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani
met with two other Ukrainian officials: Ukraine's Special Anticorruption Prosecutor, Mr. Nazar
Kholodnytskyy, and a former Ukrainian diplomat named Andriy Telizhenko. Both Mr. Kholodnytskyy
and Mr. Telizhenko are allies of Mr. Lutsenko and made similar allegations in the
above-mentioned series of articles in The Hill .
On 13 June, the President told ABC 's George Stephanopoulos that he would accept damaging
information on his political rivals from a foreign government.
On 21 June, Mr. Giuliani tweeted: "New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of
Ukrainian interference in 2016 and alleged Biden bribery of Poroshenko. Time for leadership and
investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Clinton
people."
In mid-July, I learned of a sudden change of policy with respect to U.S. assistance for
Ukraine. See Enclosure for additional information.
"... ...[it] is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: "I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me," "officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S. officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me. ..."
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
It points to several interesting facts (not rumors, facts).
One is that this "rumorblower complaint" is so similar in style to certain NYT/Wapo
articles pushed by Brennan faction of "intelligence community" that it does not pass the
smell test:
== quote== ...[it] is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated
references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant: "I have received
information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me,"
"officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who
told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke
with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S.
officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of
these meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S.
officials characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from
U.S. officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I
heard from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me." ==end==
Also the fact the all major neoliberal MSM bought the "rumorblower" narrative "hook, line,
and sinker" suggests some alarming similarities between "rumorblower" opus and Steele dossier
as well as for the level of control on major neoliberal MSM by intelligence agencies. So
called "Udo Ulfkotte" effect (named in memory of
==quote==
Dr Udo Ulfkotte, the former German newspaper editor whose bestselling book exposed how the
CIA controls German media, has been found dead. He was 56. Ulfkotte was an editor at
Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung , one of the largest newspapers in Germany, when he published
Bought Journalists , the bestselling book that cost him his job ...
==end==
)
BTW Professor Tamotsu Shibutani defined rumor as "improvised news" and this is what is the
case here. And the purpose for which it was improvised is now more or less clear -- to
initiate the impeachment process in the house via Schiff subcommittee possibly with several
Schiff staffers involved in "polishing' the complaint.
"... Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August 2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. ..."
Federal records show that the intelligence community secretly revised the formal whistleblower complaint form in August
2019 to eliminate the requirement of direct, first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing.
Between May
2018 and August 2019, the intelligence community secretly eliminated a requirement that
whistleblowers provide direct, first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoings. This raises
questions about the intelligence community's behavior regarding the August submission of a
whistleblower
complaint against President Donald Trump. The new complaint document no longer requires
potential whistleblowers who wish to have their concerns expedited to Congress to have direct,
first-hand knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing that they are reporting.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public, eliminates the first-hand
knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if they have
zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence and only "heard about [wrongdoing] from
others."
The internal properties of the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form , which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), show that the document was uploaded on September 24,
2019, at 4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to
the public. The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed.
The complaint alleges that President Donald Trump broke the law during a phone call with the
Ukrainian president. In his complaint, which was dated August 12, 2019, the complainant
acknowledged he was "not a direct witness" to the wrongdoing he claims Trump committed.
A previous version of the whistleblower complaint document, which the ICIG and DNI until
recently provided to potential whistleblowers, declared that any complaint must contain only
first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing and that complaints that provide only hearsay,
rumor, or gossip would be rejected.
"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA
based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," the previous form stated under the
bolded heading "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED." "This includes information received from
another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of
wrongdoing."
"If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or
unsubstantiated assertions, [the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able to
process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA," the form concluded.
Markings on the previous version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form show that it was
formally approved on May 24, 2018. Here is that original Disclosure of Urgent Concern form
prior to the August 2019 revision:
The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by
the complainant, but with
repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant : "I have
received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have informed me,"
"officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House officials who told
me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I spoke with," "I
was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S. officials," "One
White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these meetings
recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials
characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S.
officials," "I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard
from multiple U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me."
The repeated references to information the so-called whistleblower never witnessed clearly
run afoul of the original ICIG requirements for "urgent concern" submissions. The change to the
"urgent concern" submission form was first highlighted on Twitter by
researcher Stephen McIntyre .
The complainant also cites publicly available news articles as proof of many of the
allegations.
"I was not a direct witness to most of the events" characterized in the document, the
complainant confessed on the first page of his August 12 letter, which was addressed to Rep.
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the respective chairmen of the House and
Senate intelligence committees. Hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence in U.S. federal
and state courts since it violates the constitutional requirement that the accused be given the
opportunity to question his accusers.
The anti-Trump complaint also made several false claims that have been directly refuted and
debunked. While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return
multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the
2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that
such a request was never made .
The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the
current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.
The transcript showed
that exchange also did not happen .
Additionally,
the complaint falsely alleged that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official,
was a party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
"I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on
the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported
that
Brechbuhl was not on the phone call .
In a legal opinion that was released to the public along with the phone call transcript, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) determined that the complainant's
submission was statutorily deficient and therefore was not required to be submitted to
Congress. The White House nonetheless declassified and released the document to Congress late
Wednesday evening.
"The complaint does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government
intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the
intelligence community," the September 3 OLC opinion
noted . "Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication
between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received
secondhand."
"The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of "urgent
concern" that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees," the OLC
opinion
continued . "We conclude that it does not."
It is not known precisely when the August 2019 revision to the whistleblower complaint form
was approved, nor is it known which, if any, version of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern form
the complainant completed prior to addressing his complaint to Congress.
The democrats are in the midst (started when Obama ignored the source of the fallacious
dossier which started the FISA spying on a campaign) of a strategic blunder.
The polling on Ukrainegate show it is libelously political. Democrat respondents
largely see it serious, independents are about 40% and GOP about 30%.
This nugatory+, political ambush is not playing well to independents!
No one is asking if this nugatory, political ambush the CIA/democrats are using to run a
circus in congress is troubling about Biden.
As you say Biden is history, as are the democrats' chances in 2020 for every national
office.
"... A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by 'fascists'." Those quotations are from Mr. Smith's article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their end is the conclusion: ..."
"... On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced, " Hunter Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings," and reported that, "Burisma Holdings, Ukraine's largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings' legal unit and will provide support for the Company among international organizations." ..."
"... Promptly, Burisma's website started presenting Burisma as if if were a Ukrainian-American if not outright American corporation . Devon Archer, shown there, was a business-partner of Hunter Biden. As the Washington Examiner reported , on 27 August 2019: ..."
"... Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma's board and replaced by a four-person board , which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013 (which still was after Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company) Alan Apter , of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital. ..."
"... However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted -- not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is simply being written out of the picture altogether -- whited-out from it ..."
In order to understand why Ukraine's President Voldomyr Zelensky doesn't want the dirt about Joe
Biden to become public, one needs to know that
Hunter Biden's boss and benefactor at
Burisma Holdings was, at least partly, Zelensky's boss and benefactor until Zelensky became
Ukraine's President, and that revealing this would open up a can of worms which could place that
former boss and benefactor of both men into prison at lots of places.
First, the falsehoods in the press have to be documented here, since this article
will go up against virtually all U.S.-and-allied reporting on these events.
And, in
order to do such a thing, the bona fides of my main sources need to be presented:
Naked Capitalism is, as
the article
about it at Wikipedia
, says, the blog of Susan Webber, pen-named "Yves Smith," who "graduated
from
Harvard College
and
Harvard
Business School
. She had 20 years of experience in the financial services industry with
Goldman
Sachs
,
McKinsey & Co.
, and
Sumitomo
Bank
.
[3]
She
has written articles for the
New York Times
,
Bloomberg
,
and the
Roosevelt Institute
.
[4]
[5]
"
"The site has had over 60 million visitors since 2007, and was cited as among CNBC's 2012 top 25
'Best Alternative Financial Blogs', calling Smith 'a harsh critic of Wall Street who believes that
fraud was at the center of the financial crisis'.
[2]
"
"
The New York Times
financial reporter
Gretchen
Morgenson
cited Naked Capitalism as one of the 'must-read financial blogs' she reads regularly.
[9]
"
Her blog is widely respected amongst both scholars and experts in the field of finance,
and is among the top go-to sites for trustworthy investigative news reporting in their highly
complex field.
So as to be able to achieve this high degree of respect, day in and day
out, for decades, she carefully selects and relies upon the expertise of a small team of
investigators, one of whom is Richard Smith, who has done
around
200 articles for her site
.
One of these was dated 21 May 2014 and headlined
"R.
Hunter Biden Should Declare Who Really Owns His New Ukrainian Employer, Burisma Holdings"
, and
it reported that the U.S. Vice President's son had become
"a
new member of the board"
and that this "Ukrainian energy company has retained the counsel of
the vice president's son and the Secretary of State's close family friend and top campaign
bundler."
Since these men were being paid by the corporation's owner, Mr. Smith researched
extensively to find out who that was, or they were. He reported "what one careful Ukrainian
journalist
dug
up
in 2012":
"Burisma changed owners last year [in 2011]: instead of Zlochevsky and Lisin, the company was
taken over by a Cypriot off-shore enterprise called Brociti Investments Ltd. Pari and
Esko-Pivnich" and a "third company was already waiting for them in the same building – the
above-mentioned Ukrnaftoburinnya," and "The Privat Group is the immediate owner. This company
was founded by Mykola Zlochevsky some time ago, but he later sold his shares to the Privat
Group," which "is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious Ukrainian oligarch Ihor
Kolomoisky," who "is one of the oligarchs
charged
with holding down the Eastern provinces of Ukraine
," and who "is far too ebulliently Jewish
to look like a neo-Nazi.
A US connection with Kolomoisky might play well in circles keen to counter Russian complaints
that the interim Kiev regime is dominated by 'fascists'." Those quotations are from Mr. Smith's
article, but the following is not. Examining the documents myself, I note especially that at their
end is the conclusion:
"Thus, Ihor Kolomoisky managed to seize the largest reserves of natural gas in
Ukraine."
This was the conclusion of the "careful Ukrainian journalist," which was actually not one but a
team of three, who were employed at a Ukrainian non-profit, the Anticorruption Action Centre, which
specialized in tracking down the actual persons who controlled corporations and which had a
particular focus on finding "Offshore fronts for Yanukovych." Yanukovych was the democratically
elected Ukrainian President, who took office on 25 February 2010. So: this non-profit was an
anti-Yanukovych organization, writing more than two years into his Presidency, on 28 August 2012.
A certain historical background is essential here; and this, too, goes up against
American 'news'-reporting and will therefore be linked to articles that, in turn, link to ultimate
sources that are of unquestioned reliability on each of the particulars that are in question
:
There was
a coup
in Ukraine in February 2014
, which is
portrayed
in the West as being a democratic revolution
(but was actually a
coup
hidden
behind anticorruption demonstrations, and that was entirely
illegal
),
and it replaced the democratically elected President by a ruler who was selected by Victoria
Nuland, whose boss was Secretary of State John Kerry, whose boss was Barack Obama. Nuland had been
originally a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, and then of Kerry's immediate predecessor
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Obama assigned Nuland to carry out his plan for Ukraine, which
plan was to turn its government away from being friendly toward its next-door neighbor Russia to
becoming instead a satellite of the United States against Ukraine's next-door neighbor.
Consequently, fascists, and even outright racist-fascists (nazis), people who came from the groups
that had supported Hitler against Stalin during World War II, were installed into this new
government, such as
the
co-founder of the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine, Andriy Parubiy
. (The CIA instructed that
Party, which was Ukraine's main nazi party, to change its name to "Freedom Party" -- Svoboda -- so as
to become acceptable to Americans; and Paribuy and his colleagues did it, in order to help the U.S.
Government to fool the American people about what the U.S. was doing in Ukraine.)
At least until Zelensky was elected, Ukraine's Government
remained
fascist
.
And so is Kolomoysky himself, as I had reported about him on
18
May 2014
. As I reported there,
On 12 May 2014, Burisma Holdings announced,
"
Hunter
Biden Joins the Team of Burisma Holdings,"
and reported that, "Burisma Holdings,
Ukraine's largest private gas producer, has expanded its Board of Directors by bringing on Mr. R
Hunter Biden as a new director. R. Hunter Biden will be in charge of the Holdings' legal unit
and will provide support for the Company among international organizations."
At the time, Hunter Biden, now 49, and Christopher Heinz, the stepson of then-Secretary
of State John Kerry, co-owned Rosemont Seneca Partners, a $2.4 billion private equity firm.
Heinz's college roommate, Devon Archer, was managing partner in the firm. In the spring of 2014,
Biden and Archer joined the board of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company that was at the
center of a U.K. money laundering probe. Over the next year, Burisma reportedly paid Biden and
Archer's companies over $3 million.
Subsequently, both Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were removed from Burisma's board and
replaced by a four-person board
, which mysteriously had included ever since May 2013
(which still was
after
Zlochevsky no longer controlled the company)
Alan Apter
,
of Sullivan & Cromwell, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Renaissance Capital.
After now became
the
"Chairman of
the Board of Directors"
. Here are the other three Directors:
Aleksander Kwaśniewski
was
the President of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 when it was being taken over by America,
and when Kwaśniewski was also a member of the Atlantic Council (NATO's PR arm), and of the
Bilderberg Group.
Joseph Cofer Black
was the Director of the CIA's
Counterterrorist Center (1999-2002) and Ambassador at Large for counter-terrorism (2002-2004),
while President George W. Bush was
lying
America into invading Iraq
, and Black subsequently became the Vice Chairman at Blackwater
Worldwide (now Academi), which the Bush Government hired to train and arm mercenaries to help
conquer Iraq. (Blackwater/Academi is owned by Erik Prince, the brother of Betsy DeVos of the Amway
fortune, who is the Trump Secretary of Education, and Prince also is a personal friend of Trump.
Obama's Government also hired Blackwater/Academi to kill independence fighters in the
Dnieper
Donets Basin
, where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas.) And the fourth Director is
Karina
Zlochevska
, whom the site identifies hardly at all, but is actually
the
daughter of Mykola Zlochevsky
. In other words: Zlochevsky probably does remain as a minority
owner of the company, and she represents his interests there.
Virtually all of the Western press simply alleges that Mykola Zlochevsky owns Burisma
Holdings and brought Biden on board and was his boss; however, I have never seen from any of those
'news'-reports any evidence or documentation that it's true -- nothing like the sources that Richard
Smith relied upon and linked to documenting that this was Kolomoysky's company. Nothing, at all.
Obama's Government constantly tried to get Zlochevsky
prosecuted for alleged corruption, but Zlochevsky had sold the company to Kolomoysky even before
Obama took over Ukraine. It's not at all clear that Hunter Biden had ever so much as just met
Zlochevsky.
Joseph Biden, as is well reported in the press, instructed the new Ukrainian Government to fire
and replace the General Prosecutor of Ukraine,
Viktor
Shokin
, who had failed to prosecute Zlochevsky, and this action by Joe is reported as
indicating that the senior Biden granted his son's employer no favor but instead the opposite --
that Joe insisted upon Hunter's boss's prosecution.
The then-vice president issued his demands for greater anti-corruption measures by the
Ukrainian government despite the possibility that those demands would actually increase – not
lessen -- the chances that Hunter Biden and Burisma would face legal trouble in Ukraine.
Risen reported there that V.P. Biden's "anti-corruption message might be undermined by
the association of his son Hunter with one of Ukraine's largest natural gas companies, Burisma
Holdings, and with its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky."
However, none of that press says Kolomoysky owned the company and was its boss. The presumption
there is always that Zlochevsky needed to be prosecuted -- not that Kolomoysky did. Kolomoysky is
simply being written out of the picture altogether -- whited-out from it
Also as is typical, the
New York Times
reported, on
1
May 2019
, that Mykola Zlochevsky is the "owner of Burisma Holdings" and that "Mr. Lutsenko
initially continued investigating Mr. Zlochevsky and Burisma, but cleared him of all charges within
10 months of taking office. The prosecutor general reversed himself and reopened an investigation
into Burisma this year. Some see his decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump
administration." For some mysterious reason, that article not only says that the replacement
Prosecutor tried and failed and now tried again to prosecute Zlochevsky but that "Some see his
decision as an effort to curry favor with the Trump administration," though, actually, it was the
Obama
Administration
that had been pressing Ukraine's Government to prosecute Zlochevsky, who wasn't Hunter Biden's boss
and didn't control Burisma and was associated not with the 2014 Obama-installed Government of
Ukraine but instead with the Government that had preceded it and was the last of all Ukraine's
democratic Governments, having been democratically elected by all of Ukraine including the two
regions (Crimea and Donbass) that broke away from Ukraine when Obama in February 2014 overthrew the
Government that those two now-breakaway regions had voted for, by over 75% in that 2010 election.
And here is from Wikipedia's article on "Viktor Shokin":
Since 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general had been investigating oligarch
Mykola
Zlochevsky
, owner of the oil and natural gas company
Burisma
Holdings
, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption.
[15]
In
2014, then-U.S. Vice President
Joe
Biden
's son,
Hunter
Biden
, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings.
[16]
In
2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama
administration and other governments and
non-governmental
organizations
soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing
corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to
anti-corruption efforts".
[17]
Among
other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma – to the extent
that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the
company for possible money laundering.
[15]
In March 2016, Joe Biden threatened Ukrainian President
Petro
Poroshenko
that if he did not fire Shokin, that the US would hold back its $1
billion in loan guarantees. "I looked at them and said, "I'm leaving in six hours. If the
prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money." Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. And
they put in place someone who was solid at the time."
[18]
Shokin
was dismissed by Parliament later that month.
Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
However,
Vitaliy Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before
resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News
indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.
[23]
Hunter
Biden's ties to Burisma Holdings was criticized as a conflict of interest in a New York Times
editorial, though
Amos Hochstein
has
claimed to have never seen coordination between Joe Biden and his son on the matter.
[24]
[25]
And here is from Wikipedia's Article on "Burisma Holdings":
Burisma Group was founded in 2002 by Ukrainian businessman
Mykola
Zlochevsky
and
Nikolay
Lysin
[
uk
].
Now it is owned by
Mykola
Zlochevskyi
[
uk
],
who was minister of natural resources under
Viktor
Yanukovych
.
[2]
Zlochevsky
returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after the corruption investigations into his Burisma
Holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.
[3]
So, the myth that Zlochevsky was Hunter Biden's boss and benefactor at Burisma isn't
only in the 'news'-media that are controlled by U.S. Deep State that controls
the
CIA, which controls America's major 'news'-media
, but it is also in the Web's main
encyclopedia, Wikipedia, which is not only
edited
by the CIA
, but also, to some extent,
written
by the CIA
.
Furthermore, the CIA was the 'whistleblower' that made the impeachment-charge to the Democratic
Party head of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Adam Schiff, who
is the lead proponent of impeaching Donald Trump so that Trump can then become tried in the U.S.
Senate, which then would possess the power to replace Trump and make President the current Vice
President, Mike Pence, which Democrats, for some unexplained reason, seem to hope will happen. As
Reuters
reported on September 26th
, "The whistleblower is a CIA officer and was assigned at one point
to work at the White House, two sources familiar with the probe into his complaint said. The New
York Times first identified the whistleblower as a CIA officer, which Reuters confirmed." That
report also asserted:
The call occurred after Trump had ordered a freeze of nearly $400 million in American aid
to Ukraine, which was only later released. Before the call, Ukraine's government was told that
interaction between Zelenskiy and Trump depended on whether the Ukrainian leader would "play
ball," the whistleblower said.
The report said Trump acted to advance his personal political interests, risking national
security.
"
I am deeply concerned that the actions described below constitute 'a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law or executive order,'" the whistleblower complaint, dated
Aug. 12, said.
The same CIA whose lies had 'justified' America's invading Iraq in 2003, and invading
Libya in 2011, and invading Syria starting in 2012 (and extending there up till at least 2018), is
now 'justifying' congressional Democrats to replace Trump by Pence if they possibly can.
And Kolomoysky might be one of the world's biggest thieves. On
19
April 2019, Graham Stack reported for OCCRP
, a U.S.-and-allied-funded nonprofit anti-corruption
investigatory organization that
"'
Large-scale coordinated fraudulent actions of the bank
[PrivatBank]
shareholders
and management caused a loss to the state of at least $5.5 billion,'
[Valeria]
Hontareva
[former
chair of Ukranie's central bank]
said in March 2018. 'This is 33 percent of the population's
deposits [and] 40 percent of our country's monetary base.' By the time regulators took over
PrivatBank, the $5.5 billion had already been transferred to banks in Austria, Luxembourg, and
Latvia. From there, the trail goes cold. This account is based on a forensic audit by Kroll,
the U.S.-based corporate investigation and risk consulting firm. The report is based on
PrivatBank's own records and was obtained exclusively by OCCRP. Ukraine nationalized
PrivatBank in December 2016, saddling taxpayers with a $5.9 billion bailout."
Furthermore, the estimable and reliably accurate Moscow investigative journalist John Helmer
reported
on 19 February 2015
that "In March 2014, days after the ouster of Yanukovich in Kiev and the
installation of a new regime, the UK Serious Fraud Office (SFO) started investigating Zlochevsky.
According to the evidence it presented to the Central Criminal Court between March and December of
2014, and according to Justice Blake, who assessed the evidence, there is no mention of Lisin,
Deripon, Burrard or Kolomoisky." Obama's people (there via the U.S. regime's lap-dog UK) were
targeting Zlochevsky, certainly
not
Kolomoysky, who was instead on their team.
Zelensky, prior to becoming Ukraine's President, had been the star of a popular comedy
series on Ukrainian television that was telecast by Ihor Kolomoysky's 1+1 Media group.
On
19 May 2014,
Forbes
published a shockingly honest article, by Vladimir Golstein,
"Why
Everything You've Read About Ukraine Is Wrong"
, which mentioned, about Kolomoysky, that,
His business holdings include the largest Ukrainian media group, "1+1 Media," the news
agency "Unian," as well as various internet sites, which enable him to whip public opinion into
an anti-Putin frenzy. Andrew Higgins of The New York Times published a story with the headline,
"Among Ukraine's Jews, the Bigger Worry is Putin, Not Pogroms," which praises Kolomoisky for
adorning Dnepropetrovsk with "the world's biggest Jewish community center" along with "a high
tech Holocaust museum." Higgins notes, however, that the museum "skirts the delicate issue of
how some Ukrainian nationalists collaborated with Nazis.
Kolomoysky himself had become installed by the Obama Administration's Ukrainian agents as the
Governor of the
Dnipropetrovsk
region
of Ukraine where his approximately $5 billion financial empire was based, and which in its north
extends into the
Dnieper
Donets Basin
where Burisma owns the drilling rights for gas. As this last link indicates, that
Basin "is the major oil and gas producing region of Ukraine accounting for approximately 90 per
cent of Ukrainian production and
according
to EIA
may have 42 tcf of shale gas resources technically recoverable from 197 tcf of risked
shale gas in place." That article, from the investment-oriented website , sums up:
In a nutshell, Ukraine (or
rather
its puppetmasters
) has decided to let no crisis (staged or otherwise) or rather
civil war, go to waste, and while the fighting rages all around, Ukrainian troopers are helping
to install shale gas production equipment near the east Ukrainian town of Slavyansk, which was
bombed and shelled
[by the Obama-installed Government]
for the three preceding months,
according to local residents cited by
Itar
Tass
. The reason for the scramble? Under peacetime, the process was expected to
take many years, during which Europe would be under the energy dictatorship of Putin. But throw
in some civil war and few will notice let alone care that a process which was expected to take
nearly a decade if not longer while dealing with broad popular objections to fracking, may
instead be completed in months!
Ukraine's bombing of that region (for examples,
this
and
this
and
this
)
was in order to clear the land for a massive fracking operation.
However, it turned out
that not only Kolomoysky's operation with Shell in the Dnieper Donets Basin in Ukraine's far east,
but also the Ukrainian Government's own gas-exploration operation with Chevron in western Ukraine's
Olesska field, were uneconomic; or, as I headlined about them on 16 December 2014,
"Ukraine's
Two Big Gas Deals Are Now Both Dry"
. It seems that if Hunter Biden is to become a billionaire,
it won't come from Ukrainian gas. (Nor, of course will it have come from Zlochevsky, which the
news-media would have it to be.)
As was reported on 20 May 2014 by Israel Shamir at the website of Paul Craig Roberts, under the
headline
"The
Ukraine in Turmoil"
(and his article there was the first comprehensive and accurate summary of
what had recently happened to Ukraine):
These people had brought Ukraine to its present abject state. In 1991, the Ukraine was
richer than Russia, today it is three times poorer because of these people's mismanagement and
theft. Now they plan an old trick: to take loans in Ukraine's name, pocket the cash and leave
the country indebted. They sell state assets to Western companies and ask for NATO to come in
and protect the investment.
They play a hard game, brass knuckles and all. The Black Guard, a new SS-like armed force
of the neo-nazi Right Sector, prowls the land. They arrest or kill dissidents, activists,
journalists. Hundreds of American soldiers, belonging to the "private" company Academi (formerly
Blackwater) are spread out in Novorossia
[Donbass, the far-eastern region that became
independent after Obama's coup]
, the pro-Russian provinces in the East and South-East.
IMF–dictated reforms slashed pensions by half and doubled the housing rents. In the market, US
Army rations took the place of local food.
The new Kiev regime had dropped the last pretence of democracy by expelling the
Communists from the parliament. This should endear them to the US even more. Expel Communists,
apply for NATO, condemn Russia, arrange a gay parade and you may do anything at all, even fry
dozens of citizens alive. And so they did.
The harshest repressions were unleashed on industrial Novorossia, as its working class
loathes the whole lot of oligarchs and ultra-nationalists. After the blazing inferno of Odessa
and a wanton shooting on the streets of Melitopol the two rebellious provinces of Donetsk and
Lugansk took up arms and declared their independence from the Kiev regime.
And then, to top it off, there is the brilliant pewreport blogger, who, on 27 July 2014,
headlined
"USAID
to Help Young Biden: The Burisma File"
, and that anonymous person succinctly laid out the use
of the U.S. Government to enable the families of some of its top officials to join America's
aristocracy, the billionaire class.
It's something that Trump himself is intimately
involved with and exploits, but if America's national and international police-agencies such as the
FBI and CIA are trying (first with Russiagate, and now with Ukrainegate) to replace him by Pence in
order to enable another friend of Obama to become installed (like Hillary was supposed to have
been) as President and Commander-in-Chief, then this struggle between the agents of America's
Democratic Party billionaires versus those of its Republican Party billionaires could end up having
consequences that no one is predicting.
It's also important to point out here that Zelensky's predecessor, Poroshenko, was not
Obama's first choice to win the 25 May 2014 Ukrainian election that followed the February 2014 coup
and installation of Yatsenyuk to run the country on an interim basis.
Yatsenyuk was
supposed to run it until that election (after which Yatsenyuk still continued long in office, and
Obama pushed as hard as possible for President Poroshenko to continue Prime Minister Yatsenyuk's
policies). Obama's first choice -- and the planned winner -- in the 25 May 2014 election, was an
intense hater of Russia,
Yulia
Tymoshenko
. Yatsenyuk had actually been her agent.
Kolomoysky
was perhaps her main financial backer.
But she lost the election to Obama's second choice,
Poroshenko. Kolomoysky was enough of a supporter of Tymoshenko so that even after he returned to
Ukraine on 16 May 2019 just prior to the latest Presidential election,
he
backed her even above Zelensky
.
But above all, he opposed Poroshenko, because
Poroshenko had been forced by the main lenders to his Government to fire Kolomoysky as governor of
Dnipropetrovsk and to nationalize his bankrupt PrivatBank due to Kolomoysky's having been looting
from Ukraine's Government too much money via his bank and via his minority ownership of the
Government's gas company.
Obama had wanted that money to go toward the war against Donbass, not into Kolomoysky's pockets.
(However, America's Democratic-Party propaganda 'non-profit' Public Radio International gave
a positive spin to Obama-team-member Kolomoysky even at the time of his firing by Poroshenko on 28
March 2015,
saying
of him
, "He offered $10,000 bounties for captured pro-Russian insurgents. 'People understand
that this person came here to ensure stability,' said Stanislav Zholudev, a local political
analyst." The euphemism "captured pro-Russian insurgents" was actually referring to their corpses --
Kolomoysky was paying only for their corpses.
Maybe for Obama-ites that's "stability."
Kolomoysky was already paying the nazi
Azov
Battalion
more than that per pro-Russian corpse, and now the Trump Administration wants
Kolomoysky to be prosecuted for financial crimes instead of Zlochevsky to be prosecuted, and so
Zelensky is being pushed one way by Democrats, and the opposite way by Republicans.)
Kolomoysky has many enemies.
The main holders of Ukraine's debt are unknown,
but besides Russia which had lent to the pre-coup Government (and were thus trying to get their
senior money that's owing from Ukraine to be paid to Russia before the newer creditors get theirs),
they were said to be
the IMF, America's Franklin Templeton Fund
,
and
Blackstone
Group
, the
World
Bank
, and a group of mainly American billionaires "and private Eurobond holders" who are
represented by
the
law firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges
. The U.S. Government and EU countries were also
said
to be
indirectly such holders via their ownership shares in the IMF and World Bank, but also
perhaps more directly. (If Trump were a decent President, he'd be publicly pressing for the exact
numbers on all of this.) Kolomoysky's siphonings from Ukraine's Government were at the expense of
all of them. The pressures upon Poroshenko to halt it were mounting. And, so, Kolomoysky was fired;
and, now, to the extent that Zelensky has to satisfy Kolomoysky, Zelensky (who publicly said of
Kolomoysky
"He
is my business partner"
) needs to resist some of the demands of the U.S. regime and of many
other billionaires. Without their continued support, Ukraine's Government will collapse in the
short term instead of only (which is inevitable) in the long term. It's no longer just a question
of the Ukrainian regime's war against Donbass. The change that Obama wrought is permanent, and
Trump dithers back and forth about how to deal with it. He apparently has no strategy on that.
Zelensky might fear that if he complies with Trump's request, then his own major
benefactor, Kolomoysky, could end up in prison somewhere; and Trump might fear that if he presses
Zelensky on that (as he did not do but Democrats say he did), then the entire Deep State -- not only
Democratic Party billionaires, but also now Republican ones -- will become Trump's enemies, and his
2020 re-election chances will therefore go to zero.
Consequently: Trump will
probably abandon the matter, and the till-now-unsupported and maybe unsupportable mere assumption,
that Hunter Biden's Ukrainian benefactor was Zlochevsky instead of Kolomoysky, will continue to be
asserted virtually everywhere throughout the U.S. empire, for as long a time as the matter
continues to remain in the 'news'. Of course, if that turns out to be the case, then Joe Biden will
continue to be portrayed in this matter as having been a crusader against corruption in Ukraine,
instead of as having been the aspiring founder of yet another billionaire American dynasty.
Basically, the new Russiagate charges to replace Trump by Pence, Ukrainegate (as those charges
were
presented
by the CIA 'whistleblower' on August 12th
and published on September 26th), represent all of
the Democratic Party's billionaires, and many of the Republican Party's ones, as well. It's the
pinnacle of the Obama-versus-Trump feud, because it represents the Democratic Party's position on
what was Obama's top international achievement -- his conquest (via a coup) against Ukraine. Trump
refuses to condemn Obama's coup against Ukraine, but if he cared about the truth, he would, and the
worst that could happen to him then would be that, for once in his life, he'd be fighting for
truth, and not just for himself. Apparently, that's too big a leap for him to take.
What's especially pathetic in all of this is that whenever the U.S. Government
overthrows and destroys a country, it's trumpeted as reflecting America's standing-up for
rule-of-law and opposition to corruption, and for support of democracy and protection of human
rights; but whenever Russia or a nation that's friendly toward Russia resists control by the U.S.
and its allies, it's portrayed as being a dictatorship and an opponent of democracy and of human
rights. So, go figure.
Notwithstanding the principle of Occam's razor, if it
requires lengthy explanations and rabbit hole conspiracy
theory's, a defense attorney would do a disservice to
his client. The mind of a liberal is stuck between fantasy
and delusion and the jury won't take kindly to
it, Guaranteed.
Occam's razor
(also
Ockham's razor
or
Ocham's
razor
:
Latin
: novacula
Occami; or
law of parsimony
:
Latin
: lex
parsimoniae) is the problem-solving
principle
that
states "Entities should not be multiplied without
necessity."
[1]
[2]
The
idea is attributed to English
Franciscan
friar
William
of Ockham
(c. 1287–1347), a
scholastic
philosopher
and
theologian
.
It is sometimes paraphrased by a statement like "The
simplest solution is most likely the right one." but is
the same as the Razor only if results match. Occam's
razor says that when presented with competing
hypotheses
that
make the same predictions,
one should select the
solution with the fewest assumptions,
[3]
and
it is not meant to be a way of choosing between
hypotheses that make different predictions.
which "is a conglomerate controlled by the ferocious
Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky,"
I toadaso.
Ukrainian oligarch Ihor Kolomoisky
That part however is debatable as Ihor holds at least 3
citizenship's and at the time of the Nuland / McCain / Hillary
putsch, he lived in Switzerland most of the time, Israel when he
was in deep dodo and needed to go on the lam.
He
is the real story here, the Bidens are secondary like
the Ambassador in Libya who was running a BI PARTISAN approved gun
running scheme to terrorists in Syria.
The real story is about US manufactured regime change, the
skanks they lie down with to accomplish their goals and that no
travesty inflicted on the local population for Zogged America to
achieve it's goals is too much.
Now will ZH do the right thing and focus on the pea instead of
the ever moving walnut shells?
I'm neutral - neither like or dislike Trump - but feel like I'm in
the twilight zone because
1. What the left are accusing trump
of, is EXACTLY what Joe Biden admitted to doing to the same
country!! Why is Biden's corrupt actions never even mentioned in
this media beatup?
2. Nancy "another Scotch please" Pelosi said that Trump was
using American taxpayer money to shake down a foreign leader
instead of just handing them the money. I'd like ask who her
allegiance is to if she thinks that Ukraine has a god given right
to American taxpayer money. Is this how Democrats really think?
I don't like the Republicans, but the Democrats don't even
pretend anymore to actually care for this country or their fellow
Americans. As far as I can tell, they are no different from an
enemy foreign state.
"... Of course, I understand your motives for Impeachment are not wholly altruistic. With corporate donations drying up and growing pressure from Progressive primary challengers making Establishment incumbents increasingly nervous, you need some way to excite your old school base for the important election season to come. ..."
Thank you so much for inviting me to your Impeachment Party. It's really great to hear
you've finally found something to nail Trump with. Good for you! You've been looking so hard
these past three years. So nice to see all that effort finally pay off!
(Of course, some might say you should have spent that time looking for solutions to all the
problems the country is facing, but hey, let's not get crazy! Right?) And your amazing valor
doesn't stop at Biden. Oh no. You are even willing to let Republicans dredge up Hillary's email
scandal long after people had all but forgotten about Crowdstrike. The Romans who stood in
front of the charging elephants at Cannae would be proud.
... ... ...
Of course, I understand your motives for Impeachment are not wholly altruistic. With
corporate donations drying up and growing pressure from Progressive primary challengers making
Establishment incumbents increasingly nervous, you need some way to excite your old school base
for the important election season to come.
That's why it's even more testament to your pluck that you would choose such a transparently
hypocritical and overtly political hill on which to take your final stand, especially after
2016 showed so clearly that going after Trump personally only makes him more popular.
So I
say onward Impeachment soldier!
By the time the primaries roll around, your brave Establishment beserkers will have divided
the party and discredited the leadership to such an extent that rank and file Dems will be
begging for a Progressive intervention.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday she believes President Trump is "goading" House
Democrats to impeach him because he thinks it could help him politically.
"Don't tell anybody I told you this: Trump is goading us to impeach him," Pelosi said
during an event sponsored by Cornell University in New York City. "That's what he's doing.
Every single day, he's just like, taunting and taunting and taunting."
Pelosi argued Trump is daring them to impeach him because he believes it would help him
"solidify his base" ahead of his 2020 re-election. Pelosi said that puts Democrats in a
dilemma.
"... "The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," reads the prior version of the form, which contains the bolded heading: "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED," and "This includes information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she witnessed some type of wrongdoing." ..."
"... 15/ bottom line: it appears almost certain that, subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced a brand new Urgent Disclosure Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report allegations with no personal knowledge https://t.co/l8foAAj2sC pic.twitter.com/WXcNdJn84u ..."
"... "The Ukraine call complaint against Trump is riddled not with evidence directly witnessed by the complainant, but with repeated references to what anonymous officials allegedly told the complainant ." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the complaint contains several false claims noted by Davis: ..."
"... While the complaint alleged that Trump demanded that Ukraine physically return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that such a request was never made . ..."
"... The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country. The transcript showed that exchange also did not happen . ..."
"... "I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported that Brechbuhl was not on the phone call . - The Federalist ..."
"... Let's understand what we are up against. The illusion of control has been sold to the public and a significant portion of the population has swallowed the hype. Back up and look at this from a distance for a moment. The only nation that the United States has defeated by itself in the last 100 years is Japan. And we did that with nukes. ..."
"... The illusion of control is fading fast. The best thing we can do as a people is come to the realization that most of the government promises will not be kept. We must prepare ourselves and our local communities for the chaos that is unfolding. If nothing else, start a victory garden program in your home town. ..."
"... The CIA has had a domestic agenda for decades. They wrapped up the Clinton crime syndicate in Mena Arkansas when it became the center for drug smuggling in Latin America. Not long after CIA captured the Clintons, the first assault weapon's ban was signed into law. ..."
"... The controlled political class and the controlled media have been on board with this agenda for years. We will get a ban either through an executive order or a bill passed by the politcal class. ..."
"... Don't forget the Bushes and 'Poppy' Bush being the CIA head. The Bushes and the Clintons were besties... Bush sent no one less than Bob Barr to Mena to straighten some **** out. ..."
"... Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the HPSCI does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any of the targets, or have any republican members present therein. ..."
"... The intellegence community of the former administration runs this country. They are the deep state ..."
In the months leading up to a CIA whistleblower's hearsay complaint about President Trump's July 25
phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the US intelligence community
quietly
eliminated a requirement that whistleblowers must provide
first-hand knowledge
of
alleged wrongdoings
, according to
The
Federalist
's Sean Davis.
Then, on September 24 -
days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and
released to the public
- a new version of the whistleblower complaint form revised in
August, 2019 - the Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form - was uploaded and used by the CIA employee
to file the complaint.
And while the public just learned about this a week ago, the whistleblower letter to House and
Senate Intelligence Committee chairs Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Richard Burr (R-NC)
was
dated August 12
, the same month the form was updated
.
The brand new version of the whistleblower complaint form, which was not made public until
after the transcript of Trump's July 25 phone call with the Ukrainian president Volodymyr
Zelensky and the complaint addressed to Congress were made public,
eliminates the
first-hand knowledge requirement and allows employees to file whistleblower complaints even if
they have zero direct knowledge of underlying evidence
and
only "heard about
[wrongdoing] from others
."
The internal properties of
the
newly revised "Disclosure of Urgent Concern" form
, which the intelligence community
inspector general (ICIG) requires to be submitted under the Intelligence Community Whistleblower
Protection Act (ICWPA), show that
the document was uploaded on September 24, 2019, at
4:25 p.m., just days before the anti-Trump complaint was declassified and released to the
public.
The markings on the document state that it was revised in August 2019, but no
specific date of revision is disclosed. -
The
Federalist
A previous version of the document provided by the ICIG and DNI until recently declared that
whistleblower complaints
must only contain first-hand knowledge of alleged wrongdoing
-
and made clear that
hearsay, gossip or rumor would be rejected
.
"The [Intelligence Community Inspector General] cannot transmit information via the ICPWA based
on an employee's second-hand knowledge of wrongdoing," reads the prior version of the form, which
contains the
bolded heading: "FIRST-HAND INFORMATION REQUIRED,"
and "This includes
information received from another person, such as when an employee informs you that he/she
witnessed some type of wrongdoing."
"
If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand
or unsubstantiated assertions,
[the Intelligence Community Inspector General] will not be able
to process the complaint
or information for submission as an ICWPA," the form
concludes.
15/ bottom line: it appears almost certain that,
subsequent to the CIA operative "WB" complaint, the DNI introduced a brand new Urgent Disclosure
Form which offered a previously unavailable alternative to report allegations with no personal
knowledge https://t.co/l8foAAj2sC
pic.twitter.com/WXcNdJn84u
"I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials," "officials have
informed me," "officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me," "the White House
officials who told me this information," "I was told by White House officials," "the officials I
spoke with," "I was told that a State Department official," "I learned from multiple U.S.
officials," "One White House official described this act," "Based on multiple readouts of these
meetings recounted to me," "I also learned from multiple U.S. officials," "The U.S. officials
characterized this meeting," "multiple U.S. officials told me," "I learned from U.S. officials,"
"I also learned from a U.S. official," "several U.S. officials told me," "I heard from multiple
U.S. officials," and "multiple U.S. officials told me." -
The
Federalist
And if any doubt remains, the CIA employee told Schiff Burr (R-NC) in their August 12 letter; "
I
was not a direct witness to most of the events
," which is repeated in the actual complaint
as: "
I
was not a witness to most of the events described...
"
Meanwhile, the complaint contains several false claims
noted by Davis:
While
the complaint alleged that Trump demanded
that Ukraine physically
return multiple servers potentially related to ongoing investigations of foreign interference in
the 2016 elections, the transcript of the call between Trump and Zelensky shows that
such
a request was never made
.
The complainant also falsely alleged that Trump told Zelensky that he should keep the current
prosecutor general at the time, Yuriy Lutsenko, in his current position in the country.
The transcript showed
that
exchange also did not happen
.
Additionally,
the
complaint falsely alleged
that T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, a U.S. State Department official, was a
party to the phone call between Trump and Zelensky.
"I was told that a State Department official, Mr. T. Ulrich Brechbuhl, also listened in on
the call," the complaint alleged. Shortly after the complaint was released, CBS News reported
that
Brechbuhl
was not on the phone call
. -
The
Federalist
Following the complaint, the Justice Department (DOJ) and Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) deemed
the submission to be
statutorily deficient
and therefore free from reporting
requirements to Congress. Under mounting pressure, however, the White House declassified and
released the complaint to
Congress
on Wednesday evening, hours after they
released transcript of the underlying Trump-Zelensky phone call in question
which refuted
grandiose claims made in mainstream publications
such as Trump pressuring Zelensky "
about
eight times
."
Let's understand what we are up against. The illusion of
control has been sold to the public and a significant portion of
the population has swallowed the hype. Back up and look at this
from a distance for a moment. The only nation that the United
States has defeated by itself in the last 100 years is Japan. And
we did that with nukes. Nukes detonated on American soil will
be the end of the American government. The grid would go down and
absolute chaos would unfold.
In both WW I and WW II our allies
did most of the fighting. Korea was a stalemate. Vietnam was a
loss. The Middle Eastern wars are a shambles. We have been
fighting in Afghanistan for 18 years and still it cannot be
conquered. Chicago cannot be controlled. Bloated pension plans
are collapsing the big government strong holds in our mega
cities. The preliminary efforts to disarm the public through
registration have been dismal failures. The financial system is
unsustainable. The media has been discredited. The government
is perceived by millions to be illegitimate. The urban and rural
populations have been pitted against each other and the country is
devolving into irreconcilable factions.
The illusion of control is fading fast. The best thing we can
do as a people is come to the realization that most of the
government promises will not be kept. We must prepare ourselves
and our local communities for the chaos that is unfolding. If
nothing else, start a victory garden program in your home town.
Endless investigations. The biggest scandal since Watergate.
Coverups. An inability to govern. A possible constitutional crisis.
That is what Humpty Drumpfy said about Hillary in the 2016 campaign
election. Apparently Humpty looked in the mirror and saw Hillary:
Karma is a bitch Donniboi.
November 2 in Miami, FL
"If Hillary Clinton were to be elected, it would create an
unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis. Haven't we
just been through a lot with the Clintons, right?"
November 2 in Orlando, FL
"Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years,
probably concluding in a criminal trial."
November 4 in Atkinson, NH
"She'll be under investigation for years. She'll be with trials.
Our country, we have to get back to work."
November 4 in Wilmington, OH
"Hillary has engaged in a criminal massive enterprise and
cover-ups like probably nobody ever seen before."
and it is more to their benefit to be the keepers of that
information and accrue the power from that knowledge than to
reveal it and bring people to justice.
You do not get it. There is NO WAY HRC was ever going to win.
First, the bible belt. They wouldn't vote for a lesbian husband
beater who took an intern, married, that made 9k a year and
promoted her to first consort at 6 figures. And she dissed them.
Then she didn't even BOTHER to visit, NOT EVEN VISIT michigan who
might have turned on denial regarding her lesbian affair with a
married woman/ mother but couldn't get over being completely
DISSED by those who pushed nafta and took their jobs..THIRD...she
left men to be murdered, she and obama et al, biden, TURNED HELP
TO THEM AROUND and left t hem after 600 emails from the
ambassador, a democrat btw, begging for help...left them to be
murdered... AFTER the seals recovered the weapons she sold to al
queda. Where are the weapons btw? Then she tried to BLAME an
innocent videographer, american for it all and then put gag orders
like some two bit criminal on those who survived ..and w hy?
because as all american now knows but for YOU she is the criminal.
There is NO WAY she was ever going to win and you all better
figure that out because it trickles down. Bill and his intern. She
and hers. SICKENING.
Include in that her donors, that buck guy
who murders black gay men, and others. Add to it the head of
Bangladesh announcing to the world that HRC was trying to shake
her down for money. Add to that the ukraine and russian oil. Add
to the emails and server destruction.
The CIA just told the world how they gather INTEL: hearsay
evidence! Now all the conspiracy theories about CIA crimes are laid
out for the world. It was NOT Trump's fault. He was following the
rules. Instead, the Democrat Congress was filled with TDS and had to
set up POTUS for a take out that it couldn't accomplish with the
Lapdog Socialist Media. Pick your conspiracy. JFK assassination:
CIA TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE! Murder One: BOOK AGENCY, DANNO!
Government needs you to pay
taxes
,
19 minutes ago
link
Not only is the CIA corrupt and partisan, it also is **** at its
intended agenda. Which calls their usefulness (per legit tasks)
into serious question. Honestly, I would disband the intelligence
agencies, reduce intel headcount by 90%, and hire fresh people.
Anyone above a middle rank in the new agency gets time-limited in
their role.
The Senate should subpoena John Brennan, and ask him if he willfully
undermined or orchestrated actions against President-elect Trump.
Then subpoena John Clapper and ask him that too. If they lie,
they're screwed. If they tell the truth they're fvcked.
Hillary used the deep state once again to not only get Biden rapped
up in this Ukraine business but also make the president look like he
did something improper which he didn't and has the legal authority to
investigate Biden's cronyism. This is all for a reason, she is
hitting the media circus next week to announce she is back in the
running for the White House.
The CIA has had a domestic agenda for decades. They wrapped up
the Clinton crime syndicate in Mena Arkansas when it became the
center for drug smuggling in Latin America. Not long after CIA
captured the Clintons, the first assault weapon's ban was signed into
law. Now that the coup has gone public again and captured the
public discourse, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Chris Murphy
(D-Conn.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have launched another
assault weapons ban that will ban all semi automatic fire arms in the
United States.
The communists always disarm the public before
they collapse the system. They must have a monopoly of force so
that they can be sure their cohorts continue to eat while the rest of
the population starves.
The controlled political class and the controlled media have been
on board with this agenda for years. We will get a ban either
through an executive order or a bill passed by the politcal class.
I hope you got your iconic Colt M-4 before they disappeared.
Don't forget the Bushes and 'Poppy' Bush being the CIA head. The
Bushes and the Clintons were besties... Bush sent no one less than
Bob Barr to Mena to straighten some **** out.
Ah, so the IC has a process for scrapping those requirements outside
of a democratic way of doing things?
Or does a democratic process
exist for these occasions?
So who voted for, who against?
Who is clearly the opponent here and who understands the
importance of the constitution that they took an oath on.....
HPSCI Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct
depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the
HPSCI does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts
for any of the targets, or have any republican members present
therein.
The purpose for the rule changes was to position a new,
and never before seen, impeachment process.
The House can investigate impeachment without any involvement
whatsoever by the minority.
That's why no vote.
That's why the new phrase: "official impeachment inquiry".
IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi selected former
insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel
for the House. That becomes important when we get to the actual
impeachment part.
Pelosi has been working in the background carrying out this
agenda for 10 months.... Republicans have been brutally naive to
what has been going on.
When Republicans return from their 2 week vacation, maybe they'll
realize what's been going on while they were not watching.
Everything was/is designed to keep events hidden from
republicans in congress.
And don't think Chuck Schumer has not been quietly working behind
the scenes in the senate.
So knowing now that Pelosi (and entire team) have had this
impeachment plan in place since December 2018 (per rules).
What is the likelihood of a Senate plan since a same/similar
timeframe?
Now, all that said, there is an optimistic possibility also
present. Assume Trump and/or Barr are aware of this Pelosi
impeachment scheme. Perhaps that explains their delays in
leveraging the declassification material.
ie. Saving biggest weapon(s) for defense of office.
If trump is impeached and they try to remove him from office over
this ******** while the democrats pillage foreign nations using
taxpayer dollars than trump should tell his supporters to head to
Washington...loaded. This is a coup and nothing more
The media is completely complacent in this...probably under blackmail
or bribery. The intellegence community of the former administration runs this
country. They are the deep state
Anyone who doesn't think this is a well planned COUP on the president
of the US should read the new rule changes that Nancy Pelosi has put
into effect in the house!!!!!
This is unfucking real! Why doesn't the public know about this
********???
HPSCI Chairman Schiff can now, unilaterally, demand and instruct
depositions from anyone, at any time, for any reason; and the HPSCI
does not need to consider any possible scheduling conflicts for any
of the targets, or have any republican members present therein.
The purpose for the rule changes was to position a new, and never
before seen, impeachment process.
The House can investigate impeachment without any involvement
whatsoever by the minority.
That's why no vote.
That's why the new phrase: "official impeachment inquiry".
IMPORTANT: Keep in mind that Speaker Pelosi selected former
insider DOJ official Douglas Letter to be the Chief Legal Counsel for
the House. That becomes important when we get to the actual
impeachment part.
So knowing now that Pelosi (and entire team) have had this
impeachment plan in place since December 2018 (per rules).
What is the likelihood of a Senate plan since a same/similar
timeframe?
Now, all that said, there is an optimistic possibility also
present. Assume Trump and/or Barr are aware of this Pelosi
impeachment scheme. Perhaps that explains their delays in leveraging
the declassification material.
ie. Saving biggest weapon(s) for defense of office.
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower
complaint, I immediately looked at the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033.
Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can
say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and
should have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a
person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One
cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority
over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters
are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail
or that there is no toilet tissue in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an
activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject of an "intelligence
activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or
his phone calls is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should
have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower
complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in
Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing
less that NatSec coup attempt.
"... Now, when it appears that Trump has not been sufficiently humbled by Russiagate, and actually has the gall to pursue the source of the debunked allegations, the CIA is apparently NOT happy. ..."
"... And when the CIA says to Pelosi, "Jump!", Pelosi says, "How high?" ..."
"... What will be interesting is to see how much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators, who, in an impeachment vote, could be caught between the wishes of their base, and the wishes of the intelligence community. Will this be the first color revolution on US soil? ..."
"... The president of Ukraine and Ukraine overall are just playing cards in the US politics in the case of the impeachment process. The Democratic Party started playing this card after its hopes to impeach Donald Trump using the Russiagate scandal failed after the Mueller investigation did not prove Trump collusion with the Russian government and a conspiracy theory that Trump is a Russian agent was also debunked. The whistleblower report about the call between Volydmyr Zelensky and Trump was used to initiate impeachment proceedings even before the transcript of this call was made public. ..."
"... The declassified transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates that Ukraine is still a US client state, like it became after the Maidan under Obama presidency when Biden was in charge or relations with Ukraine. Trump suggests Zelensky what to do, in particular, concerning the investigation of his opponent in the US presidential elections. Zelensky tries to please and flatter Trump numerous times and accepts Trump's suggestion to reopen the investigation involving Biden's son company in Ukraine. Like Bill Clinton, Trump can be impeached in the House of Representatives but unlikely in the Senate. ..."
It appears that the whole impeachment has been orchestrated by the CIA. The whistleblower is
CIA.
Meanwhile, Pelosi served many years on the House Intelligence Committee, an appointment
that certainly could not have hurt her ascent to Speaker. Indeed, I don't recall Pelosi ever
questioning anything the CIA did not even torture. Her only complaint ever was that they
didn't keep her sufficiently informed about torture.
Now, when it appears that Trump has not been sufficiently humbled by Russiagate, and
actually has the gall to pursue the source of the debunked allegations, the CIA is apparently
NOT happy.
And when the CIA says to Pelosi, "Jump!", Pelosi says, "How high?"
What will be interesting is to see how much influence the CIA has over Republican
Senators, who, in an impeachment vote, could be caught between the wishes of their base, and
the wishes of the intelligence community. Will this be the first color revolution on US
soil?
It looks like we will get to meet the whistleblower.
from The Hill:
The House Intelligence Committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers and Maguire to
allow the whistleblower to speak before the committee. [DNI] Maguire assured lawmakers
during the lengthy hearing that the individual would be able to testify "fully and
freely."
"I was pleased that the director committed to having the whistleblower come in as soon as
the clearance issues are resolved for the whistleblower's counsel," Schiff told reporters
after the hearing. . .
here
If the "whistleblower" was simply reporting hearsay, how can he/she be described as a
whistleblower?
I can't believe how, after Russiagate, this story has managed to gain any traction
whatsoever. The college educated public in America is probably the least sophisticated on the
planet.
Another interesting aspect is this. Whistle blower gives evidence to Trump appointed intel
honcho, who forwards evidence to higher Trump appointed intel honcho, who then takes evidence
to Trump appointed presidential legal advisor for clearance.
Higher Trump intel honcho then waits until phone call transcript is made public before
sending whistle blower evidence to senate intel circus.
So either massive conspiracy by those around Trump to take him down with very week ammo,
or option b - those involved in RussiaGate being set up for massive fall.
Looks like the current drama from the land of drama queens has been set up with an open
ending.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/463274-five-takeaways-from-trump-whistleblower-hearing
"Democrats seized on the declassified whistleblower complaint released right before the
hearing
as further evidence of what they see as an impeachable offense by Trump.
They highlighted how the complaint alleges that White House officials tried to restrict
access
to records of Trump's call with Zelensky, including an allegation that officials removed
the
transcript from the computer system where it would typically be stored to conceal its
existence."
So they gotta prove Trump trump possibly removed a possibly non existent possibly
'truthful'
record of the call.
I guess they will drag this out as long as Russiagate.
I think the point the centrist Dems are going to stumble over is the assertion that Trump
"tried to manipulate
the president of a foreign country" to investigate a possible political opponent "in order to
fabricate material
to be used against him in the 2020 election." If Zelensky says the call was "normal," then
the alleged manipula-
tion was normal diplomatic usage. More interesting is the problem of Trump's motivation. This
is reading minds.
Many criminal charges require proving mens rea, the state of mind or intention of the
accused. If you can't prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to do wrong, then the verdict must be
"not guilty." The summary
of the call does not show Trump saying anything like that. He was requesting an investigation
because we have heard
things that suggest Hunter Biden did wrong. Former Prosecutor Shokin suspended the
investigation into Burisma, but
that doesn't mean there was no wrongdoing there. It may just mean he knew Burisma was
protected.
The president of Ukraine and Ukraine overall are just playing cards in the US politics in
the case of the impeachment process. The Democratic Party started playing this card after its
hopes to impeach Donald Trump using the Russiagate scandal failed after the Mueller
investigation did not prove Trump collusion with the Russian government and a conspiracy
theory that Trump is a Russian agent was also debunked. The whistleblower report about the
call between Volydmyr Zelensky and Trump was used to initiate impeachment proceedings even
before the transcript of this call was made public.
The declassified transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky demonstrates
that Ukraine is still a US client state, like it became after the Maidan under Obama
presidency when Biden was in charge or relations with Ukraine. Trump suggests Zelensky what
to do, in particular, concerning the investigation of his opponent in the US presidential
elections. Zelensky tries to please and flatter Trump numerous times and accepts Trump's
suggestion to reopen the investigation involving Biden's son company in Ukraine. Like Bill
Clinton, Trump can be impeached in the House of Representatives but unlikely in the
Senate.
@151 joe... the usa is in perpetual war.. finally it looks it brought the permanent state of
war onto itself... when they aren't murdering innocents with their NRA mindset in the next
god forsaken usa place, they are murdering others in faraway countries.. now, it looks like
the usa is ready to murder there own in a bigger way... it couldn't happen to a more depraved
group of people based on their actions on the world stage the past 70 odd years beginning in
korea... i hope the wheels come right off the usa and that they reep what they have sown on
the world stage..
"... As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals... ..."
"... For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right! ..."
"... Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck! ..."
"... Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious Ukrainian sources. ..."
"... So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the Ukraine. ..."
"... Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the intelligence services. ..."
"... Imagine a US president [running the world hegemon with zero moral power] attempting to see just how crooked the thugs in Ukraine are since the DNC cabal wants to war on Russia in Donbass. ..."
"... The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worms starting from Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o ). ..."
"... And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate (including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition of war crimes. ..."
"... Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine looks like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members of Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands. ..."
"... The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over. ..."
"... The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when Biden was VP. ..."
NYT: ... the United States Embassy in Kiev (Ukraine) is still without an ambassador after the
administration yanked home Marie L. Yovanovitch, a career diplomat who was targeted by the
president and Mr. Giuliani for ostensibly being insufficiently loyal, a charge heatedly
disputed by her colleagues. ...
Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar.
As Andrew Higgins writes today: "Ukraine's allure for American carpetbaggers, political
consultants and adventurers has put it at the center of not just one but now two presidential
elections in the United States and a host of second-tier scandals...
Caught between the clashing geopolitical ambitions of Russia and the West, Ukraine has for
years had to balance competing outside interests and worked hard to cultivate all sides, and
also rival groups on the same side -- no matter how incompatible their agendas -- with offers
of money, favors and prospects for career advancement."
For Democrats and Republicans alike, Ukraine is a place where dirt on opponents can be
fabricated and distributed, free from the prying eyes of fact checkers. Biden swears that any
corruption on his part has been firmly debunked by Ukrainians who are part of a regime he
brought into existence and whose careers he helps determine. Right!
All we know for certain is, like Mark Twain once said, "An honest politician is somebody
who, when he is bought, stays bought." IMO, this is how we need to interpret any story that
is sourced from the Ukraine.
Trump is trying to get to the bottom of that story by making it clear that the success of
the regime now depends on him. He wants reliable source information to create a narrative
about how Democrats tried to delegitimize him. Good Luck!
Meanwhile, Democrats and top figures in the intelligence services are pushing back, trying
to preserve their original, Trump-Putin conspiracy narrative, created in part from dubious
Ukrainian sources.
So now the world is going to be subjected to these dueling narratives, neither of which
can ever be verified or confirmed because they originated in the shadowy world of the
Ukraine.
Ulimately, it will be up to Congress and the American people to decide which narrative
they prefer: Trump's or the one pushed by Biden, Team Pelosi and their allies in the
intelligence services.
Personally, I hope they both embarrass themselves to the point where we can finally be rid
of both sides.
Impeachment is a tactic of the [DNC cabal] coup attempt. Russia gate did not work.
The "intelligence" community [the swamp] is at odds with Trump, the phony CIA
"whistleblower" is a deep swamp tool.
Imagine a US president [running the world hegemon with zero moral power] attempting to see
just how crooked the thugs in Ukraine are since the DNC cabal wants to war on Russia in
Donbass.
Suppose someone said "supporting Zelenskiy's/Thieu's corrupt regime would drag the US
through the mud"+. There would not be a Vietnam wall on the Mall.
+Like Marshall observed when he advised the US Chiang should not be imposed on China any
longer.
"Ukraine is the place where US politicians, like the bear in Winne the Pooh, get their heads
caught in the honey jar. "
Of course, one would only welcome that Pelosi just dived head on into Ukrainian mud
(Michelle Obama might not happy, though).
Trump is serious opponent in mud wrestling for Pelosi (5'5, 131 pound) and not only
because he is 6'2, 236 pounds.
The truth is that establishment democrats re-opened a tremendous can of worms starting
from Nulandgate (after Victoria Nuland famous "F*ck EU" phone call https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CL_GShyGv3o
).
And there is not a single doubt that actions of Obama administration in Nulandgate
(including Biden's and Brennan's) and later were simply criminal. As in Nuremberg definition
of war crimes.
If Trump wants, not a single member of Obama administration can emerge unscathed from
this. He can tarnish Obama legacy forever in a way Iraq war and Abu Ghraib tarnished forever
Bush II administration.
He also can sink Brennan by asking Zelensky to open archives with protocols of talks with
Ukrainian officials during Brennan's visits to Kiev.
Crime-wise Trump in Ukraine looks like a clueless amateur pocket picker. Previous members
of Obama administration were real Mafiosi with a lot of blood on their hands.
Seems that the opposition press wants us mob outrage to make Trump foreign policy for
him.
The democrats are painting a picture aimed at handcuffing any attempt to determine if the
regime in Kyiv [Saudi ARAMCO, UAE,....]is worth tilting world war over.
A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and FBI.
It takes a lot more than some good at grammar NYTimes writer to substantiate claims that
allegations against the former VP and his son's cushy Ukraine oligarch job are
unsubstantiated. That is work for prosecutors and defense attorneys.
The Biden oligarch links go back to before the Obama neocon [Nuland] coup in 2014 when
Biden was VP.
Out of context is no reason to make a conclusion
Why I support impeachment. The evidence will be put out and the solicitors will argue on
complete evidentiary lines. It is getting to be anything Trump wants to do they find some phony reason to be
outraged.
I did a 20 minute telephone poll today. They called me! You can count on one respondent
"strongly opposed" to impeachment for trying to get to the bottom of Biden family
corruption.
"A novel approach while Trump at odds with the neocon currents in State, CIA and FBI."
No. Nothing new here. This is just Russiagate II. Same actors, same methods. But it is unclear to me why they even bothered? Trump folded long ago, In April 2017 to be
exact. And before impeachment, his chances in 2020 were far from certain. Especially against
Warren.
Also Biden should not even be discussed anymore. At this point he is history.
Warren now is the official frontrunner. Which is probably the only good thing emerging out
of this CIA-inspired mess.
"... which proves beyond doubt that this is a purely political document, intended for public consumption as a tool for political ends, not for the intelligence committees. Typical Clinton-Cabal manipulation. ..."
"... Apparently a desperate action to obfuscate something in Barr's investigation, as I interpret it. Obviously considerable effort (and considerable discussion) has been expended in trying to make it as watertight as possible - but by people incapable of seeing outside their narrow interests. ..."
"... the Judicial Watch person suspects it's the work of D-Congressman Schiff as it bears the hallmarks of his craftmanship ..."
"... It seems like the mole-like permanent puppet-string-puller* network installed - or more likely expanded and deepened, and made more permanently pro-Dem - by Obomber throughout the US government is much like an infestation of mould, whose spores are impervious to destruction and constantly reinfest the infestation. ..."
The "whistleblower's" letter is so pathetic, it is quite funny. It is nothing but drivel,
very Russiagate-like, nothing but dredging mud.
What is striking about the letter is the inordinate lengths the author goes to to justify
that the letter is non-classified and should not be classified, including verbose and
detailed notes with arguments as to why it should not be classified, taking up a full half of
the document. This is underlined in particular by his statement in the letter:
If a classification marking is applied retrospectively, I believe it is incumbent upon the
classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific
information it pertains.
which proves beyond doubt that this is a purely political document, intended
for public consumption as a tool for political ends, not for the intelligence committees.
Typical Clinton-Cabal manipulation.
Apparently a desperate action to obfuscate something in Barr's investigation, as I
interpret it. Obviously considerable effort (and considerable discussion) has been expended
in trying to make it as watertight as possible - but by people incapable of seeing outside
their narrow interests.
The other thing that is striking is the extent to which the Whitehouse staff are stuffed
full of Obomber holdovers conspiring in every breath of their working lives to find ways and
means to undermine and attack the US President.
'Did the "leak" about Trump & Zelensky conversation originate in Ukraine?
Has Ukrainian foreign office staff or SBU leaked it to the alleged "whistle blower"?
'It seems that former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Klimkin boasts about it.'
https://twitter.com/PavloKlimkin/status/1176736459455422465
Google translate: "To keep things going, Ukraine will remain in the history of the United
States as the country that led to the impeachment of the US President. Not a very fun
prospect. But now everyone understands what we are capable of"
In the vid I linked @58, the Judicial Watch person suspects it's the work of
D-Congressman Schiff as it bears the hallmarks of his craftmanship , but check the vid
for confirmation.
BM @63--
You interpreted it correctly. The best site I've visited for information on Gabbard is
this Wikipedia page
that lists most everything together all on one page and links to other Wiki pages about
her.
Draining the Swamp and depriving its denizens of their food is an election ploy that ought
to get universal support; it sure garnered Trump votes in 2016 but he did nothing afterwards
and allowed corrupt officials to remain in their posts. IMO, the Duopoly's parties are both
corrupt from head to toe as is the Current Oligarchy that pulls their strings. All three
entities need to be slain for US citizens to regain their freedom and ability to control
their federal, state, and local governments. That such a conception is termed radical
indicates just how far from the center those proclaiming it radical have become--they prove
themselves to be the true radicals: 100% Reactionaries defending the vile and corrupt.
Why is Trump"s DoS stonewalling what ought to be seen as an ally in this affair? More
Obama holdovers?
Posted by: karlof1 | Sep 26 2019 20:00 utc | 58
It seems like the mole-like permanent puppet-string-puller* network installed - or
more likely expanded and deepened, and made more permanently pro-Dem - by Obomber throughout
the US government is much like an infestation of mould, whose spores are impervious to
destruction and constantly reinfest the infestation.
* (but not puppetmaster, because members of the network are themselves puppets to the Deep
State).
Another interesting aspect is this. Whistle blower gives evidence to Trump appointed intel
honcho, who forwards evidence to higher Trump appointed intel honcho, who then takes evidence
to Trump appointed presidential legal advisor for clearance.
Higher Trump intel honcho then waits until phone call transcript is made public before
sending whistle blower evidence to senate intel circus.
So either massive conspiracy by those around Trump to take him down with very week ammo,
or option b - those involved in RussiaGate being set up for massive fall.
"... "Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer?" The true corruption is what's legal. There's no law against influence peddling, as in Hunter Biden offering himself for hire. ..."
"... As for the other question, no question with zero evidence need be answered. Is Trump using his influence to advance his son and son-in-law's career? That isn't a legit question eiher. ..."
Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting
the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian interference in the election was a big issue....
"Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine?
Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?" The true corruption is what's legal. There's no law against influence peddling, as
in Hunter Biden offering himself for hire.
As for the other question, no question with zero
evidence need be answered. Is Trump using his influence to advance his son and son-in-law's
career? That isn't a legit question eiher.
So who is this "savvy official"? Who is this courageous whistleblower who boldly shone the
light of truth upon the mechanisms of power in the interests of the common man? Who is this
brave, selfless individual who set off an impeachment inquiry by taking a stand and
revealing the fact that the US president made a phone call in July urging Ukrainian president
Volodymyr Zelensky to help investigate corruption allegations against Joe Biden and his
son?
Well believe it or not, according to The
New York Times this brave, noble whistleblower who the mainstream media are currently
championing is an officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.
"The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for his
re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a CIA officer who was detailed
to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his
identity," The New York Times reports . "The man has since returned
to the CIA, the people said. Little else is known about him."
So there you have it. A mysterious stranger from the
lying, torturing , propagandizing , drug
trafficking ,
assassinating , coup-staging , warmongering , psychopathic CIA was
working in the White House, heroically provided the political/media class with politically
powerful information out of the goodness of his heart, and then vanished off into the Langley
sunset. Clearly there is nothing suspicious about this story at all.
In all seriousness, even to call this spook a "whistleblower" is ridiculous on its face. You
don't get to call someone from the US intelligence community a whistleblower unless they are
actually whistleblowing on the US intelligence community. That's not a thing. A CIA officer who
exposes information about government officials is an operative performing an operation unless
proven otherwise, because that's what the CIA does; it liberally
leaks information wherever it's convenient for CIA agendas while withholding all other
information behind a veil of government secrecy.
A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA's permission is
a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a spook doing
spook things. You can recognize the latter by the way the mass media supports, applauds
and
employs them . You can recognize the former by the way they have been persecuted,
imprisoned, and/or died under
mysterious circumstances .
But if you listen to the billionaire media, we should be calling this CIA officer a
whistleblower, we should be
enraged at The New York Times for exposing that CIA officer's identity, and we should be
raising a small fortune on
GoFundMe for "legal aid" that this CIA officer will never need.
"The idea that the media needs to 'protect' a high-level CIA officer making explosive
claims about the president, which have now been used as the basis for impeachment
proceedings, is such an insane perversion of journalistic ethics," journalist Michael Tracey
tweeted
today on this new development.
While all this political/media class cheerleading for whistleblower protections is going on,
the most prominent whistleblower in America remains imprisoned for taking a principled stand
against secret grand juries while being driven into crippling debt. Chelsea Manning is still
racking up fines of $1,000 per day while locked in a Virginia federal detention center for
refusing to testify against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The mainstream press that is so
keen to champion a "whistleblower" who works for the CIA and provided information which feeds
into America's fake partisan pro wrestling feud has been almost completely silent on the actual
whistleblower who exposed actual US war crimes.
"The courageous whistleblower Chelsea Manning has now been held in a federal detention
center in Alexandria, Virginia for more than six months," reads a recent article by World
Socialist Website , one of the only news outlets to consistently report on Manning's plight.
"Manning has not been charged with or committed any crime. She was sent to jail on March 8,
2019 for refusing to testify before a secret grand jury that has indicted persecuted
WikiLeaks founder and publisher Julian Assange, who published the information she leaked
exposing rampant US imperialist criminality."
"The vindictive treatment of Chelsea Manning has included 'administrative segregation' -- a
prison euphemism for solitary confinement -- and being fined an unprecedented $1,000 per day
for refusing to answer grand jury questions," WSWS reports. "By the time she might be released
in October 2020, she will be left owing the US government as much as $440,000. Convicted
antiwar activist Jeremy Hammond, who provided intelligence documents to WikiLeaks, has been
also brought to the same jail as Manning in order to coerce him into giving false
testimony."
" On a scale of 'haha' to 'lol,' how likely would you say it is that politicians' sudden
interest in whistleblowing will lead to the reform of the Espionage Act, which the government
has routinely used to jail the sources behind some of the most important stories in US
history? " tweeted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in response to an Onion article
satirizing the latest hypocrisy.
Pointing out hypocrisy is such a common practice in politics that it often wears a bit thin
these days, especially since it's frequently done in a disingenuous way, but when implemented
with intellectual honesty it serves a very useful purpose: it shows when people aren't really
being truthful about the position that they are taking.
The political/media class of the United States do not care about whistleblowers. They do not
care about truth, and they do not care about justice. They do not care about holding power to
account, because they exist only to serve power.
I don't pretend to know what the CIA's game is here; it probably isn't to remove Trump from
office because everyone knows that will not happen and failed impeachments
historically boost a president's popularity . But I do know that everyone cheerleading for
this fake "whistleblower" while ignoring the real ones has exposed themselves.
"... "This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern." ..."
"... "It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call." ..."
"... "The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Committee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the Intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members?" ..."
"... While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should have been rejected by the IG. ..."
"... Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. ..."
"... Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. ..."
"... Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing less that NatSec coup attempt. ..."
"This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about
differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern."
"It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was
breached. This official was not on this call, not on the approved dissem list and should not
have been briefed on the call."
"The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my
work on the House Intel Committee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the Intel
oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee
members?"
I have been an attorney for over 20-years. So when I first read of the alleged whistleblower
complaint, I immediately looked at the statute allowing such complaints, 50 USC sec. 3033.
Read it for yourself if interested.
While I have no opinion on whether or not a complaint could be based on hearsay, I can say
that this "intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint is completely improper and should
have been rejected by the IG.
Any unbiased reading of the statute shows that the whistleblowing must concern either a
person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One
cannot use this statute to whistleblow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence
Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority
over.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute that allows an "intelligence activity
whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters
are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
Same as a "whistleblower" complaint that the US Postal Service is slow delivering my mail
or that there is no toilet tissue in the Yellowstone National Park men's room is not an
activity supervised supervised by the DNI and is not the proper subject of an "intelligence
activity whistleblower" complaint, for these same reasons a complaint about the president or
his phone calls is also not the proper subject of such a complaint. This complaint should
have been rejected by an honest and competent IG.
Taking off my lawyer hat, my personal opinion is that this improper whistleblower
complaint was crafted by one or more NatSec employees, in coordination with allies in
Congress, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment proceedings. I look at this as nothing
less that NatSec coup attempt.
The complaint looks like a "lawyer-assisted document." Produced by a team, not by a single
person. It clearly was carefully designed to inflict maximum damage to replace Russiagate
hysteria with a new one and put Trump on the defensive.
Which was fully achieved. Pelosi decision is also a huge pressure point even when actual
impeachment is above her political capabilities.
But it definitely replaces the pressure of Mueller/Weissmann commission on Trump with an
equal or higher pressure, and may even surpass in the effectiveness Andrew Weissmann witch
hunt.
Now "full of Schiff" members of House have a new bone to chew. They can drag Trump thru
the mud for the next six months, hoping that this will turn the election their way.
Which might well be a wrong assumption, as it cemented Trump coalition and outraged people
who were ready to abandon Trump, so the percentage of former Trump supporters who would stay
home, but now will go to the voting booth might be an unpleasant surprise for neoliberal
Democrats.
Previously Trump chances were IMHO not that great as he proved to be a very weak,
impulsive President, one-trick pony who assumes that bullying is the diplomacy and
negotiating strategy all-in-one, who accepted rabid neocons like Bolton into his
administration, who was pandering to Netanyahu, and who he betrayed most of his election
promises. Without Russiagate2 he can run only on inertia and stock market value, which is not
much. So I would consider the possibility the Trump welcomes this impeachment process as his
last chance. He might well anticipate difficulties competing against Warren; who would beat
him on domestic policy for at least half of Trump base, and she has less baggage in foreign
policy, so she can attract anti-war independents who in 2016 voted for Trump).
In any case, the person who signed it might well be just a pre-selected "placeholder" for
information which was leaked by other people, much like Steele relations with Fusion GPS,
when it is unclear whether Steele supplied information to them or vice versa, or
CIA-connected Nelly Ohr provided material to Steele so that he returned it as his own,
supposedly obtained from a "respectable foreign source", whitewashing the real source.
The scenario of operation really looks like the second stage of the "palace coup" run by
Brennan faction in CIA and other intelligence agencies (surviving members of McCabe faction
in FBI.) It start with some equivalent of Steele dossier produced by a supposedly
"respectable source" also closely resembles Russiagate with neoliberal MSM driving the
hysteria even before facts were known.
That's why I would call this scandal Russiagate2, not Ukraine-gate. As Proverbs 16:4 puts
it, "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of
evil."
New information suggests that this improper rumor-blower complaint was crafted by a group of
CIA employees and was submitted by a medium or high level CIA employee, possibly an Obama or
Brennan appointee of Samantha Power mold, in coordination with allies in Congress, possibly
in Schiff's House Intelligence Committee, for the sole purpose of starting impeachment
proceedings.
A CIA officer who exposes information about CIA wrongdoings without the CIA's permission
is a whistleblower. A CIA officer who exposes information about someone else is just a
spook.
Simply put, there is nothing in the statute ( 50 USC sec. 3033 ) that allows an
"intelligence activity whistleblower" complaint to be made concerning the president or his
phone calls. Such matters are outside the jurisdiction of this statute.
That means that this is the second phase of Obama/Brennan's coup attempt, the color
revolution against Trump which started with Russiagate hysteria in December 2016 (Steele fake
plus Brannan's "17 intelligence agencies memo" fake) and culminated in Mueller appointment in
May 2017 and two years of witch hunt.
An interesting detail is that the IGIC ICWPA "Urgent Concern" report form was probably
doctored specifically to allow rumors to be treated as whistleblower protected activity
Looks like it was done retrospectively to provide justification for the second hand nature
of the rumorblower's report.
Another possibility is that Ukrainian SBU (which for all practical purposes is fully
controlled by CIA outlet) provided those materials to the Brennan faction and that, not
internal leak in WH, what started the whole mess.
It is unclear what this CIA's gambit is about; the move looks very questionable. It
probably isn't to remove Trump from office because failed impeachments historically boost a
president's popularity.
But I do know that everyone cheerleading for this fake "whistleblower" while ignoring the
real ones like Snowden and Manning has exposed themselves as upper hypocrites. Which includes
most of neoliberal MSM like CNN, MSNBC, NYT and WaPo.
A general principle of law (and common sense) holds that one can commit a wrong to prevent
a greater wrong. The greater wrong is Biden juicing Ukraine. The lesser wrong is Trump making
a suggestion to re-open investigation on him despite the fact that he is Trump's possible
political opponent in 2020 elections(actually Biden is an ideal opponent for Trump so taking
him out is an extremely stupid move), albeit at best Trump signature mafioso-like bulling
manner.
Citing Tulsi Gabbard recent interview by FOXNews :
"'I have been consistent in saying that I believe that impeachment in this juncture would
be terribly divisive for our country at a time when we are already extremely divided,'
Gabbard explained. 'Hyper-partisanship is one of the things that's driving our country
apart.'
"'I think it's important to defeat Donald Trump. That's why I'm running for president, but
I think it's the American people who need to make their voices heard, making that decision,'
she said.
Regardless of how you feel about Gabbard, you have to give her credit on this front.
America is extremely divided today. This impeachment on false premises saga is just another
example of Dems role in widening this division and endangering the political stability in the
country.
"... The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already, this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. ..."
"... By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes. ..."
"... What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts. ..."
"... There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt? ..."
"... This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren. ..."
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"... the Movers and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris).. ..."
"... Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true ..."
"... Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are 38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website. ..."
"... It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for either Trump or Clinton. ..."
"... Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. ..."
Even before seeing the transcript of the July 25 call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,
Nancy Pelosi threw the door wide open to impeachment.
Though the transcript did not remotely justify the advanced billing of a "quid pro quo," Pelosi set in motion a process that is
already producing a sea change in the politics of 2020.
The great Beltway battle for the balance of this year, and perhaps next, will be over whether the Democrats can effect a coup
against a president many of them have never recognized as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he took the oath
of office.
Pelosi on Tuesday started this rock rolling down the hill.
She has made impeachment, which did not even come up in the last Democratic debate, the issue of 2020. She has foreclosed bipartisan
compromise on gun control, the cost of prescription drugs, and infrastructure. She has put her and her party's fate and future on
the line.
With Pelosi's assent that she is now open to impeachment, she turned what was becoming a cold case into a blazing issue. If the
Democrats march up impeachment hill, fail, and fall back, or if they vote impeachment only to see the Senate exonerate the president,
that will be the climactic moment of Pelosi's career. She is betting the future of the House, and her party's hopes of capturing
the presidency, on the belief that she and her colleagues can persuade the country to support the indictment of a president for high
crimes.
One wonders: do Democrats, blinded by hatred of Trump, ever wonder how that 40 percent of the nation that sees him as the repository
of their hopes will react if, rather than beat him at the ballot box, they remove him in this way?
The first casualty of Pelosi's cause is almost certain to be the front-runner for the party nomination. Joe Biden has already,
this past week, fallen behind Senator Elizabeth Warren in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California. The Quinnipiac poll has her taking
the lead nationally for the nomination, with Biden dropping into second place for the first time since he announced his candidacy.
By making Ukraine the focus of the impeachment drive in the House, Pelosi has also assured that the questionable conduct of Biden
and son Hunter will be front and center for the next four months before Iowa votes.
What did Joe do? By his own admission, indeed his boast, as vice president, he ordered then-Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko
to either fire the prosecutor who was investigating the company that hired Hunter Biden for $50,000 a month or forego a $1 billion
U.S. loan guarantee that Kiev needed to stay current on its debts.
Biden insists the Ukrainian prosecutor was corrupt, that Hunter had done no wrong, that he himself was unaware of his son's business
ties. All these assertions have been contradicted or challenged.
There is another question raised by Biden's ultimatum to Kiev to fire the corrupt prosecutor or forego the loan guarantee. Why
was the U.S. guaranteeing loans to a Kiev regime that had to be threatened with bankruptcy to get it to rid itself of a prosecutor
whom all of Europe supposedly knew to be corrupt?
Whatever the truth of the charges, the problem here is that any investigation of the potential corruption of Hunter Biden, and
of the role of his father, the former vice president, in facilitating it, will be front and center in presidential politics between
now and New Hampshire.
This is bad news for the Biden campaign. And the principal beneficiary of Pelosi's decision that put Joe and Hunter Biden at the
center of an impeachment inquiry is, again, Warren.
Warren already appears to have emerged victorious in her battle with Bernie Sanders to become the progressives' first choice in
2020. And consider how, as she is rising, her remaining opposition is fast fading.
Senator Kamala Harris has said she is moving her campaign to Iowa for a do-or-die stand in the first battleground state. Senator
Cory Booker has called on donors to raise $1.7 million in 10 days, or he will have to pack it in. As Biden, Sanders, Harris, and
Booker fade, and "Mayor Pete" Buttigieg hovers at 5 or 6 percent in national and state polls, Warren steadily emerges as the probable
nominee.
One measure of how deeply Biden is in trouble, whether he is beginning to be seen as too risky, given the allegations against
him and his son, will be the new endorsements his candidacy receives after this week of charges and countercharges.
If there is a significant falling off, it could be fatal.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided
America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit
the Creators website at www.creators.com.
They would be, if it were Sanders to get the nomination. Warren's chances are, obviously, better than Biden's - anyone's, save
for complete fringe wackos, are - but, if they really wanted to win, they would need Sanders. Or, even better, Gabbard. But Sanders
is too independent, dangerously so, and Gabbard is an outright enemy of their totalitarian cult. Hence, they pick Warren, who
might be vaaaaaaaaaaguely considered Sanders-lite. But lite is not enough against someone like Trump. Or, even worse for them,
they resort to all possible and impossible machinations to still get Biden nominated. It'll be a screaming mistake, but it's not
excluded at all, given how easily the've just been lured into a trap.
Happened to tune in to Rush Limbaugh yesterday just as he was saying that Pelosi's motivation to spin the wheels was at least
in part to kill two birds with one stone--Trump AND Biden. Mehhh...maybe, but it's been clear from the beginning that the Movers
and Shakers in the Democrat Party have wanted Warren as their standard bearer on the belief that Biden is "yesterday" and that
the rest of the field is either too loony (O'Rourke), nondescript (Booker) or -- potentially -- too corrupt (Harris)..
Warren is the most pro-establishment candidate of all the non-establishment candidates, that is true . Incrowd-lite.
Bernie of course is the big unknown. Will he prevail over Warren?
If this scandal sinks Biden and Trump together, the Dems will come out ahead because they are not committed to Biden as their
nominee. I think Warren will be the biggest net winner. My prediction is that we see an impeachment with the Senate voting on
party lines to acquit. That could still be very damaging to Trump's election chances, if the portion of the public who dislikes
Trump decide that he abused his power.
Roughly 37% of Americans love Trump and will never change their mind. On the other side there are
38% who already supported impeachment based on previous investigations. That leaves 25% of Americans who are likely to be
swayed one way or the other over this. In any case, those 25% are unlikely to be on this website.
The main question, other than whether there is something damning that shows up, is whether the majority of voters think a quid
pro quo is necessary for corruption to be an impeachable offense. It is required in a criminal bribery conviction, but impeachment
isn't a criminal trial. Is the president using a diplomatic call to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on his political
rivals something the 25% will be okay with? If they believe the story of Biden's corruption, will they see that as justification
for using a diplomatic talk to push for an investigation into it? Will moderate voters who have a high opinion of Biden from the
his time as Vice President view this as an unfair attack on him or will they change their view of him to match Trump's narrative?
Biden is in a tough spot, because he will be smeared here whether he is guilty or not. Trump is very good as slinging mud to
distract from his actions. And most Americans are very unlikely to parse through the information overload to figure out whether
the fired prosecutor is corrupt, whether the decision to fire him came from Joe or the state department/UK/EU/local protest, whether
Hunter Biden was qualified for the job with his ivy law degree/experience on corp boards/previous consulting experience, and whether
the investigation into Burisma was actuall ongoing when Shokin was fired. Who has time to read through everything and figure out
which side is manufacturing a controversy?
But if Biden decides to go down a Martyr, it wouldn't be difficult for him to take Trump with him.
It'll be interesting to see what the voter turnout will be in 2020. 2016 --one of the most pivotal and controversial elections
in modern times--saw 42% of the electorate stay home. This was a shockingly high numbter, little noted in the press. If you tack
on the 6% who voted for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, that would mean that 48% of the electorate--nearly half--did NOT vote for
either Trump or Clinton.
These numbers are ominous and do not bode well for the future of this thing of ours.
Well, given that Trump has already released the transcript and Zelensky has already confirmed there were no pressure in their
conversation plus said that Hunter's case is to be investigated by the AG, any impeachment hearings can only be damaging
to those who decide to go further with them, because, as it turns out, there is no basis for such hearings and they were
started a year before the election, showing what those who started them think regarding their own chances to win. If Democrats
want to cut losses, they should stop it now and, using military terms, regroup immediately, nominating Gabbard who consistently
opposed this stillborn impeachment stupidity. But something makes me think they won't. Their visceral hatred to an anti-war candidate
like her is simply too strong.
I think you are missing that Trump's lawyers can subpoena people and drag up a lot of dirt on the Democrats too. I think it can
go both ways.
Still Warren can be tough for Trump. She is not tainted by Clinton. She is a chameleon; will sound sufficiently WASP in New
England and sufficiently woke in California and new York. If Buttgig becomes her sidekick he can get all the gays on-board.
You're missing one thing about Warren: she's a wonk. And she actually has some good ideas alongside the more crazy ones. Even
Tucker Carlson praised her book.
But Warren is an absolute stiff. Zero charisma. Like Kerry or Gore on their very worst day. And in this day and age, where
the only thing that counts for the overwhelming majority of low information voters are soundbites and how telegenic you come off
in a debate, someone like Trump will chew her up and spit her out for breakfast.
Warren? OK. I don't see how she could be any worse than Trump. Plus, we might not feel like we were snorkeling in a cesspool all
the time, like we do now.
Literally every progressive I know save one is team Warren. I think there might be an age divide. Progressives under thirty are
more likely to be for Sanders, and over thirty for Warren.
I have no idea what will happen with the election. But if Trump wins it after the Dems have done nothing for four years except
impeach him - every day is going to be like Christmas.
I sincerely hope that Trump is right in thinking that Biden is his biggest threat, because this affair is going to ensure Warren
is the nominee. I think a lot of proggy Dems know this as well, which partly explains their enthusiasm for impeachment at this
particular moment (not that they haven't been itching for this since November 8, 2016).
I agree Biden and Bernie are toast but Warren is far from a sure thing. Of all the democratic candidates Tulsi is the most attractive
in more ways than one and I could see Tulsi appealing to the many Trump voters who voted for him because he claimed to be non-interventionist
only to discover he is a war-pig like the rest of them. Imagine Tulsi in a debate with Trump! If not Tulsi I would bet another
high profile Dem will enter the race because Warren is un-electable and I would not be surprised to see Hillary get in the race
at the last minute. American's love re-matches and come-back stories.
In breaking news: Pelosi has just revealed who was behind all this. It's Cardinal Richelieu Russians again.
Does the girl even understand that, by saying so, she's, basically, stating that she's the chief Russian agent out there, because
she was the one who initiated that freak show?
Jesus Harold Christ, what a travelling circus. And this passes for a parliament these days.
Ukrainegate is Watergate in reverse. The farcical impeachment unintentionally acts as a foil, amplifying the significance of the
Ukraine stories in the press (John Solomon, Andrew McCarthy) which reveal a culture of corruption and venality permeating the
Democratic leadership: the Clintons, the Bidens, the DNC, the current Democratic caucus, and the entire deep state remnants of
the obama administration. We haven't seen election interference like this since the Watergate break-in and coverup. This impeachment
is the coup-de-grâce of the Democratic Party not just Biden. The Democrat faithful now have a choice between Scylla and Charybdis
- self-proclaimed socialists with a tenuous hold on reality, or the discredited establishment. As an old-school Democrat, I can
only hope that Trump buries them in 2020, so that the Democrats finally get the message and return to their pre-Clinton roots.
It is insane to pursue impeachment this late in a divisive President's mandate. The Democrats should spend their efforts selecting
a moderate nominee that doesn't show signs of cognitive decline (Only candidate that matches these requirements is Tulsi Gabbard.
) rather than make Trump a "victim" in the eyes of many.
Drama Don is doing a good enough job himself to make sure that the Democrats win in 2020. "Trump fatigue" is going to be the
most used expression next fall if Trump runs. If Trump is pushed out before the election, the Republicans may choose a charismatic
new nominee who actually has a chance to win in 2020. The biggest asset that the Democrats have in 2020 is Trump.
Somebody, somewhere, had decided that Democrats stand little chance with Biden, because he is so old and gaffe prone. So they
have put their money on Warren. Warren will choose Buttigieg as VP candidate, primarily because they want all that gay billionaire
money flowing in. At the same time, they tick the SJW boxes -woman, gay candidates, so the left will love them. The fix is in.
Hence the stupid "impeachment " controversy, which is obviously a sham to knock Biden out.
I voted for Trump, not as a Republican because I despise both political parties. I voted for him based on the need for a nationalist
trade policy, and especially because I was so against the TPP --and President Trump rewarded me for that vote his first week in
office by pulling the US out of TPP negotiations. Also I have great respect for you, Mr. Buchanan, and learned much from the 3
of your books I've read and recommended to others. But it looks like President Trump has been using his office for personal political
gain, so I am sorry to admit I support the impeachment investigation to bring the facts to light and make a judgement of whether
it is true he used the office to solicit a foreign country to help undermine his political opponent. But even before this, I'd
decided I will not vote for him again, mainly because I have become alarmed at the looming climate crisis, and believe we need
urgent policy towards full decarbonization of the global energy economy. But that doesn't motivate me to support the impeachment
inquiry, a path I hate and regret...but it seems there is no other way to demand the President not abuse his office and manipulate
foreign governments to help his political career. That is no patriot, that is corrupt and an embarrassment to our nation.
"...effect a coup against a president many of them have never seen as legitimate and have sought to bring down since before he
took the oath of office."
Every single word of that describes the Republicans in Congress during the eight years Obama was president. Every single syllable.
Remember that birth certificate? And remember that Dick Tracy villain, Pocket-Neck McConnell, an excrescence that still infects
us, standing up and actually saying, with a straight face, "Our ONLY goal is to make Obama a one-term president." Never mind an
economy that was in free-fall, right Mitch? Or a couple of bothersome wars going on?
And what about how, for the very first time in history, Standard and Poor's downgraded America's credit rating, all because
of completely meaningless Republican obstruction about the debt ceiling? And when I say completely meaningless, I mean completely
meaningless. Now, under Trump, the deficit is approaching a trillion, and those very same Republicans couldn't give a hoot.
It's all in the great 2012 book, It's Even Worse Than it Looks, by Ornstein and Mann. We've had partisanship and gridlock before.
But what was new is how the Republicans behaved under Obama: they treated him as completely illegitimate from the word go, and
absolutely refused to work with him under any and all circumstances. The stimulus, which by the way saved the entire world economy
from complete meltdown, didn't get a single Republican vote.
But Republicans can feel proud of one thing: their disgusting, scorched-earth, win-at-all-costs tactics are now business-as-usual
in Washington. Probably for all time. Nice going, guys.
Warren is the best candidate to defeat Trump. She is super smart ,honest and works hard as heck for the non 1% to get more of
a fair shake. If she softens her hard left positions she could be a great candidate
A general principle of law (and common sense) holds that one can commit a wrong to prevent a
greater wrong.
The greater wrong is Biden juicing Ukraine. The lesser wrong is Trump making a suggestion, albeit with a mafioso-like subtext.
That's always been a source of puzzlement/astonishment for me given Trump's stated hatred
for all things Obama and vow to drain the swamp -- particularly the holdovers at Justice,
where you had Comey's daughter as the lead prosecutor against Epstein, amongst other notable
examples.
I see Judicial Watch has filed what appears to be a FOIA lawsuit against the Trump
State Department seeking documents
over firing of Biden-Ukraine prosecutor and explains the situation in a 2.5min video that
I can't fault. THis begs the question: Why is Trump"s DoS stonewalling what ought to be seen
as an ally in this affair? More Obama holdovers?
@ Sorghum 49 Judge Naploanito said on Fox that what Trump did was undeniably a crime.
Actually, it is deniable.
from Roll Call
The Justice Department has decided that President Donald Trump did not cross a legal line
in his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. The department said its
review of the call -- in which Trump asked Ukraine to "do us a favor" and talk to his
personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr about opening a potential
corruption investigation connected to Trump's main political rival -- did not find a "thing
of value" that could be quantified as campaign finance law requires. Opposition research can
be a "thing of value" and therefore a potential crime, election law experts said, but the
term is not well defined and has not been fully tested in court. Some experts backed the
Justice Department view on legal grounds; some didn't. . . here
Public Law 107-155 amended amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide
bipartisan
campaign reform. The law places requirements on the collection and disbursement of funds, as
in SEC. 303. STRENGTHENING FOREIGN MONEY BAN which inserts the following language:
(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
``(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make--
``(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or
implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or
local election;
``(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
``(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering
communication (within the meaning of section 304(f)(3)); or
``(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution donation described in
subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.'' . . here
Nowhere in the law is there any control put upon information. The law is about money, with
only a brief mention of "other thing of value" under the general category of money.
The fact Trump "burned " the official transcript tells you all you need to know.
Not that Biden is clean. Dems are handing the reelection to Trump on a silver platter as
the illuminist leaders controlling both parties have commanded. A failed impeachment attempt
is exactly what Trump wants since Biden will go down in flames. His Ukraine baggage should
have ruled him out from the start. They might as well have just run Hillary again but then it
would have been even more transparent that they have no intention of trying to win.
Like I say, its all fake wrestling, the outcome is decided in advance. What follows is
scripted entertainment to keep people from discussing the real issues (not that the majority
even know what those issues are living as they do in the false reality that has been created
for them)
This "Trump is a traitor" garbage is so preposterous that my interest in it was beginning to
wane. But last night an International News 'outlet' broadcast a snippet of the fact-free
dross and drivel from the mouths of his Dem accusers. It soon became obvious that the blather
was a virtual carbon copy of the emotive claptrap deployed to accuse Saddam Hussein of
heinous imaginary crimes in order to justify bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age.
So if anyone wants to get a handle on the course of this Star Chamber style witch-hunt
just cast your mind back to that sorry episode of AmeriKKKan "History".
The Dems are trying to paint Trump as the New, Improved, Saddam Hussein. And, as was the
case with Saddam, no made-up fact or outrageous lie will be "off the table". It's started
already.
Foreign new coverage in modern western societies is controlled by intelligence agencies. There are no exceptions.
Notable quotes:
"... At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for any cure". ..."
"... For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark: ..."
"... All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness https://www.youtube.com/embed/yUGPIeE9kMc?feature=oembed ..."
@d
dan " ..media biased Hong Kong reporting ."
How would American cops react to punks tossing Molotov Cocktails at them? Arson is a felony
but there would be no need for a trial just a coroner.
@Godfree Roberts "The
weird result of this enormous, expensive effort is that, while we were busy lying to
ourselves about China "
At this stage, any one who still believes in the western propaganda about China is
simply too brain-washed and not too smart for any cure. Excuse me, I should say "too dumb for
any cure".
For example, Nathan Rich's recent video shows how media biased reporting of Hong Kong
compare with Ukraine riots. The contrast can't be anymore stark:
@Godfree Roberts Here
is a good analysis of how the main stream media (MSM) gang up to give propaganda, and how I
wish they have objective comments about China or any country they do not like.
All these so-called anti communist slant against countries, I suspect, have its origins in
the Vatican. People seem to forget that they should bear false witness
US House Of Representatives Launched Impeachment Inquiry Against President Donald
Trump
Donate
US Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
On September 24 th , US Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi
announced that Democrats are launching an impeachment inquiry against US President Donald
Trump.
"The president must be held accountable. No one is above the law," she said.
The reasoning behind the proceedings are the unconfirmed news reports that Trump pressured
Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky into
"digging dirt" on Democratic Presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden and
his son.
"Today I'm announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official
impeachment inquiry," Pelosi said.
This marks the fourth time in US history a president has faced impeachment.
Trump allegedly used $250 million in military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip into
forcing the Ukrainian side provide contact with a whistleblower.
This is quite similar to allegations against Joe Biden, back when he was vice president of
holding financial aid to Kiev until the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was released from his
post. He allegedly was about to launch an investigation into a business, which Hunter Biden,
Joe Biden's son had a stake in.
Nancy Pelosi had repeatedly resisted calls to being impeachment inquiries, but a breaking
point appears to have been reached.
"This week, the president has admitted to asking the president of Ukraine to take actions
which would benefit him politically," Pelosi said. "The actions of the Trump presidency
revealed dishonorable facts of the president's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of
national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections."
Trump "admitting" is rather vague, as he said he had spoke to Zelensky, and had mentioned
Biden, but nothing else he is being accused of. The Ukrainian side, on several occasions, also
said that there was no pressure and refused to acknowledge the topic of Joe Biden had
arisen.
"You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and, unlike
Joe Biden and his son, NO quid pro quo!" Trump tweeted.
Ever since the inquiry was announced Trump has gone to Twitter claiming that this was
"Presidential harassment" and a "total Witch Hunt," since Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and Maxine
Waters had "never even saw the transcript" of the call between Trump and Zelensky.
Trump said that US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had received permission from the Ukrainian
government to release the transcript of the call, to prove that nothing illicit had taken
place.
He initially said that he wouldn't authorize the release of the transcript, but has since
come round.
Republicans rushed to defend Trump in various interviews, saying that the Democrats were
desperate and scrambling to construct any narrative and theme, after the complete failure of
Russiagate.
Critics have said the transcript, on its own, is insufficient to settle the matter.
"The release of the transcript is necessary but far from sufficient," said Ned Price, a
National Security Council spokesman in the Obama White House. "At its heart, this is about an
urgent, credible whistleblower complaint involving 'multiple actions.' The law says Congress
must be provided with it. This will remain a cover-up until that happens."
The transcript's release may be followed by testimony from the whisteblower, Rep. Adam
Schiff said.
"We're in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower's testimony as soon as
this week," Schiff tweeted.
Whether this would actually lead to impeachment is unknown, and also rather unlikely, since
chances are the Democrats are more likely shooting themselves in the foot by trying to stir yet
another scandal. The entire situation may backfire, since Trump is being accused of
specifically the same thing that Biden was accused of doing years ago.
"... "During the Ukraine cries in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine, what was going on between them." --Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... More information on Hunter Biden. He served on the President's Advisory Council of the National Democratic Institute (NDI), a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up after Congress banned the CIA from pursuing regime change. A lot of the coordination and assistance for the Ukraine coup probably passed through that 'non-profit.' Joe Biden was Obama's point person, and Hunter Biden was probably Joe's eyes, ears, and gopher at NDI. ..."
"... As a side benefit, Hunter Biden would have been in an excellent position, both from his work at NDI and at Burisma, to meet the movers and shakers in post-coup Ukraine and coordinate disinformation campaigns as needed. The Ukrainians would have been eager to help as the solvency of the country depended on US loans. ..."
"During the Ukraine cries in 2014-15, Chris Steele had a number of commercial clients who
were asking him for reports on what was going on in Russia, what was going on in Ukraine,
what was going on between them." --Victoria Nuland.
More information on Hunter Biden. He served on the President's Advisory Council of the
National Democratic Institute (NDI), a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy,
which was set up after Congress banned the CIA from pursuing regime change. A lot of the
coordination and assistance for the Ukraine coup probably passed through that 'non-profit.'
Joe Biden was Obama's point person, and Hunter Biden was probably Joe's eyes, ears, and
gopher at NDI.
Immediately after the coup, Hunter was appointed to the board of the strategically
critical Burisma energy company, Ukraine's largest producer of natural gas. From what I have
seen, the US likes to have its assets sit on the Board of strategically critically energy
companies.
And is Ukraine ever strategically important!!! Apart from the fact the Russian pipelines
pass through the country, "Ukraine has an estimated 42 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of
technically recoverable shale gas reserves, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), ranking its deposits as the fourth largest in Europe." https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Ukraine_and_fracking
Again, Hunter Biden's appointment would not have been by chance. He would have been put
there to once again to be Joe Biden's eyes, ears, and gopher.
As a side benefit, Hunter Biden would have been in an excellent position, both from his
work at NDI and at Burisma, to meet the movers and shakers in post-coup Ukraine and
coordinate disinformation campaigns as needed. The Ukrainians would have been eager to help
as the solvency of the country depended on US loans.
So are we about to witness the first color revolution on US soil? Could be
This is an extract from a tweet linked over at Xymphora's Sept 26 post..
The Biden corruption story is not one invented by Trump. In fact, it was covered by the
NY Times last May. And it includes a roster of not just the Biden family but Obama, Clinton
& Kerry sycophants getting rich in Ukraine as well. This is horrifying.
I'm not a NYT subscriber but it's probably worth a subscriber's time to search NYT May,
2019 archive for Biden/Ukraine stories...
"Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did
he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer?
Has the U.S. public an interest in knowing the answers to these questions?"
All worthy of investigation, but not an investigation by Ukraine.
A mayor untruth easily identifiable in the "whistleblower complaint" is that the guy claims
that Trump tried to pressure Z into keeping the prosecutor general Lutsenko who he "praised"
and who came up with "allegations" involving Biden etc.
If you read the phone call memo it is obvious that Trump is praising Shokhin, the
prosecutor general fired by Porky on behalf of Biden. And Z tells Trump that he will put in
"100% my guy" as new prosecutor general (replacing Lutsenko), to which Trump has no objection
at all.
So this is bollocks heard through the grapevine at best.
the fraudulent Muellergate investigation was closed the day before, so Trump could not be
accused of obstructing an ongoing "investigation"
Posted by: BM | Sep 26 2019 18:08 utc
Waiving off questions as "evil" is not answering them. Actually it was the tactics that
"fraudulent Muellergate" adepts are using for all the years, it suits them fine, but does not
suit those annoying critics.
Trump was anyway accused of obstruction whatever he does and does not. And while i cam see
how inqueries into DNC hack cultists from Crowdstrike can be seen interfering with
Muellergate, why did not he inquieried into Burisma Holdings earlier?
It's obvious enough so far that anyone who's been nurturing a strong belief that Trump
needs to be, or ought to be, removed from office ASAP are predisposed to take every
"bombshell" and "smoking gun" at face value.
This faction is not limited to acute TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) sufferers, who
regard Trump as a foul and villanous Usurper who (with the help of the corrupt or decadent
Electoral College) heinously blocked Empress-in-Waiting Clinton from ascending to her
rightful place on the Oval Office Throne.
It also includes self-identified "progressives" and would-be leftists who aren't
necessarily sympathetic towards Clinton and the Democratic Party, but buy into the notion
that since many of Trump's actions and policies in office, and/or his well-known history of
shady business dealings, establish that he is so obviously a man of "high crimes and
misdemeanors" that he is indeed unfit for office and ripe for impeachment.
Some "alternative" news/opinion journalists and pundits either share or implicitly condone
an attitude of, "Well, the Zelensky call is just the latest in a series of fairly flimsy
frames. But, hey, Trump is manifestly a war criminal and self-serving Mafia-type
über-gangster, so he certainly deserves to be impeached." They seem oblivious or
indifferent to the noxious "the end justifies the means" element in this perspective.
Put another way, only persons already wearing Impeachment Goggles are ready, willing, and
able to see this latest Beltway/Ukraine imbroglio as-- at last!-- a clear-cut instance of
Trump "crossing the line" into High Crime territory.
I subscribe to the view that this is the institutional "Resistance"'s attempt to revive
the discredited and unpopular "Russian collusion" narrative by flipping it into a "Ukraine
skulduggery" narrative. Thus, as with the failed "Russian collusion" frame,
Impeachment-Goggle wearers vehemently insist on isolating an ostensible rotten tree or two,
while studiously ignoring the haunted forest.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether escalating this contretemps into an Official
Impeachment Inquiry will succeed in stampeding an ambivalent public into a wholesale disgust
with Trump that will destroy either his administration or his candidacy.
Despite the predictable high-minded rhetoric about upholding noble principles like the
Rule of Law, and "saving democracy", burying Trump's political career is the actual point of
the exercise.
b is quite right. It is amazing how widespread Trump Derangement Syndrome has become: Trump's
request to the Ukrainian President might have offended ultra-nationalist sentimentalists, but
it is both sensible and of interest.
Why did Biden's boy suddenly become worth hiring at $50000 per month? Does anyone NOT know
the answer?
The truth is that the Ukrainian fascists, put into power by the Democratic Party-at a cost of
billions to the US taxpayer- worked hard to make sure that their patron Hillary became
President. How hard is of interest to all.
I don't like Trump either but to suggest that these are impeachable offences is not only
wrong but stupid: the dirt sticking to Biden will spread around the whole party. It would be
a very bad tactical error for Sanders to go along with this nonsense the way he did with
Russiagate-its separated at birth twin. But he will. I expect that that is what Trump is
hoping for.
I have to disagree with B on this. Trump said multiple times in an interview that he would
accept information against an political opponent from an foreign government. Both Trump and
Giuliani have stated on video that the inquiry into Biden was political, not judicial.
Ariochiincorrect.
"If it has such interest why shouldn't the president concern himself with pushing the
Ukrainian president to investigate the issues?"
There are much better ways for one country to influence another's legal processes. When
Trump conducted his phone call with Zelensky, he stupidly said words that would end up in a
transcript and come back to haunt him, like currently is happening. It just points to the
inability of Trump's "advisers" to keep him in check.
Of course, one could say that this is all a calculated political strategy. We'll just
have to see how it plays out. And it is reasonable to see that Democrats have to follow the
evidence towards a possible impeachment. Otherwise they totally abdicate their role
conducting oversight. The executive branch in the U.S. has been accumulating more and more
power (and yes, even under Obama), and Congress is becoming less and less relevant as a
result. At some point it either has to rebalance, or the trend towards autocracy
continues.
And yes, there could be subterfuge in Clintonian circles tossing Biden out as red meat.
But he did do what he is implicated in, and his son Hunter took absolute advantage of his
father's position in the Obama admin when he got on the Board of Directors of Burma. His
position there was rife with corruption.
Good, strong argument, b! At the time, the Ukraine "government" in many respects was
merely an arm of the Obama Whitehouse/CIA cabal as communications and events clearly show.
Since Trump's election, that connection was deeply downgraded but not completely severed.
Then Zelensky was elected, and he needed to establish a positive relationship with his
ultimate master, Trump. The overtness of Giuliani's activities is a major plus, along with
the ineptitude of the DoJ holdovers from Obama in the Russiagate debacle, as well as the
Cases against Flynn & Rafiekian, the latter's having just been dismissed which ought to
be shared by Flynn. Then there's plenty of dirt to be mined from the Nuland "Fuck the EU"
tape that was never put to good use.
"Techno_Fog Consider this: the #Democrats are really freaking out because @realDonaldTrump
@POTUS
#AGBarr and #JohnDurham have caught on to the crimes of #Crowdstike and it's role in the
#RussiaHoax and #Spygate @KerriKupecDOJ, #FISAabuses, #NSA 4th Amendment violations."
That's a lot of meat for the grinder. I wrote yesterday that IMO it was too late for Trump
to deal with Hillary Clinton. Well, it looks like I was premature as this gets at the Clinton
Machine from another angle; and IMO, it's very much in the nation's interest to deal with the
law breaking and corruption of that bunch. There's so much corruption and unlawful activity
occurring now and in the past that its unraveling must begin somewhere if the citizenry is to
ever regain control of the federal government. No, I'm not extolling Trump; I am indicting
the Clintons, DNC, the Current Oligarchy, and all their minions.
Really good conversation that gets to the heart of the new UkraineGate that has morphed from
RussiaGate, that you will not hear on the corporate media.
" Biden's intervention smells of corruption or at least undue interference by a U.S. official
for personal reasons."
Such interventions are bad for many reasons. Law enforcement ideally is about the law and
not political gains. Heavy handed firing and hiring prosecutors according to whom they
managed to prosecute (preferably, political opponents) and whom they stayed away from
(preferably, political allies plus all kin and kith of the current people on top) is at best
frown upon. A more enlightened approach (semi-enlightened?) is to do it discreetly, without
bragging.
In case of "friendly, but heavy-handed" foreign pressure, lack of discretion turns the
obedient target to laughing stock. We should not begrudge Russians and "Russian speakers"
additional occasions for levity, but the morale among hapless Ukrainians surely took a
hit.
Biden's exploits were noted with some chortling a long time ago, but now there is a slew of
new articles like
----------
"To give or not to give"
One cannot envy the new president of independent* Ukraine. He has to choose between Joe
Biden (the most serious Democratic candidate) becoming his enemy, or Donald Trump, the
current president. If he finds kompromat (compromizing materials) on Biden and gives them to
Trump, Biden and his Democratic allies will become enemies, but if he fails, Trump will be an
enemy. [implications that alliance with Russia would not have such dire consequences]
Attack as the best form of defence is standard for the Dems. A psychatrist would call it
projection - projecting their own sins onto someone else.
Of course Hunter, Kerrry's stepson, the China fund, Burisma and most of all Uranium One are
highly corrupt deals.
Of course a deep state warrior would react by dragging these up, but probably just ending up
in a stalemate of accusations.
Trump stuck to his message - that working people have been screwed by the Dems and that he
would listen. It worked. It will work again, all this Dem fuss just means no one will bother
to ask what Trump has actually done for the working man.
Had Trump just asked about crowdstike, or corruption in general, or even the 2016
elections, he would have been in the clear but how is U.S. national security advanced by
specifically bringing in the Bidens?
Had Trump inquired about the Biden's after a Biden loss in the primary or the general
election was over, again, he would have been in the clear. But by asking about him prior to
these elections Trump used the Executive Branch to gain advantage over a political opponent.
This is what we call abuse of power.
Will he be removed from office, no, but it will be an extremely destructive fight in the
U.S. We deserve it. The trouble we have visited on others is now returning to us. We are
color revolutioning ourselves.
I titled this Götterdämmerung to signify how we in the U.S. are destroying each
other. In www.realclearpolitics.com I have never seen articles this contentious, even in the
Trump era.
Trump himself gave a solo press conference in New York, and he specifically called attention
to a CNN report from May
2019, which described how Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez, Dick Durbin, and Patrick Leahy
pushed Ukraine's top prosecutor not to close four investigations perceived as critical to
then-Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia probe and made it appear as if US aid to Ukraine
was at stake.
"In four short years, Ukraine has made significant progress in building [democratic]
institutions despite ongoing military, economic, and political pressure from Moscow. We have
supported [the] capacity-building process and are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to
have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump."
"Senator Chris Murphy literally threatened the president of Ukraine that if he doesn't do
things right, they won't have Democrat support in Congress," Trump added.
This was referring to a report by the Hill:
"I told Zelensky that he should not insert himself or his government into American
politics," Murphy said,
according to The Hill . "I cautioned him that complying with the demands of the
President's campaign representatives to investigate a political rival of the President would
gravely damage the U.S.-Ukraine relationship. There are few things that Republicans and
Democrats agree on in Washington these days, and support for Ukraine is one of them."
He finished his press conference by saying that Nancy Pelosi was no longer Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
Prior to the solo press conference, Trump and Zelensky met and sat at an awkward press
conference for approximately 15 minutes. He finished his press conference by saying that Nancy
Pelosi was no longer Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Prior to the solo press conference, Trump and Zelensky met and sat at an awkward press
conference for approximately 15 minutes.
Asked directly if he felt any pressure from Trump to investigate Biden, Zelensky hedged.
"I think you read everything. I think you read text," he said. "I -- I'm sorry, I don't want
to be involved in Democratic, open, elections -- elections of U.S.A. No, you heard. We had I
think good phone call. It was normal. We spoke about many things. So, I think, and you read
it, that nobody pushed. Pushed me."
Trump then added: "In other words: no pressure."
Later, he was asked if he wanted Zelensky to start an investigation into Biden, he alleged
the following:
"I want him to do whatever he can," Trump said of Zelensky. "Biden's son walks out of
Ukraine with millions and millions of dollars," Trump said. "I think it's a horrible thing, a
horrible thing."
During the conversation, Trump also urged Zelensky that he should resolve things with
Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump commended Zelensky for making "a lot of progress with
Russia," adding, it "would be nice to end that whole disaster."
Essentially, Zelensky, due to his non-existent political experience has landed himself in
the hottest of waters and now has no way to come out unscathed, with the scandal promising to
get much worse, before fading into oblivion.
Probably, one of the main concerns of Zelenksy is that in a fierce attempt to please Trump
he mocked EU leaders:
TRUMP: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We
spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and
they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they
do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was
speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the
European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the
United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal
necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been
very very good to Ukraine.
ZELENSKY: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only. 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell
you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her. I also met and talked
with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on
the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as
much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European
Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger
partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United
States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we
are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you
for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the
next steps. specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for
defense purposes.
It's interesting how Zelensky would explain this behaviour to Germany and France.
How much did their bank balances benefit from work in Ukraine? Or their childrens/step
childrens bank accounts?
Why do US politicians always go for the route that takes out the most civilians?
Whether it be, Biden and orders over in Ukraine, or Trump and orders over in Syria, why
is it always the civilians that they go after?
Joe Biden and Ukraine: A Quick Reminder
September 26, 2019Stalker Zone
...A quick reminder of what Joe Biden did during the collective West's 2014 coup in
Kiev
Biden insisted on capturing governmental and administrative buildings in the most violent
way, preferably with victims. In order to do this, there had to already be some
"symbolic" deaths. He cooked up and coordinated a scenario with other foreign embassies.
In addition, Maidan was dying and it needed extra fuel in order to remain alive. The
scenario involved "protestors" being shot by snipers. Biden's guys (Parubiy, Pashinsky,
Parasyuk) organised the massacre...
One interesting note not mentioned in the article was Zelensky's reaction when Trump
spoke badly about the US ambassador in Ukraine that he fired. Zelensky answered that he
was glad too as she was a Poroshenko supporter who didn't like him.
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was Porky's little pal, and a tool for the neocons,
Hillary and Democrat Party. She would have went berserk about Ukraine reopening an
investigation if she were still ambassador. Good riddance.
In the very first meeting she had with the (then new) Ukraine Prosecutor General
Lutsenko in 2016, she gave a list of Ukrainians whom he was NOT allowed to prosecute. If
he didn't obey, then his office was not going to get $4.4 million in assistance already
allocated from the US in 2014. The 'already allocated' part is important - the US Embassy
in Ukraine intercepted the money and illegally withheld it as a kind of bribe for the
Ukraine General Prosecutor's office to 'obey' the US Democrats demands. Who is it that
always accuses you of something they are guilty of?
Lutsenko, to his credit, told her to f'k off. Porky backed her , the US
Ambassador, not his own Ukrainian Prosecutor General Lutsenko. Everyone though Lutsenko
was nuts to piss of Porky at the time. But then Ukraine elected a comedian as president
and threw Porky's fat ass out of office. You just can't make this stuff up!
Oh, and f'ck Giuliani. Unfortunate that that slimeball is involved at all. But
anything that will expose the Democrat's organized crime and treason, I guess...
Trump should fire Rudy Guiliani, not let him go on talk shows, advertising that you
are using your Exec power to go after political opponents is beyond stupid, a lawyer
should no better. Biden isn't the only one who has lost his fast ball.
Yeah, I fealt sorry for Zelensky, it was obvious he had his beggars ball out. I
wouldn't want that call to be made public either but he's in a tight spot, he doesn't
have any cards to play. What is this obsession w/Javelin missiles, how many tank attacks
has Ukraine had to repel, I'd say about 0.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky said at a meeting Wednesday with President Donald
Trump that "nobody pushed me" to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. Speaking at a
bilateral meeting at the United Nations in New York, Zelensky said the phone call he had with
Trump in July, where Trump asked him to look into the former vice president and his son,
Hunter, was "normal." Trump repeated that there was "no pressure" on Zelensky but added that
the Ukrainian leader should do "whatever he can do in terms of corruption." Trump added,
without evidence, that the money Hunter Biden made while a board member of a Ukrainian company
constitutes corruption. The U.S. president also added, again with no evidence, that he believes
Hillary Clinton's emails that were deleted from her server could be in Ukraine. He also
defended his decision to involve his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani in the requests he made to
Ukraine. Guiliani does not have an official job at the White House.
Ukrainegate could be damaging to the Democrats as there is
evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager.
Notable quotes:
"... With the “Russiagate” hoax proving to be the “most fraudulent political scandal in American history,” as Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen puts it, now we have emerging an alternative – “Ukrainegate”. ..."
"... Turns out now that Trump's telephone liaison was not with Putin, but rather Ukraine's Zelensky. And the anti-Trump politicos and media are getting all fired up with "Ukrainegate" -- as a replacement for the non-entity Russiagate. ..."
"... despite the obsession with trying to impeach Trump, the renewed focus on Ukraine raises legitimate and serious questions about the past dealings of Joe Biden. ..."
"... Potentially, Joe Biden, the current top Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidency, could see his chances unraveling if "Ukrainegate" is pushed further. The dilemma for his supporters among the political establishment is that the more they try to beat up on Trump over his alleged horse-trading with Ukraine, the more the heat can be turned by him on Biden over allegations of graft and abuse of office to further his family's business interests. ..."
"... "There is enough smoke here," Graham added. "Was there a relationship between the vice president's family and the Ukraine business world that was inappropriate? I don't know. Somebody other than me needs to look at it and I don't trust the media to get to the bottom of it." ..."
"... Ukrainegate could turn out to be even far more damaging to the Democrats. Because there is evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. ..."
With the “Russiagate” hoax proving to be the “most fraudulent
political scandal in American history,” as Princeton Professor Stephen Cohen puts it, now we
have emerging an alternative – “Ukrainegate”.
... ... ...
Democratic political opponents and the anti-Trump liberal media are renewing
demands for his impeachment. They are adamant that he has now crossed a clear red line of
criminality by seeking a foreign power to interfere in US elections by damaging a presidential
rival.
For his part, Trump
denies his conversations with the Ukrainian president were improper. He said he phoned
Zelensky back in July to mainly congratulate him on his recent election. Trump does however
admit that he mentioned Biden's name to Zelensky in the context of Ukraine's notorious culture
of business corruption. The American leader maintains that Joe Biden should be investigated for
possible conflict of interest and abusing the office of vice president back in 2016 in order to
enhance the business affairs of his son, Hunter.
Trump's phone call to Ukraine hit the news last week when a US intelligence officer turned
whistleblower to allege that the president was overheard in a conversation inappropriately
making "a promise to a foreign leader". The identity of the foreign leader was not disclosed.
But immediately, the anti-Trump US media began speculating that it was Russian President
Vladimir Putin. The keenness to point fingers at Putin showed that the Russiagate fever is
still virulent in the US political establishment, even though the long-running narrative
alleging Russian interference or collusion collapsed earlier this year when the two-year Robert
Mueller "Russia investigation" floundered into oblivion for lack of evidence.
Turns out now that Trump's telephone liaison was not with Putin, but rather Ukraine's
Zelensky. And the anti-Trump politicos and media are getting all fired up with "Ukrainegate" --
as a replacement for the non-entity Russiagate.
Trouble is that this alternative conspiracy could backfire badly for Trump's enemies.
Because, despite the obsession with trying to impeach Trump, the renewed focus on
Ukraine raises legitimate and serious questions about the past dealings of Joe Biden.
In March 2014, Biden's son Hunter was
slung out of the Navy Reserve for his cocaine habit. Then a month later, the younger Biden
ends up on the executive board of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. This was all
only weeks after the Obama administration and European allies had backed an illegal coup in
Kiev against the elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
Vice President Joe Biden was the White House's point man to Ukraine, supporting the new
regime in Kiev by organizing financial and military aid. Biden even boasted how he personally
warned Yanukovych that the game was up and that he better step down during the tumultuous
CIA-backed street violence in Kiev during February 2014. "He was a dollar short and a day
late," quipped Biden about the ill-fated president.
The appointment of Biden's washed-up son to a plum job in Ukraine should have merited
intense US media scrutiny and investigation. But it didn't. One can only imagine their reaction
if, say, it had been Trump and one of his sons involved.
Moreover, in 2016, when Ukraine's Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin was conducting a probe
into allegations of corruption and sleaze at the gas company Burisma, among other businesses,
it was Vice President Joe Biden who intervened in May 2016 to call for the state lawyer to be
sacked. Biden threatened to withhold a $1 billion financial loan from Washington if the
prosecutor was not axed. He duly was in short order and the probe into Burisma was dropped.
Potentially, Joe Biden, the current top Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidency,
could see his chances unraveling if "Ukrainegate" is pushed further. The dilemma for his
supporters among the political establishment is that the more they try to beat up on Trump over
his alleged horse-trading with Ukraine, the more the heat can be turned by him on Biden over
allegations of graft and abuse of office to further his family's business interests.
Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, is this week
calling for an investigation into Biden's conduct in Ukraine.
"Joe Biden said everybody's looked at this and found nothing. Who is everybody? Nobody has
looked at the Ukraine and the Bidens," Mr. Graham told Fox News.
"There is enough smoke here," Graham added. "Was there a relationship between the vice
president's family and the Ukraine business world that was
inappropriate? I don't know. Somebody other than me needs to look at it and I don't trust the
media to get to the bottom of it."
Ukrainegate could turn out to be even far more damaging to the Democrats. Because there is
evidence that it was the US-backed Kiev regime which helped seed political dirt on Paul
Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is facing jail time for fraud and tax
offenses unearthed by the Mueller probe. Mueller did not find any link between Manafort and a
"Kremlin influence campaign", as was speculated. However, because Manafort did work previously
as a political manager for the ousted Ukrainian President Yanukovcyh, he was seen as a
liability for Trump. Was Russiagate always Ukrainegate all along?
Apart from Biden's potential personal conflict of interests in Ukraine, the country may turn
out to be the key to where the whole Russiagate fiasco was first dreamt up by Democrats, Kiev
regime operatives and US intelligence enemies of Trump.
Ukrainegate has a lot more political skeletons to tumble from the wardrobe. Those skeletons
may bury Democrats and their liberal media-intelligence backers , rather than Trump.
"... Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy . ..."
"... And sure enough, if The New York Times is to be believed, the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was detailed to work at the White House at one point , according to three people familiar with his identity. The man has since returned to the C.I.A. , the people said. ..."
"... Trump's WH staff is a sh##show. One or more of them leaked. Trump has "spies" everywhere. Even Trump's darling, Israel, spies on him with impunity. ..."
"... Trump's only ask was of the Crowdstrike 2016 server, it was the Ukraine Prez that brought up Rudy to look at Biden. Would never know from the morons that write about stuff they never actually read. ..."
"... "BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine. " ..."
"... Saw some videos on Twitter today of sports bars breaking out into chants yesterday when Pelosi made her hostage-video announcement about the impeachment inquiry. They have the public eating out of their hand. They think this is sports. Nation of selfie-taking monkeys. Begging to be enslaved. ..."
"... Trump will have to act in ways he is not prepared for as a celebrity and real estate showman. He has to make a little bit of history, the type they write about 250 years later. Fate is fickle. His old life is gone forever. His new one requires him to act decisively and with ruthlessness, as Machiavelli advises. ..."
Soon after the Ukraine-gate "whistleblower" complaint was made public, questions about the source's
knowledge and background began to rise,
as one former CIA officer noted
very specifically:
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help.
I
know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the
intel oversight committees.
Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee
members?
My view is that
this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come
from a typical whistleblower.
Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups
opposed to the president involved?
This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to
come
because IC officers appear to be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign
officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White House.
Worst of all,
this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line
into policy
.
And sure enough,
if The New York Times
is to be believed,
the complainant is a C.I.A. officer who was
detailed to work at the White House at one point
, according to three people familiar with his
identity. The man has
since returned to the C.I.A.
, the people said.
The NYTimes,
of course, puts its spin on the news, claiming that the whistle-blower's expertise will likely add to
lawmakers' confidence about the merits of his complaint. However, given the current state of affairs,
we suspect it will simply remind a deeply divided nation of the
bias and prejudice that exists
behind the President's back.
As Chuck Schumer once warned Trump:
"Let me tell you:
You take on the intelligence community - they have six ways from
Sunday at getting back at you
... So, even for a practical supposedly hard-nosed
businessman, he's being really dumb to do this."
Since when do people not actually read the memo, rather spin made up
stuff? Trump's only ask was of the Crowdstrike 2016 server, it was
the Ukraine Prez that brought up Rudy to look at Biden. Would never
know from the morons that write about stuff they never actually read.
"BREAKING: A large cache of confidential foreign documents have just
been leaked implicating Joe Biden, George Soros, Hillary Clinton and
Joseph Misfud's collusion and possible criminal activity in Ukraine.
"
How stupid is the American public -- we have the CIA in what is
probably step 6 of a planned-9 or 10-step process to literally
overthrow a president -- and where is everyone? Taking the side of
the goddamn CIA! Holllly Christ we are fucked.
Saw some videos on
Twitter today of sports bars breaking out into chants yesterday when
Pelosi made her hostage-video announcement about the impeachment
inquiry. They have the public eating out of their hand. They think
this is sports. Nation of selfie-taking monkeys. Begging to be
enslaved.
Trump will have to act in ways he is not prepared for as a
celebrity and real estate showman. He has to make a little bit of
history, the type they write about 250 years later. Fate is fickle.
His old life is gone forever. His new one requires him to act
decisively and with ruthlessness, as Machiavelli advises.
If he refrains from acting, he will likely suffer unimaginably.
These people are demons. I trust he knows it.
The key question here is: Is Nancy Pelosi a CIA controlled politician who followed Breenan instruction to open the second stage
of the color revolution against Trump. Her long service in House Intelligence Committee suggest that this is a possibility.
Nancy Pelosi just took the biggest gamble of her entire political career. If she is ultimately successful, she will be remembered
as the woman that removed Donald Trump from the White House, and Democrats will treat her like a hero for the rest of her life. But
if she fails and Trump wins in 2020, the backlash that she created when she tried to impeach Trump is likely to be blamed, and she
could potentially lose her leadership role in the House. Of course at that point she probably wouldn't want to remain in the House
much longer, and she would be hated by many Democrats for the rest of her life for subjecting them to four more years of Trump. So
it really is all on the line for Nancy Pelosi, and she never should have gone down this road if she wasn't absolutely certain that
she could deliver.
And at this point, most Americans don't want impeachment proceedings to happen. For example, just check out what a Politico/Morning
Consult poll just found
In the poll -- conducted Friday through Sunday, as stories circled about Trump allegedly pressuring Ukraine to investigate
former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the Democratic candidates hoping to oust him -- 36 percent of respondents said they believe
Congress should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday the opening of a formal impeachment inquiry against Trump in response to the
Ukraine controversy. If it's found that Trump did use his presidential power to force a foreign leader to help take down a political
rival, 55 percent of U.S. adults said they would support removing him from office, according to a recent YouGov survey.
Forty-four percent of those polled said they'd "strongly support" removing Trump if the allegations are true, while another
11 percent said they'd "somewhat support" it.
But as it stands right now, on the national level this is a very unpopular decision by Pelosi, and it could potentially hurt Democrats
among key blocs of voters
Worse yet, impeachment isn't selling where Democrats made their best gains in the midterms. A majority of suburban respondents
oppose starting the impeachment process (35 percent/50 percent), with a wider gap among rural respondents (27/59), while urban
voters are more ambivalent than one might guess (47/35). Impeachment trails by double digits in the South (33/53), Midwest, (36/48),
and even in the Democrat-friendly Northeast (37/48).
Another reason why this is potentially a giant mistake by Nancy Pelosi is the fact that all of this focus on Ukraine is almost
certainly going to damage one of the frontrunners for the Democratic nomination.
All of a sudden, everyone is talking about Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Ukraine. A lot of voters are going to look into what happened,
and they are not going to be pleased. And this comes at a time when Elizabeth Warren is surging in the polls, and real votes will
start to be cast in just a few months.
Up until recently, the Biden campaign had successfully kept the focus off Hunter Biden and Ukraine , and Joe was widely considered
to be the heavy favorite to win the nomination.
But now everything could change thanks to Nancy Pelosi.
And what if this push toward impeachment is not successful? Trump's base is going to be extremely fired up by all of the political
drama over the next several months, and if Trump survives it is going to be a huge boost for his campaign.
All of the recent polls indicated that a Democrat was likely to win in 2020, and there was a very good chance that the Democrats
were going to take the Senate too, but now this could dramatically shift public opinion and change everything.
Nancy Pelosi is rolling the dice, and if she fails it is going to be absolutely disastrous for the Democratic Party. The following
is how
Matthew Walther summarized the situation that she is facing
Pelosi knows this will not be popular. She knows more than that. She knows that it will be a disaster for the Democratic Party,
that it will inflame the president's base and inspire even his most lukewarm supporters with a sense of outrage. She knows that
in states like Michigan, upon which her party's chances in 2020 will depend, the question of impeachment does not poll well. She
knows, further, that Joe Biden will not be able to spend the next 14 or so months refusing to answer questions about the activities
of his son, Hunter, in Ukraine, and that increased scrutiny of the vice president's record in office will not rebound to his credit.
She and her fellow Democratic leaders had better hope that someone like Elizabeth Warren manages to steal the nomination away
from him before this defines his candidacy the way that Hillary Clinton's emails and paid speechmaking did during and after the
2016 primaries.
And it isn't going to be easy for Pelosi to be successful, because she is going to need 67 votes in the Senate to convict Trump,
and right now Democrats only hold 47 seats.
In the end, this is yet another example that proves that America's political system is deeply broken, and we desperately need
a seismic change .
Because no matter what the end result is, this entire episode is going to be a giant stain in the history books.
If future generations of Americans get the chance, they will look back on this entire saga with disgust.
And if our founders could see us today, they would be rolling over in their graves, because this is not what they intended.
"... Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found. ..."
"... How deep where these involvements? Are there Ukrainian sources in the debunked Steele dossier about Trump? ..."
"... Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian interference in the election was a big issue. Why is Ukrainian interference not of interest? ..."
"... Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's employer? ..."
It alleges what was publicly known even before the phone call between Trump and the
Ukrainian President Zelensky was published.
During the then still ongoing Mueller investigation Rudi Giuliani, as a private lawyer for
President Trump, tried to find exculpating information which he hoped would debunk the
allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia.
It was known that there had been involvement
of Ukraine related people as well as of Ukrainian officials in Russiagate and the election
campaigns:
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by
publicly questioning his fitness for office. They also disseminated documents implicating a
top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back
away after the election. And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on
Trump and his advisers, a Politico investigation found.
How deep where these involvements? Are there Ukrainian sources in the debunked Steele
dossier about Trump?
There was also the mysterious fact that just three weeks after the U.S. managed 2014 coup
in Ukraine, in which Joe Biden as then U.S. vice-president was heavily involved, Joe Biden's
son Hunter started to receive more that $50,000 per month for being on the board of a
Ukrainian gas company even though he had no knowledge of the gas business or the Ukraine.
In April the then Prosecutor General of the Ukraine Lutsenko was quoted in The
Hill mentioning the above allegations.
Giuliani hoped that the Ukraine would investigate both issues and would find facts that
might help to exculpate Trump. He openly spoke about this in several TV appearances and
interviews
since at least March 2019.
On July 24 the Mueller investigation into Russiagate closed. On July 25 Trump had a phone
call with Zelensky in which Trump mildly pressed for further Ukrainian investigations into
both issues, the Ukrainian involvement in Russigate and the U.S. election and the case of
Hunter Biden. Zelensky responded that he would so. He later said that he found the telephone
call "normal".
The whistleblower, presumably someone of medium to higher rank in the CIA, is concerned
that Trump's request to Zelensky is a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of
law or Executive Order" that justify his action.
The Democrats in Congress will make similar claims. But there are reasons to see the issue
completely differently.
Attorney General Barr has opened an investigation into the roots of the debunked
Russiagate claims. An investigation on the ground in the Ukraine could surely help to find
evidence proving or disproving Ukrainian involvement in it.
Biden had publicly bragged to have blackmailed the then Ukrainian President Poroshenko
into firing the then Prosecutor General of the Ukraine Shokin. Shokin had at that time an
open case against the owner of the Ukrainian company Biden's son worked for. Biden's
intervention smells of corruption or at least undue interference by a U.S. official for
personal reasons.
Trump can reasonable argue that investigations in the Ukraine into both issues are in the
U.S. public interest.
Did Ukrainian officials interfere in the 2016 election by creating or hyping the
debunked Russiagate affair and by supporting the Clinton campaign? Alleged Russian
interference in the election was a big issue. Why is Ukrainian interference not of
interest?
Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in
Ukraine? Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?
Has the U.S. public an interest in knowing the answers to these questions?
If it has such interest why shouldn't the president concern himself with pushing the
Ukrainian president to investigate the issues? Kettle meet pot.
The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom, used to accuse another
speaker of hypocrisy, in that the speaker disparages the subject for a fault or negative
behavior that could equally be applied to him or her, though there is an alternative
interpretation. In former times cast iron pots and kettles were quickly blackened from the
soot of the fire. The pot would then be hypocritical to insult the kettle's colour, since
both are black with soot. When used in debate, the "pot calling the kettle black" may be
illogical, as it is a form of the argument ad hominem.
I firmly believe that the public face of those who rule the US is a unipolar political party
that I call the Kayfabe Party.
The "Ukrainian Affair" is yet another chapter in the never-ending staged Presnitial Match
where the "limited hang-out" Biden Clan makes another move towards the "heel" Trump's 2020
"victory" while shielding the Dems "babyface" 2024 wannabe's.
Sorry for all the "Air Quotes", but that's what kayfabe is all about.
Enrico Malatesta , Sep 26 2019 15:12 utc |
3Jackrabbit , Sep 26 2019
15:52 utc |
4
b:
Did Joe Biden use his influence to get his unqualified son a high paying job in Ukraine?
Did he use his official powers as vice president to the advantage of Hunter Biden's
employer?
Did Trump appoint family members to government positions? Did Trump block attempts to
understand what conflicts of interest he may have by not releasing his tax returns as all
candidates for high office did previously? Did Trump chose Pence (McCain's guy), Bolton
(neocon guy), Haspel (Brennan's gal), Barr (Bush's guy and Mueller's friend) and others as
part of a 'deal' with the Deep State to win the 2016 Presidential election? Was Trump the
nationalist that Kissinger called for in his 2014 WSJ Op-Ed in which he called for MAGA as a
strategy for meeting the challenge from Russia and China?
Is Biden just another Deep State political operative that is playing a part? Another
"flawed candidate" (like Hillary) for MAGA Trump to trounce?
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Is this latest farce just a nothing-burger distraction from the fact that we are on the
brink of war?
Just think, another year of this still to come. The final shootout between Trump and his
enemies over who is the bigger crook and traitor; and lucky Ukraine the mark in both cases.
Wow. Zelenski looked like he swallowed a bug when Trump started running his big mouth.
"... Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign leaders. ..."
"... The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump's conduct "in the course of official interagency business," according to the complaint, which was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by senior Ukrainian officials. ..."
"... He also obliquely threatened the whistle-blower or his sources with punishment. "I want to know who's the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that's close to a spy," Mr. Trump told staff members from the United States Mission to the United Nations before an event there. ..."
"... "You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?" he added. "We used to handle it a little differently than we do now." ..."
Whistle-Blower Is a CIA Officer Who Was Detailed
to the White House https://nyti.ms/2ltzVye
NYT - Adam Goldman, Michael S. Schmidt
and Julian E. Barnes - September 26
WASHINGTON -- The whistle-blower who revealed that President Trump sought foreign help for
his re-election and that the White House sought to cover it up is a C.I.A. officer who was
detailed to work at the White House at one point, according to three people familiar with his
identity.
The man has since returned to the C.I.A., the people said. Little else is known about him.
His complaint made public Thursday suggested he was an analyst by training and made clear he
was steeped in details of American foreign policy toward Europe, demonstrating a
sophisticated understanding of Ukrainian politics and at least some knowledge of the law.
The whistle-blower's expertise will likely add to lawmakers' confidence about the merits
of his complaint, and tamp down allegations that he might have misunderstood what he learned
about Mr. Trump. He did not listen directly to a July call between Mr. Trump and President
Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine that is at the center of the political firestorm over the
president's mixing of diplomacy with personal political gain.
Lawyers for the whistle-blower refused to confirm that he worked for the C.I.A. and said
that publishing information about him was dangerous.
"Any decision to report any perceived identifying information of the whistle-blower is
deeply concerning and reckless, as it can place the individual in harm's way," said Andrew
Bakaj, his lead counsel. "The whistle-blower has a right to anonymity."
The C.I.A. referred questions to the inspector general for the intelligence agencies. A
spokeswoman for the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, said that
protecting the whistle-blower was his office's highest priority. "We must protect those who
demonstrate the courage to report alleged wrongdoing, whether on the battlefield or in the
workplace," Mr. Maguire said at a hearing on Thursday, adding that he did not know the
whistle-blower's identity.
Dean Baquet, the executive editor of The New York Times, said The Times was right to
publish information about the whistle-blower. "The role of the whistle-blower, including his
credibility and his place in the government, is essential to understanding one of the most
important issues facing the country -- whether the president of the United States abused
power and whether the White House covered it up."
Agents, officers and analysts from the military, intelligence and law enforcement
communities routinely work at the White House. Often, they work on the National Security
Council or help manage secure communications, like calls between the president and foreign
leaders.
The C.I.A. officer did not work on the communications team that handles calls with foreign
leaders, according to the people familiar with his identity. He learned about Mr. Trump's
conduct "in the course of official interagency business," according to the complaint, which
was dotted with footnotes about machinations in Kiev and reinforced with public comments by
senior Ukrainian officials.
Officials regularly shared information to "inform policymaking and analysis," the
complaint said. The complaint raises the prospect that the whistle-blower was not detailed to
the White House either during the events in question or when he learned about them. Mr. Trump took aim at the whistle-blower's credibility on Thursday, attempting to dismiss
his revelations because they were secondhand.
He also obliquely threatened the whistle-blower or his sources with punishment. "I want to
know who's the person who gave the whistle-blower the information because that's close to a
spy," Mr. Trump told staff members from the United States Mission to the United Nations
before an event there.
"You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason,
right?" he added. "We used to handle it a little differently than we do now."
On the call with Mr. Zelensky, Mr. Trump asked him to investigate unsubstantiated
allegations of corruption against former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son and
other matters he saw as potentially beneficial to him politically.
Mr. Trump cajoled Mr. Zelensky to coordinate with Attorney General William P. Barr and the
president's personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, according to a reconstituted transcript of
the call that the White House released on Wednesday. Mr. Zelensky, who was elected in April,
agreed to help Mr. Trump. While Ukrainian prosecutors have moved to pursue an inquiry of an
oligarch whose company paid Mr. Biden's son Hunter, they did not allege wrongdoing by the
Bidens.
The call with Mr. Zelensky was originally thought to be a routine matter, the complaint
said, and the White House did not restrict it, meaning a number of officials and note takers
listened.
But the whistle-blower said that afterward, White House officials "intervened to 'lock
down' all records of the phone call," putting them in a highly classified system meant for
discussing covert actions. One White House official called that an abuse because the
transcript contained no classified material.
Notes and rough transcripts of White House calls are typically stored on a computer system
that allows senior officials in different departments and agencies to access them, to better
coordinate policy.
Some White House colleagues told the whistle-blower that they were concerned they had
witnessed "the president abuse his office for personal gain," according to the complaint.
...
The complaint looks like a "lawyer-assisted document." Produced by a team, not by a single
person. It clearly was carefully designed to inflict maximum damage to replace Russiagate
hysteria with a new one and put Trump on the defensive.
Which was fully achieved. Pelosi decision is also a huge pressure point even when actual
impeachment is above her political capabilities.
But it definitely replaces the pressure of Mueller/Weissmann commission on Trump with an
equal or higher pressure, and may even surpass in the effectiveness Andrew Weissmann witch
hunt.
Now "full of Schiff" members of House have a new bone to chew. They can drag Trump thru
the mud for the next six months, hoping that this will turn the election their way.
Which might well be a wrong assumption, as it cemented Trump coalition and outraged people
who were ready to abandon Trump, so the percentage of former Trump supporters who would stay
home, but now will go to the voting booth might be an unpleasant surprise for neoliberal
Democrats.
Previously Trump chances were IMHO not that great as he proved to be a very weak,
impulsive President, one-trick pony who assumes that bullying is the diplomacy and
negotiating strategy all-in-one, who accepted rabid neocons like Bolton into his
administration, who was pandering to Netanyahu, and who he betrayed most of his election
promises. Without Russiagate2 he can run only on inertia and stock market value, which is not
much. So I would consider the possibility the Trump welcomes this impeachment process as his
last chance. He might well anticipate difficulties competing against Warren; who would beat
him on domestic policy for at least half of Trump base, and she has less baggage in foreign
policy, so she can attract anti-war independents who in 2016 voted for Trump).
In any case, the person who signed it might well be just a pre-selected "placeholder" for
information which was leaked by other people, much like Steele relations with Fusion GPS,
when it is unclear whether Steele supplied information to them or vice versa, or
CIA-connected Nelly Ohr provided material to Steele so that he returned it as his own,
supposedly obtained from a "respectable foreign source", whitewashing the real source.
The scenario of operation really looks like the second stage of the "palace coup" run by
Brennan faction in CIA and other intelligence agencies (surviving members of McCabe faction
in FBI.) Its start with some equivalent of Steele dossier produced by a supposedly
"respectable source" also closely resembles Russiagate with neoliberal MSM driving the
hysteria even before facts were known.
That's why I would call this scandal Russiagate2, not Ukraine-gate. As Proverbs 16:4 puts
it, "The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, even the wicked for the day of
evil."
"... Of note, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) began the hearing with a completely fabricated account of a July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - the actual transcript of which was released on Wednesday, revealing Trump urging - not threatening or pressuring - Zelelsky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. ..."
"... In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. - The Hill ..."
"... "I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling the conversation with Poroshenko. ..."
Moments
after an anonymous whistleblower complaint against President Trump was released, acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph
Maguire is offering public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee to discuss the matter.
Of note, Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) began the hearing with a completely fabricated account of a July 25 call between President
Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - the actual transcript of which was released on Wednesday, revealing Trump urging
- not threatening or pressuring - Zelelsky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden.
Last year, Biden openly bragged about threatening to hurl Ukraine into bankruptcy as Vice President if they didn't fire their
top prosecutor , Viktor Shokin - who was leading a wide-ranging corruption investigation into a natural gas firm whose board Hunter
Biden sat on , collecting $50,000 per month.
In his own words, with video cameras rolling,
Biden described
how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in
U.S. loan guarantees , sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn't immediately fire Prosecutor General
Viktor Shokin. -
The Hill
"I said, ' You're not getting the billion .' I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at
them and said: ' I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money, '" bragged Biden, recalling
the conversation with Poroshenko.
" Well, son of a bitch, he got fired . And they put in place someone who was solid at the time," Biden said at the Council on
Foreign Relations event - while insisting that former president Obama was complicit in the threat.
"... Fleitz then writes that "that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower," adding " Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? " ..."
"... This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction over these calls. ..."
"... The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members? ..."
"... What did House and Senate intel committee dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint? ..."
"... My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? ..."
"... This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials. ..."
In light of Thursday's public release of a 'whistleblower' complaint, who was "not a witness to most of hte events described"
in their allegation that President Trump abused his office to request that Ukraine investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's
dealings in the country, former CIA analyst and National Security Council (NSC) official Fred Fleitz has provided his take on the
whole thing via Twitter .
Notably, Fleitz - CEO of the Center for Security Policy - points out that " The way this complaint was written suggested the author
had a lot of help, " adding "I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel
oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel committee members? "
Fleitz then writes that "that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower,"
adding " Were other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved? "
Read the thread below (emphasis ours):
As a former CIA analyst and former NSC official who edited transcripts of POTUS phone calls with foreign leaders, here are
my thoughts on the whistleblower complaint which was just released. . .
intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/
This is not an intelligence matter. It is a policy matter and a complaint about differences over policy. Presidential
phone calls are not an intelligence concern. The fact that IC officers transcribe these calls does not give the IC IG jusrisdiction
over these calls.
It appears that rules restricting access and knowledge of these sensitive calls was breached . This official was not on this
call, not on the approved dissem list and should not have been briefed on the call.
The way this complaint was written suggested the author had a lot of help. I know from my work on the House Intel Commitee
staff that many whistleblowers go directly to the intel oversight committees. Did this whistleblower first meet with House Intel
committee members?
It is therefore important that Congress find out where this complaint came from. What did House and Senate intel committee
dem members and staff know about it and when? Did they help orchestrate this complaint?
My view is that this whistleblower complaint is too convenient and too perfect to come from a typical whistleblower. Were
other IC officers involved? Where outside groups opposed to the president involved?
This complaint will further damage IC relations with the White House for many years to come because IC officers appear to
be politicizing presidential phone calls with foreign officials and their access to the president and his activities in the White
House.
Worst of all, this IC officer -- and probably others -- have blatantly crossed the line into policy . This violates a core
responsibility of IC officers is to inform, but not make policy.
This is such a grevious violation of trust between the IC and the White House that it would not surprise me if IC officers
are barred from all access to POTUS phone calls with foreign officials.
"... Two weeks later, the Financial Times did a story about Ukraine's takedown of Manafort, including quotes from Leshchenko and Western analysts. "The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's biggest ally," it began, "has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election." ..."
"... Reading the article in 2019, after three years of nonstop coverage about overseas meddling in US democracy, is stunning. Here is an established Western outlet calmly discussing successful foreign influence of an American presidential campaign as a neat little coup, a bit of gutsy international derring-do. ..."
"... "My desire to expose Manafort's doings was motivated by the desire for justice," wrote Leschenko in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Biden, nor John Podesta, nor George Soros asked me to publish the information from the black ledger." ..."
Vulnerabilities in US election security need attention, and Ukraine's 2016 impact could
be instructive.
... ... ...
Ukraine's role in the 2016 race is undeniable: In the summer of 2016, Kiev's release of the
so-called "black ledger" resulted in Manafort's ouster from the Trump campaign. The actions of
foreign actors -- however well-intentioned -- directly impacted an American election.
One would imagine Washington media and lawmakers -- who spent three years combing through
every aspect of Moscow's interference in our election -- might direct similar attention to
Kiev's impact. Yet the Ukrainian angle barely made headlines.
If we want to get serious about safeguarding our electoral process from all foreign actors,
not just Moscow-based ones, it's time to examine Ukraine as well.
On August 14, 2016, The New York Times published a bombshell
about what would become known as the "black ledger" -- a handwritten document alleging millions
of off-the-books payments to Manafort by the Party of Regions, led by his former client Viktor
Yanukovych, the ousted pro-Russian president of Ukraine. The Times received the ledger
from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU), an independent government
agency.
The story rocked the 2016 election, given Manafort's position as head of Trump's campaign.
The Hillary Clinton campaign immediately seized on it as proof that Manafort -- and therefore
Trump -- was tied to Yanukovych and the Kremlin.
Four days later, the Times ran a
follow-up story, based on more details released by NABU and publicity by Serhei Leshchenko,
a member of the Ukrainian parliament, who told the Times he'd studied the ledger. The
next day, Manafort resigned from Trump's campaign.
Two weeks later, the Financial Times did a story about Ukraine's
takedown of Manafort, including quotes from Leshchenko and Western analysts. "The prospect of
Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine's arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country's
biggest ally," it began, "has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev's wider political
leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however
indirectly, in a US election."
"Mr Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue their efforts to
prevent a candidate from reaching the summit of American political power," the story went
on.
Reading the article in 2019, after three years of nonstop coverage about overseas meddling
in US democracy, is stunning. Here is an established Western outlet calmly discussing
successful foreign influence of an American presidential campaign as a neat little coup, a bit
of gutsy international derring-do.
Calling the intervention "indirect" is a bit generous, as well. Manafort was ousted based on
handwritten pieces of paper -- the story would've never gone anywhere without NABU and
Leshchenko's vouching for the ledger's authenticity. That's as direct as it gets.
Of course, all this occurred in August of 2016, when the prospect of a Trump presidency was
seen as inconceivable. After Trump's election,
Leshchenko and
NABU frantically denied their intent to damage the Trump campaign, claiming the ledger was
publicized solely because of their concern to stamp out corruption and had nothing to do with
US politics.
"My desire to expose Manafort's doings was motivated by the desire for justice,"
wrote Leschenko in a recent Washington Post op-ed. "Neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe
Biden, nor John Podesta, nor George Soros asked me to publish the information from the black
ledger."
Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort's corruption, and the man's
subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose. But Ukraine's efforts also
happened to coincide with -- and have an immediate impact on -- an American campaign. And yet,
despite this information's being available in English, and published by established Western
media, we've had almost no debate about its implications.
To understand just how astounding that is, simply imagine if the situation were reversed.
Imagine the Financial Times ran a story about a Russian government bureau and lawmaker
leaking documents that directly resulted in the ouster of the Clinton campaign manager. Even if
everything exposed by Russia were true, it'd still be a major scandal.
None of this is to say we should ignore the Kremlin's election meddling or Trump's current
attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden. These are extraordinarily serious issues --
but so is Ukraine's impact in 2016.
It seems many Americans are under the mistaken assumption that the moment Trump leaves
office, things will return to normal. They won't. If anything, the 2016 election let the devil
out of the box -- other actors in other nations surely took notice of the ease with which a
handful of individuals in Ukraine were able to influence an American campaign. There will be
more of this. Some may be in good faith; some will not.
It is impossible to say we're taking foreign interference seriously until the media,
lawmakers, and political activists have an honest conversation about the new norms. And that
involves looking not only at Trump and Russia, but at Ukraine as well.
Lev Golinkin is the
author of A Backpack, a Bear, and Eight Crates of Vodka , Amazon's Debut of the Month
and a Barnes & Noble's Discover Great New Writers program selection. Golinkin, a graduate
of Boston College, came to the United States as a child refugee from the eastern Ukrainian city
of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in 1990. His op-eds and essays on the Ukraine crisis have
appeared in The New York Times , the Los Angeles Times , The Boston Globe
, and Time.com , among others.
"... Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions." ..."
"... The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's president. ' ..."
'US President Donald Trump has moved to suspend Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's
senior officials, relatives, and others who receive financial benefits from entering into
the US in Wednesday press release from the White House.
Citing a "political and humanitarian crisis" committed by Caracas, the White House
Office of the Press Secretary issued a "suspension of entry as immigrants and nonimmigrants
of persons who threaten Venezuela's democratic institutions."
The move comes as the latest effort from the Trump administration to oust Venezuela's
president. '
"... One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of CIA on the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very top. ..."
"... To me this is entirely plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American asset sit on the BOD? ..."
One of the reasons that I doubt Biden's version of the story stems from my experience in
Venezuela. After Chavez took power, Venezuelans told me that he had found that a critical
subsidiary of the Venezuelan oil company PDVSA was basically a CIA shop. The names of CIA on
the Board of Directors were not just ordinary CIA, but were recognizable figures at the very
top.
To me this is entirely plausible. Control of oil is critical to US global hegemony. And
what better way to control foreign oil than to have trusted American asset sit on the BOD?
This brings us to Hunter Biden's appointment to Ukrainian energy giant Burisma. After the
coup in 2014, why wouldn't Biden want a trusted asset on the board of the biggest natural gas
producer in Ukraine? IOW it was unpublicized standard operating procedure.
"... With an impeachment moving through the House, you can either kiss any and all legislation and cooperation goodbye, or Speaker Pelosi will try to move something through "to inoculate vulnerable House Democrats from the 'Do Nothing' talking-point," Cowen analyst Chris Kruger wrote in a note Tuesday. ..."
"... Two prime examples could be the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement for North American trade or a drug pricing bill that could get presidential support. Either of those options, however, do not seem very likely with an impeachment moving forward ." ..."
"... But look, that would mean that the entire Democrat nomenklatura plus their assets in the press lost their minds about a single-source story from the intelligence community where a whistleblower was operating on hearsay. I don't see how that can be. ..."
"... Remember back in April when the only thing the Dems wanted was an unredacted version of the Mueller report? Then they heard Mueller testify ..."
" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally announced Tuesday that the House will begin an
impeachment inquiry into whistleblower charges that Trump tried to pressure Ukraine's
president into investigating presidential contender Joe Biden and his son. That announcement
came less than a week after Pelosi and other top Democrats unveiled a proposal that would
allow the government to negotiate with drugmakers on the prices of at least 25 of the most
expensive drugs in Medicare and the private market in an attempt to lower prescription-drug
prices.
With an impeachment moving through the House, you can either kiss any and all legislation
and cooperation goodbye, or Speaker Pelosi will try to move something through "to inoculate
vulnerable House Democrats from the 'Do Nothing' talking-point," Cowen analyst Chris Kruger
wrote in a note Tuesday.
Two prime examples could be the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement for North American trade or a
drug pricing bill that could get presidential support. Either of those options, however, do
not seem very likely with an impeachment moving forward ."
But look, that would mean that the entire Democrat nomenklatura plus their assets in the
press lost their minds about a single-source story from the intelligence community where a
whistleblower was operating on hearsay. I don't see how that can be.
To be fair, the WSJ IIRC story looked an awful lot like a quid pro quo. So much will
depend on the transcript. If it really is a full transcript (which, interestingly, the
whistleblower would not know).
Once this happened, msnbs started saying that the dems also want the unredacted
whistleblower complaint released, since the complaint allegedly concerns not just the single
phone call, but "multiple" incidents of "wrongdoing."
"... CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country, mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though, read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO 1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long while.) ..."
"... So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another and there fore vulnerable. ..."
It has been my contention that Biden's powerful backers from the
military-industrial-intelligence-media complex are fully aware of his mental state, and that
is precisely why they want him to be president. Why? He would only be a figure-head
president. He would be given a suggested running mate as well as a list of candidates for
cabinet and other appointed positions (as Obama was given) and Biden would follow that in
making appointments. Policies of his administration would be consistent with the interests of
the military-industrial-intelligence-media complex.
robert e williamson jr , September 20, 2019 at 15:19
Kids this is exactly what the intelligence community wants, someone who they can claim
needs to be told what to do or be kept discreetly out of the loop, so currently Joe maybe the
chosen one just as Bill Barr is reported to have told Slick Willy.
We end up where we are at the moment because our security state apparatus is ran by the
intelligence community who do not really want a strong intelligent, clear minded president
who can actually think for himself. Ask Barrack Obama!
For years I've used this analogy, crude as it maybe, that when the newly elected president
is called on for his national security briefing it is always a tense encounter because this
"Newby" is about to have a come to Jesus meeting with this most abusive of all government
entities. The intelligence community. He is "shown the way"he will act because if he doesn't
this community who has relieved him of one his go -- -s will come and relieve him of the
other.
This started as a joke on my part, I'm now convinced it reflects reality.
At some point many here will understand that since around the time of the murder of JFK ,
CIA has framed things in this manner.
CIA decided under Dulles that they were the only ones capable of leading this country,
mainly because they wanted it ran their way and no other. Don't take my word for it though,
read Arthur B. Darling's "THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT TO
1950 copy right 1990 Penn State Press. (This work was classified for quite a long
while.)
Doing so will help make your mind more flexible , jeesh what a slog to get through it.
So the first thing that works in CIA et al's favor is politicians who have been in DC
long enough to be worn down and thoroughly compromised by blackmail of one sort or another
and there fore vulnerable.
I figured if Caitlin could say "dog balls " which I think was a great analogy I could say
gonads.
Time to sit down Joe.
Thanks again to Consortium News for their great efforts at informing the masses.
I don't see how he could have handled it better. He was polite and well-spoken, never
flustered or defensive, and the talking heads tumbled over one another in their eagerness to
be properly judgmental, to talk over him and recite their own talking points, and ended up
looking like buffoons. He will be a tough nut to crack, and so far the American regime has
done nothing to convince ordinary people that he is a cowardly traitor. Putting him on
television only makes him look more heroic.
And a US "talking" head, in reply to Snowdon's belief that he would not get a fair trial in
the USA (a US human rights issue, is that not, Mr.Snowdon?) says that criminals and alleged
criminals do not customarily get to determine the terms of their trial: they broke the law
and they face the consequences "
Guilty before proven innocent?
Presumption of innocence: an international human right under the UN Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, Article 11.
Nor, to the best of my recollection, did it have an Abu Ghraib. The United States actually
has a pretty shitty human-rights record if you consider it from the viewpoint of how it treas
others than Americans, and – going further back – only white Americans. The west
always tries to factor in the Holodomor, too, how Russia deliberately starved the Ukrainians
to death, as an example of their horrible human rights record.
I cringed at that one too. But I forgive Edward, because I think he was trying to make a
tactical debating point, namely:
I am not a Russia stooge, I have my criticisms of the Russian regime yada yada, and I
agree with you talking heads that their human rights record is not well received in the West.
And yet they scored a human-rights trifecta when they let me in, when not one single
"democracy" would defend me or give me asylum.
In other words, he would concede, for argumentation purposes, that Russia is bad, only to
stick it to them that Russia did well by him and scored propaganda points against the West.
It's a particular debating tactic, whose Latin name I cannot recall.
Unfortunately, Edward never got to finish his point, because those bitches cut him off
before he could even get to the punchline.
If commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks
called for a new investigation into the events of September 11 then official story is officially dead.
Notable quotes:
"... Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve. ..."
"... For instance, in late July, commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which responded to the attacks and lost one of their own that day, called for a new investigation into the events of September 11. On July 24, the board of commissioners for the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, which serves a population of around 30,000 near Queens, voted unanimously in their call for a new investigation into the attacks. ..."
"... Commissioner Christopher Gioia, who drafted and introduced the resolution, told those present at the meeting's conclusion that getting all of the New York fire districts onboard was their plan anyway. ..."
"... "We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an unstoppable force," Gioia said. "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We won't be the last," he added. ..."
"... While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even those who led the commission have said that the investigation was "set up to fail" from the start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the events of that day. ..."
"... For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, wrote in their book Without Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). ..."
"... Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites "uncontrolled building fires" as leading to the building's destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject the official story, based on a new YouGov poll released on Monday. ..."
"... That poll found that 52 percent of those who saw the footage were either sure or suspected that the building's fall was due to explosives and was a controlled demolition, with 27 percent saying they didn't know what to make of the footage. Only 21 percent of those polled agreed with the official story that the building collapsed due to fires alone. Prior to seeing the footage, 36 percent of respondents said that they were unaware that a third building collapsed on September 11 and more than 67 percent were unable to name the building that had collapsed. ..."
"... Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, told MintPress that the lack of awareness about WTC 7 among the general public "goes to show that the mainstream media has completely failed to inform the American people about even the most basic facts related to 9/11. On any other day in history, if a 47-story skyscraper fell into its footprint due to 'office fires,' everyone in the country would have heard about it." ..."
"... The Americans who felt that the video footage of WTC 7's collapse did not fit with the official narrative and appeared to show a controlled demolition now have more scientific evidence to fall back on after the release of a new university study found that the building came down not due to fire but from "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building." The extensive four-year study was conducted by the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska and used complex computer models to determine if the building really was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed solely due to office fires. ..."
"... The only reason it remains taboo to ask questions about the official narrative, whose own authors admit that it is both flawed and incomplete, is that the dominant forces in the American media and the U.S. government have successfully convinced many Americans that doing so is not only dangerous but irrational and un-American. ..."
Evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational
narrative of September 11, and it becomes ever more clear that the media remains committed to
preventing legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they
deserve.
Today the event that defined the United States' foreign policy in the 21st century, and
heralded the destruction of whole countries, turns 18. The events of September 11, 2001 remains
etched into the memories of Americans and many others, as a collective tragedy that brought
Americans together and brought as well a general resolve among them that those responsible be
brought to justice.
While the events of that day did unite Americans in these ways for a time, the different
trajectories of the official relative to the independent investigations into the September 11
attacks have often led to division in the years since 2001, with vicious attacks or outright
dismissal being levied against the latter.
Yet, with 18 years having come and gone -- and with the tireless efforts from victims'
families, first responders, scientists and engineers -- the tide appears to be turning, as new
evidence continues to emerge and calls for new investigations are made. However, American
corporate media has remained largely silent, preferring to ignore new developments that could
derail the "official story" of one of the most iconic and devastating attacks to ever occur on
American soil.
For instance, in late July, commissioners for a New York-area Fire Department, which
responded to the attacks and lost one of their own that day,
called for a new investigation into the events of September 11. On July 24, the board of
commissioners for the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District, which serves a population of
around 30,000 near Queens, voted unanimously in their call for a new investigation into the
attacks.
While the call for a new investigation from a NY Fire Department involved in the rescue
effort would normally seem newsworthy to the media outlets who often rally Americans to "never
forget," the commissioners' call for a new investigation was met with total silence from the
mainstream media. The likely reason for the dearth of coverage on an otherwise newsworthy vote
was likely due to the fact that the resolution that called for the new investigation contained
the following clause:
Whereas, the overwhelming evidence presented in said petition demonstrates beyond any
doubt that pre-planted explosives and/or incendiaries -- not just airplanes and the ensuing
fires -- caused the destruction of the three World Trade Center buildings, killing the vast
majority of the victims who perished that day;"
In the post-9/11 world, those who have made such claims, no matter how well-grounded their
claims may be, have often been derided and attacked as "conspiracy theorists" for questioning
the official claims that the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on September 11
did so for any reason other than being struck by planes and from the resulting fires. Yet, it
is much more difficult to launch these same attacks against members of a fire department that
lost a fireman on September 11 and many of whose members were involved with the rescue efforts
of that day, some of whom still suffer from chronic illnesses as a result.
Rescue workers climb on piles of rubble at the World Trade Center in New York, Sept. 13,
2001. Beth A. Keiser | AP
Another likely reason that the media monolithically avoided coverage of the vote was out of
concern that it would lead more fire departments to pass similar resolutions, which would make
it more difficult for such news to avoid gaining national coverage. Yet, Commissioner
Christopher Gioia, who drafted and introduced the resolution, told those present at the
meeting's conclusion that getting all of the New York fire districts onboard was their plan
anyway.
"We're a tight-knit community and we never forget our fallen brothers and sisters. You
better believe that when the entire fire service of New York State is on board, we will be an
unstoppable force," Gioia said. "We were the first fire district to pass this resolution. We
won't be the last," he added.
While questioning the official conclusions of the first federal investigation into 9/11 has
been treated as taboo in the American media landscape for years, it is worth noting that even
those who led the commission have said that the investigation was "set up to fail" from the
start and that they were repeatedly misled and lied to by federal officials in relation to the
events of that day.
For instance, the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton,
wrote in their book Without
Precedent that not only was the commission starved of funds and its powers of
investigation oddly limited, but that they were obstructed and outright lied to by top Pentagon
officials and officials with the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA). They and other commissioners
have outright said
that the "official" report on the attacks is incomplete, flawed and unable to answer key
questions about the terror attacks.
Despite the failure of American corporate media to report these facts, local legislative
bodies in New York, beginning with the fire districts that lost loved ones and friends that
day, are leading the way in the search for real answers that even those that wrote the
"official story" say were deliberately kept from them.
Persuasive scientific evidence continues to roll in
Not long after the Franklin Square and Munson Fire District called for a new 9/11
investigation, a groundbreaking university study added even more weight to the commissioners'
call for a new look at the evidence regarding the collapse of three buildings at the World
Trade Center complex. While most Americans know full well that the twin towers collapsed on
September 11, fewer are aware that a third building -- World Trade Center Building 7 -- also
collapsed. That collapse occurred seven hours after the twin towers came down, even though WTC
7, or "Building 7," was never struck by a plane.
It was not until nearly two months after its collapse that reports revealed that the CIA
had a "secret office" in WTC 7 and that, after the building's destruction, "a special CIA team
scoured the rubble in search of secret documents and intelligence reports stored in the
station, either on paper or in computers." WTC 7 also housed offices for the Department of
Defense, the Secret Service, the New York Mayor's Office of Emergency Management and the bank
Salomon Brothers.
Though the official story regarding the collapse of WTC 7 cites "uncontrolled building
fires" as leading to the building's destruction, a majority of Americans who have seen the
footage of the 47-story tower come down from four different angles overwhelmingly reject
the official story, based on a new
YouGov poll released on Monday.
That poll found that 52 percent of those who saw the footage were either sure or suspected
that the building's fall was due to explosives and was a controlled demolition, with 27 percent
saying they didn't know what to make of the footage. Only 21 percent of those polled agreed
with the official story that the building collapsed due to fires alone. Prior to seeing the
footage, 36 percent of respondents said that they were unaware that a third building collapsed
on September 11 and more than 67 percent were unable to name the building that had
collapsed.
Ted Walter, Director of Strategy and Development for Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth, told MintPress that the lack of awareness about WTC 7 among the general public
"goes to show that the mainstream media has completely failed to inform the American people
about even the most basic facts related to 9/11. On any other day in history, if a 47-story
skyscraper fell into its footprint due to 'office fires,' everyone in the country would have
heard about it."
The fact that the media chose not to cover this, Walter asserted, shows that "the mainstream
media and the political establishment live in an alternative universe and the rest of the
American public is living in a different universe and responding to what they see in front of
them," as reflected by the results of the recent YouGov poll.
Another significant finding of the YouGov poll was that 48 percent of respondents supported,
while only 15 percent opposed, a new investigation into the events of September 11. This shows
that not only was the Franklin Square Fire District's recent call for a new investigation in
line with American public opinion, but that viewing the footage of WTC 7's collapse raises more
questions than answers for many Americans, questions that were not adequately addressed by the
official investigation of the 9/11 Commission.
The Americans who felt that the video footage of WTC 7's collapse did not fit with the
official narrative and appeared to show a controlled demolition now have more scientific
evidence to fall back on after the release of a new university study found that the building
came down not due to fire but from "the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the
building." The extensive four-year study was conducted by the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska and used complex computer models to
determine if the building really was the first steel-framed high-rise ever to have collapsed
solely due to office fires.
The study, currently available as a draft , concluded that "uncontrolled building fires"
did not lead the building to fall into its footprint -- tumbling more than 100 feet at the rate
of gravity free-fall for 2.5 seconds of its seven-second collapse -- as has officially been
claimed. Instead, the study -- authored by Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Feng Xiao and Dr. Zhili
Quan -- found that "fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the
conclusions of NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology] and private engineering
firms that studied the collapse," while also concluding "that the collapse of WTC 7 was a
global [i.e., comprehensive] failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in
the building."
This "near-simultaneous failure of every column" in WTC 7 strongly suggests that explosives
were involved in its collapse, which is further supported by the statements made by
Barry Jennings, the then-Deputy Director of Emergency Services Department for the New York City
Housing Authority. Jennings
told a reporter the day of the attack that he and Michael Hess, then-Corporation Counsel
for New York City, had heard and seen explosions in WTC 7 several hours prior to its collapse
and later repeated those claims to filmmaker Dylan Avery. The first responders who helped
rescue Jennings and Hess also claimed to have heard explosions in WTC 7. Jennings died in 2008,
two days prior the release of the official NIST report blaming WTC 7's collapse on fires. To
date, no official cause of death for Jennings has been given.
Still "crazy" after all these years?
Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government narrative
of the events of those days still remains taboo for many, as merely asking questions or calling
for a new investigation into one of the most important events in recent American history
frequently results in derision and dismissal.
Yet, this 9/11 anniversary -- with a new study demolishing the official narrative on WTC 7,
with a new poll showing that more than half of Americans doubt the government narrative on WTC
7, and with firefighters who responded to 9/11 calling for a new investigation -- is it still
"crazy" to be skeptical of the official story?
Firefighters hose down the smoldering remains of 7 World Trade Center Tuesday, Sept. 18,
2001, in New York. Ryan Remiorz | AP
Even in years past, when asking difficult questions about September 11 was even more "off
limits," it was often first responders, survivors and victims' families who had asked the most
questions about what had really transpired that day and who have led the search for truth for
nearly two decades -- not wild-eyed "conspiracy theorists," as many have claimed.
The only reason it remains taboo to ask questions about the official narrative, whose own
authors admit that it is both flawed and incomplete, is that the dominant forces in the
American media and the U.S. government have successfully convinced many Americans that doing so
is not only dangerous but irrational and un-American.
However, as evidence continues to mount that the official narrative itself is the irrational
narrative, it becomes ever more clear that the reason for this media campaign is to prevent
legitimate questions about that day from receiving the scrutiny they deserve, even smearing
victims' families and ailing first responders to do so. For too long, "Never Forget" has been
nearly synonymous with "Never Question."
Yet, failing to ask those questions -- even when more Americans than ever now favor a new
investigation and discount the official explanation for WTC 7's collapse -- is the ultimate
injustice, not only to those who died in New York City on September 11, but those who have been
killed in their names in the years that have followed.
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to
several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute
and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and
is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in
Journalism.
Leroy Hulsey et al. of the University of Alaska Fairbanks released their draft report on WTC7
on September 3rd. These are the major findings and conclusions:
" The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC
7 on
9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the
collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global
failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.
This conclusion is based primarily upon the finding that the simultaneous failure of
all
core columns over 8 stories followed 1.3 seconds later by the simultaneous failure of all
exterior columns over 8 stories produces almost exactly the behavior observed in videos of
the collapse, whereas no other sequence of failures that we simulated produced the observed
behavior."
So World Trade Tower 7 was an engineered demolition. This is something that the 9/11
"conspiracy theorists" believed all along. Now a major engineering study confirms it.
...The infuriating thing about 9/11 and the multitude of lesser false flags which both
preceded and followed it is that, although most Americans know it was as phoney as a three
and a half dollar fed reserve note, everyone seems content to put up with the extremely
phoney "war on terror" it was designed to create and which has already destroyed a hand full
of countries in the world, caused the murder of upwards of two million people, mostly using
U.S. military, and turned the U.S. into a ruthlessly insane police state wherein everyone is
made to obey patently unlawful statutes in the name of "emergency" while the ruling elite has
quit obeying any laws at all while gathering a massive military presence to cow the now
restless and resentful public. – See more at:Christopher Bollyn: The Man Who Solved
9/11
@The Alarmist An aerospace engineer. Good for you. Maybe you need a refresher course with
some architects and building engineers. Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is a good
place to start.
As for steel losing 90% of its strength at half its melting temperature -- that does not
imply that heat not will stack on steel. The whole building was a steel radiator. And the
fires in building 7 were very small so just how do small fires get to half the melting
temperature of steel when the radiator effect is bleeding what little heat these fires have
from a certain spot.
Lets see the steel buildings you claim were demolished by fires, because I have heard many
architects and engineers say the number is zero. We are talking a total collapse of the
buildings not just a partial collapse. Let's see them.
Eighteen years after the September 11 attacks, questioning the official government
narrative of the events of those days still remains taboo for many
This topic illustrates a few things about humans and their societies that many of us do
not realize, or are too afraid to realize. It's bigger than just the cognitive dissonance,
though this is part of it. Admittedly it is uncomfortable for most people to think about such
things Ignorance is bliss, and it is much easier to follow the herd.
But
Humans have been selectively bred and conditioned for obedience to authority for at least
the last 10,000 years. Stanley Milgram made the ramifications of this clear when he showed us
some of the dangers this fact presents for our world. Couple Milgram's findings with those of
Solomon Asch's conformity experiments and it starts becoming clear why a large part, about
30%, of the population will never be able to question the official orthodoxy regarding this
"New Pearl Harbor".
Many people simply do not have the mental ability to question those in a perceived
position of authority. These people are used to following orders. They are trained very well.
These are the people who will electrocute a stranger just because a man in a white coat says
to. These are the people who will throw a grenade into your babies crib while storming your
home in the middle of the night because some junkie informant told them they bought drugs
there in exchange for cash or a lighter sentence. These are the people who will not believe
their lying eyes when it contradicts the words of their masters or if it risks going against
the apparent consensus of a group of strangers.
I call them authoritarian followers. They love punishing members of the outgroup. They
love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They expect others
to follow too.
We all know September 11, 2001, was an inside/outside job. Cui bono? The axis of kindness.
The U.S./Nato, Saudi Arabia and Israel committed the events of September 11, 2001 so they
could escalate their wars in the middle east to redraw the map for Greater Israel while
securing the oil in the middle east and the trillions in minerals in Afghanistan. The
military industrial complex needs endless wars to justify their one trillion plus dollar
annual budget and all the power that comes with it. Some people, like lucky Larry
Silverstein, made billions off the transaction. There is plenty of profiteering and graft
that comes with waging forever war.
The same people who profited from the event are the same people who planned and executed
the event. They are also the people who had the tools to make it happen. Fortunately for the
criminals who committed the crimes of that day a large part of the population will line up to
ridicule anyone who has the audacity to question the official narrative.
So buy police brutality bonds and pay your victory tax. Your work will set you free.
@Adam Smith It's so unbelievably rare to run into a sincere description of the average
fellow. Because one cam't lie to himself about the others less than he does about himself (he
can't know the others more than he can know himself), so usually evident features of people
(thus of mainstream culture, history, journalistic narratives, ) must he denied because
evident features of the self must be denied.
It's co-operation.
And then, aren't they a social species? You have surely observed that a group of them
functions in ways very close to the ant colony, the bee hive, and so on. So many more billion
neurons but what rules the mind is still so close to what rules it in the other social
species.
The thing to consider is that for God knows how many thousands of years in mankind's
history, whenever two differently sized came to a confrontation, belonging in the largest
equated survival, in the smallest death.
Then there is the intragroup confrontations and dangers: here flattering the pack leaders
best equated to better chances of survival + a more comfortable life. On the other hand,
injuring their sense of power had the same outcome that it has for the ordinary bee or ant to
do the same to the colony's or hive's leader.
This has embedded a couple of instincts, which truth and fairness can't be where they are,
at the deepest level of the regular human mind.
Some minds are different, but they don't matter, first of all they don't matter
numerically.
So official accounts of historic events are no more and no less truth-free of the accounts
people make-up of their own lives' essential events.
If you assess the average divorce-asking woman's narrative on her marriage and why she wants
to break it up and the average account of, say, World War 2 in the average school book, the %
of untruth will be circa the same.
What happens at the higher levels follows from the nature of the majority.
They love following rules no matter how arbitrary, nonsensical or detrimental. They
expect others to follow too.
Following rules as long as nobody above them tells them to make an exception.
They expect not all others, but only those below them in the power pole, to follow rules.
If they see/realize/know someone above them has broken a rule, they are awesomely good at,
wbile they have seen/realized/learned the fact, not having seen/realized/learned it.
This kind of mind can't afford unity and individuality, of course. There are always
inconsistencies, and even contradictory things believed at the same time.
And boy, how do the other authorities/authoritarian followers (depending whom they are
dealingwith) who make up the psych professions praise that kind of person! How do they master
selective blindness/forgetfulness/ignorance.
It's obvious from most reader comments that the educational systems in America (and
elsewhere) have completely decayed. "Cognitive dissonance" is just another cowardly way of
accepting lies as truths Most of you are lying to yourselves and expecting others to buy into
hype and bullshit.
Anyone who's worked with cutting steel plate knows that 5 inch thick steel plating (as
used in most lower columns of the towers) requires a perfect mixture of acetylene and oxygen
just to get the cutting area hot enough to apply the oxygen burst that cuts along the line.
Any cooling of the plate and it's no cigar. There is no way air craft fuel (kerosene) and
normal building materials can get anywhere near the melting point of steel, much less cause
complete structural failure of a perfectly engineered steel beamed structure.
Christopher Bollyn and many other dedicated journalists have connected all the relevant
dots, yet the unwashed continue to hide behind their collage degrees and talk complete
nonsense.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics should be mastered before graduating from
eighth grade People need to quit lying about the efficacy of truth
I am an agnostic on whether the twin towers were brought down by supplemental explosives. My
question is, what is gained by actually bringing the buildings down? If the attacks were to
serve as a pretext for war in the middle east, wouldn't the acts of hijacking the planes and
crashing them have been sufficient without the risks involved in planting explosives and
being being detected?
The only reasons I can offer are financial, such as the insurance payments, voided
contracts, shorting stocks etc. and perhaps destruction of evidence in criminal or civil
cases.
What is interesting is the 9/11 Commission's conclusion regarding the financing of 9/11: "
the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11
attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance."
Then why do we have all the financial transaction laws?
This article raises serious questions about
Snowden's authenticity. Although the level of damage he has done make suggestion that he is apart of CIA operation
against NSA much less plausible. He did some damage by publicizing operations like Prism. No question about it.
And it is diffuclt to treat Snowden like another variation of Lee Harvey Oswald defection
to the USSR.
But it is true that several steps that he took after supposed exfiltration of the documents were highly suspicious: As author pointed out WaPo
and Guardian are essentially intelligence agencies controlled outlets, so there is no chance that publication can't be completely blocked.
Another good point is that in any large corporation there is system of logs and they suppoedly are analysed, althout the level
of qualification in doing so varies greatly.
And if reports are created automatically that not not mean that they are ver read. Another valid point is that even if you are system administrator, you have
great powers over all your users. But at the same time your power is compartmentalized: you have access only to few selected computer that constitute the set of servers you manage.
And you usually access then via special jumpserver, which logs everything you do. In no way you have access to any server and any
database in the organization; you
might not even know that some servers exist. Actually access to critical databases is very tightly controlled.
The author also pointed to an interesting question about difficulties of exfiltration of data on encrypted Windows computers. I
think that copy to the UCB drive from encrypted drive to SD or USB drive might still be permitted for sysadmins, as it might be required for some operations.
But SD accepted might be special, issued by NSA, not retai and they should be accounted for. Still the point that Yvonne Lorenzo raised is very interesting: how you bypass existing protections on you computer to copy information
of SD card ?
On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington
Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks?
Notable quotes:
"... How many reading my words work at a large entity, not necessarily government, let us say a Fortune 1000 or higher? Do you have the ability to copy data unimpeded onto any external device? Can you surf the Internet at will? Or is everything you do on the computer network under constant, real-time scrutiny? ..."
"... Edward Snowden would have us believe that the Eye of Sauron didn't notice he was looking at gigabytes of data unrelated to his job function and using his computer to copy the data to external devices over a lengthy period of time. Are his supporters alleging he is so clever he could disappear from the "Eye of Sauron's" view and be unnoticed? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you in Crimea. ZeroHedge reported " IRS Agent Charged In Leak Of Michael Cohen Transactions To Michael Avenatti ." ..."
"... However, don't believe it takes nine months to identify such an unauthorized intrusion. Don't think every keystroke isn't monitored in real-time. So my question is: would the NSA, which has much more sensitive data (especially compromising information on the governing class) than tax returns and financial transactions have inferior capabilities than the IRS as to maintaining data security? Are we to believe the NSA lacks a "digital trail" when it comes to classified documents? ..."
"... On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks to allow a publicly available searchable database? ..."
"... While other outlets -- such as the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post and the New York Times -- also possess much (though not all) of the archive, the Intercept was the only outlet with the (full) archive that had continued to publish documents, albeit at a remarkably slow pace, in recent years. In total, fewer than 10 percent of the Snowden documents have been published since 2013. Thus, the closing of the publication's Snowden archive will likely mean the end of any future publications, unless Greenwald's promise of finding "the right partner that has the funds to robustly publish" is fulfilled ..."
"... Do you believe Putin's intelligence agencies don't communicate to him how Washington "organized crime" really operates, as Whitney Webb has disclosed, now on the pages of Unz.com ? What difference does any compromised President make to the policies and goals of the occupational government of the United States (obvious to any reader of this and similar websites)? ..."
"... Why is an alleged humanitarian such a Russophobe? ..."
"... Has Snowden ever challenged the September 11 narrative, ludicrous as it is, and him being an "engineer?" ..."
"... STO equals Special Technical Operations It's highly unlikely Mr. Snowden had any access to these. ..."
"... ECI = Exceptionally Controlled Information. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these ECI controlled networks). VRK = Very Restricted Knowledge. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these VRK controlled networks. ..."
"... So what they did, is they took a few documents and they downgraded [he classification level of the documents] – just a few – and gave them to them to placate this basic whitewash investigation. ..."
"... Journalist Margie Burns asked some good questions back in June that have not yet been answered. She wondered about the 29-year old Snowden who had been a U.S. Army Special Forces recruit, a covert CIA operative, and an NSA employee in various capacities, all in just a few, short years. Burns asked "How, exactly, did Snowden get his series of NSA jobs? Did he apply through regular channels? Was it through someone he knew? Who recommended him? Who were his references for a string of six-figure, high-level security jobs? Are there any safeguards in place so that red flags go up when a subcontractor jumps from job to job, especially in high-level clearance positions?" ..."
"... In December, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds broke the news that Omidyar's Paypal Corporation was implicated in the as-yet-unreleased NSA documents from Snowden. Moreover, Edmonds had allegedly been contacted by an NSA official who alleged that "a deal was made in early June, 2013 between the journalists involved in this recent NSA scandal and U.S. government officials, which was then sealed by secrecy and nondisclosure agreements by all parties involved." ..."
"... No, no one is accusing Wikileaks of conspiring with Russia, just Robert Mueller. I really appreciate Snowden calling Julian Assange a liar, for he has consistently denied there was a "state actor." ..."
"... "Terrorism is a real problem" Snowden said. Is it credible that Snowden, who presented himself as donating funds to Ron Paul, has never read any alternative news sites? Is it credible that Snowden believes that terrorists and this would include the good "moderate terrorists" in Syria are armed and act on their own initiative, and is ignorant of the role of the governments of America, Israel, and Saudi Arabia in using them to achieve their ends as proxy armies? ..."
"... Does Snowden then think this report, " America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group" is false? Does that mindset make Snowden a champion for liberty or a tool for more control of the American population? For example, is it credible that this alleged genius supports the narrative of the September 11 attacks World Trade Center attacks? ..."
"... Tor lists on its own website sponsors that include Google, the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (past sponsor) and DARPA. ..."
"... Perhaps Snowden is only a Soros and Hillary Clinton supporting liberal -- but then why would he have done what he did? His character is of any government employee of the "surface state" who swallows false narratives whole. ..."
"... The logging of user and information accessed is sure added to the file. But real time supervision? No. A eye of sauron? Please. The system isnt there to prevent crime, its to track down the criminal and deeds later. And yes everything takes a very long time on the public side. ..."
"... 'Edward Snowden' who first 'leaked' to the CIA's Washington Post, in fact to Bush VP Dick Cheney's biographer Bart Gellman then the Deep State realised that was too stupid, so they switched to Rothschild employee & ex-gay-pornography-seller Glenn Greenwald, former proprietor of 'hairystuds', at the Guardian, an intel-agency rag which lies about nearly everything ..."
"... NeonRevolt once floated the theory that Snowden was an FBI or CIA plant who whistleblew solely because he had the mission to undermine NSA operations by exposing their equipment/techniques and turning public opinion against them. ..."
"... inter-service rivalry and sabotage between spy agencies is absolutely a thing, and reviewing the inconsistencies of Snowden's stunt, its aftermath, and his personal views with that potential background in mind suddenly makes things make much more sense, in my mind at least. ..."
"... If we accept the later, that he's a plant, then it raises a further question: was the short term loss, associated with his revelations, ie highlighting the utterly disturbing degree of Gov surveillance over US citizens (etc) worth the long term profit of having an established, authoritive psy-op's agent able to influence/distort etc any debate or narrative concerning the US State /elites. On this side the author notes Snowmen's views on Tor, 9/11, Russia etc which clearly advantage the US State's own views on these subjects. ..."
"... Consider that nothing Snowden revealed was news. It was all old hat for anyone who'd been paying attention, and for up to ten years. Sure Snowden made it mainstream for what good it did but nothing he said was a secret anymore. In fact, I thought even at the time his actions were nothing less than a 'threat and warning' from the intel services that they had this much on everyone. Just imagine all those national leaders, politicians from all states being pout on notice. All your secrets are ours! What a powerful global message to deliver and in such a loud and clear fashion. ..."
"... The lack of deviation from official bullshit on 9/11 is on its own however reason enough to toss this guy out. ..."
"... To my mind "9/11, attitude to", is a sort of touch-stone for telling genuine dissidents from fake and both Snowden and Assange fail on that test ..."
"... Snowden is not a classic defector so it makes sense for him to keep his distance from Russian society so as not to be inadvertently compromised or used by their intelligence services. He's obviously under surveillance there, I know we all are but he's much more aware of it, so that doesn't make it easy for him but he's definitely safer there than he'd be in France or Germany. I just don't think he planned well ahead when he became a whistle-blower or was clear about what he was trying to achieve. He's not the top level type of spy we're accustomed to reading about who betray their country for money or to serve another they believe in more than their own. If he has been on active duty as a CIA asset all along I can't see that he has achieved much of use to them other than in some inter-agency rivalry game. But it's natural for Russians to be suspicious of him – they're suspicious by nature – and rightly so, but it doesn't make his life easy there. ..."
"... 9/11 is the "litmus test" and it appears that both Assange and Snowden have failed it. ..."
"... Snowden keeping "distance" to Russia, and not openly defending them seems reasonable to me. You can imagine the smear campaign back home if he would side with Russia against the U.S. on almost anything. "The Russians got to him" or "He was always their man". ..."
"... He is trying to keep his neutrality and credibility and his target audience isn't the average Unz reader, but rather some mainstream educated middle/upper class blokes. Easily scared away from his views if they become too controversial and too far from the established narrative. ..."
"... If I had been in the position like 'Snowden', after first having been granted asylum, my priority would have been to study the language. I would gtuess that he can order food or drink, do basic greetings, and not much else. ..."
"... I agree. Shilling for the Israelis regarding 911 is a deal breaker for me. They had me going about these 2 guys for a while, but when I heard that they had ridiculed 911 truthers I smelled a rat. And after this article I agree they are shills for the status quo. Reasonable people can not doubt that 911 was a false flag operation. There's just too much bullshit there. ..."
"... I think the idea Snowden is a "plant" is a bit far out there. If he is; the real purpose of the exercise is what exactly? ..."
"... I also don't get why some commenters think Julian Assange isn't who he claims to be. His Wikileaks has published great volume of highly embarrassing material for the U.S. The embassy cables come to mind – bringing to light evidence contrary to Washington narrative on many events. ..."
"... There is another thing; Just after he established Wikileaks he came to Iceland and met with journalists and few politicians. The result from that visit was he met one Kristinn Hrafnsson, long time journalist in Iceland with excellent track record and credibility. Since Assange got in trouble, accused of sexual harassment from Swedish woman and finally escaped into the Ecuador embassy in London, Hrafnsson has been spokesman for Wikileaks. ..."
"... "It all comes down to 9/11.Everything that has happened has happened based on a lie . Everyone in Government ; everyone in the media , in entertainment , in organized religion , in the public ,in the public eye who accepts and promotes the official story is either a traitor or a tool . Everyone who does not stand forth and speak truth to power is a coward , a liar and complicit in mass-murder . Everyone everywhere can be measured by this Litmus Test ." ..."
Have you ever had the pleasure of dealing with an agent of the Federal government? For example, have you been audited by the IRS?
Did you notice what the "Agent" does to gain access to his (or her) computer -- by inserting a "Smart ID" into a slot? Did you ask
how your personal information is protected from disclosure or theft? What is to prevent the Agent from copying files to a thumb drive
and taking them home?
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), issued by President George W. Bush on August 27, 2004, mandated the
establishment of a standard for identification of Federal government employees and contractors. HSPD-12 requires the use of
a common identification credential for both logical and physical access to federally controlled facilities and information systems.
The Department of Commerce and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) were tasked with producing a standard for
secure and reliable forms of identification. In response, NIST published Federal Information Processing Standard Publication
201 (FIPS 201), Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal Employees and Contractors, issued on February 25, 2005, and a
number of special publications that provide more detail on the implementation of the standard.
Both Federal agencies and enterprises have implemented FIPS 201-compliant ID programs and have issued PIV cards. The FIPS
201 PIV card is a smart card with both contact and contactless interfaces that is now being issued to all Federal employees and
contractors
Additional information about FIPS 201 can be found on the Government Identity/Credentialing Resources page, from NIST, and
from the Secure Technology Alliance Access Control Council.
If you engage the IRS employee in conversation, remembering the adage you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, you'll
learn the computer cannot be compromised -- all data on the device are encrypted; the only access to it is via the Smart ID. Data
can be copied to an external "thumb drive" but everything copied will be encrypted; any file on that thumb drive is only readable
by that specific device. Wouldn't this be true of NSA devices as well? Why does Snowden never discuss dealing with such encryption:
how would it be possible?
In the Oliver Stone movie Snowden , as well as in any of Snowden's descriptions of how he accessed the NSA computers, did
you note either the depiction or reference to this universal Smart ID? How could Snowden be exempt from its requirement? Why wasn't
its use, which is public knowledge, shown or discussed? Per the above, the Smart ID is deployed in all government agencies: there
are no exceptions. And while the financial portion (think of all those Goldman Sachs alumni at the U.S. Department of the Treasury)
is likely the most powerful part of the financial-military-industrial-media-congressional complex that is the central power of the
federal government, do you think that IRS systems are different and superior in security to what was employed by a contractor working
for Booze-Allen Hamilton at the NSA?
How many reading my words work at a large entity, not necessarily government, let us say a Fortune 1000 or higher? Do you
have the ability to copy data unimpeded onto any external device? Can you surf the Internet at will? Or is everything you do on the
computer network under constant, real-time scrutiny?
Did Edward Snowden, who has publicly criticized Google, mention Google is deployed as a search engine throughout the federal "intranet"?
And can he catch a link to the Washington Post on the NSA homepage too? Or would he testify and can it be verified that NSA does
not use Google (for example to obtain the PowerPoint he revealed) for searching for internal documents and procedures? Can anyone
reading my words answer the questions I've posed so far and answer accurately and honestly with confirmatory evidence?
Edward Snowden would have us believe that the Eye of Sauron didn't notice he was looking at gigabytes of data unrelated to
his job function and using his computer to copy the data to external devices over a lengthy period of time. Are his supporters alleging
he is so clever he could disappear from the "Eye of Sauron's" view and be unnoticed? If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell
you in Crimea. ZeroHedge reported "
IRS Agent Charged In Leak Of Michael Cohen Transactions To Michael Avenatti ." From the article:
John C. Fry, an analyst in the San Francisco IRS office who had worked for the agency since 2008, was charged with disclosing
Cohen's Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) – nine months after we reported that it wouldn't be difficult to track down the leaker
due to a digital trail left behind from accessing the system.
However, don't believe it takes nine months to identify such an unauthorized intrusion. Don't think every keystroke isn't
monitored in real-time. So my question is: would the NSA, which has much more sensitive data (especially compromising information
on the governing class) than tax returns and financial transactions have inferior capabilities than the IRS as to maintaining data
security? Are we to believe the NSA lacks a "digital trail" when it comes to classified documents?
On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington
Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks to allow a publicly available searchable database? As Roger Stone has
noted, the odious Nixon was taken down principally by the CIA media front The Washington Post because he sought detente with Russia
and another presidential assassination would have been too obvious. Notice the situation regarding the Snowden treasure trove as
investigative journalist Whitney Webb writes about it here: "
Silencing the Whistle: The Intercept Shutters
Snowden Archive, Citing Cost ."
According to a timeline of events written by Poitras that was shared and published by journalist and former Intercept columnist
Barrett Brown, both Scahill and Greenwald were intimately involved in the decision to close the Snowden archive.
While other outlets -- such as the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post and the New York Times -- also possess much (though
not all) of the archive, the Intercept was the only outlet with the (full) archive that had continued to publish documents, albeit
at a remarkably slow pace, in recent years. In total, fewer than 10 percent of the Snowden documents have been published since
2013. Thus, the closing of the publication's Snowden archive will likely mean the end of any future publications, unless Greenwald's
promise of finding "the right partner that has the funds to robustly publish" is fulfilled
Yet, as Poitras pointed out, the research department accounted for a minuscule 1.5 percent of First Look Media's budget. Greenwald's
claim that the archive was shuttered owing to its high cost to the company is also greatly undermined by the fact that he, along
with several other Intercept employees -- Reed and Scahill among them -- receive massive salaries that dwarf those of journalists
working for similar nonprofit publications.
Greenwald, for instance, received $1.6 million from First Look Media, of which Omidyar is the sole shareholder, from 2014 to
2017. His yearly salary peaked in 2015, when he made over $518,000. Reed and Scahill both earn well over $300,000 annually from
First Look. According to journalist Mark Ames, Scahill made over $43,000 per article at the Intercept in 2014. Other writers at
the site, by comparison, have a base salary of $50,000, which itself is higher than the national average for journalists.
And what about Snowden himself, the pontificator, the man who can speak on television or to the media with evidence of training?
Practice yourself -- see how well you can answer questions and speak publicly to a TV camera. How did he get his training? Who trained
him? Why? How is it that the legacy media, which
applauds
the slow, painful execution of Julian Assange , be in rapture over Snowden's new book tour and provide ample coverage? Is Assange
being murdered in part to prevent his providing exculpatory evidence that Russia never hacked the DNC and it was a leak?
I have provided two videos below for the reader to consider and compare.
Look at how Bill Binney, a true techno-nerd speaks and compare the difference between him with the polished interviews given by
Snowden who borders on pomposity. Also, to his favor Binney is doing his best to debunk the Russia hacking narrative of the DNC;
Snowden makes his thoughts about Russia and Russians clear
in his latest interview with Der Spiegel promoting his new book about himself:
DER SPIEGEL: Do you have Russian friends?
Snowden: I try to keep a distance between myself and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my life
with basically the English-speaking community. I'm the president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. And, you know, I'm
an indoor cat. It doesn't matter where I am -- Moscow, Berlin, New York -- as long as I have a screen to look into.
DER SPIEGEL: Western authorities accuse the Russian government on a regular basis of being one of the biggest disrupters
in the digital world. Are they right?
Snowden: Russia is responsible for a lot of negative activity in the world, you can say that right and fairly. Did Russia
interfere with elections? Almost certainly. But do the United States interfere in elections? Of course. They've been doing
it for the last 50 years. Any country bigger than Iceland is going to interfere in every crucial election, and they're going to
deny it every time, because this is what intelligence services do. This is explicitly why covert operations and influence divisions
are created, and their purpose as an instrument of national power is to ask: How can we influence the world in a direction that
improves our standing relative to all the other countries?
I am pleased to have played a small role in getting Stephen F. Cohen's work published on Unz.com. He and others have effectively
debunked Russian involvement in the manipulation of America elections and the conclusions of the Mueller report. To paraphrase a
point Professor Cohen made in his most recent article posted here, which is simply common sense: We are to believe Trump is Putin's
puppet yet Putin simultaneously encouraged the preparation of a dossier to destroy him. Does that make sense to any one with half
a brain? Do you believe Putin's intelligence agencies don't communicate to him how Washington "organized crime" really operates,
as Whitney Webb has disclosed, now on the pages of Unz.com
? What difference does any compromised President make to the policies and goals of the occupational government of the United States
(obvious to any reader of this and similar websites)?
Do you notice how Snowden never challenges any government narrative, whether it's on Russia as a villain, and not as a victim
of war initiated by Washington? Why is an alleged humanitarian such a Russophobe? Is this how he repays the nation that
granted him asylum? Has he only compassion in the abstract, and is a genius but too stupid to consider the consequences of America
going to war with Russia and in fact exacerbating the tension by his false and inflammatory statements about Russian conduct in the
2016 elections, for which there are no facts and evidence?
And then there's the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings. Of course Snowden at NSA had no access to information on
how and why it was done, but as Dmitri Orlov has written:
I suppose I am a "conspiracy theorist" too. Whenever I write something that questions the veracity of some official narrative,
someone (probably a troll) pops up and asks me what I think of 9/11. Here is what I typically reply:
I totally believe that it was possible to knock down three steel-framed buildings using two flying aluminum cans loaded
with kerosene, luggage and meat. I have proven that this is possible by throwing two beer cans at three chain-link fences.
All three fences were instantly swallowed up by holes in the ground that mysteriously opened up right under them and in which
they were instantaneously incinerated into fine oxide powder that coated the entire neighborhood. Anybody who does not believe
my experimental results is obviously a tin-foil-hat crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Lots of people read this and ran away bleating; a few people bust a gut laughing because this is (trust me on this!) actually
quite funny. Some people took offense at someone ridiculing an event in which thousands of people died. (To protect their tender
sensibilities they should consider emigrating to a country that isn't run by a bunch of war criminals.)
But if you do see the humor in this, then you may be up to the challenge, which is to pull out a useful signal (a typical
experimentalist's task) out of a mess of unreliable and contradictory data. Only then would you be in a position to persuasively
argue -- not prove, mind you! -- that the official story is complete and utter bullshit.
Note that everything beyond that point, such as arguing what "the real story" is, is strictly off-limits. If you move beyond
that point you open yourself up to well-organized, well-funded debunking. But if all you produce is a very large and imposing
question mark, then the only way to attack it is by producing certainty -- a very tall order! In conspiracy theory, as in
guerrilla warfare, you don't have to win. You just have to not lose long enough for the enemy to give up.
Has Snowden ever challenged the September 11 narrative, ludicrous as it is, and him being an "engineer?" And this last
point is the reason I'm writing these words: I don't have to come up with the "real story" on who Edward Snowden is and what his
true motives are. I am asking questions that point out the discrepancies in Snowden's statements and conduct and his alleged sanctity.
In this article, "
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: NSA Whistleblower: Snowden Never Had Access to the JUICIEST Documents Far More Damning "
WASHINGTON'S BLOG: Glenn Greenwald – supposedly, in the next couple of days or weeks – is going to disclose, based on NSA documents
leaked by Snowden, that the NSA is spying on all sorts of normal Americans and that the spying is really to crush dissent. [Background
here, here and here.]
Does Snowden even have documents which contain the information which you've seen?
RUSSELL TICE: The answer is no.
WASHINGTON'S BLOG: So you saw handwritten notes. And what Snowden was seeing were electronic files ?
RUSSELL TICE: Think of it this way. Remember I told you about the NSA doing everything they could to make sure that the
information from 40 years ago – from spying on Frank Church and Lord knows how many other Congressman that they were spying on
– was hidden?
Now do you think they're going to put that information into PowerPoint slides that are easy to explain to everybody what
they're doing?
They would not even put their own NSA designators on the reports [so that no one would know that] it came from the NSA.
They made the reports look like they were Humint (human intelligence) reports. They did it to hide the fact that they were NSA
and they were doing the collection. That's 40 years ago. [The NSA and other agencies are still doing "parallel construction",
"laundering" information to hide the fact that the information is actually from mass NSA surveillance.]
Now, what NSA is doing right now is that they're taking the information and they're putting it in a much higher security level.
It's called "ECI" – Exceptionally Controlled Information – and it's called the black program which I was a specialist in, by the
way.
I specialized in black world – DOD and IC (Intelligence Community) – programs, operations and missions in "VRKs", "ECIs", and
"SAPs", "STOs". SAP equals Special Access Program. It's highly unlikely Mr. Snowden had any access to these. STO equals Special
Technical Operations It's highly unlikely Mr. Snowden had any access to these.
Now in that world – the ECI/VRK world – everything in that system is classified at a higher level and it has its own computer
systems that house it. It's totally separate than the system which Mr. Snowden was privy to, which was called the "JWICS": Joint
Worldwide Intelligence Communications System. The JWICS system is what everybody at NSA has access to. Mr Snowden had Sys Admin
[systems administrator] authority for the JWICS.
And you still have to have TS/SCI clearance [i.e. Top Secret/ Sensitive Compartmented Information – also known as "code word"
– clearance] to get on the JWICS. But the ECI/VRK systems are much higher [levels of special compartmentalized clearance] than
the JWICS. And you have to be in the black world to get that [clearance].
ECI = Exceptionally Controlled Information. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these ECI controlled networks).
VRK = Very Restricted Knowledge. I do not believe Mr. Snowden had any access to these VRK controlled networks.
These programs typically have, at the least, a requirement of 100 year or until death, 'till the person first being "read in"
[i.e. sworn to secrecy as part of access to the higher classification program] can talk about them. [As an interesting sidenote,
the Washington Times reported in 2006 that – when Tice offered to testify to Congress about this illegal spying – he was informed
by the NSA that the Senate and House intelligence committees were not cleared to hear such information.]
It's very compartmentalized and – even with stuff that they had – you might have something at NSA, that there's literally 40
people at NSA that know that it's going on in the entire agency.
When the stuff came out in the New York Times [the first big spying story, which broke in 2005] – and I was a source of information
for the New York Times – that's when President Bush made up that nonsense about the "terrorist surveillance program." By the way,
that never existed. That was made up.
There was no such thing beforehand. It was made up to try to placate the American people.
The NSA IG (Inspector General) – who was not cleared for this – all of a sudden is told he has to do an investigation on this;
something he has no information or knowledge of.
So what they did, is they took a few documents and they downgraded [he classification level of the documents] – just a
few – and gave them to them to placate this basic whitewash investigation.
Snowden's Failure To Understand the Most Important Documents
RUSSELL TICE: Now, if Mr. Snowden were to find the crossover, it would be those documents that were downgraded to the NSA's
IG.
The stuff that I saw looked like a bunch of alphanumeric gobbledygook. Unless you have an analyst to know what to look for
– and believe me, I think that what Snowden's done is great – he's not an intelligence analyst. So he would see something like
that, and he wouldn't know what he's looking at.
But that would be "the jewels". And the key is, you wouldn't know it's the jewels unless you were a diamond miner and you knew
what to look for. Because otherwise, there's a big lump of rock and you don't know there's a diamond in there.
I worked special programs. And the way I found out is that I was working on a special operation, and I needed information from
NSA from another unit. And when I went to that unit and I said "I need this information", and I dealt with [satellite spy operations],
and I did that in the black world. I was a special operations officer. I would literally go do special missions that were in the
black world where I would travel overseas and do spooky stuff.
Did we really need Snowden to have told us that the Internet, federally controlled, does not allow anyone a modicum of privacy
and the government after implementing the Patriot Act considers ordinary Americans the enemy?
Journalist Margie Burns asked some good questions back in June that have not yet been answered. She wondered about the
29-year old Snowden who had been a U.S. Army Special Forces recruit, a covert CIA operative, and an NSA employee in various capacities,
all in just a few, short years. Burns asked "How, exactly, did Snowden get his series of NSA jobs? Did he apply through regular
channels? Was it through someone he knew? Who recommended him? Who were his references for a string of six-figure, high-level
security jobs? Are there any safeguards in place so that red flags go up when a subcontractor jumps from job to job, especially
in high-level clearance positions?"
Five months later, journalists Mark Ames and Yasha Levine investigated some of the businesses in which Greenwald's benefactor
Omidyar had invested. They found that the actual practices of those businesses were considerably less humanitarian than the outward
appearance of Omidyar's ventures often portray. The result was that Omidyar took down references to at least one of those businesses
from his website.
In December, whistleblower Sibel Edmonds broke the news that Omidyar's Paypal Corporation was implicated in the as-yet-unreleased
NSA documents from Snowden. Moreover, Edmonds had allegedly been contacted by an NSA official who alleged that "a deal was made
in early June, 2013 between the journalists involved in this recent NSA scandal and U.S. government officials, which was then
sealed by secrecy and nondisclosure agreements by all parties involved."
It would appear that Snowden's whistleblowing has been co-opted by private corporate interests. Are those involved with privatization
of the stolen documents also colluding with government agencies to frame and direct national discussions on domestic spying and
other serious matters?
The possibilities are endless, it seems. Presenting documents at a measured rate could be a way to acclimate citizens to
painful realities without stirring the public into a panic or a unified response that might actually threaten the status quo.
And considering that the number of documents has somehow grown from only thousands to nearly two million, it seems possible
that those in control could release practically anything, thereby controlling national dialogue on many topics.
Please read the final paragraph above twice and think about the points raised about acclimating citizens and controlling national
dialog. Is Snowden as much of a "Pied Piper" as QAnon? How did Snowden describe the nature of the CIA and NSA
in this earlier interview with Der Spiegel ?
DER SPIEGEL: But those people see you as their biggest enemy today.
Snowden: My personal battle was not to burn down the NSA or the CIA. I even think they actually do have a useful role in
society when they limit themselves to the truly important threats that we face and when they use their least intrusive means.
**
Snowden: It wasn't that difficult. Everybody is currently pointing at the Russians.
DER SPIEGEL: Rightfully?
Snowden: I don't know. They probably did hack the systems of Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party, but we should have proof
of that. In the case of the hacking attack on Sony, the FBI presented evidence that North Korea was behind it. In this case
they didn't, although I am convinced that they do have evidence. The question is why?
DER SPIEGEL: Mike Pompeo, the new head of the CIA, has accused WikiLeaks, whose lawyers helped you, of being a mouthpiece for
the Russians. Is that not harmful to your image as well?
Snowden: First, we should be fair about what the accusations are. I don't believe the U.S. government or anybody in the
intelligence community is directly accusing Julian Assange or WikiLeaks of working directly for the Russian government. The
allegations I understand are that they were used as a tool basically to wash documents that had been stolen by the Russian government.
And, of course, that's a concern. I don't see that as directly affecting me because I'm not WikiLeaks and there is no question
about the provenance of the documents that I dealt with.
DER SPIEGEL: Currently, there's another American guy out there who is accused of being too close to Putin.
Snowden: Oh (laughs).
DER SPIEGEL: Your president. Is he your president?
Snowden: The idea that half of American voters thought that Donald Trump was the best among us, is something that I struggle
with. And I think we will all be struggling with it for decades to come.
DER SPIEGEL: But isn't there reason to fear terrorism?
Snowden: Sure there is. Terrorism is a real problem. But when we look at how many lives it has claimed in basically
any country that is outside of war zones like Iraq or Afghanistan, it is so much less than, say, car accidents or heart attacks.
Even if Sept. 11 were to happen every single year in the U.S., terrorism would be a much lower threat than so many other things.
No, no one is accusing Wikileaks of conspiring with Russia, just Robert Mueller. I really appreciate Snowden calling Julian Assange
a liar, for he has consistently denied there was a "state actor."
"Terrorism is a real problem" Snowden said. Is it credible that Snowden, who presented himself as donating funds to Ron Paul,
has never read any alternative news sites? Is it credible that Snowden believes that terrorists and this would include the good "moderate
terrorists" in Syria are armed and act on their own initiative, and is ignorant of the role of the governments of America, Israel,
and Saudi Arabia in using them to achieve their ends as proxy armies?
Does Snowden then think this report, "
America Created
Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group" is false? Does that mindset make Snowden a champion for liberty or a tool for more control
of the American population? For example, is it credible that this alleged genius supports the narrative of the September 11 attacks
World Trade Center attacks? Whom do you trust, the contributors to these very pages or Edward Snowden?
The Tor Project – a private nonprofit known as the "NSA-proof" gateway to the "dark web," turns out to be almost "100% funded
by the US government" according to documents obtained by investigative journalist and author Yasha Levine.
In a recent blog post, Levine details how he was able to obtain roughly 2,500 pages of correspondence via FOIA requests while
performing research for a book. The documents include strategy, contract, budgets and status updates between the Tor project and
its primary source of funding; a CIA spinoff known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which "oversees America's foreign
broadcasting operations like Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe."
By following the money, I discovered that Tor was not a grassroots. I was able to show that despite its indie radical
cred and claims to help its users protect themselves from government surveillance online, Tor was almost 100% funded by three
U.S. National Security agencies: the Navy, the State Department and the BBG. Following the money revealed that Tor was not
a grassroots outfit, but a military contractor with its own government contractor number. In other words: it was a privatized
extension of the very same government that it claimed to be fighting.
The documents conclusively showed that Tor is not independent at all. The organization did not have free reign to do
whatever it wanted, but was kept on a very short leash and bound by contracts with strict contractual obligations. It was also
required to file detailed monthly status reports that gave the U.S. government a clear picture of what Tor employees were developing,
where they went and who they saw. -Yasha Levine
The FOIA documents also suggest that Tor's ability to shield users from government spying may be nothing more than hot air.
While no evidence of a "backdoor" exists, the documents obtained by Levine reveal that Tor has "no qualms with privately tipping
off the federal government to security vulnerabilities before alerting the public, a move that would give the feds an opportunity
to exploit the security weakness long before informing Tor users."
Interestingly, Edward Snowden is a big fan of Tor – even throwing a "cryptoparty" while he was still an NSA contractor where
he set up a Tor exit node to show off how cool they are.
In a 2015 interview with The Intercept's (Wikileaks hating) Micah Lee, Snowden said:
LEE: What do you think about Tor? Do you think that everyone should be familiar with it, or do you think that it's only a use-it-if-you-need-it
thing?
SNOWDEN: I think Tor is the most important privacy-enhancing technology project being used today.
"Tor Browser is a great way to selectively use Tor to look something up and not leave a trace that you did it. It can also
help bypass censorship when you're on a network where certain sites are blocked. If you want to get more involved, you can volunteer
to run your own Tor node, as I do, and support the diversity of the Tor network."
Tor lists on its own website sponsors that include Google,
the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, ONR via Naval Research Laboratory (past sponsor) and DARPA.
When Julian Assange was taken from the Ecuadoran embassy, he was carrying a copy of Gore Vidal: History of the National Security
State & Vidal on America. As an older article on Vidal in The Guardian noted, "
Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit
in 9/11 ."
Isn't it odd by doing what he did with Vidal's book Assange makes the point the legitimacy of Washington must be challenged, but
Snowden never does, other than offering suggestions for tinkering at the margins, perhaps advising we use DuckDuckGo instead of Google
to give us the illusion of privacy? Did Snowden, for someone who is in front of a computer screen for most of the day, make public
the facts obtained by Whitney Webb in her piece "
How the CIA, Mossad and 'the Epstein Network' Are Exploiting Mass Shootings to Create an Orwellian Nightmare " posted on Unz.com
which goes in depth into the Orwellian hell we are facing, for as Webb concludes:
With companies like Carbyne -- with its ties to both the Trump administration and to Israeli intelligence -- and the Mossad-linked
Gabriel also marketing themselves as "technological" solutions to mass shootings while also doubling as covert tools for mass
data collection and extraction, the end result is a massive surveillance system so complete and so dystopian that even George
Orwell himself could not have predicted it.
Following another catastrophic mass shooting or crisis event, aggressive efforts will likely follow to foist these "solutions"
on a frightened American public by the very network connected, not only to Jeffrey Epstein, but to a litany of crimes and a
frightening history of plans to crush internal dissent and would-be dissenters in the United States.
There is the concept of willful blindness that I think applies to much of what Snowden has done, if not something altogether more
nefarious -- distorations, misrepresenations, and outright lies, in addition to hubris. What is the point I'm making? Perhaps Snowden
is only a Soros and Hillary Clinton supporting liberal -- but then why would he have done what he did? His character is of any government
employee of the "surface state" who swallows false narratives whole.
I only wish the reader fairly and intelligently consider the questions I have raised. For I am encouraging you to think very carefully
before you trust the statements, purpose, motives, and truthfulness of the secular saint, Edward Snowden.
Yvonne Lorenzo makes her home in New England in a house full to bursting with books, including works on classical Greece.
Her interests include gardening, mythology, ancient history, The Electric Universe, and classical music, especially the compositions
of Handel, Mozart, Bach, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Mahler, and the Bel Canto repertoire. She is the author of the novels the
Son of Thunder and
The Cloak of Freya and has contributed to LewRockwell.com and TheSaker.IS.
Edward Snowden is a typical American fachidiot who, despite their protestations is a striver and bootlick for the Empire.
I genuinely believe that he is puzzled as to why it has turned against him. He deserves his destiny of forever languishing in
political purgatory.
Several years later, practically nobody remembers him here in the US, and possible elsewhere (save for when it is convenient
for the media). Julian Assange was a far more daring, more insightful figure.
(As an aside, I am curious about the author's liking of bel canto . Lot of birdbrain music to my ears; I prefer Wagner,
Strauss, Schreker, and Berg. Also, the older I get, the more I realize that Schoenberg was by far the greater genius than Mahler.)
The logging of user and information accessed is sure added to the file. But real time supervision? No. A eye of sauron? Please.
The system isnt there to prevent crime, its to track down the criminal and deeds later. And yes everything takes a very long time
on the public side.
You know, 16:00 hours the mouse just drops dead from the hand. Public servants don't give a damn if a job is made fast or efficient,
only that procedure if followed and that it is eventually done. Unless priorities are reassigned, stuff left halfway undone in
disarray is no problem when reassigned.
Just as keeping secret private archives of more or less job related data is all standard procedure. That is keep a load of
data in your personal folders and move those into whatever form desired. Security is not very tight. Only in the sense that eventually
every person with hours and access point etc data can be recovered if so ordered to.
So stealing data out of that system shouldn't be terribly hard. Just email it to a private email. Or store on something else
and transport out. For one Hillary was doing the same thing for ages. In that case though "what difference does it make"
There was an interview with Edward in the German magazine Der Spiegel this month, Nr. 18. In it, we get the tale, he copied material
on SD cards, and smugeled them in his mouth, or inside a "magic cube" out of the base on Hawaii, passing "guards". A cube, the
occult symbol, how blatant, just mocking the profane.
On the technical side, I got a story from a German BMW factory. A bunch
of guys on nightshift plugged a USB Harddisk into a PC to watch a movie. Minutes later they received a call from the IT, it had
been recognized remotely. What a charade. It has the taste of Jewish tales, smuggling stuff, tricking guards of an evil system.
Nice to have a piece helping point to the truth, that Glenn Greenwald & Edward Snowden are CIA frauds, as every major government
knows
'Edward Snowden' who first 'leaked' to the CIA's Washington Post, in fact to Bush VP Dick Cheney's biographer Bart Gellman
then the Deep State realised that was too stupid, so they switched to Rothschild employee & ex-gay-pornography-seller Glenn Greenwald,
former proprietor of 'hairystuds', at the Guardian, an intel-agency rag which lies about nearly everything
Despite the Snowden-Assange mutual sniping in their media-star rivalry, Julian Assange is also a CIA-Mossad asset, as Bibi
Netanyahu himself has boasted to Israeli media, regarding aggressively pro-Zionist, anti-Palestinian Julian, equally anti-9-11-truth
along with Eddie Snowden
As loyal CIA assets, neither Assange and Snowden dare to mention USA Virginia fed judge bribery files that have blocked other
extraditions, tho these files would make their own extraditions impossible, if these CIA fakers really cared about their own 'defence'
Zbigniew Brzezinski on 29 Nov 2010, on the US public television PBS News Hour, also admitted Assange was intel, his Wikileaks
'selected'
People trusting Assange are dead, Peter W Smith, Seth Rich; others jailed
You will notice that Assange & Snowden both got famous via CIA – MI6 media, NY Times, UK Guardian, who are never interested
in real dissidents
Assange shared lawyer with Rothschilds, Rothschild sister-in-law posted Assange bail, Assange has ties to George Soros too
Early on, Assange helped Rothschilds destroy rival bank Julius Baer that is 'progressive Wiki-leaking' for you
Assange had a weird childhood with Aussie mind-control cult 'the Family'
Things like 'Assange living at Ecuador Embassy' – 'now in Belmarsh prison' – easily faked, Assange moved in & out for photos
by MI5 MI6, police under national security orders 'Snowden' is not necessarily in Russia either
Assange & Snowden de-legitimise real dissidents, because people say, 'Wikileaks – NY Times – UK Guardian would cover it if
it was true'
NeonRevolt once floated the theory that Snowden was an FBI or CIA plant who whistleblew solely because he had the mission to undermine
NSA operations by exposing their equipment/techniques and turning public opinion against them.
I completely understand if people are leery of the theorycrafting of a Q tracker, but I do believe that this suggestion is plausible.
Setting aside attempts at placing it in context of a Deep State war, inter-service rivalry and sabotage between spy agencies is
absolutely a thing, and reviewing the inconsistencies of Snowden's stunt, its aftermath, and his personal views with that potential
background in mind suddenly makes things make much more sense, in my mind at least.
Interesting, thought-provoking article.
It asks us to balance up competing interests & advantages.
On the one hand we can assume Snowden is "real" or not. That is, he's a genuine whistle blower, or he's a government psy-op's
plant.
If we accept the later, that he's a plant, then it raises a further question: was the short term loss, associated with his revelations,
ie highlighting the utterly disturbing degree of Gov surveillance over US citizens (etc) worth the long term profit of having
an established, authoritive psy-op's agent able to influence/distort etc any debate or narrative concerning the US State /elites.
On this side the author notes Snowmen's views on Tor, 9/11, Russia etc which clearly advantage the US State's own views on these
subjects.
I don't know the answer -- except that this article raises serious questions, suspicions , about
Snowden's authenticity.
Never for a moment considered Snowden any sort of secular saint.
Snowden for the most part only confirmed the downward trajectory of the formerly at least interesting filmmaker, Oliver Stone.
If JFK was worth a laugh (and evidently did get a few people thinking about the phoniness of Dallas '63 for the first time),
Snowden was total chloroform on screen. Sad to see Ollie hit such lows.
This bit is interesting:
When Julian Assange was taken from the Ecuadoran embassy, he was carrying a copy of Gore Vidal: History of the National
Security State & Vidal on America. As an older article on Vidal in The Guardian noted, "Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit
in 9/11."
As batty as Vidal may have been, it is a fact he was the first American with any sort of national recognition to speak out
against the National Security State, starting in the Eisenhower years. His fury was partly stoked by their meddling in Central
America, but he stayed at it. Even gave it a mention in a movie he had a gag role in, Bob Roberts , 1992.
His favorite line (variously rendered) was "Harry Truman signed the United States of America into oblivion in February, 1949"
which was when the NSA papers were drawn up, giving us the security state, the CIA and the whole shebang. Anytime before, any
US citizen could demand accounting of any government project, no matter what. Afterward, the rule by secrecy applied.
Vidal had been a WWII veteran and deplored all that came about after. Credit is due for that.
Even if you're not doing anything wrong, you are being watched and recorded. The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows
it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested
without targeting. If I wanted to see your emails or your wife's phone calls, all I have to do is use intercepts. I can get
your emails, passwords, phone records, credit cards. – Edward Snowden
Snowden, exiled and isolated in Russia, is some sort of USG crypto-agent or something?
I suppose that if you're going to look for outside-the-box commentary and analysis, you're going to get some of this sort of
nonsense. I guess you can't expect to hit a home run every time.
"Edward Snowden is a typical American fachidiot who, despite their protestations is a striver and bootlick for the Empire.
I genuinely believe that he is puzzled as to why it has turned against him. He deserves his destiny of forever languishing
in political purgatory."
And yet this "striver and bootlick for the Empire" is exiled in Russia. So some guy sacrifices an enjoyable and secure life
to go live in Russia and all you can say is that "he deserves his destiny?"
"Several years later, practically nobody remembers him here in the US"
And this is a reflection on him or on the rest of us?
Comfortable living in Moscow, vs. Belmarsh, makes all the difference in the world.
You might be right about Snowden, you might not be, but were Assange living in a Russian city, far out of reach of NeoconiaDC,
Bill Blaney would show him greater respect believe me.
@Horst G Boy howdy, a Rubik's
Cube is now magical, profane, occult, and eerily symbolic, because it's cubical! And geometry class is a satanic false
flag op of oppressive propaganda taught by crypto-Jews! Who else could be interested in IRRATIONAL numbers like π? PYTHAGORAS
WAS A MOSSAD AGENT!
And yet this "striver and bootlick for the Empire" is exiled in Russia. So some guy sacrifices an enjoyable and secure life
to go live in Russia and all you can say is that "he deserves his destiny?"
His "sacrifice" was inadvertent and involuntary. The fact that he seems not to appreciate the sanctuary offered to him by Russia
-- has he not repeatedly expressed the desire to go elsewhere? -- says a lot. From everything I have read about him, it would
appear that he regards his exile not as something to be borne with dignity, but as something to pout over as does a child who
unexpectedly did not get his way.
Julian Assange, on the other hand, sacrificed much more and did so willingly and courageously. He had no illusions about the
consequences that he would face for his beliefs and actions.
And this is a reflection on him or on the rest of us?
Both. Nobody remembers anything here in the US anyway, least of all people and events which do not flatter the national mythos.
In the case of this would-be patriot -- the scion of a family that grew fat at the government teat, and who himself has made a
tidy profit from his exile -- his unofficial damnatio memoriæ is deserved.
Maybe you ought to give Snowden some credit for his military service too. Fair is fair.
Snowden enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on May 7, 2004, and became a Special Forces candidate through its 18X
enlistment option.[39] He did not complete the training.[12] After breaking both legs in a training accident,[40] he was discharged
on September 28, 2004.[41]
@Brabantian Is Seth Rich dead
? OpDeepState.com : "The 'murder' of Seth Rich – Everything we thought we knew is wrong !" by Lisa Phillips . "The MOSSAD infiltrated
Clinton's campaign with a Sayanim contractor – Seth Rich – this OP took Hillary right out of the race ."
Tor is a great tool, if you know how to use it correctly. The US gov't know people don't know how to use it correctly, and sets
up exit nodes to spy on idiots, like this:
In 2007 Egerstad set up just five Tor exit nodes and used them to intercept thousands of private emails, instant messages
and email account credentials.
Amongst his unwitting victims were the Australia, Japanese, Iranian, India and Russia embassies, .
Dan Egerstad proved then that exit nodes were a fine place to spy on people and his research convinced him in 2007, long
before Snowden, that governments were funding expensive, high bandwidth exit nodes for exactly that purpose.
Tor is a fine security project and an excellent component in a strategy of defence in depth but it isn't (sadly) a cloak
of invisibility.
Exit nodes, just like fake Wi-Fi hotspots, are an easy and tempting way for attackers to silently insert themselves into
a network.
By running an exit node they can sit there as an invisible man-in-the-middle on a system that people choose when
they want extra privacy and security.
Well, this is refreshing. I agree wholeheartedly about Snowden and have the same reservations. My feelings about Assange, however,
aren't much different. Julian has not challenged the 9/11 narrative either to be fair. I am inclined to see them both as limited
hangouts. Snowden's 'revelations' were all old news to anyone who'd been paying attention for 10 years before his appearance.
Even other whistleblowers, none of whom got any media coverage, had spoken of much of it previously. I see them both as pied pipers
and nothing more. I think Russian intelligence services are perfectly well aware of what Snowden is and have kept him at arms
length themselves. Not much they could do but play along but nothing suggests they ever saw him as any sort of 'coup'
Anyone who still plays along with the 9/11 bullshit narrative isn't worth a damn anyway.
@animalogicConsider that nothing
Snowden revealed was news. It was all old hat for anyone who'd been paying attention, and for up to ten years. Sure Snowden made
it mainstream for what good it did but nothing he said was a secret anymore. In fact, I thought even at the time his actions were
nothing less than a 'threat and warning' from the intel services that they had this much on everyone. Just imagine all those national
leaders, politicians from all states being pout on notice. All your secrets are ours! What a powerful global message to deliver
and in such a loud and clear fashion.
The lack of deviation from official bullshit on 9/11 is on its own however reason enough to toss this guy out. Snowden NEVER
impressed me for a moment and honestly, nor has Assange. I believe they're both working for the other side still. By the way,
Julian Assange has actually denigrated 9/11 truthers a number of times.
@anon It's in the magazine, page
82, quote "Zauberwürfel". Presented by me, for you to get the picture. Maybe you haven't seen enough cubes around, to get that
humor. In real life, copying material on devices will be followed by arrest, no interview, no journey to some exile. This whole
tale is not funny, it's evil on many levels. Your sarcasm is disturbing.
Several years later, practically nobody remembers him here in the US, and possible elsewhere (save for when it is convenient
for the media). Julian Assange was a far more daring, more insightful figure.
I disagree, there are plenty of people who remember him. The problem is they don't care, most Americans would rather watch
America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than do something about our corrupt political system.
2013 Edward Snowden 'leaked stolen documents' (1) 'Leaked' to Dick Cheney friend at CIA WashPost, Rothschild employee Greenwald
(2) Anti-9-11-truth (3) Nothing really new beyond more than 5+ previous NSA whistleblowers (4) Has CIA lawyers, worked with Brzezinski
son, promoted by Brzezinski daughter, fake CV history (5) Known as fake to all major gov intel agencies
@Johnny Walker ReadThis is
absolutely dynamite material, it blows to smithereens any notion that Edward Snowden is anything other than a fraud, a CIA disinfo
op.
So now we can place him alongside Julian Assange and Wikileaks in the rogue's gallery of professional liars. This report
also exposes several other media outlets as being under CIA control, something we have known for some time
I don't know the answer -- except that this article raises serious questions, suspicions , about
Snowden's authenticity.
To my mind "9/11, attitude to", is a sort of touch-stone for telling genuine dissidents from fake and both Snowden and Assange
fail on that test. I don't have a reference for it, but I saw it in correspondence on this site. There was a video of a lecture
given by Assange, where someone asked him about 9/11. He looked extremely embarrassed and then replied that he thought that it
was "not very important" (Sic!) and changed the subject.
I am less sure of this but I think I saw something similar in an interview with Snowden. Perhaps someone else can remind me
of exact references?
This is the same government whose leaders secure their laptops with the secret code "pas$word" and require the producers of computers
to give them full access via day one exploits along with tailor fitted programs that are easier to hack.
That Snowden got away with what he did is not that shocking.
These days Snowden has become a generic term for whistleblowing on the Deep State tech spying, like xerox for copying. I suppose someone here wants to remind us that this was _really_ the first copier, patented in 1879:
The truth or falsity of the original "myth" becames moot at some point.
The Deep State is spying. They do have hardware and software and monkey in the middle hacks. They do trade intelligence with
other spy agencies, domestic and foreign. They lie about it through the Mockingbird media.
_That_ is what is important.
Snowden's bona fides are "inside baseball", and minor league baseball at that.
.gov IT security is a joke–millions of pages of regulations, proclamations, millions of hours of management meetings, goals,
powerpoint slides–ultimately easily outmatched by any determined hackers (whether in mom's basement or an intelligence agency's
basement).
If he was a sys admin, that probably meant he had the rights to install, remove, enable, and disable the various safety guards
and security checks discussed in this article.
@Jonathan Revusky Yvonne Lorenzo
paper suggest suspect issues exist to support Snowden's story but finds Assange's saga to be
based in epic, consistent, continued resistance to the organized forces at work in governments and high profile international
corporations and agencies to keep secret things which expose officials as criminals.
<=the difference is consistency, scope and finger points. Assange has been consistent.. always seeking to make available as
much as he could, always with as much clarity as possible; making the point where he could, that much of what he exposed seems
to be in the domain of organized crime. Assange often exposes high profile persons and tags them with evidence to connect them
to prior and current organized crime or obviously corrupt activities. Assange shows these persons or governments or agencies are
involved in secret diplomatic activities, the secrecy of which seem always to be protected by judicial and legal processes
The Assange story paints a picture that suggest globally organized crime has come into possession and now manages and controls
many well armed domestic governments and that selected agencies of government have been enabling selected private enterprises.
Assange exposes intelligence services of many different nations to be a bank, corporation, and agency inter connects that coordinate
infrastructure destruction, invasion, regime change, and war, and that these events are often followed by opportunistic privatization.
Snowden merely says a few things are wrong and should be corrected. in time the government will fix its own mistakes. I do
not know if Snowden is a Trojan, but nothing Assange has done suggest he is and governments have treated Assange as anything but
one of them. My opinion.
@Nicolás Palacios Navarro I agree
that Assange has suffered much more than Snowden, but why hold that against the latter?
Snowden took a risk to publicize what he thought was important information indicating a dangerous trend in US policy. He wasn't
willing to offer himself up as a lamb to the slaughter, so it's true that his sacrifice is not perhaps the ultimate one. He seems
to have thought he could remain in Hong Kong but didn't realize that China was never going to compromise relations with the US
to protect him. Putin wouldn't have either except that the US was so imperious in demanding his return that Putin really couldn't
save face and give him up, and no doubt he was rankled by US hypocrisy, knowing that had Snowden been a Russian, the US would
never have considered sending him back.
But Snowden DID take action which is more than most of us do. I find your complete lack of empathy kind of weird, to be honest.
Even if Assange is the more virtuous or if one disagrees with Snowden's actions, he has paid a price for principle.
What does his family background have to do with anything?
I'm not inclined to sneer at him, and I don't see how you get to "he deserves what he gets."
So Pamela Anderson lied about visiting Assange in the embassy? If they're faking it, wherever he is he isn't in the public
eye walking down the street or sitting in a Starbucks, so he's leading a prison life anyway behind closed doors somewhere. I suppose
a dedicated agent would do something like that for Queen and country or whatever, but I doubt he's the type. I gather veterans
today are trying to cast Assange as a Mossad agent but then they're the Journal of the Clandestine Community, whatever that is.
Snowden is not a classic defector so it makes sense for him to keep his distance from Russian society so as not to be inadvertently
compromised or used by their intelligence services. He's obviously under surveillance there, I know we all are but he's much more
aware of it, so that doesn't make it easy for him but he's definitely safer there than he'd be in France or Germany. I just don't
think he planned well ahead when he became a whistle-blower or was clear about what he was trying to achieve. He's not the top
level type of spy we're accustomed to reading about who betray their country for money or to serve another they believe in more
than their own. If he has been on active duty as a CIA asset all along I can't see that he has achieved much of use to them other
than in some inter-agency rivalry game. But it's natural for Russians to be suspicious of him – they're suspicious by nature –
and rightly so, but it doesn't make his life easy there.
Good stuff. Snowden was outed by Gordon Duff years ago. Although I'll have to come back to finish this article, it generally appears
to agree with Duff's analysis that none of it adds up. If I may paraphrase Edward Bernays, To read the Washington Post and Guardian or watch TV news is to see America and Western Civilization through the eyes of its
enemy.
The owners of the media own the public forum in America and through it the formation of men's attitudes and the outcome of
elections. The left vs right, CNN vs Fox News, MAGA vs socialism and other contrived theater serves the interests of the media
owners and no other.
Assange tried to destroy the "system", which would have furthered the conditions for completing the ongoing, global
Cultural Marxist Revolution Mao Zedong on steroids.
Snowden, on the other hand, wanted something much less extreme. He wanted to fix and save the "system" by exposing
its excesses in order to bring it back within a quasi-legal, democratic framework.
In response, the "system" was satisfied to teach Snowden a lesson. They were willing to slap Snowden's hand by exiling him
to Western Russia, which is better than rotting in a Siberian labor camp or "max" prison in the United States.
Assange, on the other hand, is a reincarnated, digital version of Che Guevara. They want his scalp, recognizing that Assange
(like Che Guevara) will brook no compromise in his revolutionary agitation.
Good article. Snowden and Assange are agents of disinformation
"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence
of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."
@9/11 Inside job Well, the
Real Litmus Test ™ is eternal security vs. conditional salvation. Don't fail, or everything else you've ever said must be
summarily dismissed. Answer well, friendo .
Splitting (also called black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing thinking) is the failure in a person's thinking to bring
together the dichotomy of both positive and negative qualities of the self and others into a cohesive, realistic whole. It
is a common defense mechanism.
The problem is they don't care, most Americans would rather watch America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars than do
something about our corrupt political system.
It appears the author of this piece has not read Snowden's book, Permanent Record . If she had, she would not have asked
questions which are answered, in detail, in Snowden's book. Here are some of the most obvious points.
1. "Why does Snowden never discuss dealing with such encryption: how would it be possible?"
Answer: In his book, Snowden describes the layers of encryption that he used when copying the files from NSA. He also describes
the extraordinary level of access he had as a systems engineer. Further, he mentions his surprise at finding that the NSA did
not practice widespread encryption, in contrast to his experience at CIA, where the hard drives were not only encrypted, but removed
from the computers and placed in a safe each night.
2. "In the Oliver Stone movie Snowden, as well as in any of Snowden's descriptions of how he accessed the NSA computers, did
you note either the depiction or reference to this universal Smart ID? How could Snowden be exempt from its requirement?"
Answer: Movies omit details. In his book, Snowden describes working in the one-person Information Sharing department. As part
of that work, he brought an older, "obsolete" system to his office under the cover story of "compatibility testing" and used this
older system to copy the data.
3. "Did Edward Snowden, who has publicly criticized Google, mention Google is deployed as a search engine throughout the federal
"intranet"?"
Answer: Yes, as a matter of fact, in his book, Snowden does mention that Google provides a custom internal version of their
search engine to the intelligence community.
4. "Edward Snowden would have us believe that the Eye of Sauron didn't notice he was looking at gigabytes of data unrelated
to his job function and using his computer to copy the data to external devices over a lengthy period of time."
Answer: In his book, Snowden describes how he created a "readboard" that collected the documents as part of his work in the
Information Sharing department. He also describes how another systems administrator did notice, and how he addressed this attention
by providing access to his "readboard" to the other administrator, and explained its purpose and value to users. In other words,
the "gigabytes of data" he was looking at were directly related to his job function.
5. "On another issue, why did Snowden provide his files to known house organs of Intelligence Agencies, specifically the Washington
Post and The Guardian, and not give them to Wikileaks to allow a publicly available searchable database?"
Answer: Snowden also discusses this topic in his book. According to Snowden, he did not want to simply release the information,
he wanted the media to remove anything that might cause harm.
6. "And what about Snowden himself, the pontificator, the man who can speak on television or to the media with evidence of
training? Practice yourself -- see how well you can answer questions and speak publicly to a TV camera. How did he get his training?
Who trained him? Why?"
Answer: After 6 years of media attention, it seems reasonable he would gain some expertise in dealing with the media.
My purpose in providing the answers above is not to defend or attack Snowden. Rather, these examples just show that the author
of this piece is a sloppy amateur who did not do her homework. I suspect the author is also woefully ignorant of computer technology.
Anyone curious about these topics should read Permanent Record and decide for themselves.
Your opinion stands. Snowden has de facto been compromised. Being in Russia, and not in control of his environment. Whether
he was from the start, could be. The Tor browser bull- *** t speaks against him all the way. His conventional career start, and
youth also. He is more Macron then a Galloway.
Assange was in for the long term, had thorough knowledge of affairs digital, his youth, his physical courage(there must be
a point where selling out was a possibility) were exemplary all along the (long) and still ongoing slug.
Even his ego, fronting Wikileaks seems to be proportionate as compared to the conventional Jerks &, as Pompeo, Hillary, Trump,
Obama. If one sees how many personnel is dedicated to steer elections and governance public opinion, he certainly looks like a
lonely giant on the civil disobedience, organizational, knowledgeable, energy spent and resilience side. A true example of what
White, and Western European descend stands for. Enlightenment, in system, style, and function. Relevancy, long term goals, dare,
does not come better then that.
@Oscar Peterson I don't have "Agree/Disagree/Etc"
privileges so I say here that I agree with you.
Some of the pompous ingrates trashing Snowden for the flimsiest of reasons still seem to have a high opinion of Thomas Drake,
William Binney, or Kirk Wiebe. They might read this:
Three NSA Veterans Speak Out on Whistleblower
The author, interestingly enough, isn't I.T. professional, but, has very definite opinions about IT security. Dumb.
Just email it to a private email.
Well, firewall logs could reveal your connection to some email server outside ..
Or store on something else and transport out.
Yep. Hehe the girl doesn't actually get how that "encryption" thing works. OSI layers etc.
And, what people really don't get: all security is as good as an average person using it.
As hehe you pointed out:
Hillary was doing the same thing for ages.
Insider doesn't need to tackle technology. All he/she needs is to tackle is a dumb employee.
Anyway .
I could make my home systems quite secure, even against Five Eyes. That would create another set of even worse problems, but
let's leave it out for now.
The problem is my wife and her browsing/computer use habits. Hehe makes sense?
Snowden keeping "distance" to Russia, and not openly defending them seems reasonable to me. You can imagine the smear campaign
back home if he would side with Russia against the U.S. on almost anything. "The Russians got to him" or "He was always their
man".
He is trying to keep his neutrality and credibility and his target audience isn't the average Unz reader, but rather some mainstream
educated middle/upper class blokes. Easily scared away from his views if they become too controversial and too far from the established
narrative.
Last but not least, he is playing very dangerous game, probably without much security from his host country. This probably
limits what he can do, TPTB could probably get to him if they wanted it badly enough.
@PetrOldSack > The Tor browser
bull- *** t speaks against him all the way
No, your stupid bull- *** t lack of understanding about Tor speaks against you all the way. It's not encryption, like you probably
think it is. It's simply a way to use another IP address without having to drive to the nearest Starbucks to use their wifi. You
treat Tor just like any "free" wifi, assuming that your data is being sniffed and collected. If you're going to message, use Signal
(or Telegram.) Always force HTTPS. Use encryption. All Tor does is obfuscate your IP location, which is exactly what Snowden states,
"All Tor does is obfuscate your IP location .
"[Tor] allows you to disassociate your physical location ."
And now Brave Browser has it built in! So easy. Try it. Just don't do anything on Tor that you wouldn't do with a Starbuck's
free wifi in Foggy Bottom.
@Republic How he got taken down
is here
, and it started with the name-fag using his Real Name while e-begging for help to run illegal websites, and ended up with a half-dozen
FBI agents tailing him at his arrest. Even then, Tor made it harder for the FBI to track him, just not impossible.
Tor only does one thing, obfuscate your physical location. That's it. It's not magic. It's a virtual way to sit at the Starbucks
cafe and use their free wifi. Just assume the exit node is owned by the Feds, looking for criminal morons who don't understand
it and think it's "secure" or "encrypted." It's not. Use encryption too.
Stuff like this just confirms Qanon. He said years ago Snowden was a CIA plant in the NSA to reveal this information about their
mass surveillance on purpose. Why ? Maybe it relates to what Michael Hoffman describes as revelation of the method – a process
of revealing the crimes being committed against us by "they" so it breeds apathy and despair in the population when nothing comes
from
The revelation of the crimes
An allegedly very high iq high school from a family with drop out Snowden's tried to join special forces and failed jump school,
he failed a polygraph, got accepted to the CIA though not as a field agent despite his lack of a degree, and was bounced from
the CIA and then got a job with Dell as an outside contractor on the basis of his still intact security clearance, the contractors
were not compartmentalised in the way government employees were.
Then he went to work for defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton,
at an NSA facility in Hawaii. In subsequent interview with journalists, Snowden lied about his doing undercover work for the CIA,
salary and seniority at Booz Allen, being able to spy on the the emails and phone calls of President Obama. Oh, and suffering broken
bones in special forces jump school, he just had shin splints It is very clear how he got access, and why most of the people who
gave him it did not own up.
https://nypost.com/2013/11/08/snowden-duped-coworkers-to-get-passwords/
Snowden duped co-workers to get passwords A handful of agency employees who gave their login details to Snowden were identified,
questioned and removed from their assignments, said a source close to several U.S. government investigations into the damage
caused by the leaks.
Snowden may have persuaded between 20 and 25 fellow workers at the NSA regional operations center in Hawaii
to give him their logins and passwords by telling them they were needed for him to do his job as a computer systems administrator,
a second source said.
Are we to believe the NSA lacks a "digital trail" when it comes to classified documents?
It's only difficult to believe if you think NASA (like the CIA and FBI once were) are only guarded in relation to external
rather than internal security breaches
[A] frightening history of plans to crush internal dissent and would-be dissenters in the United States.
Why would they bother? Those dissenters cannot change anything, while they are whiling away their free time on the internet.
Such activity cannot change anything at all, and so it is to be encouraged from the point of view of any establishment as open
dissent on the net wards off the allegation of totalitarian state. Talk is cheap.
I'm not going to comment on the person or their agenda, rather the process-broadly.
Can you copy encrypted files without knowledge and smuggle them out?
Short answer:
Yes, with a second device and some standard hardware stuff.
They can see the second device if it is plugged in, but they have to look for it.
There is no need to try and copy from the source, copy the output to a second machine that can interpret.
ought to give Snowden some credit for his military service too.
Hell, I'd give the guy credit for his quick sprinting at the NSA. But we haven't established if he was a wiz kid or a plant.
Vidal went into the US Army after Pearl Harbor, at age 17. Even though he'd been his high school representative for the America
First Committee, trying to keep the US out of the war. Due to hypothermia working on army transport ships in the Aleutians, he
was initially misdiagnosed as arthritic and, not being caught in time, ended up first with a titanium leg replacement years later,
then in a wheelchair.
I remain sort of impressed when a young man opposes a fight, then for patriotic reasons, serves anyway (and pays a steep price).
I'm sure we'll get the full story on Snowden sooner or later.
@Saggy A stupid girl who is completely
unfamiliar with the Snowden history. For example, she asks this, "why did Snowden provide his files to The Guardian?"
Because he needed immediate press coverage. He didn't have weeks or even days, he had at most a few hours. His story
had to be in the press the next morning. Both Greenwald and the Guardian reporter were with him at the hotel, worried that
Snowden might even be assassinated if caught by US forces, and worked to get immediate press coverage of his plight to save his
life. Plus, he was in constant contact with Wikileaks'Julian Assange, which she conveniently ignores to promote her lie-based
conspiritard theory.
Without his story getting into the press within a few hours, and without Wikileaks' Julian Assange helping Snowden, he'd be
in prison now, at best, possibly dead.
I say, give the guy a fair trial. He has asked for a fair trial. But the US Gov't has refused to allow his motive to
be considered in the trial. Amazing, isn't it? Since when is motive to not be considered in a criminal trial?
For Snowden, a fair trial means allowing the jury to consider his motivations rather than simply deciding the case
on whether a law was broken.
"They want the jury strictly to consider whether these actions were lawful or unlawful, not whether they were right or wrong,"
Snowden said. "And I'm sorry, but that defeats the purpose of a jury trial."
Tor may still be a good tool, it certainly was, I had great fun using it to troll and set off edit wars on English Wikipedia for
a year or two mid-last decade. One of those edit wars lasted for about three days. I just watched after starting it (but I meant
what I said in the comment that set it off, but not always in the trolling(^-^)v).
In any case, the English-language WP has been madly tracking Tor exit nodes and banning them since about early '07.
Fun while it lasted.
As for the wrong way to use it, that basically means making a connection to any other site, without Tor, while using Tor. I
slipped up on that once or twice when slightly drunk.
I don't even know if using Tor is even legal in Japan now. I do love, however, how Wikipedia is aggressively supressing it.
Some politicians in ruling party were moving to make it illegal a couple of years ago, our polity is so nonsensical that I
have to checck Japanese wiki to see the result.
Any fule knows that Tor original is a U.S.N. programme,
Rappaport started my thinking and I bookmarked his pages long ago and to my horror found the site was taken down. I wonder
why? Glad for this archive. Thank you.
It appears the author of this piece has not read Snowden's book, Permanent Record. If she had, she would not have asked
questions which are answered, in detail, in Snowden's book. Here are some of the most obvious points.
1. "Why does Snowden never discuss dealing with such encryption: how would it be possible?"
Answer: In his book, Snowden describes the layers of encryption that he used when copying the files from NSA. He also describes
the extraordinary level of access he had as a systems engineer. Further, he mentions his surprise at finding that the NSA did
not practice widespread encryption, in contrast to his experience at CIA, where the hard drives were not only encrypted, but
removed from the computers and placed in a safe each night.
2. "In the Oliver Stone movie Snowden, as well as in any of Snowden's descriptions of how he accessed the NSA computers,
did you note either the depiction or reference to this universal Smart ID? How could Snowden be exempt from its requirement?"
Answer: Movies omit details. In his book, Snowden describes working in the one-person Information Sharing department. As
part of that work, he brought an older, "obsolete" system to his office under the cover story of "compatibility testing" and
used this older system to copy the data.
No, I haven't read the book–yet.
As part of a forensic analysis, which none of you were observant enough to understand, the subject is interviewed without knowledge
of the questions in advance. His answers would be evaluated based on facts, for which a forensic IT team with no connections to
government contractors would be part of and gain access to NSA systems. Thus, testimony is considered but it must be verified.
Rand Paul might be one to open an investigation into the inadequacy of NSA security but government investigating itself is suspect.
No such investigation will ever take place.
Note there has been no calls, that I am aware of, for any GAO study of NSA vulnerabilities.
Second, the critics miss the point: providing files to CIA-Five Eye fronts like Guardian and CIA Washington Post is suspect.
As per what I wrote, no one now has access to this data.
I suspect Snowden leaked legitimate information to con the Russians to be on their soil and conduct malfeasance. Prior to Putin
providing S-300s to Syria, Israel had better relations with Russia. I suspect Q is also coordinated by Intel agency friendly to
Likud. Note his mention of John Perry Barlow before his death. He warned of Snowden being sent deliberately to Russia and hence
my concern for CIA doing something stupid.
As to his comments on not supporting Russia, no support is necessary. If he were a decent human being he could simply have
stated, "Election interference notwithstanding the U.S. should pursue non-aggressive posture against Russia. There was no 'Second
Pearl Harbor.' The risk of nuclear war is great and I agree with President Trump to reduce tensions, although I disagree with
his politics."
Instead, see his Tweets supporting the Pussy Hats and "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary Clinton.
In the event, Snowden is irrelevant. The end of Empire is imminent.
Read Martyanov's post on the recent threats America made to Russia here.
I have compassion for Snowden. His end will likely be as Skripals was: disappearance by Western IC which he supports and blame
placed on Russia.
We are free to disagree with one another. I trust nothing a supporter of Empire says.
As to September 11 I wasn't aware of Assange's remarks. This is the touchstone as others have said. Snowden enlisted because
of September 11 false flag. Yeah, right, he is an idiot savant.
Even Ed Asner who no longer wins Emmy awards and is blackballed had the courage to do this video. Trust Snowden? I think not.
Y. Lorenzo (this site will not allow me to post under my name)
p.s. Ron uses Gmail. The nearest military base is a long, long way from my location. A helicopter outfitted with surveillance
bubbles overflew after I submitted this piece.. Coincidence, right?
I will fight for the truth. I receive no compensation for my work and expect none. I support the cause of peace and not Empire.
Thanks for the intelligent supportive comments. Ad hominem attacks mean nothing. Thanks to Ron for posting though he disagrees.
...re. 'Smowden"when he was constantly whining about Russia, getting hhs pole-dancing gf to join him there must have
been a major effort, but he has no gratitude for it.
Really strange. At the time, I thought that Putin's comment 'he is a strange young man' had to do only with questions of loyalty and betrayal,
of course, it was lilekely deeper and more suspicious than that. If I had been in the position like 'Snowden', after first having been granted asylum, my priority would have been to study
the language. I would gtuess that he can order food or drink, do basic greetings, and not much else.
@Republic Snowden's wife is a
former pole dancer, those are for good for something, but its not marrying. Everything about him suggests immaturity, from his
toying with the idea of being a model to his trying to go from frail civilian with a youth spent 24/7 gaming to passing jumps
school. He stole vastly more than he could ever have read, much of it having no bearing on privacy so he has no idea what he might
have compromised. Quoth he:
There is a secrecy agreement, but there is also an oath of service. An oath of service is to support and defend, not an
agency, not even the president, it is to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies
– direct quote – foreign and domestic. And this begs the question, what happens when our obligations come into conflict.
If you have meaningful values (ie those that do not charge to suit your personal aggrandisement) you resign, I but instead
of doing that he deliberately got another job contracting with the NSA all the better to steal data.
.In the event, Snowden is irrelevant. The end of Empire is imminent. Read Martyanov's post on the recent threats America made to Russia here .
That was fast, even for this pub.
Ad hominem attacks mean nothing.
You mean being positive about you UNABLE to visualize a byte from a "keypress" moving all the way to the LAN cable with each
timer "click"? You know, buffers, busses, microcode/firmware, interrupts, stack/heap, closed source, encryption/decryption layer
of the OSI stack etc. That's for technology.
As for people, unaware of an average idiot user in any environment using IT, Governments in particular, and the role and power
of sysadmins in such environments?
But confident to write articles what can and can not be done re IT security?
Yeah .
@anon Not sure about Pythagoras,
but there are (very unfortunately) people who might have
fun from combining "Rubik's Cube and highly classified information".
And not necessarily in reality.
You mean being positive about you UNABLE to visualize a byte from a "keypress" moving all the way to the LAN cable with
each timer "click"? You know, buffers, busses, microcode/firmware, interrupts, stack/heap, closed source, encryption/decryption
layer of the OSI stack etc. That's for technology.
Rand Paul might be one to open an investigation into the inadequacy of NSA security but government investigating itself
is suspect. No such investigation will ever take place.
Yes, Rand Paul who while cutting his lawn provoked his own retired doctor neighbor in a gated community into a maddened vicious
rib dislocating attack that cost Paul part of his lung What a brilliant choice to annoy the government.
His end will likely be as Skripals was: disappearance by Western IC which he supports and blame placed on Russia
Skirpal is in America. The British got Skirpal out of Russia, but Russia could have killed him any time because he was homesick
and meeting people from the Russian Embassy. In my opinion the Russians were trying to kill Skirpal's daughter along with him.
They knew she was coming and timed the nerve agent attack so as to 'accidentally' kill her along with the traitor. The knowledge
that you will go after their families is the ultimate deterrent. Unless you are a narcissistic dick like Snowden, who hardly mentions
anything his family did for him except getting a second phone line so he could play some stupid internet game. Snowden actually
says in his book that the internet raised him. It did not get him a job in the CIA despite him having no degree, that was his
mom's NSA and her father's Pentagon connections. Aldrich Ames's father worked for the CIA .
Edward Snowden is a great man – a great American. (Will a Dem president pardon him?) I recently viewed a video on how a poor immigrant family hid Snowden before he secured a flight out of Hong Kong. (He is working
to get them out of Hong Kong, to Canada.) I am curious as to how he got the flight out to Russia?????
This will be my final comment.
My issue is one regarding Snowden's character and integrity, especially as the collapsing Empire under FUBAR Trump is waging
war on the world. Come on, none of the CIA trolls here have read The Saker with Orlov on the fate of the mass murdering Empire?
At this point it is important to explain what exactly a "final collapse" looks like. Some people are under the very mistaken
assumption that a collapsed society or country looks like a Mad Max world. This is not so. The Ukraine has been a failed state
for several years already, but it still exists on the map. People live there, work, most people still have electricity (albeit
not 24/7), a government exists, and, at least officially, law and order is maintained. This kind of collapsed society can go
on for years, maybe decades, but it is in a state of collapse nonetheless, as it has reached all the 5 Stages of Collapse as
defined by Dmitry Orlov in his seminal book "The Five Stages of Collapse: Survivors' Toolkit" where he mentions the following
5 stages of collapse:
Stage 1: Financial collapse. Faith in "business as usual" is lost.
Stage 2: Commercial collapse. Faith that "the market shall provide" is lost.
Stage 3: Political collapse. Faith that "the government will take care of you" is lost.
Stage 4: Social collapse. Faith that "your people will take care of you" is lost.
Stage 5: Cultural collapse. Faith in "the goodness of humanity" is lost.
Sound familiar? Read it and weep. Your pensions are toast.
Or read Chris Hedges America The Farewell Tour.
Snowden's character is proven by his interview with Brian Roberts.
Now, although only 14% of U.S. TLAMs got past Syrian air defenses, hear him was rhapsodic on the "beautiful missiles."
And Snowden is happy to talk to this creep? And asks Rothschild-Kravis puppet Macron to ex-filtrate him to France?
It was in this milieu that he met Henry and Marie-Josée Kravis, in their residence on Park Avenue in New York [1]. The Kravis
couple, unfailing supporters of the US Republican Party, are among the great world fortunes who play politics out of sight
of the Press. Their company, KKR, like Blackstone and the Carlyle Group, is one of the world's major investment funds.
" Emmanuel's curiosity for the 'can-do attitude' was fascinating – the capacity to tell yourself that you can do anything
you set your mind to. He had a thirst for knowledge and a desire to understand how things work, but without imitating or copying
anyone. In this, he remained entirely French ", declares Marie-Josée Drouin (Mrs. Kravis) today [2].
Snowden's revelations about his aspirations for asylum outside of Russia come just days ahead of the upcoming release of
his new memoir which is expected to hit the shelves on US Constitution Day.
Famous American whistleblower and former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, the man responsible for exposing a number of global
surveillance programs run by the US agency, has recently revealed that he would like to obtain asylum in France.
Call it female intuition, Snowden creeps me out.
Those who want to bow before his altar, be my guest. You have free will.
Just realized, isn't this creature the only female author here?
A female creature is writing, as an author, on alt-whatever site, about things she has never been professionally involved in.
With certain hahaha style.
Hahaha ..oh my.
So, what have we got:
1. Unz finally collapsed under "diversity" pressure?
2. There is, sort of a hidden, message here.
@Sean True true .mea culpa. Female
stuff, that is, in general.
Style, though, is unique for the creature here.
Butthurt
whoo-hoo..
Go wave your flag
.CIA trolls here
Read it and weep. Your pensions are toast .
.creep .creeps me out
I mean hahaha .when reading those things it's, almost, as written by a certain type of commentators here. Almost as one of
them, actually. Same "footprint". Especially the first two.
I mean, having that from an author here is, really, a new low for sure.
This is the first time I've seen something like that, and my attitude was mild in this thread compared to some in other threads.
I mean, I was quite hard on some authors here, and never, so far that. "Butthurt" ."whoo-hoo"
I've quite offended a couple of authors here and they never replied with any rude word. And ..my God "whoo-hoo". Haha crazy.
New "quality" seeping here, apparently. Hehe getting with times, I guess. And program.
Understandable.
I've been on this site for quite some time. Read, on average, 20 % of articles and similar number of comments in those articles.
I can't, really, recollect ONE case when an AUTHOR, here, in a comments exchange with a commentator, used the words
"butthurt" and "whoo-hoo". Not once from the, say, authors from the West. Born and raised there, that is. Cultural
thing, I guess.
@foolisholdmanI agree. Shilling
for the Israelis regarding 911 is a deal breaker for me. They had me going about these 2 guys for a while, but when I heard that
they had ridiculed 911 truthers I smelled a rat. And after this article I agree they are shills for the status quo. Reasonable
people can not doubt that 911 was a false flag operation. There's just too much bullshit there.
I think the idea Snowden is a "plant" is a bit far out there. If he is; the real purpose of the exercise is what exactly?
I also don't get why some commenters think Julian Assange isn't who he claims to be. His Wikileaks has published great volume
of highly embarrassing material for the U.S. The embassy cables come to mind – bringing to light evidence contrary to Washington
narrative on many events.
There is another thing; Just after he established Wikileaks he came to Iceland and met with journalists and few politicians.
The result from that visit was he met one Kristinn Hrafnsson, long time journalist in Iceland with excellent track record and
credibility. Since Assange got in trouble, accused of sexual harassment from Swedish woman and finally escaped into the Ecuador
embassy in London, Hrafnsson has been spokesman for Wikileaks.
Since I am familiar with Hrafnsson work for decades, I would be very surprised if he worked with Assagne all this time, and
even took over his job, so to speak, as head of Wikileaks if Assagne wasn't genuine. Hrafnsson has struck me as smart guy and
honest and it's extremely unlikely he would continue if something didn't smell right at Wikileaks. I also want to point out Wikileaks
has been working with, what I consider the few remaining NEWS outlets in Europe. (Including The Guardian before it was bought
few years ago and became worthless).
To Assagne credit he booted Icelandic polititian, one Birgitta Jónsdóttir; who tried to visit him in U.K. prison – and wanted
nothing to do with her. She has been trying to make international name for herself as fighter for human rights and peacemaker
and against corruption and so forth. Unfortunately she is a bag full of hot air and thinks SHE is the center of the universe.
It's all about her and therefore she is of no use for any cause. Julian was right to send her packing.
I can't imagine what the CIA or NSA or other tentacles of the Empire would gain by running Wikileaks. It makes absolutely no
sense to me.
@2stateshmustate "9/11 is the
Litmus Test " By Smoking – Mirrors.Com :
"It all comes down to 9/11.Everything that has happened has happened based on a lie . Everyone in Government ; everyone in
the media , in entertainment , in organized religion , in the public ,in the public eye who accepts and promotes the official
story is either a traitor or a tool . Everyone who does not stand forth and speak truth to power is a coward , a liar and complicit
in mass-murder . Everyone
everywhere can be measured by this Litmus Test ."
US authorities usually do not allow such staff for people why really want to hurt. They couple easily put his girlfriend
on "nofly" list, if they wanted.
In the interview, timed to coincide with the release of his book titled Permanent Record,
Snowden said he and Mills, who later moved to him in Russia, married two years ago at a private
ceremony ... ... ... One of world's most beautiful countries
According to Snowden, people in the West often have no information about the beauty of
Russian nature and hospitality of Russians.
"I've been to St. Petersburg, I've been to Sochi. I love travelling and I still do, even
though I can't cross borders now," he said.
"One of the things that is lost in all the problematic politics of the Russian government is
the fact this is one of the most beautiful countries in the world. The people are friendly. The
people are warm," he continued. "And when I came here I did not understand any of this. I was
terrified of this place because, of course, they were the great fortress of the enemy, which is
the way a CIA agent looks at Russia."
According to Snowden, "What people don't realize about Russia is that basically you can get
all the same things you can get in the United States." "The only thing they don't have in
Russia is Taco Bell," he added.
He said it was never his plan to reside in Russia, but, "with time, with open eyes you can
see that our presumptions of a place are almost always different from the reality."
Noble
cause
According to Snowden, his book was intended not only to inform reader of his life in the US
and Russia, but also to draw attention to serious challenges the modern society is now
facing.
"We have moved into a time where people care much more deeply about feelings than they do
about facts. And this is a dangerous moment for democracy, because people believe that once
we have achieved and established a free and open society it will remain that way, it will
always be there. But the reality is: things can backslide very quickly," Snowden said when
asked how dangerous, in his opinion, Trump's rise to power was.
The whistleblower believes that people should be informed of infringements on their freedom
and of acute problems, such as climate change or advanced mass surveillance technologies used
by various governments.
"We need people to recognize these problems, to understand these problems and then to be
willing to give something up to change that problem," he said. "But it's not enough to believe
in something. You have to be ready to stand for something if you want it to change. And so that
is what I hope this book will help people come to decide for themselves: are you ready to this
change."
Snowden's case
In June 2013, Snowden leaked classified information to journalists Glenn Greenwald and Laura
Poitras, which revealed global surveillance programs run by US and British intelligence
agencies. He explained the move by saying that he wanted to tell the world the truth because he
believed such large-scale surveillance on innocent citizens was unacceptable and the public
needed to know about it.
The Guardian and The Washington Post published the first documents concerning the US
intelligence agencies' spying on Internet users on June 6, 2013. According to the documents,
major phone companies, including Verizon, AT&T and Sprint Nextel, handed records of their
customers' phone conversations over to the NSA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
who also had direct access to the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Skype,
YouTube, Paltalk, AOL and Apple. In addition, Snowden's revelations showed that a secret
program named PRISM was aimed at collecting audio and video recordings, photos, emails and
information about users' connections to various websites.
After leaking classified information, Snowden flew to Hong Kong and then to Moscow, arriving
in Russia on June 23, 2013. He applied for political asylum to more than 20 countries while
staying in the transit zone at Moscow's Sheremetyevo airport. On July 16, he applied for a
temporary asylum in Russia, accepting Moscow's condition to refrain from activities aimed
against the US.
The NSA and the Pentagon claim that Snowden stole about 1.7 mln classified documents
concerning the activities of US intelligence services and US military operations. He is charged
with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information
and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an
unauthorized person. He is facing up to ten years in prison on each charge.
"... As for Falun Gong's potential affiliations with the CIA and NED that's another quite plausible storyline altogether. ..."
"... One surely wondered (until how) how Falun Gong can fund The Epoch Times using the same business model that Sheldon Adelson uses to fund a pro-Netanyahu newspaper "Israel Hayom" in Israel that Netanyahu himself endorses and which he or other people in the Israeli government might privilege with news of events that the rest of the Israeli news media has no access to. In this way "Israel Hayom", offered for free in Israel, poses a threat to other Israeli newspapers which have no rich patron to fund their activities and pay their staff but must rely on people buying their papers or regularly subscribing to them. ..."
Some of Mr Li's pronouncements are certainly unconventional, some would say just plain strange.
He believes aliens walk the Earth and he has reportedly said he can walk through walls and make himself invisible.
Mr Li says that he is a being from from a higher level who has come to help humankind from the destruction it could face as
the result of rampant evil.
In 1999 the cult attempted to gain political power in China. The government shut it down for pushing its followers to not use
medical therapies. Li Hongzhi and some of his followers moved to the United States. As the cult is strongly anti-communist the U.S.
government used it to put pressure on China. Some institutions and companies related to Falun Gong are openly funded with U.S. government
money.
The main media outlet of the Falun Gong organization is the Epoch Times . NBC reports of its
astonishing growth as a pro-Trump social media force:
By the numbers, there is no bigger advocate of President Donald Trump on Facebook than The Epoch Times.
The small New York-based nonprofit news outlet has spent more than $1.5 million on about 11,000 pro-Trump advertisements in
the last six months, according to data from Facebook's advertising archive -- more than any organization outside of the Trump
campaign itself, and more than most Democratic presidential candidates have spent on their own campaigns.
Those video ads -- in which unidentified spokespeople thumb through a newspaper to praise Trump, peddle conspiracy theories
about the "Deep State," and criticize "fake news" media -- strike a familiar tone in the online conservative news ecosystem. The
Epoch Times looks like many of the conservative outlets that have gained followings in recent years.
...
In April, at the height of its ad spending, videos from the Epoch Media Group, which includes The Epoch Times and digital video
outlet New Tang Dynasty, or NTD, combined for around 3 billion views on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, ranking 11th among all
video creators across platforms and outranking every other traditional news publisher.
...
The Epoch Times brought in $8.1 million in revenue in 2017 -- double what it had the previous year -- and reported spending $7.2
million on "printing newspaper and creating web and media programs." Most of its revenue comes from advertising and "web and media
income," according to the group's annual tax filings, while individual donations and subscriptions to the paper make up less than
10 percent of its revenue.
New Tang Dynasty's 2017 revenue, according to IRS records, was $18 million, a 150 percent increase over the year before. It
spent $16.2 million.
XXX
The NBC report says it is not clear where the "web and media" money that gets invested in pro-Trump advertisement actually
comes from. I didn't realize it was the same Epoch Times that did a good job covering Russia-Gate:
"The Democrats could up their game by taking a deeper look into this issue." you mean the CIA democrats like Mark Warner? the
US has nothing to offer the world except war, which is why the people of the US must destroy this country. there is 1000% bipartisan
agreement on the war drive against both china & russia. both parties spend their days yelling at each other about who is the most
commie, like moscow mitch or comrade nancy, b/c they are unified in their war drive. as they are on anything else that matters.
this country exists to wage war, as the platform for projection of power, against competitors. nothing else. the illusion that
any of the operators w/in the system, any of them at all, are doing anything but crafting a persona in relation to power for self-aggrandizement,
not challenging power in the slightest, is not helpful.
Thanks for the info on Shen Yun.
In the Bay Area, it seems there are at least 3 or 4 permanent Shen Yun advertising billboards at any given time. Just yesterday,
I passed one advertising tickets for 2020!
The Epoch Times is also very widespread in distribution, although unclear on the actual readers. It seems that every 2nd SF Weekly
box has an Epoch Times one next to it, although my personal experience is mostly downtown where the large Cantonese speaking population
is.
Falun Gong is kinda like Scientology crossed with Amway. Get rich quick while simultaneously healing your goiters. In its best
days it was a terrible scam. Now it is just a blunt instrument that the US State Department uses to try and beat China with.
The Epoch Times' Jeff Carlson has been in the thick of uncovering the broad Democratic Party coup (in league with transnational
intelligence assets) against the Trump Presidency. Thus b's depiction here of the Dems potentially acting in the role of white
knight subverts mountains of evidence. As for Falun Gong's potential affiliations with the CIA and NED that's another quite
plausible storyline altogether.
Perhaps experience affords one the possibility of rapidly discerning the underbelly of an organized grouping like Falun Gong.
Early in its manifestations on streets in Europe it became as apparent as the nose on one's face that it was a well financed propaganda
tool for the gullible and naive. In short, its a ridiculous novelty, a con job and a rip off for all who are taken in by such
preposterous pretensions when its plainly so assuming in its virulent hatred. Anyone who protests their disturbing, illegal and
unacceptable behavior best be prepared to be bitten.. Like various other cults they are not what they appear. Rather they are
a mish-mash of absurd fantasies and hypnotic imaginations. Finally, such groups can seem innocent enough and yet become highly
dangerous to others. But ask around and expect the response they are nice, gentle, kind and harmless or other such understanding
expressions. Don't be taken in by the setup folks!
Thanks B for an excellent survey covering Falun Gong's business activities and cybersecurity connections with the US government
and its agencies.
One surely wondered (until how) how Falun Gong can fund The Epoch Times using the same business model that Sheldon Adelson
uses to fund a pro-Netanyahu newspaper "Israel Hayom" in Israel that Netanyahu himself endorses and which he or other people in
the Israeli government might privilege with news of events that the rest of the Israeli news media has no access to. In this way
"Israel Hayom", offered for free in Israel, poses a threat to other Israeli newspapers which have no rich patron to fund their
activities and pay their staff but must rely on people buying their papers or regularly subscribing to them.
Also, when the sources of most news about prisoners having organs forcibly removed from them by the Chinese government go back
to Falun Gong itself, one has to wonder about the veracity of such claims. If after 20, 30 years of such claims, there is still
no independent verification of the claims of forced organ removals and transplants (and the British design firm Forensic Architecture
hasn't yet been approached to create its 3D Bellingcrap-style visual recreations of the horrific surgery theatres in which the
operations supposedly take place), then we must regard these claims with all the scepticism and scorn they may deserve.
In 2013, Edward Snowden was an IT systems expert working under contract for the National
Security Agency when he traveled to Hong Kong to provide three journalists with thousands of
top-secret documents about U.S. intelligence agencies' surveillance of American citizens.
To Snowden, the classified information he shared with the journalists exposed privacy abuses
by government intelligence agencies. He saw himself as a whistleblower. But the U.S. government
considered him a traitor in violation of the
Espionage Act .
After meeting with the journalists, Snowden intended to leave Hong Kong and travel -- via
Russia -- to Ecuador, where he would seek asylum. But when his plane landed at Moscow's
Sheremetyevo International Airport, things didn't go according to plan.
"What I wasn't expecting was that the United States government itself ... would cancel my
passport," he says.
Snowden was directed to a room where Russian intelligence agents offered to assist him -- in
return for access to any secrets he harbored. Snowden says he refused.
"I didn't cooperate with the Russian intelligence services -- I haven't and I won't," he
says. "I destroyed my access to the archive. ... I had no material with me before I left Hong
Kong, because I knew I was going to have to go through this complex multi-jurisdictional
route."
Snowden spent 40 days in the Moscow airport, trying to negotiate asylum in various
countries. After being denied asylum by 27 nations, he settled in Russia, where he remains
today.
"People look at me now and they think I'm this crazy guy, I'm this extremist or whatever.
Some people have a misconception that [I] set out to burn down the NSA," he says. "But that's
not what this was about. In many ways, 2013 wasn't about surveillance at all. What it was about
was a violation of the Constitution."
Snowden's 2013 revelations led to changes in the laws and standards governing American
intelligence agencies and the practices of U.S. technology companies, which now encrypt much of
their Web traffic for security. He reflects on his life and his experience in the intelligence
community in the memoir Permanent Record.
On Sept. 17, the U.S. Justice Department filed suit to recover all proceeds from the book,
alleging that Snowden violated nondisclosure agreements by not letting the government review
the manuscript before publication; Snowden's attorney, Ben Wizner, said in a statement that the
book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news
organizations, and that the government's prepublication review system is under court
challenge.
"... Kinzer notes that the top-secret nature of Gottlieb's work makes it impossible to measure the human cost of his experiments. "We don't know how many people died, but a number did, and many lives were permanently destroyed," he says. Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. After MK-ULTRA shut down, he went on to lead a CIA program that created poisons and high-tech gadgets for spies to use. Kinzer writes about Gottlieb and MK-ULTRA in his new book, Poisoner in Chief. ..."
"... Sidney Gottlieb, can now be seen as the man who brought LSD to America. He was the unwitting godfather of the entire LSD counterculture. ..."
"... In the early 1950s, he arranged for the CIA to pay $240,000 to buy the world's entire supply of LSD. He brought this to the United States, and he began spreading it around to hospitals, clinics, prisons and other institutions, asking them, through bogus foundations, to carry out research projects and find out what LSD was, how people reacted to it and how it might be able to be used as a tool for mind control. ..."
"... Whitey Bulger was one of the prisoners who volunteered for what he was told was an experiment aimed at finding a cure for schizophrenia. As part of this experiment, he was given LSD every day for more than a year. He later realized that this had nothing to do with schizophrenia and he was a guinea pig in a government experiment aimed at seeing what people's long-term reactions to LSD was. Essentially, could we make a person lose his mind by feeding him LSD every day over such a long period? ..."
"... Bulger wrote afterward about his experiences, which he described as quite horrific. He thought he was going insane. He wrote, "I was in prison for committing a crime, but they committed a greater crime on me." ..."
"... And towards the end of his life, Bulger came to realize the truth of what had happened to him, and he actually told his friends that he was going to find that doctor in Atlanta who was the head of that experiment program in the penitentiary and go kill him. ..."
"... The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration camps. Not only was it roughly based on those experiments, but the CIA actually hired the vivisectionists and the torturers who had worked in Japan and in Nazi concentration camps to come and explain what they had found out so that we could build on their research. ..."
"... For example, Nazi doctors had conducted extensive experiments with mescaline at the Dachau concentration camp, and the CIA was very interested in figuring out whether mescaline could be the key to mind control that was one of their big avenues of investigation. So they hired the Nazi doctors who had been involved in that project to advise them. ..."
"... CIA officers in Europe and Asia were capturing enemy agents and others who they felt might be suspected persons or were otherwise what they called "expendable." They would grab these people and throw them into cells and then test all kinds of, not just drug potions, but other techniques, like electroshock, extremes of temperature, sensory isolation -- all the meantime bombarding them with questions, trying to see if they could break down resistance and find a way to destroy the human ego. So these were projects designed not only to understand the human mind but to figure out how to destroy it. And that made Gottlieb, although in some ways a very compassionate person, certainly the most prolific torturer of his generation. ..."
"... [Gottlieb] operated almost completely without supervision. He had sort of a checkoff from his titular boss and from his real boss, Richard Helms, and from the CIA director, Allen Dulles. But none of them really wanted to know what he was doing. This guy had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around the world and subject them to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal -- yet nobody looked over his shoulder. He never had to file serious reports to anybody. I think the mentality must have been [that] this project is so important -- mind control, if it can be mastered, is the key to global world power. ..."
"... The end of Gottlieb's career came in 1972, when his patron, Richard Helms, who was then director of the CIA, was removed by [President Richard] Nixon. Once Helms was gone, it was just a matter of time until Gottlieb would be gone, and most important was that Helms was really the only person at the CIA who had an idea of what Gottlieb had been doing. So as they were both on their way out of the CIA, they agreed that they should destroy all records of MK-ULTRA ..."
"... Gottlieb actually drove out to the CIA records center and ordered the archives to destroy boxes full of MK-ULTRA records. ... However, it turns out that there were some [records] found in other places; there was a depot for expense account reports that had not been destroyed, and various other pieces of paper remain. So there is enough out there to reconstruct some of what he did, but his effort to wipe away his traces by destroying all those documents in the early '70s was quite successful. ..."
CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb headed up the agency's secret MK-ULTRA program, which was charged with developing a mind control drug
that could be weaponized against enemies.
Courtesy of the CIA
During the early period of the Cold War, the CIA became convinced that communists had discovered a drug or technique that would allow
them to control human minds. In response, the CIA began its own secret program, called MK-ULTRA, to search for a mind control drug
that could be weaponized against enemies.
MK-ULTRA, which operated from the 1950s until the early '60s, was created and run by
a chemist named Sidney Gottlieb. Journalist Stephen Kinzer, who spent several years investigating the program, calls the operation
the "most sustained search in history for techniques of mind control."
Some of Gottlieb's experiments were covertly funded at universities and research centers, Kinzer says, while others were conducted
in American prisons and in detention centers in Japan, Germany and the Philippines. Many of his unwitting subjects endured psychological
torture ranging from electroshock to high doses of LSD, according to Kinzer's research.
"Gottlieb wanted to create a way to seize control of people's minds, and he realized it was a two-part process," Kinzer says.
"First, you had to blast away the existing mind. Second, you had to find a way to insert a new mind into that resulting void. We
didn't get too far on number two, but he did a lot of work on number one."
Kinzer notes that the top-secret nature of Gottlieb's work makes it impossible to measure the human cost of his experiments.
"We don't know how many people died, but a number did, and many lives were permanently destroyed," he says. Ultimately, Gottlieb
concluded that mind control was not possible.
Ultimately, Gottlieb concluded that mind control was not possible. After MK-ULTRA shut down, he went on to lead a CIA program
that created poisons and high-tech gadgets for spies to use.
Kinzer writes about Gottlieb and MK-ULTRA in his new book, Poisoner in Chief.
As part of the search for drugs that would allow people to control the human mind, CIA scientists became aware of the existence
of LSD, and this became an obsession for the early directors of MK-ULTRA. Actually, the MK-ULTRA director, Sidney Gottlieb, can
now be seen as the man who brought LSD to America. He was the unwitting godfather of the entire LSD counterculture.
In the early 1950s, he arranged for the CIA to pay $240,000 to buy the world's entire supply of LSD. He brought this to the
United States, and he began spreading it around to hospitals, clinics, prisons and other institutions, asking them, through bogus
foundations, to carry out research projects and find out what LSD was, how people reacted to it and how it might be able to be used
as a tool for mind control.
Now, the people who volunteered for these experiments and began taking LSD, in many cases, found it very pleasurable. They told
their friends about it. Who were those people?
Ken Kesey ,
the author of One Flew
Over the Cuckoo's Nest , got his LSD in an experiment sponsored by the CIA by MK-ULTRA, by Sidney Gottlieb. So did Robert Hunter,
the lyricist for the Grateful Dead, which went on to become a great purveyor of LSD culture.
Allen Ginsberg , the poet who preached the
value of the great personal adventure of using LSD, got his first LSD from Sidney Gottlieb. Although, of course, he never knew that
name.
So the CIA brought LSD to America unwittingly, and actually it's a tremendous irony that the drug that the CIA hoped would be
its key to controlling humanity actually wound up fueling a generational rebellion that was dedicated to destroying everything that
the CIA held dear and defended.
On how MK-ULTRA experimented on prisoners, including crime boss
Whitey Bulger
Whitey Bulger was one of the prisoners who volunteered for what he was told was an experiment aimed at finding a cure for
schizophrenia. As part of this experiment, he was given LSD every day for more than a year. He later realized that this had nothing
to do with schizophrenia and he was a guinea pig in a government experiment aimed at seeing what people's long-term reactions to
LSD was. Essentially, could we make a person lose his mind by feeding him LSD every day over such a long period?
Bulger wrote afterward about his experiences, which he described as quite horrific. He thought he was going insane. He wrote,
"I was in prison for committing a crime, but they committed a greater crime on me."
And towards the end of his life, Bulger came to realize the truth of what had happened to him, and he actually told his friends
that he was going to find that doctor in Atlanta who was the head of that experiment program in the penitentiary and go kill him.
On the CIA hiring Nazi doctors and Japanese torturers to learn methods
The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration camps.
Stephen Kinzer, author of 'Poisoner in Chief'
The CIA mind control project, MK-ULTRA, was essentially a continuation of work that began in Japanese and Nazi concentration
camps. Not only was it roughly based on those experiments, but the CIA actually hired the vivisectionists and the torturers who had
worked in Japan and in Nazi concentration camps to come and explain what they had found out so that we could build on their research.
For example, Nazi doctors had conducted extensive experiments with mescaline at the Dachau concentration camp, and the CIA
was very interested in figuring out whether mescaline could be the key to mind control that was one of their big avenues of investigation.
So they hired the Nazi doctors who had been involved in that project to advise them.
Another thing the Nazis provided was information about poison gases like sarin, which is still being used. Nazi doctors came to
America to Fort Detrick in Maryland, which was the center of this project, to lecture to CIA officers to tell them how long it took
for people to die from sarin.
On the more extreme experiments Gottlieb conducted overseas
Gottlieb and the CIA established secret detention centers throughout Europe and East Asia, particularly in Japan, Germany and
the Philippines, which were largely under American control in the period of the early '50s, and therefore Gottlieb didn't have to
worry about any legal entanglements in these places. ...
CIA officers in Europe and Asia were capturing enemy agents and others who they felt might be suspected persons or were otherwise
what they called "expendable." They would grab these people and throw them into cells and then test all kinds of, not just drug potions,
but other techniques, like electroshock, extremes of temperature, sensory isolation -- all the meantime bombarding them with questions,
trying to see if they could break down resistance and find a way to destroy the human ego. So these were projects designed not only
to understand the human mind but to figure out how to destroy it. And that made Gottlieb, although in some ways a very compassionate
person, certainly the most prolific torturer of his generation.
On how these experiments were unsupervised
This guy [Sidney Gottlieb] had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around
the world and subject them to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal -- yet nobody looked over
his shoulder.
Stephen Kinzer
[Gottlieb] operated almost completely without supervision. He had sort of a checkoff from his titular boss and from his real
boss, Richard Helms, and from the CIA director, Allen Dulles. But none of them really wanted to know what he was doing. This guy
had a license to kill. He was allowed to requisition human subjects across the United States and around the world and subject them
to any kind of abuse that he wanted, even up to the level of it being fatal -- yet nobody looked over his shoulder. He never had
to file serious reports to anybody. I think the mentality must have been [that] this project is so important -- mind control, if
it can be mastered, is the key to global world power.
On how Gottlieb destroyed evidence about his experiments when he left the CIA
The end of Gottlieb's career came in 1972, when his patron, Richard Helms, who was then director of the CIA, was removed by
[President Richard] Nixon. Once Helms was gone, it was just a matter of time until Gottlieb would be gone, and most important was
that Helms was really the only person at the CIA who had an idea of what Gottlieb had been doing. So as they were both on their way
out of the CIA, they agreed that they should destroy all records of MK-ULTRA.
Gottlieb actually drove out to the CIA records center and ordered the archives to destroy boxes full of MK-ULTRA records.
... However, it turns out that there were some [records] found in other places; there was a depot for expense account reports that
had not been destroyed, and various other pieces of paper remain. So there is enough out there to reconstruct some of what he did,
but his effort to wipe away his traces by destroying all those documents in the early '70s was quite successful.
Sam Briger and Thea Chaloner produced and edited the audio of this interview. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and Meghan
Sullivan adapted it for the Web.
Correction Sept. 9, 2019
A previous photo caption incorrectly referred to the CIA's MK-ULTRA program as MS-ULTRA.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
Nadler:Corey what time is it? Corey :It's 2pm. Nadler: The clock shows 1:59 . Charge Corey for
lying to Congress! All a gotcha game by a group of angry haters.
"... The United States is seeking all proceeds earned by Snowden for the book, the Justice Department said. The lawsuit also names the "corporate entities" behind the book's publication as nominal defendants. ..."
"... Ben Wizner, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Snowden, said the lawsuit was without merit. "This book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations," he said in a statement, adding that Snowden would have submitted it for review if he thought the government would review it in good faith. ..."
The United States filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who leaked
secret documents about U.S. telephone and internet surveillance in 2013, saying his new book violates non-disclosure agreements.
The Justice Department said Snowden published his memoir, "Permanent Record," without submitting it to intelligence agencies for
review, adding that speeches given by Snowden also violated nondisclosure agreements. In 2013, Snowden wrote "Everything You Know
about the Constitution is Wrong."
The United States is seeking all proceeds earned by Snowden for the book, the Justice Department said. The lawsuit also names
the "corporate entities" behind the book's publication as nominal defendants.
Ben Wizner, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Snowden, said the lawsuit was without merit.
"This book contains no government secrets that have not been previously published by respected news organizations," he said in a
statement, adding that Snowden would have submitted it for review if he thought the government would review it in good faith.
Representatives for the book's publisher, Macmillan Publishers, and its unit Henry Holt & Co, did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.
Snowden has lived in Russia since he revealed details of U.S. intelligence agencies' secret surveillance programs.
Though he is viewed by some as a hero, U.S. authorities want him to stand in a criminal trial over his disclosures of classified
information.
Speaking by video link at an event in Berlin to promote the book, Snowden said that while he had signed a non-disclosure agreement
to maintain secrecy, he had also sworn an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
"You've told the government you're not going to talk to journalists. You've told them you're not going to write a book," Snowden
said. "At the same time you have an oath to defend the Constitution. And the secret that you are asked to protect is that the government
is violating that Constitution and the rights of people around the world."
Reporting by Makini Brice; Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington and Paul Carrell in Berlin; Editing by Marguerita
Choy and Lisa Shumaker Our Standards: The Thomson
Reuters Trust Principles.
As S
Brian Wilson put it: "There was a moment in Viet Nam when I questioned whether everything I
had been taught about "America" was one big fabricated lie – a huge pretend. "
Well, I still think the failure to anticipate a Houthi attack is suspicious.
Another "failure of imagination" like 9-11 that conveniently allowed the attack to
happen.
Even if the radar only points one way, they could've set up radars that pointed in other
directions. After all, the Houthi had already demonstrated their ability to strike targets
far from Yemen.
And the damage done is also suspicious. 17 targets hit by 10 long-range drones/cruise
missiles? And the high precision? USA+Saudis are saying the ONLY explanation is that Iran
participated in the attack. But there's another explanation: sabotage (or photoshop) that
increased the damage so that oil prices would go higher and fears of war with Iran would
distract everyone from the possibility that its really all about oil prices and Netanyahu's
election.
Self-inflicted damage after a major attack? That too was something we saw in 9-11 when
WTC7 was brought down.
PS Like many, my initial reaction was that this attack would be the justification for
war with Iran. But increased TENSIONS are probably enough for TPTB to achieve some very
desireable ojectives:
1. Election of Netanyahu
TINA!
2. Funding Trump's "Deal of the Century" for Palestinians Saudis will pay them to leave with the increased revenue from higher oil
prices
3. USA financial bailout Financial firms have tens of billions invested in fracking which is not profitable at
low oil prices
"... The source was said to be responsible for the reporting used by the former director of the CIA, John Brennan, in making the case that Russian President Vladimir Putin personally ordered Russian intelligence services to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election for the purpose of tipping the scales in favor of then-candidate Donald Trump. ..."
"... On closer scrutiny, however, this aspect of the story falls apart, as does just about everything CNN, The New York Times ..."
"... "And Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free," John 8:32, is etched into the wall of the main lobby of the Old CIA Headquarters Building. ..."
"... Every Russian diplomat assigned to the United States is screened to ascertain his or her susceptibility for recruitment. The FBI does this from a counterintelligence perspective, looking for Russian spies. The CIA does the same, but with the objective of recruiting a Russian source who can remain in the employ of the Russian government, and thereby provide the CIA with intelligence information commensurate to their standing and access. Turning a senior Russian diplomat is difficult; recruiting a junior Russian diplomat like Oleg Smolenkov less so. Someone like Smolenkov would be viewed not so much by the limited access he provided at the time of recruitment, but rather his potential for promotion and the increased opportunity for more essential access provided by such. ..."
"... The reality is, however, that the CIA and the FBI have different goals and objectives when it comes to the Russians they recruit. As such, Smolenkov's recruitment was most likely a CIA-only affair, run by NR but closely monitored by the Russian Operations Group of the Agency's Central Eurasia Division, who would have responsibility for managing Smolenkov upon his return to Moscow. ..."
"... But his job as foreman of the Rossotrudnichestvo coop was not the kind of job a Maurive Thorez graduate gets; Smolenkov had to have felt slighted. He allegedly turned to drink, and his marriage was on the rocks; his colleagues spoke of a man who believed his salary was too low. ..."
"... The enticements of money and future opportunity -- the CIA's principle recruitment ploys -- more than likely were a factor in convincing this dissatisfied diplomat to defect. ..."
"... the fact is, sometime in 2007-2008, Smolenkov was recruited by the CIA. ..."
"... He was granted a "second-level" security clearance, which allowed him to handle top secret information. ..."
"... Moscow Station, however, was having trouble carrying out its clandestine tasks. In the fall of 2011, the CIA's chief of station in Moscow, Steven Hall, had been approached by his counterpart in the Russian Federal Security Service (the FSB, Russia's equivalent of the FBI) and warned that the CIA should stop trying to recruit agents from within the FSB ranks; the FSB had detected several of these attempts, which it deemed inappropriate given the ongoing cooperation between the intelligence services of the two countries regarding the war on terrorism. ..."
"... The loss of Hall at this very sensitive time created a problem for both the CIA and Smolenkov. Smolenkov's new assignment was a dream come true for the CIA -- never before had the agency managed to place a controlled agent into the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation. ..."
"... With communications down, and the chief of station evicted, Smolenkov was left in a state of limbo while the CIA trained up new case officers capable of operating in Moscow and sought a replacement for Hall. ..."
"... "To put it mildly," Ushakov said, "it is surprising that this extremely crude, clumsy attempt at recruitment took place in a situation where both President Obama and President Putin have clearly stated the importance of more active cooperation and contacts between the special services of the two countries." ..."
"... As a senior aide to Ushakov, Smolenkov was ideally positioned to gather intelligence about the Russian response. If he was able to communicate this information to the CIA, it would have provided Obama and his advisers time to prepare a response to the Russian letter. The situation meant that Smolenkov may have been reporting on events related to the expulsion of Hall, one of the CIA officers specifically trained to manage his reporting. ..."
"... Smolenkov's success was directly linked to the work of his boss, Ushakov. In June 2015, Ushakov was put in charge of establishing a high-level working group in the fuel and energy sector for the purpose of improving bilateral cooperation with Azerbaijan. The reporting Smolenkov would have been able to provide on the work of this group would have been of tremendous assistance to those in the Obama administration working on U.S. energy policy, especially as it related to countering Russian moves in the former Soviet Republics. ..."
"... Ushakov's 10-year tenure as Russia's ambassador to the U.S. gave him unprecedented insight into U.S. decision making, experience and expertise Putin increasingly relied upon as he formulated and implemented responses to U.S. efforts to contain and punish Russia on the international stage. ..."
"... While Ushakov's meetings with Putin were conducted either in private, or in small groups of senior advisers, meaning Smolenkov was not present, Smolenkov was able to collect intelligence on the periphery by photographing itineraries and working papers, as well as overhearing comments made by Ushakov, that collectively would provide U.S. policymakers with important insight into Putin's thinking. ..."
"... According to the FSB, the Russians were adept at identifying CIA officers working under State Department cover and would subject these individuals to extensive surveillance. ..."
"... In addition to the decimation of its staff, Moscow Station was experiencing an alarming number of its agents being discovered by the FSB and arrested. While the Russians were circumspect about most of these cases, on several occasions they indicated that they had uncovered a spy by intercepting the electronic communications between him and the CIA. This meant that the Russians were aware of, and actively pursuing, the Google-based internet-based system used by the CIA to communicate with its agents in Russia. ..."
"... Sometime in early August 2016, a courier from the CIA arrived at the White House carrying a plain, unmarked white envelope. Inside was an intelligence report from Smolenkov that CIA Director Brennan considered to be so sensitive that he kept it out of the President's Daily Brief, concerned that even that restrictive process was too inclusive to adequately protect the source. The intelligence was to be read by four people only -- Obama, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Advisor Avril Haines and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough. The document was to be returned to the courier once it had been read. ..."
"... The contents of the report were alarming -- Putin had personally ordered the cyber attack on the Democratic National Committee for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election in favor of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. ..."
"... The White House found the Smolenkov report so convincing that in September 2016, during a meeting of the G-20 in China, Obama pulled Putin aside and told him to stop meddling in the U.S. election. Putin was reportedly nonplussed by Obama's intervention. ..."
"... It is not publicly known what prompted the report from Smolenkov which Brennan found so alarming. Was it received out of the blue, a target of opportunity which Smolenkov exploited? Was it based upon a specific tasking submitted by Smolenkov's CIA handlers in response to a tasking from above? Or was it a result of the intervention of the CIA director, who tasked Smolenkov outside normal channels? In any event, once Brennan created his special analytical unit, Smolenkov became his dedicated source. If Smolenko was in this for the money, as appears to be the case, he would have been motivated to come up with the "correct" answer to Brennan's tasking for information on Putin's role. By late 2016, Western media had made quite clear what kind of answer Brennan wanted. ..."
"... Brennan took the extraordinary measure of sequestering the source from the rest of the Intelligence Community. He also confronted the head of the Russian FSB, Alexander Bortnikov, about the risks involved in interfering in U.S. elections. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Smolenkov's firing occurred right before the Intelligence Community released its much-anticipated assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election ..."
"... Brennan had sold the Smolenkov reporting to both President Obama and President-elect Trump, along with the rest of the intelligence community, as "high-quality information." It was, at best, nothing more than uncorroborated rumor or, at worst, simple disinformation. This reporting, which was parroted by an unquestioning mainstream media that accepted it as fact, created an impression amongst the American public that Vladimir Putin had personally ordered and directed a Russian interference campaign during the 2016 election designed "to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible," according to the ICA. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Concerned that Smolenkov could be arrested by the Russians and, in doing so, have control over the narrative of Russian interference transfer to Moscow, the CIA once again approached Smolenkov to defect to the United States. This time the Russian agent agreed. ..."
"... Sometime in June 2018, Smolenkov and his wife bought a home worth nearly $1 million in northern Virginia. The couple used their real names. They were not afraid. ..."
"... I can only speculate as to the circumstances that led to Smolenkov's firing by secret decree. Normally, Russians charged with transmitting classified material to the intelligence services of a foreign state are arrested, placed on trial and given lengthy prison sentences, or worse. This did not happen to Smolenkov. ..."
"... In any case, the Smolenkov report in the white envelope represented a level of access that would have significantly deviated from what one could expect from a person in his position and which suggests he may have been telling the CIA what he knew Brennan wanted to hear. ..."
"... The third scenario is that Smolenkov, a low-level failure of a diplomat with drinking issues, marital problems and monetary frustrations, was recruited by the CIA, but only with the complicity of the Russian security services. ..."
"... The same red flags that the CIA looks for when recruiting agents are also looked at by Russian counterintelligence. At what point in the recruitment process the Russians stepped in is unknown (if they did at all.) ..."
"... Moreover, this muddling diplomat whose questionable behavioral practices scream "recruit me" is, within three years of returning to Moscow, given a significant promotion that enables him to follow Ushakov into the Presidential Administration–a posting which would require extensive vetting by the Russian security services. Smolenkov's promotion pattern is enough, in and of itself, to raise red flags within the counterintelligence offices tasked with monitoring such things. The fact that it did not indicates that the quality and quantity of reporting being provided by Smolenkov was deemed by the Americans too important to interfere with. ..."
"... In this scenario, Smolenkov would have been playing to a script written by the Russian security services. Since he, technically, had broken no laws by serving as a double agent, he would not be subjected to arrest and trial. But once his existence became the fodder of the U.S. media via inference and speculation, his services as a double agent were no longer needed. He was fired from his position, via a secret Presidential proclamation, and set free to live his life as he saw fit. ..."
"... In my view, if one assumes that the Smolenkov July 2016 report at the center of this drama was not a result of serendipity, but rather a product derived from a specific request from his CIA managers to find out how high up in the Russian decision-making chain the authorization went for what U.S. intelligence agencies were already publicly pushing as an alleged DNC cyber attack, then the answer I believe becomes clear–the Russians knew the U.S. had an intelligence deficit. ..."
"... In my view, the CIA, Russia and Smolenkov were happy to maintain the status quo, with Smolenkov living in comfortable retirement with his family, the CIA continuing to accuse Russia of interfering in the 2016 presidential election, and Russia denying it. ..."
"... Trump's instructions to Barr are linked to a desire on the part of the president to hold to account those responsible for creating the narrative of possible collusion. Reports indicate that Barr is particularly interested in finding out how and why the CIA concluded that Putin personally ordered the Russian intelligence services to interfere in the 2016 presidential election. ..."
"... Seen in this light, the timing of the CNN and New York Times reports about the "exfiltration" of the CIA's "sensitive source" seems to be little more than a blatant effort by Brennan and his allies in the media to shape a narrative before Barr uncovers the truth. ..."
"... A few days following Smolenkov's "outing" by the U.S. media, the Russian government filed a request with Interpol for an investigation into how someone who had gone missing in Montenegro was now living in the United States. ..."
"... The only person at risk from this entire sordid affair is Brennan, whose reputation and potential livelihood is on the line. At best, Brennan is guilty of extremely poor judgement; at worst, he actively conspired to use the office of Director of the CIA to interfere in the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Neither option speaks well of the U.S. Intelligence Community and those in Congress charged with oversight of its operations. ..."
"... Watch Scott Ritter discussing this article on ..."
"... Consortium News does not necessarily endorse the views of its authors. ..."
"... If you value this original article, please consider ..."
"... making a donation ..."
"... to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Before commenting please read Robert Parry's ..."
"... Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. ..."
"... And under the third scenario, with Smolenkov a double agent all along, Ritter writes: "But once his existence became the fodder of the U.S. media via inference and speculation, his services as a double agent were no longer needed. He was fired from his position, via a secret Presidential proclamation, and set free to live his life as he saw fit." ..."
"... That doesn't make sense to me. In fact I see the opposite: if he had been a successfully run double agent all that time, then when his usefulness had ended he would have been decently pensioned off – not simply cut loose to fend for himself – but *not* allowed to travel abroad unimpeded (with his whole family, no less) where he would have the opportunity to cause mischief. ..."
"... In the extremely sophisticated world of high grade intelligence I have repeatedly said that the Brennan, Clapper, Comey trio were lead-footed imbeciles ..."
"... Read The CIA as Organized Crime and Strength of the Wolf and Strength of the Pack by Douglas Valentine. ..."
"... "Kiriakou also notes that the way Smolenkov's intelligence was handled raises echoes of the CIA's manipulation of intelligence to help justify the Iraq war. The information from Smolenkov was handled personally by then-CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan reportedly sidelined other CIA analysts and kept the Smolenkov information out of the Presidential Daily Briefing – instead delivering it personally to President Obama and a small group of officials." ..."
"... More like a Le Carre' film. The CIA was originally sold as an intelligence gathering and analysis organization, and was not supposed to be involved in operations. Thus, it was founded on lies and the lies have only grown since. ..."
"... Even the former communist state governments in Europe and the Soviet Union rued the day that they unleashed their secret police from accountability, and thereby became subservient to their power. ..."
"... I suspect Scott was provided a great deal of the reporting in this fascinating article from a disgruntled insider, or former insider. Knowledge of Brennan's break with protocol to form a select 'stand alone fusion cell' that reported only to him is something that I haven't seen reported before. In any case this story adds another red flag to the entire Russiagate hoax. ..."
"... Just as Mueller failed to interview Julian Assange or Christopher Steele for his report -- obvious red flags -- we should now watch the conduct of Barr's investigation. Will Barr's investigators interview Smolenkov? ..."
"... ( ) the timing of the CNN and New York Times reports about the "exfiltration" of the CIA's "sensitive source" seems to be little more than a blatant effort by Brennan and his allies in the media to shape a narrative before Barr uncovers the truth. ..."
"... "If Smolenkov was a spy, he could have delivered important insights about Russia's foreign policy thinking and planning to U.S. intelligence. But if he was the source for the U.S. intelligence community's certainty that Putin personally orchestrated a covert interference campaign, that certainty rests on a weak foundation. Smolenkov served the wrong boss in the Kremlin to get reliable information about such ventures." ..."
OPINION: Scott Ritter probes Oleg Smolenkov's role as a CIA asset and the use of his data by
the director of the CIA to cast doubt over the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
By Scott Ritter Special to Consortium News
Reports that the CIA conducted an emergency exfiltration of a long-time human intelligence
source who was highly placed within the Russian Presidential Administration sent shock waves
throughout Washington, D.C.
The source was said to be responsible for the reporting used by the
former director of the CIA, John Brennan, in making the case that Russian President Vladimir
Putin personally ordered Russian intelligence services to interfere in the 2016 U.S.
presidential election for the purpose of tipping the scales in favor of then-candidate Donald
Trump.
According to CNN's Jim Sciutto, the decision to exfiltrate the source was driven in part
by concerns within the CIA over President Trump's cavalier approach toward handling classified
information, including his willingness to share highly classified intelligence with Russia's
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during a controversial visit to the White House in May 2017.
On closer scrutiny, however, this aspect of the story falls apart, as does just about
everything CNN, The New York Times and other mainstream media outlets have reported.
There was a Russian spy whose information was used to push a narrative of Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election; this much appears to be true. Everything else
that has been reported is either a mischaracterization of fact or an outright fabrication
designed to hide one of the greatest intelligence failures in U.S. history -- the use by a CIA
director of intelligence data specifically manipulated to interfere in the election of an
American president.
The consequences of this interference has deleteriously impacted U.S. democratic
institutions in ways the American people remain ignorant of -- in large part because of the
complicity of the U.S. media when it comes to reporting this story.
This article attempts to set the record straight by connecting the dots presented by
available information and creating a narrative shaped by a combination of derivative analysis
and informed speculation. At best, this article brings the reader closer to the truth about
Oleg Smolenkov's role as a CIA asset; at worst, it raises issues and questions that will help
in determining the truth.
"And Ye Shall Know the Truth and the Truth Shall Make You Free," John 8:32, is etched into
the wall of the main lobby of the Old CIA Headquarters Building.
The Recruit
Oleg Smolenkov
In 2007, Oleg Smolenkov was living the life of a Russian diplomat abroad, serving in the
Russian embassy in Washington. At 33 years of age, married with a 1-year old son, Smolenkov was
the picture of a young diplomat on the rise. A protégé of Russian Ambassador Yuri
Ushakov, Smolenkov worked as a second secretary assigned to the Russian Cultural Center, a
combined museum and exhibition hall operated by the Federal Agency for the Commonwealth of
Independent States, Compatriots Living Abroad and International Humanitarian Cooperation
(better known by its common Russian name, Rossotrudnichestvo), an autonomous government agency
operating under the auspices of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
In addition to hosting Russian artists and musicians, Rossotrudnichestvo oversaw a program
where it organized all-expense paid cultural exchanges for young Americans to travel to Russia,
where they were accommodated in luxury hotels and met with Russian officials. Smolenkov's boss,
Yegeny Zvedre, would also tour the United States, speaking at public forums where he addressed
U.S.-Russian cooperation. As for Smolenkov himself, life was much more mundane -- he served as
a purchasing agent for Rossotrudnichestvo, managing procurement and contract issues for a store
operating out of the Rossotrudnichestvo building, which stood separate from the main embassy
compound.
Rossotrudnichestvo had a darker side: the FBI long suspected that it operated as a front to
recruit Americans to spy for Russia, and as such every Russian employee was viewed as a
potential officer in the Russian intelligence service. This suspicion brought with it a level
of scrutiny which revealed much about the character of the individual being surveilled,
including information of a potentially compromising nature that could be used by the American
intelligence services as the basis of a recruitment effort.
Every Russian diplomat assigned to the United States is screened to ascertain his or her
susceptibility for recruitment. The FBI does this from a counterintelligence perspective,
looking for Russian spies. The CIA does the same, but with the objective of recruiting a
Russian source who can remain in the employ of the Russian government, and thereby provide the
CIA with intelligence information commensurate to their standing and access. Turning a senior
Russian diplomat is difficult; recruiting a junior Russian diplomat like Oleg Smolenkov less
so. Someone like Smolenkov would be viewed not so much by the limited access he provided at the
time of recruitment, but rather his potential for promotion and the increased opportunity for
more essential access provided by such.
The responsibility within the CIA for recruiting Russian diplomats living in the United
States falls to the National Resources Division, or NR, part of the Directorate of Operations,
or DO -- the clandestine arm of the CIA. In a perfect world, the CIA domestic station in
Washington, D.C., would coordinate with the local FBI field office and develop a joint approach
for recruiting a Russian diplomat such as Smolenkov.
The reality is, however, that the CIA and
the FBI have different goals and objectives when it comes to the Russians they recruit. As
such, Smolenkov's recruitment was most likely a CIA-only affair, run by NR but closely
monitored by the Russian Operations Group of the Agency's Central Eurasia Division, who would
have responsibility for managing Smolenkov upon his return to Moscow.
The precise motive for Smolenkov to take up the CIA's offer of recruitment remains unknown.
He graduated from one of the premier universities in Russia, the Maurice Thorez Moscow State
Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages, and he married his English language instructor.
Normally a graduate from an elite university such as Maurice Thorez has his or her pick of jobs
in the Foreign Ministry, Ministry of Defense or the security services. Smolenkov was hired by
the Foreign Ministry as a junior linguist, assigned to the Second European Department, which
focuses on Great Britain, Scandinavia and the Baltics, before getting assigned to the embassy
in Washington.
Felt Underpaid
But his job as foreman of the Rossotrudnichestvo coop was not the kind of job a Maurive
Thorez graduate gets; Smolenkov had to have felt slighted. He allegedly turned to drink, and
his marriage was on the rocks; his colleagues spoke of a man who believed his salary was too
low.
The enticements of money and future opportunity -- the CIA's principle recruitment ploys --
more than likely were a factor in convincing this dissatisfied diplomat to defect. Did the CIA
compromise him by dangling the temptation of contract-based embezzlement? Or did the FBI
uncover some sort of personal or financial impropriety that made the Russian diplomat
vulnerable to recruitment? Only the CIA and Smolenkov know the precise circumstances behind the
Russian's decision to betray his country. But the fact is, sometime in 2007-2008, Smolenkov
was recruited by the CIA.
After Smolenkov accepted the CIA's offer, there was much work to be done -- the new agent
had to be polygraphed to ascertain his reliability, trained on covert means of intelligence
collection, including covert photography, as well as on how to securely communicate with the
CIA in order to transmit information and receive instructions. Smolenkov was also introduced to
his "handler," a CIA case officer who would be responsible for managing the work of Smolenkov,
including overseeing the bank account where Smolenkov's CIA "salary" would be deposited.
Various contingencies would be prepared for, including procedures for reestablishing
communications should the existing means become unavailable, emergency contact procedures and
emergency exfiltration plans in case Smolenkov became compromised.
Took Away His Name, and Gave Him a Code
The recruitment of a diplomat willing to return to Moscow and be run in place is a rare
accomplishment, and Smolenkov's identity would become a closely guarded secret within the ranks
of the CIA. Smolenkov's true identity would be known to only a few select individuals; to
everyone else who had access to his reporting, he was simply a codename, comprised of a
two-letter digraph representing Russia (this code changed over time), followed by a word chosen
at random by a CIA algorithm (for example, Adolf Tolkachev, the so-called "billion dollar spy,"
was known by the codename CKSPHERE, with CK being the digraph in use for the Soviet Union at
the time of his recruitment.) Because the specific details from the information provided by
Smolenkov could compromise him as the source, the Russian Operations Group would "blend" his
reporting in with other sources in an effort to disguise it before disseminating it to a wider
audience.
Smolenkov followed Ambassador Ushakov when the latter departed the United States for Moscow
in the summer of 2008; soon after arriving back in Moscow, Smolenkov and his wife divorced.
Ushakov took a position as the deputy chief of the Government Staff of the Russian Federation
responsible for international relations and foreign policy support. Part of the Executive
Office of the Government of the Russian Federation, Ushakov coordinated the international work
of the prime minister, deputy prime ministers and senior officials of the Government Executive
Office. Smolenkov took up a position working for Ushakov, and soon found himself moving up the
ranks of the Russian Civil Service, being promoted in 2010 to the rank of state advisor to the
Russian Federation of the Third Class, a second-tier rank that put him on the cusp of joining
the upper levels of the Russian government bureaucracy. He was granted a "second-level"
security clearance, which allowed him to handle top secret information.
Moscow Station
Ukashov, r. with Putin (Kremlin photo)
In 2013 Ushakov received a new assignment, this time to serve in the Presidential Executive
Office as the aide for international relations. Smolenkov joined Ushakov as his staff manager.
Vladimir Putin was one year into his second stint as president and brought Ushakov, who had
advised him on foreign relations while Putin was prime minister, to continue that service.
Ushakov maintained an office at the Boyarsky Dvor (Courtyard of the Boyars), on 8 Staraya
Square.
The Boyarsky Dvor was physically separate from the Kremlin, meaning neither Ushakov nor
Smolenkov had direct access to the Russian president. Nevertheless, Smolenkov's new job had to
have pleased his CIA masters. In the five years Smolenkov worked at the Executive Office of the
Government, he was not privy to particularly sensitive information. His communications with CIA
would most likely have been administrative in nature, with the CIA more interested in
Smolenkov's growth potential than immediate value of any intelligence he could produce.
Smolenkov's arrival in the Presidential Administration coincided with a period of
operational difficulty for the CIA in Moscow. First, the CIA's internet-based covert
communications system, which used Google's email platform as the foundation for accessing
various web pages where information was exchanged between the agent and his CIA handlers, had
been globally compromised. Smolenkov had been trained on this system, and it provided his
lifeline to the CIA. The compromise first occurred in Iran, and then spread to China; in both
countries, entire networks of CIA agents were rounded up, with many being subsequently
executed . China is believed to have shared the information on how to detect the covert
communication-linked web pages with Russia; fortunately for Moscow Station, they were able to
make the appropriate changes in the system to safeguard the security and identity of its
agents. In the meantime, communications between the CIA and Smolenkov were cut off until the
CIA could make contact using back-up protocols and re-train Smolenkov on the new communications
procedures.
Moscow Station, however, was having trouble carrying out its clandestine tasks. In the
fall of 2011, the CIA's chief of station in Moscow, Steven Hall, had been approached by his
counterpart in the Russian Federal Security Service (the FSB, Russia's equivalent of the FBI)
and warned that the CIA should stop trying to recruit agents from within the FSB ranks; the FSB
had detected several of these attempts, which it deemed inappropriate given the ongoing
cooperation between the intelligence services of the two countries regarding the war on
terrorism.
But Hall had his orders, and after a year-long pause to review its operating procedures,
Moscow Station resumed its targeting of FSB officers. Things went real bad real fast. In
January 2013, a CIA officer named Benjamin Dillon was arrested by the FSB as he tried to
recruit a Russian agent, declared persona non grata, and expelled from Russia. Then in May 2013
the FSB arrested another CIA officer, Ryan Fogle. Fogle was paraded before television cameras
together with his spy paraphernalia, and like Dillon before him, expelled from the country.
Moreover, the Russians, in condemning the CIA actions, revealed the identity of the CIA's
Moscow chief of station (Hall), who because of the public disclosure was compelled to depart
Russia.
A CIA Dream
Steve Hall (CNN/YouTube)
The loss of Dillon and Fogle was a serious blow to Moscow Station, but one from which the
CIA could recover. But the near simultaneous loss of two case officers and the chief of
station was a different matter altogether. Hall was one of the few people in the CIA who had
been "read in" on the recruitment of Smolenkov, and as such was involved in the overall
management of the Russian agent. The loss of Hall at this very sensitive time created a
problem for both the CIA and Smolenkov. Smolenkov's new assignment was a dream come true for
the CIA -- never before had the agency managed to place a controlled agent into the
Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation.
But while Smolenkov had been able to provide evidence of access, by way of photographs of
presidential documents, the CIA needed to confirm that Smolenkov hadn't been turned by the
Russians and was not being used to pass on disinformation designed to mislead those who used
Smolenkov's reporting. Normally this was done by subjecting the agent to a polygraph
examination -- a "swirl," in CIA parlance. This examination could take place at an improvised
covert location in Russia, or in a more controlled environment outside of Russia, if Smolenkov
was able to exit on work or during vacation. But arranging the examination required close
coordination between the CIA and its agent, as well as a healthy degree of trust between the
agent and those directing him. With communications down, and the chief of station evicted,
Smolenkov was left in a state of limbo while the CIA trained up new case officers capable of
operating in Moscow and sought a replacement for Hall.
One of the ironies surrounding the arrest and expulsion of CIA officer Fogle, and the
subsequent outing and eviction of Hall, was that Smolenkov was ideally positioned to provide an
inside perspective on how the Russian leadership reacted to the incident. Smolenkov's boss,
Ushakov, was tasked with overseeing Russia's diplomatic response. In a statement given to the
Russian media, Ushakov expressed surprise at the timing of the incident. "To put it mildly,"
Ushakov said, "it is surprising that this extremely crude, clumsy attempt at recruitment took
place in a situation where both President Obama and President Putin have clearly stated the
importance of more active cooperation and contacts between the special services of the two
countries."
Ushakov coordinated closely with the head of Putin's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev,
regarding the content of a letter Putin was planning to send in response to a previous
communication from Obama. While the original text focused on missile defense issues, Ushakov
and Patrushev inserted language about the Fogle incident. As a senior aide to Ushakov,
Smolenkov was ideally positioned to gather intelligence about the Russian response. If he was
able to communicate this information to the CIA, it would have provided Obama and his advisers
time to prepare a response to the Russian letter. The situation meant that Smolenkov may have
been reporting on events related to the expulsion of Hall, one of the CIA officers specifically
trained to manage his reporting.
The Center
Amid the operational challenges and opportunity provided by Smolenkov's new position within
the Russian Presidential Administration, the CIA underwent a radical reorganization which
impacted how human agents, and the intelligence they produced, would be managed. The past
practice of having intelligence operations controlled by insular regional divisions, which
promoted both a physical and philosophical divide between the collectors and their analytical
counterparts in the respective regional division within the Directorate of Intelligence, or DI,
was discontinued by Brennan, who had taken over as director of the CIA in May 2013.
To replace what he viewed as an antiquated organizational structure, Brennan created what he
called "Mission Centers," which combined analytical, operational, technical and support
expertise under a single roof. For Moscow Station and Smolenkov, this meant that the Russia and
Eurasia Division, with its Russian Operations Group, no longer existed. Instead, Moscow Station
would take its orders from a new Europe and Eurasia Mission Center headed by an experienced CIA
Russia analyst named Peter Clement.
Clement, who had earned a PhD in Russian history from Michigan State University, had a
diverse resumé with the CIA which included service as the director for Russia on the
National Security Council and as the CIA representative to the U.S. Mission to the United
Nations. Clement served as the director of the Office of Russian and Eurasian Analysis and as
the CIA's Russia issue manager from 1997 to 2003; as the President's Daily Brief (PDB) briefer
for Vice President Dick Cheney from 2003-2004, and from 2005-2013, as the deputy director for
intelligence for analytic programs. In 2015 Brennan appointed Clement to serve as the deputy
assistant director of CIA for Europe and Eurasia, where he directed the activities of the newly
created Europe and Eurasia Mission Center. If one was looking for the perfect candidate to
manage the fusion of operational, analytical and technical experience into a singular,
mission-focused entity, Peter Clement was it.
Peter Clement (C-Span)
As Clement got on with the business of whipping the Europe and Eurasia Mission Center into
shape, Smolenkov was busy establishing himself as an intelligence source of some value. Smolenkov's success was directly linked to the work of his boss, Ushakov. In June 2015,
Ushakov was put in charge of establishing a high-level working group in the fuel and energy
sector for the purpose of improving bilateral cooperation with Azerbaijan. The reporting
Smolenkov would have been able to provide on the work of this group would have been of
tremendous assistance to those in the Obama administration working on U.S. energy policy,
especially as it related to countering Russian moves in the former Soviet Republics.
Another project of interest was Russia's sale of advanced Mi-35 helicopters to Pakistan in
support of their counterterrorism efforts. Coming at a time when U.S.-Pakistani relations were
floundering, the Russian sale of advanced helicopters was viewed with concern by both the
Department of State and the Department of Defense. Again, Smolenkov's reporting on this issue
would have been well received by critical policymakers in both departments.
But the most critical role played by Ushakov was advising Putin on the uncertain state of
relations between the U.S. and Russia in the aftermath of the 2014 crisis in Ukraine, and
Russia's annexation of Crimea. Ushakov's 10-year tenure as Russia's ambassador to the U.S.
gave him unprecedented insight into U.S. decision making, experience and expertise Putin
increasingly relied upon as he formulated and implemented responses to U.S. efforts to contain
and punish Russia on the international stage.
While Ushakov's meetings with Putin were conducted either in private, or in small groups
of senior advisers, meaning Smolenkov was not present, Smolenkov was able to collect
intelligence on the periphery by photographing itineraries and working papers, as well as
overhearing comments made by Ushakov, that collectively would provide U.S. policymakers with
important insight into Putin's thinking.
Managing an important resource like Smolenkov was one of the critical challenges faced by
Clement and the Europe and Eurasia Mission Center. Smolenkov's reporting continued to be
handled using special HUMINT procedures designed to protect the source. However, within the
Center knowledge of Smolenkov's work would have been shared with analysts who worked side by
side with their operational colleagues deciding how the intelligence could best be used, as
well as coming up with follow-up questions for Smolenkov regarding specific issues of
interest.
Given the unique insight Smolenkov's reporting provided into Putin's thinking, it would be
logical that intelligence sourced from Smolenkov would frequently find itself briefed to the
president and his inner circle via the PDB process, which was exacting in terms of vetting the
accuracy and reliability of any intelligence reporting that made it onto its pages. As a
long-time Russia expert with extensive experience in virtually every aspect of how the CIA
turned raw reporting into finished intelligence, Clement was ideally suited to making sure his
Center handled the Smolenkov product responsibly, and in a manner which maximized its
value.
Meanwhile, Moscow Station continued to exhibit operational problems. By 2015 the CIA had
managed to rebuild its stable of case officers operating from the U.S. embassy. But the FSB
always seemed to be one step ahead. According to the FSB, the Russians were adept at
identifying CIA officers working under State Department cover and would subject these
individuals to extensive surveillance. As if to prove the Russian's point, in short order
the FSB rounded up the newly assigned case officers, along with the deputy chief of station,
declared them persona non grata, and expelled them from Russia. To make matters worse, the FSB
released surveillance video of all these officers, who in some cases were joined by their
spouses, as they engaged in elaborate ruses to evade Russian surveillance in order to carry out
their covert assignments.
Moscow Station's string of bad luck continued into 2016, when one of its officers, having
been detected by the FSB during a meeting, fled via taxi to the U.S. embassy, only to be
tackled by a uniformed FSB officer as he tried to enter the compound. In the scuffle that
followed, the CIA officer managed to make entry into the embassy building, compelling the FSB
guard to release him once jurisdiction was lost. The CIA officer, who suffered a separated
shoulder during the incident, left Russia shortly thereafter, together with a female colleague
who had also been detected by the FSB while engaged in clandestine activities and subsequently
declared persona non grata.
FSB Headquarters in the Lubyanka Building, Moscow.
The FSB indicated, at the time these two officers were being expelled, that it had evicted
three other CIA officers during the year. In addition to the decimation of its staff, Moscow
Station was experiencing an alarming number of its agents being discovered by the FSB and
arrested. While the Russians were circumspect about most of these cases, on several occasions
they indicated that they had uncovered a spy by intercepting the electronic communications
between him and the CIA. This meant that the Russians were aware of, and actively pursuing, the
Google-based internet-based system used by the CIA to communicate with its agents in
Russia.
Meanwhile, Smolenkov continued to send his reports to his CIA handlers unabated, using the
same internet-based system. Under normal circumstances, an exception to compromise would raise
red flags within the counterintelligence staff that evaluated an agent's reporting and
activity. But by the summer of 2016, nothing about the work of the CIA, and in particular the
Europe and Eurasia Mission Center could be considered "normal" when it came to the Russian
target.
Little White Envelope
Sometime in early August 2016, a courier from the CIA arrived at the White House carrying
a plain, unmarked white envelope. Inside was an intelligence report from Smolenkov that CIA
Director Brennan considered to be so sensitive that he kept it out of the President's Daily
Brief, concerned that even that restrictive process was too inclusive to adequately protect the
source. The intelligence was to be read by four people only -- Obama, National Security Advisor
Susan Rice, Deputy National Security Advisor Avril Haines and White House Chief of Staff Denis
McDonough. The document was to be returned to the courier once it had been read.
Brennan in Oval Office where he had envelope delivered. (White House photo/Pete Souza)
The contents of the report were alarming -- Putin had personally ordered the cyber attack
on the Democratic National Committee for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential
election in favor of the Republican candidate, Donald Trump.
The intelligence report was not a product of Clement's Europe and Eurasia Mission Center,
but rather a special unit of handpicked analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI who were brought
together under great secrecy in late July and reported directly to Brennan. These analysts were
made to sign non-disclosure agreements protecting their work from their colleagues.
This new analytical unit focused on three new sensitive sources of information -- the
Smolenkov report, additional reporting provided by a former MI6 officer named Christopher
Steele, and a signals intelligence report provided by a Baltic nation neighboring Russia. The
Steele information was of questionable provenance, so much so that FBI Director James Comey
could not, or would not, vouch for its credibility. The same held true for the NSA's assessment
of the Baltic SIGINT report. By themselves, the Steele reporting and Baltic SIGINT report were
of little intelligence value. But when viewed together, they were used to corroborate the
explosive contents of the Smolenkov intelligence. The White House found the Smolenkov report
so convincing that in September 2016, during a meeting of the G-20 in China, Obama pulled Putin
aside and told him to stop meddling in the U.S. election. Putin was reportedly nonplussed by
Obama's intervention.
It is extraordinarily difficult for a piece of intelligence to be deemed important and
reliable enough to be briefed to the president of the United States. The principal forum for
such a briefing is the Presidential Daily Brief, which prior to 2004 was a product produced
exclusively by the CIA. When the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was signed
into law in 2004, the responsibility for the PDB was transferred to the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI), a newly created entity responsible for oversight and
coordination of the entire Intelligence Community, or IC. The PDB is considered to be an IC
product, the production of which is coordinated by ODNI's PDB staff in partnership with the CIA
Directorate of Intelligence (DI)'s President's Analytic Support Staff.
Since he began reporting about his work in the Russian Presidential Administration in 2013,
Smolenkov had, on numerous occasions, produced intelligence whose content and relevance was
such that it would readily warrant inclusion in the PDB. After 2015, the decision to submit a
Smolenkov-sourced report for inclusion in the PDB would be made by Clement and his staff. For a
report to be nominated, it would have to pass an exacting quality control review process which
evaluated it for accuracy, relevance and reliability.
U.S. Embassy Moscow ( Wikimedia Commons)
Sometime in the leadup to August 2016, this process was halted. Oleg Smolenkov was a
controlled asset of the CIA. While he was given certain latitude on what information he could
collect, generally speaking Smolenkov worked from an operations order sent to him by his CIA
controllers which established priorities for intelligence collection based upon information
provided by Smolenkov about what he could reasonably access. Before tasking Smolenkov, his CIA
handlers would screen the request from an operational and counterintelligence perspective,
conducting a risk-reward analysis that weighed the value of the intelligence being sought with
the possibility of compromise. Only then would Smolenkov be cleared to collect the requested
information.
It is not publicly known what prompted the report from Smolenkov which Brennan found so
alarming. Was it received out of the blue, a target of opportunity which Smolenkov exploited?
Was it based upon a specific tasking submitted by Smolenkov's CIA handlers in response to a
tasking from above? Or was it a result of the intervention of the CIA director, who tasked
Smolenkov outside normal channels? In any event, once Brennan created his special analytical
unit, Smolenkov became his dedicated source. If Smolenko was in this for the money, as appears
to be the case, he would have been motivated to come up with the "correct" answer to Brennan's
tasking for information on Putin's role. By late 2016, Western media had made quite clear what
kind of answer Brennan wanted.
Every intelligence report produced by a controlled asset is subjected to a
counterintelligence review where it is examined for any evidence of red flags that could be
indicative of compromise. One red flag is the issue of abnormal access. Smolenkov did not
normally have direct contact with Putin, if ever. His intelligence reports would have been
written from the perspective of the distant observer. His report about Putin's role in
interfering in the 2016 election, however, represented a whole new level of access and trust.
Under normal circumstances, a report exhibiting such tendency would be pulled aside for
additional scrutiny; if the report was alarming enough, the CIA might order the agent to be
subjected to a polygraph to ensure he had not been compromised.
This did not happen. Instead, Brennan took the extraordinary measure of sequestering the
source from the rest of the Intelligence Community. He also confronted the head of the Russian
FSB, Alexander Bortnikov, about the risks involved in interfering in U.S. elections.
Whether Brennan further tasked Smolenkov to collect on Putin is not known. Nor is it known
whether Smolenkov produced more than that single report about Putin's alleged direct role in
ordering the Russian intelligence services to intervene in the 2016 U.S. presidential
elections.
Despite Brennan's extraordinary effort to keep the existence of a human source within the
Russian Presidential Administration a closely-held secret, by December 2016 both The
Washington Post and The New York Times began quoting their sources about the
existence of a sensitive intelligence source close to the Russian president. The timing of
these press leaks coincided with Smolensky being fired from his job working for the
Presidential Administration; the method of firing came in the form of a secret decree. When the
CIA found out, they desperately tried to convince Smolenkov to agree to extraction, fearing for
his safety should he remain in Moscow. This Smolenkov allegedly refused to do, prompting the
counterintelligence-minded within the CIA to become concerned that Brennan and his coterie of
analysts had been taken for a ride by a Russian double agent.
Trump and Barr on Feb. 14, 2019. (Wikimedia Commons)
Smolenkov's firing occurred right before the Intelligence Community released its
much-anticipated assessment on Russian interference in the 2016 election . Like the special
analytical unit created by Brennan to handle the intelligence about Putin ordering the Russian
intelligence services to intervene in favor of Trump in the 2016 election, Brennan opted to
produce the Russian interference assessment outside the normal channels. Usually, when the IC
opts to produce an assessment, there is a formal process which has a national intelligence
officer (NIO) from within the National Intelligence Council take the lead on coordinating the
collection and assessment of all relevant intelligence. The NIO usually coordinates closely
with the relevant Mission Centers to ensure no analytical stone was left unturned in the
pursuit of the truth.
The 2016 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) was produced differently -- no Mission
Center involvement, no NIO assigned, no peer review. Just Brennan's little band of sequestered
analysts.
Smolenkov's information took top billing in the ICA, "Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," published on Jan. 6, 2017. "We assess," the unclassified
document stated, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed
at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S.
democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential
presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for
President-elect Trump." Smolenkov's reporting appears to be the sole source for this
finding.
The ICA went on to note, "We have high confidence in these judgments." According to the
Intelligence Community's own definition, "high confidence'" generally indicates judgments based
on high-quality information, and/or the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid
judgment. A "high confidence" judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and still carries
a risk of being wrong.
The same day the ICA was published, Brennan, accompanied by Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, and Admiral Mike Rogers, the director of the National Security
Agency, met with President-elect Trump in Trump Tower, where he was briefed on the classified
information behind the Russian ICA. Included in this briefing was the intelligence from "a
top-secret source" close to Putin which sustained the finding of Putin's direct
involvement.
Brennan had sold the Smolenkov reporting to both President Obama and President-elect
Trump, along with the rest of the intelligence community, as "high-quality information." It
was, at best, nothing more than uncorroborated rumor or, at worst, simple disinformation. This
reporting, which was parroted by an unquestioning mainstream media that accepted it as fact,
created an impression amongst the American public that Vladimir Putin had personally ordered
and directed a Russian interference campaign during the 2016 election designed "to help
President-elect Trump's election chances when possible," according to the ICA.
As CIA director, Brennan understood very well the role played by intelligence in shaping the
decisions of key policy makers, and the absolute need for those who brief the president and his
key advisers to ensure only the highest quality information and derived assessments are
briefed. In this, Brennan failed.
Coming in From the Cold
Tivat, Montenegro
After being fired from his position within the Presidential Administration, Smolenkov
continued to live in Moscow, very much a free man. By this time he was the father of three
children, his new wife having given birth to two daughters. Following Trump's inauguration on
Jan. 20, 2017, Brennan resigned as CIA director. By May, Brennan was testifying before Congress
about the issue of Russian interference. Increasingly, attention was being drawn to the
existence of a highly-placed source near Putin, with both The New York Times and The
Washington Post publishing surprisingly detailed reports.
Concerned that Smolenkov could be arrested by the Russians and, in doing so, have control
over the narrative of Russian interference transfer to Moscow, the CIA once again approached
Smolenkov to defect to the United States. This time the Russian agent agreed.
In July 2017, Smolenkov, accompanied by his wife and three children, travelled to Montenegro
on vacation. They arrived in the resort city of Tivat, flying on a commercial air flight from
Moscow. The CIA took control of the family a few days later, spiriting them away aboard a yacht
that had been moored at the Tivat marina. Upon his arrival in the U.S., Smolenkov and his
family were placed under the control of the CIA's resettlement unit.
According to the Russian media, Smolenkov's disappearance was discovered in September 2017.
The FSB opened an investigation into the matter, initially suspecting foul play. Soon, however,
the FSB reached a different conclusion -- that Smolenkov and his family had defected to the
United States.
Normally a defector would be subjected to a debriefing, inclusive of a polygraph, to confirm
that he or she had not been turned into a double agent. Smolenkov had, over the course of a
decade of spying, accumulated a considerable amount of money which the CIA was holding in
escrow. This money would be released to Smolenkov upon the successful completion of his
debriefing. In the case of Smolenkov, however, there doesn't seem to have been a detailed,
lengthy debriefing. His money was turned over to him. Sometime in June 2018, Smolenkov and
his wife bought a home worth nearly $1 million in northern Virginia. The couple used their real
names. They were not afraid.
I can only speculate as to the circumstances that led to Smolenkov's firing by secret
decree. Normally, Russians charged with transmitting classified material to the intelligence
services of a foreign state are arrested, placed on trial and given lengthy prison sentences,
or worse. This did not happen to Smolenkov.
But this does not mean the Russian authorities were ignorant of his activities. This raises
another possibility, that Smolenkov could have been turned by the Russian security services
before he had compromised any classified information, and that he operated as a double agent
his entire CIA career. Since the only classified information he transferred would, in this
case, be approved for release by the Russian security services, he would not have technically
committed a crime. If Smolenkov was working both sides, it could have been a Russian vehicle to
create distrust between the U.S. intelligence community and Trump.
Smolenkov was fired, and left to his own devices, once his utility to Russia had expired.
Having escaped being arrested as a spy, Smolenkov believed he might be able to live a normal
life in Moscow. But when the potential for compromise arose due to leaks to the press, I assess
that it was in the CIA's interest to bring Smolenkov in, if for no other reason than to control
the narrative of Russian interference.
Three Scenarios
Old CIA building in Langely, Virginia.
There are three scenarios that could be at play regarding Smolenkov's bone fides as a human
intelligence source for the CIA. First, that this was a solid recruitment, that Smolenkov was
the high-level asset the CIA and Brennan claim he was, and the information he provided
regarding the involvement of Putin was unimpeachable. Mitigating against this is the fact that
when Smolenkov was fired from his position in late 2016, he was not arrested and put on trial
for spying.
Russia is fully capable of conducting secret trials, and controlling the information that is
made available about such a trial. Moreover, Russia is a vindictive state–persons who
commit treason are not tolerated. As Putin himself noted in comments made in March 2018,
"Traitors will kick the bucket. Trust me. These people betrayed their friends, their brothers
in arms. Whatever they got in exchange for it, those thirty pieces silver they were given, they
will choke on them." The odds of Smolenkov being fired for committing treason, and then being
allowed to voluntarily exit Russia with his family and passports, are virtually nil.
The second scenario is a variation of the first, where Smolenkov starts as a solid
recruitment, with his reporting commensurate with his known level of access–peripheral
contact with documents and information pertaining to the work of the aide to President Putin on
international relations. Sometime in July 2016 Smolenkov produces a report that catches the
attention of DCI Brennan, who flags it and pulls Smolenkov out of the normal operational
channels for CIA-controlled human sources, and instead creating a new, highly-compartmentalized
fusion cell to handle this report, and possibly others.
Three questions emerge from the second scenario. First, was Smolenkov responding to an
urgent tasking from Brennan to find out how high up the Russian chain of command went the
knowledge of the alleged DNC cyber attack, or did Smolenkov produce this report on his own
volition? Was Brennan arranging evidence to show that there was indeed a Russian hack. After
all, all the FBI had to go by was a draft of a report by the virulently anti-Russian private
security firm CrowdStrike. The FBI never examined the DNC server itself.
In any case, the Smolenkov report in the white envelope represented a level of access
that would have significantly deviated from what one could expect from a person in his position
and which suggests he may have been telling the CIA what he knew Brennan wanted to hear. As
such, normal counterintelligence procedures should have mandated an operational pause while the
intelligence report in question was scrubbed to ensure viability. Under no circumstances would
a report so flagged be allowed to be put into the Presidential Daily Brief. However, by pulling
the report from the control of the Europe and Eurasian Mission Center, turning it over to a
stand-alone fusion cell, and bypassing the PDB process to brief the president and a handful of
advisors, there would be no counterintelligence concerns raised. This implies that Brennan had
a role in the tasking of Smolenkov, and was waiting for the report to come in, which Brennan
then took control of to preclude any counter-intelligence red flags being raised.
The third scenario is that Smolenkov, a low-level failure of a diplomat with drinking
issues, marital problems and monetary frustrations, was recruited by the CIA, but only with the
complicity of the Russian security services.
The same red flags that the CIA looks for when recruiting agents are also looked at by
Russian counterintelligence. At what point in the recruitment process the Russians stepped in
is unknown (if they did at all.) But it is curious that this professional failure was
suddenly transferred from running a co-op to being the right hand man of one of the most
influential foreign policy experts in Russia–Yuri Ushakov.
Moreover, this muddling diplomat whose questionable behavioral practices scream "recruit
me" is, within three years of returning to Moscow, given a significant promotion that enables
him to follow Ushakov into the Presidential Administration–a posting which would require
extensive vetting by the Russian security services. Smolenkov's promotion pattern is enough, in
and of itself, to raise red flags within the counterintelligence offices tasked with monitoring
such things. The fact that it did not indicates that the quality and quantity of reporting
being provided by Smolenkov was deemed by the Americans too important to interfere
with.
In this scenario, Smolenkov would have been playing to a script written by the Russian
security services. Since he, technically, had broken no laws by serving as a double agent, he
would not be subjected to arrest and trial. But once his existence became the fodder of the
U.S. media via inference and speculation, his services as a double agent were no longer needed.
He was fired from his position, via a secret Presidential proclamation, and set free to live
his life as he saw fit.
The most pressing question that emerges from this possibility is why? Why would the Russian
security services want to cook the books, so to speak, in a manner which made the Russians look
guilty of the very thing they were publicly denying?
In my view, if one assumes that the Smolenkov July 2016 report at the center of this
drama was not a result of serendipity, but rather a product derived from a specific request
from his CIA managers to find out how high up in the Russian decision-making chain the
authorization went for what U.S. intelligence agencies were already publicly pushing as an
alleged DNC cyber attack, then the answer I believe becomes clear–the Russians knew the
U.S. had an intelligence deficit.
I am speculating here, but if the Russians provided an answer guaranteed to attract
attention at a critical time in the U.S. presidential election process, it would inject the CIA
and its reporting into the democratic processes of the United States, and thereby politicize
the CIA and the entire intelligence community by default. This would suppose, however, that the
agencies did not have their own motives for wanting to stop Trump.
Rogers, Comey, Clapper and Brennan all in a row.
In this scenario, the Russians would have been in control of when to expose the CIA's
activities–all they had to do was fire Smolenkov, which in the end they did, right as
Smolenkov's report was front and center in the post-election finger-pointing that was taking
place regarding the allegation of Russian interference. The best acts of political sabotage are
done subtlety, where the culprit remains in the shadows while the victims proceed, unaware that
they have been played.
For the Russians, it didn't matter who won the election, even if they may have favored
Trump; simply getting President Obama to commit to the bait by confronting Putin at the G20
meeting in September 2016 would have been a victory, because I assess that at that point the
Russians knew that they were driving the American narrative. When the President of the United
States acts on intelligence that later turns out to be false, it is an embarrassment that
drives a wedge between the intelligence community and the Executive Branch of government. I
have no solid evidence for this. But in my speculation on what may have happened, this was the
Russian objective–to drive that wedge.
An Idyllic Truce
In my view, the CIA, Russia and Smolenkov were happy to maintain the status quo, with
Smolenkov living in comfortable retirement with his family, the CIA continuing to accuse Russia
of interfering in the 2016 presidential election, and Russia denying it. As well, Russia
seems to have brushed off the sanctions that resulted from this alleged "interference." This
idyllic truce started to unravel in May 2019, when Trump ordered Attorney General William Barr
to "get to the bottom" of what role the CIA played in initiating the investigation into
allegations of collusion between Trump's campaign and the Russians that led to the appointment
of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Mueller's investigation concluded earlier this year, with a
400-plus page report being published which did not find any evidence of active collusion
between the Trump campaign and the Russian government.
Trump's instructions to Barr are linked to a desire on the part of the president to hold
to account those responsible for creating the narrative of possible collusion. Reports indicate
that Barr is particularly interested in finding out how and why the CIA concluded that Putin
personally ordered the Russian intelligence services to interfere in the 2016 presidential
election.
Barr's investigation will inevitably lead him to the intelligence report that was hand
couriered to the White House in early August 2016, which would in turn lead to Smolenkov, and
in doing so open up the can of worms of Smolenkov's entire history of cooperation with the CIA.
Not only could the entire foundation upon which the intelligence community has based its
assessment of Russian interference collapse, it could also open the door for potential charges
of criminal misconduct by Brennan and anyone else who helped him bypass normal vetting
procedures and, in doing so, allowed a possible Russian double agent to influence the decisions
of the president of the United States.
Seen in this light, the timing of the CNN and New York Times reports about the
"exfiltration" of the CIA's "sensitive source" seems to be little more than a blatant effort by
Brennan and his allies in the media to shape a narrative before Barr uncovers the
truth.
At the end of the day, Smolenkov and his family are not at risk. If the Russian government
wanted to exact revenge for his actions, it would have done so after firing him in late 2016.
In any event, Smolenkov and his family would never have been allowed to leave Russia had he
been suspected or accused of committing crimes against the state. A few days following
Smolenkov's "outing" by the U.S. media, the Russian government filed a request with Interpol
for an investigation into how someone who had gone missing in Montenegro was now living in the
United States.
The only person at risk from this entire sordid affair is Brennan, whose reputation and
potential livelihood is on the line. At best, Brennan is guilty of extremely poor judgement; at
worst, he actively conspired to use the office of Director of the CIA to interfere in the
outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Neither option speaks well of the U.S. Intelligence
Community and those in Congress charged with oversight of its operations.
Watch Scott Ritter discussing this article on CN Live! Episode 9.
Consortium News does not necessarily endorse the views of its authors.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet
Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm,
and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
If you value this original article, please considermaking a donationto Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry'sComment Policy.Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks,
and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment
does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed.
Linda Wood , September 17, 2019 at 00:34
Brennan may have written the white envelope report and attributed it to Smolenkov, who may
or may not have been a double agent. The Russian interference story is not just something
Brennan wanted to hear, it's what the military industrial complex needs us to believe.
Dan Anderson , September 16, 2019 at 22:09
I trust Scott Ritter. Had we listened to him, the USA would not have invaded Iraq over
WMDs.
Reading the piece added to my distrust of our intelligence community, remembering this
haunting exchange on live TV.
January 3, 2017 – Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer:
"Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday to
get back at you. So, even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he is being
really dumb to do this."
Rachel Maddow:
"What do you think the intelligence community would do if they were motivated to?"
Schumer: "I don't know, but from what I am told, they are very upset with how he has
treated them and talked about them," -- The Rachel Maddow Show Jan 3, 2017
David G , September 16, 2019 at 18:32
I'm surprised Scott Ritter thinks it likely that Russia engineered the "Putin meddled"
narrative – that just seems unbelievable to me. There are enough moving parts here that one doesn't have to commit to one of Ritter's
three scenarios: numerous variations are possible. For instance, Smolenkov may have been fired for some mundane mix of reasons going to
performance and reliability. He may have been considered dubious without Russian
counterintelligence having fingered him as a U.S. agent.
And under the third scenario, with Smolenkov a double agent all along, Ritter writes: "But once his existence became the fodder of the U.S. media via inference and speculation,
his services as a double agent were no longer needed. He was fired from his position, via a
secret Presidential proclamation, and set free to live his life as he saw fit."
That doesn't make sense to me. In fact I see the opposite: if he had been a successfully
run double agent all that time, then when his usefulness had ended he would have been
decently pensioned off – not simply cut loose to fend for himself – but *not*
allowed to travel abroad unimpeded (with his whole family, no less) where he would have the
opportunity to cause mischief.
Were it not so powerful militarily and financially, the United States would be the
laughingstock of the world. This entire business is just another avenue travelled in America's nonstop Russophobia
lunatic wanderings. The DNC material was not hacked as a number of true experts have told us, including the
key one now languishing in a British prison. Putin had no plan because nothing ever happened.
Nothing. And I think we've all seen that when Putin plans something, it happens. The article is interesting for its laying out of elaborate security procedures –
kind of a high-level almost academic "police procedural" – but I do feel in the end it
is not that helpful, much as I respect Mr Ritter.
When nothing has happened, it does seem a bit odd to scrutinize every piece of fiber and
bit of dust and to construct a massive scenario of "what ifs."
Meanwhile, the murder of Seth Rich, a genuine and meaningful event, goes virtually
uninvestigated.
No wonder you are in so much trouble, America, and no wonder you make so much trouble for
others.
Anonymot , September 16, 2019 at 15:16
In the extremely sophisticated world of high grade intelligence I have repeatedly said
that the Brennan, Clapper, Comey trio were lead-footed imbeciles. That has been the CIA
tradition since Dulles left. All of those in our intelligence racket have led us to the
trough of poisoned water and all of our Presidents drank. They have all become very rich, but
not from book sales nor from consulting fees.
It says a lot about the entire echelon of those who decide our fates. There is no way to
know whether it stems from ignorance or incompetence, but those with the Deep State mindset
like each other, hire each other, and have been in some sort of daisy chain since university.
We not only need to describe How it happens as this article does very well, but even more
importantly Why. Only then can we start to do something about it, although it is probably far
too late – it would be like taking the shell off of an egg and leaving that delicate
interior membrane just inside the shell intact.
Clods like these (add the Clintons) should have their post-employment millions confiscated
and put on trial.
Sorry, but "Big Intelligence" is always a failure, and on many levels. It is not a matter of any "clods." It is a matter of the very nature of the institution and the nature of the people who use
its output. The CIA only has a good record at doing bad things. I refer to its operations side and the havoc and violence they have released through the
decades. It is an army of richly-equipped thugs without uniforms interfering in the business of
others, "lying, cheating, and stealing."
I find it maddening that we "puppet proles" are treated like stupid fools, lied to
constantly, and nothing happens to stop the mad lying/false flag garbage that keeps on. Now,
today, after Bolton departure, out of the weirdness comes Pompous Pompeo spewing even worse
madness that could tip "us" into attacking Iran! Saudis are insane, Netanyahu faces his
electorate tomorrow, and we should believe MbS and cronies? Trump is nothing but a
stooge!
Maricata , September 16, 2019 at 19:28
Read The CIA as Organized Crime and Strength of the Wolf and Strength of the Pack by Douglas
Valentine.
Please, CN, have Mr. Valentine on your livc broadcast
Jeff Harrison , September 16, 2019 at 14:36
It occurs to me that this may have an inappropriate title. Plausibly Mr. Ritter has pegged
what Smolenkov was eventually – a double agent. In which case I would probably call him
pretty successful.
hetro , September 16, 2019 at 13:06
Also published yesterday, this Aaron Mate interview with John Kiriakou on Smolenkov:
"Kiriakou also notes that the way Smolenkov's intelligence was handled raises echoes of
the CIA's manipulation of intelligence to help justify the Iraq war. The information from
Smolenkov was handled personally by then-CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan reportedly
sidelined other CIA analysts and kept the Smolenkov information out of the Presidential Daily
Briefing – instead delivering it personally to President Obama and a small group of
officials."
"That is a highly highly unusual thing to do, but I think [Brennan] did it because he knew
that the source wasn't well placed, he knew that the source was lying about his access to
Putin -- or information coming from Putin -- and I think that for whatever reason John
Brennan really wanted the president to run with this narrative that the Russians were trying
to somehow impact the 2016 election, when the intelligence just simply wasn't there,"
Kiriakou says.
When Trump campaigned against the bloody foreign policies of the duopoly he was also
campaigning against an out of control, coup making, drug running, blackmailing, imperial CIA.
my comment to The Brennan wanted to 'get' Trump to save his own hide, the CIA, and the
duopoly from further embarrassment.
If Smolenkov is missing from his Virginia home (Chancellor below at 9.15.19 at 23:40)
hopefully he is in hiding to assure he can tell a Grand Jury about any instructions or
suggestions he may have received from Brennan, or others regarding the election of Donald
Trump.
Zhu , September 16, 2019 at 05:25
Re John 8:32, people forget Pilate's remark, "what is truth"?
Igor Bundy , September 16, 2019 at 04:29
The next report from the CIA will be from hogwarts and how the measter is concatenating a
secret potion on how to turn dykes into donkeys.. This is especially impotent to the CIA and
such.. to hide in plain sight..
Imagine them trying to make a bond movie from this. Or more of Bourne.. But now it makes
sense of all the shows that show the CIA as protector of humanity and the good guys.. There
are no righteous intelligence agencies anywhere, only how evil and their limits.. Why their
powers should be limited and their actions also limited to a small sphere. Because where does
it stop? Once given the power to shape reality, then the entire world is shaped according to
a few with psychopathic tendencies. Which normal person would want to control everyone
according to their own reality? When you cant control your very own family, you have to be
one heck of a control freak to do it globally and to force everyone to do as told. But these
are the dreams and aspirations of an ape.. To remake the world in his own image.. and the
prize is the banana..
John Wright , September 16, 2019 at 15:11
More like a Le Carre' film. The CIA was originally sold as an intelligence gathering and analysis organization, and
was not supposed to be involved in operations. Thus, it was founded on lies and the lies have
only grown since.
Neither the CIA nor the FBI are salvageable at this point. They need to be abolished,
their functions reconsidered and new institutions which adhere to the Constitution created.
Of course, the entire military intelligence complex needs to be dismantled, starting with the
DHS, but that will require a revolution in this country.
Even the former communist state governments in Europe and the Soviet Union rued the day
that they unleashed their secret police from accountability, and thereby became subservient
to their power.
Chancellor , September 15, 2019 at 23:40
"But his job as foreman of the Rossotrudnichestvo coop was not the kind of job a Maurive
(sic) Thorez graduate gets;"
Of course it isn't, because that was never really his job. My guess is that his real job
all along was to be recruited by the CIA, when, in fact, he was always a double agent. The
rumors that he drank too much, was dissatisfied with his pay, and so on, strike me as too
obvious a come-on to an over-confident CIA. If Mr. Ritter knows that this is the type of
individual the CIA looks for, then the Russian security services know this as well. After
all, they tagged every American on the Moscow Station. Clearly, they have excellent
tradecraft.
The final coup by the Russian security services was to create a situation where Smolenkov
would have to be extracted by the CIA, although the Russians probably didn't think it would
take so long. Now it appears that Smolenkov is missing from the Virginia home that he
purchased openly under his own name. I wouldn't be surprised if he is living comfortably
somewhere back in Russia–this time having been "extracted" by the Russians, since his
cover as a CIA asset was finally blown.
Clearly this is speculation, but no more so than the scenarios Mr. Ritter posits.
Fabrizio Zambuto , September 16, 2019 at 14:11
Third scenario seems possible. He starts to drink, he shows how unsatisfied he is, knows
Americans will target him.
Meanwhile he gets spoonfed the intel he will have to share with the CIA.
According to Lavrov, he was a employee with little access to the echelons.
Last but not least: Putin said traitors will be punished but they don't get killed,
they're sent to Prison and handed years like Skripal which managed to go to UK thanks to a
swap.
Overall I like the article but too much Hollywood in the story. Why was he fired?
John Wright , September 15, 2019 at 23:38
[The Chinese play Go, the Russians Chess and the Americans Poker (badly)]
I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Ritter's third scenario is the correct interpretation
of the facts. I wouldn't even be surprised if the Russians surreptitiously got the U.S. media
to out their double agent. Timing is everything, after all, and now he's Langley's problem to
deal with.
The Russians know that the corrupt Anglo-American Deep State will work against any
relationship which is beneficial to Russia, so they have absolutely nothing to lose by
feeding the Deep State a narrative that can potentially wreak havoc within it.
Having Smolenkov feed this narrative into the bowels of the CIA clearly helped advance the
Deep State's rather obvious operation to create the appearance of collusion between the Trump
campaign and Russia, all the more reason for Brennan and company to swallow it hook, line and
sinker.
So Deep State tool Obama bites on the interference narrative, confronts Putin and takes
illegal actions that, if exposed, have the potential to seriously damage his legacy and the
presidency. This plausible result would cause Americans to lose even more faith in their
increasingly corrupt and dysfunctional government and affect world opinion.
We now see that if Barr actually does his job as mandated by the Constitution, then this
becomes a very distinct possibility.
Had the rabid neocon Clinton won, her administration would've undoubtedly buried Obama's
unconstitutional indiscretion, but fingerprints would've lingered for a future Republican to
possibly uncover and cause chaos with. It's even possible that Smolenkov would've remained in
place and continued to feed even more poisonous disinformation to the U.S. intelligence
morass, setting Clinton up for who knows what.
However, the unstable, narcissistic and easily played Trump miraculously wins. He's
immediately and continuously hit with RussiaGate. Trump reacts predictably by fanning the
flames of distraction when he calls out the Deep State and keeps punching back. The Executive
Branch is divided against itself, Congress and the electorate are further polarized and a
significant amount of energy is tied up with unproductive domestic political
machinations.
Almost three years of noise and crisis worked to increase Trump's natural dysfunction
while the Russians and Chinese quietly manage their coordinated effort to transform the
global power structure in their favor.
Will this Russian gift keep on giving?
Will Barr, or someone else if Trump fires him, dig into the entire RussiaGate mess and
expose all the lies and blatant illegality potentially causing a serious national crisis,
further damaging the reputation and credit worthiness of the U.S. ?
Or will Barr remain a faithful Deep State fixer, convince Trump that taking down Obama
would not be good for the economic health of the country (and his re-election), and carefully
steer everything he can down the memory hole?
Are those vodka glasses I hear clinking in Beijing?
[I'm just left wondering who will produce the deliciously embarrassing (to the U.S.) film
that this would make.]
Taras77 , September 15, 2019 at 19:42
Remarkable detail on the recruitment and control of agents by the CIA. In this case, it
would appear that Brennan has been played big time. IMO, to see Smolenkov walk away with his
loot in the bank, there can not be any other conclusion.
Hence, the obvious panic by brennan to use the likely suspects, NYT and wapo, to cast more
haze on the story. If there were treason, I doubt Smolenkov would be walking because the
Russians do not take that lightly. Actually, they have acted and are acting with competence
and confidence in the face of the bumbling, fumbling bombast and threats of the group around
trump which passes themselves off as diplomats and security advisors.
Brennan in his obsession to interfere with the political process prob contributed to his
malfeasance and a possible crime-I am no legal expert but it certainly seems that he
committed crimes.
Of course, this raises the question as to whether barr et al will act accordingly and
bring him to justice-I have strong doubts about barr taking on the cia as they will certainly
close ranks to protect him. My doubts about barr, however, go well beyond this particular
issue vis-a-vis the cia.
SilentPartner , September 15, 2019 at 18:58
I suspect Scott was provided a great deal of the reporting in this fascinating article
from a disgruntled insider, or former insider. Knowledge of Brennan's break with protocol to
form a select 'stand alone fusion cell' that reported only to him is something that I haven't
seen reported before. In any case this story adds another red flag to the entire Russiagate
hoax.
Just as Mueller failed to interview Julian Assange or Christopher Steele for his report --
obvious red flags -- we should now watch the conduct of Barr's investigation. Will Barr's
investigators interview Smolenkov? This should be an important metric to determine how
serious his investigation is. Another metric for Barr will be whether Ghislaine Maxwell is
indicted and arrested in the Jefferey Epstein affair. If not, we will soon know just how deep
goes the corruption of the ruling class.
Sam F , September 15, 2019 at 18:28
Many thanks to Scott Ritter for this information and cogent argument.
However it is not clear how Russia would expect to benefit by allowing Smolenkov to
deceive the CIA that Putin directly ordered interference in the US election. While later
discrediting of the US "Russia-gate" nonsense would make the US IC look bad, it is unclear
that this could be done, and it would have been done by now to reduce political tensions, but
still has not been done. Putin himself denied the accusations as nonsense.
So something is missing: if that was not the plan, Smolenkov was not asked to do that, and
he would not have been viewed as harmless when fired for that. If he had other incriminating
info on decision makers there, he would not have been allowed to leave, and having escaped,
he would have concealed his new location. Perhaps his superiors ill-advisedly asked him to
make false statements, for which he was not blamed.
Anon , September 16, 2019 at 07:09
I agree. The logic of "embarrassing" the CIA and dividing them from the president by
passing inflammatory information seems a stretch. On the other hand, I agree there do appear
a number of "red flags."
I'm wondering about the merit of the idea that this guy cooked up the story himself,
though I'm not sure that works either. It just seems to me something is missing.
Ojkelly , September 16, 2019 at 12:00
I thought the idea was that a Brennan minion planted or asked for the "Putin is
interfering " report, or even made it up and attributed it to a minor asset.
Brendan , September 15, 2019 at 15:00
( ) the timing of the CNN and New York Times reports about the "exfiltration" of the
CIA's "sensitive source" seems to be little more than a blatant effort by Brennan and his
allies in the media to shape a narrative before Barr uncovers the truth.
That's very likely to be true, but I think there's more to it than just getting Brennan's
version of events published before anyone elses. If you want to implant your narrative in the
public's mind it certainly does help to get your story out first, but in this case there's an
additional motive for leaking the spy story.
One effect of the leak was that Smolenko suddenly disappeared. His family apparently fled
their house in a hurry, leaving belongings lying around according to media reports.
Normally the CIA would never 'out' a valued asset, even a used one, because that would
discourage potential informers. And CNN and the NYT would not reveal details that would
identify a Russian defector – as happened in this case when Russian Kommersant
identified Smolenkov. American mainstream media would first check that it was OK to publish
those details.
This looks far too unusual to be simply a result of incompetence by Americans. A much
better explanation is that some powerful people were really desperate to make Smolenko
disappear. And the reason is that he knew too much. And now he has gone into hiding,
supposedly to escape vengeance from Putin. What is most significant is that he does not face
as many questions about his role in Russiagate.
A general search for Intel on google doesn't yield an abundance of articles that mention
its move to Israel in 1974, but I discovered it when the Spectre/Meltdown (intentional
Israeli processor security flaws, I mean "features") became known in 2018. "Nothing is ever
impossible, in this life" except for a computer that's not infested with the US-Israeli
partnership. We are also not surprised that Intel was not on Donald Trump's list of American
companies to bring back to the US.
Mike from Jersey , September 15, 2019 at 14:23
Good article. This is the kind of analysis you will not find in the New York Times or the Washington
Post. This is why I come to the Consortium News.
hetro , September 15, 2019 at 13:46
If I'm following properly, the white paper from Smolenkov is at the heart of the January
6, 2017, "assessments" that the case would be made–Trump as dupe of Putin.
Recall, too, that these "assessments" differed. Brennan's and Comey's were "high";
Clapper's was "moderate."
And, as Scott Ritter points out, they were "estimates" not based on hard proof; they were
essentially "guesses."
Why the discrepancy? (Related: William Binney says this "moderate" from Clapper means the
NSA knows Russia did not hack the DNC.)
I think this discrepancy question is important. How could a (supposedly) verifiable report
via white paper from a verifiable double agent Smolenkov be anything but a slam dunk
(unanimous) "high" for the major intelligence agencies?
The other question is Scott's WHY the Russian intelligence apparatus, with Putin
complicit, would set out to embarrass the US intelligence agencies with a cooked up
story–that made Putin look bad?
Of course, they could not know back at that time how the story would cook and proliferate
across US mainstream media with all the glee of Russia-bashing run amok and its TDS.
This view would also suggest a belief that somewhere in the US justice system was the
integrity to dig everything out and expose the fraud.
nwwoods , September 15, 2019 at 17:56
I believe that it was NSA which declared "moderate confidence", so no, not Clapper.
Clapper, in my opinion, was in on the gambit, a witting confederate of ringleader
Brennan.
hetro , September 16, 2019 at 11:30
Yes. Technically Clapper resigned as head of the NSA in 2016, and it was Mike Rogers, the
new head in 2017 who declared the assessment "moderate." Clapper had been involved with
Brennan and Comey in forming the January 6, 2017 assessment.
The question still remains: why the discrepancy in this "assessment" at the very beginning
of Trump's presidency, with its powerful impact.
JP McEvoy , September 15, 2019 at 12:33
One thing is for sure, if anything bad happens to the mole, it's won't be the Russians who did it.
Watch your back Mr. Skrip – er – I mean Smolenkov.
Robert Emmett , September 15, 2019 at 11:25
Damn! Please allow me to toss the "curveball" too. What's that? The real one or the fake,
you say? Ha ha. Yes, exactly! O, Vaunted sacred screed of PDB where the truth shall set you
free to prime the pump with lies. (hint: to spare your soul don't look into their eyes)
I haven't exactly been able to figure out what's wrong with Brennan's face, 'til I just
got it. He's been double-yoked! His own plus Barrack's (truer sp.). Egg that just won't wash
off! So you have to wear it everywhere, every day. Talk about serviceable villains hiding in
plain sight. Hey, Clapper! Don't get any on ya! Haha. Too late!
Carroll Price , September 15, 2019 at 10:43
Another example of checker champions competing with chess masters.
CortesKid , September 15, 2019 at 10:33
Brilliant and thorough. As I was reading Mr. Ritter's analysis, an overwhelming impression
was building, analogous to the third scenario, that Smolenkov , indeed, was a lure perfectly
placed to catch an intelligence agency or three. As I've watched and read many Russian
official's communications, especially their diplomatic efforts, it has become obvious to me
that, on average, they are some of the few "adults in the room." In broadstrokes, they are
playing chess, while the whole of the West, with its increasingly senile elites, is at the
Checkers table.
And in even broader strokes, I believe that at the heart of all of these shenanigans, is a
foundational turning away from a matured-and-deflating West, to an energized and expanding
Eurasia (Brezhinki's nightmare). As you know, changes on the scale of hegemon are never easy.
"Dying empires don't lay down, they double-down."
And I don't necessarily think Smolenkov and family are safe–from, for instance,
"Novichok" delivered via some American ally's secret service–as a pretense for further
demonization of Russia.
Brendan , September 15, 2019 at 07:51
Sorry but the theory that's proposed above is a bit too convoluted to be believable
– that Russia manipulated the CIA with the fake hacking story from Smolenkov and then
the CIA chief Brennan used it to manipulate Obama who then unwittingly revealed to Putin that
the USA was fooled by the story.
I'd rather follow Occam's razor and go for a simpler scenario. Brennan and the CIA
persuaded Smolenkov to invent the story (that he had inside knowledge that Putin ordered the
hacking of the DNC).
Not only that, but Obama suspected that the story was fake, since it was passed on to him
outside the normal channels and was investigated in a similar unconventional way. It's hard
to believe that Obama was easily hoodwinked and simply accepted the story as fact without any
convincing evidence.
The Democratic Party's fingerprints are all over the Russiagate story. The DNC
commissioned the Steele dossier and Steele met officials in the Obama administration's State
Department before the 2016 election. We're expected to believe that this all went on behind
President Obama's back.
We're also expected to believe that Obama innocently believed Smolenkov's report, as if
the CIA and FBI would never tell a lie. He's not completely stupid – at the very least
he must have had serious doubts about the allegations, or he could even have been in on the
Russiagate fabrication himself.
Maricata , September 16, 2019 at 19:34
It is more and more difficult to ascertain reality from fantasy, certainty from
assumptions. And this all plays into the hands of the ruling elites and their international
and national pratorean guards.
Americans do not ask questions. They prefer to believe than to know and thus the {swirl}
will yield nothing.
F. G. Sanford , September 15, 2019 at 07:05
Putin must surely have smirked. The little white envelope worked.
The debate made it plain he had pulled Brennan's chain,
And behind the scene subterfuge lurked!
Only four people went to the meeting. Connections might prove rather fleeting.
The "puppet" rebuke at the time seemed a fluke,
No one dared claim that Clinton was cheating!
Brennan's confidence level was high. He had sources and methods to spy.
He had top secret stuff that he claimed was enough,
But no evidence he'd specify!
Then Clinton claimed Russian subversion. In retrospect, not a diversion.
She must have been tipped by somebody loose lipped,
And she ran with the Putin incursion!
Strzok and Page were kept out of the loop. They didn't get insider poop.
They found no 'there' there, Comey's cupboard looked bare,
Brennan's spy had not yet flown the coop.
The durable lie picked up traction. Their spook would require extraction.
How could Clinton be sure that the blame would endure,
And the Steele Dossier would get action?
The 'Agent in Place' was a double. He didn't get in any trouble.
Hillary's pride had some hubris to hide,
In the end it would burst Brennan's bubble!
The big secret meeting was leaked. On the stage, "He's a puppet!" she shrieked.
Perhaps Susan Rice was inclined to be nice,
And her duty to Hillary peaked!
So now, they blame Trump for the outing. But it's over except for the shouting.
The 'insurance' is void, the illusion destroyed,
And poor Hillary just keeps on pouting!
David Otness , September 14, 2019 at 23:41
Scott -- so glad I got the head's-up on this via the CN Live show. I just now finished it
and am putting it into perspective. Well-researched, and well-written -- it's truly a web so
very reminiscent of what should have remained Cold War 1.0 finis.
And Episode Nine of CN Live is showing us where this internet platform can go with the
assembled experience and talent exhibited. The tech glitches were too bad, but the audio was
quite good enough.
Thanks for this travel guide to the heart of the labyrinth. Hopefully good things come of it.
I do worry about Barr's too many allegiances to his CIA incubator though, especially with all
of the ongoing coverups of the Epstein fiasco (engineered or not,) that complicate and
obfuscate the twin scandals that both end up under Barr's purview.
Ya done good, nonetheless. Thank you.
Abe , September 14, 2019 at 22:07
"After the U.S. reports came out, an anonymous, well-informed Russian Telegram channel,
The Ruthless PR Guy, reported that the asset was Kremlin official Oleg Smolenkov. On Tuesday
(10 September 2019] morning, the Moscow daily Kommersant published a story confirming that it
was him based on anonymous sources and some pretty convincing circumstantial evidence. [
]
"If Smolenkov was a spy, he could have delivered important insights about Russia's foreign
policy thinking and planning to U.S. intelligence. But if he was the source for the U.S.
intelligence community's certainty that Putin personally orchestrated a covert interference
campaign, that certainty rests on a weak foundation. Smolenkov served the wrong boss in the
Kremlin to get reliable information about such ventures."
Mr Ritter, Very lightly done. " Curveball made me do it" is the defense.
Brennan, well,I am not knowledgeable , but tight with Barry, unprofessional to my view, has
an issue. He made the most outrageous statements, Commander believing his own BS, NYT
magazine. Imagine going around saying that Trump was a Russian agent . Did incomparable
harm.And Morrell endorsing Hillary Clinton :beyond the pale , Professional members of the
agency must've been? Shocked appalled, whatever.
Jeff Harrison , September 14, 2019 at 21:52
Whooof! Obviously the MSM won't touch any of this stuff. I also don't have a lot of
confidence in the US government's ability to clean up the mess it has made. Amusingly, I've
watched the US's ham handed operations around the world and wondered when somebody would
return the complement. If Mr. Ritter is to be believed, it seems the Russians have started.
As Mr. Lawrence pointed out on CN live, Americans need to dispense with the notion that we
are exceptional. That's a weakness as it leads to complacency. How many more bricks of trust
in our government will we have to see broken before the entire edifice collapses? I would
also like to point out that we wouldn't be having these kind of problems if we weren't hell
bent on being the global hegemon.
Clark M Shanahan , September 14, 2019 at 22:54
"If Mr. Ritter is to be believed"
Jeffrey, I've followed Mr Ritter.
You can believe what he is stating, he's a good man.
my bad: Ritter starts at 48 minutes, before Nixon & Maupin
Jeff Harrison , September 15, 2019 at 17:43
I'm hip, Clark. I said that simply because I have no other collaborating commentary.
Ritter had my vote when he stood up to Shrub over Iraq's WMDs. But you do have to keep the
realization that you could be wrong so if Mr. Ritter is to be believed. I think that the odds
that Ritter is wrong are in the general vicinity of the odds that the US will start acting
like a normal nation.
gjohnsit on Tue, 09/17/2019 - 3:10pm Remember in 2002 when the neocons in Washington
told us that we had to attack Iraq because of 9/11, eventhough Iraq had nothing to do with
it?
So now Iran is being blamed for the attack on Saudi oil fields, and
anonymous warmongers claim that they have proof.
The United States has identified the exact locations in Iran from which a combination of more
than 20 drones and cruise missiles were launched against Saudi oil facilities over the
weekend, a senior U.S. official told CBS News national security correspondent David Martin on
Tuesday. The official said the locations are in southern Iran, at the northern end of the
Persian Gulf.
What a coincidence! That also happens to be around Iran's major oil fields.
What's more, the Saudi air defenses would have stopped it if it came from Yemen.
Saudi Arabia's air defenses have been aimed south for months, to protect against missile
attacks launched by Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, so they were useless against the
missiles and drones coming in from the north, the official told Martin.
Let's put a pin in that for now.
Washington immediately dismissed the Houthi's claim of responsibility for the attack. Why?
Because the Houthis don't have the
knowledge or the means to carry it out.
But U.S. officials have cast doubt on the Houthis’ claim, arguing that the
sophisticated nature of the attack suggested that it was beyond the capabilities of the rebel
group.
Analysts say this is what the Houthis appear to have used to hit the Abha International
Airport in southern Saudi Arabia a few months ago. But the Quds 1 lacks the range to get from
northern Yemen to the oil installations in Saudi Arabia.
The range, scale and precision of the latest attack — including the successful
penetration of Saudi air defenses and the avoidance of obstacles like power lines and
communication towers — far exceeds anything the Houthis have ever done.
So it's all wrapped up. The Houthis aren't capable of doing it, and we have proof that Iran
did it. We just can't show it to you.
It makes a good story if you have no long-term memory.
Because
this happened less than a month ago.
A drone attack launched by Yemen’s Houthi group on an oilfield in eastern Saudi Arabia
on Saturday caused a fire at a gas plant but had no impact on oil production, state-run oil
company Saudi Aramco said.
A Houthi military spokesman said earlier that the group had targeted the Shaybah oilfield
with 10 drones, in what he said was the “biggest attack in the depths” of the
kingdom, the world’s top oil exporter, by the Iran-aligned group.
Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih described Shaybah as a “vital
facility”.
That oilfield is 900 kilometres away from Yemen.
Literally everything about this Houthi attack is the same as Saturday's attack, except for
fewer explosions. So what the fuck is the NY Times talking about?
To make this even more interesting, I happened upon
this report by the UAE following the Houthi attack from last month.
The report also reveals critical Saudi defence weaknesses to the weaponised drones used by
the Houthis.
It reports that from January to May there were 155 such attacks against Saudi targets in
Yemen and throughout the Gulf, a much higher figure than previously admitted.
“The attack on the Lahj Military Base demonstrates a weakness in Saudi air defences
and the lack of capacity in electronic war if we take into account that these drones are
basic and are not launched on tarmac,” the report says.
“Air defences such as the Patriot are not capable of spotting these drones because
the systems are designed to intercept long and medium range Scud missiles.”
Najran airport has been hit repeatedly by Houthi drones despite being protected by a
Patriot battery, the report reveals.
155 drone attacks? U.S. Patriot missiles unable to detect and stop them?
Why that sounds a lot different than what we are being told.
Recall that the Houthis had brought
down a U.S. drone just a few weeks ago. That was the second U.S. drone they shot down just
this summer.
Recall that the Houthis have been
hitting Riyadh with missiles for over a year.
All the evidence points to the Houthis being more than capable of not just being responsible
for this attack, but for repeating this attack in a matter of weeks Mark F. McCarty
and probably most of the UN, they are going to have a harder time getting anyone on board
the Pompeo Holy War train. We are going to have to show our allies totally verifiable
evidence that Iran lobbed those drones, and it looks like we can't do that.
Probably because they didn't do it! And once that starts looking clear to the world, the
last remnants of US credibility will fly away for good.
We are going to have to show our allies totally verifiable evidence that Iran lobbed those
drones, and it looks like we can't do that.
If we had proof it was Iran we would have shown it to someone by now.
Aren't we monitoring the airspace around Iran?
And what is Iran's motivation?
It's not worth the risk for Iran if they were caught.
OTOH, if Iran gives the weapons to the Houthis...that makes a Hell of a lot more
sense.
and probably most of the UN, they are going to have a harder time getting anyone on
board the Pompeo Holy War train. We are going to have to show our allies totally
verifiable evidence that Iran lobbed those drones, and it looks like we can't do
that.
Probably because they didn't do it! And once that starts looking clear to the world,
the last remnants of US credibility will fly away for good.
Iran Rejects US Accusation It Is Behind
Saudi Attacks https://nyti.ms/30iNte7
NYT - Michael Wolgelenter - September 15
Iran on Sunday forcefully rejected charges by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that it was
responsible for drone attacks that caused serious damage to two crucial Saudi Arabian oil
installations, with the foreign minister dismissing the remarks as "max deceit."
The attacks on Saturday, which hold the potential to disrupt global oil supplies, were
claimed by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Mr. Pompeo said that Iran had launched "an unprecedented
attack on the world's oil supply," although he did not offer any evidence and stopped short
of saying that Iran had carried out the missile strikes.
The Houthis are part of a complex regional dynamic in the Middle East, receiving support
from Iran while the Saudis, Tehran's chief rival for supremacy in the region and the leader
of a coalition that is fighting the Houthis in Yemen, are aligned with the United States.
Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, castigated the Saudis
for their role in the war in Yemen, where the Saudis have directed airstrikes that have
caused heavy civilian casualties and exacerbated a humanitarian crisis. He also ridiculed Mr.
Pompeo's comments.
The semiofficial Fars news agency reported on its English-language website that Mr.
Mousavi described Mr. Pompeo's allegations as "blind and fruitless remarks" that were
"meaningless" in a diplomatic context.
Saudi Arabia has yet to publicly accuse Iran of involvement in the attack. On Sunday, its
Foreign Ministry urged international action to preserve the world oil supply in response to
the attack, but it said nothing about assigning blame or striking back.
The developments come at a moment of rising tensions between Iran and the United States,
which have mounted since President Trump pulled out of the 2015 accord in which Iran agreed
with the West to restrict its nuclear program. Since the American withdrawal, Iran has
gradually pulled away from its some obligations under the agreement. ...
... "US & its clients are stuck in Yemen because of illusion that weapon superiority will
lead to military victory," Mr. Zarif wrote on Twitter. "Blaming Iran won't end disaster.
Accepting our April '15 proposal to end war & begin talks may.
The attack on Saturday, which the Houthis said involved 10 drones, represented the rebels'
most serious strike since Saudi Arabia inserted itself into the conflict in Yemen four years
ago. That the rebels could cause such extensive damage to such a crucial part of the global
economy astonished some observers. ...
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
Essentially neoliberal MSM were hijacked. Which was easy to do. The current anti-Russian campaign is conducted under
the direct guidance of MI6 and similar agencies
Notable quotes:
"... committee minutes note the secretary saying: "The Guardian was obliged to seek advice under the terms of the DA notice code." The minutes add: "This failure to seek advice was a key source of concern and considerable efforts had been made to address it." ..."
"... These "considerable efforts" included a D-Notice sent out by the committee on 7 June 2013 – the day after The Guardian published the first documents – to all major UK media editors, saying they should refrain from publishing information that would "jeopardise both national security and possibly UK personnel". It was marked "private and confidential: not for publication, broadcast or use on social media". ..."
"... "The FT [Financial Times] and The Times did not mention it [the initial Snowden revelations] and the Telegraph published only a short". It continued by noting that only The Independent "followed up the substantive allegations". It added, "The BBC has also chosen to largely ignore the story." ..."
"... The British security services had carried out more than a "symbolic act". It was both a show of strength and a clear threat. The Guardian was then the only major newspaper that could be relied upon by whistleblowers in the US and British security bodies to receive and cover their exposures, a situation which posed a challenge to security agencies. ..."
"... The increasingly aggressive overtures made to The Guardian worked. The committee chair noted that after GCHQ had overseen the smashing up of the newspaper's laptops "engagement with The Guardian had continued to strengthen". ..."
"... But the most important part of this charm and threat offensive was getting The Guardian to agree to take a seat on the D-Notice Committee itself. The committee minutes are explicit on this, noting that "the process had culminated by [sic] the appointment of Paul Johnson (deputy editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC [i.e. D-Notice Committee] member". ..."
"... The Guardian's deputy editor went directly from the corporation's basement with an angle-grinder to sitting on the D-Notice Committee alongside the security service officials who had tried to stop his paper publishing. ..."
"... In November 2016, The Guardian published an unprecedented "exclusive" with Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain's domestic security service. The article noted that this was the "first newspaper interview given by an incumbent MI5 chief in the service's 107-year history". It was co-written by deputy editor Paul Johnson, who had never written about the security services before and who was still sitting on the D-Notice Committee. This was not mentioned in the article. ..."
"... The MI5 chief was given copious space to make claims about the national security threat posed by an "increasingly aggressive" Russia. Johnson and his co-author noted, "Parker said he was talking to The Guardian rather than any other newspaper despite the publication of the Snowden files." ..."
"... Just two weeks before the interview with MI6's chief was published, The Guardian itself reported on the high court stating that it would "hear an application for a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's decision not to charge MI6's former counterterrorism director, Sir Mark Allen, over the abduction of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant wife who were transferred to Libya in a joint CIA-MI6 operation in 2004". ..."
"... The security services were probably feeding The Guardian these "exclusives" as part of the process of bringing it onside and neutralising the only independent newspaper with the resources to receive and cover a leak such as Snowden's. They were possibly acting to prevent any revelations of this kind happening again. ..."
"... The Guardian's coverage of anti-Semitism in Labour has been suspiciously extensive, compared to the known extent of the problem in the party, and its focus on Corbyn personally suggests that the issue is being used politically. While anti-Semitism does exist in the Labour Party, evidence suggests it is at relatively low levels. Since September 2015, when Corbyn became Labour leader, 0.06% of the Labour membership has been investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts. In 2016, an independent inquiry commissioned by Labour concluded that the party "is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated every single United Kingdom race equality law." ..."
"... A former Guardian journalist similarly told us: "It is significant that exclusive stories recently about British collusion in torture and policy towards the interrogation of terror suspects and other detainees have been passed to other papers including The Times rather than The Guardian." ..."
"... The Guardian had gone in six short years from being the natural outlet to place stories exposing wrongdoing by the security state to a platform trusted by the security state to amplify its information operations. A once relatively independent media platform has been largely neutralised by UK security services fearful of being exposed further. Which begs the question: where does the next Snowden go? DM ..."
The Guardian, Britain's leading liberal newspaper with a global reputation for independent and critical journalism, has been
successfully targeted by security agencies to neutralise its adversarial reporting of the 'security state', according to newly released
documents and evidence from former and current Guardian journalists.
The UK security services targeted The Guardian after the newspaper started publishing the contents of secret US government documents
leaked by National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden in June 2013.
Snowden's bombshell revelations continued for months and were the largest-ever leak of classified material covering the NSA and
its UK equivalent, the Government Communications Headquarters. They revealed programmes of
mass surveillance
operated by both agencies.
According to minutes of meetings of the UK's Defence and Security Media Advisory
Committee, the revelations caused alarm in the British security services and Ministry of Defence.
" This event was very concerning because at the outset The Guardian avoided engaging with the [committee] before publishing the
first tranche of information," state
minutes of a 7 November
2013 meeting at the MOD.
The DSMA Committee, more commonly known as the D-Notice Committee, is run by the MOD, where it meets every six months. A small
number of journalists are also invited to sit on the committee. Its
stated purpose is to "prevent inadvertent public disclosure
of information that would compromise UK military and intelligence operations". It can issue "notices" to the media to encourage them
not to publish certain information.
The committee is currently chaired by the MOD's director-general of security policy Dominic Wilson, who was
previously director of security and intelligence
in the British Cabinet Office. Its secretary is Brigadier Geoffrey Dodds OBE, who
describes himself as an "accomplished, senior
ex-military commander with extensive experience of operational level leadership".
The D-Notice system describes itself as voluntary ,
placing no obligations on the media to comply with any notice issued. This means there should have been no need for the Guardian
to consult the MOD before publishing the Snowden documents.
Yet committee minutes note the secretary saying: "The Guardian was obliged to seek advice under the terms of the DA notice code." The minutes
add: "This failure to seek advice was a key source of concern and considerable efforts had been made to address it."
' Considerable efforts'
These "considerable efforts" included a D-Notice sent out by the committee on 7 June 2013 – the day after The Guardian published
the first documents – to all major UK media editors, saying they should refrain from publishing information that would "jeopardise
both national security and possibly UK personnel". It was
marked "private and confidential: not
for publication, broadcast or use on social media".
Clearly the committee did not want its issuing of the notice to be publicised, and it was nearly successful. Only the right-wing
blog Guido Fawkes made it public.
At the time, according to the committee
minutes , the "intelligence
agencies in particular had continued to ask for more advisories [i.e. D-Notices] to be sent out". Such D-Notices were clearly seen
by the intelligence services not so much as a tool to advise the media but rather a way to threaten it not to publish further Snowden
revelations.
One night, amidst the first Snowden stories being published, the D-Notice Committee's then-secretary Air Vice-Marshal Andrew Vallance
personally called Alan Rusbridger, then editor of The Guardian. Vallance "made clear his concern that The Guardian had failed to
consult him in advance before telling the world",
according to a Guardian journalist who interviewed Rusbridger.
Later in the year, Prime Minister David Cameron again used the D-Notice system as a threat to the media.
" I don't want to have to use injunctions or D-Notices or the other tougher measures," he
said
in a statement to MPs. "I think it's much better to appeal to newspapers' sense of social responsibility. But if they don't
demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act."
The threats worked. The Press Gazette reported
at the time that "The FT [Financial Times] and The Times did not mention it [the initial Snowden revelations] and the Telegraph
published only a short". It continued by noting that only The Independent "followed up the substantive allegations". It added, "The
BBC has also chosen to largely ignore the story."
The Guardian, however, remained uncowed.
According to the committee
minutes , the fact
The Guardian would not stop publishing "undoubtedly raised questions in some minds about the system's future usefulness". If the
D-Notice system could not prevent The Guardian publishing GCHQ's most sensitive secrets, what was it good for?
It was time to rein in The Guardian and make sure this never happened again.
GCHQ and laptops
The security services ratcheted up their "considerable efforts" to deal with the exposures. On 20 July 2013, GCHQ officials
entered The Guardian's offices at King's Cross in London, six weeks after the first Snowden-related article had been published. At the request of the government and security services, Guardian deputy editor Paul Johnson, along with two others, spent
three hours destroying the laptops containing the Snowden documents.
The Guardian staffers, according to one of the newspaper's reporters,
brought "angle-grinders, dremels – drills with revolving bits – and masks". The reporter added, "The spy agency provided
one piece of hi-tech equipment, a 'degausser', which destroys magnetic fields and erases data."
Johnson
claims
that the destruction of the computers was "purely a symbolic act", adding that "the government and GCHQ knew, because we
had told them, that the material had been taken to the US to be shared with the New York Times. The reporting would go on. The episode
hadn't changed anything."
Yet the episode did change something. As the D-Notice Committee
minutes for November
2013 outlined: "Towards the end of July [as the computers were being destroyed], The Guardian had begun to seek and accept D-Notice
advice not to publish certain highly sensitive details and since then the dialogue [with the committee] had been reasonable and improving."
The British security services had carried out more than a "symbolic act". It was both a show of strength and a clear threat. The
Guardian was then the only major newspaper that could be relied upon by whistleblowers in the US and British security bodies to receive
and cover their exposures, a situation which posed a challenge to security agencies.
The increasingly aggressive overtures made to The Guardian worked. The committee chair
noted that after
GCHQ had overseen the smashing up of the newspaper's laptops "engagement with The Guardian had continued to strengthen".
Moreover, he added
, there were now "regular dialogues between the secretary and deputy secretaries and Guardian journalists". Rusbridger later
testified to the Home Affairs Committee that Air Vice-Marshal Vallance of the D-Notice committee and himself "collaborated"
in the aftermath of the Snowden affair and that Vallance had even "been at The Guardian offices to talk to all our reporters".
But the most important part of this charm and threat offensive was getting The Guardian to agree to take a seat on the D-Notice
Committee itself. The committee minutes are explicit on this,
noting that "the
process had culminated by [sic] the appointment of Paul Johnson (deputy editor Guardian News and Media) as a DPBAC [i.e. D-Notice
Committee] member".
At some point in 2013 or early 2014, Johnson – the same deputy editor who had smashed up his newspaper's computers under the watchful
gaze of British intelligence agents – was approached to take up a seat on the committee. Johnson attended his first meeting in
May 2014 and was
to remain on it until
October 2018
.
The Guardian's deputy editor went directly from the corporation's basement with an angle-grinder to sitting on the D-Notice Committee
alongside the security service officials who had tried to stop his paper publishing.
A new editor
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger withstood intense pressure not to publish some of the Snowden revelations but agreed to Johnson
taking a seat on the D-Notice Committee as a tactical sop to the security services. Throughout his tenure, The Guardian continued
to publish some stories critical of the security services.
But in March 2015, the situation changed when the Guardian
appointed a new editor, Katharine Viner, who had less experience than Rusbridger of dealing with the security services. Viner
had started out on fashion and entertainment magazine Cosmopolitan and had no history in national security reporting. According
to insiders, she showed much less leadership during the Snowden affair than Janine Gibson in the US (Gibson was another
candidate
to be Rusbridger's successor).
Viner was then editor-in-chief of Guardian Australia, which was
launched just two weeks before the first Snowden
revelations were published. Australia and New Zealand comprise two-fifths of the so-called
"Five Eyes" surveillance alliance exposed by Snowden.
This was an opportunity for the security services. It appears that their seduction began the following year.
In November 2016, The Guardian
published an unprecedented "exclusive" with Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, Britain's domestic security service. The article
noted that this was the "first newspaper interview given by an incumbent MI5 chief in the service's 107-year history". It was co-written
by deputy editor Paul Johnson, who had never written about the security services before and who was still sitting on the D-Notice
Committee. This was not mentioned in the article.
The MI5 chief was given
copious space to make claims about the national security threat posed by an "increasingly aggressive" Russia. Johnson
and his co-author noted, "Parker said he was talking to The Guardian rather than any other newspaper despite the publication of the
Snowden files."
Parker told the two reporters, "We recognise that in a changing world we have to change too. We have a responsibility to talk
about our work and explain it."
Four months after the MI5 interview, in March 2017, the Guardian
published another unprecedented "exclusive", this time with Alex Younger, the sitting chief of MI6, Britain's external
intelligence agency. This exclusive was awarded by the Secret Intelligence Service to The Guardian's investigations editor, Nick
Hopkins, who had been appointed 14 months previously.
The interview was the first Younger had given to a national newspaper and was again softball.
Titled "MI6 returns to 'tapping up' in an effort to recruit black and Asian officers", it focused almost entirely on the
intelligence service's stated desire to recruit from ethnic minority communities.
" Simply, we have to attract the best of modern Britain," Younger told Hopkins. "Every community from every part of Britain should
feel they have what it takes, no matter what their background or status."
Just two weeks before the interview with MI6's chief was published, The Guardian itself
reported on the high court stating that it would "hear an application for a judicial review of the Crown Prosecution Service's
decision not to charge MI6's former counterterrorism director, Sir Mark Allen, over the abduction of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his pregnant
wife who were transferred to Libya in a joint CIA-MI6 operation in 2004".
None of this featured in The Guardian article, which did, however, cover discussions of whether the James Bond actor Daniel Craig
would qualify for the intelligence service. "He would not get into MI6," Younger told Hopkins.
More recently, in August 2019, The Guardian was
awarded yet another exclusive, this time with Metropolitan police assistant commissioner Neil Basu, Britain's most senior
counter-terrorism officer. This was Basu's " first major interview since taking up his post" the previous year and resulted in a
three-part series of articles, one of which was
entitled "Met police examine Vladimir Putin's role in Salisbury attack".
The security services were probably feeding The Guardian these "exclusives" as part of the process of bringing it onside and neutralising
the only independent newspaper with the resources to receive and cover a leak such as Snowden's. They were possibly acting to prevent
any revelations of this kind happening again.
What, if any, private conversations have taken place between Viner and the security services during her tenure as editor are not
known. But in 2018, when Paul Johnson eventually left the D-Notice Committee, its chair, the MOD's Dominic Wilson,
praised Johnson who, he said, had been "instrumental in re-establishing links with The Guardian".
Decline in critical reporting
Amidst these spoon-fed intelligence exclusives, Viner also oversaw the breakup of The Guardian's celebrated investigative team,
whose muck-racking journalists were told to apply for other jobs outside of investigations.
One well-placed source
told the Press Gazette at the time that journalists on the investigations team "have not felt backed by senior
editors over the last year", and that "some also feel the company has become more risk-averse in the same period".
In the period since Snowden, The Guardian has lost many of its top investigative reporters who had covered national security issues,
notably Shiv Malik, Nick Davies, David Leigh, Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill and Ian Cobain. The few journalists who were
replaced were succeeded by less experienced reporters with apparently less commitment to exposing the security state. The current
defence and security editor, Dan Sabbagh,
started
at The Guardian as head of media and technology and has no history of covering national security.
" It seems they've got rid of everyone who seemed to cover the security services and military in an adversarial way," one current
Guardian journalist told us.
Indeed, during the last two years of Rusbridger's editorship, The Guardian published about 110 articles per year tagged as MI6
on its website. Since Viner took over, the average per year has halved and is decreasing year by year.
" Effective scrutiny of the security and intelligence agencies -- epitomised by the Snowden scoops but also many other stories
-- appears to have been abandoned," a former Guardian journalist told us. The former reporter added that, in recent years, it "sometimes
seems The Guardian is worried about upsetting the spooks."
A second former Guardian journalist added: "The Guardian no longer seems to have such a challenging relationship with the intelligence
services, and is perhaps seeking to mend fences since Snowden. This is concerning, because spooks are always manipulative and not
always to be trusted."
While some articles critical of the security services still do appear in the paper, its "scoops" increasingly focus on issues
more acceptable to them. Since the Snowden affair, The Guardian does not appear to have published any articles based on an intelligence
or security services source that was not officially sanctioned to speak.
The Guardian has, by contrast,
published a steady stream of exclusives on the major official enemy of the security services, Russia, exposing Putin,
his friends and the work of its intelligence services and military.
In the Panama Papers leak in April 2016, which revealed how companies and individuals around the world were using an offshore
law firm to avoid paying tax, The Guardian's front-page launch scoop was authored by Luke Harding, who has received many security
service
tips focused on the "Russia threat", and was
titled "Revealed:
the $2bn offshore trail that leads to Vladimir Putin".
Three sentences into the piece, however, Harding notes that "the president's name does not appear in any of the records" although
he insists that "the data reveals a pattern – his friends have earned millions from deals that seemingly could not have been secured
without his patronage".
There was a much
bigger story
in the Panama Papers which The Guardian chose to downplay by leaving it to the following day. This concerned the father of
the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, who "ran an offshore fund that avoided ever having to pay tax in Britain by hiring a small
army of Bahamas residents – including a part-time bishop – to sign its paperwork".
We understand there was some argument between journalists about not leading with the Cameron story as the launch splash. Putin's
friends were eventually deemed more important than the Prime Minister of the country where the paper published.
Getting Julian Assange
The Guardian also appears to have been engaged in a campaign against the WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, who had been a collaborator
during the early WikiLeaks revelations in 2010.
One 2017 story came from investigative reporter Carole Cadwalladr, who writes for The Guardian's sister paper The Observer,
titled "When Nigel Farage met Julian Assange". This concerned the visit of former UKIP leader Nigel Farage to the Ecuadorian embassy
in March 2017,
organised by the radio station LBC, for whom Farage worked as a presenter. Farage's producer at LBC accompanied Farage
at the meeting, but this was not mentioned by Cadwalladr.
Rather, she posited that this meeting was "potentially a channel of communication" between WikiLeaks, Farage and Donald Trump,
who were all said to be closely linked to Russia, adding that these actors were in a "political alignment" and that " WikiLeaks is,
in many ways, the swirling vortex at the centre of everything".
Yet Cadwalladr's one official on-the-record source for this speculation was a "highly placed contact with links to US intelligence",
who told her, "When the heat is turned up and all electronic communication, you have to assume, is being intensely monitored, then
those are the times when intelligence communication falls back on human couriers. Where you have individuals passing information
in ways and places that cannot be monitored."
It seems likely this was innuendo being fed to The Observer by an intelligence-linked individual to promote disinformation to
undermine Assange.
In 2018, however, The Guardian's attempted vilification of Assange was significantly stepped up. A new string of articles began
on 18 May 2018 with
one alleging Assange's "long-standing relationship with RT", the Russian state broadcaster. The series, which has been
closely
documented elsewhere, lasted for several months, consistently alleging with little or the most minimal circumstantial
evidence that Assange had ties to Russia or the Kremlin.
One story, co-authored again by Luke Harding,
claimed that "Russian diplomats held secret talks in London with people close to Julian Assange to assess whether they
could help him flee the UK, The Guardian has learned". The former consul in the Ecuadorian embassy in London at this time, Fidel
Narvaez, vigorously denies the existence of any such "escape plot" involving Russia and is involved in a complaint process with The
Guardian for insinuating he coordinated such a plot.
This apparent mini-campaign ran until November 2018, culminating in a front-page
splash , based on anonymous sources, claiming that Assange had three secret meetings at the Ecuadorian embassy with Trump's
former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
This "scoop" failed all tests of journalistic credibility since it would have been impossible for anyone to have entered the highly
secured Ecuadorian embassy three times with no proof. WikiLeaks and others have strongly argued that the story was
manufactured
and it is telling that The Guardian has since failed to refer to it in its subsequent articles on the Assange case. The Guardian,
however, has still not retracted or apologised for the story which remains on its website.
The "exclusive" appeared just two weeks after Paul Johnson had been congratulated for "re-establishing links" between The Guardian
and the security services.
The string of Guardian articles, along with the vilification and smear stories about Assange elsewhere in the British media, helped
create the conditions for
a deal between Ecuador, the UK and the US to expel Assange from the embassy in April. Assange now sits in Belmarsh maximum-security
prison where he faces extradition to the US, and life in prison there, on charges under the Espionage Act.
Acting for the establishment
Another major focus of The Guardian's energies under Viner's editorship has been to attack the leader of the UK Labour Party,
Jeremy Corbyn.
The context is that Corbyn appears to have recently been a target of the security services. In 2015, soon after he was elected
Labour leader, the Sunday Times
reported a
serving general warning that "there would be a direct challenge from the army and mass resignations if Corbyn became prime minister".
The source told the newspaper: "The Army just wouldn't stand for it. The general staff would not allow a prime minister to jeopardise
the security of this country and I think people would use whatever means possible, fair or foul, to prevent that."
On 20 May 2017, a little over two weeks before the 2017 General Election, the Daily Telegraph was
fed the story that "MI5 opened a file on Jeremy Corbyn amid concerns over his links to the IRA". It formed part of a Telegraph
investigation claiming to reveal "Mr Corbyn's full links to the IRA" and was sourced to an individual "close to" the MI5 investigation,
who said "a file had been opened on him by the early nineties".
The Metropolitan Police Special Branch was also said to be monitoring Corbyn in the same period.
Then, on the very eve of the General Election, the Telegraph gave space to an
article from Sir Richard Dearlove, the former director of MI6, under a headline: "Jeremy Corbyn is a danger to this nation.
At MI6, which I once led, he wouldn't clear the security vetting."
Further, in September 2018, two anonymous senior government sources
told The Times that Corbyn had been "summoned" for a "'facts of life' talk on terror" by MI5 chief Andrew Parker.
Just two weeks after news of this private meeting was leaked by the government, the Daily Mail
reported another leak, this time revealing that "Jeremy Corbyn's most influential House of Commons adviser has been barred
from entering Ukraine on the grounds that he is a national security threat because of his alleged links to Vladimir Putin's 'global
propaganda network'."
The article concerned Andrew Murray, who had been working in Corbyn's office for a year but had still not received a security
pass to enter the UK parliament. The Mail reported, based on what it called "a senior parliamentary source", that Murray's application
had encountered "vetting problems".
Murray later heavily suggested that the security services had leaked the story to the Mail. "Call me sceptical if you must, but
I do not see journalistic enterprise behind the Mail's sudden capacity to tease obscure information out of the [Ukrainian security
service]," he wrote
in the New Statesman. He added, "Someone else is doing the hard work – possibly someone being paid by the taxpayer. I doubt
if their job description is preventing the election of a Corbyn government, but who knows?"
Murray told us he was approached by the New Statesman after the story about him being banned from Ukraine was leaked. "However,"
he added, "I wouldn't dream of suggesting anything like that to The Guardian, since I do not know any journalists still working there
who I could trust."
The Guardian itself has run a remarkable number of news and comment articles criticising Corbyn since he was elected in 2015 and
the paper's clearly hostile stance has been widely
noted .
Given its appeal to traditional Labour supporters, the paper has probably done more to undermine Corbyn than any other. In particular,
its massive coverage of alleged widespread anti-Semitism in the Labour Party has helped to disparage Corbyn more than other smears
carried in the media.
The Guardian's coverage of anti-Semitism in Labour has been suspiciously extensive, compared to the known extent of the problem
in the party, and its focus on Corbyn personally suggests that the issue is being used politically. While anti-Semitism does exist in the Labour Party, evidence suggests it is at relatively low levels. Since September 2015, when
Corbyn became Labour leader, 0.06% of the Labour membership has been
investigated for anti-Semitic comments or posts. In 2016, an independent inquiry commissioned by Labour
concluded
that the party "is not overrun by anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or other forms of racism. Further, it is the party that initiated
every single United Kingdom race equality law."
Analysis of two YouGov surveys, conducted in 2015 and 2017,
shows that anti-Semitic views held by Labour voters declined substantially in the first two years of Corbyn's tenure and
that such views were significantly more common among Conservative voters.
Despite this, since January 2016, The Guardian has published 1,215 stories mentioning Labour and anti-Semitism, an average of
around one per day, according to a search on Factiva, the database of newspaper articles. In the same period, The Guardian published
just 194 articles mentioning the Conservative Party's much more serious problem with Islamophobia. A YouGov poll in 2019, for example,
found that nearly half of the Tory Party membership would prefer not to have a Muslim prime minister.
At the same time, some stories which paint Corbyn's critics in a negative light have been suppressed by The Guardian. According
to someone with knowledge of the matter, The Guardian declined to publish the results of a months-long critical investigation by
one of its reporters into a prominent anti-Corbyn Labour MP, citing only vague legal issues.
In July 2016, one of this article's authors emailed a Guardian editor asking if he could pitch an investigation about the first
attempt by the right-wing of the Labour Party to remove Corbyn, informing The Guardian of very good inside sources on those behind
the attempt and their real plans. The approach was rejected as being of no interest before a pitch was even sent.
A reliable publication?
On 20 May 2019, The Times newspaper
reported on a Freedom of Information request made by the Rendition Project, a group of academic experts working on torture
and rendition issues, which showed that the MOD had been "developing a secret policy on torture that allows ministers to sign off
intelligence-sharing that could lead to the abuse of detainees".
This might traditionally have been a Guardian story, not something for the Rupert Murdoch-owned Times. According to one civil
society source, however, many groups working in this field no longer trust The Guardian.
A former Guardian journalist similarly told us: "It is significant that exclusive stories recently about British collusion in
torture and policy towards the interrogation of terror suspects and other detainees have been passed to other papers including The
Times rather than The Guardian."
The Times published its scoop under a strong
headline , "Torture: Britain breaks law in Ministry of Defence secret policy". However, before the article was published,
the MOD fed The Guardian the same documents The Times were about to splash with, believing it could soften the impact of the revelations
by telling its side of the story.
The Guardian
posted its own article just before The Times, with a headline that would have pleased the government: "MoD says revised
torture guidance does not lower standards".
Its lead paragraph was a simple summary of the MOD's position: "The Ministry of Defence has insisted that newly emerged departmental
guidance on the sharing of intelligence derived from torture with allies, remains in line with practices agreed in the aftermath
of a series of scandals following the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq." However, an inspection of the documents showed this was clearly
disinformation.
The Guardian had gone in six short years from being the natural outlet to place stories exposing wrongdoing by the security state
to a platform trusted by the security state to amplify its information operations. A once relatively independent media platform has
been largely neutralised by UK security services fearful of being exposed further. Which begs the question: where does the next Snowden
go? DM
The Guardian did not respond to a request for comment.
Daily Maverick will formally launch Declassified – a new UK-focused investigation and analysis organisation run by the
authors of this article – in November 2019.
Matt Kennard is an investigative journalist and co-founder of Declassified . He was previously director of the
Centre for Investigative Journalism in London, and before that a reporter for the Financial Times in the US and UK. He is the author
of two books, Irregular Army and The Racket .
Mark Curtis is a leading UK foreign policy analyst, journalist and the author of six books including Web of
Deceit: Britain's Real Role in the World and Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam .
When the ideology collapses like neoliberalism collapsed in 2008 defections and leaks from the intelligence agencies became more
prominent and higher level. Just before the USSR collapsed there were several high level officers of KGB that changed sides including
at least one general of KGB.
We can probably view Snowden and Manning as signs of similar process which started in the USA after the collapse of neoliberalism.
They suggest that loyalty to the USA in CIA or NSA is on low level not became of some external factors, but due to lack of conviction
in the sanity of the current social system in the USA (aka neoliberal society). So "protest defections" will probably continues unabated.
Of course, dealing with intelligence agencies is tricky as Snowden revelation might just be a limited revenge of CIA to NSA.
But in any case it is undisputable that while few Snowden files were published the mere fact of exfiltration of so much highly sensitive
information did some damage to military industrial complex. That makes is less pausible that he operates as CIA mole, which several
commenters below suggest.
At the same time in this interview Snowden sounds like a naive and disoriented person: " I try to keep a distance between myself
and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my life with basically the English-speaking community." English
speaking community in Russia probably has highest in the world percentage of intelligence officers of Western countries including CIA
officers.
Another somewhat suspicious fact is that very few files that Snowden files were released. So the whole story now looks like "Too
much ado about nothing." Unlike Wikileaks that published Manning materials.
Notable quotes:
"... He describes the 18 years since the September 11 attacks as "a litany of American destruction by way of American self-destruction, with the promulgation of secret policies, secret laws, secret courts and secret wars". ..."
"... Snowden also said: " The greatest danger still lies ahead, with the refinement of artificial intelligence capabilities, such as facial and pattern recognition. ..."
"... " An AI-equipped surveillance camera would be not a mere recording device, but could be made into something closer to an automated police officer ." - The Guardian ..."
"... You have to remember, in the beginning I didn't even know mass surveillance was a thing because I worked for the CIA, which is a human intelligence organization. But when I was sent back to NSA headquarters and my very last position to directly work with a tool of mass surveillance, there was a guy who was supposed to be teaching me . And sometimes he would spin around in his chair, showing me nudes of whatever target's wife he's looking at. And he's like: "Bonus!" ..."
"... The most important part of the Rubik's cube was actually not as a concealment device, but a distraction device. I had to get things out of that building many times. I really gave Rubik's cubes to everyone in my office as gifts and guards saw me coming and going with this Rubik's cube all the time. So I was the Rubik's cube guy . ..."
"... When you're doing this for the first time, you're just going down the hallway and trying not to shake. And then, as you do it more times, you realize that it works. You realize that a metal detector won't detect an SD card because it has less metal in it than the brackets on your jeans. ..."
"... I try to keep a distance between myself and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my life with basically the English-speaking community . I'm the president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. And, you know, I'm an indoor cat. It doesn't matter where I am -- Moscow, Berlin, New York -- as long as I have a screen to look into. ..."
"... 16 June 2013 The revelations expand to include the UK, with news that GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications during the 2009 G20 summit in London, and that the British spy agency has also tapped the fibre-optic cables carrying much of the internet's traffic. ..."
"... 3 July 2013 While en route from Moscow, Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, is forced to land in Vienna after European countries refuse his plane airspace, suspecting that Snowden was on board. It is held and searched for 12 hours. ..."
"... December 2016 Oliver Stone releases the movie Snowden featuring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Melissa Leo, Tom Wilkinson, Zachary Quinto and a cameo by former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger. ..."
"... When he originally contacted Glenn Greenwald, I was suspicious. I said then, nothing will come of this, and nothing did, because WE NEVER GOT TO SEE all the files he had and what was on them. ..."
"... Read in Reuters that he's requested asylum in France. ..."
"... It will be common knowledge soon that it was the NSA (Admiral Rogers) that first detected the coup against Trump and the illegal surveillance. Remember friends, the FISA warrants were a cover for the illegal spying the Obama administration was ALREADY doing on Trump, Cruz, and others. ..."
"... I try to keep a distance between myself and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my life with basically the English-speaking community. ..."
"... What an ungrateful twat. Russia saved his bacon and yet he wants to know nothing of the country and its people and maybe begin to understand WHY they would offer to help him...even if he doesnt like the Russain government, he CHOOSES to know nothing of the Russian people. What a loser! ..."
"... Maybe he doesn't know how to speak Russian, seeing as how getting stuck in Russia was not exactly his original plan. He just happened to be in a Russian airport when the USA happened to revoke his passport, making it impossible for him to leave. ..."
"... There is also the other angle, that perhaps he might be working as a CIA agent even now, and that his predicament is actually all entirely pre-meditated by the USA. Russia might take his getting friendly with the locals as being a bit impolite if he is doing spy work for the USA while living in Russia. ..."
"... He doesnt need to be "palsy-walsy" with Russians, he has NO knowledge of the country he lives in and its people and doesn't want to. That is ungrateful to the nth degree. ..."
"... If Russia wanted to they could shut down his ability to give video-conferences etc. They don't, they continue to show him a hospitality that he seems willing to spit on! ..."
"... Serious damage? I fear Snowden and Assange wasted their lives upon the American people. Was Snowden wrong morally? He fought the totalitarian giant and for this the people sit back in their arm chairs and moralize whether it was right or wrong. We don't deserve to be "free.". ..."
"... Why and how has Greenwald been able to "sit on" countless info files but never released them? If that is true then why haven't US authorities gone after him as well? Way too many strange aspects to Snowden's cover story and how he's allowed by the Russian's to make public statements about their local political landscape. ..."
"... It's not just that. Greenwald lives full time in Brazil for a very good reason--Brazil has no extradition treaty with the US. He's relatively safe there, although his boyfriend was stupid enough to go to London briefly and nearly got the Assange treatment... ..."
"... What I hate is that Snowden gave all those documents to Greenwald who said he was going to publish them and once he went to the Intercept under Omadyar...nothing but silence on those files. To my mind he betrayed Snowden. ..."
"... Book tour, Docudrama and T-Shirt? ..."
"... That part of the narrative does seem a bit odd, doesn't it? She's allowed to come and go as she pleases in the USA, yet is married to this guy wanted by the US authorities? Hmm. Nothing suspicious about that. ..."
"... Can anybody name something that Snowfen revealed that wasn't common knowledge? ..."
Meeting with both
The Guardian and
Spiegel Online in Moscow as part of its promotion, the infamous whistleblower spent nearly five hours with the two media
outlets - offering a taste of what's in the book, details on his background, and his thoughts on artificial intelligence, facial
recognition, and other intelligence gathering tools coming to a dystopia near you.
While The Guardian interview is 'okay,' scroll down for the far more interesting Spiegel interview, where Snowden
goes way deeper into his cloak-and-dagger life, including thoughts on getting suicided.
First, The Guardian :
Snowden describes in detail for the first time his background, and what led him to leak details of the secret programms being
run by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK's secret communication headquarters,
GCHQ .
He describes the 18 years since the September 11 attacks as "a litany of American destruction by way of American self-destruction,
with the promulgation of secret policies, secret laws, secret courts and secret wars".
Snowden also said: " The greatest danger still lies ahead, with the refinement of artificial intelligence capabilities,
such as facial and pattern recognition.
" An AI-equipped surveillance camera would be not a mere recording device, but could be made into something closer
to an automated police officer ." -
The Guardian
Snowden secretly married his partner, Lindsay Mills, two years ago in a Russian courthouse. They met when he was 22 (14 years
ago) on the internet site "Hot or Not," where he rated her a 10 out of 10 and she rated him a (generous) eight.
He freely moves around Moscow, riding the metro, visiting art galleries or the ballet, and meeting with friends in cafes and
restaurants.
The 36-year-old lives in a two-bedroom flat on the outskirts of Moscow, and derives most of his income (until now) from speaking
fees - mainly to students, civil rights activists and others abroad via video chat.
Snowden is an "indoor cat by choice," who is "happiest sitting at his computer late into the night, communicating with campaigners
and supporters."
At a training school for spies, Snowden was nicknamed "the Count" after the Sesame Street character.
The Der Spiegel interview, meanwhile, is way more interesting ... For example:
" If I Happen to Fall out of a Window, You Can Be Sure I Was Pushed. "
Meeting Edward Snwoden is pretty much exactly how children imagine the grand game of espionage is played.
But then, on Monday, there he was, standing in our room on the first floor of the Hotel Metropol, as pale and boyish-looking
as the was when the world first saw him in June 2013 . For the last six years, he has been living in Russian exile. The U.S. has
considered him to be an enemy of the state, right up there with Julian Assange, ever since he revealed, with the help of journalists,
the full scope of the surveillance system operated by the National Security Agency (NSA).
For quite some time, though, he remained silent about how he smuggled the secrets out of the country and what his personal
motivations were. -
Spiegel Online
Select excerpts via Der Spiegel (emphasis ours):
***
DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Snowden, you always said: "I am not the story." But now you've written 432 pages about yourself. Why?
Edward Snowden: Because I think it's more important than ever to explain systems of mass surveillance and mass manipulation
to the public. And I can't explain how these systems came to be without explaining my role in helping to build them.
DER SPIEGEL: Wasn't it just as important four or even six years ago?
Snowden: Four years ago, Barack Obama was president. Four years ago, Boris Johnson wasn't around and the AfD ( Germany's
right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany ) was still kind of a joke. But now in 2019, no one is laughing. When you look
around the world, when you look at the rising factionalization of society, when you see this new wave of authoritarianism sweeping
over many countries: Everywhere political classes and commercial classes are realizing they can use technology to influence the world
on a new scale that was not previously available. We are seeing our systems coming under attack.
DER SPIEGEL: What systems?
Snowden: The political system, the legal system, the social system. And we have the proclivity to think that if we get rid of
the people we don't like, the problem is solved. We go: "Oh, it's Donald Trump. Oh, it's Boris Johnson. Oh, it's the Russians" But
Donald Trump is not the problem. Donald Trump is the product of the problem.
***
DER SPIEGEL: While writing, did you discover any truths about yourself that you didn't like?
Snowden: The most unflattering thing is to realize just how naďve and credulous I was and how that could make me into a
tool of systems that would use my skills for an act of global harm . The class of which I am a part of, the global technological
community, was for the longest time apolitical. We have this history of thinking: "We're going to make the world better."
***
DER SPIEGEL: Was that your motivation when you entered the world of espionage?
Snowden: Entering the world of espionage sounds so grand. I just saw an enormous landscape of opportunities because the
government in its post-9/11 spending blitz was desperate to hire anybody who had high-level technical skills and a clearance. And
I happened to have both. It was weird to be just a kid and be brought into CIA headquarters, put in charge of the entire Washington
metropolitan area's network .
DER SPIEGEL: Was it not also fascinating to be able to invade pretty much everybody's life via state-sponsored hacking?
Snowden: You have to remember, in the beginning I didn't even know mass surveillance was a thing because I worked for
the CIA, which is a human intelligence organization. But when I was sent back to NSA headquarters and my very last position to directly
work with a tool of mass surveillance, there was a guy who was supposed to be teaching me . And sometimes he would spin around in
his chair, showing me nudes of whatever target's wife he's looking at. And he's like: "Bonus!"
***
DER SPIEGEL: You became seriously ill and fell into depression. Have you ever had suicidal thoughts?
Snowden: No! This is important for the record. I am not now, nor have I ever been suicidal. I have a philosophical objection
to the idea of suicide, and if I happen to fall out of a window, you can be sure I was pushed.
***
DER SPIEGEL: You write that you sometimes smuggled SD memory cards inside a Rubik's cube .
Snowden: The most important part of the Rubik's cube was actually not as a concealment device, but a distraction device.
I had to get things out of that building many times. I really gave Rubik's cubes to everyone in my office as gifts and guards saw
me coming and going with this Rubik's cube all the time. So I was the Rubik's cube guy . And when I came out of the tunnel with
my contraband and saw one of the bored guards, I sometimes tossed the cube to him. He's like, "Oh, man, I had one of these things
when I was a kid, but you know, I could never solve it. So I just pulled the stickers off." That was exactly what I had done -- but
for different reasons.
DER SPIEGEL: You even put the SD cards into your mouth.
Snowden:When you're doing this for the first time, you're just going down the hallway and trying not to shake. And
then, as you do it more times, you realize that it works. You realize that a metal detector won't detect an SD card because it has
less metal in it than the brackets on your jeans.
***
DER SPIEGEL: You describe your arrival in Moscow as a walk in the park. You say you refused to cooperate with the Russian
intelligence agency FSB and they let you go. That sounds implausible to us.
Snowden: I think what explains the fact that the Russian government didn't hang me upside down my ankles and beat me with
a shock prod until secrets came out was because everyone in the world was paying attention to it. And they didn't know what to do.
They just didn't know how to handle it. I think their answer was: "Let's wait and see."
DER SPIEGEL: Do you have Russian friends?
Snowden: I try to keep a distance between myself and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my
life with basically the English-speaking community . I'm the president of the Freedom of the Press Foundation. And, you know, I'm
an indoor cat. It doesn't matter where I am -- Moscow, Berlin, New York -- as long as I have a screen to look into.
***
Read the rest of Der Spiegel' s interview with Edward Snowden
here .
Meanwhile, The Guardian provides an interesting 'Snowden Timeline':
Snowden's timeline
21 June 1983 Edward Joseph Snowden is born in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, US.
2006-2013 Initially at the CIA, and then as a contractor for first Dell and then Booz Allen Hamilton, Snowden spends years
working in cybersecurity on projects for the US National Security Agency (NSA).
20 May 2013 Edward Snowden arrives in Hong Kong, where a few days later he meets with Guardian journalists, and shares with
them a cache of top secret documents he has been downloading and storing for some time.
5 June 2013 The Guardian begins reporting the Snowden leaks, with revelations about the NSA storing the phone records of millions
of Americans, and the agency's claim its Prism programme had "direct access" to data held by Google, Facebook, Apple and other
US internet giants.
7 June 2013 The US president, Barack Obama, is forced to defend the programmes, insisting that they are adequately overseen
by the courts and Congress.
9 June 2013 Snowden goes public as the source of the leaks in a video interview.
16 June 2013 The revelations expand to include the UK, with news that GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications
during the 2009 G20 summit in London, and that the British spy agency has also tapped the fibre-optic cables carrying much of
the internet's traffic.
21 June 2013 The US files espionage charges against Snowden and requests Hong Kong detain him for extradition.
23 June 2013 Snowden leaves Hong Kong for Moscow. Hong Kong claims that the US got Snowden's middle name wrong in documents
submitted requesting his arrest meaning they were powerless to prevent his departure.
1 July 2013 Russia reveals that Snowden has applied for asylum. He also expresses an interest in claiming asylum in several
South American nations. Eventually Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Venezuela offer permanent asylum.
3 July 2013 While en route from Moscow, Bolivia's president, Evo Morales, is forced to land in Vienna after European countries
refuse his plane airspace, suspecting that Snowden was on board. It is held and searched for 12 hours.
1 August 2013 After living in an airport for a month, Snowden is granted asylum in Russia.
21 August 2013 The Guardian reveals that the UK government ordered it to destroy the computer equipment used for the Snowden
documents.
December 2013 Snowden is a runner-up to Pope Francis as Time's Person of the Year, and gives Channel 4's "Alternative Christmas
Message".
May 2015 The NSA stops the bulk collection of US phone calling records that had been revealed by Snowden.
December 2016 Oliver Stone releases the movie Snowden featuring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Melissa Leo, Tom Wilkinson, Zachary
Quinto and a cameo by former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger.
January 2017 Snowden's leave to remain in Russia is extended for three more years.
June 2018 Snowden says he has no regrets about his revelations, saying: "The government and corporate sector preyed on our
ignorance. But now we know. People are aware now. People are still powerless to stop it but we are trying."
March 2019 Vanessa Rodel, who sheltered Snowden in Hong Kong, is granted asylum in Canada.
September 2019 Snowden remains living in an undisclosed location in Moscow as he prepares to publish his memoirs.
There's really no way to know that for sure if this guy is legit. If he is part of an operation, let's hope it's for something
good. When he originally contacted Glenn Greenwald, I was suspicious. I said then, nothing will come of this, and nothing
did, because WE NEVER GOT TO SEE all the files he had and what was on them.
Just what this man is up to we will likely never know. These kinds of operations can take years to set up.
My guess is Snowden is the Decoy, the distraction. There is likely someone else or something else that all of this camouflages.
Things go both ways in a surveillance environment. Snowden will be exposed in time as a CIA operative. The NSA has everything
including Hillary's private emails. Obama and many in his regime were also using private email servers, and the NSA has them all.
Snowden was trying to destroy the NSA, when they are what was needed to take down the CIA, FBI, and the Deep State. I don't
like the NSA being in existence, but this will help in prosecuting the criminals.
So what is the NSA waiting for? The statute of limitations to expire? LOL. Snowden wasn't trying to do anything except educate
people on what their government is doing. You obviously hate truth and knowledge. You work for the NSA?
I don't believe a damned thing about anything published about any of the alphabet agencies - good, bad, neutral, doesn't matter
it's all clown show bs.
Any other critical thinkers notice the CIA activated their asset again finally ? A predictable programmed book really ? Just
imagine what kind of juicy already known statecraft he will reveal. Lol. America loves their confabulated mythical pseudo-hero's
& cucked political demigods full of bovine scat don't they.
The UberMensch hero who somehow miraculously survived the 'enkryptonite' where other HVT can't. Amazing. Need to hurl makes
me gag reflex & gut retch.
Snowden is still CIA and his mission was to throw the NSA under the bus.
It will be common knowledge soon that it was the NSA (Admiral Rogers) that first detected the coup against Trump and the
illegal surveillance. Remember friends, the FISA warrants were a cover for the illegal spying the Obama administration was ALREADY
doing on Trump, Cruz, and others.
I try to keep a distance between myself and Russian society, and this is completely intentional. I live my life with
basically the English-speaking community.
What an ungrateful twat. Russia saved his bacon and yet he wants to know nothing of the country and its people and maybe
begin to understand WHY they would offer to help him...even if he doesnt like the Russain government, he CHOOSES to know nothing
of the Russian people. What a loser!
Just how is he to know who is undercover security services and who is just plain good and interesting?
Maybe he doesn't know how to speak Russian, seeing as how getting stuck in Russia was not exactly his original plan. He
just happened to be in a Russian airport when the USA happened to revoke his passport, making it impossible for him to leave.
There is also the other angle, that perhaps he might be working as a CIA agent even now, and that his predicament is actually
all entirely pre-meditated by the USA. Russia might take his getting friendly with the locals as being a bit impolite if he is
doing spy work for the USA while living in Russia.
He doesnt need to be "palsy-walsy" with Russians, he has NO knowledge of the country he lives in and its people and doesn't
want to. That is ungrateful to the nth degree.
If Russia wanted to they could shut down his ability to give video-conferences etc. They don't, they continue to show him
a hospitality that he seems willing to spit on!
No, really, I met people there who were deep and friendly and sensitive. Lots critical of what's not right with their own society,
and yet not traitors to their country.
I agree with you vasilievich....I am looking forward to visiting Russia next spring in time for the V-Day and the Immortal
Regiment, then spend a month visiting Russian and hopefully getting to interact with Russians "on the street".
One of the differences with Russia and the "West" is that Putins hours long live "conversations" with Russians and the way
he gets his government to follow up up problems, which he himself follows up on to insure actions are taken, ensure that people
have that freedom to be critical of their own society. Such an opposite to what happens to critics in the "west"
My take on Snowden is he's basically a decent guy who did some serious damage. Was he wrong legally? Hell yes! Was he wrong
morally? Possibly. Would I put the guy in prison if I could? Yeah for about 30 days because the bottom line of what he did was
to expose **** that needed to be exposed.
It's complicated but occasionally a guy like this is needed to stir the pot.
Serious damage? I fear Snowden and Assange wasted their lives upon the American people. Was Snowden wrong morally? He fought
the totalitarian giant and for this the people sit back in their arm chairs and moralize whether it was right or wrong. We don't
deserve to be "free.".
There is still more and something very fishy about Snowden.....if he really did so much so called "damage" to the US why do
US authorities never mention him? Why do they never pressure Russia to send him back?
Why and how has Greenwald been able to "sit on" countless info files but never released them? If that is true then why
haven't US authorities gone after him as well? Way too many strange aspects to Snowden's cover story and how he's allowed by the
Russian's to make public statements about their local political landscape.
It's not just that. Greenwald lives full time in Brazil for a very good reason--Brazil has no extradition treaty with the
US. He's relatively safe there, although his boyfriend was stupid enough to go to London briefly and nearly got the Assange treatment...
What I hate is that Snowden gave all those documents to Greenwald who said he was going to publish them and once he went
to the Intercept under Omadyar...nothing but silence on those files. To my mind he betrayed Snowden.
That part of the narrative does seem a bit odd, doesn't it? She's allowed to come and go as she pleases in the USA, yet
is married to this guy wanted by the US authorities? Hmm. Nothing suspicious about that.
How does what I wrote translate into an integrity issue?
Been married twice, fully faithful. But at his age particularly, would not recommend it to a guy who is in an unstable situation
anyway. (not to mention the girl originally rejected him when the going got rough).
Live a little, enjoy your youth, and enjoy the infamy!
"... Yes, people tend to forget that Bolton and all the other neocons are worshipers at the altar of a secular religion imported to the US by members of the Frankfurt School of Trotskyite German professors in the 1930s. These people had attempted get the Nazis to consider them allies in a quest for an ordered world. Alas for them they found that the Nazi scum would not accept them and in fact began preparations to hunt them down. ..."
"... Thus the migration to America and in particular to the University of Chicago where they developed their credo of world revolution under that guidance of a few philosopher kings like Leo Strauss, the Wohlstetters and other academic "geniuses" They also began an enthusiastic campaign of recruitment of enthusiastic graduate students who carefully disguised themselves as whatever was most useful politically. ..."
"Carlson concluded by warning about the many other Boltons in the federal bureaucracy,
saying that "war may be a disaster for America, but for John Bolton and his fellow neocons,
it's always good business."
He went on to slam Trump's special representative for Iran and contender to replace Bolton,
Brian Hook, as an "unapologetic neocon" who "has undisguised contempt for President Trump, and
he particularly dislikes the president's nationalist foreign policy." Iranian Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif echoed Carlson hours later in a tweet, arguing that "Thirst for war
– maximum pressure – should go with the warmonger-in-chief." Reuters and
Haaretz
-------------
Yes, people tend to forget that Bolton and all the other neocons are worshipers at the altar
of a secular religion imported to the US by members of the Frankfurt School of Trotskyite
German professors in the 1930s. These people had attempted get the Nazis to consider them
allies in a quest for an ordered world. Alas for them they found that the Nazi scum would not
accept them and in fact began preparations to hunt them down.
Thus the migration to America and in particular to the University of Chicago where they
developed their credo of world revolution under that guidance of a few philosopher kings like
Leo Strauss, the Wohlstetters and other academic "geniuses" They also began an enthusiastic
campaign of recruitment of enthusiastic graduate students who carefully disguised themselves as
whatever was most useful politically.
They are not conservative at all, not one bit. Carlson was absolutely right about that.
They despise nationalism. They despise the idea of countries. In that regard they are like
all groups who aspire to globalist dominion for their particular ideas.
"... The Inteligence elite mistake their power over people -- and the unspeakable sums of money that are flooded into their agencies -- for success. As you might imagine, that has spelled disaster where ever in the world that they operate. God help the society where they gain the upper hand. Like in the United States, for example. Their minds are broken beyond repair because reality actively lies to them. ..."
Court: FBI Must Destroy Memos Calling Antiwar.com a Threat
Ruling comes after a eight-year battle over secret surveillance of the popular website after
9/11.
By KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS • September 12, 2019
In a major victory for Antiwar.com, free speech and journalism, a federal appeals court has
ruled that the FBI must expunge surveillance memos that agents had drafted about the website's
co-founders Eric Garris and Justin Raimondo in the early years following the 9/11 attacks.
"It's been a long fight and I'm glad we had an outcome that could might affect future FBI
behavior," said Garris, who runs Antiwar.com, based in the San Francisco Bay area. "I just wish
Justin was still here to know that this has happened."
Raimondo, 67, passed away in June from a long bout with cancer. He and Garris had sued the
FBI in 2013 demanding it turn over all the memos and records it was keeping on the two men and
the website, which has been promoting anti-interventionist news and views from a
libertarian-conservative perspective since 1995
They won their case, and in 2017 the FBI agreed to turn over all the memos and settle their
legal fees, $299,000, but the final expungement of two key memos involving intelligence
gathered on the men and Antiwar.com, had yet to be expunged from the agency's record...
It all began when an observant reader brought a heavily redacted 2004 memo to Antiwar.com's
attention in 2011. It was part of a batch of documents the reader had obtained through FOIA
requests. It was clear from the documents' contents that the FBI had been collecting
information and records on Raimondo and Garris for some time. At one point the FBI agent
writing the April 30, 2004 memo on Antiwar.com recommended further monitoring of the website in
the form of opening a "preliminary investigation to determine if [redaction] are engaging in,
or have engaged in, activities which constitute a threat to national security."
Why? Because the website was questioning U.S. war policy ...
Agents noted that Antiwar.com had, or linked to, published counter-terrorism watch lists
(already in the public domain). The FBI noted at least two of Raimondo's columns and wondered
openly, "who are (Antiwar.com's) contributors and what are the funds utilized for?" This, after
acknowledging there was no evidence of any crime being plotted or committed.
Other things noted in the documents::
-- Garris had passed along a threat he received on Sept. 12, 2001 from a Antiwar.com reader
obviously disgruntled with the website's coverage of 9/11. The subject line read, "YOUR SITE IS
GOING DOWN," and proceeded with this missive: "Be warned assholes, ill be posting your site
address to all the hack boards tonight your site is history."
Concerned, Garris forwarded the email to the FBI field office in San Francisco. Garris heard
nothing, but by January 2002, it turned up again, completely twisted around, in a secret FBI
memo entitled, "A THREAT BY GARRIS TO HACK FBI WEBSITE."
It turns out this "threat" went on to justify, at least in part, the FBI's ongoing interest
in monitoring the website.
-- The FBI took interest in Raimondo's writing about a 2001 FBI investigation of five
Israeli nationals who were witnessed smiling and celebrating and taking pictures of the burning
Twin Towers from a rooftop perch across the river from Manhattan in Union City, New Jersey, on
9/11. After witnesses called the police, the individuals, who all worked for a local moving
company, were taken into custody and grilled by FBI and CIA for two months after it was deemed
their work visas had expired. They were eventually deported without charge.
Raimondo, in writing about the case in 2002, linked to an American-generated terror
watchlist (which had been published elsewhere on the Internet) that went out to Italian
financial institutions and included the name of the man who owned the New Jersey moving company
in question.
-- The FBI noted Antiwar.com was cited in an article, the name of the author redacted, about
U.S aid to Israel.
-- They also noted that Raimondo had appeared on MSNBC to talk about his opposition to the
Iraq War.
-- It also cited an article that listed Antiwar.com as a reference was handed out in 2002 at
a "peaceful protest" at a British air base in the U.K.
-- The FBI was watching a member of a domestic neo-Nazi group who had "discussed a website,
Antiwar.com" while encouraging fellow members at a conference to "educate themselves" about the
Middle East conflict.
-- The agency said a special agent's review of hard drives seized during an investigation of
an unnamed subject, revealed that the subject had visited Antiwar.com between July 25, 2002 and
June 15, 2003, "among many other websites."
The FBI acknowledged it searched the Web, as well as Lexis-Nexis, the Universal Index (FBI
central records), the agency's Electronic Case File, Department of Motor Vehicles and Dunn
& Bradsheet (credit reports) for information on Antiwar.com and for "one or more
individuals" working for the website.
Looking back, it's hard to fathom how such tiny (Constitutionally protected) crumbs led the
FBI to the conclusion that Garris and Raimondo, two dedicated activists (Raimondo was also a
prolific author) with decades of time in California's political trenches, might be a "threat to
national security," but there you are...
The case decided on Wednesday revolved around two remaining memos that the FBI had so far
refused to expunge. One involved the call Garris made to the FBI in 2002. The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Northern California found that the government did not have a
compelling law enforcement reason to keep them.
"Maintenance of a record that describes only First Amendment activity and does not implicate
national security is not pertinent to the FBI's authorized activities," the court
concluded...
Garris said he was relieved and elated that the court was able to end this ugly chapter for
the website...
Not to mention that casual erasures of any part of the Bill of Rights by government are
frickin' scary, as are casual acceptance and rationalization of same by ordinary Americans
(and/or those seeming like ordinary Americans).
In his memoir, True Compass , Ted Kennedy said that LBJ told him that LBJ considered
the FBI culpable in the assassination of JFK, in that the FBI had had its eye on Oswald and
considered him dangerous, but never warned the Secret Service.
Many years later, we have failures by the FBI and CIA to coordinate and act upon intel
involved in 911. They did nothing about reports from citizens of the suspicious activities of
the Saudi assassins while the assassins were in the US, such as taking flying lessons, but
saying they didn't need to learn how to land. Moreover, the FBI and CIA had months of Arab
conversations awaiting translation because of a shortage of translators cause by the FBI's and
CIA's unwillingess to use Arab translators.
Then we have two warnings, not from ordinary citizens, but from the Russian government, that
the Tsarnaevs were a threat. Now, that alone sure sounds to me like probable cause for
surveillance. However, the FBI interviewed them and supposedly was unable to justify doing
anything else.
So, we have culpability in a Presidential assassination AND two terrorist attacks. And that
certainly can't be all before and after 1960. For instance, speaking of JFK, there was the Bay
of Pigs fiasco. On the bright side, that taught JFK to squint at the CIA and the military,
which, in turn, may have avoided nuclear disaster over the Cuban missile "crisis." (When we
place missiles somewhere, it's defense on our part and a deterrent; when another nation,
especially Russia, does the same, it's casus belli , unless some brilliant politicians
can scale it "all the way down" to a "crisis" or a "national emergency." Our hypocrisy
sickens.
BTW, according to the memoir, JFK was questioning our Vietnam involvement and Bobby Kennedy
had flat out become convinced that bombing should stop immediately and peace negotiations
should begin. He volunteered to negotiate the peace himself, but LBJ refused. So, that's
another thing Bobby and Jack had in common. (Interestingly to me, by Ted's own account, he was
the last of the three Kennedy brothers to lose support for the Vietnam War!)
The socially destructive solutions designed by the Intelligence Communities since the
mid-20th century are paying off in one way:
There is now a copious amount of research and data, that once harnessed and put to work,
will clearly demonstrate without doubt how tragic and destructive their outcomes have been.
They have accomplished precisely the opposite of the goal they were reaching for. For example,
apply their social engineering to reduce the number of terrorists in a region, and in less than
a decade the region will be overrun with terrorists.
Use their strategic genius to stop the flow of drugs from hot-spots of the world, and in
another decade, much of the world will be saturated with illegal drugs.
Humanity throughout the world are the losers, and they pay dearly for the blindness of
Nazi-mentored techniques and strategies that are embraced by intelligence agencies and military
intelligence. In the long term, they are bringers of chaos.
The nazis always lose. Ever since we brought them to America after World War II to teach us
their techniques -- the US has lost every war it attempted. The effects of this influence has
turned America into a prison complex.
The Inteligence elite mistake their power over people -- and the unspeakable sums of
money that are flooded into their agencies -- for success. As you might imagine, that has
spelled disaster where ever in the world that they operate. God help the society where they
gain the upper hand. Like in the United States, for example. Their minds are broken beyond
repair because reality actively lies to them.
If you ask them to send a rocket to the moon, they'll wait until the full moon is directly
overhead, then fire the rocket. They are void of subtlety. The failure will be classified and
forgotten.
We need Taoist leaders if we want to solve real world problems.
Though it's easy to imagine the outpouring of fury and wall to wall media coverage --
complete with urgent Congressional hearings -- should such allegations center on any other
foreign country caught spying on the White House (let's say Russia for example), the bombshell
Politico report has barely made a dent in the mainstream media or big cable networks'
coverage.
This is partly because the administration's own reaction has been muted, as the report notes
that "the Trump administration took no action to punish or even privately scold the Israeli
government" after being informed by US intelligence that Israel likely planted the devices.
Politico's sources in most instances held top intelligence and national security posts, who
describe the following of the
recovered spy devices :
The miniature surveillance devices, colloquially known as "StingRays," mimic regular cell
towers to fool cell phones into giving them their locations and identity information .
Formally called international mobile subscriber identity-catchers or IMSI-catchers, they also
can capture the contents of calls and data use .
The devices were likely intended to spy on President Donald Trump, one of the former
officials said, as well as his top aides and closest associates -- though it's not clear
whether the Israeli efforts were successful.
From the moment the report was unveiled early Thursday, Israel's stance has been to
vehemently deny, and to even suggest the accusations are tinged with "anti-Semitism".
The statement from the prime minister's office added, "There is a longstanding
commitment, and a directive from the Israeli government not to engage in any intelligence
operations in the U.S. This directive is strictly enforced without exception."
Uh huh... Sure. So how do you explain Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell then?
Come on readers. Next they'll be saying Israel controls all levels of government through
political donations. Possible from the $2 Billion a year they get? Anybody know how much
total Israeli contributions go to the Pres, Congress etc?
I was hoping to see a comment from Einstein, but cant find him. Wonder where he is. I
guess we will just have to lower our standards and look to ZD1 for the real scoop.
Olson's doubts deepened. In spring 1953, he visited the top-secret Microbiological
Research Establishment at Porton Down in Wiltshire, where government scientists were studying
the effects of sarin and other nerve gases. On 6 May, a volunteer subject, a 20-year-old
soldier, was dosed with sarin there, began foaming at the mouth, collapsed into convulsions,
and died an hour later. Afterward, Olson spoke about his discomfort with a psychiatrist who
helped direct the research, William Sargant .
####
That's very unBritish! Not really. This is not the first time that something that has been
declassified in the United States and uncovered British (shameful) secrets. The thing is the
Brits like to see themselves as not 'going as far' as their American cousins and this myth is
perpetuated – a bit like the British sense of 'fairness'. Yet again we discover
that the UK has worked hand in glove in the deepest of sh*t, something that most probably
would have been buried forever under their Secrets Act if it wasn't for the US' relative
openness.
Olson's doubts deepened. In spring 1953, he visited the top-secret Microbiological
Research Establishment at Porton Down in Wiltshire, where government scientists were studying
the effects of sarin and other nerve gases. On 6 May, a volunteer subject, a 20-year-old
soldier, was dosed with sarin there, began foaming at the mouth, collapsed into convulsions,
and died an hour later. Afterward, Olson spoke about his discomfort with a psychiatrist who
helped direct the research, William Sargant .
####
That's very unBritish! Not really. This is not the first time that something that has been
declassified in the United States and uncovered British (shameful) secrets. The thing is the
Brits like to see themselves as not 'going as far' as their American cousins and this myth is
perpetuated – a bit like the British sense of 'fairness'. Yet again we discover
that the UK has worked hand in glove in the deepest of sh*t, something that most probably
would have been buried forever under their Secrets Act if it wasn't for the US' relative
openness.
The fact that Smolenkov purchased house on his name excludes his "extraction" to the USA. He probably legally emigrated
amazing some serious money in Russia
Notable quotes:
"... [Smolenkov] follows Ushakov back to Moscow, where he is a mid-level paper pusher doing administrative support for Ushakov. The CIA gets copies of Putin's itineraries that Smolenkov photographs. He is a big hit, but ultimately produces nothing of vital importance because all truly sensitive information is hand carried by principles, and never seen by administrative staff. Moreover Ushakov advises on international relations, and would not be privy to anything dealing with intelligence. Ushakov, as a long-serving Ambassador to the US, would be asked by Putin to opine on US politics. Smolenkov has access to Ushakov's post-meeting verbal comments, which he turns over to the CIA. ..."
"... The initial reports of the Steele Dossier appeared in June 2016. This coincided with John Brennan ordering Moscow Station to turn up the heat on Smolenkov to gain access to what Putin is thinking. But Smolenkov has no real direct access. Instead, he starts fabricating and/or exaggerating his access to convince his CIA handler that he is on the job and worth every penny he is being paid by US taxpayers. ..."
"... The information Smolenkov creates is passed to his CIA handler via the secure communications channel set up when he was signed up as a spy. But these reports are not handled in the normal way that sensitive human intelligence is treated at CIA Headquarters. Instead, the material is accepted at face value and not vetted to confirm its accuracy. My intel friend, citing a knowledgeable source, indicates that Smolenkov was not polygraphed. ..."
"... This raised red flags in the CIA Counterintelligence staff, especially when Brennan starts briefing the President using the information provided by Smolenkov. Brennan responds by locking most of the CIA's Russian experts out of the loop. Later, Brennan does the same thing with the National Intelligence Council, locking out the National Intelligence Officers who would normally oversee the production of a National Intelligence Assessment. In short, Brennan cooked the books using Smolenkov's intelligence, which had it been subjected to normal checks and balances would never have passed muster. It's Brennan's leaks to the press that eventually prompt the CIA to pull the plug on Smolenkov. ..."
"... The dossier attributed to Steele, it has seemed to me, showed every sign of being the proverbial 'camel produced by a committee.' ..."
"... Although I know that fabricating evidence and corrupting judicial proceedings is part of its supposed author's 'stock in trade', I think it is unclear whether he contributed all that much to the dossier. ..."
"... His prime role, I think, was to contribute a veneer of intelligence respectability to a farrago the actual origins of which could not be acknowledged, so it could be used in support of FISA applications and in briefings to journalists. ..."
"... Although it had started much earlier, the moving into 'high gear' of the conspiracy behind 'Russiagate, of which the dossier was one manifestation, and the phone 'digital forensics' produced by 'Crowdstrike' and the former GCHQ person Matt Tait another, were I think essentially panicky 'firefighting' operations. ..."
"... Part of this involved turning the conspiracy to prevent Trump being elected into a conspiracy to destabilise his Presidency and ensure he did not carry through on any of his 'anti-Borgist' agenda. ..."
A flood of news in the last 24 hours regarding Russiagate. I am referring specifically to
reports that the CIA ex-filtrated Oleg Smolenkov, a mid-level Russian Foreign Ministry
bureaucrat who reportedly hooked himself on the coat-tails of Yuri Ushakov, who was Ambassador
to the US from 1999 through 2008. He was recruited by the CIA (i.e., asked to collect
information and pass it to the U.S. Government via his or her case officer) at sometime during
this period. Smolenkov is being portrayed as a supposedly "sensitive" source. But if you read
either the
Washington Post or
New York Times accounts of this event there is not a lot of meat on this hamburger.
Regardless of the quality of his reporting, Smolenkov is the kind of recruited source that
looks good on paper and helps a CIA case officer get promoted but adds little to actual U.S.
intelligence on Russia. If you understood the CIA culture you would immediately recognize that
a case officer (CIA terminology for the operations officer tasked with identifying and
recruiting human sources) gets rewarded by recruiting persons who ostensibly will have access
to information the CIA has identified as a priority target. In this case, we're talking about
possible access to Vladimir Putin.
If you take time to read both articles you will quickly see that the real purpose of this
"information operation" is to paint Donald Trump as a security threat that must be stopped.
This is conveniently timed to assist Jerry Nadler's mission impossible to secure Trump's
impeachment. But I think there is another dynamic at play--these competing explanations for
what prompted the exfiltration of this CIA asset say more about the incompetence of Barack
Obama and his intel chiefs. John Brennan and Jim Clapper in particular.
A former intelligence officer and friend summarized the various press accounts as the
follows and offered his own insights in a note I received this morning:
[Smolenkov] follows Ushakov back to Moscow, where he is a mid-level paper pusher doing
administrative support for Ushakov. The CIA gets copies of Putin's itineraries that Smolenkov
photographs. He is a big hit, but ultimately produces nothing of vital importance because all
truly sensitive information is hand carried by principles, and never seen by administrative
staff. Moreover Ushakov advises on international relations, and would not be privy to anything
dealing with intelligence. Ushakov, as a long-serving Ambassador to the US, would be asked by
Putin to opine on US politics. Smolenkov has access to Ushakov's post-meeting verbal comments,
which he turns over to the CIA.
The initial reports of the Steele Dossier appeared in June 2016. This coincided with John
Brennan ordering Moscow Station to turn up the heat on Smolenkov to gain access to what Putin
is thinking. But Smolenkov has no real direct access. Instead, he starts fabricating and/or
exaggerating his access to convince his CIA handler that he is on the job and worth every penny
he is being paid by US taxpayers.
The information Smolenkov creates is passed to his CIA handler via the secure communications
channel set up when he was signed up as a spy. But these reports are not handled in the normal
way that sensitive human intelligence is treated at CIA Headquarters. Instead, the material is
accepted at face value and not vetted to confirm its accuracy. My intel friend, citing a
knowledgeable source, indicates that Smolenkov was not polygraphed.
This raised red flags in the CIA Counterintelligence staff, especially when Brennan starts
briefing the President using the information provided by Smolenkov. Brennan responds by locking
most of the CIA's Russian experts out of the loop. Later, Brennan does the same thing with the
National Intelligence Council, locking out the National Intelligence Officers who would
normally oversee the production of a National Intelligence Assessment. In short, Brennan cooked
the books using Smolenkov's intelligence, which had it been subjected to normal checks and
balances would never have passed muster. It's Brennan's leaks to the press that eventually
prompt the CIA to pull the plug on Smolenkov.
There is public evidence that Brennan not only cooked the books but that the leaks of this
supposedly "sensitive" intelligence occurred when he was Director and lying Jim Clapper was
Director of National Intelligence. If Oleg Smolenkov was really such a terrific source of
intel, then where are the reports? It is one thing to keep such reports close hold when the
source is still in place. But he has been out of danger for more than two years. Those reports
should have been shared with the Senate and House Intelligence committees. If there was actual
solid intelligence in those reports that corroborated the Steele Dossier, then that information
would have been leaked and widely circulated. This is Sherlock Holmes dog that did not
bark.Then we have the odd fact that this guy's name is all over the press and he is buying real
estate in true name. What the hell!! If the CIA genuinely believed that Mr. Smolenkov was in
danger he would not be walking around doing real estate deals in true name. In fact, the
sources for both the Washington Post and NY Times pieces push the propaganda that Smolenkov is
a sure fire target for a Russian retaliatory hit. Really? Then why publish his name and confirm
his location.
That leaves me with the alternative explanation--Smolenkov is a propaganda prop and is being
trotted out by Brennan to try to provide public pressure to prevent the disclosure of
intelligence that will show that the CIA and the NSA were coordinating and operating with
British intelligence to entrap and smear Donald Trump and members of his campaign.
I want you to take a close look at the two pieces on this exfiltration (i.e., Washington
Post and NY Times) and note the significant differences
REASON FOR THE EXFILTRATION :
Let's start with the Washington Post:
The exfiltration took place sometime after an Oval Office meeting in May 2017, when
President Trump
revealed highly classified counterterrorism information to the Russian foreign minister and
ambassador, said the current and former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to
discuss the sensitive operation.
What was the information that Trump revealed? He was discussing intel that Israel passed
regarding ISIS in Syria. (See the Washington Post story
here .) Why would he talk to the Russians about that? Because every day, at least once a
day, U.S. and Russian military authorities are sharing intelligence with one another in a phone
call that originates from the U.S. Combined Air Operations Center (aka CAOC) at the Al Udeid
Air Force Base in Qatar. Trump's conversation not only was appropriate but fully within his
right to do so as Commander-in-Chief.
What the hell does this have to do with a sensitive source in Moscow? NOTHING!! Red
Herring.
The NY Times account is more detailed and damning of Obama instead of Trump:
But when intelligence officials revealed the severity of Russia's election interference with
unusual detail later that year, the news media picked up on details about the C.I.A.'s Kremlin
sources.
C.I.A. officials worried about safety made the arduous decision in late 2016 to offer to
extract the source from Russia. The situation grew more tense when the informant at first
refused, citing family concerns -- prompting consternation at C.I.A. headquarters and sowing
doubts among some American counterintelligence officials about the informant's trustworthiness.
But the C.I.A. pressed again months later after more media inquiries. This time, the informant
agreed. . . .
The decision to extract the informant was driven "in part" because of concerns that Mr.
Trump and his administration had mishandled delicate intelligence, CNN reported. But former
intelligence officials said there was no public evidence that Mr. Trump directly endangered the
source, and other current American officials insisted that media scrutiny of the agency's
sources alone was the impetus for the extraction. . . .
But the government had indicated that the source existed long before Mr. Trump took office,
first in formally accusing Russia of interference in October 2016 and then when intelligence
officials declassified parts of their assessment about the interference campaign for public
release in January 2017. News agencies, including NBC, began reporting around that time about
Mr. Putin's involvement in the election sabotage and on the C.I.A.'s possible sources for the
assessment.
Trump played no role whatsoever in releasing information that allegedly compromised this
so-called "golden boy" of Russian intelligence. The NY Times account makes it very clear that
the release of information while Obama was President, not Trump, is what put the source in
danger. Who leaked that information?
WHAT DID THE SOURCE KNOW AND WHAT DID HE TELL US?
But how valuable was this source really? What did he provide that was so enlightening? On
this point the New York Times and Washington Post are more in sync.
First the NY Times:
The Moscow informant was instrumental to the C.I.A.'s most explosive conclusion about
Russia's interference campaign: that President Vladimir V. Putin ordered and orchestrated it
himself . As the American government's best insight into the thinking of and orders from Mr.
Putin, the source was also key to the C.I.A.'s assessment that he affirmatively favored Donald
J. Trump's election and personally ordered the hacking of the Democratic National Committee
.
The Washington Post provides a more fulsome account:
U.S. officials had been concerned that Russian sources could be at risk of exposure as early
as the fall of 2016, when the Obama administration first confirmed that Russia had stolen and
publicly disclosed emails from the Democratic National Committee and the account of Hillary
Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta.
In October 2016, the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence said in a joint statement that intelligence agencies were "confident that
the Russian Government directed" the hacking campaign. . . .
In January 2017, the Obama administration published a detailed assessment that unambiguously
laid the blame on the Kremlin, concluding that "Putin ordered an influence campaign" and that
Russia's goal was to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process and harm Clinton's chances
of winning.
"That's a pretty remarkable intelligence community product -- much more specific than what
you normally see," one U.S. official said. "It's very expected that potential U.S. intelligence
assets in Russia would be under a higher level of scrutiny by their own intelligence
services."
Sounds official. But there is no actual forensic or documentary evidence (by that I mean
actual corroborating intelligence reports) to back up these claims by our oxymoronically
christened intelligence community.
Vladimir Putin ordered the hack? Where is the report? It is either in a piece of intercepted
electronics communication and/or in a report derived from information provided by Mr.
Smolenkov. Where is it? Why has that not been shared in public? Don't have to worry about
exposing the source now. He is already in the open. What did he report? Answer--no direct
evidence.
Then there is the lie that the Russians hacked the DNC. They did not. Bill Binney, a former
Technical Director of the NSA, and I have written on this subject previously (
see here ) and there is no truth to this claim. Let me put it simply--if the DNC had been
hacked by the Russians using spearphising (this is claimed in the Robert Mueller report) then
the NSA would have collected those messages and would be able to show they were transferred to
the Russians. That did not happen.
This kind of chaotic leaking about an old intel op is symptomatic of panic. CIA is already
officially denying key parts of the story. My money is on John Brennan and Jim Clapper as the
likely impetus for these reports. They are hoping to paint Trump as a national security threat
and distract from the upcoming revelations from the DOJ Inspector General report on the FISA
warrants and, more threatening, the decisions that Prosecutor John Durham will take in deciding
to indict those who attempted to launch a coup against Donald Trump, a legitimately elected
President of the United States.
As I told LJ yesterday while he was writing this piece I have a slightly different theory
of this matter. It is true that CIA suffered for a long time from a dearth of talent in the
business of recruiting and running foreign clandestine HUMINT assets. This was caused by a
focus by several CIA Directors on technical collection means rather than espionage. This
policy drove many skilled case officers into retirement but the situation has much improved
in the last decade and it must be remembered that an agency only needs a few skilled case
officers with the right access to human targets to acquire some very fine and useful well
placed foreign agents (spies). IMO it is likely that CIA has/had several well placed Russian
assets in Moscow of whom Smolenkov was probably the least useful and the most expendable. It
may well be that Brennan was using the chicken feed provided by Smolenkov to fuel the
conspiracy run by him and Clapper against Trump's campaign and presidency, but Brennan left
office and then the CIA under other management was faced with the problem of a Russian
government which was told in the US press by implication that either the US had deep
penetrations of Russian diplomatic and intelligence communications or that there were deep
penetration moles in Moscow. that being the case it seems likely to me that the Russians
would have been beating the bushes looking for the moles. In that situation the CIA may have
decided to exfiltrate Smolenkov and his wife while leaving enough clues along the way that
would have indicated that he might have been THE MOLE. People do not need a lot of
encouragement to accept thoughts that they want to believe. A point in favor of this theory
is that once CIA had him in the States they quickly lost interest in him, terminated their
relationship with him and paid him his back pay and showed him the door. No new identity, no
resettlement, he was given none of that. Finding himself alone in a strange land, Smolenkov
then bought a house in the suburbs of Washington in HIS OWN NAME. Say what? That would not
have happened if CIA had maintained some sort of relationship with him. And then... someone
in CIA leaked the story of the exfiltration as movie plot to "a former senior intelligence
officer" who gives sit to Sciutto at CNN. Why would they do that? IMO they would have though
that having the story appear in the media would reinfocer Smolenkov's importance in Russian
minds. Well, pilgrims, Clapper fits the bill as the "former blah, blah". He is an employee of
CNN. CNN hates Trump and they quickly broadcast the story far and away. Unfortunately for CNN
the story immediately began to disintegrate even in the eyes of the NY Times. The
Smolenkov/Brennan affair will undoubtedly be part of the road that leads to doom for Brennan
and Clapper but the possible CIA story is equally interesting.
Sir;
The fact that Mr. Smolenkov is out and about in his new home in the West shows that he is a
small fish. As you say, if he was really in danger, he would be living somewhere in the West
now under a new name and maybe a new face. The fact that his 'handlers' allow this lax
security to happen is a sign of how unimportant he is. Unless, my inner cynic prompts, he is
destined to become one of the "honoured dead," perhaps by a false flag 'liquidation.'
How low will Clapper and Brennan et. al. go?
Thanks for keeping this matter front and centre.
So the son of Our Man in Havana went to Moscow. It would make a decent movies if it weren't
for the damage Brennan and company have done to us. Obama, of course, knew nothing......
I have lost hope that anyone--especially Brennan and Clapper--will be held accountable for
their attempt to "launch a coup" (as you put it).
Since their coup attempt ultimately failed, most people will be wanting just to move
on.
As an unimportant citizen liveing in a fly-over state, I feel very angry that my tax
dollars were wasted on these many government hearings and enormously expensive investigations
rather than on actually on governing and improving the governing of our country.
The least we should be able to expect is that people who live off our tax dollars should
be held accountable for all that wasted expense and for the lack of actual governing going on
in The House and The Senate. So many problems that need the attention of our elected
representative and Senators were ignored while elected representatives and representatives
got to capture the spotlight and try to become "media stars" while accomplishing nothing.
I also feel terrible that men have been sent to prison for seemingly nothing and have
their lives ruined for nothing but the chance of some to grand stand and claim they are
really doing the jobs they were sent to do. So many people with no real sense of honor or of
what is right and what is wrong.
Thanks, Larry. You have been consistently one of the good guys. (And I bet you are happy
now that Yosemite Sam Bolton is no longer advising the POTUS.)
"The fact that his 'handlers' allow this lax security to happen is a sign of how unimportant
he is."
It indicates to me that he and any handlers believe that the Russians are OK with it. That
could be for various reasons. But relying on Russian tolerance because he is a "small fish"
seems incredibly trusting. Neither fled agents nor their handlers are known for their
trusting natures. They have had some reasons stronger than that for their unconcern. Whether
those reasons will survive publicity remains to be seen.
Are those CIA agents as stupid, naive & incompetent as you paint them to be?
If that's the case our country is in real danger! You are. Pro Trump
and, you are basically defending him, but Putin do own Donald Trump,whether you like it or
not!
My question is: why did they push this report now? Any way you cut it, the Times and Post are
just providing some trivia and drivel. Without substance, they can accomplish nothing and
substance has been what's been missing all along.
I doubt that Democrats, having been burned once, are eager to explore Brennan's smoke and
mirrors again. It's never been a big concern to voters. And unless Brennan & Co. can do
better than this superficial stuff, voters are never going to be concerned.
Maybe the Times and Post just felt sorry for Brennan, who's been off barking at the moon
for years now.
...Smolenkov is a propaganda prop and is being trotted out by Brennan to try to provide
public pressure to prevent the disclosure of intelligence that will show that the CIA and the
NSA were coordinating and operating with British intelligence to entrap and smear Donald
Trump and members of his campaign...
Well said. Thank you for following this closely and shining the light! You are an amazing
American patriot, Mr. Larry C. Johnson. A glass in your honor!
IMO this scenario is the most plausible, Thanks for the sanity check. That said, given the
desperation by these Sorcerer's Apprentices, I would be on the lookout for Mr. Smolenkov lest
he be 'Skirpal-ed' in the coming weeks.
This whole story convinces now more than ever before that there is a high level spy/mole in
the us administration and intelligence community.The only question is it spying for russia or
china or both.Just a beautiful thing to watch.Those knickers,must surely be in a knot by
now.
Even rocketman had a giggle.
How many CIA Assets have been exposed..Tortured and Murdered During The Barrack Obama
Reign...In May..2014 HE Paid a Surprise Visit to Afghanastan..His White House Bureau Chief
Sent out an email to Reporters with a List of Who would meet With President Obama..It
Contained the NAME of the CIA...Chief of Station in Kabul...Now that is REAL MESSY..
Having been away from base, I have not been able to comment on some very fascinating
recent posts.
Both your recent pieces, and Robert Willman's most helpful update on the state of play
relating to the unraveling of the frame-up against Michael Flynn, have provided a lot to chew
over.
Among other things, they have made me think further about the 302s recording the
interviews with Bruce Ohr produced by Joseph Pientka – a character about whom I think
we need to know more.
On reflection, I think that the picture that emerges of Ohr as an incurious and gullible
nitwit, swallowing whole bucket loads of 'horse manure' fed him by Christopher Steele and
Glenn Simpson, may be a carefully – indeed maybe cunningly – crafted fiction.
The interpretation your former intelligence officer friend puts on the Smolenkov affair,
and also some of what Sidney Powell has to say in the ''Motion to Compel' on behalf of Flynn,
both 'mesh' with what I have long suspected.
The dossier attributed to Steele, it has seemed to me, showed every sign of being the
proverbial 'camel produced by a committee.'
Although I know that fabricating evidence and corrupting judicial proceedings is part of
its supposed author's 'stock in trade', I think it is unclear whether he contributed all that
much to the dossier.
His prime role, I think, was to contribute a veneer of intelligence respectability to a
farrago the actual origins of which could not be acknowledged, so it could be used in support
of FISA applications and in briefings to journalists.
Although it had started much earlier, the moving into 'high gear' of the conspiracy behind
'Russiagate, of which the dossier was one manifestation, and the phone 'digital forensics'
produced by 'Crowdstrike' and the former GCHQ person Matt Tait another, were I think
essentially panicky 'firefighting' operations.
They are likely to have been responses, first, to the realisation that material leaked
from the DNC was going to be published by WikiLeaks, and then the discovery, probably
significantly later, that the source was Seth Rich, and his subsequent murder.
Although the operation to divert responsibility to the Russians which then became
necessary was strikingly successful, it did not have the expected result of saving Hillary
Clinton from defeat.
What I then think may have emerged was a two-pronged strategy.
Part of this involved turning the conspiracy to prevent Trump being elected into a
conspiracy to destabilise his Presidency and ensure he did not carry through on any of his
'anti-Borgist' agenda.
In different ways, both the framing of Flynn, and the final memorandum in the dossier,
dated 13 December 2016, were part of this strategy.
Also required however was another 'insurance policy' – which was what the Bruce Ohr
302s were intended to provide.
The purpose of this was to have 'evidence' in place, should the first prong of the
strategy run into problems, to sustain the case that people in the FBI and DOJ, and Bruce and
Nellie Ohr in particular, were not co-conspirators with Steele and Simpson, but their
gullible dupes.
This brings me to an irony. Some people have tried to replace the 'narrative' in which
Steele was an heroic exposer of a Russian plot to destroy American democracy by an
alternative in which he was the gullible 'patsy' of just such a plot.
In fact there is one strand, and one strand only, in the dossier which smells strongly to
me of FSB-orchestrated disinformation.
Some of the material on Russian cyber operations, including critically the suggestions
about the involvement of Aleksej Gubarev and his company XBT which provoked legal action by
these against BuzzFeed and Steele, look to me as though they could come from sources in the
FSB.
But, if this is so, the likely conduit is not through Steele, but from FSB to FBI cyber
people.
How precisely this worked is unclear, but I cannot quite get rid of the suspicion that
Major Dmitri Dokuchaev just might be serving out his sentence for treason in a comfortable
flat somewhere above the Black Sea. Indeed, I can imagine a lecture to FSB trainees on how to
make 'patsies' of people like the Ohrs.
If this is so, however, it mat also be the case that these are attempting to make
'patsies' of Steele and Simpson.
David Warner Mathisen definitely know what he is talking about due to his long military career... Freefall speed
is documented and is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally
collapsing building.
Now we need to dig into the role of Larry Silverstein in the
Building 7 collapse.
Notable quotes:
"... Below is a video showing several film sequences taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen years ago on September 11, 2001. ..."
"... The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative" promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004. ..."
"... Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7 ..."
"... This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001. ..."
"... its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed, as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an interview here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview. ..."
"... the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building ..."
"... Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states). ..."
"... Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day. ..."
"... In addition to these interviews and the Dig Within blog of Kevin Ryan, I would also strongly recommend everybody read the article by Dr. Gary G. Kohls entitled " Why Do Good People Become Silent About the Documented Facts that Disprove the Official 9/11 Narrative? " which was published on Global Research a few days ago, on September 6, 2019. ..."
"... on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept what we already know. ..."
"... Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see here for example, and also here . ..."
"... The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare: ..."
"... David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University. ..."
Below is a video showing several film sequences
taken from different locations and documenting multiple angles of World Trade Center Building 7 collapsing at freefall speed eighteen
years ago on September 11, 2001.
The four words "Building Seven Freefall Speed" provide all the evidence needed to conclude that the so-called "official narrative"
promoted by the mainstream media for the past eighteen years is a lie, as is the fraudulent 9/11 Commission Report of 2004.
Earlier this month, a team of engineers at the University of Alaska
published their draft findings from a five-year investigation into the collapse of Building 7, which was not hit by any airplane
on September 11, 2001, and concluded that fires could not possibly have caused the collapse of that 47-story steel-frame building
-- rather, the collapse seen could have only been caused by the near-simultaneous failure of every support column (43 in number).
This damning report by a team of university engineers has received no attention from the mainstream media outlets which continue
to promote the bankrupt "official" narrative of the events of September 11, 2001.
Various individuals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) tried to argue that the collapse of Building
7 was slower than freefall speed, but its rate of collapse can be measured and found to be indistinguishable from freefall speed,
as physics teacher David Chandler explains in an
interview
here (and as he eventually forced NIST to admit), beginning at around 0:43:00 in the interview.
Although the collapse of the 47-story steel-beam building World Trade Center 7 into its own footprint at freefall speed is all
the evidence needed to reveal extensive and deliberate premeditated criminal activity by powerful forces that had the ability to
prepare pre-positioned demolition charges in that building prior to the flight of the aircraft into the Twin Towers of the World
Trade Center (Buildings One and Two), as well as the power to cover up the evidence of this criminal activity and to deflect questioning
by government agencies and suppress the story in the mainstream news, the collapse of Building 7 is by no means the only evidence
which points to the same conclusion.
Indeed, the evidence is overwhelming, to the point that no one can any longer be excused for accepting the official story. Certainly
during the first few days and weeks after the attacks, or even during the first few years, men and women could be excused for accepting
the official story (particularly given the level to which the mainstream media controls opinion in the united states).
However, eighteen years later there is simply no excuse anymore -- except for the fact that the ramifications of the admission
that the official story is a flagrant fraud and a lie are so distressing that many people cannot actually bring themselves to consciously
admit what they in fact already know subconsciously.
For additional evidence, I strongly recommend the work of the indefatigable Kevin Robert Ryan , whose blog at Dig Within should be required reading for every man and woman in the united
states -- as well as those in the rest of the world, since the ramifications of the murders of innocent men, women and children on
September 11, 2001 have led to the murders of literally millions of other innocent men, women and children around the world since
that day, and the consequences of the failure to absorb the truth of what actually took place, and the consequences of the
failure to address the lies that are built upon the fraudulent explanation of what took place on September 11, continue to
negatively impact men and women everywhere on our planet.
Additionally, I would also recommend the interviews which are archived at the website of Visibility 9-11 , which includes valuable interviews with Kevin Ryan
but also numerous important interviews with former military officers who explain that the failure of the military to scramble fighters
to intercept the hijacked airplanes, and the failure of air defense weapons to stop a jet from hitting the Pentagon (if indeed a
jet did hit the Pentagon), are also completely inexplicable to anyone who knows anything at all about military operations, unless
the official story is completely false and something else was going on that day.
I would also strongly recommend listening very carefully to the series of five interviews with Kevin Ryan on Guns and Butter with Bonnie Faulkner, which can be found in the
Guns and Butterpodcast archive here . These interviews,
from 2013, are numbered 287, 288, 289, 290, and 291 in the archive.
I would in fact recommend listening to nearly every interview in that archive of Bonnie Faulkner's show, even though I do not
of course agree with every single guest nor with every single view expressed in every single interview. Indeed, if you carefully
read Kevin Ryan's blog which was linked above, you will find a
blog post by Kevin Ryan dated June 24, 2018 in which he
explicitly names James Fetzer along with Judy Woods as likely disinformation agents working to discredit and divert the efforts of
9/11 researchers. James Fetzer appears on Guns and Butter several times in the archived interview page linked above.
That article contains a number of stunning quotations about the ongoing failure to address the now-obvious lies we are being told
about the attacks of September 11. One of these quotations, by astronomer Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996), is particularly noteworthy --
even though I certainly do not agree with everything Carl Sagan ever said or wrote. Regarding our propensity to refuse to acknowledge
what we already know deep down to be true, Carl Sagan said:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle.
We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even
to ourselves, that we've been taken.
This quotation is from Sagan's 1995 text, The Demon-Haunted World (with which I have points of disagreement, but which
is extremely valuable for that quotation alone, and which I might suggest turning around on some of the points that Sagan was arguing
as well, as a cautionary warning to those who have accepted too wholeheartedly some of Sagan's teachings and opinions).
This quotation shows that on some level, we already know we have been bamboozled, even if our conscious mind refuses to accept
what we already know. This internal division is actually addressed in the world's ancient myths, which consistently illustrate that
our egoic mind often refuses to acknowledge the higher wisdom we have available to us through the reality of our authentic self,
sometimes called our Higher Self. Previous posts have compared this tendency of the egoic mind to the blissfully ignorant character
of Michael Scott in the television series The Office (US version): see
here for example,
and also here .
The important author Peter Kingsley has noted that in ancient myth, the role of the prophet was to bring awareness and acknowledgement
of that which the egoic mind refuses to see -- which is consistent with the observation that it is through our authentic self (which
already knows) that we have access to the realm of the gods. In the Iliad, for example, Dr. Kingsley notes that Apollo sends disaster
upon the Achaean forces until the prophet Calchas reveals the source of the god's anger: Agamemnon's refusal to free the young woman
Chryseis, whom Agamemnon has seized in the course of the fighting during the Trojan War, and who is the daughter of a priest of Apollo.
Until Agamemnon atones for this insult to the god, Apollo will continue to visit destruction upon those following Agamemnon.
Until we acknowledge and correct what our Higher Self already knows to be the problem, we ourselves will be out of step with the
divine realm.
If we look the other way at the murder of thousands of innocent men, women and children on September 11, 2001, and deliberately
refuse to see the truth that we already know deep down in our subconscious, then we will face the displeasure of the Invisible Realm.
Just as we are shown in the ancient myths, the truth must be acknowledged and admitted, and then the wrong that has been done must
be corrected.
In the case of the mass murder perpetrated on September 11, eighteen years ago, that admission requires us to face the fact that
the "terrorists" who were blamed for that attack were not the actual terrorists that we need to be focusing on.
Please note that I am very careful not to say that "the government" is the source of the problem: I would argue that the government
is the lawful expression of the will of the people and that the government, rightly understood, is exactly what these criminal perpetrators
actually fear the most, if the people ever become aware of what is going on. The government, which is established by the Constitution,
forbids the perpetration of murder upon innocent men, women and children in order to initiate wars of aggression against countries
that never invaded or attacked us (under the false pretense that they did so). Those who do so are actually opposed to our government
under the Constitution and can be dealt with within the framework of the law as established by the Constitution, which establishes
a very clear penalty for treason.
When the people acknowledge and admit the complete bankruptcy of the lie we have been told about the attacks of September 11,
the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate repeal and dismantling of the so-called "USA PATRIOT Act" which was
enacted in the weeks immediately following September 11, 2001 and which clearly violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Additionally, the correction of that lie will involve demanding the immediate cessation of the military operations which were
initiated based upon the fraudulent narrative of the attacks of that day, and which have led to invasion and overthrow of the nations
that were falsely blamed as being the perpetrators of those attacks and the seizure of their natural resources.
The imposition of a vast surveillance mechanism upon the people of this country (and of other countries) based on the fraudulent
pretext of "preventing terrorism" (and the lying narrative that has been perpetuated with the full complicity of the mainstream media
for the past eighteen years) is in complete violation of the human rights which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and which declare:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
That human right has been grievously trampled upon under the false description of what actually took place during the September
11 attacks. Numerous technology companies have been allowed and even encouraged (and paid, with public moneys) to create technologies
which flagrantly and shamelessly violate "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" and
which track their every move and even enable secret eavesdropping upon their conversation and the secret capture of video within
their homes and private settings, without any probable cause whatsoever.
When we admit and acknowledge that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, which has been falsely used as a supposed
justification for the violation of these human rights (with complete disregard for the supreme law of the land as established in
the Constitution), then we will also demand the immediate cessation of any such intrusion upon the right of the people to "be secure
in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- including the cessation of any business models which involve spying on men and
women.
Companies which cannot find a business model that does not violate the Bill of Rights should lose their corporate charter and
the privilege of limited liability, which are extended to them by the people (through the government of the people, by the people
and for the people) only upon the condition that their behavior as corporations do not violate the inherent rights of men and women
as acknowledged in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
It is well beyond the time when we must acknowledge and admit that we have been lied to about the events of September 11, 2001
-- and that we continue to be lied to about the events of that awful day. September 11, 2001 is in fact only one such event in a
long history which stretches back prior to 2001, to other events which should have awakened the people to the presence of a very
powerful and very dangerous criminal cabal acting in direct contravention to the Constitution long before we ever got to 2001 --
but the events of September 11 are so blatant, so violent, and so full of evidence which contradicts the fraudulent narrative that
they actually cannot be believed by anyone who spends even the slightest amount of time looking at that evidence.
Indeed, we already know deep down that we have been bamboozled by the lie of the so-called "official narrative" of September 11.
But until we admit to ourselves and acknowledge to others that we've ignored the truth that we already know, then the bamboozle
still has us .
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog
site, internet forums. etc.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
David Warner Mathisen graduated from the US Military Academy at West Point and became an Infantry officer in the 82nd Airborne
Division and the 4th Infantry Division. He is a graduate of the US Army's Ranger School and the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster
Course, among many other awards and decorations. He was later selected to become an instructor in the Department of English Literature
and Philosophy at West Point and has a Masters degree from Texas A&M University.
"... So, this fully-spun story, apparently a mix of fact and fiction, arises at this moment to prop up the Russia-leaked-email hoax? ..."
"... If that's the case, does that mean this story's "authors" release it now to keep at least part of the Russia hoax alive as the Flynn case plods toward charges being dropped or because the Concord case is turning into a cluster f*k? Maybe someone is worried about the DNC-insider-leaked-email story breaking out? We need to talk about Rich? ..."
"... if I am wrong in supposing that a senior Chekist would never, as a question of policy, have been allowed a passport for foreign travel for him and his family. ..."
"... If Oleg Smolenkov reported allegedly "valuable" insider information about Russia's interference in US elections, as they say first hand, then why did Mueller's investigation fail? ..."
"... The New York Times story resurrects the Russia collusion hoax. This time the proof comes from Oleg Smolenkov. The story is identical to what the Steele dossier claimed: Putin personally directed a campaign to interfere in the US presidential elections. ..."
"... Every part of Steele narrative has already been shown to be a hoax and a fabrication. What proves that the Steele dossier is a work of fiction is that it is written from a fly-on-the-wall point of view. Only a person who was sitting in the same room with Putin when he had secret meetings could have written it. So how many moles did the West have sitting on Putin's desk? It seems like the CIA mole and Steele's secret source are one and the same source. But if Oleg Smolenkov was CIA's most tightly guarded secret, how did the information end up in Steele's dossier? ..."
"... Larry Johnson just posted about this on SST, and his take seems much more plausible: Desperation on the part of Clapper and his cabal as the chickens are coming home to roost. This story is chock full of holes, and the media hackery is disintegrating under its own weight. ..."
"... Perhaps someone should advise Smolenskov to stay away from park benches after eating seafood and to not touch doorknob's etc. ..."
"... "For those curious about what's going on with this bizarre Russia 'spy' story: Burr/Durham know Steele was fed obvious disinformation, they know who originated it, they know who peddled it, and it's just a matter of rounding up the whole network." ..."
"... In his third entry, he poses the following question: "So the only two unanswered questions about this particular pre-emptive leak campaign from the usual Russia hoax suspects are 1) why now, and 2) what specific event or official revelation are they trying to get ahead of?" ..."
"... Why the CIA would allow such a spy, once extradited, to live under his real name is beyond me. ..."
"... Because this man has nothing to do with "spies", "secrets" and "special services". He is an ordinary civilian, a former official from Russia. Many Russian ex- lives in abroad, including high-ranking persons. Smolenkov of course had no access to any "secrets", and had no access to entourage of the Russian president. ..."
"... That's the end of Smolenkov's anonymous quiet comfortable lifesyle. It doesn't send out a very reassuring message - that the CIA can publicly expose someone it considers a very useful asset. There must be a good reason why they threw Smolenkov under the bus in that way. ..."
"... It must be a very nice house. A 3-ish acre lot in that neighborhood has an assessment of $140k for the land. But the assessment for improvements for this house is over $900k while others in the neighborhood are more in the $600k range. I was looking at the aerial photos and trying to pick out what seem to be other nice houses, including ones with swimming pools which this one lacks, and which also have big garages (this one has 4 car garage apparently), but couldn't find a neighbor above an assessment in the $600k's. ..."
"... The only way that he's the 'source' of the Steele fiction is if the whole thing was in the style of LeCarre's "The Tailor of Panama" where everyone is lying and inflating what they know and people at the top are paying out good money for this because it suits their little power games. But any Moscow tailor with a couple of important customers would be positioned to run that scam as well as an aide to an aide to a foreign minister. ..."
"... My personal guess, he made his money by the more typical corruption in Russia, which means he was working for an oligarch. He lost his job, possibly during one of Putin's anti-corruption cleanup campaigns. He decided to move to DC with his oligarch money because he'd served 10 years in the embassy there and he liked the area. He is buying property in his own name because he's not part of any sort of witness/spy protection program and nobody in the USG is setting him up with a fake identity. ..."
"... Sergei Skripal was not just an turncoat for UK he also worked for Estonian intelligence. It seems to me the poisoning fits better as an Estonian job, to keep relations in Europe with Russia in very bad shape. It's easy to say that the Russians wouldn't be so incompetent, also goes for the UK, which could have come up with something more compelling if they pre planned it as false flag. ..."
"... Joe Mifsud and Claire Smith of MI6, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, especially FBI special agent Joseph Pientka plus that BIG shot FBI agent (who's name I forget) are the names to remember. Why aren't Misud and Smith extradited to face inquiry? ..."
"... So what is emerging? is Mueller due in court to prosecute the Russian ad agency that has fully shirt fronted him? Is Flynn business about to upend a steaming pot of turds over Mueller and other heads. Is Seth Rich about to be posthumously knighted by some New York monarch for his role in smashing the HRC cart in public? Or is Julian Assange about to be put through more torture for being a journalist and publisher? ..."
And then there is the possibility that CIA extracted a minor source to divert attention
from someone or someones who remain(s) in place. The open purchase of a house in the outer
suburbs of Washington by the extracted would seem to support the possibility that this is
all a diversion. The narrative continues that "a former senior intelligence official" told
Sciutto, an Obama man, at CNN of all this. Clapper is "a former senior intelligence
official" and a CNN "contributor" (employee) is he not? He is dumb enough to have had this
story planted on him.
Double games, triple games ... Spies are so confusing ...
thanks b... i agree about your comment on pls comment - double / triple and etc games can be
played with spies... what seems clear to me is that some in the cia-msm want to frame trump..
this one feel apart fairly quickly... the frame up of russia over skripal has never been
addressed by the usa.. in fact, most folks - using ew as an example - are still drinking the
russia done it koolaid 24/7..
james , Sep 10 2019 18:14 utc |
3casey , Sep 10 2019 18:18 utc |
4
So, this fully-spun story, apparently a mix of fact and fiction, arises at this moment to
prop up the Russia-leaked-email hoax?
If that's the case, does that mean this story's "authors" release it now to keep at least
part of the Russia hoax alive as the Flynn case plods toward charges being dropped or because
the Concord case is turning into a cluster f*k? Maybe someone is worried about the
DNC-insider-leaked-email story breaking out? We need to talk about Rich?
Funny about Lang and his crew. So much practical experience and yet they would make an
interesting case study of extreme psychological compartmentalization as a means of
denial.
Lucky Oleg & Antonina. In Oz a 760 square metre house used be known as having an area of
81 squares (8,172 square feet. In well-maintained condition such a 3-storey house anywhere in
Oz would cost between A$2.5 million and A$3.5 million. Being in AmeriKKA Oleg's house
probably has a basement too. That's another $150,000 minimum if it's damp-proof and
ventilated.
Nice networking by 4 BigLie Media outlets to make certain Russia knows where this man and his
family reside. Maybe it's for an Outlaw US Empire sequel to MI-6's Novochock BigLie to be
sprung as the election heats up. If I were the Smolenskovs, I'd demand an immediate identity
change, sell ASAP and move to Idaho.
If Skripal could live safely under his own name I guess this guy could too. It just makes it
easier for the US to get him in their own time.
I don't really see this guy served any purpose until he was outed. Just a late effort to
pretend that Russiagate had any credibility.
I wish that there was a resident Russian on this site, as there is on Craig Murray's.
That person could then tell me if I am wrong in supposing that a senior Chekist would
never, as a question of policy, have been allowed a passport for foreign travel for him and
his family.
If Oleg Smolenkov reported allegedly "valuable" insider information about Russia's
interference in US elections, as they say first hand, then why did Mueller's investigation
fail?
The New York Times story resurrects the
Russia collusion hoax. This time the proof comes from Oleg Smolenkov. The story is identical
to what the Steele dossier claimed: Putin personally directed a campaign to interfere in the
US presidential elections.
Every part of Steele narrative has already been shown to be a hoax and a fabrication. What
proves that the Steele dossier is a work of fiction is that it is written from a
fly-on-the-wall point of view. Only a person who was sitting in the same room with Putin when
he had secret meetings could have written it. So how many moles did the West have sitting on
Putin's desk? It seems like the CIA mole and Steele's secret source are one and the same
source. But if Oleg Smolenkov was CIA's most tightly guarded secret, how did the information
end up in Steele's dossier?
Larry Johnson just posted about this on SST, and his take seems much more plausible:
Desperation on the part of Clapper and his cabal as the chickens are coming home to roost.
This story is chock full of holes, and the media hackery is disintegrating under its own
weight.
> Obama administration .... Russia had stolen .... Democratic National Committee and .....
John Podesta.
So we have to allege that Podesta's laptop between naked underage girls photos had list of
CIA secret agents in Russian government? What else rid it contain and where did Podesta stole
those lists?
Same question about Paki-managed DNC server. Was managing CIA agents in foreign
governments outsourced to DNC or what?
"Once in the lifetime of yer townfolk! F..en circus! Imbecile clowns! Degenerate tamers!
Deformed strongmen! Dysfunctional acrobats! Don't miss out!"
@2
Diversion is one of the three possibilities that I can think of:
1) clan wars within US special services, particularly in view of the 2020 elections.
2) diversion (as suggested by col. Pat Lang)
3) preparation of the ground to make this guy a "sacrificial lamb" like Scripal, to avoid
any new rapprochement between the US and Russia after the end of the Muller report.
@11 roy g.. this is what i said @3 "what seems clear to me is that some in the cia-msm want
to frame trump.. this one feel apart fairly quickly..." for others who want to read larry
johnsons latest at sst
here...
Interesting
Tweet thread by a Sean M Davis has 5 entries and almost 1000 retweets beginning with
this:
"For those curious about what's going on with this bizarre Russia 'spy' story: Burr/Durham
know Steele was fed obvious disinformation, they know who originated it, they know who
peddled it, and it's just a matter of rounding up the whole network."
In his third entry, he poses the following question: "So the only two unanswered questions about this particular pre-emptive leak campaign from
the usual Russia hoax suspects are 1) why now, and 2) what specific event or official
revelation are they trying to get ahead of?"
The easy answer is the story itself is enough of a distraction as the 1000 retweets
show.
I tend to agree with Larry Johnson (at Pat Lang's) that this guy wasn't that useful back
then. He might have become more useful, had he stayed at the Kremlin and rose further up the
ladder, granted; or Obama's top guys assumed he wouldn't and it wasn't an issue to risk to
burn him.
I tend to agree with Larry Johnson (at Pat Lang's) that this guy wasn't that useful back
then. He might have become more useful, had he stayed at the Kremlin and rose further up the
ladder, granted; or Obama's top guys assumed he wouldn't and it wasn't an issue to risk to
burn him.
This whole story is entirely in the spirit of Hollywood comics.
I had a good laugh when I saw the news about the "valuable spy successfully extracted from
Russia".
Here are some reasons why this is fake/disinformation:
1) The news was published by CNN. I think there's no need to explain whether it is worth taking seriously the "sensations"
published by news outlets with a reputation like CNN.
2) Sorry, but you must be a complete idiot (in the medical sense) to openly declare in the
media that you had a "very valuable spy" in the immediate circle of the president of the
Russian Federation (or any other country). Just because in this way you, by your own hands,
are giving your opponent the reason to "strengthen control", conduct checks and identify
those [other] people who might be able to work for you for a long time and be useful. When this really takes place in real life (the presence of a spy of the highest rank,
close to the head of state), then this becomes public only after many years/decades, when the
'Top Secret' stamp is removed from the documents, you know.
3) V.Putin is a former intelligence officer. To put it mildly, it is very naive to assume
that the presence of an "American spy" (close to Putin) would not be known to a person with
Putin's experience/knowledge/capacity.
4) To be a spy, a member of the inner circle of the President of Russia (or any other
country) and not to be exposed, one need to have extraordinary abilities and competencies.
This is the highest class. In recent years, it seems only the lazy one did not notice and did
not note the monstrous degradation of the American political class. These people do not know
how to behave in a civilized society, do not have the traditions and culture of diplomacy and
communication. The situation is similar in the American defense industry. With this level of decline in the competence of the American elite (political, military,
etc.), to assume that they have such a ultra-high-class spy is at least very strange.
5) The fact that the "valuable spy" in the inner circle of the Russian president is pure
CNN fiction is confirmed in practice. What I mean:
- If Smolenkov is really a "very valuable spy" and had access to "secrets," it's rather
strange that he didn't tell the CIA, for example, about the Crimean operation of the Russian
Federation in 2014. Russia's actions then began for the United States (and not only for the
United States, by the way) a complete surprise. This is some really strange "valuable spy"
who did not know anything about the intentions and actions of the Russian leadership in the
spring of 2014.
- If Smolenkov is really a "very valuable spy," and had access to "secrets," the fact that
he knew nothing and did not tell the CIA about Russia's plans to launch the Syrian campaign
in September 2015 looks unusually strange. Just to remind that the actions of Russia then
became a complete surprise for the United States. They did not know anything about this and
did not expect such a development of events. Within a month before the official start of the
Syrian campaign, Russia transferred equipment and weapons to Syria. This remained a secret
for all intelligence services in the world, no one noticed anything. Even Israel, located in
close proximity to Syria, made a "discovery" about the presence of the Russian military there
only 2 days before the start of Russia's actions in the SAR. A rather strange "valuable spy"
who was completely ignorant of Russia's plans/actions in the Syrian direction.
- If Smolenkov is really a "very valuable spy" and had access to "secrets", it is very
strange that he did not know anything and did not inform the CIA about the development by
Russia of the latest weapons presented by President Putin in the spring of 2018. The
presentation of the latest models of Russian weapons was a real shock for the United States,
and I remember that at first the Americans, smiling, called all this "cartoons." Now they no
longer laugh. The development of these weapons was carried out for many years. It's somehow
strange that a "very valuable spy" never found out about it.
6) Serious Russian experts unequivocally spoke out that all this was fake and that
Smolenkov certainly could not be a spy. In particular, Armen Gasparyan, one of the leading Russian political scientists,
historian, writer (incidentally, who wrote several books on intelligence), spoke quite fully
about this in his recent commentary .
Why the CIA would allow such a spy, once extradited, to live under his real name is
beyond me.
Because this man has nothing to do with "spies", "secrets" and "special services". He is
an ordinary civilian, a former official from Russia. Many Russian ex- lives in abroad,
including high-ranking persons. Smolenkov of course had no access to any "secrets", and had
no access to entourage of the Russian president.
An attempt to present Smolenkov as a "valuable spy" from exactly the same series as the
clumsy attempt by the British government to introduce two Russian civilians (Ruslan Boshirov
and Alexander Petrov) as "GRU agents".
It is hardly reasonable to take this seriously.
That's the end of Smolenkov's anonymous quiet comfortable lifesyle. It doesn't send out a
very reassuring message - that the CIA can publicly expose someone it considers a very useful
asset. There must be a good reason why they threw Smolenkov under the bus in that way.
This guy could not possibly be what the CIS and media are presenting to be. Living under his
own name in Virginia? Could it be any simpler to find him? The Russians do have search
engines, too.
B may be right that this is a double or triple play, but find it hard to see the benefits to
pretending to have had a deep mole in the Kremlin. I also find it implausible that any
Russsian diplomat who has been stationed in DC would not be viewed as potentially
compromised. It would be relatively simple to feed him bullshit and see what filters into DC.
Many thoughtful comments here. My take, as a fan of Le Carre and Mad Magazine's Spy vs Spy
cartoon, is that USA's spy was discovered and turned. He was dismissed, employed somewhere
close by, and fed chicken feed for his CIA masters. When they realized he was a failure, the
CIA got him and his family out with the possible object of turning him into a propaganda
subject. Of course he would have to die first, but CIA could make it look like the Russians
did it.
I'm generally interested in how spies are referred to in corporate media stories.
For instance, we were told constantly that Skirpal was a 'Russian Spy'. This ran contrary
to the normal usage, which would have referred to a British Spy within the Russian government
as a 'British Spy'. If that signaled a general change in language, then Solemenkov, would
also be referred to as a Russian Spy and not as an American Spy. He shares with Skirpal
having a Russian nationality, while he was spying for the Americans. Of course, when the
propagandists are going for an emotional reaction, they can be relied on to use whichever
helps tilt the story in their direction.
Historically, spy agencies aren't really known for their great humanity in pulling out a spy
who is in a useful position just because they fear for that spy's safety. The more common
course of action for Spy Bosses is to keep the spy in place, keep pushing for more, more,
more information from the spy, before perhaps holding a brief moment of silence over their
spy ending up in prison.
Maybe it's for an Outlaw US Empire sequel to MI-6's Novochock BigLie to be sprung as the
election heats up.
That's what I thought as well. Why would the MSM hype a spy other than establishing his
persona in the public eye, to be followed by some event later? Either he's a double agent and
they will kill him and blame it on Russia, or he is not a double agent and they will use him
to announce some "strong evidence" of Trump–Russia connection.
Part of the intention of this farce is to give the CIA and the CIA News Network (CNN) the
opportunity to pretend that they are not knotted together like mating dogs (I leave it up to
the reader to guess which one is the bitch).
1. Smolenkov was the source of the Steele Report, in other words he received a substantial
payment to come up with fictional "dirt" on Trump.
2. With all the publicity about the Steele report, Brennan/Obama/etc. were scared (and
with good reason) that the Russians would figure out that Smolenkov was the source and would
then make a grand show of his confessing to how he had made everything up at the request of
US/UK intelligence agencies.
3. Therefore he was extricated for a very good reason (if you are Obama/Brennan, that
is).
4. His extrication is now being used as an anti-Trump weapon, but also as a pre-emptive
measure to reduce the fallout if (or when) reports emerge that Smolenkov was the source for
Steele.
Be interesting to know what was occurring if Smolenkov was the source for the Steele
report.
Whatever information he was sending, that he just left on holidays makes me think Russian
intel were on the ball and had started feeding him a bit of disinformation.
I don't expect the US--and by US I mean the Current Oligarchy--to save anyone, while
Russia is very busy trying to save its current and future populace--the differences being
quite extreme. Since the US isn't intent on saving anyone, it wants to ensure its populace
thinks other governments act the same way toward their populaces so the US populace doesn't
get any ideas about saving itself from its own viscous government. Busting that narrative is
what keeps us busy--There IS an alternative.
From digging around on the property site (from the link).
It must be a very nice house. A 3-ish acre lot in that neighborhood has an assessment of
$140k for the land. But the assessment for improvements for this house is over $900k while
others in the neighborhood are more in the $600k range. I was looking at the aerial photos
and trying to pick out what seem to be other nice houses, including ones with swimming pools
which this one lacks, and which also have big garages (this one has 4 car garage apparently),
but couldn't find a neighbor above an assessment in the $600k's.
The neighborhood as a whole has had its valuations decline in the 2018 biannual
assessment. Not sure why, but maybe the neighborhood of 20 year old mansions isn't as hot as
some newer developments. The last previous lowering of assessment values occurred during the
Great-Not-A-Depression in the 2008 revaluations. Note, the land is not considered to have
lower values, but all of the homes on the street have had the assessments of the improvements
on the property lowered in the last reassessments.
Hard to tell much about the selling price from neighboring properties. Many of the
neighbors bought their homes direct from the construction company back in the early years of
the century. So not too many direct compares for homes bought in 2018.
A point that appears to have missed by several is that an aide to an aide to the foreign
minister is not likely to have access to Putin's super-top-secret plans to use a few thousand
dollars worth of utube and twit ads to change the course of multi-billion dollar American
election, nor would he have access to information that might be used to blackmail a potential
foreign leader. Both would be closely held secrets and apparently way above his pay grade.
Often the FM wouldn't know of either, and both operations would be compartmentalized into a
close team Putin can trust.
The only way that he's the 'source' of the Steele fiction is if the whole thing was in the
style of LeCarre's "The Tailor of Panama" where everyone is lying and inflating what they
know and people at the top are paying out good money for this because it suits their little
power games. But any Moscow tailor with a couple of important customers would be positioned
to run that scam as well as an aide to an aide to a foreign minister.
My personal guess, he made his money by the more typical corruption in Russia, which means
he was working for an oligarch. He lost his job, possibly during one of Putin's
anti-corruption cleanup campaigns. He decided to move to DC with his oligarch money because
he'd served 10 years in the embassy there and he liked the area. He is buying property in his
own name because he's not part of any sort of witness/spy protection program and nobody in
the USG is setting him up with a fake identity.
House likely bought by CIA and annual upkeep--taxes etc.--also paid by them.
MoA's investigators have fairly well established that Skripal was the most likely
contributor to the Steele Dossier given the overall web of established connections--that was
most certainly an MI-6 operation in league with DNC/HRC officials, not CIA, although CIA was
involved in Russiagate Cover-up.
In examining Russia's foreign policy, where were the compromises generated by this alleged
spy? Aside from the UNSC vote debacle on Libya, I see nothing but a string of successes,
although the Ukraine Coup wasn't debauched. IMO, Outlaw US Empire policy toward Russia has
failed spectacularly, and it is within the US government where I'd expect to find well placed
spies.
@35 turner.. no.. and no one here at moa believes anything out of the western msm either...
see @ 29 william gruff comment for more meaningful lingo on the set up..
Here's a tough problem for a counter-intelligence agent. Find the source of info for a
fictional report.
Normally, after a link, one avenue of investigation would be to check who had access to
the leaked information. But, if the report is completely fictional, then there is no list of
people who had access to information that didn't exist. Everyone or no one had equal access
to the non-existent information. The Tailor of Moscow had the same access to the non-existent
information as did Putin's closest personal aide. Who done it?
Ingérence russe :la CIA disposait d'une source haut-placée au Kremlin.
Russian collusion: CIA had high placed source at the Kremlin.
A lot of commentators see the incongruence of this title and make jokes about
it. Really, when a superpower becomes a source of jokes and ridicule, than the end might be
nigh.
Evidence-free accusations of Russian meddling. Now with extra sauce.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
We don't really know WHY this spy was extracted. Anyone that believes that Russiagate was
deliberately planned as part of the new Cold War is not surprised at yet another attempt to
strengthen the nonexistent case for Russian meddling.
The first report in US Press about Putin personally involved was on Dec 14 2016.
Two senior officials with direct access to the information say new intelligence shows that
Putin personally directed how hacked material from Democrats was leaked and otherwise used.
The intelligence came from diplomatic sources and spies working for U.S. allies, the
officials said.
Putin's objectives were multifaceted, a high-level intelligence source told NBC News.
What began as a "vendetta" against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show
corruption in American politics and to "split off key American allies by creating the image
that [other countries] couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore,"
the official said.
Notice the source is spies working for US Allies. Remember that the NSA did not sign off on the Russian interference/hacking because they
were concerned that too much critical info rested on intelligence from a single foreign
country.
Sergei Skripal was not just an turncoat for UK he also worked for Estonian intelligence.
It seems to me the poisoning fits better as an Estonian job, to keep relations in Europe with
Russia in very bad shape. It's easy to say that the Russians wouldn't be so incompetent, also
goes for the UK, which could have come up with something more compelling if they pre planned
it as false flag.
Notice how we have some sources saying concern grew after the Trump Putin meeting, where
supposedly Trump gave Israeli intelligence to Putin on Syria, I think they were concerned
Trump would have no problem revealing a spy for another government, much like he was free
with foreign intelligence.
I don't think the exfiltration was the real source but someone to sacrifice, to protect
the real source, who is working for Estonian intelligence. To me this seems like it is
possibly Anton Vaino, Chief of Staff of the Kremlin since August 2016, Deputy Chief of Staff
of Kremlin before that. This is not to say his info is accurate, but is in line with the
foreign policy of Estonia to alienate everyone with Russia.
Just out of curiousity, if what has been reported is true then what reason would Mueller have
to exclude this from his report? The dude is proof of the Russia-did-it!! narrative. Check.The dude has already been extracted. Check. The Russians must have already noticed that he has done a runner. Check.
What would stop Mueller from producing a one-paragraph report that starts with: "we know
the following to be true because for the last decade everything that Putin did was being
relayed to us by an aide to the foreign policy advisor to the Kremlin, since extracted and
now living in the USA".
I call it a red herring, and I bet this sucker has been fully set up. Publicly listed address
and all the indicators are that he is held in reserve to throw to the dogs whenever the
action gets too close to the mongrel perpetrators.
Joe Mifsud and Claire Smith of MI6, Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS, especially FBI special
agent Joseph Pientka plus that BIG shot FBI agent (who's name I forget) are the names to
remember. Why aren't Misud and Smith extradited to face inquiry?
So what is emerging? is Mueller due in court to prosecute the Russian ad agency that has
fully shirt fronted him? Is Flynn business about to upend a steaming pot of turds over
Mueller and other heads. Is Seth Rich about to be posthumously knighted by some New York
monarch for his role in smashing the HRC cart in public? Or is Julian Assange about to be put
through more torture for being a journalist and publisher?
This poor Russian sod is a patsy for the vicious deep state game that now needs to prey on
him and deliver his carcass to the howling mob and so distract them again. This Friday's
quiet press releases might hold a clue.
This guy will probably be making the rounds on CNN and cable news promoting the Steele
dossier and the Russian collusion hoax as its complete disintegration is now fully evident.
Offer up some turds on a plate, dress it up with a pinch a parsley and the truth will be
avoided.
The whole 2 year media storm of lies on Russian collusion will be avoided by offering up
another turd on a plate. This guy will pull down a few million and the media will never admit
their false reporting.
It would seem that a great deal has certainly changed at the CIA since 2003 when Valerie
Plame was revealed as a spy by a newspaper journalist who was given the information about her
during a phone conversation with someone close to the White House at the time, apparently to
punish her ambassador husband Joseph Wilson for going to Niger to verify if that country had
exported uranium to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Then there was shock and anger at the time that
the cover of a CIA operative had been blown.
Now the CIA doesn't even bother to give Smolenkov and his family new identities and
biographies to explain their living in Washington DC, and even co-operates with the outgoing
Obama administration in 2016 in risking the exposure of one of its own to try to stop Donald
Trump from ensconcing himself in the White House.
Something certainly has changed in the culture of the CIA: while it was always a political
animal, it is becoming an extremely ideological one as well.
The idea that this could be a fake spy is interesting.
Sabine wrote:
fuck are you guys not tired of this bullshit kabuki theatre that you get fed daily in order
to keep you amused and busy?
Only speaking for myself I ignore almost all of it (and actively treat it as propaganda,
deception, and manipulation) and take a lot of breaks. I test the waters (or sewage) from
time to time but I don't expect much and have no right to expect anything either.
However despite such sentiments the last decade seems like it has been an improvement
although too many people (and probably me as well) are searching for "replacements" to
failures when maybe there shouldn't be any: any false choice requires at least two wrong
answers but there could be any number .
In Bulgaria is a spy scandal too.
Reschetnikov is banned for ten years to visit Bulgaria. A reporter from NYT has tried to
interview him before steps are take in Bulgaria to investigate the case. The officials say
the Russians wanted to divert Bulgaria to the asia-project and that money-laundering was used
to finance subversive activities. The case started on 9.09 2019. Today the parliament heard
the statements of the agencies. Nothing new they sayed
Sounds fishy, the whole thing. Of course, when everyone is lying about everything while they
are pretending to fight with each other, it may well get a bit convoluted. CIA outing thrir
own dude on their own propaganda outlet is quite strange though. Also, their dude just
trotting about using his real name (in a publicly listed mansion no less),... ehh... Who
knows...
Of course, they could be trying to 'put him on the spot' to use him for yet another
propaganda push (whether he wants to play along, or not). But, again, the whole thing seems a
bit strange.
i would caution people here on patrick lang's views on this issue. remember he is an
existensialist american "patriot" who stop at nothing and will approve of any warcrime to
held up the mighty american empire. Look at patrick lang's history , he is ex intelligence
and thus never left the "services" even when he is "retired".
Pat lang's hate toward those who criticize american empire is legendary.. just look at his
own comments on SST.
another one to watch is patrick lang's friend called TTG which also US intelligence and it
is not unknown for this guy to post or inject nonsense narrative on SST especially on
intelligence matters concerning russia.
The posts that seems clean of US narrative lies seem to come from Publius Tacitus and
Walrus. But then again never take off your mandatory antipropaganda shield especially on SST
owned by ex spook who love the american empire and military trashing of the world
The following rumor (through sputniknews.com) is sort of educational even if it should
turn out to not be true (its Boolean value is essentially irrelevant which is interesting as
a separate matter as well):
Trump mistrusts spies etc .
It wasn't just shock. Scooter Libby, Cheney's (?) Chief of Staff, broke a federal law when
he exposed Valerie Palme as a CIA operative. He served part of a prison sentence for this.
Joseph Wilson verified that Saddam Hussein did not buy yellow cake. After his report was
ignored, he wrote an article about his findings. I remember reading it in the International
Herald Tribune. It put the WMD narrative in doubt.
The question why the USA intelligence agencies were "unaware" about Epstein activities is an interesting one. Similar question can
be asked about Hillary "activities" related to "Clinton cash".
Actually the way the USA elite deal with scandals is to ostracize any whistleblower and silence any media that tryt to dig the story.
Open repression including physical elimination is seldom used those days as indirect methods are quite effective.
Notable quotes:
"... Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall. ..."
"... If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom; 2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward; 3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell and surroundings were "broken." ..."
"... America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security) and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy. ..."
"... Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case. ..."
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
When you discover rot in an apparently sound structure, the first question is: how far has the rot penetrated? If the rot
has reached the foundation and turned it to mush, the structure is one wind-storm from collapse.
How deep has the rot of corruption, fraud, abuse of power, betrayal of the public trust, blatant criminality and insiders protecting
the guilty penetrated America's key public and private institutions? It's difficult to tell, as the law-enforcement and security
agencies are themselves hopelessly compromised.
If you doubt this, then please explain how 1) the NSA, CIA and FBI didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to, and with whom;
2) Epstein was free to pursue his sexual exploitation of minors for years prior to his wrist-slap conviction and for years afterward;
3) Epstein, the highest profile and most at-risk prisoner in the nation, was left alone and the security cameras recording his cell
and surroundings were "broken."
If this all strikes you as evidence that America's security and law-enforcement institutions are functioning at a level that's
above reproach, then 1) you're a well-paid shill who's protecting the guilty lest your own misdeeds come to light or 2) your
consumption of mind-bending meds is off the charts.
How deep has the rot gone in America's ruling elite? One way to measure the depth of the rot is to ask how whistleblowers
who've exposed the ugly realities of insider dealing, malfeasance, tax evasion, cover-ups, etc. have fared.
America's ruling class has crucified whistleblowers , especially those uncovering fraud in the defense (military-industrial-security)
and financial (tax evasion) sectors and blatant violations of public trust, civil liberties and privacy.
Needless to say, a factual accounting of corruption, cronyism, incompetence, self-serving exploitation of the many by the
few, etc. is not welcome in America. Look at the dearth of investigative resources America's corporate media is devoting to digging
down to the deepest levels of rot in the Epstein case.
The closer wrong-doing and wrong-doers are to protected power-elites, the less attention the mass media devotes to them.
... ... ...
Here are America's media, law enforcement/security agencies and "leadership" class: they speak no evil, see no evil and
hear no evil, in the misguided belief that their misdirection, self-service and protection of the guilty will make us buy the narrative
that America's ruling elite and all the core institutions they manage aren't rotten to the foundations.
Either we root out every last source of rot by investigating, indicting and jailing every wrong-doer and everyone who conspired
to protect the guilty in the Epstein case, or America will have sealed its final fall.
The main achievement of neoliberal and imperial (warmongering) propaganda in the USA is that it achieved the complete,
undisputed dominance in MSM
Pot Calling the Kettle Black: "The Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation machine is being unleashed via new platforms and continues to grow in Russia and
internationally. Russia seeks to destroy the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts as it attempts to influence opinions
about the United States and its allies. It is not an understatement to say that this new form of combat on the information battlefield
may be the fight of the 21st century."
Notable quotes:
"... Back in the 1960s, the CIA official Cord Meyer said the agency needed to "court the compatible left." ..."
"... The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary and intellectual elites. ..."
"... Then in 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire – “The CIA and the Media” – naming names of journalists and media (The New York Times, CBS, etc.) that worked hand-in-glove with the CIA, propagandizing the American people and the rest of the world. ..."
Back in the 1960s, the CIA official Cord Meyer said the agency needed to "court the compatible left."
Right-wing and left-wing collaborators were needed to create a powerful propaganda apparatus that would be capable of hypnotizing
audiences into believing the myth of American exceptionalism and its divine right to rule the world.
The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary and intellectual elites.
Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively covers this in her 1999 book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts
And Letters, and Joel Whitney followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers,
with particular emphasis on the complicity between the CIA and the famous literary journal, The Paris Review.
By the mid-1970s, as a result of the Church Committee hearings, it seemed as if the CIA, NSA, FBI, etc. had been caught in flagrante
delicto and disgraced, confessed their sins, and resolved to go and sin no more.
Then in 1977, Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire – “The CIA and the Media” – naming names of journalists and media
(The New York Times, CBS, etc.) that worked hand-in-glove with the CIA, propagandizing the American people and the rest of the world.
It seemed as if all would be hunky-dory now with the bad boys purged from the American “free” press. Seemed to the most naïve,
that is, by which I mean the vast numbers of people who wanted to re-stick their heads in the sand and believe, as Ronald Reagan’s
team of truthtellers would announce, that it was “Morning in America” again with the free press reigning and the neo-conservatives,
many of whom had been “converted” from their leftist views, running things in Washington.
USAGM provides consistently accurate and compelling journalism that reflects the values of our society: freedom, openness,
democracy, and hope. Our guiding principles—enshrined in law—are to provide a reliable, authoritative, and independent source
of news that adheres to the strictest standards of journalism…
Russian Disinformation. And make no mistake, we are living through a global explosion of disinformation, state propaganda,
and lies generated by multiple authoritarian regimes around the world. The weaponization of information we are seeing today is
real. The Russian government and other authoritarian regimes engage in far-reaching malign influence campaigns across national
boundaries and language barriers.
The Kremlin’s propaganda and disinformation machine is being unleashed via new platforms and continues to grow in Russia and
internationally. Russia seeks to destroy the very idea of an objective, verifiable set of facts as it attempts to influence opinions
about the United States and its allies. It is not an understatement to say that this new form of combat on the information battlefield
may be the fight of the 21st century.
Then research the history of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Voice of America, Radio and Television Marti, etc. You will
be reassured that Lansing’s July testimony was his job interview to head National Propaganda Radio.
Edward Curtin writes, and his writing on varied topics has appeared widely over many years. He writes as a public
intellectual for the general public, not as a specialist for a narrow readership. He believes a non-committal sociology is an
impossibility and therefore sees all his work as an effort to enhance human freedom through understanding. His website is
edwardcurtin.com
"... The "report" was his work. Mueller never looked for anything, never found anything and never wrote anything. ..."
"... The entire charade was part of the "resistance" to straight jacket Trump until the mid term elections, a strategy put in motion by Comey and Brennan, which achieved the desired result: Republicans lost the House. ..."
"... Of course there was "little Russia in Russiagate." The narrative was all disinformation set loose by Crowdstrike and Fusion GPS, paid for by Hillary and the DNC with the blessing of President Obama. Welcome to the tin foil hat brigade as contributor. ..."
Officially, at least in the FBI's version, its operation "Crossfire Hurricane," the
counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign that began in mid-2016 was due to
suspicious remarks made to visitors by a young and lowly Trump aide, George Papadopoulos. This
too is not believable, as I pointed out previously .
Most of those visitors themselves had ties to Western intelligence agencies. That is, the young
Trump aide was being enticed, possibly entrapped, as part of a larger intelligence operation
against Trump. (Papadopoulos wasn't the only Trump associate targeted, Carter Page being
another.)
But the question remains: Why did Western intelligence agencies, prompted, it seems clear,
by US ones, seek to undermine Trump's presidential campaign? A reflexive answer might be
because candidate Trump promised to "cooperate with Russia," to pursue a pro-détente
foreign policy, but this was hardly a startling, still less subversive, advocacy by a would-be
Republican president. All of the major pro-détente episodes in the 20th century had been
initiated by Republican presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.
So, again, what was it about Trump that so spooked the spooks so far off their rightful
reservation and so intrusively into American presidential politics? Investigations being
overseen by Attorney General William Barr may provide answers -- or not.
... ... ...
It is true, of course, that Barr and Durham, as Trump appointees, are not the ideal
investigators of Intel misdeeds in the Russiagate saga. Much better would be a truly
bipartisan, independent investigation based in the Senate, as was the Church Committee of the
mid-1970s, which exposed and reformed (it thought at the time) serious abuses by US
intelligence agencies. That would require, however, a sizable core of nonpartisan, honorable,
and courageous senators of both parties, who thus far seem to be lacking.
There are also, however, the ongoing and upcoming Democratic presidential debates. First and
foremost, Russiagate is about the present and future of the American political system, not
about Russia. (Indeed, as I have repeatedly argued, there is very little, if any, Russia in
Russiagate.) At every "debate" or comparable forum, all of the Democratic candidates should be
asked about this grave threat to American democracy -- what they think about what happened and
would do about it if elected president. Consider it health care for our democracy.
"former special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of "collusion."
Let me unpack that for you, esteemed professor: RM was "special counsel" in name only. The
real boss was Andrew Weissman. The "report" was his work. Mueller never looked for
anything, never found anything and never wrote anything.
The entire charade was part of the "resistance" to straight jacket Trump until the mid
term elections, a strategy put in motion by Comey and Brennan, which achieved the desired
result: Republicans lost the House.
Of course there was "little Russia in Russiagate." The narrative was all disinformation
set loose by Crowdstrike and Fusion GPS, paid for by Hillary and the DNC with the blessing of
President Obama. Welcome to the tin foil hat brigade as contributor.
"everyone in journalism appears completely untroubled by the complete paucity of information
that an organisation which troubles them"
Robert Parry's pieces on perception management. They come up by putting perception
management in the site search at Consortium News. Parry read through the Reagan papers.
"Declassified documents now reveal how extensive Reagan's propaganda project became with
inter-agency task forces assigned to develop "themes" that would push American "hot
buttons.""
But things were about to change. In a Jan. 13, 1983, memo, NSC Advisor Clark foresaw the
need for non-governmental money to advance this cause. "We will develop a scenario for
obtaining private funding," Clark wrote. (Just five days later, President Reagan personally
welcomed media magnate Rupert Murdoch into the Oval Office for a private meeting, according
to records on file at the Reagan library.)
As administration officials reached out to wealthy supporters, lines against domestic
propaganda soon were crossed as the operation took aim not only at foreign audiences but at
U.S. public opinion, the press and congressional Democrats who opposed funding the Nicaraguan
Contras." https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/28/the-victory-of-perception-management/
From mind control to murder? How a deadly fall revealed the CIA's darkest secrets -
Stephen Kinzer/Guardian
I read about that a year or so ago. In one of the North Korea threads, someone posted some
links to the Erik Olson website, in connection with the use of biological weapons in North
Korea.
If I remember correctly there was a very detailed pdf report, maybe published by or on
behalf of Erik Olson, about Frank Olson's death and the circumstances leading to it.
It was a lot more detailed about some of the areas whitewashed by the Guardian article,
such as connections between his trips to Germany and his realization that germ warfare was
being used in North Korea, and also more about the Porton Down war criminal William
Sargant.
Meet American Empire's 'Doctor Death'
Stephen Kinzer's new book shows how Greatest Generation spooks justified their horrific experiments on
unwitting Americans.
By
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos
•
September 10, 2019
In the 1962 film
adaptation of Richard Condon's
The Manchurian Candidate,
a diabolical North Korean doctor named Yen Lo tells Staff Sergeant Raymond Shaw to "pass the time with a little
solitaire." These trigger words, accompanied by a Queen of Diamonds playing card, prompts the lanky soldier to get up,
and when instructed, brutally kill two of his own comrades sitting on the stage, both of whom appear under the same
trance as Raymond.
Later, we find out this was not a dream but a real test of Shaw's programming through
elaborate mind control, undertaken before he is sent home to the United States as a sleeper agent for a Communist Party
cell, led by his own mother. "His brain has not only been washed, as they say, but cleaned," declares a gleeful Dr. Lo.
"The Manchurian Candidate" (1962, Universal Artists)
The film
was released when the country was in a state of high Cold War anxiety. The idea that the Communists were deep into
finding a way to brainwash and program individuals to deploy as weapons of war was not new, of course. It was just
finding its way into the increasingly paranoid popular culture. But what Americans did not know was that our own
government was in part responsible for those stories as a cover for their own brainwashing experiments, which were
racing along at the speed of a freight train.
Advertisement
In 1953,
Allen Dulles
told a group of fellow Princeton alumni that the U.S. was far behind the Russians and North Koreans in "brain warfare."
He warned of a mind control gap that would likely grow because "we in the West..have no human guinea pigs to try these
extraordinary techniques."
This was a lie of breathtaking proportions. For several years, his CIA had already
been conducting extreme experiments on unwitting "human guinea pigs" at black sites in France, Germany, and South Korea.
Shortly after he broadcast this cynical lament to the Princeton lads, he approved MK-ULTRA, the most illicit and morally
corrupt intelligence program in American history (that we know of). In it, the CIA tested a stomach roiling variety of
unregulated drugs, electro-shock, sensory deprivation, and other extreme techniques on unwitting souls across the United
States -- in "safe houses," prisons, psychiatric hospitals, doctors' offices -- even in the CIA itself. People died, went
crazy, or withered away in a vegetative state, often with little or no clue of what had happened to them.
In
Poisoner in Chief,
released today, journalist and author Stephen Kinzer makes Dr. Sidney Gottlieb the manifestation of the U.S.
government's Cold War obsession with winning, its warped moral compass, and its utter disregard for the law. From 1951
to the late 1960s, under Dulles' protection, Gottlieb was the principal player in what can only be called a maniacal
mission to find the perfect drug to destroy/control/reprogram the human mind (he believed, though he was never able to
prove, that the drug was LSD).
Gottlieb was also the chief scientist in a CIA program that developed poisons with
which to assassinate world leaders (failed attempts included Cuba's Fidel Castro and Congolese Prime Minister Patrice
Lumumba), tested aerosol-delivered germs and deadly gases, and honed extreme torture techniques. He's been called Dr.
Death, Washington's "official poisoner," and a mad scientist. But "Sidney Gottlieb" never became a household name,
mostly because he never paid for his crimes. Thanks to Deep State politics, statutes of limitations, a great lawyer, and
depressingly weak congressional investigators, Gottlieb was able to take the worst of his secrets to the grave in 1999.
Now, pulling together a trove of existing research, newly unearthed documents, and
fresh interviews, Kinzer puts the fetid corpus of American Empire back under a microscope. It isn't pretty -- but it is
instructive.
"Commitment to a cause provides the ultimate justification for immoral acts.
Patriotism is the most seductive of those causes," Kinzer surmises in an attempt to give context to Gottlieb and Dulles,
and Gottlieb's closest patron and conspirator,
Richard Helms,
who served as CIA chief after
Dulles and during the later years of MK-ULTRA.
"Some do things they know are wrong for what they consider good reasons," Kinzer
continued. "No one else of Gottlieb's generation, however, had the government-given power to do so many things that were
so profoundly and horrifically wrong. No other American -- at least, none that we know of -- ever wielded such terrifying
life-or-death power while remaining so completely invisible."
With so much material to work with,
Poisoner
in Chief
is a parade of outrages. But by the time the twisted calliope falls
silent, two major themes are left to contemplate.
First, Gottlieb did not emerge in a vacuum but in the primordial ooze of moral
justification following World War II. While America was putting its public virtue on display during the
Nuremberg trials
, the army under the Joint Intelligence
Objectives Agency was courting Nazi scientists who had been involved in the most grotesque human experimentation
imaginable during the war. Their expertise in biological warfare and psychoactive drugs was highly prized. The Americans
had to make sure, after all, that the commies didn't get to them first.
So under
Operation
Paperclip
, the army "bleached" their records and brought these men in among several hundred other scientists,
engineers, and technicians who served the Third Reich. Instead of prison, they were settled into comfortable obscurity
in suburban Washington, working for the U.S. government.
For those whose crimes were not so easily scrubbed, the army found ways to collaborate
with them overseas in even less controlled environs. Like
Kurt Blome
, a Nazi scientist who deliberately
infected prisoners with deadly viruses, including the plague, at the Auschwitz concentration camp and other sites. After
saving him from the gallows at Nuremburg, officials quietly installed him in the European Command Intelligence Center at
Oberursel, West Germany -- otherwise known as "Camp King" -- to conduct more experiments, but on our side.
The same went for Japanese scientist
Shiro Ishi,
who was
reportedly responsible for some 10,000 deaths in and around his
Manchurian complex called
Unit 731 during the war. His ghastly activities included everything from slow-roasting test subjects with electricity,
to amputating limbs and dissecting people alive to monitor their slow deaths. At one point, he lined up naked Chinese
women and children to see how long they would live after being struck by shrapnel in the buttocks. He also created tons
of anthrax that was later used to kill thousands of Chinese civilians.
But instead of bringing this monster to justice, U.S. agents granted Ishi and his
Japanese collaborators immunity and obtained all of his research on how toxins affect the body -- including all of the
tissue slides from people whose organs were taken out while they were still alive. "Scientists at Camp Detrick
(Maryland) were delighted," Kinzer writes.
"Thus did the man responsible for directing the dissection of thousands of living prisoners escape punishment," he
adds, noting that Ishi and his minions were deployed to U.S. detention centers in East Asia, where they "helped
Americans conceive and carry out experiments on human subjects that could not legally be conducted in the United States.
Secondly, Kinzer highlights how easily American government officials adopted their
former wartime foes' detached, ruthless approach to human experimentation, embarking without guidance or oversight on
what appears to be a fanatical quest without consequences. At a time when many Americans were zooming to suburbia in
search of "Leave it to Beaver," Gottlieb was hiring people like George White, straight out of
"The Sweet Smell of Success."
White was "a hard charging narcotics detective who lived large in the twilight world
of crime and drugs" writes Kinzer. In 1953 he started setting up "safe houses" in New York and San Francisco where he
would use pay hoodlums and prostitutes in drugs and dough to dose unsuspecting subjects with increasing amounts of LSD
at "parties" while the CIA peeped the action from two-way mirrors outfitted with cameras.
Meanwhile, Gottlieb gave tons of cash and LSD to doctors like Harris Isbell at the
Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky. "Officially this center was a hospital, but it functioned more like a
prison," writes Kizner. "Most inmates were African American from the margins of society. They were unlikely to complain
if abused."
And abused they were, like most of the test subjects at the prison programs financed
by the CIA. If they were told they were part of a test (agreement was typically in exchange for something, like good
behavior credits or high grade heroin), they weren't told what kind of drugs they were given or how much. Many of the
experiments involved dosing subjects with greater and greater amounts of LSD over long periods of time. Gottlieb wanted
to see at what point the mind would dissolve. "He was pleased to have secured a supply of 'expendables' across the
United States," Kinzer notes.
Certainly his test subjects at the CIA interrogation cites overseas were "expendable."
Kinzer offers a number of cases in which foreign detainees, usually suspected spies, were given massive amounts of
different drugs "to see if their minds could be altered." Others were given electro shock. They were later killed, "and
their bodies burned."
Then there were the seemingly random tragedies. Like art student Stanley Glickman who
was believed to be drugged directly by Gottlieb while at a Paris cafe in 1952, and then taken into a hospital where more
"testing" occurred. It was the end of "his productive life," writes Kinzer. Glickman died alone and mentally ill in New
York city several decades later. Or Frank Olson, a CIA scientist who "fell or jumped" from a Manhattan hotel window
after being unwittingly dosed at a "retreat" hosted by Gottlieb a week earlier. Though his family tried, they were never
able to pin his strange death on Gottlieb or the government.
"A Clockwork Orange" (Warner Bros./1971)
Kinzer shows that sometimes paranoia comes from a very real place -- that Big Brother was
not only watching, but for nearly 20 years he was drugging and testing germs and other toxins on unsuspecting Americans
like they were laboratory animals. And Gottlieb, Dulles, and Helms were no fictional spawn of an over-active
imagination. They were highly respected and powerful men with a combined 105 years of government service. They
were
the
system.
So how do we digest this today? We can start by acknowledging that the ends will
always justify the means because the government always gets away with it. And we are still living with the effects. The
torture techniques set into motion in the 1950's, for example, later surfaced in the dark corners of the
Phoenix Program
in Vietnam, and more recently in the dirty cells of
Abu Ghraib detention center.
Indeed, with a head full of Red Menace and lord knows what else, these so-called
stalwart men of the "Greatest Generation" pounded the earth as though America owned the world. Perhaps it did. American
Empire had many faces during the Cold War, and thanks to Kinzer, Sidney Gottlieb is one you shouldn't forget.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is
e
xecutive
editor at
.
Follow her on Twitter
@Vlahos_at_TAC
Here are just some of the twists and turns in the case, which has gone on for more than
three years.
Flynn's trip to Russia in 2015, where it was claimed Flynn went without the knowledge or
approval of the DIA or anyone in Washington,
was proven not to be true .
Flynn was suspected of being compromised by a supposed Russian agent, Cambridge academic
Svetlana Lokhova, based on allegations from Western intelligence asset Stefan Halper.
This was also proven to be not true.
The very strange post-dated FD-302 form on the FBI's January 2017 interview of Flynn that
wasn't filled out until August 2017, almost seven months afterward, is
revealed in a court filing by Flynn's defense team .
FBI agent Pientka became the
"DOJ's Invisible Man," despite the fact that Congress has repeatedly called for him to
testify. Pientka has remained out of sight and out of mind more than a year and a half since
his name first surfaced in connection with the Flynn case.
Now, it's not that far-fetched of an idea that the Mueller special counsel prosecutors would
hide exculpatory evidence from the Flynn defense team, since they've just admitted to having
done exactly that in another case their
office has been prosecuting .
The defense team for Internet Research Agency/Concord, more popularly known as "the Russian
troll farm case," hasn't been smooth going for the Mueller prosecutors.
Then, in a
filing submitted to the court on Aug. 30, the IRA/Concord defense team alerted Judge
Friedrich that the prosecutors just got around to handing them key evidence the prosecutors had
for the past 18 months. The prosecution gave no explanation whatsoever as to why they hid this
key evidence for more than a year.
It's hard to see at this point how the entire IRA/Concord case isn't tossed out.
What would it mean for Flynn's prosecutors to have been caught hiding exculpatory evidence
from him and his lawyers, even after the presiding judge explicitly ordered them in February to
hand over everything they had?
It would mean that the Flynn case is tossed out, since the prosecution team was caught
engaging in gross misconduct.
Now you can see why Flynn refused to withdraw his guilty plea when Judge Sullivan gave him
the opportunity to do so in late December 2018.
A withdrawal of the guilty plea or a pardon would let the Mueller prosecution team off the
hook.
And they're not getting off the hook.
Flynn hired the best lawyer he possibly could have when it comes to exposing prosecutorial
misconduct. Nobody knows the crafty, corrupt, and dishonest tricks federal prosecutors use
better than Powell, who actually wrote a compelling book about such matters, entitled "
License to Lie: Exposing
Corruption in the Department of Justice ."
Everything this Mueller prosecution team did in withholding exculpatory evidence from
Flynn's defense team -- and continued to withhold even after Judge Sullivan specifically issued
an order about it -- is going to be fully exposed.
Defying a federal judge's Brady order is a one-way ticket to not only getting fired, it's a
serious enough offense to warrant disbarment and prosecution.
If it turns out Mueller special counsel prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence -- not
only in the IRA/Concord case, but also in the cases against Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael
Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and others -- that will have a huge impact.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn't they do the
same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven't they have already demonstrated they
are willing to break the rules? Tags
We have become a third-world country. Even throwing Mueller and his entire prosecutors'
team in jail would not be enough to restore confidence in our legal system. But it would be a
start.
On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential
Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the
Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss
what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that
call, FLYNN and 2 Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 4 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 6 the PTT
official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on
the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed
that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to
escalate the situation. d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN
called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only
respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner. e. Shortly after his phone call with
the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his
call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions. f. On or
about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating
that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that
time. g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him
that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN's request. h. After his phone
call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential
Transition Team about FL YNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S.
Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
The coup plot between the international intelligence community (which includes our
FBI-CIA-etc) and their unregistered foreign agents in the multinational corporate media is
slowly being revealed.
Here’s another possibility... elites in the US Gov set on running a soft coup
against a duly elected president and his team made up a whole pile of **** and passed it off
as truth.
The Manafort thing has me totally riled since HRC's "Password" guy and his brother were
PARTNERS with manafort, did the same damn things, and were NOT investigated.
Donald Trump is many things to many people, but is not his social personna to be patient.
He is being VERY patient to let this unfold, to "give a man enough rope" or political party
and its owner, as it may be....
Donna Brazile's book is under-rated: it holds they keys as to who ran the DNC and why
after Obie bailed.
Our local community rag (Vermont) had an opinion piece last week about "The slide towards
Facism", where the author breathlessly stated that she had learned from a MSNBC expose by
Rachel Maddow that the administration was firing researchers at NASA and EPA as well as
cutting back funding for LGBTQ support groups. Oh the horror. The author conveniently forgot
that the same dyke had lied for 2 years about Russia,Russia,Russia but it's still OK to
believe any **** that drops out of her mouth.
This is the level of insanity happening around here. Of course it is Bernie's turf.
People who are so stupid and gullible deserve everything they are gonna get.
Poor Flynn. Rail-roaded by ZOG and Obama and Hillary and Co. I hope beyond hope that the
truth is revealed and that he can sue the **** out of the seditionists/(((seditionists))) who
put him into this mess such that his great-great-grandchildren will never have to work.
I also blame Trump for throwing Flynn under the bus.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn’t they
do the same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven’t they have already
demonstrated they are willing to break the rules?
Duh! Because it's easy and the media never covers it and AG Barr and FBI director Wray
will cover it all up. America no longer operates under rule of law, and now we all know it.
Never cooperate with them!
flynn didn't rape children, to buzy trying to fight liberators of iraq and afganistan from
invasion... that's his major crime.
I guess, kelly, mattis, mcmaster neither are on the child rape trend. but what can they
do? when the entire cia and doj and fbi are full on controlled and run by the pedos? it's
like when all the cardinals and the pope are pedos, what a bishop to do...
Why would CIA Rothschild'd up puppet Trump pick only the best William Barr?
Who told Acosta to cut no prosecution deal with Epstein? George Bush? Robert Mukasey? or
Bob Mueller?
Trump, Barr, Bush, Mueller all on the same no rule of law national no government
pys op , for Epstein & 9/11 clean op team Poppa Bush, Clinton, &
Mossad.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr’s youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA’s
“legal office” and Bush’s inner circle, and worked alongside Bush’s
longtime CIA enforcers Theodore “Ted” Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines,
and others, several of whom were likely involved with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy
assassination, and numerous southeast Asian operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden
Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice
presidency (under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief
Legal Counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the
legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure
or arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal
organizations”, drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr
would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use
Justice Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush’s illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate
world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies.
In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law
firm Kirkland
& Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John
Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E’s clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt
Romney’s Bain Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
there is a war on america, and the DoD and men like flynn are too arrogant, dumb, and
proud to admit they have been fucked and conned deeply by men way smarter than them...
we don't need ******* brains, but killers to wage this revolution against the american
pedostate.
and that, what they master, they don't want to do.
if they want money, they should have learned to trade and not kill...
"... Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I’m wondering why it’s that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. ..."
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2343&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2018%2F01%2Fcia-bull-glenn-simpsons-russia-shop.html
<img src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
The CIA Bull
in Glenn Simpson's Russia Shop Posted on January 22,
2018 by Jerri-Lynn ScofieldBy
John Helmer , the longest
continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct
his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a
professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United
States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy
Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with
Bears
In criminal trials the rule for prosecuting and defending lawyers is the same. Never ask a
witness a question unless you already know the answer. The corollary rule for defending lawyers
is – if the answer to your question will incriminate your client, don't ask it, and hope
the prosecutor fails to do his job.
Glenn Simpson, a former employee of the Wall Street Journal in New York, is currently on
trial in the US for having fabricated a dossier of allegations of Russian misconduct (bribes,
sex, blackmail, hacking) involving President Donald Trump and circulating them to the press;
the objective was to damage Trump's candidacy before the election of November 8, 2016. Simpson
was called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on August 22, 2017; then the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on November 8 and again on November 14, 2017. So
far, Simpson's veracity and business conduct face nothing more than the court of public
opinion. He has not yet been charged with criminal or civil offences. That will happen if the
evidence materializes that Simpson has been lying.
Simpson's collaborator in the dossier and his business partner, Christopher Steele, is
facing trial in the London High Court, charged with libels he and Simpson published in their
dossier. Together, they are material witnesses in two federal US court trials for defamation,
one in Miami and one in New York. If they perjure themselves giving evidence in those cases,
they are likely to face criminal indictments. If they tell the truth, they are likely to face
fresh defamation proceedings; perhaps a civil racketeering suit for fraud; maybe a false
statement prosecution under the US criminal code.
One question for them is as obvious as its answer. Who do an American ex-journalist on US
national security and an ex-British intelligence agent go to for sources on Russian undercover
operations outside Russia in general, the US in particular? Answer -- first, their friends and
contacts from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); second, their friends and contacts from
the Secret Intelligence Service or MI6, as the UK counterpart is known.
Why then did the twenty-two congressmen, the members of the House Intelligence Committee who
subpoenaed Simpson for interview, fail to pursue what information he and Steele received either
directly from the CIA or indirectly through British intelligence?
The answer noone in the US wants to say aloud is the possibility that it was the CIA which
provided Simpson and Steele with names and source materials for their dossier, creating the
evidence of a Russian plot against the US election, and generating evidence of Russian
operations. If that is what happened, then Simpson and Steele were participants in a false-flag
CIA operation in US politics.
This isn't idle speculation. It has been under investigation at the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) since Simpson and Steele decided in mid-2016 to go to the FBI to request an
investigation, and then told American press to get the FBI to confirm it was investigating. At
the fresh request this month from the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI is
still
investigating .
Simpson's appearance at the House Intelligence Committee was the sequel to his testimony
before the Senate Judiciary Committee; for that story, read this .
Simpson's three lawyers from the Washington, DC, firm of Cunningham Levy Muse, who appeared with him at the Senate and House committee hearings. From left to right, Robert Muse; Joshua Levy, and Rachel Clattenburg.
The firm's other name partner, Bryan Cunningham, was a CIA officer specializingin cyber operations.
The transcripts of the House Intelligence Committee were released last Thursday. Simpson's
first appearance was on November 8, and can be read in full here
.
Simpson's lawyers did all the talking; Simpson said nothing, pleading the US Constitution's
Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate himself.
Although his lawyers repeatedly claimed during the earlier Senate Committee hearing that
Simpson was testifying voluntarily, the House Committee recorded that Simpson was compelled to
testify. "Our record today," the November 8 transcript begins, "will reflect that you have been
compelled to appear today pursuant to a subpoena issued on October 4th, 2017." Simpson then
told the Committee through his lawyers that he would plead the Fifth Amendment and not answer
any questions. The first transcript is a record of debate between Republican and Democratic
members of the Committee.
This resulted in an agreement for Simpson to testify under the subpoena but on terms his
lawyers said would limit the scope of the questions which he would agree to answer.
Steele, according to the November 8 transcript, was also summoned to testify. A British
citizen with home in Berkshire and office in London, he refused and the Committee recorded his
"noncooperation and nontestimony."
Republicans outnumber Democrats on the House Committee, 13 to 9. Just 5 Republican members
were at Simpson's November 14 appearance; 7 Democrats. The Republican committee chairman, Devin
Nunes, was absent. Release of Simpson's transcript was an initiative of the Democrats. In a
statement by their leader on the committee, Adam Schiff, the Democrats claimed
last week "thus far, Committee Republicans have refused to look into this key area and we hope
the release of this transcript will reinforce the importance of these critical questions to our
investigation."
Members of the House Intelligence Committee on the podium at an open hearing inNovember 2017. From left to right: Adam Schiff (D), Michael Conaway (R),and Thomas Rooney (R).
Search the 165 pages of the transcript for the CIA, and you will find many references to the
letters, C, I and A – spe cia lize, so cia l, commer cia l, espe cia lly, asso cia tion,
finan cia l and politi cia n. There were 44 mentions of the Federal Bureau of Intelligence
(FBI); 4 mentions of "British Intelligence" – the spy agency to which Steele belonged ten
years ago – one mention each of the Israeli Mossad, the Chinese and Indian intelligence
services.
According to Simpson, "foreign intelligence services hacking American political operations
is not that unusual, actually, and there's a lot of foreign intelligence services that play in
American elections." He mentioned the Chinese and the Indians, not the Israelis. The Mossad,
Simpson did tell the Committee, was his source for his belief that Russian intelligence has
been operating through the Jewish Orthodox Chabad movement, and the Russian Orthodox Church.
"The Orthodox church is also an arm of the Russian State now the Mossad guys used to tell me
about how the Russians were laundering money through the Orthodox church in Israel, and that it
was intelligence operations."
There are just two references in the Committee transcript to the CIA. One was a passing
remark to imply the Russians cannot "break[ing] into the CIA, [so instead] you are breaking
into, you know, places where, you know, an open society leaves open."
The second was a bombshell. It dropped during questioning by Congressman Thomas Rooney
(right), a 3-term Republican
representative from Florida with a career as an army lawyer. Rooney asked Simpson: "Do you or
anyone else independently verify or corroborate any information in the dossier?"
Simpson replied by saying, "Yes. Well, numerous things in the dossier have been verified.
You know, I don't have access to the intelligence or law enforcement information that I see
made reference to, but, you know, things like, you know, the Russian Government has been
investigating Hillary Clinton and has a lot of information about her."
Then Simpson contradicted himself, disclosing what he had just denied. "When the original
memos came in saying that the Kremlin was mounting a specific operation to get Donald Trump
elected President , that was not what the Intelligence Community was saying. The Intelligence
Community was saying they are just seeking to disrupt our election and our political process,
and that this is sort of kind of just a generally nihilistic, you know, trouble-making
operation. And, you know, Chris turned out to be right, it was specifically designed to elect
Donald Trump President."
How did Simpson know with such confidence what the "Intelligence Community" was "saying",
and who were Simpson's and Steele's sources in the "Intelligence Community"? Rooney failed to
inquire. Instead, he and Simpson exchanged question and answer regarding the approach Simpson
and Steele made to the FBI when they delivered their dossier. In the details of that, Simpson
repeated what he had already told the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rooney then asked what contact had been made with the CIA or "any other intelligence
officials". Simpson claimed he didn't understand the question at first, then he stumbled.
What Simpson was concealing in the two pauses, reported in the transcript as hyphens, Rooney
did not realize. Simpson was implying that noone from Fusion GPS, his consulting company, had
been in contact with the CIA, nor him personally. But Simpson left open that Steele had been in
contact with the CIA. Rooney followed with a question about "anyone", but that was so
imprecise, Simpson recovered his confidence to say "No". That was a cover-up – and the
House Intelligence Committee let it drop noiselessly.
Intelligence community sources and colleagues who know Simpson and Steele say Simpson was
notorious at the Wall Street Journal for coming up with conspiracy theories for which the
evidence was missing or unreliable. He told the Committee that disbelief on the part of his
editors and management had been one of his reasons for leaving the newspaper. "One of the
reasons why I left the Wall Street Journal was because I wanted to write more stories about
Russian influence in Washington, D.C., on both the Democrats and the Republicans eventually the
Journal lost interest in that subject. And I was frustrated that was where I left my journalism
career."
Left: Glenn Simpson reporter for the Wall Street Journal in 1996, promoting his book, Dirty Little Secrets: The Persistence of Corruption in American Politics. Right: Simpson in Washington in August 2017.
When Simpson was asked "do you – did you find anything to -- that you verified as
false in the dossier, since or during?" Simpson replied: "I have not seen anything – ".
Note the hypthen, the stenographer's signal that Simpson was pausing.
"[Question]. So everything in that dossier, as far as you're concerned, is true or could be
true?"
"MR. SIMPSON: I didn't say that. What I said was it was credible at the time it came in. We
were able to corroborate various things that supported its credibility."
Sources in London are divided on the question of where Steele's sources came from –
CIA, MI6, or elsewhere. What has been clear for the year in which the dossier's contents have
been in public circulation is that the sources the dossier referred to as "Russian" were not.
For details of the
sourcing . The subsequent identification of the Maltese source Joseph Mifsud, and the
Greek-American George Papadopoulos, corroborates their lack of
direct Russian sources. Instead, the sources identified in the dossier were either
Americans, Americans of Russian ethnic origin, or Russians with no direct knowledge repeating
hearsay three or four times removed from source.
So were the allegations of the dossier manufactured by a CIA disinformation unit, and fed
back to the US through the British agent, Steele? Or were they a Simpson conspiracy theory of
the type that failed to pass veracity testing when Simpson was at the Wall Street Journal? The
House Intelligence Committee failed to inquire.
One independent clue is what financial and other links Simpson and Steele and their
consulting firms, Fusion GPS and Orbis Business Intelligence, have had with US Government
agencies other than the FBI, and what US Government contracts they were paid for, before the
Republican and Democratic Party organizations commissioned the anti-Trump job?
The House Committee has subpoenaed business records from Fusion, but Simpson's lawyers say
they will refuse to hand them over. The financial records of Steele's firm are openly
accessible through the UK government company registry, Companies House. Click to read
here .
Because the Trump dossier work ran from the second half of 2015 to November 2016, the
financial reports of Orbis for the financial years ending March 31, 2016, and March 31, 2017,
are the primary sources. For FY 2016 and FY 2017, open this link to read.
The papers reveal that Orbis was a small firm with no more than 7 employees. Steele's
business partner and co-shareholder, Christopher Burrows, is another former MI6 spy. They had
been hoping for MI6 support of their private business, but it failed to materialize, says an
London intelligence source. "Chris Burrows is another from the same background. They all hope
to be Hakluyt [a leading commercial intelligence operation in London] but didn't get the nod on
departure."
Left: Christopher Steele; right, Christopher Burrows.
They do not report the Orbis income. Instead, for 2016 the company filings indicate
£155,171 in cash at the bank, and income of £245,017 owed by clients and
contractors. Offsetting that figure, Orbis owed £317,848 – to whom and for what
purposes is not reported. The unaudited accounts show Orbis's profit jumped from £121,046
in 2015 to £199,223 in 2016, and £441,089 in 2017.
The financial data are complicated by the operation by Steele and Burrows of a second
company, Orbis Business Intelligence International, a subsidiary they created in 2010, a year
after the parent company was formed. Follow its affairs here .
According to British press reports ,
Orbis and Steele were paid £200,000 for the dossier. Simpson told the House Intelligence
Committee the sum was much less -- $160,000 (about £114,000). Simpson's firm, he also
testified, was being paid at a rate of about $50,000 per month for a total of about $320,000.
If the British sources are more accurate than Simpson's testimony, Steele's takings from the
dossier represented roughly half the profit on the Orbis balance-sheet.
British sources also report that a US Government agency paid for Orbis to work on evidence
and allegations of corruption at the world soccer federation, Fédération
Internationale de Football (FIFA). Indictments in this case were issued by the US Department of
Justice in
May 2015 , and the following
December . What role the two-partner British consultancy played in the complex
investigations by teams from the Justice Department, the FBI and also the Internal Revenue
Service is unclear. That Steele, Burrows and Orbis depended on US government sources for their
financial well-being appears to be certain.
Another reported version of the FIFA contract is that Steele, Burrows and Orbis were hired
by the British Football Association to collect materials on FIFA corruption, and provide them
to the FBI and other US investigators, and then to the press. The scheme's objective was
reportedly to advance the British bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 by discrediting the
rival bids from Russia and Qatar. Click to
read . Were MI6 and CIA sources mobilized by Orbis to feed the FBI with evidence the US
investigators were unable to turn up, or was Orbis the conduit through which disinformation
targeting Russia was fed to make it appear more credible to the FBI, and to the media?
US Congressional investigators have so far failed to notice the similarities between the
FIFA and the Trump dossier operations. Early this month two Republican members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee announced
that they have called for a Justice Department and FBI investigation of Steele for providing
false information to the FBI. The provision of the US code making lying a
federal crime requires the falsehoods occur "within the jurisdiction of the executive,
legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States." Simpson has testified
that when Steele briefed the FBI on the dossier, he did so at meetings in Rome, Italy.
Now then, Part I and this
sequel of the Simpson-Steele story having been read and thoroughly mulled over, what can the
meaning be?
In the short run, this case was a black job assigned by Republican Party candidates for
president, then the Democratic National Committee, for the purpose of discrediting Trump in
favour of Hillary Clinton. It failed on Election Day in 2016; the Democrats are still
trying.
In the long run, the case is a measurement of the life, or the half-life, of truth. Giuseppe
di Lampedusa wrote once that nowhere has truth so short a life as in Sicily. On his clock, that
was five minutes. He didn't know the United States, or shall we say the stretch from Washington
through New York to the North End of Boston. There, truth has an even shorter life. Scarcely a
second.
I pay pretty close attention to this topic and I must say I sometimes wonder if the
Russians haven’t sold the rope to the American political elite. I read all 311 pages of
Simpson’s testimony. I was struck that much of what he was “fed” by Steele
confirmed his “OMG Russia corruption” biases.
And I say “fed to him” when I’m in a generous mood, giving him the
benefit of the doubt, because usually I am of the opinion that he’s either a really
crappy CIA agent posing as a journalist or just a garden variety rat f*!@er. A black job
political operative, stitching together a few almost-believable “facts” and
out-and-out fabrications with squishy words like “collusion” and
“ties.”
London due diligence firms say the record of Simpson’s firm Fusion GPS and
Steele’s Orbis Business Intelligence operations in the US has discredited them in the
due diligence market. The London experts believe the Senate Committee transcript shows
Simpson and Steele were hired for the black job of discrediting the target of their
research, Trump; did a poor job; failed in 2016; and now are engaged in bitter
recriminations against each other to avoid multi-million dollar court penalties.
A source at a London firm which is larger and better known than Steele’s Orbis
says “standard due diligence means getting to the truth. It’s confidential to
the client, and not leaked. There are also black jobs, white jobs, and red jobs. Black
means the client wants you to dig up dirt on the target, and make it look credible for
publishing in the press. White means the client wants you to clear him of the wrongdoing
which he’s being accused of in the media or the marketplace; it’s also leaked
to the press. A red job is where the client pays the due diligence firm to hire a
journalist to find out what he knows and what he’s likely to publish, in order to
bribe or stop him. The Steele dossier on Trump is an obvious black job. Too
obvious.”
I read all 311 pages of Simpson’s testimony. I was struck that much of what he was
“fed” by Steele confirmed his “OMG Russia corruption” biases.
Same here, but not just about what he was fed by Steele. Simpson claimed to have done some
of his own research and said it was consistent with what he got from Steele.
I’m about three-quarters of the way through the transcript of Simpson’s
interrogation by the House Intelligence Committee, and I’ve read all 312 pages of the
Senate Judiciary Committee transcript, which bears little resemblance to what was reported in
the major media – shocking, I know.
Among the “bombshells” the mainstream reported was “proof” that it
wasn’t the dossier that launched the FBI’s investigation of Trump, and therefore
the dossier couldn’t have been used as justification for a FISA warrant. A bigger
bombshell, which of course none of them mentioned, is that Simpson, with his client’s
consent, was secretly briefing Clinton-friendly reporters on information from Steele’s
memos, and they used it to write stories based on “unnamed sources.” He even
admitted that he didn’t verify the information before feeding it to the media, said he
didn’t feel he needed to, because it came from a trustworthy source. Where have we
heard that before?
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that the
DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I’m wondering why it’s that
much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole thing. It’s
well-established that the State Department often acts as a cover for the CIA, and the agency
under Secretary Clinton had a strong anti-Russia faction that’s on the record as
meddling in Ukraine’s presidential election. And how much doubt could there be that
both Clintons kept the CIA connections they made while in office?
Then there was the whole “Grizzly Steppe” report just before Trump’s
inauguration, presented as a consensus among “17 intelligence agencies” that the
Russians “hacked the election” to help Trump win.
I’m not 100-percent convinced that U.S. intelligence was behind the dossier, but
it’s enough of a possibility that I’m not writing it off as some nutty
“conspiracy theory.”
Few in the NC commentariat, at least from what I saw, had any problem accepting that
the DNC and the Clinton campaign funded the dossier, so I’m wondering why it’s
that much of a stretch to believe that the CIA might have engineered the whole
thing.
FWIW this NC commenter has never had any problem believing that this may be the case. In
fact I am fairly certain that it is the case, although from what I understand the FBI and MI6
were also involved.
Adding: Heh. I posted this before looking at Rev Kev’s link to the Raimondo article,
which comes to the same conclusions. Interesting times!
I believe that Seth Abramson or someone put photographs to the Steele dossier showing
people in the places & at the times delineated in the Steele dossier.
From the very first Steele said he would not & could not reveal his sources. It was from
the first indicated that it would be to the FBI & CIA to discover.
He said he believed that his sources were credible.
When I was studying Intelligence services the CIA was said to be the private army of the CIA.
These days I don’t know exactly who the CIA works for, or answers to.
I certainly don’t think well of the CIA believing they are wrapped up working for their
Front businesses more than focusing on the mission of spying in the interests of the American
people.
Of private intelligence companies I get what I can from IHS Jane’s.
That the CIA lost 20 assets, human beings, in China for incompetent secret communications
methods would lead professionals to withhold as much of identities as possible.
For awhile there I believe Steele was worried about his own health.
David Corn at Mother Jones was reticent to break the story.
So now what I see to look for is what Steele said needed to be done, & that being what
Mueller is doing at the behest of the DOJ.
The US has been at war, albeit Hybrid war since the imposition of sanctions for their
violations of international law as regarded the annexation of Crimea & the attack on the
Ukraine.
Sanctions are Economic Warfare.
That the US feels the right to engage in warfare of any kind Economic or Hot over violations
of International Law leads me to believe that the UN will fail to prevent the apocalyptic
riot.
But that as regards Trump becomes neither here nor there, correct?
William Binney, former NSA technical official and whistleblower, comments on the FISA
memo, that has apparently just been released. Obviously, a major development in
‘Russia-gate’.
If you want a vision of the future, don't imagine "a boot stamping on a human face -- for
ever," as Orwell suggested in 1984 . Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized
into the screen of some kind of nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image
has been algorithmically approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
The screen of this futuristic device will offer a virtually unlimited range of
"non-divisive" and "hate-free" content, none of which will falsify or distort the "truth," or
in any way deviate from "reality." Western consumers will finally be free to enjoy an
assortment of news, opinion, entertainment, and educational content (like this Guardian
podcast about a man who
gave birth , or MSNBC's latest bombshell about
Donald Trump's secret Russian oligarch backers ) without having their enjoyment totally
ruined by discord-sowing alternative journalists like Aaron Maté or satirists like
myself.
"Fake news" will not appear on this screen. All the news will be "authentic." DARPA and its
partners will see to that. You won't have to worry about being "influenced" by Russians, Nazis,
conspiracy theorists, socialists, populists, extremists, or whomever. Such Persons of Malicious
Intent will still be able to post their content (because of "freedom of speech" and all that
stuff), but they will do so down in the sewers of the Internet where normal consumers won't
have to see it. Anyone who ventures down there looking for it (i.e., such "divisive" and
"polarizing" content) will be immediately placed on an official DARPA watchlist for "potential
extremists," or "potential white supremacists," or "potential Russians."
Once that happens, their lives will be over (i.e., the lives of the potentially extremist
fools who have logged onto whatever dark web platform will still be posting essays like this,
not the lives of the Persons of Malicious Intent, who never had any lives to begin with, and
who by that time will probably be operating out of some heavily armed, off-the-grid compound in
Idaho). Their schools, employers, and landlords will be notified. Their photos and addresses
will be published online. Anyone who ever said two words to them (or, God help them, appears in
a photograph with them) will have 24 hours to publicly denounce them, or be placed on
DARPA’s watchlist themselves.
If you want a vision of the future, don't imagine "a boot stamping on a human face -- for
ever," as Orwell suggested in 1984 . Instead, imagine that human face staring mesmerized
into the screen of some kind of nifty futuristic device on which every word, sound, and image
has been algorithmically approved for consumption by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ("DARPA") and its
"innovation ecosystem" of "academic, corporate, and governmental partners."
The screen of this futuristic device will offer a virtually unlimited range of
"non-divisive" and "hate-free" content, none of which will falsify or distort the "truth," or
in any way deviate from "reality." Western consumers will finally be free to enjoy an
assortment of news, opinion, entertainment, and educational content (like this Guardian
podcast about a man who
gave birth , or MSNBC's latest bombshell about
Donald Trump's secret Russian oligarch backers ) without having their enjoyment totally
ruined by discord-sowing alternative journalists like Aaron Maté or satirists like
myself.
"Fake news" will not appear on this screen. All the news will be "authentic." DARPA and its
partners will see to that. You won't have to worry about being "influenced" by Russians, Nazis,
conspiracy theorists, socialists, populists, extremists, or whomever. Such Persons of Malicious
Intent will still be able to post their content (because of "freedom of speech" and all that
stuff), but they will do so down in the sewers of the Internet where normal consumers won't
have to see it. Anyone who ventures down there looking for it (i.e., such "divisive" and
"polarizing" content) will be immediately placed on an official DARPA watchlist for "potential
extremists," or "potential white supremacists," or "potential Russians."
Once that happens, their lives will be over (i.e., the lives of the potentially extremist
fools who have logged onto whatever dark web platform will still be posting essays like this,
not the lives of the Persons of Malicious Intent, who never had any lives to begin with, and
who by that time will probably be operating out of some heavily armed, off-the-grid compound in
Idaho). Their schools, employers, and landlords will be notified. Their photos and addresses
will be published online. Anyone who ever said two words to them (or, God help them, appears in
a photograph with them) will have 24 hours to publicly denounce them, or be placed on
DARPA’s watchlist themselves.
"... It must again be emphasized: It is hard, if not impossible, to think of a more toxic allegation in American presidential history than the one leveled against candidate, and then president, Donald Trump that he "colluded" with the Kremlin in order to win the 2016 presidential election -- and, still more, that Vladimir Putin's regime, "America's No. 1 threat," had compromising material on Trump that made him its "puppet." Or a more fraudulent accusation. ..."
"... Was it plausible, for example, that Trump, a longtime owner and operator of international hotels, would commit an indiscreet act in a Moscow hotel that he did not own or control? Or that, as Steele also claimed, high-level Kremlin sources had fed him damning anti-Trump information even though their vigilant boss, Putin, wanted Trump to win the election? ..."
"... Nor was Russian "meddling" in the election anything akin to a "digital Pearl Harbor," as widely asserted, and it was certainly far less and less intrusive than President Bill Clinton's political and financial "interference" undertaken to assure the reelection of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996. ..."
"... Nonetheless, Russiagate's core allegation persists, like a legend, in American political life -- in media commentary, in financial solicitations by some Democratic candidates for Congress, and, as is clear from my own discussions, in the minds of otherwise well-informed people. The only way to dispel, to excoriate, such a legend is to learn and expose how it began -- by whom, when, and why. ..."
"... Why did Western intelligence agencies, prompted, it seems clear, by US ones, seek to undermine Trump's presidential campaign? ..."
"... the repeatedly hapless Comey seems incapable of having initiated such an audacious operation against a presidential candidate, still less a president-elect. As I have long suggested, John Brennan and James Clapper, head of the CIA and Office of National Intelligence under Obama respectively, are the more likely culprits. ..."
"... First and foremost, Russiagate is about the present and future of the American political system, not about Russia. (Indeed, as I have repeatedly argued, there is very little, if any, Russia in Russiagate.) ..."
"... At every "debate" or comparable forum, all of the Democratic candidates should be asked about this grave threat to American democracy -- what they think about what happened and would do about it if elected president. Consider it health care for our democracy. ..."
It must again be emphasized: It is hard, if not impossible, to think of a more toxic
allegation in American presidential history than the one leveled against candidate, and then
president, Donald Trump that he "colluded" with the Kremlin in order to win the 2016
presidential election -- and, still more, that Vladimir Putin's regime, "America's No. 1
threat," had compromising material on Trump that made him its "puppet." Or a more fraudulent
accusation.
Even leaving aside the misperception
that Russia is the primary threat to America in world affairs, no aspect of this allegation has
turned out to be true, as should have been evident from the outset. Major aspects of the now
infamous Steele Dossier, on which much of the allegation was based, were themselves not merely
"unverified" but plainly implausible.
Was it plausible, for example, that Trump, a longtime owner and operator of
international hotels, would commit an indiscreet act in a Moscow hotel that he did not own or
control? Or that, as Steele also claimed, high-level Kremlin sources had fed him damning
anti-Trump information even though their vigilant boss, Putin, wanted Trump to win the
election? Nonetheless, the American mainstream media and other important elements of the
US political establishment relied on Steele's allegations for nearly three years, even
heroizing him -- and some still do, explicitly or implicitly.
Not surprisingly, former special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of "collusion"
between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. No credible evidence has been produced that
Russia's "interference" affected the result of the 2016 presidential election in any
significant way. Nor was Russian "meddling" in the election anything akin to a "digital
Pearl Harbor," as widely asserted, and it was certainly far less and less intrusive than
President Bill Clinton's political and financial "interference" undertaken to assure the
reelection of Russian President Boris Yeltsin in 1996.
Nonetheless, Russiagate's core allegation persists, like a legend, in American political
life -- in media commentary, in financial solicitations by some Democratic candidates for
Congress, and, as is clear from my own discussions, in the minds of otherwise well-informed
people. The only way to dispel, to excoriate, such a legend is to learn and expose how it began
-- by whom, when, and why.
Officially, at least in the FBI's version, its operation "Crossfire Hurricane," the
counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign that began in mid-2016 was due to
suspicious remarks made to visitors by a young and lowly Trump aide, George Papadopoulos. This
too is not believable, as I pointed out previously .
Most of those visitors themselves had ties to Western intelligence agencies. That is, the young
Trump aide was being enticed, possibly entrapped, as part of a larger intelligence operation
against Trump. (Papadopoulos wasn't the only Trump associate targeted, Carter Page being
another.)
But the question remains: Why did Western intelligence agencies, prompted, it seems
clear, by US ones, seek to undermine Trump's presidential campaign? A reflexive answer
might be because candidate Trump promised to "cooperate with Russia," to pursue a
pro-détente foreign policy, but this was hardly a startling, still less subversive,
advocacy by a would-be Republican president. All of the major pro-détente episodes in
the 20th century had been initiated by Republican presidents: Eisenhower, Nixon, and
Reagan.
So, again, what was it about Trump that so spooked the spooks so far off their rightful
reservation and so intrusively into American presidential politics? Investigations being
overseen by Attorney General William Barr may provide answers -- or not. Barr has already
leveled procedural charges against James Comey, head of the FBI under President Obama and
briefly under President Trump, but the repeatedly hapless Comey seems incapable of having
initiated such an audacious operation against a presidential candidate, still less a
president-elect. As I have long suggested, John Brennan and James Clapper, head of the CIA and
Office of National Intelligence under Obama respectively, are the more likely
culprits.
The FBI is no longer the fearsome organization it once was and thus not hard to investigate,
as Barr has already shown. The others, particularly the CIA, are a different matter, and Barr
has suggested they are resisting. To investigate them, particularly the CIA, it seems, he has
brought in a veteran prosecutor-investigator, John Durham.
Which raises other questions. Are Barr and Durham, whose own careers include associations
with US intelligence agencies, determined to uncover the truth about the origins of Russiagate?
And can they really do so fully, given the resistance already apparent? Even if so, will Barr
make public their findings, however damning of the intelligence agencies they may be, or will
he classify them? And if the latter, will President Trump use his authority to declassify the
findings as the 2020 presidential election approaches in order to discredit the role of Obama's
presidency and its would-be heirs?
Equally important perhaps, how will mainstream media treat the Barr-Durham investigation and
its findings? Having driven the Russiagate narrative for so long and so misleadingly -- and
with liberals perhaps finding themselves in the incongruous position of defending rogue
intelligence agencies -- will they credit or seek to discredit the findings?
It is true, of course, that Barr and Durham, as Trump appointees, are not the ideal
investigators of Intel misdeeds in the Russiagate saga. Much better would be a truly
bipartisan, independent investigation based in the Senate, as was the Church Committee of the
mid-1970s, which exposed and reformed (it thought at the time) serious abuses by US
intelligence agencies. That would require, however, a sizable core of nonpartisan, honorable,
and courageous senators of both parties, who thus far seem to be lacking.
There are also, however, the ongoing and upcoming Democratic presidential debates. First
and foremost, Russiagate is about the present and future of the American political system, not
about Russia. (Indeed, as I have repeatedly argued, there is very little, if any, Russia in
Russiagate.)
At every "debate" or comparable forum, all of the Democratic candidates should be asked
about this grave threat to American democracy -- what they think about what happened and would
do about it if elected president. Consider it health care for our democracy.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host ofThe John Batchelor Show
. Now in their sixth year, previous installments are atTheNation.com .
Stephen
F. Cohen Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New
York University and Princeton University. A Nation contributing editor, his most recent book
War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate is available in paperback
and in an ebook edition. His weekly conversations with the host of The John Batchelor Show, now
in their sixth year, are available at www.thenation.com .
Jean Seberg on a phone call during the filming of 'Joan of Arc', directed by
Otto Preminger, in 1957, in London
( AFP/Getty )
T
he circumstances of
Jean Seberg
's death 40 years ago in late August 1979 were squalid and pathetic. The American star's body lay
decomposing in a car on a street in
Paris
for 10 days before the French police discovered it. There was a bottle of barbiturates and a suicide note
beside the corpse. As the press reported, her body had "baked in the sun" and the odour was "unimaginably foul". This
was the actress who, at the start of her career, was described as "so unimaginably fresh" by her colleagues.
Paris
was the city with which Seberg was most closely associated. Every film lover remembers her in
Jean-Luc Godard
's
Breathless
(1960) in her white
New York Herald Tribune
T-shirt, selling newspapers and gallivanting around the streets with her co-star,
Jean-Paul Belmondo.
Seberg had one of the strangest and most contradictory careers of any
Hollywood
star during the postwar years.
"She was so misunderstood. It's not like you need to hero-worship a celebrity, they are just people you want to
look at. The fact that people stared at her and fixated on things that were not real, projections: that really
ultimately destroyed her,"
Kristen Stewart
, who plays her in the new film,
Seberg
, commented recently of the ill-fated actress in a
Vanity Fair
interview. As an actress who has worked on both big Hollywood productions like
Twilight
and in independent French arthouse features, Stewart seems perfectly qualified to play her.
Seberg
, a world premiere at the
Venice film festival
, isn't a straight biopic. Its focus is its subject's deadly entanglement with the
FBI
. Days after her suicide, the FBI admitted that its agents had plotted to ruin her reputation as part of their
counter-intelligence programme, Cointelpro, authorised by FBI founder,
J Edgar Hoover
himself. Seberg's crime, in Hoover's eyes, was her involvement in political causes and her support
of the
Black Panther Party
. In particular, they were suspicious of her close links with Black Power leader, Hakim Jamal
(played in the film by Anthony Mackie).
Kristen Stewart as Jean
Seberg
in Benedict
Andrews's film '
Seberg
'
(Amazon Studios)
In 1970, the FBI planted the false rumour that Seberg was pregnant by a Black Panther Party member in order to
"cause her embarrassment" and "cheapen her image" with the American public. Their plan worked. It was dispiriting but
inevitable that some gossip columnists followed the false leads that the FBI dangled in front of them. From the FBI's
point of view, she was involved in radical politics, had contributed financially to the Black Panthers and was
therefore fair game. The story was picked up by gossip columnist, Joyce Haber, who referred obliquely to it in the
Los Angeles Times
.
Newsweek
also wrote about it and named Seberg.
"Under the ruthless gaze of the FBI, the threads of Jean's life come apart," Benedict Andrews, the director of
Seberg
, pointed out. The assault on her reputation set in motion the events that led to her death a decade
later. At the time of the leak, Seberg had indeed been pregnant. In the wake of reading the false stories about
herself, she went into labour. Her baby was born prematurely and died a few days later.
The woman Hoover set out to crush was the quintessential young American, "the golden sunflower girl" from the
midwest, as she was characterised. A pharmacist's daughter who had grown up in Marshalltown, Iowa, she had won
Hollywood's version of the Lottery by landing the lead role in Otto Preminger's George Bernard Shaw adaptation,
Saint Joan
(1957). The autocratic Preminger had launched a nationwide talent hunt for a new Joan of Arc. A
reported 18,000 girls had sent in pictures and resumes and 3,000 had been given personal auditions. Seberg got the
part. She was the one, as TV show host Ed Sullivan put it, who had "caught lightning in a bottle". It was the
equivalent of Vivien Leigh being cast as Scarlett O'Hara in
Gone With the Wind
(1939).
Seberg
and Jean-Paul
Belmondo
in Jean-Luc
Godard's
'Breathless' (Films Around The World)
Preminger was the perfect gentleman off-set but, when the cameras began to roll, he turned into a bad-tempered
ogre. He used every ruse at his disposal to publicise the film and its new young star. It would have made the perfect
story about overnight stardom if it hadn't been for the fact that the film didn't turn out very well. By her own
admission, Seberg wasn't obvious casting. She talked about being burnt at the stake twice, first in making the movie
and then by the critics. Preminger cast her in a second film,
Bonjour Tristesse
(1958) but then discarded her. "He used me like a Kleenex and then threw me away", is how she
described her treatment at his hands.
The irony is that Preminger had been right all along. Seberg really was a special talent. She had a spontaneity,
mischief and lambent grace on screen that immediately enraptured the young critics and would-be filmmakers from
Cahiers du Cinéma
in France. "When Jean Seberg is on the screen, which is all the time, you can't look at
anything else," Francois Truffaut enthused about her performance in
Bonjour Tristesse
. Godard and Claude Chabrol were equally smitten with her.
In one of the more bizarre transformations in Hollywood history, the midwestern girl-next-door type became the
sacred muse of the French Nouvelle Vague.
Seberg was wryly humorous about the effect she exercised on French male directors. "I was their new Jerry Lewis, I
suppose," she told journalist Rex Reed, comparing herself to the American comedian who made goofy films with Dean
Martin and was treated with near contempt by American critics but revered as "Le Roi du Crazy" by their French
counterparts. "Godard is like a Paul Klee painting, always hiding behind those funny dark glasses," she suggested,
going on to call the French auteurs who worshipped her "very strange little men".
Thanks to
Breathless
, Seberg also became more highly valued back in Hollywood. Director Robert Rossen, who cast her in one
of her greatest roles as the beautiful schizophrenic opposite
Warren Beatty
and
Peter Fonda
in
Lillith
(1964) spoke of her "flawed American girl quality, sort of like a cheerleader who's cracked up". She had
prominent roles in all-star blockbusters like
Airport
(1970) and successfully held her own against such scene-stealers as Lee Marvin and
Clint Eastwood
in
Paint Your Wagon
(1969).
That, though, was the period before Hoover and the FBI set about destroying her just as surely as Otto Preminger
had tried to create her as a star in the late Fifties in the first place.
Preminger and Hoover bookend her career. The media colluded with those two patriarchs, building her up and then
knocking her down.
Elements of Seberg's story are utterly heartbreaking. As Alistair Cooke told British listeners in one of his
Letters from America
broadcasts the week after her death, she took her prematurely born baby's corpse back home
to Iowa "in a glass coffin as a glaring proof that the baby was white – an excessive reaction perhaps but in 1970,
she knew that the FBI could and did destroy hundreds of radicals and non radicals".
On each anniversary of the baby's death, her then-husband Romain Gary later revealed, she had attempted suicide.
Seberg
as the beautiful schizophrenic who starred opposite Warren Beatty and Peter Fonda in '
Lillith
'
(1964) (Glasshouse/Rex)
Seberg continued to work throughout the 1970s, making an experimental film with Philippe Garrel and collaborating
on projects with her third husband, Dennis Berry. She wrote to Ingmar Bergman, the great Swedish director, telling
him that she looked a little like Bibi Andersson, who had starred in Bergman films from
The Seventh Seal
(1957) to
Persona
(1966), and expressing her fervent desire to work with him. The letter is kept in Bergman's archives. He
received it and read it – but didn't deign to reply to it.
If Seberg was feeling marginalised and paranoid in her final years, you could hardly blame her given the FBI
harassment, the upheaval in her private life and the alarming way her career had begun to creak. As her biographer
David Richards notes, she was putting on weight, drinking too much and seemed to be in a state of permanent
"psychological siege". By the late 1970s, she was close to being forgotten. Her death, though, put her right back on
the front pages. The public was reminded of just how abominably she had been treated both by Hollywood and by the
FBI. There was a sense of frustration over talent that had never been properly fulfilled. Then again, as is pointed
out in Mark Rappaport's dramatised documentary,
From The Journals of Jean Seberg
(1995), most of her films may have been "mediocre", but she made one or two
"great ones" and that is more than in most careers. Now, with Stewart portraying her on screen (and already being
talked up for awards), Seberg is likely to be rediscovered all over again
'Seberg' is a world premiere at the Venice Film Festival on Friday 30 August (labiennale.org). It has its UK premiere
at the London Film Festival on 4 and 5 October (bfi.org.uk)
"... If you enjoyed this original article please consider making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this one. ..."
"... Before commenting please read Robert Parry's ..."
"... . Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. ..."
Film 'Official Secrets' is the Tip of a Mammoth Iceberg August 29, 2019 •
37 Comments
A new film depicting the whistleblower Katherine Gun, who tried to stop the Iraq invasion,
is largely accurate, but the story is not over, says Sam Husseini.
T wo-time Oscar nominee Keira Knightley is known for being in "period pieces" such as "Pride
and Prejudice," so her playing the lead in the new film "Official Secrets," scheduled to be
released in the U.S. on Friday, may seem odd at first. That is until one considers that the
time span being depicted -- the early 2003 run-up to the invasion of Iraq -- is one of the most
dramatic and consequential periods of modern human history.
It is also one of the most poorly understood, in part because the story of Katharine Gun,
played by Knightley, is so little known. Having followed this story from the start, I find this
film to be, by Hollywood standards, a remarkably accurate account of what has happened to
date–"to date" because the wider story still isn't over.
Katharine Gun
worked as an analyst for Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British equivalent
of the secretive U.S. National Security Agency. She tried to stop the impending invasion of
Iraq in early 2003 by exposing the deceit of George W. Bush and Tony Blair in their claims
about that country. For doing that she was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act -- a
juiced up version of the U.S. Espionage Act, which in recent years has been used repeatedly by
the Obama administration against whistleblowers and now by the Trump administration against
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.
Gun was charged for exposing -- around the time of
Colin Powell's infamous testimony to the UN about Iraq's alleged WMDs – a top secret
U.S. government memo showing it was mounting an illegal spying "surge" against other U.N.
Security Council delegations in an effort to manipulate them into voting for an Iraq invasion
resolution. The U.S. and Britain had successfully
forced through a trumped
up resolution, 1441 in November 2002. In early 2003, they were poised to threaten, bribe or
blackmail their way to get formal United Nations authorization for the invasion. [See
recent interview with Gun .]
Katherine Gun The leaked memo, published by the British Observer , was big news in
parts of the world, especially the targeted countries on the Security Council, and helped
prevent Bush and Blair from getting the second UN Security Council resolution they said they
wanted. Veto powers Russia, China and France were opposed as well as U.S. ally Germany.
'Most Courageous Leak' It was the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy,
where I work ( accuracy.org ), Norman
Solomon, as well as Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg who in the U.S. most
immediately saw the importance of what Gun had done. Ellsberg would later comment: "No one else
-- including myself -- has ever done what Katharine Gun did: Tell secret truths at personal
risk, before an imminent war, in time, possibly, to avert it. Hers was the most important --
and courageous -- leak I've ever seen, more timely and potentially more effective than the
Pentagon Papers."
Daniel Ellsberg on the cover of Time after leaking the Pentagon Papers
Gun said: "I went to the local bookshop, and I went into the political section. I found two
books, which had apparently been rushed into publication, one was by Norman Solomon and Reese
Erlich, and it was called Target Iraq . And the
other one was by Milan Rai. It was called War
Plan Iraq . And I bought both of them. And I read them cover to cover that weekend, and
it basically convinced me that there was no real evidence for this war. So I think from that
point onward, I was very critical and scrutinizing everything that was being said in the
media." Thus, we see Gun in "Official Secrets" shouting at the TV to Tony Blair that he's not
entitled to make up facts. The film may be jarring to some consumers of major media who might
think that Donald Trump invented lying in 2017. Gun's immediate action after reading critiques
of U.S. policy and media coverage makes a strong case for trying to reach government workers by
handing out fliers and books and putting up
billboards outside government offices to encourage them to be more critically minded.
Solomon and Ellsberg had debunked Bush administration propaganda in real time. But Gun's
revelation showed that the U.S. and British governments were not only lying to invade Iraq,
they were violating international law to blackmail whole nations to get in line.
Mainstream reviews of "Official Secrets" still seem to not fully grasp the importance of
what they just saw. The trendy AV
Club review leads : "Virtually everyone now agrees that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a
colossal mistake based on faulty (at best) or fabricated (at worst) intelligence." "Mistake" is
a serious understatement even with "colossal" attached to it when the movie details the
diabolical, illegal lengths to which the U.S. and British governments went to get other
governments to go along with it.
Gun's revelations showed before the invasion that people on the inside, whose livelihood
depends on following the party line, were willing to risk jail time to out the lies and
threats.
Portrayal of The Observer
Other than Gun herself, the film focuses on a dramatization of what happened at her work; as
well as her relationship with her husband, a Kurd from Turkey who the British government
attempted to have deported to get at Gun. The film also portrays the work of her lawyers who
helped get the Official Secrets charge against her dropped, as well as the drama at The
Observer , which published the NSA document after much internal debate.
Observer reporter Martin Bright, whose strong work on the original Gun story was
strangely followed by an ill-fated stint at the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, has recently noted
that very little
additional work has been done on Gun's case. We know virtually nothing about the apparent
author of the NSA document that she leaked -- one "Frank Koza." Other questions persist, such
is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign governments to get UN votes or for other
purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with allegations made by former NSA analyst
Russ
Tice about the NSA having massive files on political people?
Observer reporter Ed Vulliamy is energetically depicted getting tips from former CIA
man Mel Goodman. There do seem to be subtle but potentially serious deviations from reality in
the film. Vulliamy is depicted as actually speaking with "Frank Koza," but that's not what he
originally
reported :
"The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency
which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The
Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the
United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'. On protesting that the
assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an
erroneous extension, and hung up."
There must doubtlessly be many aspects of the film that have been simplified or altered
regarding Gun's personal experience. A compelling part of the film -- apparently fictitious or
exaggerated -- is a GCHQ apparatchik questioning Gun to see if she was the source.
Little is known about the reaction inside the governments of Security Council members that
the U.S. spied on. After the invasion, Mexican Ambassador Adolfo Aguilar Zinser spoke in blunt
terms about U.S. bullying -- saying it viewed Mexico as its patio trasero , or back yard
-- and was Zinser was compelled to resign by President Vicente Fox. He then,
in 2004 , gave details about some aspects of U.S. surveillance sabotaging the efforts of
the other members of the Security Council to hammer out a compromise to avert the invasion of
Iraq, saying the U.S. was "violating the U.N. headquarters covenant." In 2005, he tragically
died in a car crash
.
Documents
leaked by Edward Snowden and published by The Intercept in 2016 boasted of how the NSA
"during the wind-up to the Iraq War 'played a critical role' in the adoption of U.N. Security
Council resolutions. The work with that customer was a resounding success." The relevant
document specifically cites resolutions 1441 and 1472 and quotes John Negroponte ,
then the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations: "I can't imagine better intelligence support
for a diplomatic mission." (Notably, The Intercept has never published a word on "
Katharine Gun ." )
Nor were the UN Security Council members the only ones on the U.S. hit list to pave the way
for the Iraq invasion. Brazilian Jose Bustani, the director-general of the international
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. was ousted in an effective coup by John
Bolton in April of 2002 . Bolton is now national security adviser.
"Official Secrets" director Gavin Hood is perhaps more right than he realizes when he says
that his depiction of the Gun case is like the "tip of an iceberg," pointing to other deceits
surrounding the Iraq war. His record with political films has been uneven until now. Peace
activist David Swanson, for instance, derided his film on drones, " Eye in the Sky ." At a D.C. showing of "Official Secrets,"
Hood depicted those who backed the Iraq war as being discredited. But that's simply untrue.
Keira Knightley appears as Katherine Gun in Official Secrets (Courtesy of Sundance
Institute.)
Leading presidential candidate Joe Biden -- who not only voted for the Iraq invasion, but
presided over rigged
hearings on in 2002 – has recently falsified
his record repeatedly on Iraq
at presidential debates with hardly a murmur. Nor is he alone. Those refusing to be held
accountable for their Iraq war lies include not just Bush and Cheney, but John Kerry and
Nancy
Pelosi .
Biden has actually faulted Bush for not doing enough to get United Nations approval for the
Iraq invasion. But as the Gun case helps show, there was no legitimate case for invasion and
the Bush administration had done virtually everything, both legal and illegal, to get UN
authorization.
Many who supported the invasion try to distance themselves from it. But the repercussions of
that illegal act are enormous: It led directly or indirectly to the rise of ISIS, the civil war
in Iraq and the war in Syria. Journalists who pushed for the Iraq invasion are prosperous and
atop major news organizations, such as Washington Post editorial page editor
Fred Hiatt. The
editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer , Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News.
After Gun's identity became known, the Institute for Public Accuracy brought on Jeff Cohen,
the founder of FAIR, to work with program director Hollie Ainbinder to get prominent
individuals to support
Gun . The film -- quite plausibly -- depicts the charges being dropped against Gun for the
simple reason that the British government feared that a high profile proceeding would
effectively put the war on trial, which to them would be have been a nightmare.
Sam Husseini is an independent journalist, senior analyst at the Institute for Public
Accuracy and founder of VotePact.org .
Follow him on twitter: @samhusseini .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Before commenting please read Robert Parry'sComment Policy.
Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading factual errors and ad hominem attacks,
and abusive language toward other commenters or our writers will be removed. If your comment
does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 19:49
Saw the film today. Solid work; recommended.
Did her ultimate court appearance really go down in such a dramatic fashion? I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised if it did: English courtroom proceedings may not deliver better
justice than U.S. ones, but they're definitely more entertaining.
William , August 31, 2019 at 19:06
U.S. Government officials should be indicted for war crimes. It is quite clear that U.S.
officials conspired to ensure that an invasion
of Iraq would take place. The U.S. and Britain -- George Bush and Tony Blair -- initiated a
war of aggression against Iraq, and under
international law should be tried for war crimes, just as numerous German officials were
tried and convicted of war crimes.
No U.S. politician has called for investigation, and the main stream media has not touched
this topic. It is unquestionably clear that
the U.S. congress is a collection of spineless, cowardly, corrupt, greedy men and women. They
have allowed the U.S. to become a rogue,
criminal nation.
Katherine Gun is awesome! I heard her speak as part of a panel of whistleblowers –
wish there were many more like her
michael , August 31, 2019 at 08:15
Inequality.org reports that the majority of our top 1% are corporate executives. Finance,
which reportedly accounted for 3% of our economy in 1980, now accounts for 30%. Many of the
US's 585 billionaires have monopolies in their business domain, no different from the Robber
Barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. "Stability is more important than democracy",
the market hates uncertainty, and our foreign policies, determined by think tanks staffed and
funded by our "allies" Israel and Saudi Arabia, will continue to push for the greed of our
Richest. "Democracy" is a just a hypocritical bon mot for stealing and destroying.
The Republicans have always supported these people. What is worrisome is that the Democrats
have come to the same place as the GOP, since donations– pay-to-play- lead to
re-elections. The Democrats have deserted the Poor and working class, since they have no
money for pay-to-play. Our 17 technologically advanced Stasis work in concert with Congress,
our entitled government bureaucrats, and their lapdog main stream media to "make things
happen" for our Richest. How long before people like Assange, Katherine Gunn, Chelsea
Manning, Edward Snowden, Binney, Kiriakou etc learn that it pays to keep their mouths shut?
Transparency and whistleblowing is punished. Maybe other approaches are needed?
Tony , August 31, 2019 at 07:26
Very interesting to see what inspired her to act the way that she did.
Of course, the supporters of the war had various motives.
But one motive behind President Bush's plan was revealed by Russ Baker in his book 'Family of
Secrets' page 423.
He recalls a conversation with Bush family friend and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. He
says that he told him:
"He (George W. Bush) was thinking about invading in 1999."
Bush apparently said:
"If I have a chance to invade if I had that much (political) capital, I'm not going to
waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I'm going to have
a successful presidency."
So there we have it, he thought that a war would boost his presidency.
David G , August 31, 2019 at 05:16
"The editor who argued most strongly against publication of the NSA document at The
Observer, Kamal Ahmed, is now editorial director of BBC News."
That's a repulsive little nugget I would never have known otherwise.
Thanks to Sam Husseini for this account. The film is playing in my town, at least for this
coming week; I plan to get to it.
RomeoCharlie29 , August 30, 2019 at 19:24
This is a really interesting story and one I knew nothing about, although I was one who
opposed the Iraq war because to me it was obvious the whole WMD issue was bullshit. Now I
understand the perception that that war was an American/ Brit thing but you might recall that
America's deputy Sheriff in the Pacific, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, was Gung
ho for the war and committed Australian troops to the ill-fated endeavour with the result
that our country has subsequently become a target for ISIS inspired terrorism. Australia's
Opposition Leader at the time, Simon Crean led a vocal opposition to the war but "Little
Johnny" as we called him was not to be denied. Incidentally I don't think he has ever
admitted being wrong on this.
Xander Arena , August 30, 2019 at 18:15
Tip of an iceberg is right. Iraq was the second big lie of the 21st century. I wonder how
the world will react to the University of Alaska Fairbanks report which proves fraud at NIST,
and arguably reveals aiding and abetting of treason by the contractors who wrote NIST's
analysis of the WTC7 destruction. The UAF report drops Tuesday 9/3/19, and chisels away at
the big lie that preceded all the related Iraq deceit. BTW great article :)
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:49
I enjoyed the article and learned some things, but it does seem a bit of Hollywood
promotion at the same time.
If only Gun's sacrifice had stopped the invasion it would have been a sensation. As is,
the UN did not sanction the invasion, making that effort a bit moot, and since the reveal of
NSA bugging the world under Obama that dulls the sensibilities of those who might today have
otherwise been shocked, shocked like the Gary Powers U-2 spy plane downing over the USSR and
Ike being caught in a lie on TV.
But overall, knowing the downhill Gun's livelihood has taken over the 15 years makes the
story more of a warning for whistle blowers than inspiration. Maybe Gun will be well
compensated by the movie makers!
Neil E Mac , August 30, 2019 at 15:54
En fin!
bevin , August 30, 2019 at 14:13
One thing is certain: The Observer of 2019 would not publish a story like this. That is
one of the major changes since 2003: the capitalist media has tightened up. There are no
longer papers competing to attract readers at risk of cozy relations with the State. The
Observer/Guardian today – since the Snowden revelations- does what it is told.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:16
"In 2005, he tragically died in a car crash."
Unfortunately -- or fortunately? -- this no longer seems to be credible when it comes to
those who have gone ouit on a limb to challenge the Deep State, or the US version of the Deep
State.
Can Bush and Blair be charged with crimes? In connection with the Third Reich there is
AFAIK no statute of limitations on crimes against humanity. Well, Iraq was also full of
'humanity." These guys belong in The Hague. Or in Iraq, doing community service.
In connection with Ellsberg's reviewing the evidence and concluding there was no
evidentiary justification for invading Iraq -- I wanna say, you didn't need to be Ellsberg or
any kind of expert to see clearly that there was no evidence that justified invading Iraq.
Millions of common folk could see this clearly. That is why over 14 million people worldwide
demonstrated against the planned illegal invasion. That is why people like me when to NYC, to
Washington, and also the front our local US Post Office in small towns all over the country
to protest the country's being lied into war. And were greeted mostly with thumbs-up from the
passers- and drivers-by.
The people knew it was all a pack of lies. It was the gullible PRESS that ginned up this
show. Remember Judith what's her name at the NYT? These people also should be indicted as war
criminals.
Dan Anderson , August 30, 2019 at 16:19
Judith Miller, the NYTimes reporter who did maybe the most to make the invasion of Iraq,
is the last name you were seeking.
SteveF , August 30, 2019 at 12:22
The timescales are interesting, we have the alleged US blackmail to get this illegal war
'approved' by the UN and in the same timescale we have the Jeffery Epstein story unfolding
and the corresponding allegations that he was a CIA/Mossad agent operating honey traps to
entangle the rich and famous.
The evil machinations of our governments are indeed breathtaking.
As we can see from so very many modern instances, it matters not at all that truth is on
your side, if what you are doing is attacking those with money and power.
And there's an entire American establishment dedicated to keeping it just that way.
America's history of the last half century, at least so far as foreign relations and
control of an empire, is almost entirely an artificial construct.
Absolutely no truth in everything from John Kennedy's assassination, which was intimately
concerned with America's relationship with Cuba, and the despicable Vietnam War to 9/11 and
the despicable Neocon Wars in the Middle East.
From hundreds of millions of printed newspapers and television broadcasts to speeches from
prominent American politicians, you have tissue of lies not unlike that that was constantly
being created by Oceania's Inner Party in 1984.
That's not even the slightest exaggeration, but, truly, are Americans in general the least
concerned or bothered?
We have no evidence of significant concern. None.
The Democratic Party just weeded out the only candidate it had, brave and informed enough
to speak to truth in some of these matters.
The ten left just represent varying degrees of hopelessness. On and on with weaving dreams
about this or that creative social program while the resources and close attention dedicated
to destruction in a dozen lands make them all impossible.
At the sae time, there is an almost complete lack of information and courage about
anything that is happening in Syria, in Iraq, in Libya, in Israel, and in such massively
important countries as China, Russia, and Iran.
Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are brave contemporary examples of the American
establishment's methods for shutting down truth and punishing severely those who reveal it.
While they have followers and supporters, I am always amazed at how relatively small their
numbers are.
And we have remarkably few individuals like Manning or Assange, especially when you
consider the scale and scope of America's many dark works. Mostly, we see only "willing
helpers" carrying on with their sensitive, secretive careers in government.
In the Democratic nomination contest, the "star" liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth
Warren, are virtually no different in these absolutely critical matters than a confirmed old
puke of a war criminal like Joe Biden, someone who probably deserves recognition as father of
Obama's industrial-scale extrajudicial killing project with drones and Hellfire missiles
making legally-innocent people in a dozen countries just disappear. Biden has a long record
of smarmy deeds and lack of courage and principles. He is, of course, most likely to get the
nomination too.
Act, from America's CIA, no different in principle and in law to those of the old
Argentine military junta's massive efforts at dragging people off the streets, drugging them,
and throwing them out of planes over the ocean, something they did to thousands. Oh, and
during that wonderful project there were no objections from America, only silence.
Aimee , August 30, 2019 at 22:31
Excellent post. Agree completely. Tulsi was our only hope and she never had a chance. We
are doomed.
Coleen Rowley , August 30, 2019 at 23:29
Here are some of the reasons for the ever lessening concern over US-NATO-Israel-Saudi's
(aka our current Empire's) wars: https://consortiumnews.com/2018/02/04/recipe-concocted-for-perpetual-war-is-a-bitter-one/
By the way my co-author and I tried unsuccessfully to get this published in about 15
different US papers before Robert Parry posted it on Consortiumnews.
Robert Edwards , August 30, 2019 at 11:17
It's time these liers and war criminals are brought to Justice – I know that's
wishful , but sometimes wishes come true America must get back to a country run on integrity
and honesty, otherwise all will be lost in the spiral of evil
Sorry, but, oh please, America is lost. Has been so for a very long time.
Only tremendous outside influences like depression or war and the growth of competing
states and the loss of the dollar's privileged status, are going to change the reality.
America's feeble democratic system is capable of changing almost nothing. After all, it
was constructed with just that in mind.
john wilson , August 31, 2019 at 05:07
I think think the real worry is that these days they don't even bother to lie anymore and
they just do what they want. Think Venezuela.
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:42
"Other questions persist, such is prevalent is this sort of U.S. blackmail of foreign
governments to get UN votes or for other purposes? How is it leveraged? Does it fit in with
allegations made by former NSA analyst Russ Tice about the NSA having massive files on
political people?"
This also stands out , as given what we now know is standard modus opendi of CIA / Mossad
operations ,due to the Epstein arrest and ensuing information , who knows what is used to
leverage other nations to follow along with US and in this case UK demands.Birds of a feather
fly together.
Very good report by Sam Husseini.
Litchfield , August 30, 2019 at 13:32
Absolutely. It is an obvious avenue now to investigate: How did the Epstein operation
impact on the decision to invade Iraq? How were teh votes wrung out for the war authorization
in October 2002?
Regarding Kerry, as a resident of Mass. I couldn't believe that Vietnam vet Kerry would
vote Yes on the war authorization act. I called his office a number of time to beg him to
vote no. Rumors emanated from within his office in Boston or wherever that phone calls from
constituents were running 180 to 1 urging him to vote NO. But he voted YES anyhow.
I simply believe that Yalie Kerry didn't see what was up with the obvious lying that drove
the runup to an illegal invasion. This is the kind of scenario where one now has to wonder --
and ask openly -- whether Kerry had been compromised in some way that made him vulnerable to
blackmail. Why the hell else would he vote so stupidly?
Recall that Scott Ritter ran afoul of some kind of sex trap and so he, one of the most
knowledgeable and outspoken critics of the fake WMD narrative, was effectively muzzled.
Did Kerry have a little skeleton in the closet somewhere?
The same could be asked of all the esp. Democratic legislators who voted YES. Because we
now understand which state in the EAstern Med wanted the war most and profited the most from
it. We now know how deep and how wide the tentacles of that state's intelligence service
intrude into our own national sphere, our Congress, our own intelligence services, our media,
and, most likely, our military. Epstein seems to been part f this web of pressure and
blackmail.
Epstein is gone, but Ghislaine Maxwell apparently still runs free.
Let's bring her in for questioning specifically about pressure applied on the Oct. 2002 vote.
(Although some speculate that she, too, is already dead.)
Guy , August 30, 2019 at 10:23
At a time when despair in political affairs is very depressing ,it is very refreshing to
see that the voices of reason are being vindicated.
I really want to see this film as this is the first time that I hear of the voice of
Katherine Gun .Bless her heart for standing up and her efforts to warn of deception . Does
the film make any mention of Dr.David Kelly's so-called suicide / murder ? Will have to wait
ans see.
Thank you CN for once again coming through for your excellent report.
Pablo , August 30, 2019 at 10:15
Lawrence Wilkerson (Powell's Chief of Staff?) told me that Collin knew Bush was
fabricating, but went to the U.N. as a "loyal foot soldier".
AnneR , August 30, 2019 at 08:25
Thank you, Sam Husseini, for this overview of the background – real story – to
the film Official Secrets.
To be frank, I'd not heard of Katherine Gun's revelations at the time – not
surprising because I don't think that the US MSM gave the leak any oxygen. They were all too
gung-ho for the war.
While the film undoubtedly soft-pedals some of the story and likely doesn't reveal or make
explicit as much as we'd all hope, I really do hope that it receives at least as much
publicity (good) and viewing as that execrable film Zero dark Thirty which basically
supported the CIA and its torturers. But somehow I doubt that.
TomR , August 31, 2019 at 06:19
Zero Dark Thirty is just about the worst bullshit fake narrative put out by the CIA that
I've ever seen. I watched it but cringed with the dramatized fake narrative that the CIA is
famous for – think the bullshit 9/11 US govt. narrative – if you or anyone else
believes that totally bunkum govt. narrative – well, I feel sorry for you.
Druid , August 31, 2019 at 17:28
Im a good- movie buff. I avoided Zero Dark Thirty. Not a farthing for those lies
Sylvia Bennet , August 30, 2019 at 07:51
I applaud Keira Knightley and all who were involved in bringing this story to the public.
It is vital that more people who have the eyes and ears of the public speak out on these
issues. Sadly, most of them keep their heads below the parapet. With the Main Stream Media
colluding with corrupt corporations and governments to lie or distort the truth, we need
decent people with influence to step up before it is too late.
Toxik , August 30, 2019 at 02:42
Looked at my local theaters and Official Secrets will not be shown.
jmg , August 29, 2019 at 18:39
Katharine Gun's case can also be very relevant for Julian Assange's defense:
"Within half an hour, the case was dropped because the prosecution declined to offer
evidence. . . . The day before the trial, Gun's defence team had asked the government for any
records of advice about the legality of the war that it had received during the run-up to the
war. A full trial might have exposed any such documents to public scrutiny as the defence
were expected to argue that trying to stop an illegal act (that of an illegal war of
aggression) trumped Gun's obligations under the Official Secrets Act 1989. . . . In 2019 The
Guardian stated the case was dropped 'when the prosecution realised that evidence would
emerge that even British government lawyers believed the invasion was unlawful.'"
So Katharine Gun, like Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, etc., by revealing corruption and
crimes, maybe didn't obey the code of silence of organized crime, government sector, but
that's not a law.
For example, the US Executive Order 13526, Classified National Security Information,
explicitly outlaws any classification that covers up crimes or embarrassing information.
This means that whistleblowers like Katharine Gun or Chelsea Manning, and investigative
journalists like Julian Assange are the ones defending the law here, while the US and UK
governments are the criminals.
lindaj , August 29, 2019 at 22:10
Hear, Hear!
Me Myself , August 30, 2019 at 12:11
The espionage act has and would protect those who were responsible for the war I
believe.
If we could Abrogate the espionage act it would make are representatives more
accountable.
I was unaware of Katherine Gun she is clearly a standout person and will join the ranks of
are most respected truthers.
WTF Burkie , August 31, 2019 at 14:05
Our not are.b.c. burkhart
evelync , August 30, 2019 at 13:34
And the secrecy, apparently, is required in the name of "national security" .that's what I
was told by a Harvard JFK School of Government associate when I emailed 200+ of 'em to
express my outrage over their withdrawal of Chelsea Manning's honorary degree when Pompeo and
Morrell bullied them. I responded with – that's INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE at Harvard
– as a "respected" educational institution you should be front and center critiquing
foreign policy instead of helping to bury the wrongdoing ..no wonder voters didn't trust the
establishment candidates in 2016 but the DNC was too much a part of it all to see or care
what was going on. Except for Tulsi Gabbard who resigned at DNC VP in protest for what was
being done to the Sanders campaign and to endorse Sanders instead of Clinton. The DNC knee
capped the campaign of the one person who had won peoples' trust for his honesty.
We have incompetent people with no moral fiber making terrible decisions and burying the
mistakes under secrecy, a fear based "code of silence", as you say.
Biden touts his being chosen by Obama for VP; therefore "he's qualified".
Since Clinton and Biden were the most dangerously ambitious critics of Obama, I think he may
have chosen to add them to his administration as VP and Sec of State to practice "keep your
friends close and your enemies closer" .but his decision was very costly to the lives of
people around the world including the Caribbean and South American countries whose wealth our
oligarchs coveted.
And as far as Honduras is concerned those political choices by Obama sadly explains refugees
fleeing from that violent country even now ..thanks to our failing to declare the 2009 Coup a
"military coup". One of Clinton's "hard choices". Obama and Biden went along with that of
course.
Daniel Immerwahr's "How to Hide an Empire" tells the sordid tale of how waterboarding was
used long before Bush II – used on the freedom fighters for their independence in the
Philippines after the Spanish American War and we took over as imperialists ..
Most people, I think, don't know all the gruesome details of our aggression but they now know
enough to be troubled by it. Few political candidates have the backbone to criticize
wrongheaded foreign policy.
I'm disappointed that Tulsi Gabbard won't be permitted to join Bernie Sanders at the
September 12 2019 "debate" as the only ones who speak out on how wrong for this country and
the world our foreign policies have been. This courageous woman should be heard.
When Bernie was challenged in the 2016 Miami debate on his enlightened views on Cuba and
other Caribbean and South American countries, Clinton used Cold War rhetoric to attack him.
She was shocked, I tell you, shocked that he would not grind his heel on the Cuban people. I
wondered at the time whether she really believed the crap she was selling or just put on a
good political show for the national security state.
We so need transparency if we want to be a real democracy.
Sam F , August 30, 2019 at 21:06
Very true that transparency is essential to democracy. That also requires lifelong
monitoring of officials and their relatives for paybacks and other influence. But (for
example) Florida has an Sunshine Act that merely moves the bribes into other channels, and
may be the most corrupt state. I am investigating extensive racketeering there involving
state officials stealing conservation funds. They can be quire careless because their party
runs the entire state including state and federal judiciary, and instantly approves whatever
their rich "donors" want to steal. But the FBI and DOJ refuse to take action when given the
evidence on a silver platter – no doubt because they are appointed by the same party.
Theft is their sacred right and duty, to protect their country from its people.
michael , August 31, 2019 at 07:30
Florida's Sunshine laws were on display at Epstein's only trial, much of it still sealed
from public view.
It is apparent that the caricature of the Soviet Union in both productions is really a stand-in for the present-day Russian government
under Vladimir Putin. As only American exceptionalism could permit, Hollywood did not hold the same disdain for his predecessor,
Boris Yeltsin, whose legacy of high inflation and national debt have since been eliminated. In fact, most have forgotten that the
same filmdom community outraged about Russia's supposed interference in the 2016 U.S. election made a celebratory movie back in 2003,
Spinning Boris , which practically boasted about the instrumental role the West played in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection in Russia.
The highly unpopular alcoholic politician benefited from a near universal media bias as virtually all the federation's news outlets
came under the control of the 'oligarchs' (in America known simply as billionaires) which his economic policies of mass privatization
of state industry enriched overnight.
Yeltsin initially polled at less than 10% and was far behind Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov until he became the recipient
of billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thanks to his corrupt campaign manager, Anatoly Chubais, now one of the most
hated men in all of Russia. After the purging of votes and rampant ballot-box stuffing, Yeltsin successfully closed the gap between
his opponent thanks to the overt U.S. meddling.
Spinning Boris was directed by Roger Spottiswoode, who previously helmed an installment in the James Bond series, Tomorrow
Never Dies . The 1997 entry in the franchise is one of thousands of Hollywood films and network television shows exposed by journalists
Matthew Alford and Tom Secker as having been influenced or directly assisted by the Pentagon and CIA in their must-read book National
Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Based on evidence from documents revealed in Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, their investigation divulges the previously unknown extent to which the national security complex
has gone in exerting control over content in the film industry. While it has always been known that the military held sway over movies
that required usage of its facilities and equipment to be produced, the level of impact on such films in the pre-production and editing
stages, as well as the control over non-military themed flicks one wouldn't suspect to be under supervision by Washington and Langley,
is exhaustively uncovered.
As expected, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex's intimate relationship during the Cold War is featured prominently
in Alford and Secker's investigative work. It is unclear whether HBO or Netflix sought US military assistance or were directly involved
with the national security state in their respective productions, but these are just two recent examples of many where the correlated
increase in geopolitical tensions with Moscow is reflected. The upcoming sequel to DC's Wonder Woman set to be released next
year , Wonder Woman 1984, featuring the female superhero " coming into conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
in the 1980s ", is yet another. Reprising her role is Israeli actress and IDF veteran is Gal Gadot as the title character, ironically
starring in a blockbuster that will demonize the Eurasian state which saved her ethnicity from extinction. Given the Pentagon's involvement
in the debacle surounding 2014's The Interview which provoked very real tensions with North Korea, it is likely they are at
least closely examining any entertainment with content regarding Russia, if not directly pre-approving it for review.
Ultimately, the Western panic about its imperial decline is not limited to assigning blame to Moscow. Sinophobia has manifested
as well in recent films such as the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival where the extra-terrestrials who reach Earth seem more interested
in communicating with Beijing as the global superpower than the U.S. However, while the West forebodes the return of Russia and China
to greater standing, you can be certain its real fear lies elsewhere. The fact that Chernobyl and Stranger Things are
as preoccupied with portraying socialism in a bad light as they are in rendering Moscow nefarious shows the real underlying trepidation
of the ruling elite that concerns the resurgence of class consciousness. The West must learn its lesson that its state of perpetual
war has caused its own downfall or it could attempt a last line of defense that would inevitably conscript all of humanity to its
death as the ruling class nearly did to the world in 1914 and 1939.
The article about how many intelligence officials (retired) now work for the corporate press
is misleading. It does not take into account the "undeclared" operatives such as Anderson
Cooper and Rachael Maddow. Cooper went to work for the CIA and they out him in his job,
Maddow is a Rhodes Scholar, a trained apparatchik for the elites.
This is nothing new, after WWII, when the press was most compliant and the CIA was formed
the press was "taken over" by the newly reforming and consolidating of deep state power.
There was Operation Mockingbird which was exposed long ago but nothing changes if they get
caught they just reorganize and continue.
"... And what did the spying involve? In such intelligence work, wiretaps are recorded; transcripts are made. The same can be true for person-to-person conversations between FBI informants and Trump campaign figures. In May, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman who read deeply into Trump-Russia materials when he was in the House, strongly implied the FBI had transcripts of informant communications. ..."
"... "If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired," Gowdy told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo. "And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that." ..."
"... "Where are the transcripts, if any exist," Gowdy continued, "between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?" ..."
"... And then the biggest questions: If there was evidence gained from the wiretapping and informing, what was it? Was it valuable? What did it tell the FBI about Russia and the Trump campaign? And did it prove that the Justice Department was right all along to spy on the campaign -- that the spying was, in the words of Attorney General William Barr, "adequately predicated"? ..."
"... Here is why Republicans are skeptical. Special counsel Robert Mueller had access to the results of the FBI's spying, and Mueller could not establish that there was any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. After a two-year investigation with full law enforcement powers, Mueller never alleged that any American took part in any such conspiracy or coordination. ..."
"... And even if it were entirely declassified, Horowitz will not tell the whole story of spying and the 2016 election. Horowitz is the inspector general of the Justice Department and does not have the authority to investigate outside the department. For example, he cannot probe the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and its then-director John Brennan during the period in question. ..."
There will be much to learn in
Inspector
General Michael Horowitz's upcoming report on the Trump-Russia investigation, but most of it will likely boil down to just two
questions. One, how much did the Obama Justice Department spy on the Trump campaign? And two, was it justified?
Many Democrats would immediately protest the word "spying." But the public already knows the FBI secured a warrant to wiretap
low-level Trump adviser Carter Page a few months after Page left the campaign. The public also knows the FBI used informant
Stefan Halper to gather information on other Trump campaign figures. And the public knows the FBI sent an undercover agent who
went by the alias "Azra Turk" to London to tease information out of another low-level Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos.
Was that all? Were there more? Horowitz should give definitive answers.
And what did the spying involve? In such intelligence work, wiretaps are recorded; transcripts are made. The same can be true
for person-to-person conversations between FBI informants and Trump campaign figures. In May, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman
who read deeply into Trump-Russia materials when he was in the House, strongly implied the FBI had transcripts of informant communications.
"If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired," Gowdy told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo.
"And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that."
"Where are the transcripts, if any exist," Gowdy continued, "between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?"
The "if any exist" was Gowdy's way of casting his statements as a hypothetical, but there was no doubt he was speaking from the
knowledge he gained as a congressional investigator.
And then the biggest questions: If there was evidence gained from the wiretapping and informing, what was it? Was it valuable?
What did it tell the FBI about Russia and the Trump campaign? And did it prove that the Justice Department was right all along to
spy on the campaign -- that the spying was, in the words of Attorney General William Barr, "adequately predicated"?
Here is why Republicans are skeptical. Special counsel Robert Mueller had access to the results of the FBI's spying, and Mueller
could not establish that there was any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. After a two-year investigation
with full law enforcement powers, Mueller never alleged that any American took part in any such conspiracy or coordination.
So, Republicans know the end result of the investigation, but they don't know how it began. Yes, they know the official story
of the start of what the FBI called Crossfire Hurricane -- that it began with a foreign intelligence service (Australia) telling
U.S. officials that Papadopoulos appeared to have foreknowledge of a Russian plan to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
But they don't think it's the whole story.
That's where Horowitz comes in.
There's one big potential problem that people on Capitol Hill are talking about, and that is the issue of classified information.
Everyone expects a significant amount of Horowitz's report to be classified. How much, no one is quite sure. But the fact is, the
report was done to tell the American people what the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies did during the 2016 election.
Issuing a report with page after page blacked out would not be a good way to do that. But no one will know the extent of the classification
issue until Horowitz is ready to go public.
And even if it were entirely declassified, Horowitz will not tell the whole story of spying and the 2016 election. Horowitz
is the inspector general of the Justice Department and does not have the authority to investigate outside the department. For example,
he cannot probe the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and its then-director John Brennan during the period in question.
That will be the role of another investigator, John Durham, the U.S. attorney appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of
the Trump-Russia probe. Durham is working with the support of top Republicans on Capitol Hill, like Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Lindsey Graham, who recently said, "I really am very curious about the role that the CIA played here."
But first, the Horowitz report. It will be an important step in answering the questions of how much spying took place and whether
it was justified. It's long past time Americans learned what happened.
"... The politically minded rich, or what I call the overworld, have reason to tolerate mob violence that never occur to those of a lesser means ... in maintaining a violent status quo in our society ... of weak and failed states ..."
"... And not to leave out the ex-CIA guys who blew the whistle from Phillip Agee to John Kiriakou over the years. Phil Giraldi another, and the work David Talbot did with "The Devil's Chessboard." New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, and the granddaddy of them all, Col L Fletcher Prouty. https://ratical.org/ratvill... ..."
"... Two interesting if not disparate notables from the ONI: Lee Harvey Oswald and Bob Woodward. ..."
Webb and Valentine begin the interview discussing how Valentine's journalistic work on the
CIA led him to be spied on and even threatened by the agency and how being a dissident
journalist in the 1990s compares to being one now. Valentine argues that, in the present,
efforts to outlaw criticism of the state of Israel are like a gateway that will soon lead to
the prohibition of criticism of the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies, the CIA
among them.
Lastly, Webb and Valentine discuss the CIA's long-standing interest in manipulating the
media and how those efforts also extend to alternative media, not just mainstream media
outlets. Valentine discusses the methods the CIA uses to target alternative, independent media
and how we are seeing its efforts take place in real time.
Follow Doug Valentine on Twitter or visit his website to learn more about his work.
MintPress donors and patrons: Stay tuned later this week for a
patron-exclusive extension of this podcast with Doug Valentine, which will discuss his work on
the War on Drugs and the Drug Enforcement Agency and how both are key to unconstitutional,
covert CIA programs. You can become a patron via Patreon or through our website.
"The politically minded rich, or what I call the overworld, have reason to tolerate
mob violence that never occur to those of a lesser means ... in maintaining a violent
status quo in our society ... of weak and failed states. [...] Even in America, one of
the more successful states, there has always been a negative space in which the
overworld, corporate power, and privately organized violence all have access to and
utilize each other, and rules are enforced by power that does not derive from the public
state."
And not to leave out the ex-CIA guys who blew the whistle from Phillip Agee to John
Kiriakou over the years.
Phil Giraldi another, and the work David Talbot did with "The Devil's Chessboard." New
Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, and the granddaddy of them all, Col L Fletcher
Prouty.
https://ratical.org/ratvill...
Whitney, are you aware of the lengthy (10 hour interview) with Kay Griggs? I am sure
her observations will resonate with you. The time spent on that interview will be RICHLY
rewarding, I promise.
She makes the point that it is not the CIA but Various military intel agencies like ONI (office of naval intelligence) and DIA (Defense Intelligence
Agency) directing organized crime. Google Kay Griggs for You tube video of that long
interview.
Images removed. See the original for full version.
Much more plausible explanation of Russiagate then Mueller report that cost probably 1000 times less. Mueller and his team should
commit hara-kiri in shame.
It contains more valuable information about Russiagate and color revolution against Trump initiatesd by Obama and Brennan. And
what is important it is much shorter and up to the point. In other words, Jeff Carlson beat the whole Mueller team to the
punch.
An excellent reporting by Jeff Carlson !!! Bravo!!!
Notable quotes:
"... Horowitz continued to push Congress for oversight access and encouraged passage of the Inspector General Empowerment Act . Horowitz would ultimately win his battle, but only as President Barack Obama was leaving office. On Dec. 16, 2016, Obama finally signed the Inspector General Empowerment Act into law. ..."
"... The IGs' memo included an assessment that Clinton's email account contained hundreds of classified emails, despite Clinton's claims that there was no classified information present on her server. ..."
"... On July 30, 2015, within weeks of the FBI's opening of the Clinton investigation, McCabe was suddenly promoted to the No. 3 position in the FBI. With his new title of associate deputy director, McCabe was transferred to FBI headquarters from the Washington Field Office, and his direct involvement in the Clinton investigation began. ..."
"... Strzok was one of the agents selected, and in late August 2015, he was assigned to the Mid-Year Exam team and transferred to FBI headquarters. Strzok, in his comments to lawmakers, acknowledged that the newly formed investigative team was largely made up of hand-picked personnel from the Washington Field Office and FBI headquarters. ..."
"... On Jan. 29, 2016, Comey appointed McCabe as FBI deputy director, replacing the retiring Giuliano, and McCabe assumed the No. 2 position in the FBI, after having held the No. 3 position for just six months. ..."
"... By early 2016, the three participants in the infamous "insurance policy" meeting -- McCabe, Strzok, and Page -- were now in place at the FBI. ..."
"... Priestap, who testified that he was unaware of the frequency of meetings between McCabe, Strzok, and Lisa Page, seems to have been kept in the dark regarding many of the actions taken by Strzok, who appeared to be exercising significant investigative control. ..."
"... It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?" ..."
"... Peter and Jon, yeah." ..."
"... Do you know if Mr. McCabe was aware that some of his agent executives were concerned that they were being bypassed on information on what, by all accounts, was a sensitive, critical investigation?" ..."
"... My understanding was that he was aware." ..."
"... Notably, Comey had been convinced to remove the term "gross negligence" to describe Clinton's actions from his prepared statement by, among others, Page, Strzok, Anderson, and Moffa. ..."
"... While GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted, after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Most of these meetings with Papadopoulos -- whose own background and reasons for joining the Trump campaign remain suspicious -- occurred in the first half of 2016. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly so. ..."
"... As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. ..."
"... The last major segment of Brennan's efforts involved a series of three reports. The first, titled the "Joint Statement from the Department Of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security ," was released on Oct. 7, 2016. The second report, "GRIZZLY STEPPE -- Russian Malicious Cyber Activity ," was released on Dec. 29, 2016. The third report, "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections " -- also known as the intelligence community assessment (ICA) -- was released on Jan. 6, 2017. ..."
"... On July 5, 2016, Gaeta traveled to London and met with Steele at the offices of Steele's firm, Orbis. At some point in early July, Steele passed his initial report to Nuland and the State Department. Nuland later said these documents were passed on at some point to both the FBI and then-Secretary of State John Kerry. ..."
"... Prior to joining Fusion GPS, Nellie had worked as an independent contractor for an internal open-source division of the CIA, Open Source Works, from 2008 to at least June 2010; it appears likely she remained in that role into 2014. ..."
"... Additionally, email communications between her and Bruce Ohr show that she routinely sent her husband at the DOJ articles on Russia -- most carrying a similar negative slant. The emails continued through the duration of Nellie's employment with Fusion GPS and usually contained a brief, often one-line comment from Nellie. ..."
"... In her testimony, Nellie described her work as online open-source efforts that utilized "Russian sources, media, social media, government, you know, business registers, legal databases, all kinds of things." Ohr said that she would "write occasional reports based on the open-source research that I described about Donald Trump's relationships with various people in Russia." ..."
"... Steele had produced eight reports from June 20, 2016, through the end of August 2016 (there also is one undated report included in the dossier). No further reports were generated by Steele until Sept. 14, when he suddenly wrote three separate memos in one day. One of the memos referenced a Russian bank named Alfa Bank, misspelled as "Alpha" in his memo. Steele's sudden burst of productivity was likely done in preparation for his Sept. 19 meeting in Rome with the FBI. ..."
"... The impact of Brennan's potential knowledge of the dossier in August 2016 should not be underestimated. As Brennan testified to Congress, his briefing to the Gang of Eight was done in consultation with the Obama administration: ..."
"... Halper, who has been outed as an FBI informant, stayed in contact with Carter Page for the next 14 months, severing ties exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired. ..."
"... Following the publication of the Isikoff article, the Hillary for America campaign released a statement on the same day that touted Isikoff's "bombshell report," with the full article attached. ..."
"... Winer had received a separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele then shared this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it as a means to corroborate Steele's own dossier. ..."
"... Steele also met with U.S. media during his visit to Washington, doing so "at Fusion's instruction." According to UK Court documents , Steele testified that he "briefed" The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, and CNN at the end of September 2016. Steele would engage in a second round of media contact in mid-October 2016, meeting again with The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Yahoo News. Steele testified that all these meetings were "conducted verbally in person." ..."
"... Sometime in late 2016, his wife, Nellie Ohr, provided him with a memory stick containing all of her research that she had compiled while employed at Fusion GPS. Bruce Ohr testified he gave the memory stick to Pientka. Nellie Ohr had left Fusion in September 2016. Through Pientka, Strzok now had all of Nellie Ohr's Fusion research in his possession. ..."
"... Flynn's 2015 dinner in Moscow was initially used to implicate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. It was then used as a means to cast doubts on Flynn's ability as Trump's national security adviser. Following Flynn's resignation, it was then used as a means to pursue the ongoing collusion narrative that gained full strength in the early days of the Trump administration. ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, Rogers moved aggressively in response to the disclosures. He abruptly shut down all FBI outside-contractor access. At this point, both the FBI and the DOJ's NSD became aware of Rogers's compliance review. They may have known earlier, but they were certainly aware after outside-contractor access was halted. ..."
"... Carlin filed the government's proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of the compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016, report by the NSA inspector general and associated FISA abuse to the FISA court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose Rogers's ongoing Section 702-compliance review. ..."
Efforts by high-ranking officials in the CIA ,
FBI , Department of Justice (
DOJ ), and State Department to portray President
Donald Trump as having colluded with Russia were the culmination
of years of bias and politicization under the Obama administration.
The weaponization of the intelligence community and other government agencies created an environment that allowed for obstruction
in the investigation into Hillary Clinton and the relentless pursuit of a manufactured collusion narrative against Trump.
A willing and complicit media spread unsubstantiated leaks as facts in an effort to promote the Russia-collusion narrative.
The Spygate scandal also raises a bigger question: Was the 2016 election a one-time aberration, or was it symptomatic of decades
of institutional political corruption?
This article builds on dozens of congressional testimonies, court documents, and other research to provide an inside look at the
actions of Obama administration officials in the scandal that's become known as Spygate.
To understand this abuse of power, it helps to go back to July 2011, when DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed.
From the very start, Horowitz found his duties throttled by Attorney General Eric Holder, who placed limitations on the inspector
general's right to have unobstructed access to information. Holder
used
this tactic to delay Horowitz's investigation of the failed sting operation known as Operation Fast and Furious.
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information," Horowitz told
members of Congress in February 2015.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general had sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page memorandum, titled "
Memorandum
for Sally Quillian Yates Deputy Attorney General ," written by Karl R. Thompson, the principal deputy assistant attorney general
of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC).
The July 20, 2015, opinion was
widely criticized . But it accomplished what it was intended to do. The opinion limited IG Horowitz's oversight from extending
to any information collected under Title III -- including intercepted communications and national security letters. (Notably, The
New York Times
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump 2016 presidential campaign.)
In response, on Aug. 3, 2015, IG Horowitz sent a
blistering letter to Congress. The letter was signed not only by Horowitz but by all other acting inspectors general as well:
"The OLC opinion's restrictive reading of the IG Act represents a potentially serious challenge to the authority of every Inspector
General and our collective ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner. Our concern is that, as
a result of the OLC opinion, agencies other than DOJ may likewise withhold crucial records from their Inspectors General, adversely
impacting their work.
Horowitz continued to push Congress for oversight access and encouraged passage of the
Inspector General Empowerment
Act . Horowitz would ultimately win his battle, but only as President
Barack Obama was leaving office. On Dec. 16, 2016,
Obama finally signed the Inspector General Empowerment Act into law.
It is against this backdrop of minimal oversight that Spygate took place.
Ironically, the Clinton email server investigation, known as the "Mid-Year Exam," originated from a disclosure contained in a
June 29, 2015, memo sent by the inspectors general for both the State Department and the Intelligence Community to Patrick F. Kennedy,
then-undersecretary of state for management.
The IGs' memo included an assessment that Clinton's email account contained hundreds of classified emails, despite Clinton's claims
that there was no classified information present on her server.
On July 6, 2015, the IG for the Intelligence Community made a
referral
to the FBI, which resulted in the official opening of an investigation into the Clinton email server by FBI officials Randall Coleman
and Charles Kable on July 10, 2015.
At this time, Peter Strzok was an assistant special agent in charge at the FBI's Washington Field Office. The assistant director
in charge at the Washington Field Office during this period was Andrew McCabe, a position he
assumed on Sept.
14, 2014.
On July 30, 2015, within weeks of the FBI's opening of the Clinton investigation, McCabe was suddenly
promoted to the No. 3 position in the FBI. With his new title of associate deputy director, McCabe was transferred to FBI headquarters
from the Washington Field Office, and his direct involvement in the Clinton investigation began.
Strzok would follow shortly. Less than a month after McCabe was transferred, FBI headquarters reached out to the Washington Field
Office, saying it needed greater staffing and resources "based on what they were looking at, based on some of the investigative steps
that were under consideration," Strzok told congressional investigators in a closed-door hearing on June 27, 2018.
Strzok was one of the agents selected, and in late August 2015, he was assigned to the Mid-Year Exam team and transferred to FBI
headquarters. Strzok, in his comments to lawmakers, acknowledged that the newly formed investigative team was largely made up of
hand-picked personnel from the Washington Field Office and FBI headquarters.
Starting in October 2015 and continuing into early 2016, FBI Director
James Comey made a series of high-profile reassignments
that resulted in the complete turnover of the upper-echelon of the FBI team working on the Clinton email investigation:
Oct. 12, 2015: Louis Bladel was moved to the New York Field Office.
Dec. 1, 2015: Randall Coleman, assistant director of Counterintelligence, was named as executive assistant director of the
Criminal, Cyber, Response, and Services Branch, and was replaced by Bill Priestap.
Dec. 9, 2015: Charles "Sandy" Kable was moved to the Washington Field Office.
Feb. 1, 2016: Mark Giuliano retired as FBI deputy director and was replaced by Andrew McCabe.
Feb. 11, 2016: John Giacalone retired as executive assistant director and was replaced by Michael Steinbach.
March 2, 2016: Gerald Roberts, Jr. was moved to the Washington Field Office.
Comey is the only known senior FBI leadership official who remained involved throughout the entire Clinton email investigation.
McCabe had the second-longest tenure.
On Jan. 29, 2016, Comey
appointed
McCabe as FBI deputy director, replacing the retiring Giuliano, and McCabe assumed the No. 2 position in the FBI, after having
held the No. 3 position for just six months.
It was at this point that FBI lawyer Lisa Page was assigned to McCabe as his special counsel. This was not the first time that
Page worked directly for McCabe. James Baker, the FBI's former general counsel, told congressional investigators that Page had worked
for McCabe at various times during McCabe's career, going back as far as 2013.
By early 2016, the three participants in the infamous "insurance policy" meeting -- McCabe, Strzok, and Page -- were now in place
at the FBI.
In January 2016, Bill Priestap was named as head of the FBI's Counterintelligence Division, replacing Coleman and inheriting the
Clinton email investigation in the process.
According to Priestap, Coleman had "set up a reporting mechanism that leaders of that team would report directly to him, not through
the customary other chain of command" in the Clinton email investigation. Priestap, who said he didn't know why Coleman had "set
it up," kept the chain of command in place when he assumed Coleman's position in January 2016.
This new structure resulted in some unusual reporting lines that went outside normal chains of command. Strzok, who would not
normally fall under Priestap's oversight, was now reporting directly to him.
As Priestap described it, the team involved in the Clinton investigation comprised three different but intertwined elements: the
primary team, the filter team, and the senior leadership team.
The primary team was small, consisting only of Strzok, FBI analyst Jonathan Moffa, and, to varying degrees, filter team leader
Rick Mains and FBI lawyer Sally Moyer. Mains reported to Strzok and Moffa, who in turn, along with Moyer, provided briefings to Priestap.
Below Strzok and Moffa was the day-to-day investigative "filter" team of approximately 15 FBI agents and analysts that was overseen
by Mains, a supervisory special agent.
The senior leadership team was more fluid, consisting of higher-level FBI officials who provided briefings and updates to Comey
and/or McCabe. In addition to Priestap, Strzok, and Moffa, frequent attendees included Moyer, Page, Deputy General Counsel Trisha
Anderson, chief of staff Jim Rybicki, and General Counsel James Baker.
While the elements of the day-to-day investigative team differed for the Clinton email investigation and the Trump–Russia investigation,
the primary team remained the same throughout both cases -- as did the lines of communication between the FBI and the DOJ. According
to testimony by Page, John Carlin, who ran the DOJ's National Security Division (NSD), was receiving briefings on both investigations
directly from McCabe.
Priestap Left in the Dark
Priestap, who testified that he was unaware of the frequency of meetings between McCabe, Strzok, and Lisa Page, seems to have
been kept in the dark regarding many of the actions taken by Strzok, who appeared to be exercising significant investigative control. Priestap was asked about this by congressional investigators during a June 5, 2018, testimony:
Rep. Meadows: " It sounds like Peter Strzok was kind of driving the train here. Would you agree with that?"
Additionally, Page often circumvented the established chain of command, not only with McCabe, for whom she reportedly served as
a conduit for Strzok, but also with Baker. Additionally, there were concerns that Page bypassed both the executive assistant director
for the National Security Branch -- first Giacalone, then Steinbach -- and Priestap, the head of counterintelligence. Anderson, the
No. 2 lawyer, admitted in her testimony to congressional investigators that she had been aware of these concerns, saying, "Neither
of them personally complained to me, but I was aware of their concerns."
A report published by IG Horowitz in June 2018, which reviewed the FBI's investigation of the Clinton email case, included the
notable statement that several witnesses had informed the IG that Page "circumvented the official chain of command, and that Strzok
communicated important Midyear case information to her, and thus to McCabe, without Priestap's or Steinbach's knowledge." Steinbach,
who was the executive assistant director and Priestap's direct supervisor,
left the FBI in early 2017.
According to Anderson, McCabe was aware of the ongoing concerns regarding Page's circumventions, but it appears that nothing was
done to address them:
Mr. Baker: " Do you know if Mr. McCabe was aware that some of his agent executives were concerned that they were being bypassed
on information on what, by all accounts, was a sensitive, critical investigation?"
Ms. Anderson: " My understanding was that he was aware."
DOJ Prevents 'Gross Negligence' Charges
By the spring of 2016, the Clinton email investigation was already winding down. This was due in large part to the fact that the
DOJ, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch , had decided
to set an unusually high threshold for the prosecution of Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she would not be charged.
In order for Clinton to be prosecuted, the DOJ required the FBI to establish evidence of intent -- even though the gross negligence
statute explicitly does not require this.
This meant that the FBI would have needed to find a smoking gun, such as an email or an admission made during FBI questioning,
revealing that Clinton or her aides knowingly set up the private email server to send classified information.
According to Page, the DOJ played a far larger role in the Clinton investigation than previously had been known:
"Everybody talks about this as if this was the FBI investigation, and the truth of the matter is there was not a single step,
other than the July 5th statement, there was not a single investigative step that we did not do in consultation with or at the direction
of the Justice Department," Page told congressional investigators on July 13, 2018.
Comey also had hinted at the influence exerted by the DOJ over the Clinton investigation, at a July 5, 2016,
press conference , in which he
recommended that Clinton not be charged, stating that "there are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially
regarding intent."
Notably, Comey had been convinced to remove the term "gross negligence" to describe Clinton's actions from his prepared statement
by, among others, Page, Strzok, Anderson, and Moffa.
CIA Director Instigates Trump Investigation
As the Clinton investigation wound down, interest from the intelligence community in the Trump campaign was ramping up. Sometime
in 2015, it appears former CIA Director John Brennan established himself as the point man to push for an investigation into the Trump
campaign. Using a combination of unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates --
primarily from the UK , but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia -- Brennan then fed this information to the
FBI. Brennan stated this fact repeatedly during a May 23, 2017,
congressional testimony :
"I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump
campaign, was shared with the [FBI]."
Brennan also admitted that it was his intelligence that helped
establish the FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
In late 2015, Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was involved in collecting information regarding then-candidate
Trump and transmitting it to the United States. The GCHQ is the UK equivalent of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).
While GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been
targeted, after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Most of these meetings with Papadopoulos -- whose own background and reasons for joining the Trump campaign remain suspicious
-- occurred in the first half of 2016. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly so.
Mifsud, who introduced Papadopoulos to a series of Russian contacts, appears to have more connections with Western intelligence
than with Russian intelligence.
Downer, then Australia's high commissioner to the UK, met with Papadopoulos in May 2016, in a meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries.
Information allegedly relayed by Papadopoulos during the Downer meeting -- that the Russians had damaging information on Clinton
-- appears nearly identical to claims later contained in the first memo from former MI6 spy and dossier author Christopher Steele
that the FBI obtained in early July 2016.
Downer's conversation with Papadopoulos was reportedly disclosed to the FBI on July 22, 2016, through Australian government channels,
although it may have come directly from Downer himself.
Details from the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos were then used by the FBI to open its counterintelligence investigation
on July 31, 2016.
In the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, the head of the UK's GCHQ, traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Around the same time, Brennan
formed an inter-agency task force comprising an estimated
six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry into Trump and possible Russia
connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the NSA handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
During this time, Brennan appeared to have employed the use of
reverse targeting , which refers to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
Mr. Brennan:
" We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA's foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any time we
would incidentally collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority
to do it. We would not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. We would give it to the FBI. So, we were picking
things up that was of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there -- so they could piece it together
with whatever they were collecting domestically here."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a
process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed
the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump.
Notably, Adm. Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning it only a moderate confidence level.
Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier
Meanwhile, another less official effort began. Information paid for by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton
campaign targeting Trump made its way to the highest levels of the FBI and the State Department, with a sophisticated strategy relying
on the personal connections of hired operatives.
At the center of the multi-pronged strategy to disseminate the information were Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and former
British spy Steele.
In early March 2016, Fusion GPS approached Perkins Coie -- the law firm used by the Clinton campaign and the DNC -- expressing
interest in an "engagement," according to an Oct. 24, 2017,
response
letter by Perkins Coie. The firm hired Fusion GPS in April 2016 to "perform a variety of research services during the 2016 election
cycle."
Steele's firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, was retained by Fusion GPS during the period between June and November 2016. During
this time, Steele produced 16 memos, with the last memo dated Oct. 20, 2016. There is one final memo that Steele wrote on Dec. 13
at the request of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Steele provided Fusion GPS with something that Simpson's firm was lacking: access to individuals within the FBI and the State
Department. These contacts could be traced back to at least 2010, when Steele had provided assistance in the FBI's investigation
into FIFA over concerns that Russia might have been engaging in bribery to host the 2018 World Cup.
Sometime in the latter half of 2014, Steele began to informally
provide reports
he had prepared for a private client to the State Department. One of the recipients of the reports was Victoria Nuland, the assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
After Steele's company was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016, he began to reach out to the FBI through Michael Gaeta, an FBI agent
and assistant legal attaché at the
U.S. Embassy in Rome who Steele had worked with on the FIFA case. Gaeta also headed up the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit, which
specializes in investigating criminal groups from Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.
Gaeta was later identified as Steele's FBI handler, in a July 16, 2018, congressional testimony before the House Judiciary and
Oversight committees by Page.
On July 5, 2016, Gaeta traveled to London and met with Steele at the offices of Steele's firm, Orbis. At some point in early July,
Steele passed his initial report to Nuland and the State Department. Nuland later said these documents were passed on at some point
to both the FBI and then-Secretary of State John Kerry.
Exactly what happened with the reports that Gaeta brought back from London, and precisely who he gave them to within the FBI,
remains unknown, although some media reports have indicated they might have been sent to the FBI's New York Field Office. During
the period following Steele's initial contact with the FBI, there appears to have been no further FBI interaction or contact with
Steele.
Former CIA Contractor Worked for Fusion GPS
Notably, eight months before Fusion GPS hired Christopher Steele, Simpson had hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of then-Associate Deputy
Attorney General Bruce Ohr, to work for his firm as a researcher in October 2015. It was at this time that Fusion GPS was retained
by the Washington Free Beacon to engage in research on the Trump campaign.
Prior to joining Fusion GPS, Nellie had worked as an independent contractor for an internal open-source division of the CIA, Open
Source Works, from 2008 to at least June 2010; it appears likely she remained in that role into 2014.
Nellie told congressional investigators, in her Oct. 19, 2018, closed-door testimony, that part of her work for Fusion GPS was
to research the Trump 2016 presidential campaign, including campaign associate Carter Page, early campaign supporter Lt. Gen. Michael
Flynn, and campaign manager Paul Manafort, as well as Trump's family members, including some of his children.
Additionally, email communications between her and Bruce Ohr show that she routinely sent her husband at the DOJ articles on Russia
-- most carrying a similar negative slant. The emails continued through the duration of Nellie's employment with Fusion GPS and usually
contained a brief, often one-line comment from Nellie.
In her testimony, Nellie described her work as online open-source efforts that utilized "Russian sources, media, social media,
government, you know, business registers, legal databases, all kinds of things." Ohr said that she would "write occasional reports
based on the open-source research that I described about Donald Trump's relationships with various people in Russia."
The work Nellie conducted for Fusion GPS matches the same skill set used when she worked for Open Source Works, which is a division
within the CIA that uses open-source information to produce intelligence products.
When asked how she came to be hired by Fusion GPS and who had approached her, Nellie responded, "Nobody approached me," telling
investigators that it was she who had initiated contact and approached Fusion GPS after reading an article on Simpson.
Nellie would continue to work for Fusion GPS until September 2016. By this time, Simpson and Steele already had started working
on pushing the Steele dossier into the FBI.
Following the end of her employment with Fusion GPS, Nellie provided Bruce with a memory stick that contained all of the research
she had compiled during her time at the firm. Bruce then gave the memory stick to the FBI, through his handler, Joe Pientka.
Bruce Ohr Becomes a Conduit
Nearly a month after Gaeta brought back the reports that Steele provided in London, Simpson and Steele decided to pursue a new
channel into the FBI through Bruce Ohr. Bruce had known Steele since at least 2007, when they met during an "official meeting" while
Steele was still employed by the British government as an MI6 agent. Steele had already been in contact with Bruce via email in early
2016. Notably, most of these prior communications appeared to discuss Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and his ongoing efforts to
obtain a U.S. visa.
On July 29, 2016, Steele
wrote to Bruce, saying that he would "be in DC at short notice on business," and asked to meet with both Bruce and his wife.
On July 30, 2016, the Ohrs met Steele for breakfast at the Mayflower Hotel. Also present at the breakfast meeting was a fourth individual,
described by Bruce as "an associate of Mr. Steele's, another gentleman, younger fellow. I didn't catch his name." Nellie testified
that Steele's associate had a British accent.
The timing of the July 30 breakfast meeting is of particular note, as the FBI's counterintelligence investigation, "Crossfire
Hurricane," was formally opened the following day, on July 31, 2016, by FBI agent Peter Strzok.
According to a transcript of Bruce's testimony before Congress, Steele
relayed information from his dossier at this meeting and claimed that "a former head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service,
the SVR, had stated to someone that they had Donald Trump over a barrel."
Steele also referenced Deripaska's business dealings with Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and foreign policy adviser Carter
Page's meetings in Moscow.
Lastly, Bruce noted that Steele told him he had been in contact with the FBI but now had additional reports. "Chris Steele had
provided some reports to the FBI, I think two, but that Glenn Simpson had more," he said.
Immediately following the Ohrs' breakfast meeting with Steele, Bruce Ohr reached out to FBI Deputy Director McCabe and the two
met in McCabe's office -- sometime between July 30 and the first days of August. Also present at this meeting was FBI lawyer Page,
who had previously worked for Bruce Ohr at the DOJ, where he was her direct supervisor for five to six years.
Bruce Ohr would later testify that during the July/August meeting, he told McCabe that his wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion, noting,
"I wanted the FBI to be aware of any possible bias." FBI General Counsel Baker, who reviewed a portion of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) application to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page -- which relied in part on the information from
Steele -- told congressional investigators that he was never told of Ohr's concerns regarding possible bias and conflicts of interest.
On Aug. 15, 2016, a week or two following Bruce Ohr's meeting with McCabe, Strzok would send the now-infamous "insurance policy"
text referencing McCabe to Lisa Page:
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office – that there's no way he gets elected – but I'm afraid
we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
On Aug. 22, Bruce Ohr had a meeting with Simpson. Ohr would later discuss that meeting during his testimony:
"I don't know exactly what Chris Steele was thinking, of course, but I knew that Chris Steele was working for Glenn Simpson, and
that Glenn might have additional information that Chris either didn't have or was not authorized to prevent [present], give me, or
whatever."
It was at this meeting that Simpson first mentioned Belarusan-American businessman Sergei Millian and former Trump attorney Michael
Cohen.
During this same period in late August 2016, Brennan began briefing members of the Gang of Eight on the FBI's counterintelligence
investigation, through a series of meetings in August and September 2016. Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately,
calling into question whether each of the members received the same information. Efforts by Democrats to
block the release of transcripts from each meeting are ongoing. Comey, however, did not notify Congress of the FBI investigation
until early March 2017, and it's entirely possible he was unaware of Brennan's private briefings during the summer of 2016.
During her testimony, FBI lawyer Lisa Page was questioned by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) in relation to an Aug. 25, 2016, text
message that read, "What are you doing after the CH brief?" CH almost certainly referred to Crossfire Hurricane.
Lisa Page then was asked about an event that took place on the same day as the "CH brief" -- a briefing provided by Brennan to
then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:
"You give a brief on August the 25th. Director Brennan is giving a brief. It's not a Gang of Eight brief. It is a one-on-one,
from what we can tell, a one-on-one briefing with Harry Reid at that point."
According to Meadows, Brennan briefed Reid on the Steele dossier:
"We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and then obviously we're going
to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware [of the dossier]?"
Lisa Page appeared genuinely surprised that Brennan would have been aware of the dossier's existence at this early point, telling
Meadows: "The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of
that nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did."
She elaborated further: "As of August of 2016, I don't know who Christopher Steele is. I don't know that he's an FBI source. I
don't know what he does. I have never heard of him in all of my life."
This claim by Page seems incongruous when viewed against Bruce Ohr's testimony that he met with Page and McCabe in the first days
of August following his July 30, 2016, breakfast with Steele:
"My initial meeting was with Mr. McCabe and with Lisa Page.
"I was telling them about what I was hearing from Chris Steele."
Meanwhile, Brennan's briefing prompted Reid to write not one but two letters to Comey. Both demanded that Comey commence an investigation,
with the details to be made public.
Reid's first letter
, which touched on Carter Page, was sent on Aug. 27, 2016. Reid's
second letter
, far angrier and declaring Comey to be in possession of material information, was sent on Oct. 30, 2016.
There had been
reports that Comey had been considering closing the FBI investigation of Trump, something Brennan strongly opposed. Now, with
Reid's letters sent, that avenue was effectively closed. The termination of the FBI's Trump–Russia investigation would be all but
impossible in the face of Reid's public demands.
Perhaps it was in response to Reid's Aug. 27 letter that the FBI suddenly reached out to Steele in September 2016, asking him
for all the information in his possession. The team working on Crossfire Hurricane received documents and a briefing from Steele
in mid-September, reportedly
at a meeting in Rome, where Gaeta also was present.
During Lisa Page's testimony, she appeared to corroborate this account, noting that the team received the "reports that are known
as the dossier from an FBI agent who is Christopher Steele's handler in September of 2016." She would later clarify the timing, noting
"we received the reporting from Steele in mid-September." A
text sent to her by FBI agent Peter
Strzok on Oct. 12, 2016, may provide us with the actual date:
"We got the reporting on Sept 19. Looks like [redacted] got it early August."
Steele had produced eight reports from June 20, 2016, through the end of August 2016 (there also is one undated report included
in the dossier). No further reports were generated by Steele until Sept. 14, when he suddenly wrote three separate memos in one day.
One of the memos referenced a Russian bank named Alfa Bank, misspelled as "Alpha" in his memo. Steele's sudden burst of productivity
was likely done in preparation for his Sept. 19 meeting in Rome with the FBI.
The impact of Brennan's potential knowledge of the dossier in August 2016 should not be underestimated. As Brennan
testified to Congress, his briefing to the Gang of Eight
was done in consultation with the Obama administration:
"Through the so-called Gang-of-Eight process we kept Congress apprised of these issues as we identified them. Again, in consultation
with the White House, I personally briefed the full details of our understanding of Russian attempts to interfere in the election
to congressional leadership.
"Given the highly sensitive nature of what was an active counter-intelligence case, involving an ongoing Russian effort, to interfere
in our presidential election, the full details of what we knew at the time were shared only with those members of Congress."
As the dossier was making its way into the FBI, the agency began its preparations to obtain a FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page, who was surveilled under Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
According to Baker's testimony, it appears that the FBI began to set its sights on Carter Page in the summer of 2016. When asked
how he had first gained knowledge of the FBI's intention to pursue a FISA warrant on Carter Page, Baker testified that it came through
his familiarity with the FBI's investigation:
Mr. Baker: " I learned of -- so I was aware when the FBI first started to focus on Carter Page, I was aware of that because
it was part of the broader investigation that we were conducting. So I was aware that we were investigating him. And then at some
point in time –"
Rep. Meadows: "But that was many years ago. That was in 2014. Or are you talking about 2016?"
Mr. Baker: " I am talking about 2016 in the summer."
Rep. Meadows: "Okay."
Mr. Baker: " Yeah. And so I was aware of the investigation, and then at some point in time, as part of the regular briefings
on the case, the briefers mentioned that they were going to pursue a FISA."
It appears the FBI, and possibly the CIA, began to focus on Carter Page earlier than Baker was aware. Carter Page had been invited
some months prior to a July 2016 symposium held at Cambridge regarding the upcoming election. The speaker list was notable:
Madeleine Albright (former U.S. secretary of state)
Vin Weber (Republican Party strategist and former congressman)
Peter Ammon (German ambassador to the UK)
Sir Richard Dearlove (former head of MI6 and Steele's former boss)
Bridget Kendall (BBC diplomatic correspondent and the next master of Peterhouse College)
Sir Malcolm Rifkind (former defense and foreign secretary)
Carter Page attended the event just four days after his July 2016 Moscow trip, and it was during this time in the UK that he first
encountered Stefan Halper. Page's Moscow trip would later figure prominently in the Steele dossier.
Halper, who has been outed as an FBI informant, stayed in contact with Carter Page for the next 14 months, severing ties exactly
as the final FISA warrant on Page expired.
Trisha Anderson, the principal deputy general counsel for the FBI and head of the bureau's National Security and Cyber Law Branch,
approved the application for a warrant to spy on Carter Page before it went to FBI Director James Comey.
According to Anderson, pre-approvals for the Carter Page FISA warrant were provided by both McCabe and Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates, before the FISA application was ever presented to Anderson for review.
"[M]y boss and my boss' boss had already reviewed and approved this application. And, in fact, the Deputy Attorney General, who
had the authority to sign the application, to be the substantive approver on the FISA application itself, had approved the application.
And that typically would not have been the case before I did that," said Anderson.
The unusual preliminary reviews and approvals from both McCabe and Yates appear to have had a substantial impact on the normal
review process, leading other individuals like Anderson to believe that the warrant application was more vetted than it really was.
Anderson also testified that she had not read the Carter Page FISA application prior to signing off on it and passing it along
to Comey for the final FBI signature. According to FBI lawyer Sally Moyer, the underlying Woods file (a document that provides facts
supporting the allegations made in a FISA application) was only read by the originating agent and the supervisory special agent in
the field. Moyer also noted that the Woods file relating to the Page FISA had not been reviewed or audited by anyone.
The Carter Page FISA application was largely reliant on the Steele dossier, which was unverified at the time of its submission
to the FISA court and remains unverified by the FBI to this day. Circular reporting, provided by Steele himself, was used as corroboration
of the dossier. Additionally, Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos, whose conversation with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer
was used to open the FBI's July 31, 2016, counterintelligence investigation, is referenced in the FISA, yet there "is no evidence
of any cooperation or conspiracy between Page and Papadopoulos," according to a House Intelligence Committee memo.
Moyer testified that without the Steele dossier, the Carter Page application would have had a "50/50" chance of achieving the
probable cause standard before the FISA court. Notably, the Steele dossier is generally considered to have been largely discredited.
On Sept. 19, shortly after Steele completed his latest three memos, FBI General Counsel James Baker met with Perkins Coie partner
Michael Sussmann, the lawyer the DNC turned to on April 28, 2016, after discovering the alleged hacking of their servers.
Sussman, who sought out the meeting, presented Baker with documents that Baker described as "a stack of material I don't know
maybe a quarter inch half inch thick something like that clipped together, and then I believe there was some type of electronic media,
as well, a disk or something."
The information that Sussmann gave to Baker was related to what Baker described as "a surreptitious channel of communications"
between the Trump Organization and "a Russian organization associated with the Russian Government."
Baker was describing alleged communications between Alfa Bank and a server in the Trump Tower. The allegations, which were investigated
by the FBI and proven to be false, were widely covered in the media.
Just four days earlier, on Sept. 14, Steele mentioned Alfa Bank (misspelled as Alpha bank) in one of his memos.
According to Baker's testimony, there appears to have been at least three meetings with Sussmann -- the first in person and at
least two subsequent meetings by phone. In either the second or third conversation, Baker came to understand The New York Times was
also in possession of Sussmann's information. As would become clear later, other members of the media also had this same information.
As Baker was meeting with Sussmann, Steele was back in Washington for a series of meetings that included his DOJ contact, Bruce
Ohr.
On Sept. 23, 2016, Bruce Ohr again met with Steele for breakfast, telling lawmakers during testimony, "Steele was in Washington,
D.C., again, and he reached out to me, and, again, we met for breakfast, and he provided some additional information." Ohr said this
meeting concerned similar topics that were discussed at the July 30, 2016, meeting but did not provide further details.
Bruce Ohr would also meet either that same month or in early October with FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and DOJ
career officials from the criminal division, Bruce Swartz, Zainab Ahmad, and Andrew Weissman (Ohr testified that he was unsure whether
Weismann was at this or a later meeting). Both Weissman and Ahmad would later become part of the team assembled by special counsel
Robert Mueller.
Steele's Meetings With the Media
On the same day that Bruce Ohr met with Christopher Steele for breakfast, on Sept. 23, 2016, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff
published an article about Trump campaign foreign policy adviser Carter Page. The article, headlined "
U.S. Intel Officials Probe Ties Between Trump Adviser and Kremlin ," was based on an interview with Steele. Isikoff's article
would later be used by the FBI in the FISA spy warrant application on Carter Page as corroborating information.
Following the publication of the Isikoff article, the Hillary for America campaign released a
statement on the same day that touted
Isikoff's "bombshell report," with the full article attached.
A second lengthy article was published on Sept. 23, by Politico: "
Who Is Carter
Page? The Mystery of Trump's Man in Moscow ," by Julia Ioffe. This article was particularly interesting as it appeared to highlight
media efforts by Fusion GPS:
"As I started looking into Page, I began getting calls from two separate 'corporate investigators' digging into what they claim
are all kinds of shady connections Page has to all kinds of shady Russians. One is working on behalf of various unnamed Democratic
donors; the other won't say who turned him on to Page's scent. Both claimed to me that the FBI was investigating Page for allegedly
meeting with Igor Sechin and Sergei Ivanov, who was until recently Putin's chief of staff -- both of whom are on the sanctions list
-- when Page was in Moscow in July for that speech."
Ioffe noted that "seemingly everyone I talked to had also talked to the Washington Post, and then there were these corporate investigators
who drew a dark and complex web of Page's connections."
Her article also mentioned rumors regarding Alfa Bank:
"In the interest of due diligence, I also tried to run down the rumors being handed me by the corporate investigators: that Russia's
Alfa Bank paid for the trip as a favor to the Kremlin; that Page met with Sechin and Ivanov in Moscow; that he is now being investigated
by the FBI for those meetings because Sechin and Ivanov were both sanctioned for Russia's invasion of Ukraine."
It was probably during this same trip to Washington that Steele
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya, whom Steele had known since at least 2010.
Winer had received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele then
shared this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it as a means to corroborate Steele's own dossier.
Steele also met with U.S. media during his visit to Washington, doing so "at Fusion's instruction." According to
UK Court documents , Steele testified
that he "briefed" The New York Times, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, The New Yorker, and CNN at the end of September 2016. Steele
would engage in a second round of media contact in mid-October 2016, meeting again with The New York Times, The Washington Post,
and Yahoo News. Steele testified that all these meetings were "conducted verbally in person."
As Steele's media meetings were going on, FBI General Counsel James Baker learned that Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann was
also speaking with reporters from The New York Times regarding the Alfa Bank information that Sussmann had provided to the FBI. After
some internal discussion, the FBI approached both Sussmann and The New York Times, asking that any story be held until the FBI had
time to complete an investigation into the documents provided by Sussmann. It appears that an agreement was reached, and the FBI
began to look into the claims regarding Alfa Bank and the server at Trump Tower.
But Sussman wasn't the only one that Baker, currently the subject of an ongoing criminal leak investigation, was speaking with.
According to congressional investigators, beginning sometime in September 2016 -- before the presidential election -- Baker began
having conversations with his old friend and journalist, David Corn of Mother Jones.
According to Baker, these conversations were in relation to ongoing FBI matters:
Rep. Jordan: " Did you talk to Mr. Corn prior to the election about anything, anything related to FBI matters? Not -- so we're
not going to ask about the Steele dossier. Anything about FBI business, FBI matters?"
Mr. Baker: " Yes."
Rep. Jordan: " Yes. And do you know -- can you give me some dates or the number of times that you talked to Mr. Corn about
FBI matters leading up to the 2016 Presidential election?"
Mr. Baker: " I don't remember, Congressman."
By Oct. 31, 2016, the FBI had apparently wrapped up their investigation into the Alfa Bank allegations, finding no evidence of
anything untoward in the process. It was on this day that three separate articles on Alfa Bank would be published.
The first, " Investigating
Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia " by The New York Times, appeared to be an updated version of the article they
had intended to publish before the FBI asked them to delay their reporting. It stated the following:
"In classified sessions in August and September, intelligence officials also briefed congressional leaders on the possibility
of financial ties between Russians and people connected to Mr. Trump. They focused particular attention on what cyberexperts said
appeared to be a mysterious computer back channel between the Trump Organization and the Alfa Bank, which is one of Russia's biggest
banks and whose owners have longstanding ties to Mr. Putin."
The reference to "classified sessions in August and September" is likely in relation to the series of Gang of Eight briefings
that former CIA Director John Brennan engaged in at that time -- including his briefing to then-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
The article continued:
"F.B.I. officials spent weeks examining computer data showing an odd stream of activity to a Trump Organization server and Alfa
Bank. Computer logs obtained by The New York Times show that two servers at Alfa Bank sent more than 2,700 'look-up' messages --
a first step for one system's computers to talk to another -- to a Trump-connected server beginning in the spring. But the F.B.I.
ultimately concluded that there could be an innocuous explanation, like a marketing email or spam, for the computer contacts."
The second article,
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?" by Slate Magazine, was solely focused on the allegations regarding a server in
the Trump Tower that had allegedly been communicating with a server at Alfa Bank in Russia.
Immediately following the publication of the Slate article, Clinton
posted a tweet that included a statement
from Jake Sullivan, a senior policy adviser:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Sullivan's statement referenced the Slate article and included the following:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
The Alfa Bank story took off -- despite the same-day story from The New York Times that specifically noted the FBI had investigated
that matter and found nothing untoward.
"In recent weeks, reporters in Washington have pursued anonymous
online reports that a computer server related
to the Trump Organization engaged in a high level of activity with servers connected to Alfa Bank, the largest private bank in Russia.
On Monday, a Slate
investigation
detailed the pattern of unusual server activity but concluded, 'We don't yet know what this [Trump] server was
for, but it deserves further explanation.' In an email to Mother Jones, Hope Hicks, a Trump campaign spokeswoman, maintains, 'The
Trump Organization is not sending or receiving any communications from this email server. The Trump Organization has no communication
or relationship with this entity or any Russian entity.'"
More notably, Corn's article also provided the first public reporting on the existence of the Steele dossier:
"A former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones
that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian
government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump -- and that the FBI requested more information from him."
As it turns out, Corn had detailed, first-hand knowledge of the dossier. According to testimony from Baker, Corn had been provided
with parts of the dossier by Fusion GPS head Glenn Simpson. Baker knew of this fact, because within a week of publishing his article,
Corn passed these dossier parts on to Baker personally:
Rep. Jordan: " Prior to the election Mr. Corn had a copy of the dossier and was talking to you about giving that to you so
the FBI would have it. Is that all right? I mean all accurate."
Mr. Baker: " My recollection is that he had part of the dossier, that we had other parts already, and that we got still other
parts from other people, and that -- and nevertheless some of the parts that David Corn gave us were parts that we did not have from
another source?"
Steele had written four memos after the FBI team received his information in mid-September. All of the memos were written in October
-- on the 12th, 18th, 19th, and the 20th. It is possible that these were the memos passed along to Baker by Corn.
Baker testified that he received elements of the dossier from Corn that were not in the FBI's possession at the time. He said
that he immediately turned this information over to leadership within the FBI, noting, "I think it was Bill Priestap," the head of
the FBI's Counterintelligence Division.
The use of personal relationships as a mechanism to transmit outside information to the FBI was actually noted by Baker, who said
of Corn: "Even though he was my friend, I was also an FBI official. He knew that. And so he wanted to somehow get that into the hands
of the FBI."
Bruce Ohr's FBI Handler
Christopher Steele was terminated as a source by the FBI on Nov. 1, 2016, for communicating with the media. Despite this, DOJ
official Bruce Ohr and Steele communicated regularly for another full year, until November 2017.
On Nov. 21, 2016, Ohr had a meeting with FBI agent Peter Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and was introduced to FBI agent Joe
Pientka, who became Ohr's FBI handler. Pientka was also present with Strzok during the Jan. 24, 2017, interview of
Trump's national security adviser, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn .
The next day, Nov. 22, 2016, Ohr met alone with Pientka. Ohr would continue to relay his communications with Steele to the FBI
through Pientka, who then recorded them in FD-302 forms. What Ohr didn't know was that Pientka was transmitting all the information
directly to Strzok.
Ohr, in his testimony, detailed his interactions with Steele and Glenn Simpson, as well as his communications with officials at
the FBI and DOJ. Notably, Ohr repeatedly stated that he never vetted any of the information provided by either Steele or Simpson.
He simply turned it over or relayed it to the FBI -- usually to Pientka -- but Ohr also testified that "at least on two occasions
I was handed onto a new agent."
Sometime in late 2016, his wife, Nellie Ohr, provided him with a memory stick containing all of her research that she had compiled
while employed at Fusion GPS. Bruce Ohr testified he gave the memory stick to Pientka. Nellie Ohr had left Fusion in September 2016.
Through Pientka, Strzok now had all of Nellie Ohr's Fusion research in his possession.
On Dec. 10, 2016, Bruce Ohr met with Simpson, who gave him a memory stick that Ohr believed contained a copy of the Steele dossier.
Ohr also passed this second memory stick along to Pientka.
On Jan. 20, 2017, Ohr had one final communication with Simpson, a phone call that took place on the same day as Trump's inauguration.
Ohr testified that Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson was concerned that one of Steele's sources was about to be exposed through
the pending publication of an article:
Mr. Ohr: " He says something along the lines of, I -- there's going to be some reporting in the next few days that's going
to -- could expose the source, and the source could be in personal danger."
Rep. Meadows: " And why was he concerned about that source being exposed?"
Mr. Ohr: " I think he was aware of some kind of article that was likely to come out in the next, you know, few days or something."
Apparently, Simpson's information was at least partly accurate. On Jan. 24, 2017, The Wall Street Journal
reported that Sergei Millian, a Belarusan-American businessman and onetime Russian government translator, was both "Source D"
and "Source E" in the dossier. It remains unknown exactly how Simpson knew in advance that Millian would be outed as a source.
But there are some questions as to the accuracy of the Journal's reporting. The dossier appears to conflict with the newspaper's
article in at least one aspect. According to the dossier, Source E was used as confirmation for Source D -- meaning they can't be
the same person.
McCain, the Dossier, and a UK Connection
Simpson and Steele were carefully thorough in their dissemination efforts. The dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several
different sources.
One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood may have previously
worked on behalf of Steele's company, Orbis Business Intelligence; he was referenced in a
UK court filing as an associate of
Orbis. Wood was also referred to as an adviser to Orbis in a deposition by an associate of late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), David
Kramer.
Kramer knew Wood previously from their mutual expertise on Russia. Kramer said in his deposition, which was part of a defamation
lawsuit against BuzzFeed News, that Wood told him that "he was aware of information that he thought I should be aware of and that
Senator McCain might be interested in."
McCain, Wood, and Kramer would meet later that afternoon, on Nov. 19, 2016, in a private meeting room at the Halifax International
Security Forum in Nova Scotia, Canada.
Wood told both Kramer and McCain that "he was aware of this information that had been gathered that raised the possibility of
collusion and compromising material on the president-elect. And he explained that he knew the person who gathered the information
and felt that the person was of the utmost credibility," Kramer said.
Kramer ascribed the word "collusion" three times to Wood in his deposition. He also said that Wood mentioned the possible existence
of a video "of a sexual nature" that might have "shown the president-elect in a compromising situation." According to Kramer, Wood
said that "if it existed, that it was from a hotel in Moscow when president-elect, before he was president-elect, had been in Moscow."
No such video was ever uncovered or given to Kramer.
Kramer testified that following the description of the video, "the senator turned to me and asked if I would go to London to meet
with what turned out to be Mr. Steele."
Kramer traveled to London to meet with Steele on Nov. 28, 2016. Kramer reviewed all the memos during his meeting with Steele but
wasn't provided with a physical copy of the dossier.
When Kramer returned to Washington, he was provided with a copy of the dossier -- which, at that point, consisted of 16 memos
-- during a meeting with Simpson on Nov. 29, 2016. Kramer also testified that there was another individual, "a male," present at
the meeting.
Interestingly, Kramer testified that Simpson gave him two copies of the dossier, noting that Simpson told him that "one had more
things blacked out than the other." Kramer said, "It wasn't entirely clear to me why there were two versions of this, so but I took
both versions."
Kramer noted that Simpson, who was aware the dossier was being given to McCain, said the dossier "was a very sensitive document
and needed to be handled very carefully."
Despite that warning, Kramer showed the dossier to a number of journalists and had discussions with at least 14 members of the
media, along with some individuals in the U.S. government.
Kramer testified that he gave a physical copy of the dossier to reporters Peter Stone and Greg Gordon of McClatchy; to Fred Hiatt,
the editor of the Washington Post editorial page; Alan Cullison of The Wall Street Journal; Bob Little at NPR; Carl Bernstein at
CNN; and Ken Bensinger at BuzzFeed. It's possible that Kramer gave copies to other reporters as well.
Kramer said that Simpson and Steele were aware of most of these contacts, but that Kramer hadn't told either of them that he gave
the dossier to NPR. He also noted that Steele had been in contact with Bernstein at CNN and that the CNN and BuzzFeed meetings occurred
at Steele's request. Steele told Kramer that he and Bensinger "had been in touch during the FIFA investigation; they got to know
each other that way."
According to Kramer, he didn't believe that Fusion GPS and Simpson were aware of these two meetings with CNN and BuzzFeed.
Kramer testified that he, McCain, and McCain's chief of staff, Christopher Brose, met to review the dossier on Nov. 30, 2016.
Kramer suggested that McCain "provide a copy of [the dossier] to the director of the FBI and the director of the CIA." McCain later
passed a copy of the dossier to James Comey on Dec. 9, 2016. It isn't known whether McCain also provided a copy to then-CIA Director
John Brennan. Notably, Brennan did attach a two-page summary of the dossier to the intelligence community assessment that he delivered
to outgoing President Barack Obama on Jan. 5, 2017.
Kramer said that he wasn't aware of the content of McCain's Dec. 9 discussion with Comey, noting that he "did not get any readout
from the senator on the meeting, but just that it had happened."
Kramer did, however, provide updates to both Steele and Simpson regarding the status of McCain's meeting with Comey, in subsequent
discussions with Simpson and Steele:
"It was mostly just to inform him about whether or not the senator had transfer -- transmitted the document to the FBI. Both he
and Mr. Steele were -- I kept them apprised of whether the senator was -- where the senator was in terms of his contact with the
FBI."
The implications of this statement are significant. Kramer, a private citizen, was providing updates to a former British spy as
to what a sitting senator, and chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, was saying to the director of the FBI.
Other members of the media also had advance knowledge of McCain's intention to meet with Comey. Kramer testified that both Mother
Jones reporter David Corn and Guardian reporter Julian Borger came to meet with him. According to Kramer, "They were mostly interested
in Senator McCain and his, whether he had given it to Director Comey or not."
Several days after McCain, Brose, and Kramer met to discuss the dossier, Kramer said that McCain instructed him to meet with Victoria
Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, and Celeste Wallander, the senior director for Russia and
Central Asia on the National Security Council.
The purpose of the meeting was to verify whether the dossier "was being taken seriously." Both Nuland and Wallander were previously
aware of the dossier's existence, and both officials previously knew Steele, whom "they believed to be credible." Kramer said he
didn't physically share the dossier with them at this point, but met again with Wallander "around New Years" and "gave her a copy
of the document"
Nuland had actually
received a copy of the earlier Steele memos back in July 2016.
Steele produced a final memo dated Dec. 13, 2016. According to
UK court documents , Kramer, on behalf
of McCain, had asked Steele to provide any further intelligence that he had gathered relating to "alleged Russian interference in
the US presidential election." Notably, it appears it was this request from McCain that led Steele to produce his Dec. 13 memo.
Although Kramer didn't provide a date, he said he received the final Steele memo sometime after "Senator McCain had provided the
copy to Director Comey." We know that Kramer received the final memo prior to Dec. 29 -- when Kramer met with BuzzFeed's Bensinger.
Kramer testified that Bensinger "said he wanted to read them, he asked me if he could take photos of them on his -- I assume it
was an iPhone. I asked him not to. He said he was a slow reader, he wanted to read it. And so I said, you know, I got a phone call
to make, and I had to go to the bathroom " Kramer said that he "left him to read it for 20, 30 minutes."
Kramer also testified that besides the reporters, he gave a final copy of the dossier to two other people in early January 2017:
Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Il.) and House Speaker Paul Ryan's chief of staff, Jonathan Burks.
James Clapper Leaks Details of Obama–Trump Briefings
The ICA on alleged Russian hacking was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, outgoing president Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the assessment
-- and the attached summation of the dossier -- with national security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates. Rice would later send herself an
email documenting the meeting.
The following day, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary
of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the
dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey, Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the ICA and the Steele
dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
that he had done so at the request of Clapper and Brennan, "because that was the part that the leaders of the intelligence community
agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo :
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that
the FBI has the material."
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump on it that
CNN reported
on the dossier. The House Intelligence Committee report on Russian election interference confirmed that Clapper personally leaked
confirmation of the dossier, along with Comey's meeting with Trump, to CNN:
"The Committee's investigation revealed that President-elect Trump was indeed briefed on the contents of the Steele dossier and
when questioned by the Committee, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted that he confirmed the existence
of the dossier to the media."
Additionally, the House intelligence report shows Clapper appears to have been the direct source for CNN's Jake Tapper and his
Jan. 10 story that disclosed the existence of the dossier:
"When initially asked about leaks related to the ICA in July 2017, former DNI Clapper flatly denied 'discuss[ing] the dossier
[compiled by Steele] or any other intelligence related to Russia hacking of the 2016 election with journalists.' Clapper subsequently
acknowledged discussing the 'dossier with CNN journalist Jake Tapper,' and admitted that he might have spoken with other journalists
about the same topic.
"Clapper's discussion with Tapper took place in early January 2017, around the time IC leaders briefed President Obama and President-elect
Trump, on 'the Christopher Steele information,' a two-page summary of which was 'enclosed in' the highly-classified version of the
ICA."
The allegations within the dossier were made public, and with reporting of the briefings by intelligence community leaders, instant
credibility was given to the dossier's assertions.
Immediately following the CNN story,
BuzzFeed published the Steele dossier, and the Trump–Russia conspiracy was pushed into the mainstream.
David Kramer was asked about his reaction when CNN broke the story on the dossier. According to his deposition, Kramer stated,
"I believe my words were 'Holy [expletive].'"
Kramer, who was actually meeting with The Guardian's Julian Borger when CNN reported on the dossier, said that he quickly spoke
with Steele, who "was shocked."
On the following day, Jan. 11, 2017, Clapper issued a statement condemning the leaks -- without revealing the fact that he was
the source of the leak.
On Nov. 17, 2016, Clapper submitted his resignation as director of national intelligence; his resignation became effective on
Jan. 20, 2017. Later that year, CNN hired Clapper as its national security analyst.
The Effort to Remove General Flynn
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, then-national security adviser to President Donald Trump, was
interviewed on Jan. 24, 2017, by FBI agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka about two December 2016 conversations that Flynn had
had with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
Details of the phone conversation had leaked to the media. Flynn ultimately pleaded guilty to one count of lying to the FBI regarding
his conversations with Kislyak. It remains unknown to this day who leaked Flynn's classified call -- a far more serious felony violation.
The Washington Post reported in January 2017 that the FBI had found
no evidence of wrongdoing in Flynn's actual call with the Russian ambassador. The call, and the matters discussed in it, broke
no laws.
Flynn has been portrayed in the media as being suspiciously close to Russia; a dinner in Moscow that occurred in late 2015 is
frequently cited as evidence of this.
On Dec. 10, 2015, Flynn attended an event in Moscow to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Russian television network RT. Flynn,
who was seated next to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the culminating dinner, was also interviewed on national security matters
by an RT correspondent. Flynn's speaker's bureau, Leading Authorities Inc., was paid $45,000 for the event and Flynn received $33,000
of the total amount.
Seated at the same table with Flynn was Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate in the 2016 election. By all accounts, including
Stein's , Flynn and Putin didn't engage in any real conversation. At the time, Flynn's trip didn't garner significant attention.
But it would later be used by the media and the Clinton campaign to push the Russia-collusion narrative.
Notably, as stated
by lawyer Robert Kelner, Flynn disclosed his Moscow trip to the Defense Intelligence Agency before he traveled there and provided
a full briefing upon his return:
"As has previously been reported, General Flynn briefed the Defense Intelligence Agency, a component agency of the DoD, extensively
regarding the RT speaking event trip both before and after the trip, and he answered any questions that were posed by the DIA concerning
the trip during those briefings."
Flynn's trip to Russia was first brought to broader attention on July 18, 2016, during a
live interview at
the Republican National Convention with Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff.
The Isikoff interview took place on July 18, 2016. Unknown at the time, the matter had also captured the attention of Christopher
Steele, who had begun publishing his dossier memos on June 20, 2016.
Contained within an Aug. 10, 2016,
memo was this initial
reference to Flynn:
"Kremlin engaging with several high profile US players, including STEIN, PAGE and (former DIA Director Michael Flynn) and funding
their recent visits to Moscow."
In addition to the obvious questions raised by the timing of Flynn's name appearing in Steele's Aug. 10 memo, is the manner in
which Flynn is denoted. All other names are capitalized, in the manner of intelligence briefings. Flynn's name isn't capitalized
and, in one case, appears within parentheses.
Steele met with Yahoo News' Isikoff in September 2016 and gave him information from the dossier. The resulting Sept. 23, 2016,
article from Isikoff was then cited by the FBI as validating Steele's claims and was featured in the original
FISA application , and its three subsequent
renewals , for a warrant to spy on Trump campaign
foreign policy adviser Carter Page.
Steele wasn't the only person Isikoff was working with. On April 26, 2016, Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a Democratic
National Committee (DNC) email leaked by Wikileaks that
Isikoff had been working with Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American operative who was doing consulting work for the DNC. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose alleged ties between Trump, Manafort, and
Russia.
The obvious question remains: How did the information on Flynn make its way into the dossier at the time it did, and who provided
the information to Steele?
Flynn's 2015 dinner in Moscow was initially used to implicate the Trump campaign's ties to Russia. It was then
used as a means to cast doubts on Flynn's ability as Trump's national security adviser. Following Flynn's resignation, it was
then used as a means to pursue the ongoing collusion narrative that gained full strength in the early days of the Trump administration.
"In an extraordinary report released last week, the agencies
bluntly accused
the Russian government of having worked to undermine American democracy and promote the candidacy of Mr. Trump.
The report is likely to renew questions about Mr. Flynn's avowed eagerness to work with Russia, and his dismissal of concerns about
President Vladimir V. Putin."
Flynn would resign from his position as national security adviser in February 2017. The sequence of events leading to his resignation
were both coordinated and orchestrated, with acting Attorney General Sally Yates playing a leading role.
On Jan. 12, 2017, Flynn's Dec. 29, 2016, call with Kislyak was
leaked to The Washington Post. The article portrayed Flynn as undermining Obama's Russia sanctions that had been imposed on the
same day as Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador.
On Jan. 15, five days before Trump's inauguration, Vice President Mike Pence
appeared
on "Face the Nation" to defend Flynn's calls.
A few days later, on Jan. 19, Obama officials -- Yates, Clapper, Brennan and Comey -- met to discuss Flynn's situation. The concern
they
reportedly discussed was that Flynn might have misled Trump administration officials regarding the nature of his call with Kislyak.
Yates, Clapper, and Brennan supported informing the Trump administration of their concerns. Comey took a dissenting view. On Jan
23, Yates again pressured Comey, telling the FBI director that she believed Flynn could be vulnerable to blackmail. At this point,
according to media reports, Comey relented, despite the FBI finding nothing unlawful in the content of Flynn's calls.
Strzok and Pientka, at the instruction of McCabe, interviewed Flynn the following day. According to court documents, McCabe and
other FBI officials "decided the agents would not warn Flynn that it was a crime to lie during an FBI interview because they wanted
Flynn to be relaxed." It was during this interview that Flynn reportedly lied to the FBI.
The DOJ was provided with a detailed briefing of the Flynn interview on the following day. On Jan. 26, Yates contacted White House
counsel Don McGahn, who agreed to meet to discuss the matter. Yates arrived at McGahn's office, bringing Mary McCord, John Carlin's
acting replacement as head of the DOJ's National Security Division.
Yates later testified before Congress that the meeting
surrounded Flynn's phone calls and his FBI interview. She also testified that Flynn's call and subsequent interview "was a topic
of a whole lot of discussion in DOJ and with other members of the intel community." McGahn reportedly asked Yates, "Why does it matter
to the DOJ if one White House official lies to another official?"
McGahn called Yates the following day and asked her to return for a second meeting. Yates returned to the White House without
McCord. McGahn asked to examine the FBI's evidence on Flynn. Yates said she would respond by the following Monday.
Yates failed to provide McGahn with the FBI's evidence on Flynn. From that point, the pressure on Flynn and the Trump administration
escalated -- with help from media reporting.
Flynn resigned on Feb. 13, after it was reported that he had misled Pence about phone conversations he'd had with Kislyak.
The following day, The
New York
Times reported that "phone records and intercepted calls show that members of Donald J. Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and
other Trump associates had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according
to four current and former American officials."
With Flynn gone and the Russian narrative firmly established, the conspirators then turned their attention to Trump's newly confirmed
attorney general, Jeff Sessions . On March 1, 2017, The
Washington Post
reported that Sessions had twice had contact with the Russian ambassador, Kislyak. The following day, March 2, Sessions recused
himself from the Russia investigation.
On the same day that Sessions recused himself, Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, detailed efforts
at hampering the newly installed Trump administration, during a March 2, 2017,
interview with MSNBC , in which she described how the Obama
administration gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as much
intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try to
compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the leaking."
Note that Farkas said "how we knew," not just "what we knew."
Obama Officials Used Unmasking to Target the Trump Campaign
On Tuesday, March 21, 2017, the chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), met
a classified source who showed him "dozens" of intelligence reports. Contained within these reports was evidence of surveillance
on the Trump campaign. Nunes held a
press conference on March 22 highlighting what he had found:
"I recently confirmed that on numerous occasions, the intelligence community incidentally collected information about U.S. citizens
involved in the Trump transition. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent
foreign intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting."
In a series of rapid-fire questions and answers, Nunes attempted to elaborate on what he had been shown:
"From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don't know exactly how that was picked up but we're trying
to get to the bottom of it I think the NSA's going to comply. I am concerned – we don't know whether or not the FBI is going to comply.
I have placed a call, I'm waiting to talk to Director Comey, hopefully later today.
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the President-elect and his team were at least monitored and disseminated
out in intelligence, in what appears to be raw -- well I shouldn't say raw -- but intelligence reporting channels.
"It looks to me like it was all legally collected, but it was essentially a lot of information on the President-elect and his
transition team and what they were doing."
The documents Nunes had been shown highlighted the unmasking activities of the FBI, the Obama administration, and CIA Director
Brennan in relation to the Trump campaign. Although March 2017 would prove chaotic, the Trump administration had survived the first
crucial months, and would now begin to slowly assert its administrative authority.
Comey Testifies No Obstruction by Trump Administration
On May 3, 2017, James Comey
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under oath, Comey stated that his agency -- and the FBI's investigation -- had
not been pressured by the Trump administration:
Sen. Hirono: " So if the attorney general or senior officials at the Department of Justice opposes a specific investigation,
can they halt that FBI investigation?"
Mr. Comey: " In theory, yes."
Sen. Hirono: " Has it happened?"
Mr. Comey: " Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something that – without an
appropriate purpose. I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing
resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason. That would be a very
big deal. It's not happened in my experience."
Less than a week later, on May 9, Trump fired Comey based on a May 8 recommendation by Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein .
Rosenstein would later
tell members of Congress: "In one of my first meetings with then-Sen. Jeff Sessions last winter, we discussed the need for new
leadership at the FBI. Among the concerns that I recall were to restore the credibility of the FBI, respect the established authority
of the Department of Justice, limit public statements and eliminate leaks."
Regarding the recommendation, Rosenstein said: "I wrote it. I believe it. I stand by it."
McCabe's FBI Reaches Out Again to Steele
Within days of Trump's firing of Comey, the FBI, now under the leadership of acting-FBI Director Andrew McCabe, suddenly decided
to reestablish direct contact with Christopher Steele through DOJ official Bruce Ohr.
The re-engagement attempt came six months after Steele had been formally terminated by the FBI on Nov. 1, 2016.
The FBI's re-engagement of Ohr was highlighted during a congressional review of some text messages between Ohr and Steele:
Mr. Ohr: " The FBI had asked me a few days before, when I reported to them my latest conversation with Chris Steele,
they had had would he -- next time you talk with him, could you ask him if he would be willing to meet again."
Rep. Jordan: " So this is the re-engagement?"
Mr. Ohr: " Yes."
The texts being referenced were sent on May 15, 2017, and refer to a request that Ohr received from the FBI to ask Steele to re-engage
with the FBI in the days after Comey had been fired on May 9.
This was the only time the FBI used Ohr to reach out to Steele.
The Battle Between McCabe and Rosenstein
Two days after Comey was fired, on May 11, 2017, McCabe
testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. While the hearing's original intent had been to focus on national security
threats, Trump's firing of Comey completely altered the topic of the hearing.
McCabe, who
agreed that he would notify the committee "of any effort to interfere with the FBI's ongoing investigation into links between
Russia and the Trump campaign," told members of Congress that there had been "no effort to impede our investigation to date." In
other words, McCabe testified that he was unaware of any evidence of obstruction from Trump or his administration. Notably, Comey's
May 3 testimony may have left McCabe with little choice other than to confirm there had been no obstruction.
McCabe, however, failed to inform the committee that he was actively considering opening an obstruction-of-justice probe of Trump
-- a path he would initiate in a meeting with Rosenstein just five days later.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein allegedly
suggested
to McCabe that he could secretly record Trump. It was at this
meeting that McCabe was "pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation into the president," according to witness
accounts reported by The Washington Post.
In addition to McCabe, Rosenstein, and McCabe's special counsel, Lisa Page, there were one or two others present, including Rosenstein's
chief of staff , James Crowley, and possibly Scott Schools, the senior-most career attorney at the DOJ and a top aide to Rosenstein.
An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post,
framed the conversation between McCabe and Rosenstein in an entirely different light, noting that Rosenstein had responded with
angry sarcasm to McCabe, saying, "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
This was just five days after McCabe had publicly testified that there was no obstruction on the part of the Trump administration.
Sometime later that same day, both Rosenstein and Trump met with former FBI Director Robert Mueller in the Oval Office. The meeting
was reported as being for the FBI director position, but the idea that Mueller would be considered for the FBI director role seems
highly unlikely.
Mueller had previously served as the FBI director from 2001 to 2013 -- two years beyond the normal 10-year tenure for an FBI director.
In 2011, Obama requested that Mueller stay on as FBI director for an additional two years, which required
special congressional approval .
Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel the following day, on May 17, 2017, and in doing so, Rosenstein removed control
of the Trump–Russia investigation from McCabe and put it in the hands of Mueller.
This was confirmed in a recent statement by a DOJ spokesperson, who said, "The deputy attorney general in fact appointed special
counsel Robert Mueller, and directed that Mr. McCabe be removed from any participation in that investigation."
Following the appointment of Mueller as special counsel, it also appears the FBI's efforts to re-engage with Steele abruptly ended.
'There's No Big There There'
We know the FBI hadn't found any evidence of collusion in the May 2017 timeframe. While McCabe was attempting to open an obstruction
investigation, Peter Strzok -- who played a key role in the counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign -- texted Lisa
Page about lacking evidence of collusion:
"You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I'd be there, no question. I hesitate, in part, because
of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
Page, who was asked about this text during her July 2018 testimony, said, "So I think this represents that even as far as May
of 2017, we still couldn't answer the question."
James Baker, who was questioned about the Strzok text, was then asked if he'd seen any evidence to the contrary. He stumbled a
bit in his reply:
Rep. Meadows: " Do you have any evidence to the contrary that you observed personally in your official capacity?"
Mr. Baker: " So the difficulty I'm having with your question is, what does 'collusion' mean, and what does 'prove' mean? And
so I don't know how to respond to that."
FBI Leadership Speculates on New Trump–Russia Collusion Narrative
In his testimony, Baker disclosed the actual substance of discussions taking place at the upper echelons of the FBI immediately
following Comey's firing -- that Vladimir Putin had ordered Trump to fire Comey:
Mr. Baker: " We discussed, so to the best of my recollection, with the same people I described earlier: Mr. McCabe, possibly
Mr. Gattis [Carl Ghattas, executive assistant director of the National Security Branch], Mr. Priestap, possibly Lisa Page, possibly
Pete Strzok. I don't remember that specifically."
Rep. Ratcliffe: " So there was -- there was a discussion between those folks, possibly all of the folks that you've identified,
about whether or not President Trump had been ordered to fire Jim Comey by the Russian Government?"
Mr. Baker: " I wouldn't say ordered. I guess I would say the words I sort of used earlier, acting at the behest of and somehow
following directions, somehow executing their will, whether -- and so literally an order or not, I don't know. But -- "
Rep. Ratcliffe: " And so -- "
Mr. Baker: " As a -- it was discussed as a theoretical possibility."
Rep. Ratcliffe: " When was it discussed?"
Mr. Baker: "After the firing, like in the aftermath of the firing."
The FBI, with no actual evidence of collusion after 10 months of investigating, began discussing a complete hypothetical at the
highest levels of leadership as a means to possibly open an obstruction-of-justice investigation of the president of the United States.
During his testimony, Baker told lawmakers: "I had a jaundiced eye about everything, yes. I had skepticism about all this stuff.
I was concerned about all of this. This whole situation was horrible, and it was novel and we were trying to figure out what to do,
and it was highly unusual."
McCabe was later fired for lying to the DOJ inspector general and is currently the subject of a criminal grand jury investigation.
The Fixer
Despite the ongoing assault from the intelligence community and holdovers from the Obama administration, Trump was not entirely
without allies.
Dana Boente, one of the nation's highest-profile federal prosecutors, served in a series of critical shifting roles within the
Trump administration. Boente, who remained the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia until early 2018, concurrently
became the acting attorney general following the firing of Sally Yates. Boente, who was specifically appointed by Trump, was not
directly in the line of succession that had been previously laid out under an unusual executive order from the Obama administration.
Upon the confirmation of Sessions as attorney general, Boente next served as acting deputy attorney general until the confirmation
of Rod Rosenstein as deputy attorney general on April 25, 2017. Boente then
became the acting head of the DOJ's National Security Division on April 28, 2017, following the sudden resignation of Mary McCord.
Boente was appointed as FBI general counsel on Jan. 23, 2018, replacing Baker, who was demoted and reassigned. Baker is currently
the subject of a criminal leak investigation. Boente remains in his position as FBI general counsel.
On March 31, 2017, the Trump administration asked for the resignations all 46 holdover U.S. attorneys from the Obama administration.
Trump refused to accept the resignations of just three of them -- Boente, Rosenstein, and John Huber.
As Sessions noted in a
March 29, 2018, letter
to congressional chairmen Chuck Grassley, Bob Goodlatte, and Trey Gowdy, Huber was assigned by Sessions to lead a prosecution
team and is currently working with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz:
"I already have directed senior federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues previously raised by the Committee. Specifically,
I asked United States Attorney John W. Huber to lead this effort."
The Carter Page FISA application has been the subject of significant media attention, but there's another element to the story
that, although largely ignored, is equally important. It involved what amounted to a surreptitious race between then-NSA Director
Adm. Mike Rogers and DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin.
Following a March 9, 2016, discovery that outside contractors for the FBI had been accessing raw FISA data since at least 2015,
Rogers directed the NSA's Office of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702" at some
point in early April 2016 (
Senate testimony &
pages
83–84 of court ruling).
On April 18, 2016, Rogers moved aggressively in response to the disclosures. He abruptly shut down all FBI outside-contractor
access. At this point, both the FBI and the DOJ's NSD became aware of Rogers's compliance review. They may have known earlier, but
they were certainly aware after outside-contractor access was halted.
The DOJ's NSD maintains oversight of the intelligence agencies' use of Section 702 authority. The NSD and the Office of the Director
of National Intelligence (ODNI) jointly conduct reviews of the intelligence agencies' Section 702 activities every 60 days. The NSD
-- with notice to the ODNI -- is required to report any incidents of agency noncompliance or misconduct to the FISA court.
Instead of issuing individual court orders, the attorney general and the director of national intelligence (DNI) are required
by Section
702 to provide the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) with annual certifications that specify categories of foreign
intelligence information the government is authorized to acquire, pursuant to Section 702.
The attorney general and the DNI also must certify that Intelligence Community agencies will follow targeting procedures and
minimization
procedures that are approved by the FISC as part of the certification.
Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of the compliance review by Rogers. The NSD
was part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the NSA inspector
general and associated FISA abuse to the FISA court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose Rogers's ongoing
Section 702-compliance review.
On Sept. 27, 2016, the day after he filed the annual certifications, Carlin announced his
resignation , which would become effective on Oct. 15, 2016.
On Oct. 4, 2016, a standard follow-up court hearing was held (
Page 19
), with Carlin present. Again, he made no disclosure of FISA abuse or other related issues. This lack of disclosure would be
noted by the court later in the April 2017 ruling:
"The government's failure to disclose those IG and OCO reviews at the October 4, 2016 hearing [was ascribed] to an institutional
'lack of candor.'"
On Oct. 15, 2016, Carlin formally left the NSD.
On Oct. 20, 2016, Rogers was briefed by the NSA compliance officer on findings from the 702 NSA compliance audit. The audit had
uncovered a large number of issues, including numerous "about query" violations (
Senate testimony ).
Rogers shut down all "about query" activity on Oct. 21, 2016. "About queries" are particularly worrisome, since they occur when
the target is neither the sender nor the recipient of the collected communication; rather, the target's "query," such as an email
address, is being passed between two other communicants.
On the same day, the DOJ and FBI sought and received a Title I FISA warrant on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. At this point,
the FISA court still was unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA court of his findings:
"On October 24, 2016, the government orally apprised the Court of significant non-compliance with the NSA's minimization procedures
involving queries of data acquired under Section 702 using U.S. person identifiers. The full scope of non-compliant querying practices
had not been previously disclosed to the Court."
Rogers appeared formally before the FISA court on Oct. 26, 2016, and presented the written findings of his audit:
"Two days later, on the day the Court otherwise would have had to complete its review of the certifications and procedures, the government
made a written submission regarding those compliance problems and the Court held a hearing to address them.
"The government reported that the NSA IG and OCO were conducting other reviews covering different time periods, with preliminary
results suggesting that the problem was widespread during all periods under review."
The FISA court was unaware of the FISA "query" violations until they were presented to the court by then-NSA Director Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications, apparently in order to avoid raising
suspicions at the FISA court ahead of receiving the Carter Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. FISA
Abuse & the FISC
Rogers presented his findings directly to the FISA court's presiding judge, Rosemary Collyer. Collyer and Rogers would work together
for the next six months, addressing the issues that Rogers had uncovered.
It was Collyer who wrote the
April 26, 2017,
FISA court ruling on the entire episode. It also was Collyer who signed the original FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21,
2016, before being apprised of the many issues by Rogers.
The litany of abuses described in the April 26, 2017, ruling was shocking and detailed the use of private contractors by the FBI
in relation to Section 702 data. Collyer referred to it as "a very serious Fourth Amendment issue." The FBI was specifically singled
out by the court numerous times in the ruling:
"The improper access previously afforded the contractors has been discontinued. The Court is nonetheless concerned about the FBI's
apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar disclosures of raw Section 702 information
that have not been reported."
Rogers informed Collyer of the ongoing FISA abuses by the FBI and NSD just three days after she personally signed the Carter Page
FISA warrant.
Virtually every FBI and NSD official with material involvement in the original Carter Page FISA application would later be removed
-- either through firing or resignation.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated the wrong month for Christopher Steele's 2016 meeting with the FBI in
Rome. The meeting took place in September 2016.
"... Toward the end of the segment , Bartiromo asked Graham: "Who do you think is the mastermind of this? Whose idea was it to insert Donald Trump into Russia meddling?" ..."
"... Graham responded: "You know, I really am very curious about the role the CIA played here. We know that the FISA warrant application was based on a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, who was biased against Trump, that was unverified. That's one problem. But this whole intelligence operation -- what role did the CIA play?" ..."
"... "Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. Is this accurate?" ..."
"... "Yes, it is, and it's also quite sensitive. The specifics are quite sensitive." ..."
"... "We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA's foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any time we would incidentally collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it. We would not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. We would give it to the FBI. So, we were picking things up that was of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there -- so they could piece it together with whatever they were collecting domestically here." ..."
"... So, it's an intelligence-sharing operation between " ..."
"... Right. We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure that those proverbial dots would be connected." ..."
"... "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign. I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials." ..."
"... "We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and then, obviously, we're going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware of [the dossier]?" ..."
"... "Yes, sir. Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan – so we got that information from our source, right? The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did the CIA provide it to us if they did." ..."
"... "So what you're saying is, is that you had no knowledge of these potential unverified memos prior to the middle part of September in your investigation?" ..."
told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo that Justice
Department Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz was "doing a very in-depth dive about the FISA warrant application" and "the behavior
regarding the counterintelligence operation."
Graham noted that he believed Horowitz's
report would be coming out in "weeks -- not days, not months" and would prove to be "ugly and damning regarding the Department of
Justice's handling of the Russian probe." Graham noted that the IG's report has been delayed because "every time you turn around,
you find something new."
Graham said he wants the IG's report to be as declassified as possible in order for the "American public to hear the story."
Graham said that prosecutor John Durham "will be looking at criminality, did somebody violate the law," while Horowitz "will be
telling us about the good, the bad, and the ugly, and what should be done internally." He went so far as to mention exploring a possible
restructuring of the Department of Justice.
Toward the end of the segment , Bartiromo
asked Graham: "Who do you think is the mastermind of this? Whose idea was it to insert Donald Trump into Russia meddling?"
Graham responded: "You know, I really am very curious about the role the CIA played here. We know that the FISA warrant application
was based on a dossier prepared by Christopher Steele, who was biased against Trump, that was unverified. That's one problem. But
this whole intelligence operation -- what role did the CIA play?"
Graham then went a step further, asking: "Who knew about this in the White House? Here's a question: Was President Obama briefed
on the fact that they were opening up a counterintelligence investigation against the Trump campaign? I'd like to know that."
Bartiromo, who noted that Brennan was running the CIA at that time and would have likely provided the Obama briefing, asked Graham
if he was going to call Brennan to testify before Congress. Graham responded somewhat cryptically, saying only, "We'll see."
Brennan's Role
Brennan appears to have played a key role in
establishing the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign -- including making repeated use of questionable
foreign intelligence.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper personally confirmed foreign intelligence involvement during
congressional testimony in May 2017:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: "Over the spring of 2016, multiple European allies passed on additional information to the United States
about contacts between the Trump campaign and Russians. Is this accurate?"
James Clapper: "Yes, it is, and it's also quite sensitive. The specifics are quite sensitive."
Brennan has testified to Congress that any information,
specifically "anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump campaign was shared with the bureau [FBI]." Brennan also admitted
that it was his intelligence that helped establish the
FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Focus on Intelligence Role Prior to FBI Probe
John Solomon of The Hill, who has extensively covered the Spygate scandal, told Bartiromo in an
interview that he was hearing that "John
Durham and Bill Barr are focused on the part before the FBI officially got started on July 31, 2016, the period of March to July,
and whether intelligence assets -- Western, private, or U.S. -- were deployed in an earlier effort to start probing the Trump campaign
and its Russia ties -- maybe lay the breadcrumb trail of evidence that Christopher Steele then collected up and gave to the FBI."
Solomon noted that when Attorney General Barr said, "I believe there was political surveillance going on," this was likely what
he was referring to.
This focus on the spring of 2016 is particularly interesting given that during this time, Brennan appeared to have employed the
use of
reverse targeting on members of the Trump campaign. Reverse targeting refers to the targeting of a foreign individual with the
intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen. During an
Aug. 17, 2018, interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Brennan said:
"We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA's foreign intelligence collection authorities. Any time we would incidentally
collect information on a U.S. person, we would hand that over to the FBI because they have the legal authority to do it. We would
not pursue that type of investigative, you know, sort of leads. We would give it to the FBI. So, we were picking things up that was
of great relevance to the FBI, and we wanted to make sure that they were there -- so they could piece it together with whatever they
were collecting domestically here."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of traditional channels -- was gathered on members of the Trump
campaign, Brennan began his process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from
the CIA director helped push the FBI toward establishing a formal counterintelligence investigation.
Role of Joseph Mifsud
Solomon also discussed the role of Joseph Mifsud, the individual who told Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos in March 2016
that Russia had Hillary Clinton emails. Solomon noted that he had recently interviewed Stefan Roe, Mifsud's lawyer, who told him
that Mifsud "had long worked with Western intelligence" and that he was "asked to connect George Papadopoulos to Russia -- meaning
it was an operation, some form of an intelligence operation."
As Solomon noted, this would mean that the "flashpoint that started the whole investigation was, in fact, manufactured from the
beginning." Solomon also noted that "both John Durham and two different committees in Congress have recently reached out to get this
evidence from the lawyer, which includes an audiotaped deposition that Mr. Mifsud gave his lawyer before he went into hiding."
Bartiromo closed by asking Solomon
the same question she put to Graham, "Who do you think is the mastermind?" Solomon responded in a similar fashion to Graham, noting:
"I think the CIA. We have to take a closer look at them. We're starting to see some sign of it."
Role of UK Intelligence
Luke Harding, a journalist for The Guardian, had
previously reported
on the early involvement of UK intelligence and their interaction with the U.S. intelligence community, noting that Britain's
Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was engaged in collecting information on the Trump campaign and transmitting it to
the United States beginning in late 2015:
"In late 2015, the British eavesdropping agency GCHQ was carrying out standard 'collection' against Moscow targets. The intelligence
was handed to the U.S. as part of a routine sharing of information," Harding wrote in an article on Nov. 15, 2017.
Additionally, in the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, then-head of GCHQ, traveled to Washington to personally
meet with Brennan:
"That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the U.S. to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed
so important that it was handled at 'director level,' face-to-face between the two agency chiefs," Harding reported.
Around the same time, Brennan formed an inter-agency
task force comprising an estimated six agencies and government departments. Brennan appeared to describe the task force formation
during the Aug. 17, 2018, interview with MSNBC's Maddow:
Maddow: " So, it's an intelligence-sharing operation between "
Brennan: " Right. We put together a Fusion Center at CIA that brought NSA and FBI officers together with CIA to make sure
that those proverbial dots would be connected."
FBI's 'Mid-Year Exam' Team Shifts to Trump Probe
By the spring of 2016, the Clinton email investigation was winding down. This was due in large part to the fact that the Department
of Justice, under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, had decided to set an
unusually high threshold for the prosecution of Clinton, effectively ensuring from the outset that she wouldn't be charged.
In order for Clinton to be prosecuted, the department required the FBI to establish evidence of intent -- even though the gross
negligence statute explicitly doesn't require that.
It was at this same time that Trump campaign adviser Papadopoulos had his April 26, 2016,
meeting with Mifsud, followed
a few weeks later with his
ill-fated meeting with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer in May. The meeting with Downer, then Australia's high commissioner
to the UK, was established through
a chain of two intermediaries.
Downer's conversation with Papadopoulos was reportedly disclosed to the FBI on July 22, 2016, through Australian government channels,
although it also may have come directly from Downer himself via the U.S. Embassy in London. Details from the conversation between
Downer and Papadopoulos were then used by the FBI to open its counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign on July 31,
2016.
Interestingly, the information allegedly relayed by Papadopoulos during the Downer meeting -- that the Russians had damaging information
on Clinton -- appears nearly identical to claims later contained in the first memo from former MI6 spy and dossier author Christopher
Steele that the FBI obtained in early July 2016.
Steele's first dossier
document , dated June 20, 2016, noted that "a dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the
Russian Intelligence Services over many years."
Which raises a good question, recently posed
by internet researcher Nick Weil on Twitter: "When the FBI got the tip from Alexander Downer that the Russians had Hillary's
33k emails, the appropriate action would have been to re-open Mid Year Exam, no?"
Rather than deciding to re-examine the "Mid-Year Exam" investigation, which looked into Clinton's handling of her emails and use
of a private server, the FBI instead used this information to establish an investigation into the Trump campaign.
What makes this sequence of events even more telling is exactly when the FBI first received information from Steele.
After Steele's company was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016, he began to reach out to the FBI through Michael Gaeta, an FBI agent
and assistant legal attaché at the
U.S. Embassy in Rome whom Steele had worked with on the FIFA case. Gaeta also headed up the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit,
which specializes in investigating criminal groups from Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine.
Gaeta would later be identified as Steele's FBI handler, in a July 16, 2018, congressional testimony before the House Judiciary
and Oversight committees by FBI lawyer Lisa Page.
Following a reported
initial meeting that took place during late June 2016 in Rome, Gaeta
traveled to London on July 5, 2016, and met with Steele at the offices of Steele's firm, Orbis. During the July 5 meeting, Steele
provided the first memo in his dossier to Gaeta for ultimate transmission back to the FBI and the State Department.
At the exact time that Gaeta was meeting with Steele, on July 5, 2016, then-FBI Director James Comey announced the closure of
the FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a personal e-mail system during her time as secretary of state.
During the July 5, 2016,
press conference , Comey recommended that Clinton not be charged, stating, "We cannot find a case that would support bringing
criminal charges on these facts." Comey also noted that "although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like
this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case."
With the July 5 closure of the Clinton investigation, many of the same FBI agents who had worked on the case were assigned to
the agency's July 31, 2016, counterintelligence investigation of the Trump campaign -- the opening of which was based on little more
than details from the conversation between Downer and Papadopoulos, provided by the Australian government. Although all investigative
focus fell on the Trump campaign, the fact that Downer said that the Russians had Clinton's emails appears not to have been an impetus
for the FBI to reopen the Clinton email investigation.
CIA's Use of Unofficial Intel on Trump Campaign
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who has seen the electronic communication that was used to officially open the FBI's counterintelligence
investigation, has publicly stated , "We now know that
there was no official intelligence that was used to start this investigation."
Contrast Nunes's statement with what Brennan testified
before Congress on May 23, 2017:
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials
and U.S. persons involved in the Trump campaign. I know that there was a sufficient basis of information and intelligence that required
further investigation by the bureau to determine whether or not U.S. persons were actively conspiring, colluding with Russian officials."
Brennan has claimed that
he didn't see the dossier until "later in that year; I think it was in December [2016]." Brennan also stated in his testimony that
the CIA didn't rely on the Steele dossier and that it "was not in any way used as a basis for the intelligence community assessment
that was done."
https://g.jwpsrv.com/g/gcid-0.1.2.html?notrack Rewind 10 Seconds Next Up Live 00:00 00:00 00:00 Closed Captions Settings Fullscreen
click to watch video
But this claim was countered during the July 16, 2018,
testimony of former FBI lawyer Page, when the following discussion took place regarding Brennan's August 2016 briefing of then-Sen.
Harry Reid:
Rep. Mark Meadows: "We have documents that would suggest that in that briefing the dossier was mentioned to Harry Reid and
then, obviously, we're going to have to have conversations. Does that surprise you that Director Brennan would be aware of [the dossier]?"
Lisa Page: "Yes, sir. Because with all due honesty, if Director Brennan – so we got that information from our source, right?
The FBI got this information from our source. If the CIA had another source of that information, I am neither aware of that nor did
the CIA provide it to us if they did."
While some within the FBI likely had parts of the dossier in early July, Page testified that the counterintelligence investigative
team didn't receive it until mid-September -- likely during a trip to Rome, where they met with Steele:
Rep. Meadows: "So what you're saying is, is that you had no knowledge of these potential unverified memos prior to the middle
part of September in your investigation?"
Page: "That is correct, sir."
Was Reid's Letter Based on Steele Dossier Info?
In the days following Brennan's briefing, Reid
sent a letter on Aug. 27,
2016, to Comey demanding an investigation -- and that the investigation be made public. Based on Brennan's briefing, it's highly
likely that Reid knew an FBI investigation was already underway. Some of the details contained within Reid's letter relate to former
Trump adviser Carter Page and match details contained only within the Steele dossier at the time.
Specifically, Reid claimed that Page had "conflicts of interest due to investments in Russia energy conglomerate Gazprom" and
that he had "met with high-ranking sanctioned individuals while in Moscow in July of 2016, well after Trump became the presumptive
Republican nominee."
Page's investment in Gazprom was known prior to Reid's letter, but it appears that the first public allegations that Page had
met with "high-ranking sanctioned individuals while in Moscow" weren't made until Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff published his
article "
U.S. intel officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin " on Sept. 23, 2016, based on information directly from Christopher
Steele.
Prior to Isikoff's September article, the only place that information had been referenced, aside from Reid's letter, was in a
July 19, 2016, Steele
dossier memo (there is also a mention in a sequentially earlier, but undated memo from Steele). The Steele dossier wouldn't become
public until its Jan. 10, 2017,
publication
by BuzzFeed.
During his May 2017 testimony, Brennan discussed his briefings to the Gang of Eight. Brennan testified that the briefings were
done "in consultation with the White House" and stated that he gave the "same briefing to each of the Gang of Eight members." Notably,
Brennan conducted his briefings individually over a period of almost a full month between Aug. 11, 2016, and Sept. 6, 2016.
However, Nunes has stated that he wasn't given the same briefing as was Reid, despite that Nunes held the position of chairman
of the House Intelligence Committee at the time. Nunes made this disclosure in a July 28, 2019,
interview with Bartiromo, noting: "We now know that John Brennan briefed Harry Reid on the dossier in August 2016. At the same
time, he never briefed me or Paul Ryan, who was the speaker of the House at the time."
Brennan's Role in Official Reports
The last major segment of Brennan's efforts involved a series of three reports. The
first report was released on Oct. 7, 2016, and the
second
on Dec. 29, 2016.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of Trump as president. Notably,
Adm. Mike Rogers, then director of the National Security Agency , publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning it only
a moderate confidence level.
As previously noted, while Brennan has denied using the dossier in the ICA, he did attach a two-page summary of the dossier to
the intelligence community assessment that he, along with Clapper and Comey, delivered to President Barack Obama on Jan. 6, 2017.
Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey, Brennan,
and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the ICA and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
that he'd done so at the request of Clapper and Brennan, "because that was the part that the leaders of the intelligence community
agreed he needed to be told about."
@Sean McBride Not sure if I'm correct here, but my understanding is that the CIA (&
& Dulles in particular) "invented" the term ""conspiracy theory" to further muddy the
waters in the wash up from the Kennedy assassination.
'Conspiracy theory' is how the mainstream media characterizes any narrative that differs
from their reporting of the official line. What is a conspiracy theory? Can it be defined in
categorical terms? Can a conspiracy theory be validated forensically or refuted by similar
means? What criteria can be used to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and theoretical
musings?
The labelling of a theory as 'conspiratorial' is an attempt to discredit its author/authors
and deny its validity. A 'conspiracy theory' usually involves an explanatory thesis that points
to a malevolent plot often involving a secretive interested party. The term 'conspiracy theory'
has a pejorative connotation: its use suggests that the theory appeals to prejudice and/or
involves a farfetched, unsubstantiated narrative built on insufficient evidence.
Those who oppose conspiracy theories argue that such theories resist falsification and are
reinforced by circular reasoning, that such theories are primarily based on beliefs, as opposed
to academic or scientific reasoning.
But this critique is also not exactly based on valid scholarly principles. It isn't just
'conspiracy theories' that resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The
philosopher Karl Popper, who defined the principle of falsifiability, would categorically
maintain that Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism fail for the same reasons. The Oedipal
complex, for instance, has never been scientifically proven and can't be scientifically
falsified or validated. Marxism also resists falsification. Despite Marx's 'scientific'
predictions, the proletarian revolution never occurred. I have personally never come across
anyone who refers to Marx or Freud as 'conspiracy theorists.' 'Resisting falsification' and
"reinforced by circular reasoning," are traits of non-scientific theories and do not apply only
to 'conspiracy theories.'
The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or
phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief
that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in
intent) is responsible for an unexplained event".
The Oxford dictionary does not set forth the criteria that define a conspiracy theory in
categorical terms. The history of mankind is saturated with references to hidden plots led by
influential parties.
The problem with refuting conspiracy theories is that they are often more elegant and
explanatory than the official competing narratives. Such theories have a tendency to ascribe
blame to hegemonic powers. In the past, conspiracy theories were popular mostly amongst fringe
circles, they are now becoming commonplace in mass media. Alternative narratives are widely
disseminated through social media. In some cases, they have been disseminated by official news
outlets and even by the current American president. It is possible that the rapid rise in
popularity of alternative explanatory theories is an indication of a growing mistrust of the
current ruling class, its ideals, its interests and its demography.
The response to the story of Jeffrey Epstein's suicide is illustrative. The official
narrative provoked a reaction that was a mixture of disbelief expressed in satire and inspired
a plethora of theories that attempted to explain the saga that had escalated into the biggest
sex scandal in the history of America and beyond.
The obvious question is what has led to the increase in popularity of so called 'conspiracy
theories'? I would push it further and ask, why is a society that claims to be 'free' is
threatened by the rise of alternative explanatory narratives?
In truth, the question is itself misleading. No one is really afraid of 'conspiracy
theories' per se. You will not be arrested or lose your job for being a 'climate change
denier.' You may speculate on and even deny the moon landing as much as you like. You are free
to speculate about Kennedy's assassination as long as you don't mention the Mossad . You can even
survive being a 911 truther and espouse as many alternative narratives as you like, however,
the suggestion that ' Israel did 911' will get you
into serious trouble. Examining 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as a fictional,
however
prophetic , piece of literature can lead to imprisonment in some countries. Digging into
the true origin of Bolshevism and the demographics of the Soviet revolution is practically a
suicidal act. Telling the truth about Hitler's agreement with the Zionist agency
will definitely result in your expulsion from the British Labour party and you will be accused
of being
at the least, theoretically conspiratorial .
"... "The failing New York Times, in one of the most devastating portrayals of bad journalism in history, got caught by a leaker that they are shifting from the Phony Russian Collusion Narrative (the Mueller Report & his testimony were a total disaster), to a Racism Witch Hunt ," Trump wrote on Twitter ..."
"... Systematic deception by the press is a national security issue. In a real crisis, 2/3rds of this country is not going to believe either the government nor the media. That will be a real problem, and it's a massive weakness. ..."
"... Neoliberal MSM propaganda like heroin. Those "news" outlets don't care about actual facts or news, they are more script writers than anything else. ..."
President Trump slammed the "failing New York Times" on Sunday after leaked comments from executive editor Dean Baquet revealed
that the paper is pivoting from the Russia narrative (which he described as being "a little tiny bit flat-footed") to 'Trump is a
racist.'
"The failing New York Times, in one of the most devastating portrayals of bad journalism in history, got caught by a leaker that
they are shifting from the Phony Russian Collusion Narrative (the Mueller Report & his testimony were a total disaster), to a Racism
Witch Hunt ," Trump wrote on Twitter, adding "'Journalism' has reached a new low in the history of our Country. It is nothing more
than an evil propaganda machine for the Democrat Party. The reporting is so false, biased and evil that it has now become a very
sick joke But the public is aware! The reporting is so false, biased and evil that it has now become a very sick joke But the public
is aware!"
Systematic deception by the press is a national security issue. In a real crisis, 2/3rds of this country is not going to believe either the government nor the media. That will be a real problem, and it's a massive weakness.
Neoliberal MSM propaganda like heroin. Those "news" outlets don't care about actual facts or news, they are more script
writers than anything else. These pretend journalists have conjured up a narrative and it is all about repeat repeat repeat,
keeping that constant drip going into the vein of the Dem constituency. It's been going on for decades and the only people that
are too stupid to see it are the Dems themselves.
In this case the authorities voluntarily admitted to the ruse , but if they had chosen to
, and with the cooperation of a handful of family members and the like , Babchenko could have
remained "dead" , while living a long and happy life in some faraway place.
"... We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.' ..."
"... Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the "submissive void" of the public. ..."
"... All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria, blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included bankers, financiers, industrialists, and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the ill-fated beer-hall putsch. (See here , and here .) ..."
"... The purpose of this propaganda barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering business interests.' ..."
Here was, of course, another surreal spectacle, this time courtesy of one of the Deep State's most dangerous, reviled, and divisive
figures, a notable protagonist in the Russia-Gate conspiracy, and America's most senior diplomat no less.
Not only is it difficult to accept that the former CIA Director actually believes what he is saying, well might we ask, "Who can
believe Mike Pompeo?"
And here's also someone whose manifest cynicism, hypocrisy, and chutzpah would embarrass the much-derided
scribes and Pharisees of Biblical days.
We have Pompeo on record recently in a rare moment of
honesty admitting – whilst laughing his ample ass off, as if recalling some "Boy's Own Adventure" from his misspent youth with a
bunch of his mates down at the local pub – that under his watch as CIA Director:
We lied, cheated, we stole we had entire training courses.'
It may have been one of the few times in his wretched existence that Pompeo didn't speak with a forked tongue.
At all events, his candour aside, we can assume safely that this reactionary, monomaniacal, Christian Zionist 'end-timer' passed
all the Company's "training courses" with flying colours.
According to Matthew Rosenberg
of the New York Times, all this did not stop Pompeo however from name-checking Wikileaks when it served his own interests. Back
in 2016 at the height of the election campaign, he had ' no compunction about pointing people toward emails stolen* by Russian hackers
from the Democratic National Committee and then posted by WikiLeaks."
[NOTE: Rosenberg's omission of the word "allegedly" -- as in "emails allegedly stolen" -- is a dead giveaway of bias on his part
(a journalistic Freudian slip perhaps?), with his employer
being one of those MSM marques leading the charge with the "Russian Collusion" 'story'. For a more insightful view of the source
of these emails and the skullduggery and thuggery that attended Russia-Gate, readers are encouraged to
check this out.]
And this is of course The Company we're talking about, whose past and present relationship with the media might be summed up in
two words:
Operation Mockingbird (OpMock). Anyone vaguely familiar with the well-documented Grand Deception that was OpMock, arguably the
CIA's most enduring, insidious, and successful
psy-ops gambit, will know what
we're talking about. (See
here ,
here ,
here , and
here .) At its most basic, this operation was all about propaganda and censorship, usually operating in tandem to ensure all
the bases are covered.
After opining that the MSM is 'totally infiltrated' by the CIA and various other agencies, for his part former NSA whistleblower
William Binney recently added , ' When it
comes to national security, the media only talk about what the administration wants you to hear, and basically suppress any other
statements about what's going on that the administration does not want get public. The media is basically the lapdogs for the government.'
We know our disinformation program is complete when almost everything the American public believes is false.'
In order to provide a broader and deeper perspective, we should now consider the views of a few others on the subjects at hand,
along with some history. In a 2013 piece musing on the modern significance of the practice, my compatriot John Pilger
ecalled a time when he met
Leni Riefenstahl
back in 70s and asked her about her films that 'glorified the Nazis'.
Using groundbreaking camera and lighting techniques, Riefenstahl produced a documentary that mesmerized Germans; as Pilger
noted, her Triumph of the Will 'cast Adolf Hitler's
spell'. She told the veteran Aussie journalist the "messages" of her films were dependent not on "orders from above", but on the
"submissive void" of the public.
All in all, Riefenstahl produced arguably for the rest of the world the most compelling historical footage of mass hysteria,
blind obedience, nationalistic fervour, and existential menace, all key ingredients in anyone's totalitarian nightmare. That it also
impressed a lot of very powerful, high profile people in the West on both sides of the pond is also axiomatic: These included
bankers, financiers, industrialists,
and sundry business elites without whose support Hitler might've at best ended up a footnote in the historical record after the
ill-fated
beer-hall
putsch. (See
here , and here .)
" Triumph " apparently still resonates today. To the surprise of few one imagines, such was the impact of the film -- as casually
revealed in the excellent 2018 Alexis Bloom documentary Divide and
Conquer: The Story of Roger Ailes -- it elicited no small amount of admiration from arguably the single most influential propagandist
of recent times.
[Readers might wish to check out Russell Crowe's recent portrayal of Ailes in Stan's mini-series
The Loudest Voice , in my view one the best performances of the man's career.]
In a recent piece unambiguously titled "Propaganda Is The Root Of All Our Problems", my other compatriot Caitlin Johnstone also
had a few things to
say about the subject, echoing Orwell when she observed it was all about "controlling the narrative".
Though I'd suggest the greater "root" problem is our easy propensity to ignore this reality, pretend it doesn't or won't affect
us, or reject it as conspiratorial nonsense, in this, of course, she's correct. As she cogently observes,
I write about this stuff for a living, and even I don't have the time or energy to write about every single narrative control
tool that the US-centralised empire has been implementing into its arsenal. There are too damn many of them emerging too damn
fast, because they're just that damn crucial for maintaining existing power structures.'
Fittingly, in a discussion encompassing amongst other things history, language, power, and dissent, he opined, ' Determining how
individuals communicate is' an objective which represents for the power elites 'the best chance' [they] have to control what people
think. This translates as: The more control 'we' have over what the proles think, the more 'we' can reduce the inherent risk for
elites in democracy.
' Clumsy men', Saul went on to say, 'try to do this through power and fear. Heavy-handed men running heavy-handed systems attempt
the same thing through police-enforced censorship. The more sophisticated the elites, the more they concentrate on creating intellectual
systems which control expression through the communications structures. These systems require only the discreet use of censorship
and uniformed men.'
In other words, along with assuming it is their right to take it in the first place, ' those who take power will always try to
change the established language ', presumably to better facilitate their hold on it and/or legitimise their claim to it.
For Oliver Boyd-Barrett, democratic theory presupposes a public communications infrastructure that facilitates the free and open
exchange of ideas.' Yet for the author of the recently published
RussiaGate and Propaganda: Disinformation in the Age of Social Media , 'No such infrastructure exists.'
The mainstream media he says, is 'owned and controlled by a small number of large, multi-media and multi-industrial conglomerates'
that lie at the very heart of US oligopoly capitalism and much of whose advertising revenue and content is furnished from other conglomerates:
The inability of mainstream media to sustain an information environment that can encompass histories, perspectives and vocabularies
that are free of the shackles of US plutocratic self-regard is also well documented.'
Of course the word "inability" suggests the MSM view themselves as having some responsibility for maintaining such an egalitarian
news and information environment. They don't of course, and in truth, probably never really have! A better word would be "unwilling",
or even "refusal". The corporate media all but epitomise the " plutocratic self-regard" that is characteristic of "oligopoly capitalism".
Indeed, the MSM collectively functions as advertising, public relations/lobbying entities for Big Corp, in addition to acting
as its Praetorian bodyguard , protecting their secrets,
crimes, and lies from exposure. Like all other companies they are beholden to their shareholders (profits before truth and people),
most of whom it can safely be assumed are no strangers to "self-regard", and could care less about " histories, perspectives and
vocabularies" that run counter to their own interests.
It was Aussie social scientist Alex Carey who
pioneered the study of nationalism ,
corporatism , and moreso for our purposes herein, the
management (read: manipulation) of public opinion, though all three have important links (a story for another time). For Carey, the
following conclusion was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that
we are free from propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' This former farmer
from Western Australia became one of the world's acknowledged experts on propaganda and the manipulation of the truth.
Prior to embarking on his academic career, Carey was a successful sheep
grazier . By all accounts, he was a first-class judge of the
animal from which he made his early living, leaving one to ponder if this expertise gave him a unique insight into his main area
of research!
In any event, Carey in time sold the farm and travelled to the U.K. to study psychology, apparently a long-time ambition. From
the late fifties until his death in 1988, he was a senior lecturer in psychology and industrial relations at the Sydney-based University
of New South Wales, with his research being lauded by such luminaries as Noam Chomsky and John Pilger, both of whom have had a thing
or three to say over the years about The Big Shill. In fact such was his admiration, Pilger
described him as "a second Orwell", which in anyone's lingo
is a big call.
In fact, for anyone with an interest in how public opinion is moulded and our perceptions are managed and manipulated, in whose
interests they are done so and to what end, it is as essential reading as any of the work of other more famous names. This tome came
complete with a foreword by Chomsky, so enamoured was the latter of Carey's work.
For Carey, the three "most significant developments" in the political economy of the twentieth century were:
the growth of democracy the growth of corporate power; and the growth of propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against
democracy.
For Carey, it is an axiom of conventional wisdom that the use of propaganda as a means of social and ideological control is 'distinctive'
of totalitarian regimes. Yet as he stresses: the most minimal exercise of common sense would suggest a different view: that propaganda
is likely to play at least as important a part in democratic societies (where the existing distribution of power and privilege is
vulnerable to quite limited changes in popular opinion) as in authoritarian societies (where it is not).' In this context, 'conventional
wisdom" becomes conventional ignorance; as for "common sense", maybe not so much.
The purpose of this propaganda
barrage, as Sharon Bader has noted, has been to convince as many people as
possible that it is in their interests to relinquish their own power as workers, consumers, and citizens, and 'forego their democratic
right to restrain and regulate business activity. As a result the political agenda is now confined to policies aimed at furthering
business interests.'
An extreme example of this view playing itself right under our noses and over decades was the cruel fiction of the "
trickle down effect " (TDE) -- aka the 'rising tide that would lift all yachts' -- of
Reaganomics . One of several mantras that defined Reagan's
overarching political shtick, the TDE was by any measure, decidedly more a torrent than a trickle, and said "torrent" was going up
not down. This reality as we now know was not in Reagan's glossy economic brochure to be sure, and it may have been because the Gipper
confused his prepositions and verbs.
Yet as the GFC of 2008 amply demonstrated, it culminated in a free-for all, dog eat dog, anything goes, everyman for himself form
of cannibal (or anarcho) capitalism -- an updated, much
improved version of the no-holds-barred mercenary mercantilism much reminiscent of the
Gilded Age and the
Robber Barons who 'infested' it, only one
that doesn't just eat its young, it eats itself!
Making the World Safe for Plutocracy
In the increasingly dysfunctional, one-sided political economy we inhabit then, whether it's widgets or wars or anything in between,
few people realise the degree to which our opinions, perceptions, emotions, and views are shaped and manipulated by propaganda (and
its similarly 'evil twin' censorship ,) its most adept practitioners, and those elite, institutional, political, and corporate entities
that seek out their expertise.
It is now just over a hundred years since the practice of propaganda took a giant leap forward, then in the service of persuading
palpably reluctant Americans that the war raging in Europe at the time was their war as well.
This was at a time when Americans had just voted their then-president
Woodrow Wilson back into office for a second term, a victory
largely achieved on the back of the promise he'd
"keep us out of the War." Americans were
very much in what was one of their most
isolationist
phases , and so Wilson's promise resonated with them.
But over time they were convinced of the need to become involved by a distinctly different appeal to their political sensibilities.
This "appeal" also dampened the isolationist mood, one which it has to be said was not embraced by most of the political, banking,
and business elites of the time, most of whom stood to lose big-time if the Germans won, and/or who were already profiting or benefitting
from the business of war.
For a president who "kept us out of the war", this wasn't going to be an easy 'pitch'. In order to sell the war the president
established the Committee on Public Information
(aka the Creel Committee) for the purposes of publicising the rationale for the war and from there, garnering support for it
from the general public.
Either way, Bernays 'combined their perspectives and synthesised them into an applied science', which he then 'branded' "public
relations".
For its part the Creel committee struggled with its brief from the off; but Bernays worked with them to persuade Americans their
involvement in the war was justified -- indeed necessary -- and to that end he devised the brilliantly inane slogan,
"making the world safe for democracy"
.
Thus was born arguably the first
great propaganda catch-phrases of the modern era, and certainly one of the most portentous. The following sums up Bernays's unabashed
mindset:
The conscious, intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power
of our country.'
The rest is history (sort of), with Americans becoming more willing to not just support the war effort but encouraged to view
the Germans and their allies as evil brutes threatening democracy and freedom and the 'American way of life', however that might've
been viewed then. From a geopolitical and historical perspective, it was an asinine premise of course, but nonetheless an extraordinary
example of how a few well chosen words tapped into the collective psyche of a country that was decidedly opposed to any U.S involvement
in the war and turned that mindset completely on its head.
' [S]aving the world for democracy' (or some 'cover version' thereof) has since become America's positioning statement, 'patriotic'
rallying cry, and the "Get-out-of-Jail Free" card for its war and its white collar criminal clique.
At all events it was by any measure, a stroke of genius on Bernays's part; by appealing to people's basic fears and desires, he
could engineer consent on a mass scale. It goes without saying it changed the course of history in more ways than one. That the U.S.
is to this day still using a not dissimilar meme to justify its
"foreign entanglements" is testament to both its utility and durability.
The reality as we now know was markedly different of course. They have almost always been about power, empire, control, hegemony,
resources, wealth, opportunity, profit, dispossession, keeping existing capitalist structures intact and well-defended, and crushing
dissent and opposition.
The Bewildered Herd
It is instructive to note that the template for 'manufacturing consent' for war had already been forged by the British. And the
Europeans did not 'sleepwalk'
like some " bewildered herd ' into this conflagration.
For twenty years prior to the outbreak of the war in 1914, the then stewards of the British Empire had been diligently preparing
the ground for what they viewed as a preordained clash with their rivals for empire the Germans.
To begin with, contrary to the opinion of the general populace over one hundred years later, it was not the much touted German
aggression and militarism, nor their undoubted imperial ambitions, which precipitated its outbreak. The stewards of the British Empire
were not about to let the Teutonic upstarts chow down on their imperial lunch as it were, and set about unilaterally and preemptively
crushing Germany and with it any ambitions it had for creating its own imperial domain in competition with the Empire upon which
Ol' Sol never set.
The "Great War" is worth noting here for other reasons. As documented so by Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty in their two books
covering the period from 1890-1920, we learn much about propaganda, which attest to its extraordinary power, in particular its
power to distort
reality en masse in enduring and subversive ways.
In reality, the only thing "great" about World War One was the degree to which the masses fighting for Britain were conned via
propaganda and censorship into believing this war was necessary, and the way the official narrative of the war was sustained for
posterity via the very same means. "Great" maybe, but not in a good way!
The horrendous carnage and destruction that resulted from it was of course unprecedented, the global effects of which linger on
now well over one hundred years later.
Such was the
enduring power
of the propaganda that today most folks would have great difficulty in accepting the following; this is a short summary of historical
realities revealed by Macgregor and Docherty that are at complete odds with the official narrative, the political discourse, and
the school textbooks:
It was Great Britain (supported by France and Russia) and not Germany who was the principal aggressor in the events and actions that
let to the outbreak of war; The British had for twenty years prior to 1914 viewed Germany as its most dangerous economic and imperial
rival, and fully anticipated that a war was inevitable; In the U.K. and the U.S., various factions worked feverishly to ensure the
war went on for as long as possible, and scuttled peacemaking efforts from the off; key truths about this most consequential of geopolitical
conflicts have been concealed for well over one hundred years, with no sign the official record will change; very powerful forces
(incl. a future US president) amongst U.S. political, media, and economic elites conspired to eventually convince an otherwise unwilling
populace in America that U.S. entry onto the war was necessary; those same forces and many similar groups in the U.K. and Europe
engaged in everything from war profiteering, destruction/forging of war records, false-flag ops, treason, conspiracy to wage aggressive
war, and direct efforts to prolong the war by any means necessary, many of which will rock folks to their very core.
But peace was not on the agenda. When, by 1916, the military failures were so embarrassing and costly, some key players in the
British government were willing to talk about peace. This could not be tolerated. The potential peacemakers had to be thrown under
the bus. The unelected European leaders had one common bond: They would fight Germany until she was crushed.
Prolonging the Agony details how this secret cabal organised to this end the change of government without a single vote being
cast. David Lloyd George was promoted to prime minister
in Britain and Georges Clemenceau made prime minister
in France. A new government, an inner-elite war cabinet thrust the Secret Elite leader, Lord
Alfred Milner into power at the very inner-core of the
decision-makers in British politics.
Democracy? They had no truck with democracy. The voting public had no say. The men entrusted with the task would keep going till
the end and their place-men were backed by the media and the money-power, in Britain, France and America.
Propaganda Always Wins
But just as the pioneering adherents of propaganda back in the day might never have dreamt how sophisticated and all-encompassing
the practice would become, nor would the citizenry at large have anticipated the extent to which the industry has facilitated an
entrenched, rapacious plutocracy at the expense of our economic opportunity, our financial and material security, our physical, social
and cultural environment, our values and attitudes, and increasingly, our basic democratic rights and freedoms.
We now live in the Age of the Big Shill -- cocooned in a submissive void no less -- an era where nothing can be taken on face
value yet where time and attention constraints (to name just a few) force us to do so; [where] few people in public life can be taken
at their word; where unchallenged perceptions become accepted reality; where 'open-book' history is now incontrovertible not-negotiable,
upon pain of imprisonment fact; where education is about uniformity, function, form and conformity, all in the service of imposed
neo-liberal ideologies embracing then prioritising individual -- albeit dubious -- freedoms.
More broadly, it's the "Roger Ailes" of this world -- acting on behalf of the power elites who after all are their paymasters
-- who create the intellectual systems which control expression through the communications structures, whilst ensuring these systems
require only 'the discreet use of censorship and uniformed men.'
They are the shapers and moulders of the discourse that passes for the accepted lingua franca of the increasingly globalised,
interconnected, corporatised political economy of the planet. Throughout this process they 'will always try to change the established
language.'
And we can no longer rely on our elected representatives to honestly represent us and our interests. Whether this decision making
is taking place inside or outside the legislative process, these processes are well and truly in the grip of the banks and financial
institutions and transnational organisations. In whose interests are they going to be more concerned with?
We saw this all just after the
Global Financial Crisis
(GFC) when the very people who brought the system to the brink, made billions off the dodge for their banks and millions for
themselves, bankrupted hundreds of thousands of American families, were called upon by the U.S. government to fix up the mess, and
to all intents given a blank cheque to so do.
That the U.S. is at even greater risk now of economic
implosion is something few serious pundits would dispute, and a testament to the effectiveness of the snow-job perpetrated upon Americans
regarding the causes, the impact, and the implications of the 2008 meltdown going forward.
In most cases, one accepts almost by definition such disconnects (read: hidden agendas) are the rule rather than the exception,
hence the multi-billion foundation -- and global reach and impact -- of the propaganda business. This in itself is a key indicator
as to why organisations place so much importance on this aspect of managing their affairs.
At the very least, once corporations saw how the psychology of persuasion could be leveraged to manipulate consumers and politicians
saw the same with the citizenry and even its own workers, the growth of the industry was assured.
As Riefenstahl noted during her chinwag with Pilger after he asked if those embracing the "submissive void" included the liberal,
educated bourgeoisie? " Everyone ," she said.
By way of underscoring her point, she added enigmatically: 'Propaganda always wins if you allow it'.
Greg Maybury is a freelance writer based in Perth, Australia. His main areas of interest are American history and politics
in general, with a special focus on economic, national security, military, and geopolitical affairs. For 5 years he has regularly
contributed to a diverse range of news and opinion sites, including OpEd News, The Greanville Post, Consortium News, Dandelion Salad,
Global Research, Dissident Voice, OffGuardian, Contra Corner, International Policy Digest, the Hampton Institute, and others.
nottheonly1
This brilliant essay is proof of the reflective nature of the Universe. The worse the propaganda and oppression becomes, the greater
the likelihood such an essay will be written.
Such is the sophistication and ubiquity of the narrative control techniques used today -- afforded increasingly by 'computational
propaganda' via automated scripts, hacking, botnets, troll farms, and algorithms and the like, along with the barely veiled
censorship and information gatekeeping practised by Google and Facebook and other tech behemoths -- it's become one of the
most troubling aspects of the technological/social media revolution.
Very rarely can one experience such a degree of vindication. My moniker 'nottheonly1' has received more meaning with this precise
depiction of the long history of the manipulation of the masses. Recent events have destroyed but all of my confidence that there
might be a peaceful way out of this massive dilemma. Due to this sophistication in controlling the narrative, it has now become
apparent that we have arrived at a moment in time where total lawlessness reigns. 'Lawlessness' in this case means the loss of
common law and the use of code law to create ever new restrictions for free speech and liberty at large.
Over the last weeks, comments written on other discussion boards have unleashed a degree of character defamation and ridicule
for the most obvious crimes perpetrated on the masses through propaganda. In this unholy union of constant propaganda via main
stream 'media' with the character defamation by so called 'trolls' – which are actually virtual assassins of those who write the
truth – the ability of the population, or parts thereof to connect with, or search for like minded people is utterly destroyed.
This assault on the online community has devastating consequences. Those who have come into the cross hairs of the unintelligence
agencies will but turn away from the internet. Leaving behind an ocean of online propaganda and fake information. Few are now
the web sites on which it is possible to voice one's personal take on the status quo.
There is one word that describes these kind of activities precisely: traitor. Those who engage in the character defamation
of commenters, or authors per se, are traitors to humanity. They betray the collective consciousness with their poisonous attacks
of those who work for a sea change of the status quo. The owner class has all game pieces positioned. The fact that Julian Assange
is not only a free man, but still without a Nobel price for peace, while war criminals are recipients, shows just how much the
march into absolute totalitarianism has progressed. Bernays hated the masses and offered his 'services' to manipulate them often
for free.
Even though there are more solutions than problems, the time has come where meaningful participation in the search for such
solution has been made unbearable. It is therefore that a certain fatalism has developed – from resignation to the acceptance
of the status quo as being inevitable. Ancient wisdom has created a proverb that states 'This too, will pass'. While that is a
given, there are still enough Human Beings around that are determined to make a difference. To this group I count the author of
this marvelous, albeit depressing essay. Thank you more that words can express. And thank you, OffGuardian for being one of the
last remaining places where discourse is possible.
Really great post! Thanks. I'm part of the way through reading Alex Carey's book: "Taking the Risk Out of Democracy: Corporate
Propaganda Versus Freedom and Liberty," referenced in this article. I've learned more about the obviously verifiable history of
U.S. corporate propaganda in the first four chapters than I learned gaining a "minor" in history in 1974 (not surprisingly I can
now clearly see). I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in just how pervasive, entrenched and long-standing are the
propaganda systems shaping public perception, thought and behavior in America and the West.
Norcal
Wow Greg Maybury great essay, congratulations. This quote is brilliant, I've never see it before, "For Carey, the following conclusion
was inescapable: 'It is arguable that the success of business propaganda in persuading us, for so long, that we are free from
propaganda is one of the most significant propaganda achievements of the twentieth century.' "
Too, Rodger Ailes was the man credited with educating Nixon up as how to "use" the TV media, and Ailes never looked back as
he manipulated media at will. Thank you!
nondimenticare
That is also one of the basic theses of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize speech.
vexarb
I read in 'Guns, Germs and Steel' about Homo Sapiens and his domesticated animals. Apparently we got on best in places where we
could find animals that are very like us: sheep, cattle, horses and other herd animals which instinctively follow their Leader.
I think our cousins the chimpanzee are much the same; both species must have inherited this common trait from some pre-chimpanzee
ancestor who had found great survival value in passing on the sheeple trait to their progeny. As have the sheep themselves.
By the way, has anybody observed sheeple behaviour in ants and bees? For instance, quietly following a Leader ant to their
doom, or noisily ganging up to mob a worker bee that the Queen does not like?
I'd say the elites are both for and against. Competing factions.
It's clear that many are interested in overturning democracy, whilst others want to exploit it.
The average grunt on the street is in the fire, regardless of the pan chosen by the elites.
"... Even more importantly, we should all be troubled by efforts to shut down content and discussions labeled "false and misleading" on major social media platforms . ..."
"... Conspiracies can be found out by many different ways e.g. documents uncovered, discrepancies, evidence that contradicts what has been claimed etc. ..."
"... "A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed." ..."
"... "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. ..."
"... The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here. ..."
"... This co-ordinated and global media attack on the 'Conspiracy Theorist' is co-ordinated and Global for good reason. ..."
"... The determination of international deepstate to make illegal any question or recognition of it under guise of 'Conspiracy theorist=domestic terrorist/anti-semite/anti-Zionist/BDS/trump supporting white supremacist(etc)'- conflating those ULTRA memes with growing awareness of the Anglo/Yankee/zionist PSYOPS underway globally, mean we are entering a choke point in progression of reason, truth and beauty. ..."
"... The danger of the conspiracy theorist to the present world order, is that most of the BIG ones, the nasty ones, are true. And CIA operation Mockingbirds' job (Quote) 'is to Guard against the illicit Transformation of Probability into Certainty," that they are . ..."
"... Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal. ..."
"... The reality is that the ruling class and its public servants really do have a parasitic and predatory relationship to the vast majority of humanity ..."
"... I like Michael Moore's response when asked if he believed the conspiracy theories which were floating about at the time: "Just the ones that are true" ..."
"... A conspiracy theory, like any theory is as strong as the evidence put forward to support it. ..."
"... One of the ways they will do this is to plant "evidence" purporting to support the theory, but easily disproved by easily available information. Unfortunately,it is a sad fact that far too many "conspiracy theorists" readily accept and share along with genuine evidence, this planted "evidence" to the wider internet, thereby undermining the solid evidence of a conspiracy, by associating it with the easily disprovable nonsense. ..."
"... For example, after the attack on the WTC Kissinger was appointed to the head the 9/11 commission (before stepping down). ..."
"... 'Conspiracy theorists' would have thought – why are neocons appointing a mass-murdering neocon to investigate an event that might have involved neocons (raising obvious credibility issues) – whereas those who regard conspiracy theorists as dribbling fruitcakes would have welcomed the appointment of the nobel peace prize winner. ..."
Noam
Chomsky has pointed out , the more educated we are, the more we are a target for state-corporate propaganda. Even journalists
outside the mainstream may internalize establishment values and prejudices. Which brings us to Parramore's embrace of the term "conspiracy
theory." Once a neutral and little-used phrase, "conspiracy theory" was infamously weaponized in
1967 by a memo from the CIA to its station chiefs worldwide.
Troubled by growing mass disbelief in the "lone nut" theory of President Kennedy's assassination, and concerned that "[c]onspiracy
theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization," the agency directed its officers to "discuss the publicity problem
with friendly and elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)" and to "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the
attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose."
In the 45 years before the CIA memo came out, the phrase 'conspiracy theory' appeared in the Washington Post and New
York Times only 50 times, or about once per year. In the 45 years after the CIA memo, the phrase appeared 2,630 times, or
about once per week."
While it turns out that Parramore knows something about this hugely successful propaganda drive, she chose in her NBC piece to deploy
the phrase as the government has come to define it, i.e., as "something that requires no consideration because it is obviously not
true." This embeds a fallacy in her argument which only spreads as she goes on. Likewise, the authors of the studies she cites, who
attempt to connect belief in "conspiracy theories" to "narcissistic personality traits," are not immune to efforts to manipulate
the wider culture. Studies are only as good as the assumptions from which they proceed; in this case, the assumption was provided
by an interested Federal agency. And what of their suggested diagnosis?
On the contrary, most of the people I know who hold these varied (and not always shared) views are deeply empathic, courageously
humble, and resigned to a life on the margins of official discourse, even as they doggedly seek to publicize what they have learned.
A number of them have arrived at their views through painful, direct experience, like the
loss of a friend or the illness of a child, but far from having a "negative view of humanity," as Parramore writes, most hold
a deep and abiding faith in the power of regular people to see injustice and peacefully oppose it. In that regard, they share a great
deal in common with writers like Parramore: ultimately, we all want what's best for our children, and none of us want a world ruled
by unaccountable political-economic interests. If we want to achieve that world, then we should work together to promote speech that
is free from personal attacks on all sides. Even more importantly, we should all be troubled by efforts to shut down content and
discussions labeled "false and misleading"
on major social media platforms.
Who will decide what is false and what is true? ... ... ...
President Kennedy said:
a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people."
Perhaps we should take a closer look at ideas that so frighten the powers-that-be. Far from inviting our ridicule, the people who
insist that we look in these forbidden places may one day deserve our thanks.
John Kirby is a documentary filmmaker. His latest project, Four Died Trying, examines what John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther
King and Robert Kennedy were doing in the last years of their lives which may have led to their deaths.
George
I am responding to an earlier comment you made because, for some reason, I cannot reply to it in the proper place.
"The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here."
Wrong: secrets can be uncovered even if both of them are dead.
"The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked."
Conspiracies can be found out by many different ways e.g. documents uncovered, discrepancies, evidence that contradicts what
has been claimed etc.
"A two decade old CT, like 9/11, or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved
too many people–someone would have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed."
Always a bad sign when you start to repeat "would have". Lots of presumption here.
"No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long dead, taking the reasons to their graves .."
New facts can emerge all the time even regarding the most ancient of events.
" .or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported."
So you now have godlike omniscience?
"A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy "
There's no point in going much further here. You now devolve into psychobabble which, as always, is based on the dogmatic assertion
that you are right. (cf. the formerly mentioned godlike omniscience)
Ragnar
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only
for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.
It thus
becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." These words are attributed to Joseph Goebbels.
-So, George, it would hardly make a difference whether the State is Marxist or Capitalist. It's either power or
truth. They are inherently different and can not be reconciled. Ultimately, there is no bridge possible.
However, so-called "common" goals are of a lower order and cooperation here is possible, temporarily. These relationships are
unstable and prone to breaking up precisely because they're ultimately not common at all. The principle are different and the
personalities too. Ships Passing In The Night, like. -See?
George
We all have common goals. Basically the goals of life and health. And these are hardly goals "of a lower order". If that was true
then we must be living in a state of "postmodernist relativity" where anyone can decide arbitrarily what matters. And that would
certainly lead to your ships-passing-in-the-night scenario i.e. the ultimate divide-and-rule vision.
As for power, the late Marxist writer Ellen Meiksins Wood noted that, in modern times, we have an unprecedented degree of political
freedom. But the reason for that is that power no longer lies in politics. It lies in economics. What is the point of having formal
rights when your livelihood is gone?
The old adage 'two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead' applies here.
The conspiracies we know about are exposed because someone talks, or a computer gets hacked. A two decade old CT, like 9/11,
or worse, one six decades old (the JFK assassination), are false because they would have involved too many people – someone would
have blown the whistle, if only on their deathbed. No new facts have emerged because the only people who knew anything are long
dead, taking the reasons to their graves, or in the case of 9/11, because there was no great conspiracy, beyond the one reported.
A propensity for subscribing to conspiracy theories, is, sad to say, indicative of mental inadequacy. Such people are unable
to deal with the complexities of the world as it is, and therefore seek to make it a world of black and white, good and evil,
heroes and villains. The internet, with its blurring of fantasy and fact enables them. This is why discussions like this get so
polarised.
TFS
1. 9/11 and JFK are false because WILLIAM HBonney has declared it so.
Boom, thanks for watching kids.
2. In other news, some Conspiracy Theorists Imagined 747-E4Bs above Washington at the time of 9/11 and 25+second delay introduced
into the Air Traffic Control System but the Official Conspiracy Account of 9/11 didn't discuss it because there was nothing to
see.
6. But it's ok kidz, because HWB wack jobs, like first responders, police, fire personnel architects, physicists, former military
personnel, pilots, Nobel Peace Prixe winners, medical experts, etc etc all collectively asertained that the Official Conspiracy
Theory of 9/11 is about as usefull as the Warren Commission Report.
7. HOWEVER, HWB THINKS YOU'RE A WACK JOB.
r. rebar
unless & until someone goes to jail -- there are no conspiracies & as silence is -- like any commodity -- only as good as the
price paid to maintain it -- those who know have a real vested interest in not talking (it's not a secret if you tell someone)
roger morris
Ms Parramore is doing nothing more than her profession and tenure demands. Witting or un-witting. This co-ordinated and global
media attack on the 'Conspiracy Theorist' is co-ordinated and Global for good reason.
It is the 'Great Wurlitzer' at full throat
coinciding with extraordinary reductions in internet freedoms of information flow. The determination of international deepstate
to make illegal any question or recognition of it under guise of 'Conspiracy theorist=domestic terrorist/anti-semite/anti-Zionist/BDS/trump
supporting white supremacist(etc)'- conflating those ULTRA memes with growing awareness of the Anglo/Yankee/zionist PSYOPS underway
globally, mean we are entering a choke point in progression of reason, truth and beauty.
A read of the Cass Sunstein/Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule Paper describing 'Conspiracy theory' as a 'crippled Epistemology'
and determining 'COINTELPRO' type strategies to counter the danger of their truth becoming certainty, will enlighten those in
the dark of IIO methodology and expose Ms Parramore as a true MOCKINGBIRD.
The danger of the conspiracy theorist to the present world order, is that most of the BIG ones, the nasty ones, are true. And
CIA operation Mockingbirds' job (Quote) 'is to Guard against the illicit Transformation of Probability into Certainty," that they
are .
"Ultimately, the average conspiracy theorist has a better grasp of how the world works than the average liberal. Even the most
outlandish "conspiracy theory" in existence -- that people like George W. Bush and Queen Elizabeth are shape-shifting, extra-dimensional
reptilians -- is closer to the truth than what liberals believe.
The reality is that the ruling class and its public servants really do have a parasitic and predatory relationship to the
vast majority of humanity "
I've often felt there is a lot of (metaphorical!) truth in David Icke's ravings, although the reptile image is unfortunate
in that actual reptiles are amongst the most sedate and peaceful creatures.
Molloy
Eichmann and today's useful idiots; Hannah Arendt
(start Arendt quote)
Despite all the efforts of the prosecution, everybody could see that this man was not a "monster," but it was difficult indeed
not to suspect that he was a clown. And since this suspicion would have been fatal to the whole enterprise, and was also rather
hard to sustain, in view of the sufferings he and his like had caused so many millions of people, his worst clowneries were hardly
noticed. What could you do with a man who first declared, with great emphasis, that the one thing he had learned in an ill-spent
life was that one should never take an oath ("Today no man, no judge could ever persuade me to make a sworn statement. I refuse
it; I refuse it for moral reasons. Since my experience tells me that if one is loyal to his oath, one day he has to take the consequences,
I have made up my mind once and for all that no judge in the world or other authority will ever be capable of making me swear
an oath, to give sworn testimony.
I won't do it voluntarily and no one will be able to force me"), and then, after being told
explicitly that if he wished to testify in his own defense he might "do so under oath or without an oath," declared without further
ado that he would prefer to testify under oath? Or who, repeatedly and with a great show of feeling, assured the court, as he
had assured the police examiner, that the worst thing he could do would be to try to escape his true responsibilities, to fight
for his neck, to plead for mercy -- and then, upon instruction of his counsel, submitted a handwritten document that contained
a plea for mercy?
As far as Eichmann was concerned, these were questions of changing moods, not of inconsistencies, and as long
as he was capable of finding, either in his memory or on the spur of the moment, an elating stock phrase to go with them, he was
quite content. (end quote)
And why it is essential to understand what Eichmann was facilitating (and the madness that morphed into the same apartheid bigotry
in the 21st century).
I appreciate the article, but the sentence below is offered with no logical or rational support – it is simply an evidence free
assertion:
("But Parramore and many journalists like her are neither assets of an intelligence service nor unthinking tools of big media;
) – really?
It is quite clear that if someone "is" (an asset of an intelligence service) that they will certainly not be broadcasting this
fact to the world or to friends and family. And for someone to assert that "conspiracies" don't exist in the real world requires
a level of credulity that most intelligent and rational people the least bit familiar with the historical record would find rather
difficult to muster up. I dare say it would be much easier in fact to prove the assertion that our Western history is simply the
"history of conspiracies" given the oligarchic control of Western populations for millennia. This is hardly "rocket science" as
they say. We do have a rather well documented historical record to fall back on to show the endless scheming of Western oligarchy
behind the backs of Western populations.
wardropper
I like Michael Moore's response when asked if he believed the conspiracy theories which were floating about at the time:
"Just the ones that are true"
John Thatcher
A conspiracy theory, like any theory is as strong as the evidence put forward to support it. Often people offer as fact conspiracies
that only as yet exist as theories,with greater or lesser amounts of evidence to support.I have no doubt that interested parties
who are the accused in these theories, will mount efforts to discredit any theory mounted against them or those they represent.
One of the ways they will do this is to plant "evidence" purporting to support the theory, but easily disproved by easily
available information. Unfortunately,it is a sad fact that far too many "conspiracy theorists" readily accept and share along
with genuine evidence, this planted "evidence" to the wider internet, thereby undermining the solid evidence of a conspiracy,
by associating it with the easily disprovable nonsense.
Harry Stotle
Isn't it high time we had a term to describe those who always accept the official version of events after controversial political
incidents no matter how implausible this account might be?
For example, after the attack on the WTC Kissinger was appointed to the head the 9/11 commission (before stepping down).
'Conspiracy theorists' would have thought – why are neocons appointing a mass-murdering neocon to investigate an event that
might have involved neocons (raising obvious credibility issues) – whereas those who regard conspiracy theorists as dribbling
fruitcakes would have welcomed the appointment of the nobel peace prize winner.
Anyway, here's a clip of Henry – the believers in everything the government say would never have considered the objections
raised in the film – such questions are tantamount to mental illness according to these 'progressives'.
Need to investigate the role , if any , of Dr. Michael Baden in the Epstein and JFK autopsy
cover-ups .
According to Dr.Crenshaw who treated JFK at the Parkland Hospital Kennedy was shot once or
twice from the front and , therefore, Oswald could not possibly have been the killer. See "
Trauma Room One , the JFK Medical Coverup Exposed . " By Dr. Michael Crenshaw .
I'm hoping that an element within our intelligence services did the right thing and
Offed him to send a loud and clear message to the rest of the tribal members involved in
false flags against USA and world. Obviously, JE was a very high ranking mossad agent who
had strong ties with ALL the Israelis and Americans who did 9/11.
The primary mission of intelligence agencies is self-preservation, and that means
co-operation with other nation's intelligence agencies whenever possible.
As a practical matter it is highly likely that both Israeli and US Intelligence agencies
had access to the Epstein blackmail materials to use as they wish.
( and, as a practical matter it is highly likely that both Israeli and US Intelligence
agencies were behind 911, the Kennedy assassinations, etc etc etc)
They are on one team, and those outside the intelligence "community" are on the other
team.
Ever consider a rogue upper echelon CIA faction may have ran Epstein, hoping it looked
optically like the Mossad ran him?
Epstein was probably a sex criminal from his early adulthood, but knew a few people. Hell,
his handlers could have told him they were Mossad. I think our CIA/NSA has some brass who
wouldnt mind calling America's foreign policy shots from behind the scenes via blackmail info
on influential company leaders and corporate officers/assorted congresscritters. Epstein
could privide this while appearing to be Mossad.
Its hard to believ CIA would let the Mossad get kompramat on our politicians so they could
boss them around. Turf concerns and a bruised ego would lead me to believe the CIA would at
least brief new members of congress about this anyway. I think it could have been them. "He
belongs to intelligence".
@Anon Interesting
idea, but aren't the CIA and Mossad joined at the hip at this stage? How likely is it that
rogue elements within the CIA haven't been purged by now?
Ever consider a rogue upper echelon CIA faction may have ran Epstein, hoping it looked
optically like the Mossad ran him?
No. For simple reasons: "What's there for me" and "Unless having THAT clearance I'll never
know".
Re the former: if they can pull this to him what can they pull on me (or people I care
for) if/when they want it.
Gets worse.
What if they pull that just to get a kick of out of it? Like aristocrats/nobles of Rome
would pull it on a gladiator/slave? Or Middle Age noble on a serf?
I remember when Milosevic died and I'd mention that over lunch in white-collar/corporate
environment. He WAS a head of state, European, White. I remember the jokes. And I was
thinking (stupid, I know) the same: if they can do this to him, what can they do to me?
Nobody else was, of course, at least where I was moving around (senior corporate management,
that is .or so I say).
Then, there was a S.A.S. guy. Quote from Wikipedia:
He was a lance corporal in 1980, serving in Pagoda Troop, 'B' Squadron, 22 SAS Regiment,
when he led "Blue Team" in the storming of the Iranian Embassy in London during a hostage
siege on 5 May 1980. McAleese fought in the Falklands War in 1982, and in Ulster. He was
awarded the Military Medal for gallantry in action at the Loughgall ambush in Armagh on 8
May 1987,[4] and was present at the Drumnakilly ambush in County Tyrone in August 1988.[5]
He also served as a bodyguard for three Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.
The last sentence could be interesting.
And, then ..
Four days after his son's funeral John McAleese was arrested by officers from West
Mercia Police on charges of accessing indecent images of juveniles on the internet via a
home computer.
So, again, if they can do that to this fellow, what can they do to me?
Etc.
Hehehe ..now the funny part: how many people reading this knew about Mr. McAleese? No need
to state it here.
Oh, BTW, how many people you know are paying attention to this? Real attention, I
mean?
Funny too.
"... Malcolm Wallace and LBJ had been closely linked. In the early 50’s, LBJ had gone to great extents to save Wallace’s life after he shot down a professional golfer who was having an affair with LBJ’s alcoholic sister. Although guilty of murder, Wallace ended up with a minor sentence. ..."
"... Interestingly, a Wallace fingerprint was apparently found at the TSBD “Sniper nest” from where Oswald allegedly shot JFK. Probably some insurance taken against LBJ by his co-conspirators… ..."
This reminds me a little of a almost forgotten incident from the 1960s
Some government inspector in Texas had agreed to testify about the details of a gigantic
corruption ring that was closely connected with LBJ. I can't remember the exact details, but
not long afterward, he was found dead, shot seven times.
The local Texas court ruled it an apparent suicide and that's exactly how it was reported
in the Washington Post and the other national newspapers
In 1984, Billie Sol Estes told a grand jury investigating the 1961 shooting death of Henry
Marshall, an official with the Department of Agriculture, that LBJ’s associate Malcolm
Wallace was Marshall’s murderer.
Malcolm Wallace and LBJ had been closely linked. In the early 50’s, LBJ had gone
to great extents to save Wallace’s life after he shot down a professional golfer who
was having an affair with LBJ’s alcoholic sister. Although guilty of murder, Wallace
ended up with a minor sentence.
Interestingly, a Wallace fingerprint was apparently found at the TSBD “Sniper
nest” from where Oswald allegedly shot JFK. Probably some insurance taken against LBJ
by his co-conspirators…
@Iris Shortly before
he died, Estes collaborated with a French journalist on a book called “Le dernier
temoin” (“The Last Witness”) in which Estes claimed that he had
participated in a meeting with LBJ in which the JFK assassination was planned. The book was
published in French (I have a copy), but no English translation has ever appeared.
My suspicion is that some of these supposed "loner" white supremacist individuals have had
some contact with security forces in the past either as or through informants. I would not be
surprised if many (if not most) such individuals ended up converted to extreme forms of
fascism by joining online groups and networks infiltrated by government law and order /
security organisations (you can guess which ones in your own countries) looking for gullible
informants and patsies.
Before the 1992 Ruby Ridge siege and shoot-out in Idaho that resulted in the deaths of his
wife and son, the survivalist Randy Weaver had resisted being drawn into white supremacist
groups such as the Aryan Nations (though he personally knew some people in those groups) on
the suspicion that he was being set up by law enforcement agencies. (An informant for one
such agency met Weaver at an Aryan
Nations meeting in 1986. )
WSWS.org has published articles in the past on the close association between far-right
extremists and sections of the military and security forces in Germany (like this one , and
this
one also).
I would not be surprised if some of the mass shootings (and other supposed terrorist
incidents blamed on radicalised Muslim individuals) that have occurred in the US and
elsewhere eventually turn out to have the fingerprints of agencies that claim to be
protecting the public.
That the rogue elements of the CIA participated in the assassination of JFK now is undisputable. And they probably were
connected to the very top.
Presence of Bush Senior on Dealey Plaza (who was top CIA executive at the time) at the moment of assassination tells a lot in
this respect as well as the speed and intensity of the cover up. The only discussion can be about motives and the degree in which
LBJ was involved.
Notable quotes:
"... The killing of the Kennedys and today's new Cold War and war against terror are two ends of a linked intelligence operation. ..."
"... The assassination of the top four leaders of the political left in the five year period – President John Kennedy in 1963, Malcolm X in 1965, and Martin Luther King, Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968 – represented nothing less than a slow-motion coup on the political scene. ..."
"... If anyone wishes to understand what has happened to the United States since this coup, and thus to its countless victims at home and throughout the world, one must understand these assassinations and how the alleged assassins were manipulated by the coup organizers and how the public was hoodwinked in a mind-control operation on a vast scale. ..."
"... Sandra Serrano, a Kennedy campaign worker and a courageous witness, was bullied by the CIA-connected police interrogator Sergeant Enrique "Hank" Hernandez. She had been sitting outside on a metal fire escape getting some air when the polka dot dress girl, accompanied by a man, ran out and down the stairs, shouting, "We've shot him, we've shot him." When Serrano asked whom did they shoot, the girl replied, "We've shot Senator Kennedy." Then she and her companion, both of whom Serrano had earlier seen ascending the stairs with Sirhan, disappeared into the night. A little over an hour after the shooting Serrano was interviewed on live television by NBC's Sander Vanocur where she recounted this. And there were others who saw and heard this girl say the same thing as she and her companion fled the crime scene. Nevertheless, the LAPD, led by Lieutenant Manuel Pena, also CIA affiliated, who was brought out of retirement to run the investigation dubbed "Special Unit Senator," worked with Hernandez and others to dismiss the girl as of no consequence. ..."
The CIA Takeover of America in the 1960s Is the Story of Our Times. The Killing of the
Kennedys and Today's New Cold WarA Quasi-Review of A Lie Too Big To Fail: The Real
History of the Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy by Lisa Pease By Edward Curtin Global Research, August
03, 2019 Region: USA
Theme: History , Law and Justice , Media
Disinformation
First published by Global Research on April 2, 2019
"'We're all puppets,' the suspect [Sirhan Sirhan] replied, with more truth than he could
have understood at that moment." – Lisa Pease , quoting from the LAPD questioning of
Sirhan
When Senator Robert Kennedy was assassinated on June 5, 1968, the American public fell into
an hypnotic trance in which they have remained ever since. The overwhelming majority accepted
what was presented by government authorities as an open and shut case that a young Palestinian
American, Sirhan Sirhan , had murdered RFK because of his support for Israel, a false
accusation whose ramifications echo down the years. That this was patently untrue and was
contradicted by overwhelming evidence made no difference.
Sirhan did not kill Robert Kennedy, yet he remains in jail to this very day. Robert Kennedy,
Jr., who was 14 years old at the time of his father's death, has visited Sirhan in prison,
claims he is innocent, and believes there was another gunman. Paul Schrade , an aide to the
senator and the first person shot that night, also says Sirhan didn't do it. Both have plenty
of evidence. And they are not alone.
There is a vast body of documented evidence to prove this, an indisputably logical case
marshalled by serious writers and researchers. Lisa Pease is the latest. It is a reason why a
group of 60 prominent Americans has recently called for a reopening of, not just this case, but
those of JFK, MLK, and Malcom X. The blood of these men cries out for the revelation of the
truth that the United States national security state and its media accomplices have fought so
mightily to keep hidden for so many years.
That they have worked so hard at this reveals how dangerous the truth about these
assassinations still is to this secret government that wages propaganda war against the
American people and real wars around the world. It is a government of Democrats, Republicans,
and their intelligence allies working together today to confuse the American people and provoke
Russia in a most dangerous game that could lead to nuclear war, a possibility that so
frightened JFK and RFK after the Cuban Missile Crisis that they devoted themselves to ending
the Cold War, reconciling with the Soviet Union, abolishing nuclear weapons, reining in of the
power of the CIA, and withdrawing from Vietnam. That is why they were killed.
The web of deceit surrounding the now officially debunked Democratic led Russia-gate
propaganda operation that has strengthened Trump to double-down on his anti-Russia operations
(a Democratic goal) is an example of the perfidious and sophisticated mutuality of this game of
mass mind-control.
The killing of the Kennedys and today's new Cold War and war against terror are two ends of
a linked intelligence operation.
Moreover, more than any other assassination of the 1960s, it is the killing of Bobby Kennedy
that has remained shrouded in the most ignorance.
It is one of the greatest propaganda success stories of American history.
In her exhaustive new examination of the case, A Lie Too Big To Fail , Lisa Pease
puts it succinctly at the conclusion of her unravelling of the official lies that have
mesmerized the public:
The assassination of the top four leaders of the political left in the five year period
– President John Kennedy in 1963, Malcolm X in 1965, and Martin Luther King, Jr. and
Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968 – represented nothing less than a slow-motion coup on
the political scene.
If anyone wishes to understand what has happened to the United States since this coup, and
thus to its countless victims at home and throughout the world, one must understand these
assassinations and how the alleged assassins were manipulated by the coup organizers and how
the public was hoodwinked in a mind-control operation on a vast scale. It is not ancient
history, for the forces that killed these leaders rule the U.S. today, and their ruthlessness
has subsequently informed the actions of almost all political leaders in the years since. A
bullet to the head when you seriously talk about peace and justice is a not so gentle reminder
to toe the line or else.
"But the way the CIA took over America in the 1960s is the story of our time,"
writes Pease, "and too few recognize this. We can't fix a problem we can't even acknowledge
exists."
Nothing could be truer.
Lisa Pease has long recognized the problem, and for the past twenty-five years, she has
devoted herself to shedding light on the CIA's culpability, particularly in the Robert Kennedy
case. Few people possess the grit and grace to spend so much of their lives walking this path
of truth. The extent of her research is dazzling, so dazzling in its voluminous detail that a
reviewer can only touch on it here and there. She has written a book that is daunting in its
comprehensiveness. It demands focused attention and perseverance, for it runs to over 500 pages
with more than 800 footnotes. This book will remain a touchstone for future research on the RFK
assassination, whether one agrees or disagrees with all of her detailed findings and
speculations. For this book is so vast and meticulous in its examination of all aspects of the
case that one can surely find areas that one might question or disagree with.
Nevertheless, Pease fundamentally proves that Sirhan did not shoot RFK and that there was a
conspiracy organized and carried out by shadowy intelligence forces that did so. These same
forces worked with the Los Angeles Police Department, federal, state, and judicial elements to
make sure Sirhan was quickly accused of being the lone assassin and dispatched to prison after
a show trial. And the mass media carried out its assigned role of affirming the government's
case to shield the real killers and to make sure the cover-up was successful.
No doubt others will investigate this case further. Yet I think no more research is really
needed, for as with these other assassinations, additional analyses will only result in
pseudo-debates about minutiae. Such debates will only serve to prolong the hallucinatory grip
the perpetrators of these crimes have on a day of reckoning, suggesting as they would that we
do not really know what happened. This is an old tactic meant to delay forevermore such a day
of reckoning.
The facts are clear for all to see if they have the will to truth. All that is now needed is
a public tribunal, which is planned for later this year, in which the fundamental, clear-cut
facts of these cases are presented to the American public. In the case of Robert Kennedy's
assassination as with the others, a little knowledge goes a long way, and only those who are
closed to basic logic and evidence will refuse to see that government forces conspired to kill
these men and did so because all were seeking peace and justice that was then, and is now, a
threat to the war-making forces of wealth and power that control the American government.
Pease writes:
Anyone who has looked closely and honestly at the evidence has realized that more than one
person was involved in Robert Kennedy's death. So why can't reporters see this? Why can't the
media explain this? Because the media and the government are two sides of the same coin, and
those who challenge the government's version of history, as numerous reporters have found
out, all too often lose status and sometimes whole careers. Kristina Borjesson published an
anthology of such stories in her book Into the Buzzsaw, in which journalists describe
how they lost their careers when eachof them expressed a truth that the government did not
want exposed.
Lisa Pease discloses such truths. I am reporting on her work. Therefore, the mainstream
media, except for an extraordinary reporter or two, such as Tom Jackman of The
WashingtonPost , will likely ignore both of us, but the publication where you are reading
this is on the side of truth, and in the disclosure of truth lies our hope.
Since more than one person was involved in the killing of RFK, there was – ipso facto
– a conspiracy. This is not theory but fact. The fact of a conspiracy. For more than
fifty years, mainstream reporters have been cowed by this word "conspiracy," thanks to the CIA.
Many others have been intelligence assets posing as journalists, regurgitating the lies. This
is a fact.
The official story is that after giving his victory speech for winning the 1968 Democratic
California Primary, Kennedy, as he was walking through a crowded hotel pantry, was shot by
Sirhan Sirhan, who was standing to his left between 3-6 feet away. Sirhan's revolver held eight
bullets, and as he was shooting, he was tackled by a group of large men who subdued him. All
witnesses place Sirhan in front of Kennedy and all claim he was firing a gun.
Fact: As the autopsy definitively showed, RFK was shot from the rear at point blank range,
three bullets entering his body, with the fatal headshot coming upward at a 45-degree angle
from 1-3 inches behind his right ear. Not one bullet from Sirhan's gun hit the Senator. In
addition, an audio
recording shows that many more bullets than the eight in Sirhan's gun were fired in the
hotel pantry that night. It was impossible for Sirhan to have killed RFK.
Let me repeat: More than one gunman, contrary to the government's claims, equals a
conspiracy. So why lie about that?
What is amazing is that the obvious conclusion to such simple syllogistic logic (Sirhan in
front, bullets in the back, therefore ) that a child could understand has been dismissed by the
authorities for fifty-one years. The fact that the government authorities – the LAPD, the
Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney, federal and state government officials, the FBI, the
CIA – have from the start so assiduously done all in their power to pin the blame on "a
lone assassin," Sirhan, proves they are part of a coordinated cover-up, which in turn suggests
their involvement in the crime.
The fact that Robert Kennedy was shot from the back and not the front where Sirhan was
standing immediately brings to mind the Zapruder film that shows that JFK was killed from the
front right and not from the 6 th floor rear where Oswald was allegedly shooting
from. That unexpected film evidence was hidden from the public for many years, but when it was
finally seen, the case for a government conspiracy was solidified.
While no such video evidence has surfaced in the RFK case, the LAPD made sure that no
photographic evidence contradicting the official lies would be seen. As Lisa Pease writes:
Less than two months after the assassination, the LAPD took the extraordinary step of
burning some 2,400 photos from the case in Los Angeles County General's medical waste
incinerator. Why destroy thousands of photos in an incinerator if there was nothing to hide?
The LAPD kept hundreds of innocuous crowd scene photos that showed no girl in a polka
dot dress or no suspicious activities or individuals. Why were those photos preserved?
Perhaps because those photos had nothing in them that warranted their destruction.
While "perhaps" is a mild word, the cover-up of "the girl in the polka dot dress" needs no
perhaps. Dozens of people reported seeing a suspicious, curvaceous girl in a white dress with
black polka dots with Sirhan in the pantry and other places. She was seen with various other
men as well. The evidence for her involvement in the assassination is overwhelming, and yet the
LAPD did all in its power to deny this by browbeating witnesses and by allowing her to
escape.
Sandra Serrano, a Kennedy campaign worker and a courageous witness, was bullied by the
CIA-connected police interrogator Sergeant Enrique "Hank" Hernandez. She had been sitting
outside on a metal fire escape getting some air when the polka dot dress girl, accompanied by a
man, ran out and down the stairs, shouting, "We've shot him, we've shot him." When Serrano
asked whom did they shoot, the girl replied, "We've shot Senator Kennedy." Then she and her
companion, both of whom Serrano had earlier seen ascending the stairs with Sirhan, disappeared
into the night. A little over an hour after the shooting Serrano was interviewed on live
television by NBC's Sander Vanocur where she recounted this. And there were others who saw and
heard this girl say the same thing as she and her companion fled the crime scene. Nevertheless,
the LAPD, led by Lieutenant Manuel Pena, also CIA affiliated, who was brought out of retirement
to run the investigation dubbed "Special Unit Senator," worked with Hernandez and others to
dismiss the girl as of no consequence.
Lisa Pease covers all this and much more. She shows how Sirhan was obviously hypnotized, how
the trial was a farce, how the police destroyed evidence from the door frames in the pantry
that proved more than the eight bullets in Sirhan's gun were fired, how Officer DeWayne Wolfer
manipulated the ballistic evidence, etc. Through years of digging into court records, archives,
transcripts, the public library, and doing countless interviews, she proves without a doubt
that Sirhan did not kill Kennedy and that the assassination and the cover-up were part of a
very sophisticated intelligence operation involving many parts and players. She shows how no
matter what route Kennedy took in the hotel that night, the killers had all exits covered and
that he would not be allowed to leave alive.
While some of her more speculative points – e.g. that Robert Maheu (Howard Hughes/CIA)
was "the most credible high-level suspect for the planner of Robert Kennedy's assassination,"
that Kennedy was shot twice in the head from behind, etc. are open to debate, they do not
detract from her fundamentally powerful case that RFK, like his brother John, was assassinated
by a CIA-run operation intended to silence their voices of courageous resistance to an
expanding secret government dedicated to war, murder, and human exploitation. The U.S.
government of today.
When Bobby Kennedy was entering the kitchen pantry, he was escorted by a security guard
named Thane Eugene Cesar, a man long suspected of being the assassin. Cesar was carrying a gun
that he drew but denied firing, despite witnesses' claims to the contrary. Conveniently, the
police never examined the gun. He has long been suspected of being CIA affiliated, and now
Pease says she has found evidence to confirm that. She writes, "It's hard to overstate the
significance of finding a current or future CIA contract agent holding Kennedy's right arm at
the moment of the shooting."
Yes, it is. As she rightly claims, the CIA takeover of America in the 1960s is the story of
our time. And our time is now. None of this is ancient history. That is so crucial to grasp.
For those who think that learning the truth about the 1960s assassinations is an exercise in
futility reserved for those who are living in the past, they need to think again. Our descent
into endless war and massive media propaganda to support it is part of a long-term project that
began with the elimination of JFK, Malcom X, MLK, and Robert Kennedy. They were killed for
reasons, and those reasons still exist, even if they don't physically, but only in spirit.
Their killers roam the land because they have become far more deeply part of the institutional
structure of government and the media.
Pease says:
It was horrible that Robert Kennedy was taken from us far too soon. It is horrible that
one man has borne the guilt for an operation he neither planned nor willingly participated
in. It's horrible the conspiracy was so obvious that bullets had to be lost and switched to
hide it. And it's horrible that the mainstream media has never dared to tell the people of
this country that the government lied to us about what they really found when they looked
into this case. Until the media can deal with the truth of the Robert Kennedy assassination,
and until the people can be made aware of the CIA's role in slanting the truth on topics of
great importance, America's very survival is in jeopardy .We've come perilously close to
losing democracy itself because of fake, CIA-sponsored stories about our history. Should
America ever become a dictatorship, the epitaph of our democracy must include the role the
mainstream media, by bowing to the National Security state, played in killing it.
By writing A Lie Too Big To Fail, Lisa Pease has done her valiant part in refuting
the lie that is now failing. Now it is up to all of us to spread the word of truth by focusing
on the fundamental facts so we can finally take back our country from the CIA.
Then we can say with RFK and his favorite poet Aeschylus:
And even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until
in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre
for Research on Globalization.
"... There is a photo of someone who looks like him standing in front of the School Book Depository. Bush is one of the few people in America who can't remember where he was that day. ..."
There is some flimsy photo evidence of someone who looked like him in Dealey Plaza, so my
answer would be, "not sure." But anecdotally, there sure seems to be a large number of
"coincidences" around a guy who could apparently walk across a snow covered field without
leaving foot prints , so maybe.
Since the beginning, the rumored driving motive for JFK's assassination, (from both sides
really) was the cluster-fuck known as "The Bay of Pigs invasion," so we'll start there. At the
end of Mark Lane's book "Plausible Denial," (the account of E. Howard Hunt's ill-fated lawsuit
against The Liberty Lobby) some interesting facts about the Bay of Pigs invasion were tossed
out that leaves one scratching his or her head and wondering if 41 had anything to do with it.
The operation was ostensibly to deliver small arms and ordnance to a (turns out to be
fictional) 25,000 man rebel army that was in the Cuban hills waiting for help to depose Castro.
The US Navy supplied a couple of ships, but they were decommissioned, had their numbers scraped
off, and were renamed the "Houston" and the "Barbara," (or the Spanish spelling of Barbara.)
This is while 41 was living in Houston with his wife Barbara. Also, the CIA code name for the
invasion was "Operation Zapata."
This while the name of 41's business was "Zapata Offshore."
(Or something like that. 41 had business' using Zapata's name since his days as an oilman in
Midland Texas.) The day after Kennedy's killing, a George Bush met with Army Intel. What went
on in that meeting is a mystery, and the CIA unconvincingly claims that they had another guy
working for them named George Bush, only he wasn't hired until 1964 and his expertise was
meteorology so it's difficult to understand why they wanted to talk with him on that day. Then
there's the fact that Oswald's CIA handler, a guy name Georges DeMorinshilt (sp?) had the name
George (Poppy) Bush in his address book along with 41's Houston address and phone number.
Of course this is all coincidental, but consider: 41 was a failed two-term congressman who
couldn't hold his seat, (in Houston Texas of all places) and yet was made by Nixon the
ambassador to the UN, then Ford named him ambassador to China and the Director of the CIA. Wow!
What a lucky guy.
So was he involved with the Kennedy assassination and photographed in Dealey Plaza? Don't
know. I was 13 at the time, but in the intervening years, the politics in this country,
especially relating to the Republican Party, have become shall we say, "Kalfkaesque."
There is a photo of someone who looks like him standing in front of the School Book
Depository. Bush is one of the few people in America who can't remember where he was that day.
There is also a memo by J.Edgar Hoover referencing a "George Bush of the CIA" reporting on
"misguided Cubans" in Dallas that day. The CIA had a safe house stuffed with Cuban agents in
the Oak Cliff neighborhood, and Lee Harvey Oswald rented a room nearby shortly before the
assassination took place.
Astoundingly, Bush, the elder, claims that he does not remember where he was when Kennedy
was assassinated. I do. I'll bet a dollar that you do (if old enough). Everyone above the age
of fifty-five does except George H. W. Bush. He does however, remember that he was not at
Dealey Plaza at the time.
It is interesting to note that photographs and videos exist showing a man who looks very
much like Bush, at the site, at the time. It was not difficult to find them on line in the
past. Now, they seem to have been expunged somehow, though a few blurry photos can still be
found.
We discovered some fascinating evidence that George Bush was directly involved
in the murder of President John F Kennedy, the latest of which evidence comes from the late
Roger Craig. The evidence seems overwhelming that George Herbert Walker Bush was in Dealey
Plaza at the time of the president's murder, supervising the Cubans involved in the
assassination squad. Evidence for Bush's involvement is legion. Bush denies remembering where
he was on November 22d, largely because he can't remember which lie he should tell about it. It
saves him the embarrassing contradictions in which Nixon found himself when explaining his
whereabouts on that day. But not remembering one's location on that historic and traumatic day
doesn't pass the laugh test although Bush did manage to laugh about it at Gerald Ford's funeral
– precisely when he mentioned the murder. The laugh speaks volumes of Bush's contempt for
Kennedy. We have written previously about the memo which Hoover wrote about a meeting he had
with "Mr George Bush of the CIA" – a memo which irrefutably links Bush with the CIA
operating under cover as an "independent oil man from Houston." We reported in a recent blog
posting identifying Hunt as Bush's case officer in the CIA. These two independent witnesses
help cement Bush's involvement with the agency as well as his presence in the City of Hate on
the day he helped murder the president. Bush was on business for the CIA which is why he had
official communication with the FBI and most likely Hoover himself in Washington, DC the
following day. His official post was Dallas. Bush's cover story is that he spoke at an oil
convention – the Dallas based American Association of Oil Well Drilling Contractors, but
this is at best plausible deniability.
The important point is that this story demonstrates that
he was in Dallas, a fact which the Dallas Morning News reported occurring on the evening of
November 21, 1963. Indeed, he stayed at the Sheraton Hotel which was also headquarters of
Secret Service communications and other elements coordinating the assassination. Many have
covered the James Parrot story in which Bush called the FBI to warm it about suspicious
activity of Parrot. But Parrot worked for Bush, and Bush used this lame story to provide an
alibi for his non-presence in Dallas.
Unfortunately, the lady doth protest too much. The Tyler,
TX story – the one where Bush supposedly called the FBI from Tyler is a giant hoax. It
didn't happen. Someone impersonating Bush made the call because Bush was too busy supervising
the assassination at that time. As we will show momentarily, Bush was nowhere near Tyler. The
aforementioned memo's citation of the "mis-guided" anti-Castro Cubans clearly associates Bush
with Alpha 66, Operation 40, and groups the CIA was training for assassination duty. The
pretext is that it was against Castro, but the plan was always against Kennedy. But how do we
know that? A CIA pilot told the story of George Bush being the pay master for Castro.
We have
posted elsewhere in this Chronicle that Cuba was an invention – a hoax – to justify
covert and bellicose operations – to justify the permanent war and police state. Castro
was on the CIA payroll and has always been a pawn of the New York banksters. Now here is the
kicker, as John Hankey quotes Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig speaking with Jim Garrison, the
New Orleans district attorney who prosecuted Clay Shaw for his involvement with the murder:
"Jim also asked me about the arrests made in Dealey Plaza that day. I told him I knew of
twelve arrests, one in particular made by R. E. Vaughn of the Dallas Police Department. The man
Vaughn arrested was coming from the Dal-Tex Building across from the Texas School Book
Depository. The only thing which Vaughn knew about him was that he was an independent oil
operator from Houston, Texas. The prisoner was taken from Vaughn by Dallas Police detectives
and that was the last that he saw or heard of the suspect." (emphasis added)
Here is
extraordinary evidence that George Bush was arrested in Dallas at the time of the
assassination. But why was he arrested? We diverge from Hankey's explanation that he was caught
where he wasn't supposed to be. Citizens knew that bullets were fired from Dal-Tex and were
jeering the people coming out. The police were providing Bush an escort of safety from one of
the crime scenes, as the Dallas Police were heavily involved in the murder. Thus an enormous
amount of evidence places George Bush in the City of Hate and Dealey Plaza on 11/21-22. The
evidence consists of newspaper accounts, FBI memoranda, photographs, and first person witness
accounts. George Herbert Walker Bush murdered John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Reference Jim Fetzer,
John Hankey, Was George H. W. Bush Involved With Assassination of JFK? VeteransToday.com,
November 16, 2011 Copyright 2013 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.
@Kevin Barrett Jack Ruby did not kill Oswald "for the Jews." He was the Mafia capo of
Dallas and was following orders in Plan B when two previous attempts to kill Oswald failed.
He tried to get out of it, but had no choice but to follow orders that he could not refuse.
Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn. In signing up with the US and EU, there is one guaranteed loser – the Ukrainian people.
Notable quotes:
"... His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the Donbass rebels and with Moscow, ..."
"... But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian citizens. ..."
"... Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence. ..."
"... Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question -- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold War. ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com . ..."
The election of Ukraine's new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, who won decisively throughout
most of the country, represents the possibility of peace with Russia, if it -- and he -- are
given a chance. His electorally repudiated predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, backed by supporters
in Washington, thwarted almost every preceding opportunity for negotiations both with the
Donbass rebels and with Moscow, notably provisions associated with the European-sponsored Minsk
Accords. Zelensky, on the other hand, has made peace (along with corruption) his top priority
and indeed spoke directly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, on July 11. The nearly
six-year war having become a political, diplomatic, and financial drain on his leadership,
Putin welcomed the overture.
But the struggle for peace has just begun, with powerful forces arrayed against it in
Ukraine, Moscow, and Washington. In Ukraine, well-armed ultra-nationalist -- some would say
quasi-fascist -- detachments are terrorizing supporters of Zelensky's initiative, including a
Kiev television station that proposed broadcasting a dialogue between Russian and Ukrainian
citizens. (Washington has previously had some shameful episodes of
collusion with these Ukrainian neo-Nazis .) As for Putin, who does not fully control the
Donbass rebels or its leaders, he "can never be seen at home," as
I pointed out more than two years ago , "as 'selling out' Russia's 'brethren' anywhere in
southeast Ukraine." Indeed, his own implacable nationalists have made this a litmus test of his
leadership.
Which brings us to Washington and in particular to President Donald Trump and his
would-be opponent in 2020, former vice president Joseph Biden. Kiev's government, thus now
Zelensky, is heavily dependent on billions of dollars of aid from the International Monetary
Fund, which Washington largely controls. Former president Barack Obama and Biden, his "point
man" for Ukraine, used this financial leverage to exercise semi-colonial influence over
Poroshenko, generally making things worse, including the incipient Ukrainian civil war. Their
hope was, of course, to sever Ukraine's centuries-long ties to Russia and even bring it
eventually into the US-led NATO sphere of influence.
Our hope should be that Trump breaks with that long-standing bipartisan policy, as he did
with policy toward North Korea, and puts America squarely on the side of peace in Ukraine. (For
now, Zelensky has set aside Moscow's professed irreversible "reunification" with Crimea, as
should Washington.) A new US policy must include recognition, previously lacking, that the
citizens of war-ravaged Donbass are not primarily "Putin's stooges" but people with their own
legitimate interests and preferences, even if they favor Russia. Here too Zelensky is embarking
on a new course. Poroshenko waged an "anti-terrorist" war against Donbass: the new president is
reaching out to its citizens even though most of them were unable to vote in the election.
Biden, however, has a special problem -- and obligation. As an implementer, and presumably
architect, of Obama's disastrous policy in Ukraine, and currently the leading candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, Biden should be asked about his past and present thinking
regarding Ukraine. The much-ballyhooed ongoing "debates" are an opportunity to ask the question
-- and of other candidates as well. Presidential debates are supposed to elicit and clarify the
views of candidates on domestic and foreign policy. And among the latter, few, if any, are more
important than Ukraine, which remains the epicenter of this new and more dangerous Cold
War.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at TheNation.com .
"... "You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty convincing.... ..."
"... Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system??? ..."
"... The Russians trying to rig the elections meme was a fallback for the failure of the “trump is a russianstooge" meme. ..."
Here are some insights into the minds of many movers and shakers in Russiagate:
Key US officials behind the Russia investigation have made no secret of their animus
towards Russia.
"I do always hate the Russians," Lisa Page, a senior FBI lawyer on the Russia probe,
testified to Congress in July 2018. "It is my opinion that with respect to Western ideals
and who it is and what it is we stand for as Americans, Russia poses the most dangerous
threat to that way of life."
As he opened the FBI's probe of the Trump campaign's ties to Russians in July 2016,
FBI agent Peter Strzok texted Page: "fuck the cheating motherfucking Russians Bastards. I
hate them I think they're probably the worst. Fucking conniving cheating savages."
Speaking to NBC News in May 2017, former director of national intelligence James
Clapper explained why US officials saw interactions between the Trump camp and Russian
nationals as a cause for alarm: "The Russians," Clapper said, "almost genetically driven to
co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were
concerned."
In a May interview with Lawfare, former FBI general counsel Jim Baker, who helped
oversee the Russia probe, explained the origins of the investigation as follows: "It was
about Russia, period, full stop. When the [George] Papadopoulos information comes across
our radar screen, it's coming across in the sense that we were always looking at Russia.
we've been thinking about Russia as a threat actor for decades and decades."
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin
rejects the claim many times publicly saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections
as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of
"Russia meddling" which began with the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA
and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies???
And --if there is-- does that mean we are headed for a one-party system???
I've communicated in the past with former U.S. Army unit leaders whose occasional mission
was to escort CIA teams into Laos during the Vietnam war, who were to bring back significant
amounts of heroin for placement in the body bags of killed U.S. soldiers for shipment back to
the States for distribution. I was told that in some cases, the CIA team did not make it back
with the heroin, courtesy of the accompanying U.S. military unit. I guess that saves the
trouble of making such activities public.
Evidence accumulates that Obama was the real leader of this color revolution against Trump with Brannan as his chief lieutenant
and Comey as a willing accomplice.
Now that the dust has settled, one must ask why the Deep State wanted Trump gone. Why does the Obama-Clinton mafia hates him so
much? Is this due to Trump committed an unforgivable sin in suggesting we “get along with Russia” and thus potentially cut the
revenues of military-industrial complex ? This is not true -- Trump inflated the Pentagon budget to astronomical height. Then
why ?
Notable quotes:
"... The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama. ..."
"... Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip Strozk texted the following to his mistress, Lisa Page : ..."
"... We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials, such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named in US intelligence documents. ..."
"... Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane? ..."
"... On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election to install Donald Trump? ..."
"... Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide. ..."
The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was
not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken
with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama.
As
I have written previously , the claim that Russia tried to hijack our election is a damn lie. But you do not have to take my
word for it. Just listen to Barack Obama speaking in October 2016 in response to Donald Trump's expressed concerns about
election meddling :
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are
so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this
time," the president said to the future president in October 2016.
"Democracy survives because we recognize that there is something more important than any individual campaign, and that is making
sure the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself. Becasue Democracy works by consent, not by force," Obama said.
"I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections
and the election process before votes have even taken place. It is unprecedented. It happens to be based on no fact. Every expert
regardless of political party... who has ever examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant
voter fraud are not to be found. Keep in mind elections are run by state and local officials."
It is important to remember what had transpired in the Trump/Russia collusion case by this point. Operation Crossfire Hurricane
was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations
that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA
and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip
Strozk texted
the following to his mistress, Lisa Page :
Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: " the White House is running this. " My answer,
"well, maybe for you they are." And of course, I was planning on telling this guy, thanks for coming, we've got an hour, but with
Bill [Priestap] there, I've got no control .
Page: Yeah, whatever (re the WH comment). We've got the emails that say otherwise.
The White House clearly knew. But Strzok's text is not the only evidence. We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials,
such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named
in US intelligence documents.
There are only two possibilities:
Obama was being briefed by Susan Rice and DNI James Clapper and CIA Director about the project
to take out Trump, or
Obama was kept in the dark.
Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known
to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to
hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do
nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane?
On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was
the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election
to install Donald Trump?
My wife was for many years an election official in Virginia. IMO Obama was right in saying that a US presidential election
is impossible to "rig." The US Constitution requires that federal elections be run by the states WITHOUT federal supervision.
As a result the methods and equipment in the states and the various parts of the states vary widely and the state systems are
not tied together with a national electronic network as, for example, the system is in France where the result of a national election
is reported on TeeVee immediately when the polls close.
Asking the question, "Can you cite one specific case where a single vote was definitively changed by Russian meddling?"
causes panic in a person who is declaiming about the evils of Russian meddling in our elections.
When you ask that question, the invariable retort is that the Russians are so clever that you wouldn't know that you were being
gulled; or, when I say that I have never seen a Russian produced facebook ad, the rejoinder is that the Russians concentrated
on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and, of course, I would have been privy to the bot-sent emails and facebook ads generated by
the Internet Research Agency.
You've maintained all along that the Russians interfered in the election, yet I believe it is your position that the Russians
did not change a single vote. Is that correct or do you believe the Russians changed the votes before tabulation?
What did the Russians do that the Trump and Hillary campaigns did not do? Did they also turnout the tens of thousands who showed
up for Trump rallies that Hillary could never muster? Are they still turning out thousands at recent Trump rallies? I'm curious
how come Brennan and Clapper could not turn out thousands to Hillary's rallies when according to our German friend "b", the omnipotent
US Intel services just turned out a quarter of the population of Hong Kong to protest CCP authoritarianism?
Did the Israeli, Saudi and Chinese governments interfere in the election? How would you compare what they did to what you believe
the Russians did?
uieter about it. All that is very different from the absolute covert nature of the Russian IO in the 2016 election. I have
no idea what China did or is doing.
You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication. The lies on this are enormous. If the FBI really had detected
GRU hacking of the DNC in 2015, which is claimed in the fabricated meme, then you would expect the FBI and the other counter intel
elements of the USG to take action. THEY DID NOTHING.
The issue of Russian hacking only emerged when Hillary and the DNC learned that DNC emails were going to be put out by WIKILEAKS.
Again, not one shred of actual evidence that the Russians did it, but blaming the Russians became a convenient excuse in a bid
to divert attention from the real story--i.e,. Hillary and the DNC colluded to defeat Bernie Sanders.
The only real solid evidence of colluding with foreigners, in this case the Ukraine, comes courtesy of Hillary and her campaign.
Hiring a foreign intel officer (ie. Steele) who then takes info from Russians of questionable background and spread it around
as "truth". That was not a Russian IO. Pure Clinton IO.
"What the Russians did was insert misattributed information and disinformation into the election cycle...That is what separates
the Russian IO from anything Clinton, Trump or any of their supporters did."
I believe supporters of both candidates did exactly what you say the Russians did - insert misattributed information & disinformation
into the media stream. If you watch MSNBC or Fox on any given day there is much assertion & opinion masquerading as news. And
the Twitter & Facebook and blog universe are teeming with stories and innuendo that are more fiction than fact all from anonymous
accounts.
The Russia Collusion hysteria is replete with examples of "misattributed information and disinformation". It seems that yellow
journalism is as American as apple pie.
The whole opaque PAC structure with names like "Americans for Democracy" funded by chain structures hiding the real financiers
and calling up down is something that we see growing in every election cycle and is already of significant scale both in terms
of financing and dubiousness.
It is also rather common that "experts" who are called upon to opine on issues routinely never disclose their conflicts of
interest. Jeffrey Sachs and so many others on the payroll of CCP entities never disclose those payments as they extoll the virtues
of offshoring our industrial base to China and are apologists for CCP espionage.
Blue peacock, supporters of Clinton and Trump did not put out misattributed info. They both put out truth, innuendo, exaggerations,
misleading info and even outright lies, but they put it out as themselves. They didn't represent themselves as someone other than
who they were. The PAC structure comes close to skirting this requirement for truthful attribution, but a quick internet search
blows away the facades of these PACs. What the Russians did was pure black propaganda.
You mean the kindly grandmother, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, did not inform President Obama that
the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant to surveil the Republican candidate for the presidency and members of his staff becasue he
was working with Russians? Or do you mean that James Comey failed to tell his boss, Loretta Lynch; or do you mean John Brennan
failed to tell Obama about that Steele dossier from Fusion GPS that Mueller know anything about; or do you mean that James Clapper
failed to tell Jeh Johnson about that too? The Russians made them do all those things as part of an interference campaign, right?
It couldn't have been they were corrupt and incompetant.
"Instead, Obama...." made an "If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor" statement that he knew was completely false.
Trump didn't win, Russians influenced Americans to vote for Trump, just ask the losers of the election, their paid sources and
their colleagues in Congress. In fact Americans love Hilary so much she's just where in the polls right now?
I continue to be astounded by the outrage at "Russian meddling". So some Russians used the internet to post true or false information
on candidates in a election.... so what?...millions of American partisan trolls were doing the same thing for or against a candidate.
We had tons of fake info written by American bloggers and posters all over the net, Facebook, twitter etc..
Its not like Putin came to the US and gave a speech to congress in favor of Trump ...as Netanyahu did in appearing before the
US congress and urging them to go against President Obama's Syria policy for heaven's sake.
It is so ridiculous I have given up hope of finding enough IQs above that of a cabbage to form a sane government.
Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block
the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide.
1. The FBI cannot be trusted to uphold defend and protect our Constitution, as they sought actively
to overturn a duly elected POTUS.; and
2 - Mueller's incompetence is astounding.
Is the only entity of the Defense Department called the U.S. Army the only ones left actually upholding, defending, and protecting
our Constitution and our Constitution processes? I don't see the other entities of the DOD called Navy and Air Force doing their
jobs upholding our Constitution!
Thumbs up to the Army, thumbs down to the Navy and Air Force!
I'm a little more charitable to the FBI. The Trumps lied their asses off to the FBI about their foreign contacts. Which IMO,
wrong or right, left the FBI all but no recourse but to investigate those lies. Even if the lies were simply based in long-seated
personal habits, it takes investigation to prove that is the case.
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly
saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of "Russia meddling" which began with
the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean
we are headed for a one-party system???
Larry, sorry to nitpick, but I have such regard for your work that it pains me to see the typographical error in your second sentence,
where you say "his error" shortly after referring to Trump. I'm guessing that you meant to say "this error", but it reads as if
it means "Trump's error".
And while I'm at it, your last sentence has "it" instead of "if".
Keep up your great work for this excellent website.
Sadly naive in that you think the conspirators were actually acting in good faith. You think they were right when they used
the Steele Dossier in applying for a FISA warrant in Colyyer's Star Chamber? Steele was a paid informant for the FBI as was Page.
"... For Malaysia, starting with Prime Minister Mahathir, to stand up and say the US tried to cook the record to pin the crash on Russia is remarkable. ..."
"... A new documentary from Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster, has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials; suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes; and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official for the first time. ..."
"... Malaysia's exclusion from the JIT at the outset, and Belgium's inclusion (4 Belgian nationals were listed on the MH17 passenger manifest), have never been explained. ..."
"... The film reveals the Malaysian Government's evidence for judging the JIT's witness testimony, photographs, video clips, and telephone tapes to have been manipulated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), and to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution in a Malaysian or other national or international court. ..."
"... The new film reveals that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing the US and Ukraine from seizing them. The Malaysian operation, revealed in the film by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government's opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch to call off the invasion on July 27. ..."
"... Although German opposition to military intervention forced its cancellation, the Australians sent a 200-man special forces unit to The Netherlands and then Kiev. The European Union and the US followed with economic sanctions against Russia on July 29. ..."
"... In Kiev on July 24, 2014, left to right: Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Source: https://www.alamy.com/ The NATO intervention plan was still under discussion, but the black boxes were already under Malaysian control. ..."
"... Subsequent releases from the Kiev government to substantiate the allegation of Russian involvement in the shoot-down have included telephone tape recordings. These were presented last month by the JIT as their evidence for indictment of four Russians; for details, read this . ..."
"... Left: Dutch police chief Paulissen grins as he acknowledged during the June 19, 2019 , press conference of JIT that the telephone tape evidence on which the charges against the four accused Russians came from the Ukrainian SBU. ..."
"... Dubinsky testifies that he had no orders for and took no part in the shoot-down. As for the telephone tape-recording evidence against him, Dubinsky says the calls were made days before July 17, and edited by the SBU. ..."
"... She did not see a launch nor a plume from there. Notice the JIT 'launch site' is less than two kilometers from her house and garden. The BBC omitted this crucial part of her testimony." ..."
"... According to Kovalenko in the new documentary, at the firing location she has now identified precisely, "at that moment the Ukrainian Army were there." ..."
"... Volkov explained that on July 17 there were three radar units at Chuguev on "full alert" because "fighter jets were taking off from there;" Chuguev is 200 kilometres northwest of the crash site. He disputed that the repairs to one unit meant none of the three was operating. Ukrainian radar records of the location and time of the MH17 attack were made and kept, Volkov said. "There [they] have it. In Ukraine they have it." ..."
"... Last month, at the JIT press conference in The Netherlands on June 19, the Malaysian representative present, Mohammed Hanafiah Bin Al Zakaria, one of three Solicitors-General of the Malaysian Attorney General's ministry, refused to endorse for the Malaysian Governnment the JIT evidence or its charges against Russia. "Malaysia would like to reiterate our commitment to the JIT seeking justice for the victims," Zakaria said . "The objective of the JIT is to complete the investigations and gathering of evidence of all witnesses for the purpose of prosecuting the wrongdoers and Malaysia stands by the rule of law and the due process." [Question: do you support the conclusions?] "Part of the conclusions [inaudible] – do not change our positions." ..."
"... Why is the transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder kept a secret (see e.g. here for others)? ..."
"... Why is no journalist raising these questions? ..."
"... Bellingcat? The fellow using the pseudonym is called Eliot Higgins and hails from the Midlands, not far from the Jihadist masquerading as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights above a take away shop. He was a regular BTL commentator at the Grauniad before being paid to spout BS. Nice work if one can get it, eh? ..."
"... That territory where the missile was fired from was in Ukrainian hands at the time, not rebels, and those launchers were seen speeding rapidly west after the shooting down. ..."
"... Now that we have the crime and the five-year cover-up, the simplest explanation is actually the one of a likely false flag operation. Asking 'cui bono,' how would Russia or the rebels benefit from shooting down a plane with bunch of Dutch people on board? (Russia historically has had good relations with Holland, Malaysia, too.) ..."
"... Lots of terrible stuff happened in Ukraine after the govt changed (courtesy of the west). Have we forgotten about the burning of more than 40 people in Odessa? Or the murders of politicians and journalists? ..."
"... And let's not forget the appearance of (coordinated) magazine covers of VVP as the devil incarnate – almost in unison, right after the shooting of the plane. ..."
"... "Why are you so late", [Borodai] said I think [that was] very funny." That sounds like what happened at the Pan Am 103 site. For some reason yet to be explained over thirty years later, the Royal Air Force air accident investigation team, based at RAF Halton in Buckinghamshire, found an American military team on site when they landed by helicopter a bit before midnight. ..."
"... I was following this story very closely at the time and you could see that something was "off" within days. The Russians came out with a press conference and released radar tracks and full & total information. We in the west got – a YouTube link. Seriously. This was just the beginning. There was one clip that came out showing moving trucks that proved that the Russians did it – until someone woke up to the fact that the trees in the background were in the winter season whereas that jet was shot down in high summer. And so it went on. ..."
"... Another time an official visit had to be cancelled as the area was being shelled – by the Ukrainians. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize that there was a whole pack of dogs that were seriously not barking. ..."
"... That story about Australia wanting to send 3,000 troops was weird. That is a very large force for Australia and it would have taken weeks to put together a joint US/Dutch/Australian Task Force to go into the rebel area but you would have been talking about heavy casualties and risks of severe escalation with a nuclear Russia. ..."
"... Yeah, I remember watching those films. I saw this big, bearded rebel pick up a child's doll, showed it to the camera as in "Do you see this s***?", put it reverently back where he found it, and then crossed himself in a Orthodox blessing. So the western media took a screen shot of that rebel holding that child's doll and put a caption underneath that the rebel was boasting of the plane being shot down. As for that footage, I live in Oz and I am here to state that I would sooner trust CNN or Fox News before would I put any trust in News Corp Australia, especially their propaganda unit "60 Minutes Australia". ..."
"... If memory serves the late Robert Parry of Consortium News claimed to have USG sources who said the missile was a Buk fired by Ukrainian, not separatist troops. And I believe that Russia has said the rocket engine serial number from the investigation's evidence is for a Buk sold long ago to the Ukrainians. ..."
"... The good news is that the criminal coup regime in Kiev seems to have been decisively defeated with Sunday's election according to MOA in Links. Perhaps this particular branch of the New Cold War–which the Obama regime was so very much responsible for–will begin to find peace. ..."
Yves here. Hoo boy. The idea that eastern Ukrainian insurgents or Russia would target a passenger plane never made any sense (unless
the plane had high-priority targets or cargo), although it's always been possible that the downing of MH17 was an accident, and some
efforts to explain what happened are based on that idea. For Malaysia, starting with Prime Minister Mahathir, to stand up and
say the US tried to cook the record to pin the crash on Russia is remarkable.
A new documentary from Max van der Werff, the leading independent investigator of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 disaster,
has revealed breakthrough evidence of tampering and forging of prosecution materials; suppression of Ukrainian Air Force radar tapes;
and lying by the Dutch, Ukrainian, US and Australian governments. An attempt by agents of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) to take possession of the black boxes of the downed aircraft is also revealed by a Malaysian National Security Council official
for the first time.
The sources of the breakthrough are Malaysian -- Prime Minister of Malaysia Mohamad Mahathir; Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the officer
in charge of the MH17 investigation for the Prime Minister's Department and Malaysia's National Security Council following the crash
on July 17, 2014; and a forensic analysis by Malaysia's OG IT Forensic Services of Ukrainian Secret Service (SBU) telephone tapes
which Dutch prosecutors have announced as genuine.
The 298 casualties of MH17 included 192 Dutch; 44 Malaysians; 27 Australians; 15 Indonesians. The nationality counts vary because
the airline manifest does
not identify dual nationals of Australia, the UK, and the US.
The new film throws the full weight of the Malaysian Government, one of the five members of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT),
against the published findings and the recent indictment of Russian suspects reported by the Dutch officials in charge of the JIT;
in addition to Malaysia and The Netherlands, the members of the JIT are Australia, Ukraine and Belgium. Malaysia's exclusion
from the JIT at the outset, and Belgium's inclusion (4 Belgian nationals were listed on the MH17 passenger manifest), have never
been explained.
The film reveals the Malaysian Government's evidence for judging the JIT's witness testimony, photographs, video clips, and
telephone tapes to have been manipulated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), and to be inadmissible in a criminal prosecution
in a Malaysian or other national or international court.
For the first time also, the Malaysian Government reveals how it got in the way of attempts the US was organizing during the first
week after the crash to launch a NATO military attack on eastern Ukraine. The cover story for that was to rescue the plane, passenger
bodies, and evidence of what had caused the crash. In fact, the operation was aimed at defeating the separatist movements in the
Donbass, and to move against Russian-held Crimea.
The new film reveals that a secret Malaysian military operation took custody of the MH17 black boxes on July 22, preventing
the US and Ukraine from seizing them. The Malaysian operation, revealed in the film by the Malaysian Army colonel who led it, eliminated
the evidence for the camouflage story, reinforcing the German Government's opposition to the armed attack, and forcing the Dutch
to call off the invasion on July 27.
The 28-minute documentary by Max van der Werff and Yana Yerlashova has just been released. Yerlashova was the film director and
co-producer with van der Werff and Ahmed Rifazal. Vitaly Biryaukov directed the photography. Watch it in full
here .
The full interview with Prime Minister Mahathir was released in advance; it can be viewed and read
here .
Mahathir reveals why the US, Dutch and Australian governments attempted to exclude Malaysia from membership of the JIT in the
first months of the investigation. During that period, US, Dutch, Australian and NATO officials initiated a plan for 9,000 troops
to enter eastern Ukraine, ostensibly to secure the crash scene, the aircraft and passenger remains, and in response to the alleged
Russian role in the destruction of MH17 on July 17; for details of that scheme, read
this .
Although German opposition to military intervention forced its cancellation, the Australians sent a 200-man special forces
unit to The Netherlands and then Kiev. The European Union and the US followed with economic sanctions against Russia on July 29.
Malaysian resistance to the US attempts to blame Moscow for the aircraft shoot-down was made clear in the first hours after
the incident to then-President Barack Obama by Malaysia's Prime Minister at the time, Najib Razak. That story can be followed
here and
here .
In an unusual decision to speak in the new documentary, Najib's successor Prime Minister Mahathir announced: "They never allowed
us to be involved from the very beginning. This is unfair and unusual. So we can see they are not really looking at the causes of
the crash and who was responsible. But already they have decided it must be Russia. So we cannot accept that kind of attitude. We
are interested in the rule of law, in justice for everyone irrespective of who is involved. We have to know who actually fired the
missile, and only then can we accept the report as the complete truth."
On July 18, in the first Malaysian Government press conference after the shoot-down, Najib (right)
announced agreements he had already
reached by telephone with Obama and Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian President. " 'Obama and I agreed that the investigation will
not be hidden and the international teams have to be given access to the crash scene.' [Najib] said the Ukrainian president has
pledged that there would be a full, thorough and independent investigation and Malaysian officials would be invited to take part.
'He also confirmed that his government will negotiate with rebels in the east of the country in order to establish a humanitarian
corridor to the crash site,' said Najib. He also said that no one should remove any debris or the black box from the scene. The Government
of Malaysia is dispatching a special flight to Kiev, carrying a Special Malaysia Disaster Assistance and Rescue Team, as well as
a medical team. But we must – and we will – find out precisely what happened to this flight. No stone can be left unturned."
The new film reveals in an interview with Colonel Mohamad Sakri, the head of the Malaysian team, what happened next. Sakri's evidence,
filmed in his office at Putrajaya, is the first to be reported by the press outside Malaysia in five years. A year ago, Sakri gave
a partial account of his mission to a Malaysian
newspaper .
"I talked to my prime minister [Najib]," Colonel Sakri says. "He directed me to go to the crash site immediately." At the time
Sakri was a senior security official at the Disaster Management Division of the Prime Minister's Department. Sakri says that after
arriving in Kiev, Poroshenko's officials blocked the Malaysians. "We were not allowed to go there so I took a small team to leave
Kiev going to Donetsk secretly." There Sakri toured the crash site, and met with officials of the Donetsk separatist administration
headed by Alexander Borodai .
With eleven men, including two medical specialists, a signalman, and Malaysian Army commandos, Sakri had raced to the site ahead
of an armed convoy of Australian, Dutch and Ukrainian government men. The latter were blocked by Donetsk separatist units. The Australian
state press agency ABC
reported their
military convoy, prodded from Kiev by the appearance of Australian and Dutch foreign ministers Julie Bishop and Frans Timmermans,
had been forced to abandon their mission. That was after Colonel Sakri had taken custody of the MH17 black boxes in a handover ceremony
filmed at Borodai's office in Donetsk on July 22.
US sources told the
Wall Street
Journal at the time "the [Sakri] mission's success delivered a political victory for Mr. Najib's government it also handed
a gift to the rebels in the form of an accord, signed by the top Malaysian official present in Donetsk, calling the crash site 'the
territory of the Donetsk People's Republic.' That recognition could antagonize Kiev and Washington, which have striven not to give
any credibility to the rebels, whose main leaders are Russian citizens with few ties to the area. State Department deputy spokeswoman
Marie Harf said in a briefing Monday that the negotiation 'in no way legitimizes' separatists."
The Australian state radio then reported the Ukrainian government as claiming the black box evidence showed "the reason for the
destruction and crash of the plane was massive explosive decompression arising from multiple shrapnel perforations from a rocket
explosion." This was a fabrication – the evidence of the black boxes, the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder, first
reported six weeks later in September by the Dutch Safety Board, showed nothing of the kind; read what their evidence
revealed .
Foreign Minister Bishop, in Kiev on July 24, claimed she was negotiating with the Ukrainians for the Australian team in the country
to carry arms. "I don't envisage that we will ever resort to [arms]," she told her state news agency, "but it is a contingency planning,
and you would be reckless not to include it in this kind of agreement. But I stress our mission is unarmed because it is [a] humanitarian
mission."
In Kiev on July 24, 2014, left to right: Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop; Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans,
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin. Source:
https://www.alamy.com/ The NATO intervention plan was still under discussion, but the black boxes were already under Malaysian
control.
By the time she spoke to her state radio, Bishop was concealing that the plan for armed intervention, including 3,000 Australian
troops, had been called off. She was also concealing that the black boxes were already in Colonel Sakri's possession.
The document signed by Sakri for the handover of the black boxes is visible in the new documentary. Sakri signed himself and added
the stamp of the National Security Council of Malaysia.
Col. Sakri says on film the Donetsk leaders expressed surprise at the delay of the Malaysians in arriving at the crash site
to recover the black boxes. "Why are you so late", [Borodai] said I think [that was] very funny." Source:
https://www.youtube.com/ Min. 05:47.
Sakri goes on to say he was asked by the OSCE's special
monitoring mission for Ukraine to hand over
the black boxes; he refused. He was then met by agents of the FBI (Min 6:56). "They approached me to show them the black box. I said
no." He also reports that in Kiev the Ukrainian Government tried "forcing me to leave the black boxes with them. We said no. We cannot.
We cannot allow."
The handover ceremony in Donetsk, July 22, 2014: on far left, the two black boxes from MH17; in the centre, shaking hands,
Alexander Borodai and Mohamad Sakri.
Permission for Colonel Sakri to speak to the press has been authorized by his superiors at the prime ministry in Putrajaya, and
his disclosures agreed with them in advance.
Subsequent releases from the Kiev government to substantiate the allegation of Russian involvement in the shoot-down have
included telephone tape recordings. These were presented last month by the JIT as their evidence for indictment of four Russians;
for details, read
this .
Van der Werff and Yerlashova contracted with OG IT Forensic Services
, a Malaysian firm specializing in forensic analysis of audio, video and digital materials for court proceedings, to examine
the telephone tapes. The Kuala Lumpur firm has been endorsed by the
Malaysian Bar . The full 143-page technical report can be read
here .
The findings reported by Akash Rosen and illustrated on camera are that the telephone recordings have been cut, edited and fabricated.
The source of the tapes, according to the
JIT press conference on June 19 by Dutch police officer Paulissen, head of the National Criminal Investigation Service of The
Netherlands, was the Ukrainian SBU. Similar findings of tape fabrication and evidence tampering are reported on camera in the van
der Werff film by a German analyst, Norman Ritter.
Left: Dutch police chief Paulissen grins as he acknowledged during the
June 19, 2019 , press conference of
JIT that the telephone tape evidence on which the charges against the four accused Russians came from the Ukrainian SBU.
Minute 16:02 Right: Norman Ritter presented his analysis to interviewer Billy Sixt to show the telephone tape evidence has
been forged in nine separate "manipulations". One of the four accused by the JIT last month, Sergei Dubinsky, testifies from Min.
17 of the documentary. He says his men recovered the black boxes from the crash site and delivered them to Borodai at 23:00 hours
on July 17; the destruction of the aircraft occurred at 1320.
Dubinsky testifies that he had no orders for and took no part in the shoot-down. As for the telephone tape-recording evidence
against him, Dubinsky says the calls were made days before July 17, and edited by the SBU. "I dare them to publish the uncut
conversations, and then you will get a real picture of what was discussed." (Min. 17:59).
Van der Werff and Yerlashova filmed at the crash site in eastern Ukraine. Several local witnesses were interviewed, including
a man named Alexander from Torez town, and Valentina Kovalenko, a woman from the farming village of Red October. The man said the
missile equipment alleged by the JIT to have been transported from across the Russian border on July 17 was in Torez at least one,
possibly two days before the shoot-down on July 17; he did not confirm details the JIT has identified as a Buk system.
Kovalenko, first portrayed in a BBC documentary three
years ago (starting at Min.26:50) as a "unique" eye-witness to the missile launch, clarifies more precisely than the BBC reported
where the missile she saw had been fired from.
This was not the location identified in press statements by JIT. Van der Werff explains: "we specifically asked [Kovalenko] to
point exactly in the direction the missile came from. I then asked twice if maybe it was from the direction of the JIT launch site.
She did not see a launch nor a plume from there. Notice the JIT 'launch site' is less than two kilometers from her house and
garden. The BBC omitted this crucial part of her testimony."
According to Kovalenko in the new documentary, at the firing location she has now identified precisely, "at that moment the
Ukrainian Army were there."
Kovalenko also remembers that on the days preceding the July 17 missile firing she witnessed, there had been Ukrainian military
aircraft operating in the sky above her village. She says they used evasion techniques including flying in the shadow of civilian
aircraft she also saw at the same time.
On July 17, three other villagers told van der Werff they had seen a Ukrainian military jet in the vicinity and at the time of
the MH17 crash.
Concluding the documentary, van der Werff and Yerlashova present an earlier interview filmed in Donetsk by independent Dutch journalist
Stefan Beck, whom JIT officials had tried to warn off visiting the area. Beck interviewed Yevgeny Volkov, who was an air controller
for the Ukrainian Air Force in July 2014. Volkov was asked to comment on Ukrainian Government statements, endorsed by the Dutch Safety
Board report into the crash and in subsequent reports by the JIT, that there were no radar records of the airspace at the time of
the shoot-down because Ukrainian military radars were not operational.
Volkov explained that on July 17 there were three radar units at Chuguev on "full alert" because "fighter jets were taking
off from there;" Chuguev is 200 kilometres northwest of the crash site. He disputed that the repairs to one unit meant none of the
three was operating. Ukrainian radar records of the location and time of the MH17 attack were made and kept, Volkov said. "There
[they] have it. In Ukraine they have it."
Last month, at the JIT press conference in The Netherlands on June 19, the Malaysian representative present, Mohammed Hanafiah
Bin Al Zakaria, one of three Solicitors-General of the Malaysian Attorney General's ministry, refused to endorse for the Malaysian
Governnment the JIT evidence or its charges against Russia. "Malaysia would like to reiterate our commitment to the JIT seeking justice
for the victims," Zakaria
said . "The objective of the JIT is to complete the investigations and gathering of evidence of all witnesses for the purpose
of prosecuting the wrongdoers and Malaysia stands by the rule of law and the due process." [Question: do you support the conclusions?]
"Part of the conclusions [inaudible] – do not change our positions."
By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign
correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties.
Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published
at
Dances with Bears
I always come back to the same three questions:
1. If all civilian and military radars were out of order, why was the flight not redirected out of the Ukrainian airspace and
into some territory with radar?
2. Why is the transcript of the Cockpit Voice Recorder kept a secret (see e.g.
here for others)?
3. Why is no journalist raising these questions?
(I got a partial answer to 3. "because only Kremlin trolls and conspiracy specialists doubt the official/Bellingcat version")
Re 1) active radar is not used that much in civilian flight control anymore, it's basically a back-up for passive transponder
pick up. Dnipro Control was monitoring the flight using passive (that's for example how they knew they were off their approved
airway L980 and asked them to get back, which, if there was no radar, they could not do). Passive (civilian) radar is no use in
tracking missiles or military planes with no transporder on.
Bellingcat? The fellow using the pseudonym is called Eliot Higgins and hails from the Midlands, not far from the Jihadist
masquerading as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights above a take away shop. He was a regular BTL commentator at the Grauniad
before being paid to spout BS. Nice work if one can get it, eh?
Having grown up in a military family and knowing what precautions are taken, I am staggered at how Bell End Cat can track down
Russian secret servicemen with such ease and in their homeland.
If you watch the film, you'd learn that there were back-ups so not all were out of order. And if we knew the answer to your
questions, we'd likely know 'who done it.'
Undoubtedly there's something quite rotten afoot here, and I'll be sure to give this film a watch, but honestly the Malaysians
have zero credibility when it comes to airplane crashes involving their national airline, especially after they deliberately fed
false information to rescue and recovery teams concerning MH 370's flight path. Whatever they knew or didn't know they had no
interest in helping anyone find that airplane or discover what took place onboard before it vanished. They should spare us all
any sanctimony about 'justice for victims, truth, rule of law, etc.'
It seems the world has a real credibility crisis today, not many state actors I trust to tell the truth or not politicize tragedy.
These revelations certainly make it seem more likely Ukrainian forces were to blame for downing MH17, but at this point the mystery
will never be conclusively solved. Two warring factions with the exact same equipment/weaponry in close proximity, compromised
crash sites, tons of propaganda, lots of interested parties seeking to maximize the tragedy for political gain, corrupt authorities
all around.
Not an ideal situation for objective fact finding to say the least. With the 1MBD scandal and investigation still ongoing I
have no doubts the Malaysians are probably looking for leverage and bargaining chips where ever they can find them, further eroding
their objectivity and authority in my opinion. Getting to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination will be easier than MH17, but
if the truth does come out it will not be owed to the virtues of the Malaysian government. They've already shown the world how
much they care about airplane crash investigations.
I have to tell you, this is an ad hominem argument, which is a violation of our site Policies. You need to deal with the evidence
and not attack the source. With MH370, you had a crash of a plane under the control of the carrier, not as a result of an air
strike.
Quite apart from the ad hominem nature of JerryDenim's comment (and I disagree with Yves Smith; I think the credibility of
sources is relevant), what motive would Malaysia have for siding with Russia/east Ukraine against the west/west Ukraine? Does
JerryDenim know of one, or have any suggestions?
TBH, I have dire doubts on anything Malaysian government says, due to their handling of MH370 where they continue lying in
face of hard facts (that doesn't mean I believe any governments on this).
I believe that the most likely cause is an accidental shooting down, where an inexperienced and untrained separatist crew messed
up (this is what you get when even a semi-sophisticated equipment gets to untrained people who are keen to use it).
For me it fits Occam's razor the most, and is the only theory which explains the (documented) boasting of the separatists of
a large military plane being shot down immediately after the catastrophe.
How is "Russia did it" logical? That part of Ukraine was in the hands of separatists, not "Russia". "Russia" was not directing
their activities. Russia does not want to control the eastern part of Ukraine, which is an economic basket case. But it doesn't
want hostile forces parked on its border.
Sorry, that's irrelevant even if true. Even if "Russia" was formally providing troops, as opposed to engaged in a massive wink
and nod (a LOT of Russians had relatives in eastern Ukraine, a point you forget re motives and numbers), that's way way way short
of any evidence they were in charge.
Plus I was wrong on the key point, and it renders your argument moot. From Rev Kev below:
That territory where the missile was fired from was in Ukrainian hands at the time, not rebels, and those launchers were
seen speeding rapidly west after the shooting down.
This response is non-sensical. Have you been to the cemeteries you mention? Any picture can be posted and a caption written
– that is no proof of anything. Besides the point being irrelevant to the question of who shot down the plane.
Now that we have the crime and the five-year cover-up, the simplest explanation is actually the one of a likely false flag
operation. Asking 'cui bono,' how would Russia or the rebels benefit from shooting down a plane with bunch of Dutch people on
board? (Russia historically has had good relations with Holland, Malaysia, too.)
Lots of terrible stuff happened in Ukraine after the govt changed (courtesy of the west). Have we forgotten about the burning
of more than 40 people in Odessa? Or the murders of politicians and journalists?
I suppose if one believes the West's preferred version of Putin as some Bond type villain who takes great delight in shooting
down planes full of civilians, presumably while stroking a large white cat then I suppose the he dunnit version is the one for
you.
Personally I believe that Putin is not an idiot & would likely have been more interested in putting out that fire than throwing
more fuel onto it. As for who has any credibility – the Ukrainians under Porkyschenko with their Neo-Nazi element, would I think
be at the bottom of my list & that is without mentioning Neo-Cons with their Noble Lie BS.
And let's not forget the appearance of (coordinated) magazine covers of VVP as the devil incarnate – almost in unison, right
after the shooting of the plane.
"Why are you so late", [Borodai] said I think [that was] very funny." That sounds like what happened at the Pan Am 103
site. For some reason yet to be explained over thirty years later, the Royal Air Force air accident investigation team, based
at RAF Halton in Buckinghamshire, found an American military team on site when they landed by helicopter a bit before midnight.
The US team took charge even though they were on foreign soil.
That was a pretty gutsy move on the Malaysians to send in their own retrieval team for those recorders. I bet that those Malaysian
commandos would have a story to tell or two. The danger wasn't from the rebels however but from the west and their allied Ukrainians.
The rebels were more than glad to hand over the records that they found at first opportunity but the information, once in the
hands of the west, has been seeping out with all the speed of the translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I was following this story very closely at the time and you could see that something was "off" within days. The Russians
came out with a press conference and released radar tracks and full & total information. We in the west got – a YouTube link.
Seriously. This was just the beginning. There was one clip that came out showing moving trucks that proved that the Russians did
it – until someone woke up to the fact that the trees in the background were in the winter season whereas that jet was shot down
in high summer. And so it went on.
There was a very slow walk to stop people going to the crash site. One Australian couple who lost someone went there in spite
of the efforts of our government to stop them.Another time an official visit had to be cancelled as the area was
being shelled – by the Ukrainians. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to realize that there was a whole pack of dogs that were
seriously not barking. A link from this page talks about how there is a silence when MH17 got hit. I have heard recordings
of aircraft that went down and there is usually something – a bang, crumpling, warning calls, shouts – but here there was nothing.
That story about Australia wanting to send 3,000 troops was weird. That is a very large force for Australia and it would
have taken weeks to put together a joint US/Dutch/Australian Task Force to go into the rebel area but you would have been talking
about heavy casualties and risks of severe escalation with a nuclear Russia. Having said that, Tony Abbott was Prime Minister
of the time and Julie Bishop was his Foreign minister and they are both hard right politicians (now both thankfully gone) and
may have been entertaining such thoughts.
My belief is that this was an operation to try and retrieve the situation in the Ukraine for the west. The US alone spent over
$5 billion on this coup but Russia grabbed the crown jewels of Crimea (with its naval bases & off-shore gas fields) and eastern
Ukraine which has a border with Russia. That territory where the missile was fired from was in Ukrainian hands at the time, not
rebels, and those launchers were seen speeding rapidly west after the shooting down. Ask yourself – who benefited from this tragedy
and that will tell you where to go looking for answers. Maybe, like happened with the Meuller investigation, Russian legal representations
should show up in a court of law and start demanding the discovery process of all the evidence. Now that could get interesting.
Rebels were the first to respond to the crash scene, recording themselves with a camcorder. The rebels were convinced they
had shot down a Ukrainian fighter jet and were searching for a pilot that would have ejected. The rebels then thought a
fighter downed the airliner and they downed the fighter. Their commander speaking in both Russian and Ukrainian tells the
rebels to stop filming and clear the area of civilians. The footage was aired by News Corp Australia.
Yeah, I remember watching those films. I saw this big, bearded rebel pick up a child's doll, showed it to the camera as
in "Do you see this s***?", put it reverently back where he found it, and then crossed himself in a Orthodox blessing. So the
western media took a screen shot of that rebel holding that child's doll and put a caption underneath that the rebel was boasting
of the plane being shot down. As for that footage, I live in Oz and I am here to state that I would sooner trust CNN or Fox News
before would I put any trust in News Corp Australia, especially their propaganda unit "60 Minutes Australia".
If memory serves the late Robert Parry of Consortium News claimed to have USG sources who said the missile was a Buk fired
by Ukrainian, not separatist troops. And I believe that Russia has said the rocket engine serial number from the investigation's
evidence is for a Buk sold long ago to the Ukrainians.
Of course Western sources will say the Russians have no credibility but then they don't either–the fog of propaganda war.
The good news is that the criminal coup regime in Kiev seems to have been decisively defeated with Sunday's election according
to MOA in Links. Perhaps this particular branch of the New Cold War–which the Obama regime was so very much responsible for–will
begin to find peace.
"... Former FBI Director James Comey has been under investigation for misleading President Trump - telling him in private that he wasn't the target of an ongoing FBI probe, while refusing to admit to this in public. ..."
"... Comey was essentially "running a covert operation" against Trump - which began with a private "defensive briefing" shortly after the inauguration. RCI 's sources say that Horowitz has pored over text messages between the FBI's former top-brass and other communications suggesting that Comey was in fact conducting a "counterintelligence assessment" of the president during their January 2017 meeting in New York. ..."
"... What's more, the FBI couldn't treat Trump as a suspect - formally, as they didn't have the legal grounds to do so according to former FBI counterintelligence lawyer Mark Wauck. " They had no probable cause against Trump himself for 'collusion' or espionage ," he said, adding "They were scrambling to come up with anything to hang a hat on, but had found nothing." ..."
"... According to House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), Comey and the rest of the FBI's top team (including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) were attempting to "stop" Trump's presidency for political reasons. ..."
"... "You have the culmination of the ultimate spying, where you have the FBI director spying on the president, taking notes [and] illegally leaking those notes of classified information" to the MSM, said Nunes in a recent interview. ..."
"... Comey is just the political class operative who they brought in to save Scooter Libby's butt in the Valerie Flame leak. Then he got a seven figure job as a reward at a hedge fund (with no prior experience in the financial industry). Then, they took him off the bench to be FBI director. ..."
"... The larger problem is that the "five eyes" system is broken in favor of British surveillance and interference in our elections, and, the Patriot Act practice of "masking" is a complete violation of the fourth amendment and a fraud. From a fourth amendment analysis, it's like letting the police search everyone's house every day as long as they don't look at the name on the address. ..."
"... This investigation would explain why Comey, Brennan, and other members of Barry Obama's regime are very quiet, while Congressional Democrats are freaking out. ..."
"... Does the DOJ investigate British agents? Serious question. ..."
Former FBI Director James Comey has been under investigation for misleading President
Trump - telling him in private that he wasn't the target of an ongoing FBI probe, while
refusing to admit to this in public.
According to
RealClearInvestigations ' Paul Sperry, "Justice Department Inspector General Michael
Horowitz will file a report in September which contains evidence that Comey was misleading the
president " while conducting an active investigation against him.
Even as he repeatedly assured Trump that he was not a target, the former director was
secretly trying to build a conspiracy case against the president, while at times acting as an
investigative agent . -
RCI
According to two US officials familiar with Horowitz's upcoming report on FBI misconduct,
Comey was essentially "running a covert operation" against Trump - which began with a
private "defensive briefing" shortly after the inauguration. RCI 's sources say that Horowitz
has pored over text messages between the FBI's former top-brass and other communications
suggesting that Comey was in fact conducting a "counterintelligence assessment" of the
president during their January 2017 meeting in New York.
What's more, Comey had an FBI agent in the White House who reported the activities of Trump
and his aides, according to 'other officials familiar with the matter.'
The agent, Anthony Ferrante, who specialized in cyber crime, left the White House around
the same time Comey was fired and soon joined a security consulting firm, where he contracted
with BuzzFeed to lead the news site's efforts to verify the Steele dossier, in connection
with a defamation lawsuit. -RCI
According to the report, Horowitz and his team have examined over 1 million documents and
conducted over 100 interviews - including sit-downs with Comey and other current and former FBI
and DOJ employees. "The period covering Comey's activities is believed to run from early
January 2017 to early May 2017, when Comey was fired and his deputy Andrew McCabe, as the
acting FBI director, formally
opened full counterintelligence and obstruction investigations of the president."
McCabe's deputy, Lisa Page, appeared to dissemble last year when asked in closed-door
testimony before the House Judiciary Committee if Comey and other FBI brass discussed opening
an obstruction case against Trump prior to his firing in May 2017. Initially, she flatly
denied it , swearing: "Obstruction of justice was not a topic of conversation during the time
frame you have described." But then, after conferring with her FBI-assigned lawyer, she
announced: " I need to take back my prior statement ." Page later conceded that there could
have been at least "discussions about potential criminal activity" involving the president .
-RCI
Comey coordination
Sperry notes that Comey wasn't working in isolation on the Trump effort. In particular,
Horowitz has looked at the January 6, 2017 briefing on the infamous 'Steele Dossier' - a
meeting which was used by BuzzFeed, CNN and others to legitimize reporting on the dossier's
salacious and unsubstantiated claims .
Comey's meeting with Trump took place one day after the FBI director met in the Oval
Office with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to discuss how to brief Trump -- a
meeting attended by National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh
Johnson, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and National Intelligence Director James
Clapper, who would soon go to work for CNN. -RCI
While Comey claims in his book, "A Higher Loyalty" that he didn't have "a
counterintelligence case file open on [Trump]," former federal prosecutor and National Review
columnist Andrew McCarthy notes that just because Trump's name wasn't on a formal file or
surveillance warrant doesn't mean that he wasn't under investigation.
"They were hoping to surveil him incidentally, and they were trying to make a case on him,"
said McCarthy. " The real reason Comey did not want to repeat publicly the assurances he made
to Trump privately is that these assurances were misleading . The FBI strung Trump along,
telling him he was not a suspect while structuring the investigation in accordance with the
reality that Trump was the main subject ."
What's more, the FBI couldn't treat Trump as a suspect - formally, as they didn't have
the legal grounds to do so according to former FBI counterintelligence lawyer Mark Wauck. "
They had no probable cause against Trump himself for 'collusion' or espionage ," he said,
adding "They were scrambling to come up with anything to hang a hat on, but had found
nothing."
What remains unclear is why Comey would take such extraordinary steps against a sitting
president . The Mueller report concluded there was no basis for the Trump-Russia collusion
conspiracy theories. Comey himself was an early skeptic of the Steele dossier -- the
opposition research memos paid for by Hillary Clinton's campaign that were the road map of
collusion theories -- which he dismissed as "salacious and unverified." -RCI
According to House Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA), Comey and
the rest of the FBI's top team (including Peter Strzok and Lisa Page) were attempting to "stop"
Trump's presidency for political reasons.
"You have the culmination of the ultimate spying, where you have the FBI director spying
on the president, taking notes [and] illegally leaking those notes of classified information"
to the MSM, said Nunes in a recent interview.
They will whitewash Comey. The deep state is alive and well, the DoJ and the FBI are as
corrupt as they were the day before Trump took office.
Why do I say this? Well, the canary hasn't fallen off her perch yet. Hillary Clinton is
still singing her song, and even making noises like she's going to run again, and she's not
in prison. They have her solid on over a hundred felony counts of mishandling classified
documents and they've not touched her. Proof of life that the Deep State is still in
power.
So, was the Steele dossier the ex post facto excuse for illegally spying on Trump, or was
it the ex post facto diversion for ALL of Obama's spying on politically powerful people,
which we know included spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee, spying on reporters, and
spying on Trump. I'll bet Obama hopes the investigation doesn't get into all of his spying
activities, and I wouldn't be surprised government officials in charge of the spying
equipment are keeping it covered up because they don't want to lose their jobs (for either
allowing such to happen, or because they fear the spying apparatus will be eliminated).
Did Obama also spy on SCOTUS justices, Congressmen, other Senators and other rich and
powerful people? I'll bet he did, because we haven't seen all the unmasking documentation,
and Obama took it to his library so no one can see it (at least so he thinks). Further, look
at the way Brennan, Clapper, Comey and Rice are disparaging Trump (they protest too much).
And look at how all the allegations about Trump are blowing right back into the faces of the
Democrats who've shown their MO is to accuse their political opponents, of the illegal
activity in which the Democrats are engaged.
They need to go to jail, for a long time, if not be executed for treason.
Did Obama spy on SCOTUS justices, et al? - Yes. Look up project HAMR or "Hammer". MI5/6
was spying on all Americans comms to circumvent legal frameworks (5 eyes). Google is now
fully Chinese intelligence - TREASON. It's coming and it's gonna blow most people's
minds.
It started a very long time ago. 1913 was a notable date, so was JFK's assassination. So
was 9/11. So was Operation Paperclip. These monsters have been slithering around a while. Now
it's time for them to go bye-bye. Dark to Light. Execute.
Comey is just the political class operative who they brought in to save Scooter
Libby's butt in the Valerie Flame leak. Then he got a seven figure job as a reward at a hedge
fund (with no prior experience in the financial industry). Then, they took him off the bench
to be FBI director.
The larger problem is that the "five eyes" system is broken in favor of British
surveillance and interference in our elections, and, the Patriot Act practice of "masking" is
a complete violation of the fourth amendment and a fraud. From a fourth amendment analysis,
it's like letting the police search everyone's house every day as long as they don't look at
the name on the address.
That our broken secrecy system effectively legalized Watergate under Obama and the "five
eyes" is the real problem that needs fixing.
This investigation would explain why Comey, Brennan, and other members of Barry Obama's
regime are very quiet, while Congressional Democrats are freaking out. The end of the Deep
State is starting.
"... If the answer is yes, then the IG must provide the House and Senate Armed Services committees with a report on the experiments' scope and "whether any ticks or insects used in such experiments were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment design." The amendment is an attempt to confirm or deny reports that Pentagon researchers -- at places such as Fort Detrick in Maryland and Plum Island in New York -- implanted diseases into insects to learn about the effects of biological weapons and also looked into using such insects to disseminate biological agents. ..."
"... A book called "Bitten," published this year, makes the case that the Defense Department research occurred and hints at a possible connection between the experiments and the spread of maladies such as Lyme disease, which is borne by ticks. ..."
"... Between 300,000 and 427,000 new cases of Lyme disease occur each year, with further growth expected in the years ahead, said Smith, a founding co-chairman of the Congressional Lyme Disease Caucus, which advocates for greater awareness of the disease and for more funding for research into a cure. ..."
"... Pat Smith, president of the Lyme Disease Association, said in an interview Monday that she is hopeful the IG report could provide information that could save lives. ..."
"... "We need to find out: is there anything in this research that was supposedly done that can help us to find information that is germane to patient health and combating the spread of the disease," she said. ..."
The House quietly voted last week to require the Pentagon inspector general to tell Congress whether the department experimented
with weaponizing disease-carrying insects and whether they were released into the public realm -- either accidentally or on purpose.
The unusual proposal took the form of an amendment that was adopted by
voice vote July 11 during House
debate on the fiscal 2020 defense authorization bill, which lawmakers passed the following day.
The amendment, by New Jersey Republican
Christopher H. Smith
, says the inspector general "shall conduct a review of whether the Department of Defense experimented with ticks and other insects
regarding use as a biological weapon between the years of 1950 and 1975."
If the answer is yes, then the IG must provide the House and Senate Armed Services committees with a report on the experiments'
scope and "whether any ticks or insects used in such experiments were released outside of any laboratory by accident or experiment
design." The amendment is an attempt to confirm or deny reports that Pentagon researchers -- at places such as Fort Detrick in Maryland
and Plum Island in New York -- implanted diseases into insects to learn about the effects of biological weapons and also looked into
using such insects to disseminate biological agents.
President Richard Nixon banned U.S. government research into biological weapons in 1969, but research into protecting U.S. military
personnel from such agents may have continued, Smith said in an interview Monday.
A book called "Bitten," published this year, makes the case that the Defense Department research occurred and hints at a possible
connection between the experiments and the spread of maladies such as Lyme disease, which is borne by ticks.
To Smith and other advocates of the Pentagon IG report, studying the past may provide data that can help stem the spread of Lyme
disease in the future.
Between 300,000 and 427,000 new cases of Lyme disease occur each year, with further growth expected in the years ahead, said
Smith, a founding co-chairman of the Congressional Lyme Disease Caucus, which advocates for greater awareness of the disease and
for more funding for research into a cure.
"We need answers and we need them now," Smith said.
Smith's amendment was co-sponsored by Minnesota Democrat
Collin C. Peterson
, who is the House caucus's other leader, and by Maryland Republican
Andy Harris .
Pat Smith, president of the Lyme Disease Association, said in an interview Monday that she is hopeful the IG report could
provide information that could save lives.
"We need to find out: is there anything in this research that was supposedly done that can help us to find information that
is germane to patient health and combating the spread of the disease," she said.
It remains to be seen whether Congress will send President Donald Trump a defense authorization bill with the weaponized ticks
amendment. The Senate has passed its version without any similar provision, and now House and Senate negotiators must reconcile the
two bills.
"... Moreover, if, as the memorandum asserted, 'British officials' were also aware that the 'most reliable intelligence' exonerated the Syrian government, rather fundamental questions arose as to how the JIC had felt able to claim precisely the reverse in support of David Cameron's unsuccessful attempt on 29 August to win Commons' support for British participation in air strikes. ..."
"... At the time, the Director General, Defence and Intelligence at the FCO was one Robert Hannigan, who in April 2014 would be appointed as Director of GCHQ. The National Security Adviser was a certain Sir Kim Darroch, whose appointment as Ambassador to the U.S. would be announced in August 2015. Both have been in the news, in relation to 'Russiagate.' ..."
"... Obviously, the same question arises about both of them as about Brennan: are they 'Gleiwitz types', who were actively complicit in preparing a murderous 'false flag', or were they simply part of a rather stupid Anglo-American 'dog', whom the 'tail', in the shape of the jihadists and their Turkish, Saudi and Qatari backers, could 'wag', as they chose? ..."
"... From the articles which Seymour Hersh published in the 'London Review of Books', and other materials, it became evident that the Defense Intelligence Agency, then headed by General Flynn, had been aware of the likelihood of fresh 'false flags' -- after the small scale incidents in spring 2013. ..."
"... An argument that 'Sundance' has repeatedly made is that a lot of what was happening in mid-2016, including the dossier attributed to Steele, had to do with the need to find justifications for these questionable surveillance operations. ..."
"... While I think there is something in this, I have long thought that the discovery that a mass of material exfiltrated from the DNC, and was going to be published by 'WikiLeaks', and the subsequent murder of Seth Rich, are likely to have been critically important triggers. ..."
"... panic-stricken improvisation found alike in the dossier, and the claims about the 'digital forensics' made by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', and the former GCHQ person Matt Tait. ..."
"... A week later, Butowsky filed a new action, in which the suggestion of a very-wide ranging conspiracy to suppress the truth about both the DNC leaks and Rich's murder was turned into a catalogue of defamation claims against a long list of people, including, as well as a variety of lawyers involved, CNN, the'Nw York Times', Vox, and the DNC. ..."
"... 'That Seth Rich was wacked because he stole the DNC emails and transferred them to Wikileaks is a conspiracy theory. It is possible and even plausible, but there is no evidence to confirm it. Many people seem to believe it because it makes more sense than the competing conspiracy theory, that Russia hacked the DNC and handed the emails to Wikileaks. Isikoff's claim, that Russia planted the Rich conspiracy theory, has no sound base. That theory existed before anything "Russian" mentioned it.' ..."
"... Reading the full text of Ms. Craven's report, I can see quite how well justified was Larry's suggestion in his post that Folkenflik and NPR were on a very sticky wicket indeed (as we say in England.) ..."
"... However, 'fools rush in', as the saying goes, so Isikoff decided to conspire with Deborah Sines, apparently the former U.S. assistant attorney in charge of investigating Seth Rich's murder, to suggest that suggestions that the victim had been the source of the material from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' originated as just another Russian plot. ..."
"... It appears that prior to the publication of his 'report', Isikoff talked to Butowsky, who in his efforts to dissuade him explained that his involvement in the whole affair began when Ellen Ratner, a news analyst with Fox, and sister of the late Michael Ratner, who had been an attorney for Assange, contacted him in Fall 2016 about a meeting she had with her that figure. ..."
"... And then, not particularly surprisingly, Butowsky and Clevenger abandoned their inhibitions about identifying Ellen Ratner as a source, and filled in a lot of 'blanks' in their 'narrative' about how Seth Rich lived and died. ..."
"... Among the many problems for Brennan and his co-conspirators -- among whom, on the British side, Hannigan and Darroch, and also Sedwill, are very important -- one relates to the way that the capabilities of 'scientific forensics', in all kinds of areas, have increased by leaps and bounds in recent years. ..."
"... This has meant that they have had little option but to corrupt the processes of investigation. The ludicrous claims by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike' and the former GCHQ person Matt Tait, which nobody but a fool -- congenital 'useful idiot' one might say -- or a knave would dare to defend in public, are only one of many cases in point. ..."
One does not like to admit to having been one of John Brennan's 'useful idiots' -- I had
thought I could see through any of the 'active measures' which he and his co-conspirators, on
both sides of the Atlantic, could dream up. But I had swallowed whole the notion that Michael
Flynn had been stupid enough knowingly to get involved in Erdoğan's feud with
Gülen.
In fairness, however, I do think that when dealing with spiders like the former head of
the CIA, a prudent fly needs to be sure he, or she, gets competent legal advice at the
outset.
It may perhaps be interesting to put your account together with a post by 'Sundance' on
the 'Conservative Treehouse' site on 14 July, headlined 'Devin Nunes Discusses Upcoming
Mueller Testimony '
This takes up the issue, on which its author has commented extensively, of illegitimate
access by contractors to the databases of NSA intercepts -- an issue which is clearly bound
up with that of the use of such material to create the 'web' in which Flynn found himself
hopelessly entangled.
The post by 'Sundance' suggests, just as you do, that the driving force behind what has
happened was actually John Brennan. The April 2017 ruling by FISA Court Presiding Judge
Rosemary Collyer does not definitely establish that the illegitimate access of contractors
started in 2012, but it definitely strongly suggests that it did.
Reading the 6 September 'Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity' memorandum to
Obama, entitled 'Is Syria a Trap?', whose signatories included both you and Colonel Lang, it
seemed overwhelmingly likely to some of us who were familiar with both your writings that
Brennan had to have been involved in a conspiracy with the Turks, Saudis, and Qataris.
One relevant question related to whether the role of the Americans involved in this
conspiracy was simply 'ex post facto' exploitation of the patent 'false flag' sarin atrocity
at Ghouta the previous 21 August to attempt to inveigle the United States into toppling
Assad, or whether there was 'ex ante' complicity.
Moreover, if, as the memorandum asserted, 'British officials' were also aware that the
'most reliable intelligence' exonerated the Syrian government, rather fundamental questions
arose as to how the JIC had felt able to claim precisely the reverse in support of David
Cameron's unsuccessful attempt on 29 August to win Commons' support for British participation
in air strikes.
At the time, the Director General, Defence and Intelligence at the FCO was one Robert
Hannigan, who in April 2014 would be appointed as Director of GCHQ. The National Security
Adviser was a certain Sir Kim Darroch, whose appointment as Ambassador to the U.S. would be
announced in August 2015. Both have been in the news, in relation to 'Russiagate.'
Obviously, the same question arises about both of them as about Brennan: are they
'Gleiwitz types', who were actively complicit in preparing a murderous 'false flag', or were
they simply part of a rather stupid Anglo-American 'dog', whom the 'tail', in the shape of
the jihadists and their Turkish, Saudi and Qatari backers, could 'wag', as they chose?
From the articles which Seymour Hersh published in the 'London Review of Books', and other
materials, it became evident that the Defense Intelligence Agency, then headed by General
Flynn, had been aware of the likelihood of fresh 'false flags' -- after the small scale
incidents in spring 2013.
And it was clear enough, if one bothered to study the 'open source' material at all
carefully, that the DIA had been a key locus of opposition to the strategies being pursued by
Brennan, together with his British co-conspirators.
Accordingly, the fact that an 'interagency memorandum of understanding', which according
to Collyer's judgement looks as though it may well date from 2012 -- the year Brennan was
appointed to head the CIA -- appears to have led, in that year, to the granting of access to
the material, through the FBI, to outside contractors, looks somewhat interesting. (This is
well covered by 'Sundance'.)
So, I find myself asking whether in fact this gross abuse of the role of the NSA was not
linked at the outset to the divisions within the American intelligence apparatus and military
about policy towards the Middle East, and also whether this may not be relevant to assessing
the role of Robert Mueller, who was FBI Director through until September 2013.
An argument that 'Sundance' has repeatedly made is that a lot of what was happening in
mid-2016, including the dossier attributed to Steele, had to do with the need to find
justifications for these questionable surveillance operations.
While I think there is something in this, I have long thought that the discovery that a
mass of material exfiltrated from the DNC, and was going to be published by 'WikiLeaks', and
the subsequent murder of Seth Rich, are likely to have been critically important
triggers.
Among other things, I do not think that the version given by 'Sundance' can explain the
air of panic-stricken improvisation found alike in the dossier, and the claims about the
'digital forensics' made by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'CrowdStrike', and the former GCHQ person
Matt Tait.
I see that there has now been a dramatic escalation in the legal battles which began when
Ed Butowsky bought his initial action against David Folkenflik and his 'NPR' colleagues in
June 2018. The discovery process in that action was followed by an 'Amended Complaint' on 5
March this year.
A week later, Butowsky filed a new action, in which the suggestion of a very-wide ranging
conspiracy to suppress the truth about both the DNC leaks and Rich's murder was turned into a
catalogue of defamation claims against a long list of people, including, as well as a variety
of lawyers involved, CNN, the'Nw York Times', Vox, and the DNC.
On 9 July, Michael Isikoff published a story alleging that the claims about Rich and his
murder were the result of a Russian 'active measures' operation -- to use a favourite phrase
of TTG's.
'That Seth Rich was wacked because he stole the DNC emails and transferred them to
Wikileaks is a conspiracy theory. It is possible and even plausible, but there is no evidence
to confirm it. Many people seem to believe it because it makes more sense than the competing
conspiracy theory, that Russia hacked the DNC and handed the emails to Wikileaks. Isikoff's
claim, that Russia planted the Rich conspiracy theory, has no sound base. That theory existed
before anything "Russian" mentioned it.'
As it happens, Butowsky and his lawyer, Ty Clevenger, obviously decided it was time to, as
it were, 'unmask their batteries', and provide some of the evidence they have been
accumulating.
There is another useful post by 'Sundance', which in turn links to a very interesting post
on the Gateway Pundit' site. From there, you can access both Clevenger's blog post, and the
text of the 'Amended Complaint.'
It seems likely that Butowsky and Clevenger were pushed into acting a bit sooner than they
had intended. The fact that the name of Ellen Ratner, clearly a pivotal participant, was
misspellled 'Rattner' in the 'Amended Complaint', is likely to be an indication of this.
However, I also think that Clevenger, who seems to me a first-class 'ferret', could do
with the services of an old-style secretary, who checked his productions before they went
out.
As I have previously mentioned, I testified several times in Collyer's Washington district
court on non-FISA matters. My impression was that she is a very ambitious woman who wishes
always to do DoJ's bidding.
Your recollections of Collyer had, unfortunately, slipped my mind when I posted my comment
above. So, unfortunately, had Larry's post on Judge Caroline M. Craven's denial in her report
dated 17 April 2019 of the Motion to Dismiss filed by David Folkenflik and his NPR colleagues
in the defamation case brought against them by Ed Butowsky.
At the time of his post, the full text of the judgement was only available on PACER, which
requires a subscription. However, looking at the 'Court Listener' site, I now see that both
it and some other key documents in the case are freely available.
Reading the full text of Ms. Craven's report, I can see quite how well justified was
Larry's suggestion in his post that Folkenflik and NPR were on a very sticky wicket indeed
(as we say in England.)
And I can also see more clearly why, following the judgement, Butowsky and Ty Clevenger
felt they were in a position to launch an action both against some of the major legal players
in the cover-up of the fact that the materials published by the DNC were leaked by Seth Rich,
not hacked by the Russians, and also key disseminators of the cover-up, CNN, the NYT, and
Vox.
What looks to have happened subsequently is a natural enough process of escalation.
Among those who rather actively promoted the hogwash attributed to Christopher Steele was
Michael Isikoff, who is, apparently, chief investigative correspondent for Yahoo News. In
April, he was reported in 'Vanity Fair' conceding that 'I think it's fair to say that all of
us should have approached this, in retrospect, with more skepticism'.
Any 'investigative reporter' worth his or her salt would have done elementary checks on
the dossier immediately, and not touched it with a bargepole -- again, as we used to say in
England. Also, even among the incompetent and corrupt, common prudence might have suggested
caution.
However, 'fools rush in', as the saying goes, so Isikoff decided to conspire with
Deborah Sines, apparently the former U.S. assistant attorney in charge of investigating Seth
Rich's murder, to suggest that suggestions that the victim had been the source of the
material from the DNC published by 'WikiLeaks' originated as just another Russian
plot.
It appears that prior to the publication of his 'report', Isikoff talked to Butowsky,
who in his efforts to dissuade him explained that his involvement in the whole affair began
when Ellen Ratner, a news analyst with Fox, and sister of the late Michael Ratner, who had
been an attorney for Assange, contacted him in Fall 2016 about a meeting she had with her
that figure.
Although Butowsky intended the conversation to be 'off the record', and the idea was
emphatically not that Isikoff would contact Ellen Ratner, he did. It seems that -- not
particularly surprisingly, in the current climate -- she lied to him, and he was stupid
enough to think that this meant he could get away with publishing his story.
And then, not particularly surprisingly, Butowsky and Clevenger abandoned their
inhibitions about identifying Ellen Ratner as a source, and filled in a lot of 'blanks' in
their 'narrative' about how Seth Rich lived and died.
I am still in the process of digesting the new information. However, a couple of
preliminary observations about the implications may be worth making.
Among the many problems for Brennan and his co-conspirators -- among whom, on the
British side, Hannigan and Darroch, and also Sedwill, are very important -- one relates to
the way that the capabilities of 'scientific forensics', in all kinds of areas, have
increased by leaps and bounds in recent years.
This has meant that they have had little option but to corrupt the processes of
investigation. The ludicrous claims by Dmitri Alperovitch of 'Crowdstrike' and the former
GCHQ person Matt Tait, which nobody but a fool -- congenital 'useful idiot' one might say --
or a knave would dare to defend in public, are only one of many cases in point.
What is really dangerous for the conspirators, however, is when the problems they have in
contesting rational arguments about the 'scientific forensics' come together with problems
relating to more 'old-fashioned' kinds of evidence: crucially, 'witness testimony'.
This, I think, may now be happening.
It also seems to me quite likely that some of those 'in the know' -- including perhaps
Rosemary Collyer -- had seen what was liable to happen a good while ago, and decided that a
prudent 'rat' keeps its options open.
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of ..."
"... Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the host of The John Batchelor Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are at ..."
"... War With Russia? From Putin & Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate ..."
his
Wikipedia biography , he has -- or he had -- "a sterling reputation" both among Republicans
and Democrats. That changed when Barr announced his ongoing investigation into the origins of
Russiagate, a vital subject
I, too, have explored .
As Barr explained , "What we're looking at is: What was the predicate for conducting a
counterintelligence investigation on the Trump campaign. How did the bogus narrative begin that
Trump was essentially in cahoots with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election?" Still more,
Barr, who is empowered to declassify highly sensitive documents, made clear that his primary
focus was not the hapless FBI under James Comey but the CIA under John Brennan. Evidently this
was too much for leading Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who assailed Barr for having "just
destroyed the scintilla of credibility that he had left." Not known for a sense of irony,
Schumer accused Barr of using "the words of conspiracy theorists," as though Russiagate
itself is not among the most malign and consequential conspiracy theories in American political
history.
More indicative is the reaction of the generally liberal pro-Democratic New York
Times and Washington Post , the country's two most important political
newspapers, to Barr's investigation. Leaning heavily on the "expert" opinion of former
intelligence officials and McCarthy-echoing members of Congress such as Adam Schiff, both
papers went into outrage mode.
The Times bemoaned Barr's "drastic escalation of [Trump's] yearslong assault on
the intelligence community" while rejecting "the president's unfounded claims that his campaign
had been spied on," even though some forms of FBI and CIA infiltration and surveillance of the
2016 Trump campaign are now well documented. (See, for example,
Lee Smith's reporting .)
Unconcerned by the activities of either agency, the papers
warned ominously that Barr's probe "effectively strips [the CIA] of its most critical
power: choosing which secrets it shares and which remain hidden." It "could be tremendously
damaging to the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies." Not surprisingly, given the
Times ' three-year role in promulgating Russiagate allegations, it preempted Barr's
investigation
by declaring that US intelligence agencies' covert actions were part of "a lawful
investigation aimed at understanding a foreign power's efforts to manipulate an American
election." Considering what is now known, this generalization seems a whitewash both of the
Times ' coverage and the agencies' conduct. (In the Post , see coverage by
Toluse Olorunnipa and
Shane Harris .)
Hillary Clinton, also not surprisingly, agreed. As paraphrased by Matt Stevens
in the Times on May 3 , she accused Barr of diverting attention "from what the
real story is. The real story is the Russian interference in our election." According to the
defeated Democratic candidate, "the Russians were successful in sowing 'discord and
divisiveness' in the country, and helping Mr. Trump." But who has actually sowed more "discord
and divisiveness" in America -- the Russians or Mrs. Clinton and her supporters, by still
refusing to accept the legitimacy of her electoral loss and Trump's victory?
Unfortunately, but predictably, Barr's investigation has become polarizing, with Fox News,
for example, bannering each new unsavory Russiagate revelation and the Times and the
Post mostly ignoring them altogether. In particular, the Democratic Party, once
traditionally skeptical of intelligence agencies, is becoming the party of an intel cult and
thus of the new US-Russian Cold War. Only a few of the party's leaders, notably presidential
candidate Tulsi Gabbard, demur from this dangerous folly. (Might Democratic reticence also be
due to the circumstance that the intelligence chiefs now under investigation were appointees of
former President Obama, who has been remarkably silent about the entire Russiagate saga? What,
as I have asked previously, did Obama know, when did he know it, and what did he do?)
Everyone who cares about the quality of American political life, no matter what they think
about Trump, should encourage Barr's probe. To resort to a familiar cliché, Russiagate
allegations have become a spreading cancer in American politics, with Democratic congressional
candidates raising funds by promising, despite the exculpatory findings of Robert Mueller
regarding "collusion," to fight evil "Trump-Putin" forces in Washington. Meanwhile, some
Republicans, despite ample contrary evidence, preposterously blame Russia itself -- for the
infamous Steele Dossier, for example. (By the way, for more irony, Trump is regularly accused
in the above-cited news accounts of "siding with" Russian President Vladimir Putin in denying
that any "collusion" determined the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, a conclusion
also reached by Mueller, thereby putting Trump, Putin, and Mueller on the same
"side.")
Ideally, we would have an investigation of the intelligence agencies entirely independent of
the White House and headed by an eminent political figure who is not a presidential appointee,
as was the 1975 Senate Church Committee. For now, we have only Trump's attorney general,
William Barr. Nonetheless, we should support him, however conditionally. Rogue intelligence
agencies subvert democracy, and the next candidate they target -- as they did Trump -- may be
yours.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host ofThe John Batchelor
Show . Now in their sixth year, previous installments are atTheNation.com .William Barr, a
two-time attorney general who served at the CIA in the 1970s, would seem to be an ultimate
Washington insider. According to his Wikipedia biography , he has -- or he had
-- "a sterling reputation" both among Republicans and Democrats. That changed when Barr
announced his ongoing investigation into the origins of Russiagate, a vital subject I, too, have
explored .
As Barr
explained , "What we're looking at is: What was the predicate for conducting a
counterintelligence investigation on the Trump campaign. How did the bogus narrative begin that
Trump was essentially in cahoots with Russia to interfere with the U.S. election?" Still more,
Barr, who is empowered to declassify highly sensitive documents, made clear that his primary
focus was not the hapless FBI under James Comey but the CIA under John Brennan. Evidently this
was too much for leading Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, who assailed Barr for having "just
destroyed the scintilla of credibility that he had left." Not known for a sense of irony,
Schumer accused Barr of using "the words of conspiracy theorists," as though Russiagate
itself is not among the most malign and consequential conspiracy theories in American political
history.
More indicative is the reaction of the generally liberal pro-Democratic New York
Times and Washington Post , the country's two most important political
newspapers, to Barr's investigation. Leaning heavily on the "expert" opinion of former
intelligence officials and McCarthy-echoing members of congress such as Adam Schiff, both
papers went into outrage mode. The
Times bemoaned Barr's "drastic escalation of [Trump's] yearslong assault on the
intelligence community" while rejecting "the president's unfounded claims that his campaign had
been spied on," even though some forms of FBI and CIA infiltration and surveillance of the 2016
Trump campaign are now well documented. (See, for example,
Lee Smith's reporting .)
Support Progressive Journalism
If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation 's work.
Unconcerned by the activities of either agency, the papers warned
ominously that Barr's probe "effectively strips [the CIA] of its most critical power:
choosing which secrets it shares and which remain hidden." It "could be tremendously damaging
to the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies." Not surprisingly, given the Times '
three-year role in promulgating Russiagate allegations, it preempted Barr's investigation by
declaring
that US intelligence agencies' covert actions were part of "a lawful investigation aimed at
understanding a foreign power's efforts to manipulate an American election." Considering what
is now known, this generalization seems a whitewash both of the Times ' coverage and
the agencies' conduct. (Writing for the Post , see coverage
by Toluse Olorunnipa and
Shane Harris .)
Hillary Clinton, also not surprisingly, agreed. As paraphrased by Matt Stevens in the
Times on May 3 , she accused Barr of diverting attention "from what the real story
is. The real story is the Russian interference in our election." According to the defeated
Democratic candidate, "the Russians were successful in sowing 'discord and divisiveness' in the
country, and helping Mr. Trump." But who has actually sowed more "discord and divisiveness" in
America -- the Russians or Mrs. Clinton and her supporters, by still refusing to accept the
legitimacy of her electoral loss and Trump's victory?
Unfortunately, but predictably, Barr's investigation has become polarizing, with Fox News,
for example, bannering each new unsavory Russiagate revelation and the Times and
Post mostly ignoring them altogether. In particular, the Democratic Party, once
traditionally skeptical of intelligence agencies, is becoming the party of an intel cult and
thus of the new US-Russian Cold War. Only a few of the party's leaders, notably presidential
candidate Tulsi Gabbard, demur from this dangerous folly. (Might Democratic reticence also be
due to the circumstance that the intelligence chiefs now under investigation were appointees of
former President Obama, who has been remarkably silent about the entire Russiagate saga? What,
as I have asked previously, did Obama know, when did he know it, and what did he do?)
Everyone who cares about the quality of American political life, no matter what they think
about Trump, should encourage Barr's probe. To resort to a familiar cliché, Russiagate
allegations have become a spreading cancer in American politics, with Democratic congressional
candidates fund-raising by promising, despite the exculpatory findings of Robert Mueller
regarding "collusion," to fight evil "Trump-Putin" forces in Washington. Meanwhile, some
Republicans, despite ample contrary evidence, preposterously blame Russia itself -- for the
infamous Steele Dossier, for example. (By the way, for more irony, Trump is regularly accused
in the above-cited news accounts of "siding with" Russian President Vladimir Putin in denying
that any "collusion" determined the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, a conclusion
also reached by Mueller, thereby putting Trump, Putin, and Mueller on the same "side.")
Ideally, we would have an investigation of the intelligence agencies entirely independent of
the White House headed by an eminent political figure who is not a presidential appointee, as
was the 1975 Senate Church Committee. For now, we have only Trump's attorney general, William
Barr. Nonetheless, we should support him, however conditionally. Rogue intelligence agencies
subvert democracy, and the next candidate they target -- as they did Trump -- may be yours.
This commentary is based on Stephen F. Cohen's most recent weekly discussion with the
host of The John Batchelor Show .
Now in their sixth year, previous installments are atTheNation.com . Ad PolicyStephen F. Cohen Stephen F. Cohen is a
professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and Princeton
University. A Nation contributing editor, his new book War With Russia? From Putin
& Ukraine to Trump & Russiagate is available in paperback and in an ebook
edition.
"... Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. ..."
"... "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.) ..."
Epstein's name, I was told, had been raised by the Trump transition team when Alexander
Acosta, the former U.S. attorney in Miami who'd infamously cut Epstein a non-prosecution plea
deal back in 2007, was being interviewed for the job of labor secretary. The plea deal put a
hard stop to a separate federal investigation of alleged sex crimes with minors and
trafficking.
" Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" Acosta
had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had
just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein's
attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Epstein was above his pay
grade.
"I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," he told his
interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and
went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about
this.)
'Belongs to intelligence' makes a lot of sense. The question is to which one. A lot of
people will says "Mossad" but I don't believe that to be the (full) truth.
We do not know why Epstein resurfaced, there was no need to re-open the case unless 'they'
wanted it to be reopened. Thus, there is definitely a deeper political purpose behind this.
As I know the higher ups in both Democrat and Republican Party are in one way or another
involved in this (both Clinton and Trump visited his island and I am sure many more prominent
high ranking US career politicians), this could indeed be equally dangerous for either
political party.
However, I don't think Trump needs convincing with regard to Iran he has been all in on
that from day 1 of his presidency and never hesitated a moment to tear up the JCPOA. Bibi was
right when he said there was never a US president as friendly towards Israel than Donald
Trump. His actions have spoken louder than words. So for this case, we will just have to wait
and see what pieces of information they allow the MSM to publish and we will know who they
are after or what bigger political goal is at play.
Something does not smell right about this.
It's not like Epstein was some obscure issue or that Trump was uninformed about the case.
Who would allow a person with such baggage on the team?
And the issue was raised so no possibility it was over-looked.
Congress (including the now concerned repubs) had their shot at him, where was the
indignation?
Looks like people were told to disregard the issue, until now.
Now like good soldiers they are all barking alert.
Looks like this guy was a plant, an insurance policy maybe.
Now that policy has been triggered - has Trump failed in playing his role?
Trumps ex-pal Epstein linked to intelligence. Makes sense given he has Robert Maxwell's
daughter doing the procuring. His was likely a black mail operation run by the intelligence
agency
Trumps other ex-pal (partner) was also linked to intelligence. Bayrocks Felix Sater. I
imagine some of their business practices could have landed Trump in jail unless like Felix he
cooperated
Could Trump himself be a an intelligent asset? Perhaps under duress through his activities
with Jeffrey and Felix.
If so, indeed the question is if its Israels or the US agency, or is there any difference
now.
I don't pretend to know the answers.
Whats the end game?. Comeys daughter is one of the NY prosecutors.Dershowitz is an Israeli
puppet and was behind getting the sealed files opened. Is Clinton and the Dems the target or
is it meant to pressure Trump to go hard on Iran or risk something coming out? Something
else?
I cant help but wonder why nobody choses to remind us about the case filed against Trump
in 2016, where a woman claimed rape at age 13 at Epstein's apartment. Is wasn't covered much
at the time either. Apparently silently withdrawn. Curious no? Not even the so called Deep
State Media that everyone believes was against Trump. Theydon't seem to want to touch it now
either. Maybe its just BS.
Of course, maybe just more distraction as they continue fleecing the bottom 90%
Billionaire, $6 B, Les Wexner, L Brands, Victoria's Secret.
from Wiki
Wexner had a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, who managed Wexner's financial
assets. Wexner and Epstein parted when Epstein went to prison.[25] Wexner was believed to be
the primary source of Epstein's wealth. [26]
I am trying to link Wexner with the Bronfman's (Seagrams Liquor Family) via a source other
than the Mega Group (which may not be credible, IDK).Clare Bronfman and NEXIVM.
Looks like Epstein was running a high powered honey trap to ensnare Politicians, Lawyers,
Government employees for the express purpose of promoting the "Greater Israel Project".
@fastfreddy - While I hesitate to engage in the ubiquitous Israel is at the root of all
debacles conjecture, I think you might be onto something there. Sure would be interesting
(now or when whatever shakes out of this) to compare the record on votes of importance to
Israeli interests of any politician who gets implicated or indicted with who doesn't.
Protecting Epstein and his clients is secondary. The main goal is to protect his
billionaire, Jewish, sponsors and whatever state sponsored him. The pleabs cannot know that
their gov is corrupt but the bigger secret that must be kept is who is pulling the strings
and how they are doing it.
Regarding questions on Acosta by Jared at #27, here's a 2017 article showing that the
facts were out about Acosta when the Senate confirmed him: "Did Trump Labor Pick Protect
Trump, Rich Rapists, Tax Cheats, Crooked Bankers? Do We Find Out Wednesday?" March 14, 2017.
http://ow.ly/hk8b309Uerm
Regarding MSM reluctance to mention rape of 12 and 13 year olds by Trump, as several
commentators noted, here's a January 2017 wrap up of those matters with leading to other
links: "Welcome To Waterbury: The city that holds secrets that could bring down Trump," Jan.
9, 2018.
http://www.justice-integrity.org/1445-welcome-to-waterbury-the-city-that-holds-secrets-that-could-bring-down-trump.
My colleague Wayne Madsen and I filed a FOIA action today at the U.S. Justice Department
seeking further records.
Our view is that this is an intelligence / foreign policy operation and it's likely that
Epstein's time has run out, an occupational hazard in that field. Further, Madsen and I have
written separate books years ago documenting that all U.S. presidents after Carter -- but not
yet Trump as proven -- have been covert assets of the CIA or FBI before -- stress that --
they entered politics. That's the way it is, and helps explain a lot of the complaints in
comments above. Trump is in his own category of a corrupt stooge -- that's not necessarily
better.
Can recommend excellent 2008 book "Flat Earth News" by longtime UK journalist Nick Davies
that describes the deeply flawed nature of MSM from his perspective as a Guardian and other
UK journalist, who aptly describes why lies and quarter-truths get printed. That's a longer
story but the gist is what many here are suggesting.
After years of study and many many books I believe the Mossad and CIA are one and the
same. The Mossad is very useful when leaving sovereign footprints is verboten--and vice
versa.
"...'Belongs to intelligence' makes a lot of sense. The question is to which one. A lot
of people will says "Mossad" but I don't believe that to be the (full) truth ..."
At the level that Jeffrey Epstein is operating, he is loyal primarily to himself but
happily takes his reward from whichever intel agency at any time offers him the most or whose
interests might prove the most lucrative for him.
And the interests of American, British, Israeli and other nations' intelligence agencies
are surely so entwined that picking them apart is impossible. One thing for sure though: none
of them serve the interests of the nations they supposedly work for.
The function of the CIA/Mossad is to make sure the agenda and the narrative of the Deep
State gets served. In that case one could truly blame Epstein's actions on individuals, or
groups of individuals who dictate orders to the Mossad/CIA.
Epstein reminds me of the Bill Browder affair. And the statement: To know who are the
rulers not which are the ones you are not permitted to criticize. Or somethinh like that.
If indeed they are after Trump as he failed them on 'Iran', then it makes absolute sense that
Dershowitz and Cernovich had the records unsealed as both are strong, strong Zionists and
supporters of Israel. Getting a judge do the thing they need is just a formality. I agree
with some writer above who asked, why the publicity if pressure can be applied in secret
without the media being involved? But this may be the stated goal to bring Trump either
completely in line now or publicly topple his presidency.
I get why @94 Really? and others would be sceptical at this stage but I know strong
powers in the Zionist/Neo-con deep state want a direct confrontation with Iran for myriad
number of reasons (stop the BRI, deal a blow to Syria and Hizbollah, take out Israel's No 1
enemy etc, shore up the Petrodollar), and Trump was still the most likely candidate to follow
through with this, given his proximity to Zionism. So far he also has dully followed through
with everything imaginable, except for actually attacking Iran.
Interesting development indeed. B. Clinton could be collateral damage, at this stage their
power is overestimated in my opinion.
Okay, An "intelligence op," but which one? The Epstein/Mueller link was made several
months ago. I don't see any irregularities in the court judgement to order the unsealing as
it's been ongoing for almost 2.5 years and involves odd bedfellows. Was Mueller even aware of
the attempt to unseal Epstein's case? So many questions!
Arnon Milchan? He was Israeli. Should he be punished, absolutely. But you know who should
be hung? Robert DeNiro. He knew Arnon Milchan was a spy and kept his mouth shut for decades.
He is a POS of epic proportions.
Insofar as Epstein is concerned. It is all about timing. Mueller is set to testify and
probably has skeletons in his closet with regards to Epstein's case. He is likely being told
implicitly via the Epstein arrest to be on his best behavior by Barr, and Barr at this age
probably can care less that Epstein is being sacrificed so he can make his point,
particularly since Barr is probably the 2nd most powerful person in the USA right now.
Epstein was extremely likely an Israeli asset. The Israelis have through political power
and force convinced many in the US IC that their ship is sailing in the same direction, and
that they should be allowed to serve as the US's dog on a leash, and once in a while be
unleashed to do what the US won't. So while he was an Israeli asset, his resources (that is
compromising material) was often made available to the CIA, and thus Acosta was told that he
is an intelligence asset.
The fireworks will start to fly if and when Epstein realizes he is being hung out to dry
and won't be saved. But like almost every other case involving such rich and powerful people,
don't hold your breath for justice to be served in the US.
What does protecting adolescent teenagers from predatory adults have to do with
puritanism? Am I understanding this correctly that you advocate sex with minors as long as
they have reached biological puberty? Never mind their mental maturity? So sexual relations
involving young women is ok what about sexual relations with young men? This has nothing to
do with a false pretentious morality but with the fact that teenagers have not yet reached
the level of mental maturity that protects them from sexual exploitation that will haunt them
for the rest of their lives, never mind their biological functions and ability to conceive or
sire children. It is really puzzling that I even need to make these elaborations in here!
In many ways this thread is as sickening as the subject it discusses. All sorts of types left
and right competing to show that they have the most insight into the forces behind the anal
rape of a 12 year old girl See Andrew Kreig's excellent piece which does consider the horror
of the acts, rather than just whether or not it plays into the particular vision of 'power
politics' each poster invokes). In no instance does anyone express disgust at the actions of
these low life scum other than for the corruption of the pols such as Acosta.
The glee which so many have displayed jumping into this horror story because it can be
twisted and forced into their own particular theory about "how the world really works" while
totally ignoring that these humans who were abducted at age eleven or twelve & then sold
like cattle, now inhabit the netherworld of 'the great society' living in the fringes of
prosperous cities in a ramshackle 'double wide', reveals a psychic corruption not a million
miles away from that of the rapists.
This story is those young boys & girls, anyone who claims to want to use it to force
the greedy rapists and warmongering grubs to face justice, will not succeed as long as they
waste time speculating who works for who and who is really in control.
Prince Andrew still bludges off taxpayers despite being photographed with his arm around
one of his victims, if you're english & really care about stopping this scum, instead of
speculating on which shadowy 'palace spokesman suggested that the
Daily Mail include the line "There is no suggestion that the duke had any sexual contact
at the house, or knew what was allegedly going on there" you will find out how the at the
time 17 y.o. Virginia Roberts feels about her public destruction now (A child the Mail
described as an erotic masseuse - presumably to reduce the horror a normal human reacts to
that pic whilst ensuring the victim is so humiliated she causes no further problem for "the
royal family's" number one arms salesman). This victim first hung out with the andrew sleaze
when she was 17 at the pimp's Florida hell hole where the age of consent is 18.
Concentrating on the effect on victims while protecting them from further harm will bring
the creeps undone - nothing else will. It was only once people began to see past the priests
claims that "the victims led me on" and considered the huge power imbalance that the catholic
church came unstuck.
Most of all without humanity, there is no difference between any of us and the scum we
criticise.
Now, to be on topic, why the insistence that Epstein finally getting outed for real is
some mysterious intel op? The CIA has been screwing up left, right and center for years, so
is it any surprise that one of their major kompromat operations is getting exposed? Their
foolproof plan to install their tool Clinton in the White House in 2016 failed spectacularly
and blew up in their faces, so tell me again how great they are at running covert ops? The
CIA's own version of James Bond gets snuffed by the CIA's own death squads in Benghazi, but
people still think the CIA has a clue what they're doing? The CIA's operatives in multiple
embassies are being incapacitated by freakin' crickets and people think these clowns
still somehow maintain some vestigial link to reality?
No, this is simply another massive screw-up by the establishment. This blind-sided the
Deep State and so much took them by surprise that they were too late to get it clamped down
in the mass media. If Epstein dies before the real dirt starts getting exposed then it proves
me right and proves wrong all those who worship at the alter of the omnipotent Deep
State.
"... As Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... "The media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous thought going that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy with Russia against his own country." ..."
"... Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). ..."
"... Mr. McGovern you are right in your analysis. Obama is in this up to his neck, however there will be a limited investigation at best because the Jews and Israel don't want this. They are involved and a real investigation would show what control they have over the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... The world is controlled by the Corporate Fascist Military-Intelligence Police State in which governments are nothing more than Proxies with Intelligence Agencies who work against the average citizen and for the Corporations. Politicians like Trump are nothing more than figureheads who must "Toe the Line" or else. ..."
As Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being
drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top
Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic
public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA.
"There is no doubt to me there was severe, serious abuses that were carried out in the FBI
and, I believe, top levels of the CIA against the President of the United States or, at that
time, presidential candidate Donald Trump," according to The Hill.
King (image on the right), a senior congressman specializing in national security, twice
chaired the House Homeland Security Committee and currently heads its Subcommittee on
Counterterrorism and Intelligence. He also served for several years on the House Intelligence
Committee.
He asserted:
"There was no legal basis at all for them to begin this investigation of his campaign
– and the way they carried it forward, and the way information was leaked. All of this
is going to come out. It's going to show the bias. It's going to show the baselessness of the
investigation and I would say the same thing if this were done to Hillary Clinton or Bernie
Sanders It's just wrong."
The Long Island Republican added a well aimed swipe at what passes for the media today:
"The media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous
thought going that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy
with Russia against his own country."
According to King, the Justice Department's review, ordered by Attorney General William Barr
, would prove that former officials acted improperly. He was alluding to the investigation led
by John Durham , U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. Sounds nice. But waiting for Durham to complete
his investigation at a typically lawyerly pace would, I fear, be much like the experience of
waiting for Mueller to finish his; that is, like waiting for Godot. What about now?
So Where is the IG Report on FISA?
That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his
report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan , former FBI Director
James Comey , former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe , former Deputy Attorneys General Sally
Yates and Rod Rosenstein , and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA
applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at
last report, he is FBI General Counsel!).
The DOJ inspector General's investigation, launched in March 2018, has centered on whether
the FBI and DOJ filing of four FISA applications and renewals beginning in October 2016 to
surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page amounted to abuse of the FISA process.
(Fortunately for the IG, Obama's top intelligence and law enforcement officials were so sure
that Hillary Clinton would win that they did not do much to hide their tracks.)
The Washington Examiner
reported last Tuesday, "The Justice Department inspector general's investigation of
potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is complete, a Republican
congressman said, though a report on its findings might not be released for a month." The
report continued:
"House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe (R, Texas) said Monday he'd met with DOJ
watchdog Michael Horowitz last week about his FISA abuse report. In a media interview,
Ratcliffe said they'd discussed the timing, but not the content of his report and Horowitz
'related that his team's investigative work is complete and they're now in the process of
drafting that report. Ratcliffe said he was doubtful that Horowitz's report would be made
available to the public or the Congress anytime soon. 'He [Horowitz] did relay that as much
as 20% of his report is going to include classified information, so that draft report will
have to undergo a classification review at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,'
Ratcliffe said. 'So, while I'm hopeful that we members of Congress might see it before the
August recess, I'm not too certain about that.'"
Earlier, Horowitz had predicted that his report would be ready in May or June but there may,
in fact, be good reason for some delay. Fox News reported Friday that "key
witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz
(image on the left) early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have
come forward at the 11th hour." According to Fox's sources, at least one witness outside the
Justice Department and FBI has started cooperating -- a breakthrough that came after Durham was
assigned to lead a separate investigation into the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia case that
led to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.
"Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite tactics to stymie
investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or
reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge.
Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all
they can to use the "but-it's-classified" excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former
colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama's executive order 13526 ,
prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information).
It is far from clear that DOJ IG Horowitz and Attorney General Barr will prevail in the end,
even though President Trump has given Barr nominal authority to declassify as necessary. Why
are the the stakes so extraordinarily high?
What Did Obama Know, and When Did He Know It?
Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI's then-deputy chief of
counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI
Director McCabe, Lisa Page , wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president
"wants to know everything we're doing." [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that
the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark
about their FISA and other machinations -- although it is possible they did so out of a desire
to provide him with "plausible denial."
It seems more likely that Obama's closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about
the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that
Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort
to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him.
Moreover, one should not rule out seeing in the coming months an "Obama-made-us-do-it"
defense -- whether grounded in fact or not -- by Brennan and perhaps the rest of the gang.
Brennan may even have a piece of paper recording the President's "approval" for this or that --
or could readily have his former subordinates prepare one that appears authentic.
Reining in Devin Nunes
That the Deep State retains formidable power can be seen in the repeated
Lucy-holding-then-withdrawing-the-football-for-Charlie Brown treatment experienced by House
Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, Devin Nunes (R-CA, image on the right). On April 5,
2019, in the apparent belief he had a green light to go on the offensive, Nunes
wrote that committee Republicans "will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous
individuals involved in the abuse of intelligence for political purposes. These people must be
held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future."
On April 7, Nunes was even more specific, telling Fox News that he was preparing to send
eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice "this week," concerning alleged
misconduct during the Trump-Russia investigation, including leaks of "highly classified
material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the FISA court. It seemed to be
no-holds-barred for Nunes, who had begun to
talk publicly about prison time for those who might be brought to trial.
Except for Fox, the corporate media ignored Nunes's explosive comments. The media seemed
smugly convinced that Nunes's talk of "referrals" could be safely ignored -- even though a new
sheriff, Barr, had come to town. And sure enough, now, three months later, where are the
criminal referrals?
There is ample evidence that President Trump is afraid to run afoul of the Deep State
functionaries he inherited. And the Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr
leans hard on the president to unfetter Nunes, IG Horowitz, Durham and like-minded
investigators, all hell may break lose, because the evidence against those who took serious
liberties with the law is staring them all in the face.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to
follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and
prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Mr. McGovern you are right in your analysis. Obama is in this up to his neck, however
there will be a limited investigation at best because the Jews and Israel don't want this.
They are involved and a real investigation would show what control they have over the FBI and
CIA.
Trump by now realizes these agencies can make anything up and the Jewish owned and
controlled media will do their bidding. I have to assume that Trump has come to the
conclusion that he wasn't suppose to win and that the NWO wasn't happy with that because he
stands in their way especially on World Trade and Immigration.
The world is controlled by the Corporate Fascist Military-Intelligence Police State in
which governments are nothing more than Proxies with Intelligence Agencies who work against
the average citizen and for the Corporations. Politicians like Trump are nothing more than
figureheads who must "Toe the Line" or else.
I believe Trump knows he could be assassinated at any time. Obama the "God King" did his
part for NWO and that's why he gets a King's Ransom for his speeches for reading a
teleprompter and banging on his chest and saying, "I did that." What he is really saying is I
did that for you -- now where's my check!
"... US gives Israel billions each year. Israel gives some of that money to Epstein for a hedge fund front. Epstein buys island, planes, mansions, power and influence. Hires attractive under age girls for sexual acts with elites. Tapes the sexual acts. Sends tapes back to Mossad. Blackmails elites for money and favors. Sends money and favors back to Mossad. Epstein keeps the vig. Elites just **** their pants. Elites suicide rate increases dramatically over the next six months. ..."
"... Yes, the blackmailing would not just be for money but foreign policy actions too. And it isn't just the US, it's the UK too. Hence both suckers are trying to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... CCI has the goods on a third of congress and the whole msm. ..."
"... I am not holding my breath for your prediction xbkrisback. Appointing Comey's daughter as the chief prosecutor tells a sorry tale. And Comey and Mueller are best buds. ..."
"... Epstein will not give up the big names. Bubba took 26 trips to Pedo Island on the Lolita Express to refresh his tan. ..."
"... The power structure runs on pedophilia. And the horror of it is that pedophilia is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the abuse of children. Where is Carlos Danger's laptop with Huma's huge "life insurance" file on it? You know, the one that made grizzled NYPD detectives puke when they opened it. ..."
"... Epstein outdoes Berlusconi ..."
"... Have another look at Tony Podesta's art collection. http://ibankcoin.com/zeropointnow/2016/11/26/sick-lets-revisit-the-podesta-penchant-for-pedophilic-cannibalistic-and-satanic-art/#sthash.6jj0GpQo.dpbs ..."
"... I never understood why people claimed Podesta had child abuse links until I read that article. It is enough to make even a hardened Podesta supporter cringe. ..."
"... Coulter's take on this sounds very plausible, because there certainly was evidence gathering by Epstein. ..."
"... By the way, that was the favorite tactic of the old pervert that ran the FBI ... J. Edgar Hoover. He would gather evidence, then have a couple of his agents pay the offender a visit, warning them to be careful, while delivering the clear message that the Director has the goods on you. ..."
"... If Epstein goes to prison (a real prison) for any length of time, that would negate the idea of state sponsorship, would it not? Conversely, if he gets another sweetheart deal, that would confirm it. ..."
I think I figured this scam out. US gives Israel billions each year. Israel gives some of that money to Epstein for a
hedge fund front. Epstein buys island, planes, mansions, power and influence. Hires attractive under age girls for sexual acts
with elites. Tapes the sexual acts. Sends tapes back to Mossad. Blackmails elites for money and favors. Sends money and favors
back to Mossad. Epstein keeps the vig. Elites just **** their pants. Elites suicide rate increases dramatically over the next
six months.
smacker , 1 hour ago
Yes, the blackmailing would not just be for money but foreign policy actions too. And it isn't just the US, it's the UK too.
Hence both suckers are trying to start a war with Iran.
cayman , 46 minutes ago
CCI has the goods on a third of congress and the whole msm. It's why elections haven't mattered in decades. It's why congress
can have a 9% approval rating and yet nothing changes. CIA has so many offshore sources of revenue now, it is sovereign now.
RoyalDraco , 17 minutes ago
I am not holding my breath for your prediction xbkrisback. Appointing Comey's daughter as the chief prosecutor tells a sorry
tale. And Comey and Mueller are best buds.
Epstein will not give up the big names. Bubba took 26 trips to Pedo Island on the
Lolita Express to refresh his tan.
5 years at Club Fed and a list of names no one ever heard of. The power structure runs on
pedophilia. And the horror of it is that pedophilia is just the tip of the iceberg regarding the abuse of children. Where is
Carlos Danger's laptop with Huma's huge "life insurance" file on it? You know, the one that made grizzled NYPD detectives puke
when they opened it.
HideTheWeenie , 1 hour ago
Epstein outdoes Berlusconi ... Takes bunga bunga parties to the next level - and on the road - in the air - island hopping
Coulter is right ... Nobody in financial circles ever bumped into Epstein. Nobody, nobody knows the guy outside of the teenage
***** connection.
I never understood why people claimed Podesta had child abuse links until I read that article. It is enough to make even
a hardened Podesta supporter cringe.
I need some mind bleach after reading that.
RayUSA , 1 hour ago
Obviously, the more powerful people that are involved, the less chance this has of going anywhere.
Coulter's take on this sounds very plausible, because there certainly was evidence gathering by Epstein.
There would be no reason for that unless it was going to be used in the future for black mail.
By the way, that was the favorite tactic of the old pervert that ran the FBI ... J. Edgar Hoover. He would gather evidence,
then have a couple of his agents pay the offender a visit, warning them to be careful, while delivering the clear message that
the Director has the goods on you.
herbivore , 2 hours ago
If Epstein goes to prison (a real prison) for any length of time, that would negate the idea of state sponsorship, would
it not? Conversely, if he gets another sweetheart deal, that would confirm it.
"... The Epstein case has all the earmarks of CIA protection of an asset. ..."
"... Successful entry into politics requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV" badge? ..."
"... Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in Iraq? ..."
Journalism. =>has disclosed the tunnel, and a few of its investigators are exploring
its contents, expecting to find at the end of this tunnel Successful entry into politics
requires candidates to first "tag themselves" with a "corrupted and venerable" "CAV"
badge?
Wonder if this has traction in the persons involved in Grace I, the failure of JCPOA.
Is the CAV badge the weapon that has corrupted nearly every nation state in the western
world?
Politicians make promises, and then within hours for unexplained reasons, reverse
them..Hmmm?
Is the CAV Badge the weapon that has corrupted the intelligence services and stable of
politicians in nearly every nation in the world? Did Colin Powell flash a CAV badge as he
spoke to UN focus about the most likely presence of non existent WMDs that led to w__ in
Iraq?
How can CAV badge victims be identified and isolated from politics?
The CAV badge could explain so many USA positive, American negative events?
"... "Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite tactics to stymie investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge. ..."
"... Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all they can to use the "but-it's-classified" excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama's executive order 13526 , prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information). ..."
"... Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI's then-deputy chief of counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI Director McCabe, Lisa Page, wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president "wants to know everything we're doing." [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark about their FISA and other machinations -- although it is possible they did so out of a desire to provide him with "plausible denial." ..."
"... It seems more likely that Obama's closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him. ..."
"... "That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorneys General Sally Yates and Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at last report, he is FBI General Counsel!)." ..."
"... It will be a very interesting 2020 campaign if the Democratic candidate has to run with the ripe stinking dead albatross of Russiagate around her neck. ..."
"... The only outcome that could be more bizarre than the last go-round would be to see Trump favored by all the smart money and then lose to the latest corporate Democrat to shamelessly sell out the middle class in broad daylight. ..."
"... The Grabber in Chief vs Willie Brown's mistress – wonderful. ..."
"... Forgive my cynicism but the US government is so corrupt, has wielded illegitimate power for so long, and has covered the tracks of countless functionaries who have not upheld the constitution that I doubt this will go anywhere. I have been quoting Ben Franklin for some time "you have a republic, if you can keep it." I don't think we can. A reading of "A History of Venice" by John J. Norris would be appropriate here. The most serene republic lasted for essentially 1,000 years from roughly 800 to not quite 1800, first as a democracy, later as an oligarchy. Much like us, including having the most feared secret service in Europe at the time, Venice kept its power through trade but at least we don't hoist the new president up on a chair so that he can throw golden Ducats to the crowd on Wall Street the way that a new Doge would. ..."
"... I don't suppose anything will happen to anybody important about this. After all, nothing happened to anybody when they were caught mass spying on any and all american citizens, even before they made it legal. ..."
"... Unfortunately Webb and Parry exposed much of these gangster criminal "intel" savages for running guns and drugs to Central American pseudo fascist mercenary sadists throughout much of the late 1970s through the '80s. I say unfortunately b/c nothing much ever came along by way of true justice, by way of the criminal players rotting in maximum security jail cells for years on end, not unlike the crack or heroin addict who steals a $400 television. ..."
"... This has been one long crime against the American people. King should read what he knows into the Congressional Record. I have no sympathy for Trump's fear of the deep state. He has sent people to die knowing full well that his actions were based on lies, lies that would result in the deaths of civilians as well as our own military. If he is going to do that, then he should have the courage to face the deep state. That's partial penance for all the deaths he has caused. ..."
"... I also don't care about Trump's personal issue about being surveilled. He personally supports that against everyone else. That is why I feel this is a crime against our people as a whole. Our constitution has been stripped bare. We don't have the rule of law. Mass surveillance covering the globe is current reality. It is dangerous. It is wrong. It is lawless. It is a disaster. ..."
"... Further, Russiagate was used to keep real opposition away from Trump. His supporters doubled down on "liking" Trump because he appeared to be a victim of these lies. Democrats meanwhile learned to further worship the IC. They ignored Trump's actual unlawful behavior, and, in the case of war crimes, still support Trump on every war/regime change action etc. recommended to them by their IC "resistance" "leaders". ..."
"... This has been one of the most effective propaganda tools I have ever seen against our populace. It has created a divided, unthinking populace who is ripe for the picking by evil men and women. I am truly hoping that once this is exposed people will stop this madness and pull together for a common good. But I'm quite worried that, like most cults, when the leader is shown to be wrong, people cling to them even more. ..."
"... there have always been nefarious agents in one government or another for one gangster interest or another, whether was Milner's roundtable or Dulles's Gladio werewolves, these are nefarious individuals there is no gray area in that, however they may conduct themselves and their personal lives, it is not sloppy journalism, is to call something what it is, a this shadow government working in many instances against the direct interest of the American people ..."
"... It's the propaganda, the United States is one of the most heavily propagandize societies in the world, we make the Soviets look like children. No one wants you to have sympathy for Donald Trump, you do not have to agree or like a person to see that the cartel seeking to damage him is also simultaneously against your interests and they are against your interests whether you're from the left or the right because they do not have an ideology just it will to power. ..."
"... So reminiscent of the darker days of the Cold War. A stark education has just played out to this point. ..."
The Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr leans hard on Trump to
unfetter investigators, all hell may break lose, says Ray McGovern.
A s Congress arrives back into town and the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees
prepare to question ex-Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller on July 17, partisan lines are being
drawn even more sharply, as Russias-gate blossoms into Deep-State-gate. On Sunday, a top
Republican legislator, Rep. Peter King (R-NY) took the gloves off in an unusually acerbic
public attack on former leaders of the FBI and CIA.
King
told a radio audience: "There is no doubt to me there was severe, serious abuses that were
carried out in the FBI and, I believe, top levels of the CIA against the President of the
United States or, at that time, presidential candidate Donald Trump," according to The
Hill.
King, a senior congressman specializing in national security, twice chaired the House
Homeland Security Committee and currently heads its Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and
Intelligence. He also served for several years on the House Intelligence Committee.
He asserted:
"There was no legal basis at all for them to begin this investigation of his campaign
– and the way they carried it forward, and the way information was leaked. All of this
is going to come out. It's going to show the bias. It's going to show the baselessness of the
investigation and I would say the same thing if this were done to Hillary Clinton or Bernie
Sanders It's just wrong."
The Long Island Republican added a well aimed swipe at what passes for the media today: "The
media went along with this – actually, keeping this farcical, ridiculous thought going
that the President of the United States was somehow involved in a conspiracy with Russia
against his own country."
King: Lashes out.
According to King, the Justice Department's review, ordered by Attorney General William
Barr, would prove that former officials acted improperly. He was alluding to the investigation
led by John Durham, U.S. Attorney in Connecticut. Sounds nice. But waiting for Durham to
complete his investigation at a typically lawyerly pace would, I fear, be much like the
experience of waiting for Mueller to finish his; that is, like waiting for Godot. What about
now?
So Where is the IG Report on FISA?
That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his
report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James
Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorneys General Sally Yates
and Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant FISA
applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI library; at
last report, he is FBI General Counsel!).
The DOJ inspector General's investigation, launched in March 2018, has centered on whether
the FBI and DOJ filing of four FISA applications and renewals beginning in October 2016 to
surveil former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page amounted to abuse of the FISA process.
(Fortunately for the IG, Obama's top intelligence and law enforcement officials were so sure
that Hillary Clinton would win that they did not do much to hide their tracks.)
The Washington Examiner
reported last Tuesday, "The Justice Department inspector general's investigation of
potential abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is complete, a Republican
congressman said, though a report on its findings might not be released for a month." The
report continued:
"House Judiciary Committee member John Ratcliffe (R, Texas) said Monday he'd met with DOJ
watchdog Michael Horowitz last week about his FISA abuse report. In a media interview,
Ratcliffe said they'd discussed the timing, but not the content of his report and Horowitz
'related that his team's investigative work is complete and they're now in the process of
drafting that report. Ratcliffe said he was doubtful that Horowitz's report would be made
available to the public or the Congress anytime soon. 'He [Horowitz] did relay that as much
as 20% of his report is going to include classified information, so that draft report will
have to undergo a classification review at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,'
Ratcliffe said. 'So, while I'm hopeful that we members of Congress might see it before the
August recess, I'm not too certain about that.'"
Horowitz: Still waiting for his report
Earlier, Horowitz had predicted that his report would be ready in May or June but there may,
in fact, be good reason for some delay. Fox News reported Friday that "key
witnesses sought for questioning by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz
early in his investigation into alleged government surveillance abuse have come forward at the
11th hour." According to Fox's sources, at least one witness outside the Justice Department and
FBI has started cooperating -- a breakthrough that came after Durham was assigned to lead a
separate investigation into the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia case that led to Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's probe.
"Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite tactics to stymie
investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious embarrassment or
reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge.
Judging by past precedent, Deep State intelligence and law enforcement officials will do all
they can to use the "but-it's-classified" excuse to avoid putting themselves and their former
colleagues in legal jeopardy. (Though this would violate Obama's executive order 13526 ,
prohibiting classification of embarrassing or criminal information).
It is far from clear that DOJ IG Horowitz and Attorney General Barr will prevail in the end,
even though President Trump has given Barr nominal authority to declassify as necessary. Why
are the the stakes so extraordinarily high?
What Did Obama Know, and When Did He Know It?
Recall that in a Sept. 2, 2016 text message to the FBI's then-deputy chief of
counterintelligence Peter Strzok, his girlfriend and then-top legal adviser to Deputy FBI
Director McCabe, Lisa Page, wrote that she was preparing talking points because the president
"wants to know everything we're doing." [Emphasis added.] It does not seem likely that
the Director of National Intelligence, DOJ, FBI, and CIA all kept President Obama in the dark
about their FISA and other machinations -- although it is possible they did so out of a desire
to provide him with "plausible denial."
It seems more likely that Obama's closest intelligence confidant, Brennan, told him about
the shenanigans with FISA, that Obama gave him approval (perhaps just tacit approval), and that
Brennan used that to harness top intelligence and law enforcement officials behind the effort
to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him.
Moreover, one should not rule out seeing in the coming months an "Obama-made-us-do-it"
defense -- whether grounded in fact or not -- by Brennan and perhaps the rest of the gang.
Brennan may even have a piece of paper recording the President's "approval" for this or that --
or could readily have his former subordinates prepare one that appears authentic.
Reining in Devin Nunes
That the Deep State retains formidable power can be seen in the repeated
Lucy-holding-then-withdrawing-the-football-for-Charlie Brown treatment experienced by House
Intelligence Committee Ranking Member, Devin Nunes (R-CA). On April 5, 2019, in the apparent
belief he had a green light to go on the offensive, Nunes
wrote that committee Republicans "will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous
individuals involved in the abuse of intelligence for political purposes. These people must be
held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future."
On April 7, Nunes was even more specific, telling Fox News that he was preparing to send
eight criminal referrals to the Department of Justice "this week," concerning alleged
misconduct during the Trump-Russia investigation, including leaks of "highly classified
material" and conspiracies to lie to Congress and the FISA court. It seemed to be
no-holds-barred for Nunes, who had begun to
talk publicly about prison time for those who might be brought to trial.
Except for Fox, the corporate media ignored Nunes's explosive comments. The media seemed
smugly convinced that Nunes's talk of "referrals" could be safely ignored -- even though a new
sheriff, Barr, had come to town. And sure enough, now, three months later, where are the
criminal referrals?
There is ample evidence that President Trump is afraid to run afoul of the Deep State
functionaries he inherited. And the Deep State almost always wins. But if Attorney General Barr
leans hard on the president to unfetter Nunes, IG Horowitz, Durham and like-minded
investigators, all hell may break lose, because the evidence against those who took serious
liberties with the law is staring them all in the face.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. No fan of the current President, Ray has been trained to
follow and analyze the facts, wherever they may lead. He spent 27 years as a CIA analyst, and
prepared the President's Daily Brief for three presidents. In retirement he co-founded Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
If you enjoyed this original article, please considermaking a donationto Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
Joe T Wallace , July 8, 2019 at 20:24
I'm a great admirer of Ray McGovern's reporting. He exposes much that is never revealed by
the mainstream media. That said, I do have one quibble about this article. In the seventh
paragraph, just below the heading "So Where is the IG Report on FISA?" he writes:
"That's the big one. If Horowitz is able to speak freely about what he has learned, his
report could lead to indictments of former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director
James Comey, former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, former Deputy Attorneys General Sally
Yates and Rod Rosenstein, and Dana Boente -- Boente being the only signer of the relevant
FISA applications still in office. (No, he has not been demoted to file clerk in the FBI
library; at last report, he is FBI General Counsel!)."
My immediate reaction was: Who is Horowitz? It was confusing not to know. Further down in
the article, I learned that Ray was referring to Michael Horowitz, a DOJ watchdog who is
preparing an IG report about FISA abuse, but readers should have been informed who he was
earlier in the article.
John , July 8, 2019 at 17:10
Peter King? Devin Nunes?
At one point the article says little effort was made to cover tracks because of certainty
that HRC would win but later that the FBI et al were planting land mines to either defeat
Trump or blow up his presidency. Seemed contradictory to me.
Perhaps you have the skinny on these machinations, if indeed there were machinations by
one person or group or another for this purpose or that.
But Peter King and Devin Nunes? If either ever was credible, their track record condemns
them to be received, if at all, with extreme skepticism.
Realist , July 8, 2019 at 16:59
It will be a very interesting 2020 campaign if the Democratic candidate has to run with
the ripe stinking dead albatross of Russiagate around her neck. Or will she be expected to
repudiate the Hitlery-run DNC? Where does the money and the ground game originate if the
latter?
The only outcome that could be more bizarre than the last go-round would be to see Trump
favored by all the smart money and then lose to the latest corporate Democrat to shamelessly
sell out the middle class in broad daylight. I won't like it, but I can see Trump Derangement
Syndrome pulling out the chestnuts for the Dems, what with all their celebrity spokespeople
constantly running and ranting like their hair is on fire underneath those pussy hats. My
poor gullible sister from Cali embraces that whole ball of wax as revealed truth holier than
the total dry weight of all the Abrahamic scriptures rolled into one big bale for the
recycling center. Kamala Harris seems to be emerging as the new messiah anointed to lead this
country back to Obamian gridlock and more prestidigitation like mandated insurance to ensure
the health of the insurance companies. Again, it will only be the illusion of "free
stuff."
The only way such a scenario won't cause four more years of turmoil for this country
(rinse and repeat in 2024) is if the victor is Gabbard and she ends all the illegal and
unconstitutional wars by edict, telling all the sure-to-be pissing and moaning Deep State
functionaries to pick up their severance pay and go pound sand. Then shut the world-wide
spider web of military bases and bring home the troops while we can still afford the carfare.
That would be "morning in America," and Gabbard would be the most heroic chief exec since
Lincoln and FDR made their marks in the history books, though such fantasies never play out
in the real world. More likely all the criminal evidence of treason remains classified, most
Americans pop the blue pill, the actual rabbit hole continues to grow ever deeper but the
masses are contentedly oblivious to it all, satisfied to blame select scapegoats from
Russia, China and other "malign" countries for our viewing entertainment.
Deniz , July 8, 2019 at 17:50
The Grabber in Chief vs Willie Brown's mistress – wonderful.
ML , July 8, 2019 at 20:12
You are really something, Realist. I love the way you flourish that pen of yours. Thank
you.
Rob Roy , July 8, 2019 at 20:13
Realist, well said, per usual. To add a bit the Dems probably gave Trump the gift of a
lifetime the next election. Wasting three years on Russiagate instead of hammering out a
decent platform for the party was beyond dumb. That reminds me. the Dems's next dumbest idea
choosing Joe Biden as their next candidate. Just like Hillary, he can't beat Trump. The
duopoly is dead, they just don't know it.
As for Tulsi, she's got my vote.
John Earls , July 8, 2019 at 16:55
Looks like Barry Eisler's John Rain (expert in "death by natural causes") will have a lot
of work in front of him if the investigation builds and a whole lot of "material witnesses"
begin to testify.
ricardo2000 , July 8, 2019 at 16:33
I'm supposed to feel sorry for the surveillance of a right-wing creep? OH PLEASE.
No one in government, or the right wing ReThugs, has ever suffered the intrusive, lying,
speculative 'investigations' that social justice, environmental, or human rights activists
have over the past 70 years.
When these buttheads suffer what MLK and Malcolm X have suffered then I might just wipe
away a few tears, after I stop roaring with laughter and get off the floor.
Realist , July 8, 2019 at 17:08
You prefer a race to the bottom of the cesspool?
You never win when you adopt the methods you claim to revile. The opponent who introduced
the tactics you condemn wins if you embrace them as your own. You didn't beat him, you joined
him.
LibertyBonBon , July 8, 2019 at 18:12
Must be nice to think the justice system should revolve around your particular emotions,
rather than equality and objectivity. Safe and easy.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 20:41
ricardo2000, nothing personal, I get the revulsion to Trump and entourage not to mention a
large portion of the Maga crowd but this right and left thing is really just an illusion, the
people doing the persecuting here regardless of how disgusting Trump is are the same ones
doing the persecuting to a large degree of everyone else from Assange to the Iranians, that
is this government deep state in combination with all of the various American alphabet soup
agencies as well as foreign deep states have cornered the market in State power, hate Trump
but don't confuse this with a good thing.
Thank you, Ray McGovern. You are a good man, Charlie Brown!
Thing is, all of this was predictable from the beginning. Many of us saw it coming.
No one really wanted an incompetent baboon running things – the song about Monkey
and the Engineer comes to mind – so Obama tried to hamstring Trump with this
investigation. I mean, Obama couldn't very well have not completed the transfer of power
because it is the most valuable thing about democracy. There is no ten year bloody hellified
civil war every time the crown changes hands from one inbred to the next.
So Obama did the next best thing on his way out the Oval Office doors, he put Brennan and
the boys on it. Seemed like a good idea at the time, I'm sure. But it backfired because he
couldn't call the dogs off once he was no longer president. Not Brennan, not anyone could
call them off after the snowball really got rolling because the spooks believed their own
story and the media made too much money off selling the mythology:
Only question left to answer now is whether or not Trump the carnival barker can milk his
opportunist Armageddon into a second term of fleecing the rubes.
This is a very serious Constitutional Law issue and MUST be pursued–and it makes no
difference the political party denomination of those breaking the law! The Current
Oligarchy–Deep State–is the adversary of the vast majority of US citizens and
humanity. With Epstein's arrest and the developments McGovern relates, some progress appears
to be happening.
Lydia , July 8, 2019 at 14:51
You summed it up perfectly, Jill.
Pablo Diablo , July 8, 2019 at 14:42
"the effort to defeat Trump and, later, to emasculate and, if possible, remove him." says
it all. Trump is a loose cannon. The so called "Deep State" has been "controlling" our
Presidents since at least the Dulles Brothers. Truman even admitted giving them power was a
BIG mistake. Still question the Kennedy Assassination.
In the 70's, the FBI mailed me a box of drugs, which I refused to take from a very
incompetent fake Mail Man, and three minutes later they showed up with a search warrant for
my house that listed all the drugs in the failed mailed box signed by a Federal Judge. So
much for FISA. The bullshit continues. I could reveal more if necessary.
robert e williamson jr , July 8, 2019 at 14:32
Sam F. whether you realize it or not you got it pretty much on the nose. Except for
this.
The judiciary has been compromised by the congresses refusal to hold CIA et. al.
accountable for their actions. Why? Those in congress remember what happened to JFK.
The number one reason is because the deep state ensures that if anyone goes after CIA
officials or designees that the persons career and life are ruined. Which is something else
that needs to be investigated. Something that if explored may very well put a stop to CIA's
B.S. of lying about everything and getting away with it.
Currently no deterrent exists. None.
Anytime some one or entity gets close the Deep State ends up with their guy as AG. See the
Bill Barr story.
Barr may get his chance to prove me right and at the same time prove "Lady Justice" has
little to do with the DOJ! I think he is a cowardly blowhard. Justice would be Trump and Barr
going to jail .
Justice in this country for the true scoundrels in government or billionaires is non-
existent at this point in time. Putting Epstein in prison for life is called for and if he is
threatened with that maybe his jaw will loosen up.
Until DOJ can become a deterrent to bad actors in government, all government the country
will be controlled by the Deep State. The SWETS, super wealthy elitists.
@ "Justice would be Trump and Barr going to jail ."
Are you suggesting that *any* of their living predecessors don't deserve the same? If so,
which do not and why?
Jay , July 8, 2019 at 14:18
Bif:
I agree something very suspect occurred.
And it's very likely the Obama White House knew that either the NSA or the FBI was tapping
into the communications of some of Trump's campaign team BEFORE Hillary lost in Nov.
2016.
However the xenophobic, lying, terrorist (IRA) supporting, Peter King is not a credible
messenger. (Right, Rep Steve King of Iowa is even worse than King of Long Island.)
Peter Dyer , July 8, 2019 at 14:09
Thanks, Ray.
DH Fabian , July 8, 2019 at 13:59
Actually, that deep split among the masses, and certainly within the Dem voting base, was
achieved in the 1990s -- middle class vs. poor, workers vs. those left jobless, further split
by race. The Obama years confirmed that this split is permanent. Russia had nothing to do
with the Democrats' 2016 defeat, nor will it be the reason for their 2020 defeat. Democrats
maintain their resistance against acknowledging the consequences of dividing and conquering
their own voting base.
EuGene Miller , July 9, 2019 at 00:24
DH, that's an interesting assessment. However, I doubt that any House or Senate Democrat
sought an advantage by "splitting their base". The elected Dems do not control the narrative.
So, who benefits by splitting the masses into rival factions?
Perhaps the narrative of social and political discourse is defined by the owners, boards,
and foundations that control the main-stream media and pop-culture.
Robert Reich wrote that an oligarchy divides-and-conquers the rest of us. I suspect that
controlling the narrative is not simply a propaganda tool; it is the basis of
divide-and-conquer strategy.
Is it possible that the DOJ, see the Sec. of Labor's problems developing with the Espstein
case, is about to have it's gloriously corrupt underbelly rolled over into the sunlight? (you
must roll the snake over to see its belly)
Please Ray tell me this is where we might be heading or instead will we end up with the
courts truncating investigation because they say it will be best for the country not to have
all this filthy laundry dragged out into the sunlight or someones bull shit sources and
methods might be exposed. The DOJ has become a really bad joke!
I'm hoping you know something I don't because Barr's past history pretty much speaks for
itself I'd say after be made sure he pardoned all of Bush 41 henchmen!
At this point I certainly do not have much faith in the DOJ doing the right thing. What
Acosta did in Florida with Epstein was hardly the right thing to do.
They all need to be locked up.
Eric32 , July 8, 2019 at 13:33
Very little "punishment" will occur, and no deep change cleanup will occur.
The US govt. is controlled by money and blackmail – not "voting" or public outrage.
So many high level people have so much dirt on other high level people that nothing major
will be done.
A series of very big events, including the JFK murder and the 9/11 charade went unexposed and
undealt with – there is no reason to think that this medium size event will wind up
making a big difference.
What will happen is that US "democracy" will continue on its downward course, but maybe
with a better facade.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 20:59
I personally believe that the empire will crash when it hits maximum overreach it will
also simultaneously go broke at the same time, as the money interests at that point Will
probably move east, this will partially be due to both the feds tendency to over inflate in
order to cover military acquisitions as well as the decline of swift and the ascendancy of
China in the rest. I actually think that this is what some American factions desire, it is
potentially good for all of us if we can regain a republic but it will mean the end of
American hegemony.
Gary Weglarz , July 8, 2019 at 13:22
This is the same "deep state" that assassinated a sitting president, then proceeded to
assassinate the next three most important and influential progressive leaders in the country
all over a five year period. Problem solved. And just when you thought Allen Dulles didn't
know what to do with all those oh so experienced Nazi war criminals he'd recruited to the
CIA.
When Congress investigated the CIA in the mid-1970's (before Congress became completely
"owned" by the deep state) right on cue witnesses began to "commit suicide" just before they
would be scheduled to testify. Problem solved. Hardly a raised eyebrow from the always
complicit MSM through all of this. Expecting anything more than a massive coverup of this
latest deep state corruption and abuse is beyond my abilities to even effectively fantasize
about.
herbert davis , July 8, 2019 at 14:12
Justice in the USA?
John Drake , July 8, 2019 at 13:20
The corporate Democrats strike out again. They run a corrupt, violent(war monger)
candidate, who loses to a buffoon-an election which was hers to lose. Meanwhile trying to
hedge their bets they play sleazeball with the investigative arm's authority in order to
sabotage said buffoon; which as it is revealed gives ammunition and the advantage to their
target. i.e. "They were illegally picking on me"
If Trump is smart-a very long stretch, but some advisor might suggest this- he will expose
all this slime closer to the election for maximum effect. What a distressing thought. All the
more reason to run a progressive Presidential candidate that can disavow the DNC clowns and
their corruption.
geeyp , July 8, 2019 at 12:37
It's past time for the Deep State to come up from the deep state of hell in which they
reside. At least to purgatory for some fresh air and a wee ray of light. I couldn't let the
Schumer warning keep me from giving the go ahead on this. If my coconut is shattered, someone
somewhere (not our current media) would have a clue as to what happened to me. Sic 'em,
President Trump and A.G. and Devin Nunes!
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 12:14
The US needs to solve the underlying problem of corruption of secret agencies and
judiciary, otherwise the political wrongdoing of one faction will only be matched by that of
its opponents, regardless of a few prosecutions. I know from experience the extreme
corruption of the Repubs, and little doubt that the Dems do such things at least when
desperate.
The solution includes:
1. All secrets meaningfully shared among multiparty committees;
2. All politicians and top officials monitored for corrupt influence;
3. Entire federal judiciary fired, replaced, and monitored like the politicians; and
4. Amendments to protect elections and mass media from control by money power.
Until then all government acts are tribal gangsterism and little more.
Guy , July 8, 2019 at 13:50
You forgot about dual citizenship members of the senate and congress . Elected as a
representative for the country of the US should mean just that and not another country . And
while we are at it , major reform on monetary contributions to candidates running for
re-election . There is something terribly wrong with needing millions if not billions of
dollars to run the electoral races.There is much more that needs to be done but this would be
a good start .
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 17:32
Yes, the proposed Amendments would restrict funding of mass media and elections to
registered individual contributions (some prefer government funding) limited to the average
day's pay annually (for example), with full reporting by candidates and all intermediaries.
We all can see the destruction of democracy that was caused by economic power controlling
elections, mass media, the judiciary, etc.
But of course we cannot get those amendments because those tools of democracy now belong
to the rich, etc. History suggests that we are in for generations of severe decline before
the people are hurting enough to turn off the tube and do something, and generations more
before they can re-establish democracy.
Ray McGovern writes:"Classification," however, has been one of the Deep State's favorite
tactics to stymie investigations -- especially when the material in question yields serious
embarrassment or reveals crimes. And the stakes this time are huge"
On the matter of government reform classification there is a great need of public
discussion and radical reform. Why? Because the government is playing with an essential
right, the right to know. All the red herrings needed to be thrown in the trash and the
burden placed on the classifiers to justify why the public does not have a right to know.
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 17:24
Yes, the facts and their significance (especially about false flags and scandals) need to
be publicly debated, as well as policy goals, and the policies derived from facts and goals.
We have far too many government secrets to sustain a democracy.
I suggest limiting secrets to ongoing investigations (with a time limit), defensive
military plans and operations (not alleged provocations or aggressive war schemes), and
personal IDs of those at risk. Beyond that secrets disguise tyranny.
Ida G Millman , July 8, 2019 at 16:02
Another path towards a solution to government corruption could be term limits for all
federal representatives. Limiting the number of terms would curtail the opportunities for
forming the uninterrupted years of long coalitions between public servants and government
officials that result in the abuses of power that have damaged the interests of ordinary less
wealthy citizens, in favor of corporate and military interests.
In the matter of the original intentions of the men who wrote our founding documents, we
should consider one of the enormous differences that technology has made between us: that our
representatives can travel between DC and their homes with enough ease that they can continue
reasonably, or nearly reasonably, satisfactory family lives – something that could not
be done in the 18th century. The forefathers did not foresee that being a member of
government would become a career for a lifetime. They assumed, I believe, that members of
government would always be citizens who would give our country a few years of their lives and
then return to private life to share their experience and knowledge with their neighbors.
Such a change would not magically reform government corruption. There will always be those
who will find a way – but it could slow things down and it would certainly engage an
increasing number of citizens who would participate in governing, as well as the circles of
people surrounding each of them whose interest in and understanding of government would
increase because everyone would know more of their representatives. Got that, kids?
L&B&L
Sam F , July 8, 2019 at 17:37
Term limits are useful and we should enact more. There seems to be a sufficient supply of
puppets for the rich/WallSt/Mic/zionists to ensure that all new candidates represent only
those interests, unless we go further and control funding of mass media and elections,
monitoring of politicians and judges for life, etc.
Rob Roy , July 8, 2019 at 20:28
Ida,
Term limits wouldn't be necessary if money were out of elections and all elections were
publicly funded. Next, a law should be passed to prevent retired congress people from
lobbying for any private company of any kind. Then people wouldn't have to spend all their
time in congress lining up money for the next election, nor would they owe favors to
anyone.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 21:19
Sam F, all of those goals seem very nice but it would probably be better if we just
dissolved back into 50 states save for an interstate system and a very small navy for common
defense, maybe four nuclear submarines total, the American people will be best off without a
government completely working it out for themselves, if some of them work it out in
completely different ways without hurting each other so be it. Besides even a libertarians
would have to acknowledge democracy best works for smaller populations. We may never be able
to curb the will to power of evil men but we can diminish their abilities to fleece the
public if we are not subject to them.
Jay , July 8, 2019 at 11:42
Peter King?
Really now.
Not a credible source, no matter how invention filled Russia-gate is. And no matter how
clear it is that in 2016 the FBI was poking around campaign Trump and likely telling the
White House what it found.
Bif Webster , July 8, 2019 at 13:28
I agree that King isn't the best of messengers, but we can also go to others who are not
right-wing to see something fishy went on.
Those text messages convinced me something was going on. And that was before all the other
stuff came to light.
I think this will be about who has more dirt on the other side you know, leverage?
Jeff Harrison , July 8, 2019 at 11:41
Thank you, Ray. Forgive my cynicism but the US government is so corrupt, has wielded
illegitimate power for so long, and has covered the tracks of countless functionaries who
have not upheld the constitution that I doubt this will go anywhere. I have been quoting Ben
Franklin for some time "you have a republic, if you can keep it." I don't think we can. A
reading of "A History of Venice" by John J. Norris would be appropriate here. The most serene
republic lasted for essentially 1,000 years from roughly 800 to not quite 1800, first as a
democracy, later as an oligarchy. Much like us, including having the most feared secret
service in Europe at the time, Venice kept its power through trade but at least we don't
hoist the new president up on a chair so that he can throw golden Ducats to the crowd on Wall
Street the way that a new Doge would.
I don't see that as necessarily much of a plus.
Steven Berge , July 8, 2019 at 11:40
I don't suppose anything will happen to anybody important about this. After all, nothing
happened to anybody when they were caught mass spying on any and all american citizens, even
before they made it legal.
Drew Hunkins , July 8, 2019 at 11:32
Unfortunately Webb and Parry exposed much of these gangster criminal "intel" savages for
running guns and drugs to Central American pseudo fascist mercenary sadists throughout much
of the late 1970s through the '80s. I say unfortunately b/c nothing much ever came along by
way of true justice, by way of the criminal players rotting in maximum security jail cells
for years on end, not unlike the crack or heroin addict who steals a $400 television.
Jill , July 8, 2019 at 11:15
This has been one long crime against the American people. King should read what he knows
into the Congressional Record. I have no sympathy for Trump's fear of the deep state. He has
sent people to die knowing full well that his actions were based on lies, lies that would
result in the deaths of civilians as well as our own military. If he is going to do that,
then he should have the courage to face the deep state. That's partial penance for all the
deaths he has caused.
I also don't care about Trump's personal issue about being surveilled. He personally
supports that against everyone else. That is why I feel this is a crime against our people as
a whole. Our constitution has been stripped bare. We don't have the rule of law. Mass
surveillance covering the globe is current reality. It is dangerous. It is wrong. It is
lawless. It is a disaster.
Further, Russiagate was used to keep real opposition away from Trump. His supporters
doubled down on "liking" Trump because he appeared to be a victim of these lies. Democrats
meanwhile learned to further worship the IC. They ignored Trump's actual unlawful behavior,
and, in the case of war crimes, still support Trump on every war/regime change action etc.
recommended to them by their IC "resistance" "leaders".
People won't speak to one another because of this division, all based on lies. Democrats
want Assange put to death because he exposed truthful information about Clinton. Neighbor has
turned against neighbor over this. We have stopped talking and stopped thinking about whether
claims make sense or have evidence behind them. Political parties have become cults with cult
leaders. Meanwhile, many who think it was wrong to use surveillance against Trump, accept
mass surveillance against everyone else, including themselves.
This has been one of the most effective propaganda tools I have ever seen against our
populace. It has created a divided, unthinking populace who is ripe for the picking by evil
men and women. I am truly hoping that once this is exposed people will stop this madness and
pull together for a common good. But I'm quite worried that, like most cults, when the leader
is shown to be wrong, people cling to them even more.
I cannot believe what Russiagate has done to our own people. I am terrified at the wars it
has/may yet cause and the cruelty against others, both foreign and domestic, which it has
wrought.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 21:51
What else would you call it, there have always been nefarious agents in one government or
another for one gangster interest or another, whether was Milner's roundtable or Dulles's Gladio werewolves, these are nefarious individuals there is no gray area in that, however
they may conduct themselves and their personal lives, it is not sloppy journalism, is to call
something what it is, a this shadow government working in many instances against the direct
interest of the American people, I'm not trying to be you over the head with this but Mr.
McGovern was once upon a Time swimming in the same waters and he knows what he is talking
about. The deep state maybe several different factions but all of it at least so far is
fairly I'm Accountable, this thing must be named.
AnneR , July 8, 2019 at 14:18
First the Disclaimer: I'm not a supporter of either side of the one party two headed
monster political machine, not of either HRC or DT, both, and their "parties," making me want
to puke.
I am curious about the following: "He [DT] has sent people to die knowing full well that
his actions were based on lies, lies that would result in the deaths of civilians as well as
our own military. If he is going to do that, then he should have the courage to face the deep
state. That's partial penance for all the deaths he has caused."
While I have no doubt that DT has been responsible for civilian deaths (I am far less
concerned about military deaths – join the military and you cannot expect not to have
to chance it, particularly in a warmongering nation state; if the recruit doesn't recognize
this reality, then they need to do some reading), *most* such deaths in those countries we
(the US and its vassal states and proxies) have been happily bombing, shelling, destroying
one way or another, even since the late 1980s (not therefore including the appalling and
illegal warring on Vietnam et al) are down, not to DT, but rather to presidents: BC, GHB,
GWB, BO. Pretty evenly divided betwixt the two heads, wouldn't you say?
That's not to excuse DT (and I wouldn't excuse HRC either – think Libya; as bad as
MA, if with different forms of warfare; but then they're buddies, like attracting like).
We – the US – need to stop killing other peoples (let's cry for the war-making
profiteers), stop destroying other countries (and for our corporate-capitalists who plunder
them); need to mind our own "shop" and business. And stop pretending that we're such a
wonderful, white-hatted, "good" nation.
Jill , July 8, 2019 at 15:15
AnneR,
We have had war criminal presidents from the legacy parties, period. Barr is a party to
war crimes so I share other's doubts that he will do anything about actual justice. He may be
in on the current winning side of the IC and they may be purging some enemies at this time.
That is the only thing I see Barr being involved in.
Speaking as someone who has done counter-recruitment in schools, I will just give you my
experience. Students are tracked from grade school. A file is kept on them with over a
thousand data points. These files are taken by recruiters and used to "pitch" the military to
young people. I don't know if you were sophisticated at 16. I was a little bit but not much.
So here's an example–they told one young woman who had a single mother that if she went
in the military she would not be a burden on her mother any longer. They understood the
family had few resources and they played on this young woman's "guilt" over being a financial
"drain" on her mother. No, recruiters do not tell the truth to those they meet. They lie and
they lie very well because they have excellent information to help them tell the correct
lies. That girl is dead and I mourn her death.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 22:05
AnneR, you have so much anger, I understand, it is terrible what our nation has done and
is continuing to do, it has gone on so long that many of the people currently perpetrating
the crimes against foreign populations are themselves of descendents of peoples the US has
victimized. It's the propaganda, the United States is one of the most heavily propagandize
societies in the world, we make the Soviets look like children. No one wants you to have
sympathy for Donald Trump, you do not have to agree or like a person to see that the cartel
seeking to damage him is also simultaneously against your interests and they are against your
interests whether you're from the left or the right because they do not have an ideology just
it will to power.
Dunderhead , July 8, 2019 at 22:09
Jill that was an incredibly cogent description of the mess we are currently in,
congratulations on such clarity, peace out.
David Otness , July 9, 2019 at 00:18
With you on all that you state, Jill. It's really exposed the U.S. population for what we
unfortunately are, if not what we've become. So reminiscent of the darker days of the Cold
War. A stark education has just played out to this point. I wonder how many have learned anything at all from it?
"... Let us examine U.S. interventionism past more closely. I know of four clear international instances where the United States intervened under dubious circumstances, initiating war. ..."
In the history of the United States and its history of interventionism, the recent attacks
on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman seem to be foreboding and ominous signs of what may come --
an inevitable war with the Islamic Republic of Iran? To many who are watching the region
closely, it is still unclear if Iran is behind such attacks. Moreover, and, thankfully,
President Donald J. Trump backed away from bombing Iran after the Iranians allegedly and
recently shot down a U.S. drone over the Strait of Hormuz.
Even so, the bellicose rhetoric between President Trump (threatening Iran's "obliteration")
and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani (calling Trump "mentally retarded") have continued.
Watching from the sidelines, everyone hopes diplomacy will prevail.
Let us examine U.S. interventionism past more closely. I know of four clear international
instances where the United States intervened under dubious circumstances, initiating war.
The first happened just before the beginning of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).
President James K. Polk sent American troops to the Rio Grande River under the command of
Zachary Taylor. The Mexicans had believed that the border had been at the Nueces River, not the
Rio Grande, the Nueces being significantly north of the Rio Grande. This move was provocative
and incited Mexican forces to attack the U.S. Army at its fortifications on the Rio Grande in
1846. As the attacks on U.S. soldiers were reported by Taylor to Polk, the U.S. Congress
promptly declared war on Mexico.
Yet, in understanding these incidents, we have to likewise understand the motivations of the
historical actors. Polk strongly believed in the Manifest Destiny of the United States to
conquer the territories west of the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. Indeed, Polk
initially sent U.S. Congressman John Slidell as U.S. envoy to Mexico to negotiate buying the
territories of California and New Mexico from Mexico for about $30 million. (The California and
New Mexico territories included present-day California and New Mexico plus Arizona, Utah,
Nevada, and parts of Colorado.) But Mexican legislators balked at the offer and Mexican
newspapers printed the offer as an insult to Mexican pride. The rejected buy simply became war
of territorial conquest.
At the end of the 19thcentury was the Spanish-American War of 1898, when the United States
made its debut as an imperialistic world power, seeking its own colonies despite rejecting
empire with the American Revolution. Congress declared war on Spain after the U.S.S. Maine was
blown up in Havana Harbor. With no evidence, the U.S. blamed Spain and the war was on -- not
just for Cuba, but for other Spanish colonies, and the U.S. thus acquired Guam, the
Philippines, and Puerto Rico.
However, in all likelihood, the ship exploded because of an accident, possibly, a spark from
the furnace setting off munitions nearby. Or, a mine in Havana Harbor planted by Cuban rebels
detonated the hull of the vessel. In total, 261 sailors lost their lives from the sinking of
the U.S.S. Maine. Yet, the causes of the war had more to do with the sensationalism of
newspapers at the time owned by William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, called "Yellow
Journalism" -- what we call today, "fake news." Hearst and Pulitzer newspapers were publishing
stories about Spanish atrocities in Cuba. Moreover, there was the supposed "de Lôme
letter" allegedly a critical letter of President William McKinley, written by the Spanish
Foreign Minister Enrique Dupuy de Lôme. All of these events "justified" war with
Spain.
There was also the "Gulf of Tonkin incident" which began and escalated the Vietnam War under
President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964. The incident was allegedly a series of attacks by Northern
Vietnamese naval torpedo vessels on American ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, especially involving
a destroyer, the U.S.S. Maddox. These skirmishes were said to have occurred on August 2 and
August 4, 1964, with the second clash now believed to be entirely imaginary. The falsity of the
Gulf of Tonkin incidents was allegedly substantiated by former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert
McNamara and the former Vietnam People's Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp. The
Gulf of Tonkin skirmishes with the U.S. Navy and the Northern Vietnamese Navy led to the U.S.
Congress passing the "Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." It gave President Johnson: " all necessary
measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent
further aggression."
And lastly, there is the Iraq War (2003-2011). The United States invaded Iraq on the false
pretext that Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, was actively developing a program for obtaining
alleged WMDs. The United Nations Security Council had earlier passed two resolutions (678 and
687) which allowed the United States to force Iraq into complying with its international
agreements, concerning biochemical and nuclear disarmament; both the UN head of inspections and
the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iraq had no more weapons of
mass destruction, yet the U.S. invaded. What is more, the intelligence community tried linking
the Hussein government with Al-Qaeda, patently false. As a result of the George W. Bush
Administration's War in Iraq, there were nearly 4,500 U.S. soldier deaths and almost 32,000
U.S. soldiers wounded in action.
So, this brings us to today with our military escalation with Iran under the Donald J. Trump
Administration. Currently, we have deployed an aircraft carrier to the Arabian Sea as well as
sending a Patriot missile defense system and four B-52 bombers to the region along with
ordering the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad with the exception of essential
personnel. According to Middle East expert Ilan Goldenberg Iran does not want a war with the
United States. The question is whether we are forcing the situation, or unnecessarily
exaggerating the threats from Iran. Certainly, it may depend upon how much National Security
Advisor John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo advocate for war. As Goldenberg states:
"The bad news is that a war could still happen. Even if neither side wants to fight,
miscalculation, missed signals, and the logic of escalation could conspire to turn even a minor
clash into a regional conflagration -- with devastating effects for Iran, the United States,
and the Middle East."
My worry, along with many other observers, is that such a conflict may snowball into a worse
conflagration bringing in other international actors, maybe Russia. Neither the attack on these
oil tankers nor the alleged shoot-down of an unmanned US drone so far has not led to any Gulf
of Tonkin resolution. However, if another incident occurred causing Americans casualties and
Iran was the claimed culprit, then the situation may get out of control.
For now, we can only hope from a distance that cooler heads in Washington, D.C. will
prevail. We can certainly listen to diplomatic efforts of the likes of Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe that Iran does not want war with the United States and its coalition partners. We
can examine the U.S. history of interventionism and learn from our past military mistakes.
If you are concerned about this pattern of provoking war by making claims that cannot be
proven, please participate in your democracy:
With all due respect Mr. Smith things have really gone down hill after Bush Sr. I'm talking
about direct attacks on the rights of American citizens. Bush Sr. (R) with his CIA drug dealing
with the help of Noriega. He purchased weapons with the proceeds to arm terrorist guerrilla
groups in Nicaragua. Bill Clinton (D) helped Bush Sr. as governor of Arkansas by covering up
any investigation targeting the operation and laundering their money through a state owned
bank. Bush Jr. (R) secured lands in Afghanistan in order to restart athe heroine trade by
growing poppy fields to process and ship back to the US. Obama (R) made sure the Mexican drug
cartels were well armed in order to launch a drug war that supported the Merida Initiative,
which allowed armed DEA, CIA and Mercenaries into Mexican territory. Trump (R) will be the
clean up hitter that will usher in the dollar collapse.
Mr. Smith do you really believe it is a coincidence that Rep 8 yrs, Dem 8yrs, Rep 8yrs, Dem
8yrs, Rep 3 yrs are voted in? Please sir, don't fool yourself because in the next election I
will bet money the orange fool will be president for another 4 years unless the owners don't
want him there. But we can safely say that history tells us he will. All I'm saying that people
like you, waiting for someone to throw you a rope because you've fallen into deep water are
waiting on a rescue boat that doesn't care if you drown.
Your best bet for change was thrown away when Dr. Ron Paul failed to be nominated. Us dumb
asses in Mexico didn't need another election fraud this time around! The people started YouTube
channels that reported the "real" news (Chapucero – Quesadillas de Verdades –
Charro Politico – Sin Censura, etc.). Those channels made a big difference, countering
the negative reporting by Mexican and US MSM that the Presidential Candidate for MORENA as
"Leftist", "Communist", "Socialist", "Like Hugo Chavez", "Dangerous", etc.
With all of the US propaganda, Mexican propaganda, the negative MSM and Elite financing,
Mexicans knew they had to get out and vote in record numbers and they did! Otherwise a close
election was seen as another loss and the end of Mexico as a country. People were ready to
fight and die if necessary. They had seen the Energy Reforms forced down our throat by the
corrupt PRI/PAN parties (Mex version o DEM/REP), with the help of Hillary Clinton and the US
State Department. They drafting the changes needed to the Mexican Constitution to allow a vote.
Totally against the Law in Mexico and I'm sure the laws of the US.
There is a saying that goes something like, "If you're not ready to die for Freedom, take it
out of your Vocabulary"!
You have probably seen the bumper sticker that says: "Shit Happens." Some people are just
lucky, I suppose, and odd coincidences mark their lives.
When he was just out of Columbia College and working for a reputed CIA front company,
Business International Corporation, Barack Obama had a chance encounter with a young woman,
Genevieve Cook, with whom he had a 1-2 year relationship.
Like Obama and at about the same
time, Cook just happened to have lived in Indonesia with her father, Michael Cook, who just
happened to become Australia's top spook, the director-general of the Office of National
Assessments, and also the Ambassador to Washington.
Of course, Obama's mother, as is well-known, just happened to be living in Indonesia with
Barack and Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian military officer, who had been
called back to Indonesia by the CIA supported General Suharto three months before the CIA coup
against President Sukarno. Suharto subsequently slaughtered over a million Indonesian
Communists and Indonesian-Chinese.
As is also well-known, it just so happened that Obama's
mother, Ann Dunham, trained in the Russian language, after teaching English in the US Embassy
in Jakarta that housed one of the largest CIA stations in Asia, did her "anthropological" work
in Indonesia and Southeast Asia financed by the well-known CIA conduits, USAID and the Ford
Foundation.
Then there is Cook's stepfather, Philip C. Jessup, who just happened to be in
Indonesia at the same time, doing nickel-mining deals with the genocidal Suharto
government.
Anyway, "shit happens." You never know whom you might meet along the way of life.
The banal, 1967 hit song, "San Francisco" (Be sure to wear flowers in your hair), which was
influential in enticing young people to come to San Francisco for the Summer of Love, was
written by "Papa" John Philips, who attended the US Naval Academy at Annapolis and whose father
was a Marine Corps Captain. "Papa" John's wife had worked at the Pentagon and her father was
involved in covert intelligence work in Vietnam. His neighbor and Laurel Canyon (Los Angeles)
buddy was Jim Morrison of Doors fame, whose father US Navy Admiral George Morrison commanded
U.S. warships in Vietnam's Tonkin Gulf during the "Tonkin Gulf Incident."
Frank Zappa, the father figure of Laurel Canyon's many musicians who just happened to
converge in one place at the same time where a covert military film studio operated, had a
father who was a chemical warfare specialist at Edgewood Arsenal.
Stephen Stills, David Crosby and many other soon to be famous musicians all came from
military and intelligence backgrounds and frolicked in Laurel Canyon. Although they were draft
age, none of them was drafted as they played music, dropped acid, and created the folk-rock
movement whose music was catchy but innocuous and posed no threat to the establishment. But
"shit happens."
In his disturbing book, Weird Scenes Inside the Canyon , David McGowan raises the
question: "what if the musicians themselves (and various other leaders and founders of the
'movement') were every bit as much a part of the intelligence community as the people who were
supposedly harassing them?
What if, in other words, the entire youth culture of the 1960s was created not as a
grass-roots challenge to the status quo, but as a cynical exercise in discrediting and
marginalizing the budding anti-war movement and creating a fake opposition that could be easily
controlled and led astray . What if, in reality, they were pretty much all playing on the same
team?"
"... To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach. ..."
"... What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike." ..."
"... D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them. ..."
"... D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular. ..."
"... It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran. ..."
In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit -- the Iran Mission Center -- to focus attention on
the U.S. plans against Iran . The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration
came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas -- North
Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.
Brennan's successor -- Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State)
-- continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This
was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian
diaspora.
It bothered the hawks in Washington -- as one official told me -- that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no
special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country.
Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy
of his National Security Adviser John Bolton .
To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program,
and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.
It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly
controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile -- a man of a certain age, for
instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.
What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told
me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed
attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike."
D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the
worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking
a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.
D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki -- who had
been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain
silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.
Saudi Arabia's War
D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime
change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here.
These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.
Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran -- Kaplan said -- that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand
its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya,
which means prudence and not -- as Kaplan and others argue -- deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with
that group -- since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.
It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the
chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability
in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager
for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi -- a man with close links to the Saudi
monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are
capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important
role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.
These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the
dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their
water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.
Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on
Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.
This article was produced by Globetrotter ,
a project of the Independent Media Institute.
I don't know either. But it's been the main stream party line for a while now. "Bernie
should drop out because he's old, white, male, and his opinions are not unique. He's not even
a real Democrat. And he doesn't support the party. So why is he running for president as a
Democrat and picking fights with Biden/Warren/Beto?"
The one that gets me is Bernie the Bomber. Somehow when the pundit class talks about
Bernie and Tulsi, it's only to mention how they coddle dictators.
Coddle (the wrong) dictators. Real Dems coddle our CIA approved dictators. Bernie and
Tulsi coddle those filthy democratically elected "dictators" that want to retain natural
resources for the benefit of their own nations and not for the enrichment of multinationals.
They're monsters!
Seriously though, only the Dems would have a superstar like Bernie and put all their
efforts into sabotaging him. Even the RNC and right wing media was willing to suck it up and
get behind Trump when it was clear he was going to win and had a huge base of support. But,
as is said often now, "the Dems would rather lose to a Republican than win with a
progressive".
Is the CIA's purpose to protect national security or financial security? They seem
confused at times on their purpose and if they were disbanded would the country notice?
Doesn't the Defense Intelligence Agency do most of the heavy security lifting?
Looking at the CIA actions from the Dulles Brothers onwards, I would say that it is to
protect and support all members of the Oligarchy of Money from the 1% to Big Oil to Big
Finance from that pesky Democratic Government and the troublesome Rule of Law.
Actually protecting the United States and never mind Americans themselves is like #47 on
its to-do list.
Did you notice the shift in Bernie's message tonight? He said they needed to have the guts
to take on Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex, and Big Pharma. I didn't hear him
complain about big banks. I think he's been compromised!
Western News Agencies Mistranslate Iran's President Speech - It Is Not The First Time
Such 'Error' HappensJOHN CHUCKMAN , Jun 26, 2019 2:10:12
PM |
23
Yesterday the news agencies Associated Press and Reuters mistranslated a
speech by Iran's President Hassan Rouhani. They made it sound as if Rouhani insulted U.S.
President Donald Trump as 'mentally retarded'. Rouhani never said that.
Iran's conservative new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Wednesday that Israel must be
"wiped off the map" and that attacks by Palestinians would destroy it, the ISNA press
agency reported.
...
Referring to comments by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution,
Ahmadinejad said, "As the imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map."
Ever since he spoke at an anti-Zionism conference in Tehran last October, President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad of Iran has been known for one statement above all. As translated by news
agencies at the time, it was that Israel "should be wiped off the map." Iran's nuclear
program and sponsorship of militant Muslim groups are rarely mentioned without reference to
the infamous map remark.
Here, for example, is R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political
affairs, recently: "Given the radical nature of Iran under Ahmadinejad and its stated wish
to wipe Israel off the map of the world, it is entirely unconvincing that we could or
should live with a nuclear Iran."
"Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom
exists in Persian," remarked Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of
Michigan and critic of American policy who has argued that the Iranian president was
misquoted. "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying
Jerusalem, would collapse." Since Iran has not "attacked another country aggressively for
over a century," he said in an e-mail exchange, "I smell the whiff of war propaganda."
Jonathan Steele, a columnist for the left-leaning Guardian newspaper in London, recently
laid out the case this way: "The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by
Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that 'this regime occupying
Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,' just as the Shah's regime in Iran had
vanished. He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation
of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The 'page of time' phrase suggests he did not
expect it to happen soon."
Despite the above
and other explanations the false "wipe Israel off the map" translation never died. Years
later it still reappeared in Guardian pieces which required it to issuemultiple
corrections and clarifications.
Now, as the Trump administration is pushing for war on Iran, a similar mistranslation
miraculously happened. It were again 'western' news agencies who lightened the fire:
A lot of Western media is reporting that Iranian President Rouhani called Trump
"mentally retarded." This is inaccurate.
Regarding Trump, he just said "no wise person would take such an action [the new sanctions
imposed]."
Absolutely incorrect. There is a word for "retarded" in Persian & Rouhani didn't use
it. Prior to him saying "mental disability" he even prefaced his comment by saying "mental
weakness." Those who speak Persian can listen & judge for themselves. Here is a video
clip of Rouhani's comment: link
Iran leadership doesn't understand the words "nice" or "compassion," they never have.
Sadly, the thing they do understand is Strength and Power, and the USA is by far the most
powerful Military Force in the world, with 1.5 Trillion Dollars invested over the last two
years alone..
....The wonderful Iranian people are suffering, and for no reason at all. Their
leadership spends all of its money on Terror, and little on anything else. The U.S. has not
forgotten Iran's use of IED's & EFP's (bombs), which killed 2000 Americans, and wounded
many more...
.... Iran's very ignorant and insulting statement , put out today, only shows that they
do not understand reality. Any attack by Iran on anything American will be met with great
and overwhelming force. In some areas, overwhelming will mean obliteration. No more John
Kerry & Obama!
Reuters , which also peddled the mistranslation, gleefully
connected the dots :
This follows in the footsteps of a rich history of mistranslating and obfuscating which is
rarely, if ever, corrected by our Guardians of Truth. I will not hold my breath for AP to
pull its tweet out issue any sort of correction. The war machine is revving up, truth be
damned.
To add a few obfuscations to the list of mistranslations: the Palestinian intifada. Sounds
scary, no? Violence against the benevolent Israelis. Because what does intifada actually
mean? Uprising, which by its nature suggests oppression, something which just 'can't' be
happening in Palestine, hence the need for intifada.
Or take jihad, 'a pillor' of Islam. Again, very scary, as jihad 'means' suicide bombs and
killing infidels. What the Guardians of Truth never mention is that jihad in Islam is a very,
very broad term that includes such things as helping the poor or less fortunate, educating
oneself, quiet reflection, and prayer. Jihad as meaning 'holy war' was a sense meaning
derived much later than the founding of the religion, as a reaction to very real threats to
believers of the time, the Crusades and Mongol invasions. That this specific sense meaning
was essentially confined to history afterward, only to be revived by Wahhabists and takfiris,
and one not believed in by the vast majority of Muslims, is never explained. 'Cause all them
crazy Muslims believe in jihad!
In all cases where the boogeyman of the day needs concocting, rest assured the
'mainstream' press, with AP in the lead, will be there to build a gleaming edifice mistruths,
omissions, and lies.
In approximately 17 months, the american public can make strides to fix this mess.
I guess that is a long time for the iranians, but still maybe best option.
Just in case there is any doubt in American minds here is the Israeli Ambassador to the UN.
He thinks the sanctions are working well. Iran is panicking.
They mistranslate Trump all the time, or they spin what he says. It is amazing to watch.
For instance, at the Helsinki meeting, where he met with Putin and they discussed multiple
topics, but the press ignored any topic but demanding that Trump denounce Putin and "admit"
that Putin helped him steal the election, and that he was therefore not the legitimate
president.
Obviously, Trump was not going to say that, so he said that he was the legitimate
president, and the mockingbird media spun that into "the president is a traitor to America
because he said that 17 national intelligence agencies are lying".
.....The ministers lie, the professors lie, the television lies,
the priests lie .
These lies mean that the country wants to die.
Lie after lie starts out into the prairie grass,
like enormous caravans of Conestoga wagons .
And a long desire for death flows out, guiding the
enormous caravans from beneath,
stringing together the vague and foolish words.
It is a desire to eat death,
to gobble it down,
to rush on it like a cobra with mouth open
It's a desire to take death inside,
to feel it burning inside, pushing out velvety hairs,
like a clothes brush in the intestines --
This is the thrill that leads the President on to lie....
Robert Bly, The Teeth Mother Naked at Last, originally published by City Lights books
1970
Maybe the translation is inacurate but the message had the expected reaction from Trump:
Tweet furor.
It is good that Trump realizes that he does not have the monopole of insulting leaders.
The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war. How could it give a lesson to
Iran who won a 8 years war against Iraq despite the support that the USA, the Gulf countries
and Western countries gave to Iraq.
Loud noise and indecisive actions: The disaster of the USA foreign policy
I remember watching CNN translate Khamenei's "Nuclear Power" to "Nuclear Weapons" right on
live TV in 2013. This is not new.
/div> Virgile "The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war".
The US won a war against Grenada [population 95,000] I would go so far as to say they whupped
ass. True there were only 64 Cuban soldiers there [security guards] All members of the US armed
forces were involved and 5,000 medals were given out. Ra Ra USA.
Posted by: Harry Law , Jun 26, 2019 5:29:37 PM |
50
Virgile "The USA is a country that since WWII has never won any war". The US won a war
against Grenada [population 95,000] I would go so far as to say they whupped ass. True there
were only 64 Cuban soldiers there [security guards] All members of the US armed forces were
involved and 5,000 medals were given out. Ra Ra USA.
Posted by: Harry Law | Jun 26, 2019 5:29:37 PM |
50
b-
I am a Persian speaker and is true that president Rouhani never said Trump is retarded, we
now have way passed the point that insults can matte. Nevertheless it was better if President
Rouhani would have called Trump and the rest of the ruling US regime like what the whole
world has now come to understand, a true and unique collection of retards on a shining hill.
Reminds me of when Nikita Khruschev attempted to explain in 1956 his view that that
capitalism would destroy itself from within by quoting Marx: "What the bourgeoisie therefore
produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers." This was notoriously
mistranslated into English as "We will bury you", as if the Soviets were out to kill all
westerners themselves. Of course this mistranslated was quoted time and time again in western
media, fueling Cold War paranoia for years to come.
blue @ 19 The news media are wedded to the state which is wedded to the banking system which
are all subsidiaries of global capitalism. They don't need to correct themselves. They may
have the occasional family feud, but they're all on the same team. They will admit to
"mistakes" being made, but only long after it makes no difference.
We have a FREE PRESS in America-Pravda on the Potomac, Izvestia on the Hudson.
Have a look sometime at the Venn Diagrams that portray the overlapping/interlocking
memberships of the regulatory/financial/corporate leadership class.
But more than that, whatever the idea of a free press once meant, with the rise of digital
corporate networking "platforms", not subject to any accountability, the barriers to entry of
any competing narratives to the mainstream discourse are nearly insurmountable. Except maybe
through subversion?
What is missing is a true public 'Marketplace of Ideas'
The deliberate mis-translations of non-english speaking "adversaries" of the US is common in
the msm. Putin is frequently and deliberately mis-translated to make him appear dictatorial
and aggressive.
I listened to Rohani's speech. He said that if JCPOA is bad, it is bad for all parties; and
if it is good, it is good for all parties. They cannot expect for JCPOA to be bad for them
and good for us. They withdrew from the JCPOA and expect us to stay with the agreement. This
is what he meant when he said: White house has been affected by mental inability and mental
disability.
ADKC
Iran is at war. US and gang are trying to destroy Iran as a nation. The biggest asset in
times of war is deception. Used by both the attacker and the attacked.
Khamenei
has Tweeted a series of tweets, and his scribe has posted what he tweeted along with
other words
at his website in English so there's no mistranslation. Here's one of the series of 6:
"The graceful Iranian nation has been accused & insulted by world's most vicious
regime, the U.S., which is a source of wars, conflicts & plunder. Iranian nation won't
give up over such insults. Iranians have been wronged by oppressive sanctions but not
weakened & remain powerful."
They were made 14+ hours ago, yet I'm the first to post notice of them here?!
The USA government excels at propaganda. It always has. Doesn't matter if it babies and
incubators, mistranslated leaders of targeted countries, or supposed mass graves. BTW... what
ever happened to all those mass graves in Iraq? HRW was going to dig them all up and document
them. Hundreds of thousands. Most Americans I talk to still believe in this. Was it true?
Saddam himself had claimed it wasn't true. That it was Kurdish propaganda to gain sympathy.
He claimed the Anfal campaign was only to push the Kurds off the border so he could control
arms smuggling and that casualties were minimal. Looking into the search. They are graves
with a few hundred here and there but where are the rest of the bodies? If you google Iraq
mass graves there are more articles about ISIS mass graves than the Anfal campaign. There
were people killed in the South during the Shia uprising after the first gulf war than there
was for the Anfal campaign. Was that a lie too? Nearly every American believes it still.
PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that
'400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses
have so far been uncovered.
The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence,
quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet
on Iraq's mass graves.
In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US
government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've
already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'
Anyone who can undestand Farsi ( Persian language) can litsen Rouhani's speech. He did not
name "Trump", he said " White House".
I have been watching CNN news channel who said that Rouhani made a personal attack on Trump!
That was not true.
There was no personal attack on Rouhani's speech.
Importantly, the context of the speech and conclusion is diffent from western media reports
and western translations.
I would like give few links of some Iranian news agencies, reporting Rouhani's speech for
International use, as reference here:
1) FrasNews Agency
Rouhani said:
"These days, we see the White House in confusion and we are witnessing undue and
ridiculous words and adoption of a scandalous policy,"
..."The US sanctions are crime against humanity. The US recent measures indicate their
ultimate failure. The new US measures are the result of their frustration and confusion over
Iran. The White House has mental disability,"
Le président iranien, affirmant que les États-Unis, malgré de
nombreuses tentatives de pression exercées par divers leviers sur l'Iran, ont
échoué dans leurs objectifs, a poursuivi : "Une étrange frustration et
une grande confusion règnent au sein du Corps dirigeant de la Maison Blanche. Ils se
sentent déçus car ils n'ont obtenu aucun résultat, ils s'attendaient
à voir l'Iran brisé dans l'espace de quelques mois, mais ils ont fini par
constater que les Iraniens agissent de plus en plus fermement, de manière plus
créative que jamais ".
The president also decried the new US sanctions against Iran, saying the White House has
been thrown into confusion as its officials are making "inappropriate and ridiculous"
comments and adopting the policy of disgrace.
Wow that's amazing! Probably the best known Khrushchev 'quote', presented as evidence of
his boorish nature, is an intentional mistranslation. And the Marx quote is not exactly
obscure, it's from Chapter 1 of the Communist Manifesto for eff sake! At least it makes a
change from the 'lets just make things up' cottage industry of Lenin & Stalin
'quotes'.
"A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its
shoes."
Mark Twain (or some other student of wisdom)
... https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/books/famous-misquotations.html
Apr 26, 2017 - Mark Twain is one of many who gets credit for famous quotations he never wrote
or said. ... credited with saying "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth
is still putting on its shoes" ... Proverbial wisdom, in which a quotation is elevated to the
status of a proverb because its source is unknown;.
Circe , Jun 27, 2019 10:19:52 AM |
136Noirette , Jun 27, 2019 10:50:17 AM |
137
Mistranslations are a classical cheap n easy way to sway opinion.
Interesting that the examples b quotes, and most of those promoted currently by the
US-uk-eu, afaik, understand, are intended to project into the voice of Iranians, Russians,
Syrians, utterances, declarations, to be labelled insults, slander, threats, impropriety,
even rage, coming from these parties, as
there is nothing much else to display!
(Spanish is too comprehensible > does not apply to Mexico, Cuba, S. America.)
Often cultural matters play a role, but are ignored. Ahmadinejad was endlessly vilified
and mocked by the W-MSM for saying what was translated as there are no homosexuals in
Iran (no idea what the original formulation was) - which 'obviously' can't be 'true.'
Besides homosexuality being unacceptable in conservative rule-books, Iran is, or was (to
2010) above (or with) Thailand the no. 1. practitioner / destination for sex change
operations. Iran had super educated docs, great hospitals, etc.
Ahmadinejad was relying on a kind of fundamentalist principle where the 'soul' or the
'essential quality' of a person is what is tantamount, what counts above all. The physical
manifestation, here the human body, can be transformed to be in harmony with the deep-felt or
'innately' ascribed orientation or 'spirit.' So, no homosexuals in Iran, or only a few who
are in 'transition.' (Not denying real suffering of gays in Iran, other story.)
The W, in first place the US, is doing precisely the same with its 'gender change'
promotion, as applied to children and young teens. Here too, 'feelings' and 'identity'
override 'nature' : the physical can be overturned, overcome, fixed.
Such cultural issues play a role in mis-translations, deliberate or not. It may appear
that I wandered far off topic, I just picked a topical comprehensible ex. Sharia law is more
complex..
"... Risen detailed how his editors had been "quite willing to cooperate with the government." In fact, a top CIA official even told Risen that his rule of thumb for approving a covert operation was, "How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?" ..."
"... Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400 American journalists in the previous 25 years had "secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency." ..."
"... Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA, Bernstein revealed, including ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst newspapers, the Miami Herald, the Saturday Evening Post, and the New York Herald‑Tribune. ..."
"... However, he added, "By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc." ..."
"... These layers of state manipulation, censorship, and even direct crafting of the news media show that, as much as they claim to be independent, The New York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto spokespeople for the government -- or at least for the US national security state. ..."
The New York Times casually acknowledged that it sends major scoops to the US government
before publication, to make sure "national security officials" have "no concerns."
By Ben Norton
June 25, 2019 " Information Clearing House " - The New York
Times has publicly acknowledged that it sends some of its stories to the US government for
approval from "national security officials" before publication.
This confirms what veteran New York Times correspondents like James Risen have said: The
American newspaper of record regularly collaborates with the US government, suppressing
reporting that top officials don't want made public.
On June 15, the Times reported that the US government is escalating its cyber
attacks on Russia's power grid . According to the article, "the Trump administration is
using new authorities to deploy cybertools more aggressively," as part of a larger "digital
Cold War between Washington and Moscow."
In response to the report, Donald Trump attacked the
Times on Twitter, calling the article "a virtual act of Treason."
The New York Times PR office replied to Trump from its official Twitter account, defending
the story and noting that it had, in fact, been cleared with the US government before being
printed.
"Accusing the press of treason is dangerous," the Times communications team said. "We
described the article to the government before publication."
"As our story notes, President Trump's own national security officials said there were no
concerns," the Times added.
NY Times editors 'quite willing to cooperate with
the government'
The symbiotic relationship between the US corporate media and the government has been known
for some time. American intelligence agencies play the press like a musical instrument, using
it it to selectively leak information at opportune moments to push US soft power and advance
Washington's interests.
But rarely is this symbiotic relationship so casually and publicly acknowledged.
In 2018, former New York Times reporter James Risen published a 15,000-word article in
The Intercept providing further insight into how this unspoken alliance operates.
Risen
detailed how his editors had been "quite willing to cooperate with the government." In fact, a
top CIA official even told Risen that his rule of thumb for approving a covert operation was,
"How will this look on the front page of the New York Times?"
There is an "informal arrangement" between the state and the press, Risen explained, where
US government officials "regularly engaged in quiet negotiations with the press to try to stop
the publication of sensitive national security stories."
"At the time, I usually went along with these negotiations," the former New York Times
reported said. He recalled an example of a story he was writing on Afghanistan just prior to
the September 11, 2001 attacks. Then-CIA Director George Tenet called Risen personally and
asked him to kill the story.
"He told me the disclosure would threaten the safety of the CIA officers in Afghanistan,"
Risen said. "I agreed."
Risen said he later questioned whether or not this was the right decision. "If I had
reported the story before 9/11, the CIA would have been angry, but it might have led to a
public debate about whether the United States was doing enough to capture or kill bin Laden,"
he wrote. "That public debate might have forced the CIA to take the effort to get bin Laden
more seriously."
This dilemma led Risen to reconsider responding to US government requests to censor stories.
"And that ultimately set me on a collision course with the editors at the New York Times," he
said.
"After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration began asking the press to kill stories more
frequently," Risen continued. "They did it so often that I became convinced the administration
was invoking national security to quash stories that were merely politically embarrassing." In
the lead-up to the Iraq War, Risen frequently "clashed" with Times editors because he raised
questions about the US government's lies. But his stories "stories raising questions about the
intelligence, particularly the administration's claims of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda,
were being cut, buried, or held out of the paper altogether."
The Times' executive editor Howell Raines "was believed by many at the paper to prefer
stories that supported the case for war," Risen said.
In another anecdote, the former Times journalist recalled a scoop he had uncovered on a
botched CIA plot. The Bush administration got wind of it and called him to the White House,
where then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ordered the Times to bury the story.
Risen said Rice told him "to forget about the story, destroy my notes, and never make
another phone call to discuss the matter with anyone."
"The Bush administration was successfully convincing the press to hold or kill national
security stories," Risen wrote. And the Barack Obama administration subsequently accelerated
the "war on the press."
CIA media infiltration and manufacturing consent
In their renowned study of US media, "
Manufacturing Consent : The Political Economy of the Mass Media," Edward S. Herman and
Chomsky articulated a "propaganda model," showing how "the media serve, and propagandize on
behalf of, the powerful societal interests that control and finance them," through "the
selection of right-thinking personnel and by the editors' and working journalists'
internalization of priorities and definitions of newsworthiness that conform to the
institution's policy."
But in some cases, the relationship between US intelligence agencies and the corporate media
is not just one of mere ideological policing, indirect pressure, or friendship, but rather one
of employment.
In the 1950s, the CIA launched a covert operation called Project Mockingbird, in which it
surveilled, influenced, and manipulated American journalists and media coverage, explicitly in
order to direct public opinion against the Soviet Union, China, and the growing international
communist movement.
Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein, a former Washington Post reporter who helped uncover
the Watergate scandal, published a major cover story for Rolling Stone in 1977 titled "
The CIA and
the Media : How America's Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central
Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up."
Bernstein obtained CIA documents that revealed that more than 400 American journalists in
the previous 25 years had "secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence
Agency."
Bernstein wrote:
"Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit.
There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of
clandestine services -- from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with
spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared
their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who
considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less
exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their
work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy
business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees
masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were
engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America's leading
news organizations."
Virtually all major US media outlets cooperated with the CIA, Bernstein revealed, including
ABC, NBC, the AP, UPI, Reuters, Newsweek, Hearst newspapers, the Miami Herald, the Saturday
Evening Post, and the New York Herald‑Tribune.
However, he added, "By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA
officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc."
These layers of state
manipulation, censorship, and even direct crafting of the news media show that, as much as they
claim to be independent, The New York Times and other outlets effectively serve as de facto
spokespeople for the government -- or at least for the US national security state.
Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone, and the producer
of the Moderate Rebels podcast,
which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His website is BenNorton.com , and he tweets at @ BenjaminNorton .
This article was originally published by " Grayzone
"
"... Harding's avowed contact with Steele may also have contributed to another high profile blunder in April this year. In the immediate wake of the apparent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, the UK government issued a D(SMA) notice , blocking mention of Pablo Miller -- Skripal's MI6 recruiter -- in the media. ..."
On September 21, The Guardian ran an absolutely sensational exclusive, based on disclosures made by "multiple" anonymous sources
to Luke Harding, one of the paper's leading journalists - in 2017, Russian diplomats allegedly held secret talks in London with associates
of Assange, in an attempt to assist in the Wikileaks founder's escape from the UK.
The dastardly conspiracy would've entailed Assange being smuggled out of the Ecuadorian embassy in Knightsbridge under cover
of Christmas Eve in a diplomatic vehicle and transported to Russia, where he'd be safe from extradition to the US, ending his eight-years
of effective arbitrary detention in the process.
In any event, the audacious plot was eventually aborted after being deemed "too
risky" -- even for the reckless daredevils of Moscow -- mere days before its planned execution date.
Rommy Vallejo, head of Ecuador's
intelligence agency, is said to have travelled to the UK around December 15 to supervise the operation, and left when it was called
off.
'Extraordinary, Deliberate Lies'
The Russian Embassy in London
was quick to condemn the
article on Twitter, calling the claims "another example of disinformation and fake news" in the UK mainstream media, and noting the
paper violated national media standards by failing to ask the Russian side for a comment prior to the report's release. "This publication
has nothing to do with the reality. The Embassy has never engaged with Ecuadorian colleagues, or with anyone else, in discussions
of any kind on Russia's participation in ending Assange's stay within the diplomatic mission of Ecuador.
We're puzzled by the sensational
attitude of the authors. As recently as September 18, Culture Secretary Jeremy Wright called for increased efforts to combat media
and online disinformation. [The] Guardian piece is a brilliant example of the kind of journalism British reader should be protected
from," a spokesperson added in an official statement.
In a subsequent statement
, the Russian Foreign Ministry slammed the article for containing a "whole series of similar anti-Russia innuendos, and once again
made clear Russian diplomats did not contact staff of the Ecuadoran Embassy in London or Assange's associates in order to assist
in his escape from the UK.
However,
a
far more damning indictment of the article's extraordinary, evidence-free claims was provided by Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador
to Uzbekistan, who denounced the "quite extraordinary set of deliberate lies" in a September 23 blog post. In doing so, he revealed
he and Fidel Narvaez -- a close confidant of Assange fingered as the key point of contact between the Ecuadorian embassy and Moscow
in the article -- had engaged in discussions with Assange in 2017 regarding a possible departure from the UK capital, and debated
possible future destinations for the embattled Wikileaks founder.
"It's not only the case Russia didn't figure in those plans, Julian directly ruled out the possibility of going to Russia. I know
100% for certain the entire story is a complete and utter fabrication. I cannot find words enough to express the depth of my contempt
for Harding and [Editor] Katherine Viner, who've betrayed completely the values of journalism. The aim of the piece is evidently
to add a further layer to the fake news of Wikileaks' non-existent relationship to Russia as part of the "Hillary didn't really lose"
narrative. I am, frankly, rather shocked," Murray
wrote
.
Friends in Spooky Places
The identities of Harding's alleged anonymous sources aren't even hinted at in the article, but Murray made a striking suggestion
-- he "strongly suspect[ed]" that "MI6 tool" Harding's informants were the UK security services. If true, this would make the article
"entirely black propaganda" produced by British spies. Whether MI6 agents are the source of the story or not, it's certainly true
Harding enjoys a very close relationship indeed with British intelligence services -- a bond he has frequently, openly and proudly
advertised in articles and books.
For instance, in his highly controversial 2017 book Collusion, Harding argued Donald Trump
had a relationship with the Russian 'deep state' dating back to the 1980s, and colluded with the Kremlin to subvert US democracy.
To support this conclusion, he frequently cited claims fed to him directly by Christopher Steele, the ex-MI6 spy turned 'business
intelligence' professional, who authored the utterly discredited 'Trump-Russia' dossier for Fusion GPS.
When challenged to provide any evidence whatsoever for his book's assertions by Aaron Mate of The Real News, Harding was left mumbling
and stuttering -- he was also unable to defend
his claim that an individual's use of an emoji was proof they were working for Russian intelligence, and terminated the interview
prematurely.
Harding's avowed contact with Steele may also have contributed to another high profile blunder in April this year. In the immediate
wake of the apparent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, UK, the UK government
issued a D(SMA) notice , blocking mention of Pablo
Miller -- Skripal's MI6 recruiter -- in the media. Individuals who conducted internet searches for Miller afterwards quickly found
his LinkedIn profile, which identified him as a 'Senior Analyst' at Orbis Intelligence -- Steele's corporate espionage company.-
It is true, or was. As I say, this 2017 forum thread, which links to Pablo Miller's LinkedIn profile, states Orbis is listed on
Miller's CV -- https://t.co/Fx0vu1qorJ . Stop regurgitating anonymous claims
by your spook pals and do some research, Luke -- Kit Klarenberg (@KitKlarenberg)
March 12, 2018
Miller's page was quickly deleted though, and Harding took to Twitter to issue firm denials of a connection between Miller and the
firm, going so far as to suggest "someone" was using search engine optimization techniques to dishonestly associate Miller and Orbis.
However, enterprising Sputnik journalist Kit Klarenberg quickly and easily found an online forum thread dating from 2017 clearly
identifying Miller as an Orbis employee -- as of September, Harding is yet to respond, or retract his claims.
by George
Washington Fri, 06/21/2019 - 23:05 18 SHARES Truth Is the First Casualty of War
Over two thousand years ago, the Greek writer Aeschylus said :
In war, truth is the first casualty.
That quote could be read to mean that - once a war starts - then truth goes out the window
...
In reality, however, wars are often planned for political reasons (having to do with
money ,
resources or other goals which may have nothing to do with directly protecting one's
country or people) and then false intelligence is created to "justify" the start of the
war.
Britain's MI5 intelligence service explained
about the claimed justifications for the Iraq War:
The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
9/11 Commission Co-Chair and 34-year veteran Congressman Lee Hamilton, who served on
numerous foreign affairs and intelligence committees, said :
My concern in these situations, always, is that the intelligence that you get is driven by
the policy, rather than the policy being driven by the intelligence.
Because war not only kills, maims and displaces a lot of innocent people, but is also
bad for the
economy and
destroys the environment (and puts out a lot of carbon
dioxide ), we passionately believe that people need to understand a little history so that
the same mistakes are not repeated, and disastrous wars are avoided when they are not necessary
to actually defend ourselves.
And because we believe that the Constitutional right to peacefully assemble and speak out is
a large part of what makes us great, we will also put a spotlight on those who are trying to
shut down our First Amendment rights ... and how they're doing it.
False Pretenses
Scores of officials throughout the world have admitted (either orally, in writing, or
through recordings, photographs or videos) to carrying out, seriously proposing, or faking
attacks which they blamed on others as a way to falsely start wars or shut down free
speech:
(1) A Native American from one tribe (Pomunkey) murdered a white Englishwoman living in
Virginia in 1697 and then falsely blamed it on second tribe (Piscataway). But he later
admitted
in court that he was not really Piscataway, and that he had been paid by a provocateur from a
third tribe (Iroquois) to kill the woman as a way to start a war between the English and the
Piscataway, thus protecting the profitable Iroquois monopoly in trade with the English.
(2) Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931, and falsely blamed
it on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria. This is known as the "Mukden Incident" or the
"Manchurian Incident". The Tokyo International Military Tribunal
found : "Several of the participators in the plan, including Hashimoto [a high-ranking
Japanese army officer], have on various occasions
admitted their part in the plot and have stated that the object of the 'Incident' was to
afford an excuse for the occupation of Manchuria by the Kwantung Army ." And see
this , this and this.
(3) A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that
– under orders from the chief of the Gestapo – he and some other Nazi operatives
faked several attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to
justify the invasion of Poland. The staged attacks included :
The German radio station at Gleiwitz [details below]
The strategic railway at Jabłonków Pass, located on the border between Poland
and Czechoslovakia
The German customs station at Hochlinden
The forest service station in Pitschen
The communications station at Neubersteich
The railroad station in Alt-Eiche
A woman and her companion in Katowice
The details of the Gleiwitz radio station incident include :
On the night of 31 August 1939, a small group of German operatives dressed in Polish
uniforms and led by Naujocks seized the Gleiwitz station and broadcast a short anti-German
message in Polish (sources vary on the content of the message). The Germans' goal was to make
the attack and the broadcast look like the work of anti-German Polish saboteurs.
To make the attack seem more convincing, the Germans used human corpses to pass them off
as Polish attackers. They murdered Franciszek Honiok, a 43-year-old unmarried German Silesian
Catholic farmer known for sympathizing with the Poles. He had been arrested the previous day
by the Gestapo. He was dressed to look like a saboteur, then killed by lethal injection,
given gunshot wounds, and left dead at the scene so that he appeared to have been killed
while attacking the station. His corpse was subsequently presented to the police and press as
proof of the attack.
(4) The minutes of the high command of the Italian government - subsequently approved by
Mussolini himself - admitted that
violence on the Greek-Albanian border was carried out by Italians and falsely blamed on the
Greeks, as an excuse for Italy's 1940 invasion of Greece.
(5) Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader
Hermann Goering
admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building in 1933, and then falsely
blaming the communists for the arson.
(6) Goering also said:
"Why of course the people don't want war But after all it is the leaders of the country
who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether
it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked , and denounce the pacifists
for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
country."
And Adolph Hitler said:
" Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of
sudden death".
(7) Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev admitted in writing that the Soviet
Union's Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939 – while blaming the
attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the "Winter War" against Finland. Russian
president Boris Yeltsin agreed that Russia had been the
aggressor in the Winter War.
(8) The Russian Parliament, current Russian president Putin and former Soviet leader
Gorbachev all admit
that Soviet leader Joseph Stalin ordered his secret police to execute 22,000 Polish army
officers and civilians in 1940, and then falsely blamed it on the Nazis.
(9) Stalin also said:
"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The
public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened".
(10) The British government
admits that – between 1946 and 1948 – it bombed 5 ships carrying Jews who were
Holocaust survivors attempting to flee to safety in Palestine right after World War II, set up
a fake group called "Defenders of Arab Palestine", and then had the psuedo-group falsely claim
responsibility for the bombings (and see this , this
and this ).
(11) In the 1950s, Israeli Prime Moshe Sharett admitted in his diary:
I have been meditating on the long chain of false incidents and hostilities we have
invented , and on the many clashes we have provoked which cost us so much blood ....
(The U.S. Army's School of Advanced Military Studies would later say of Mossad -
Israel's intelligence service - "Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and
make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act").
(12) The CIA admits that it
hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to
turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.
(13) Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs
in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence"
implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the
Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this
and this).
(14) The Turkish Prime Minister
admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in
Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and
blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
Starting in the 1950s Turkey's deep state sponsored killings, engineered riots, colluded
with drug traffickers, staged "false flag" attacks and organised massacres of trade
unionists. Thousands died in the chaos it fomented.
(15) The British Prime Minister
admitted to his defense secretary that he and American president Dwight Eisenhower approved
a plan in 1957 to carry out attacks in Syria and blame it on the Syrian government as a way to
effect regime change.
(16) Leo Strauss - the
father of the Neo-Conservative movement , who counted many military policymakers of recent
American administrations, including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Stephen Cambone, Elliot
Abrams, and Adam Shulsky as students in
his University of Chicago classes -
taught in the 1950s and 1960s that "if no external threat exists then one has to be
manufactured" (the quote is by one of Strauss'
main biographers ).
(18) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested
that the U.S. launch "a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of
actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow
Castro]".
(19) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs
and other high-level officials
discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion
of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious
proposals.
(20) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962,
the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an
elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on
American soil , and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See
the following ABC
news report ; the official documents ; and
watch this interview
with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter
Jennings. This plan was subsequently admitted
again in other declassified government documents.
Provocations considered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff included :
Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims ....
***
3. A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms:
a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba.
b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could
arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result
of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely
investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was
taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to
those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up
with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of
the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national
indignation.
4. We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida
cities and even in Washington.
The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States.
We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster
attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in
instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots,
the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban
involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.
***
6. Use of MIG type aircraft by US pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment
of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by
MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would
convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport
were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the
security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of
the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.
***
8. it is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a
Cuban-aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United
States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to
cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba, The passengers could be a group of college
students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support
chartering a non-scheduled flight.
a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a
civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a
designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be
loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual
registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.
b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow
a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will
descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where
arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its
original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan.
When over Cuba the drone will being transmitting on the inter-national distress frequency a
"MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be
interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will
allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to "tell" the US what has happened to the
aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.
9. It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban
MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.
a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft-will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB,
Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir
aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct
variations of these flights at frequent intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least
12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the
event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MiGs.
b. On One such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable
interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had
been Jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then
fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary.
The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number.
The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and
return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have
disappeared.
c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or
small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20
miles off the Cuban coast and depart.
U.S. government documents declassified in October 2017 admitted that a
very high-level 1962 meeting of U.S. government officials - separate from the Joint Chiefs of
Staff - also discussed:
The possibility of U.S. manufacture or acquisition of Soviet aircraft .... There is a
possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse
enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a
provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly
installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention .
(21) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting
attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago
or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.
(22) The NSA admits that it
lied about what really happened in the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964
manipulating data to make it look like North Vietnamese boats fired on a U.S. ship so as to
create a false justification for the Vietnam war.
(23) The U.S. Department of Defense also suggested
covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: "The only area
remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro's subordinate commanders to
initiate an attack on Guantanamo."
(24) A U.S. Congressional committee admitted that – as part of
its "Cointelpro" campaign – the FBI had used many provocateurs in the 1950s through 1970s
to carry out violent acts and falsely blame them on political activists.
(25) A top Turkish general
admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on
their enemy. He
explained : "In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to
increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque." In response to
the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, "I am giving an example".
The bulk of the nation's undercover work is done by local police officers or outsiders
hired by the state, county or city police, according to the campus reports. Probably the best
known undercover man in the United States, M. L. Singkata Thomas Tongyai, known at Hobart
College in Canandaigua, N.Y., as "Tommy the Traveler," was one of these.
He was hired by the local sheriff's office and, according to an Ontario County grand jury,
"advocated violent forms of protest" among student radicals. He took part in a police drug
raid on the Hobart campus last June 5.
Thomas Tongyai, or Tommy the Traveler, for example, provided bombs and rifles for the
students at Hobart College and recruited the secretary of the local R.O.T.C. unit to help
destroy its files. Tongyai apparently was being paid by both the local sheriff's office and a
Federal agency
The Ontario County Sheriff
admitted that Tommy was an employee, and said that Tommy also worked for the
FBI.
(27) Former police informer and undercover operative Charles Grimm - paid by both the FBI
and the Tuscaloosa Police Department -
admitted that , in 1970, he used Molotov cocktails to burn Dressler Hall at Kent State
University to disrupt protests. The fire was blamed on dissenters and served as cause to
declare campus protests "unlawful assemblies".
(28) A declassified
1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign
police and troops on how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how to
investigate terrorist acts:
The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with foreign police/security organizations
through its field stations .
[CIA provides training sessions as follows:]
a. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in the uses of commercial and military
demolitions and incendiaries as they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage
operations.
b. Introducing the trainees to commercially available materials and home laboratory
techniques , likely to he used in the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by
terrorists or saboteurs.
c. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept of target analysis and operational planning
that a saboteur or terrorist must employ.
d. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices and techniques giving practical
experience with both manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication .
***
The program provides the trainees with ample opportunity to develop basic familiarity and
use proficiently through handling, preparing and applying the various explosive charges,
incendiary agents, terrorist devices and sabotage techniques .
(29) The German government admitted (and
see this ) that, in 1978, the German secret service detonated a bomb in the outer wall of a
prison and planted "escape tools" on a prisoner – a member of the Red Army Faction
– which the secret service wished to frame the bombing on.
(30) In the late 1970s, a Major General in the IDF (Israeli military)
admitted that a top Israeli general "was mining roads taken by IDF troops, to make it look
as if the PLO was behind it."
(31) The head of Israel's Northern Command staff
admitted that, during the late 1970's and early 80's, numerous terror attacks were carried
out under the fake name "Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners" by Israelis "to
cause chaos amongst the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon, without leaving an Israeli
fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and to instill
them with a sense of insecurity." In order to cast blame elsewhere, the Israelis recruited
Lebanese locals, Christians, and Shiite Muslims, to carry out series of targeted killings and
sabotage operations in southern Lebanon.
(32) A Mossad agent
admits that, in 1984, Mossad planted a radio transmitter in Gaddaffi's compound in Tripoli,
Libya which broadcast fake terrorist transmissions recorded by Mossad, in order to frame
Gaddaffi as a terrorist supporter. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya immediately thereafter.
(33) The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil
Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an
explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC
[the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into
the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing.
(34) An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit
that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed
Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video ; and see Agence
France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author ).
(35) A police officer admitted
on National Public Radio:
In the '90s, we turned to a different tactic .... And you can see how successful that was
in places like, you know, the Republican National Conventions in both New York City and
Minneapolis, where we even got people to - you know, we were able to encourage people to do
things like, you know, do acts of violence, which then would make it possible for us to come
in and sweep the streets and bring in large amounts of SWAT team tactical police. It was
really effective .
( This cartoon sums up the way
which provocateurs distract attention from the real messages behind peaceful protests.)
(36) One of the central lies used to justify the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq after Iraq
invaded Kuwait was the false statement by a young Kuwaiti
girl that Iraqis
murdered Kuwaiti babies in hospitals. Her statement was arranged by a Congressman who
admitted
that he knew that she was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S. - who
was desperately trying to lobby the U.S. to enter the war - but the Congressman hid
that fact from the public and from Congress
(37) In 1993, a bomb in Northern Ireland killed 9 civilians. Official documents from the
Royal Ulster Constabulary (i.e. the British government)
show that the mastermind of the bombing was a British agent, and that the bombing was
designed to inflame sectarian tensions. And see this and this .
(38) The United States Army's 1994 publication Special Forces Foreign Internal Defense
Tactics Techniques and Procedures for Special Forces – updated in 2004 –
recommends employing terrorists and using false flag operations to destabilize leftist
regimes in Latin America. False flag terrorist attacks were carried out in Latin America and
other regions as part of the CIA's " Dirty Wars ". And see
this .
(39) Similarly, a CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the
Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value
of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause. The manual was
authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated
Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that – during the 1984 presidential debate
– President Reagan was confronted with
the following question on national television:
At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual
for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations
of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in
order to create martyrs.
(40) Official German intelligence service documents
admitted (original German ) that, in 1994, the German
intelligence services planted plutonium on an airplane coming from Russia, as a way to
frame Russia for exporting
dangerous radioactive materials which could end up in the hands of terrorists and criminals.
This frame-up job was so successful at whipping up fear that it got
German Chancellor Kohl re-elected, and the U.S. used it as an excuse to "help" secure Russia's
nuclear facilities, as a way to get access to Russian nuclear secrets.
(41) A Rwandan government inquiry admitted
that the 1994 shootdown and murder of the Rwandan president, who was from the Hutu tribe - a
murder blamed by the Hutus on the rival Tutsi tribe, and which led to the massacre of more than
800,000 Tutsis by Hutus - was committed by Hutu soldiers and falsely blamed on the Tutis.
(43) Senior Russian Senior military and intelligence officers
admit that the KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999 and falsely blamed it on
Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya (and see
this report and this discussion ).
(44) As reported by the
New York Times , BBC and Associated Press , Macedonian officials
admit that in 2001, the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended
that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join
the "war on terror". They lured foreign migrants into the country, executed them in a staged
gun battle, and then claimed they were a unit backed by Al Qaeda intent on attacking Western
embassies". Specifically, Macedonian authorities had lured the immigrants into the country, and
then - after killing them - posed the victims with planted evidence – "bags of uniforms
and semiautomatic weapons at their side" – to show Western diplomats.
(45) At the July 2001 G8 Summit in Genoa, Italy, black-clad thugs were videotaped
getting out of police cars, and were seen by an
Italian MP carrying "iron bars inside the police station". Subsequently, senior police
officials in Genoa admitted
that police planted two Molotov cocktails and faked the stabbing of a police officer at the G8
Summit, in order to justify a violent
crackdown against protesters. And see this .
Even after the 9/11 Commission
admitted that there was no connection, Dick Cheney said that the evidence is
"overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime, that Cheney
"probably" had information unavailable to the Commission, and that the media was not 'doing
their homework' in reporting such ties. Top U.S. government officials now admit that hat the
Iraq war was really
for oil or to protect
Israel not 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction.
Despite previous "lone wolf" claims, many U.S. government officials now
say that 9/11 was state-sponsored terror; but Iraq was not the state which backed the
hijackers. (Many U.S. officials have alleged that 9/11 was a false flag operation by rogue
elements of the U.S. government; but such a claim is beyond the scope of this discussion. The
key point is that the U.S. falsely blamed it on Iraq, when it knew Iraq had nothing to do with
it.).
(48) Many high-level American and British officials admitted
that Iraq didn't have WMDs before the Bush administration publicly claimed it did ... and
before it launched the Iraq War in 2003. For example, a CIA official insists the Bush administration was made
aware some time before the State of the Union address that the claims that Iraq was trying to
purchase yellow case uranium from Niger was false.
(50) According to the Washington Post , Indonesian police admit
that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders
on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
(51) The well-respected former Indonesian president also
admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings.
(53) In 2003, the U.S. Secretary of Defense admitted that interrogators were
authorized to use the following method:
False Flag: Convincing the detainee that individuals from a country other than the United
States are interrogating him.
While not a traditional false flag attack , this deception could lead to former detainees -
many of whom were tortured - attacking the country falsely blamed for the interrogation and
torture.
(54) Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the
US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having "our intelligence agencies create a
false terrorist organization . It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training
camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit
for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda's ranks, causing
operatives to doubt others' identities and to question the validity of communications."
(55) Similarly, in 2005, Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School – a
renowned US defense analyst credited with developing the concept of 'netwar' – called for
western intelligence services to create new "pseudo gang" terrorist groups , as a way of
undermining "real" terror networks. According to Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour
Hersh, Arquilla's 'pseudo-gang' strategy was, Hersh reported, already being implemented by
the Pentagon:
"Under Rumsfeld's new approach, I was told, US military operatives would be permitted to
pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen seeking to buy contraband items that could be used
in nuclear-weapons systems. In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens
could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists
The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls 'action
teams' in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist
organizations. 'Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?' the former
high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed
atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. 'We founded them and we financed them,' he said.
'The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren't going to tell
Congress about it.' A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon's commando
capabilities, said, 'We're going to be riding with the bad boys.'"
(56) United Press International reported
in June 2005:
U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using
recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers
erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have
come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial
numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist
cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably
from either Mossad or the CIA. Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the
untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as
evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
(57) In 2005,
British soldiers dressed as Arabs were caught by Iraqi police after a shootout against the
police. The British soldiers shot two Iraqi policemen, killing
one . The soldiers apparently possessed
explosives , and were accused
of attempting to set off
bombs . While none of the soldiers admitted that they were carrying out attacks, British
soldiers and a column of 10 British tanks stormed the jail they were held in, broke down
a wall of the jail, and busted them out . The extreme measures used to free the soldiers -
rather than have them face questions and potentially stand trial - could be considered an
admission.
(58) Undercover Israeli soldiers
admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on
Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians.
(59) A very high-level French counterterrorism official,
Paul Barril, admits
that French, US and UK intelligence services worked together to poison Russian spy Alexander
Litvinenko with radioactive polonium in 2006 in order to frame and discredit Russia. And
see this
.
(60) Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks
to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers (and
see this ).
(61) A 2008 US Army special operations field manual recommends that the
U.S. military use surrogate non-state groups such as "paramilitary forces, individuals,
businesses, foreign political organizations, resistant or insurgent organizations, expatriates,
transnational terrorism adversaries, disillusioned transnational terrorism members , black
marketers, and other social or political 'undesirables.'" The manual specifically acknowledged
that U.S. special operations can involve both counterterrorism and "terrorism" (as well as
"transnational criminal activities, including narco-trafficking, illicit arms-dealing, and
illegal financial transactions.")
He should do what I did when I was Minister of the Interior infiltrate the movement with
agents provocateurs inclined to do anything . And after that, with the strength of the gained
population consent, beat them for blood and beat for blood also those teachers that incite
them. Especially the teachers. Not the elderly, of course, but the girl teachers yes.
(63) An undercover officer
admitted that he infiltrated environmental, leftwing and anti-fascist groups in 22
countries. Germany's federal police chief admitted
that - while the undercover officer worked for the German police - he acted illegally during a
G8 protest in Germany in 2007 and committed arson by setting fire during a subsequent
demonstration in Berlin. The undercover officer spent many years living
with violent "Black Bloc" anarchists.
(64) Denver police admitted
that uniformed officers deployed in 2008 to an area where alleged "anarchists" had planned to
wreak havoc outside the Democratic National Convention ended up getting into a melee with two
undercover policemen. The uniformed officers didn't know the undercover officers were cops.
(65) At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament saw plain
clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence.
(66) The oversight agency for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
admitted that - at the G20 protests in Toronto in 2010 - undercover police officers were
arrested with a group of protesters. Videos and photos (see
this and this ,
for example) show that violent protesters wore very similar boots and other gear as the police,
and carried police batons. The Globe and Mail
reports that the undercover officers planned the targets for violent attack, and the police
failed to stop the attacks.
(67) Egyptian politicians
admitted (and
see this ) that government employees looted priceless museum artifacts 2011 to try to
discredit the protesters.
(68) In 2011, a Hindu "holy man"
admitted that he and other Hindu extremists had carried out a series of bombings between
2006 and 2008 which killed well over 100 people, and was blamed on Muslims.
(69) Austin police
admit that 3 officers infiltrated the Occupy protests in that city. Prosecutors
admit that one of the undercover officers purchased and constructed illegal "lock boxes"
which ended up getting many protesters arrested.
(70) In 2011, a Colombian colonel admitted that he and his soldiers
had lured 57 innocent civilians and killed them – after dressing many of them in uniforms
– as part of a scheme to claim that Columbia was eradicating left-wing terrorists. And
see
this .
(71) Rioters who discredited the peaceful protests against the swearing in of the Mexican
president in 2012
admitted that they were paid 300 pesos each to destroy everything in their path. According
to Wikipedia, photos also show the vandals waiting in groups
behind police lines prior to the violence.
(72) On November 20, 2014, Mexican agent provocateurs were transported by army vehicles to
participate in the 2014 Iguala mass kidnapping protests, as was
shown by videos and pictures distributed via social networks.
(73) The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the
head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – recently
admitted that the Saudi government controls "Chechen" terrorists.
(74) In 2014, a leaked
telephone recording captured 4 high-level Turkish officials discussing a false flag attack
to be blamed on the Syrians. The Washington Post
reported :
The leaked audio appeared to feature Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, National
Intelligence Organization (MİT) Undersecretary Hakan Fidan, Foreign Ministry
Undersecretary Feridun Sinirlioğlu and Deputy Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar
Güler discussing possible intervention in Syria.
***
"Justification can be created," one voice says in the recording, appearing to reference a
"false flag" attack. "The matter is to create the will."
A leaked recording published anonymously on the platform purported to reveal a
conversation in which Turkey's foreign minister, spy chief and a top general appear to
discuss how to create a pretext for a possible Turkish attack within Syria.
The officials were heard discussing a plot to establish a justification for military
strikes in Syria. One option that is said to have been discussed was orchestrating an attack
on the Tomb of Suleyman Shah ....
Suleiman Shah Tomb is an important Turkish landmark, being the burial place of the founder
of the Ottoman Empire.
Ahmet Davutolu: "Prime Minister said that in current conjuncture, this attack (on Suleiman
Shah Tomb) must be seen as an opportunity for us."
Hakan Fidan: "I'll send 4 men from Syria, if that's what it takes. I'll make up a cause of
war by ordering a missile attack on Turkey ; we can also prepare an attack on Suleiman Shah
Tomb if necessary ."
Feridun Sinirliolu: "Our national security has become a common, cheap domestic policy
outfit ."
(75) In 2014, two members of the Turkish Parliament
admitted that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks in Syria and
falsely blamed them on the Syrian government. High-level American sources have more or less
confirmed this.
It's gotten so ridiculous that a U.S. Senator has introduced a "
Stop Arming Terrorists Act" , and a U.S. Congresswoman - who introduced a similar bill in
the House -
says : "For years, the U.S. government has been supporting armed militant groups working
directly with and often under the command of terrorist groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda in their
fight to overthrow the Syrian government."
(77) Government officials on both sides of the conflict, as well as the snipers who actually
pulled the trigger, all
admit that shots were fired on both sides - killing both government officials and
anti-government protesters in Ukraine - to create maximum chaos and destabilization.
(78) Speaking of snipers, in a secret recording, Venezuelan generals
admit that they will deploy snipers to shoot protesters, but keep the marksmen well-hidden
from demonstrator and the reporters covering the events so others would be blamed for the
deaths.
(79) Burmese government officials
admitted that Burma (renamed Myanmar) used false flag attacks against Muslim and Buddhist
groups within the country to stir up hatred between the two groups, to prevent democracy from
spreading.
(80) Israeli police were again filmed in 2015 dressing up as Arabs
and throwing stones, then turning over Palestinian protesters to Israeli soldiers.
(81) Britain's spy agency has admitted
(and see this ) that it
carries out "digital false flag" attacks on targets, framing
people by writing offensive or unlawful material and blaming it on the target.
(82) The CIA has
admitted that it uses viruses and malware from Russia and other countries to carry out
cyberattacks and blame other countries.
(83) U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and
Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were
militants.
(84) German prosecutors
admit that a German soldier disguised himself as a Syrian refugee and planned to shoot
people so that the attack would be blamed on asylum seekers.
(85) Police frame innocent people for crimes they didn't commit. The practice is so
well-known that the New York Times noted in
1981:
In police jargon, a throwdown is a weapon planted on a victim.
Perez, himself a former [Los Angeles Police Department] cop, was caught stealing eight
pounds of cocaine from police evidence lockers. After pleading guilty in September, he
bargained for a lighter sentence by telling an appalling story of attempted murder and a
"throwdown"–police slang for a weapon planted by cops to make a shooting legally
justifiable . Perez said he and his partner, Officer Nino Durden, shot an unarmed 18th Street
Gang member named Javier Ovando, then planted a semiautomatic rifle on the unconscious
suspect and claimed that Ovando had tried to shoot them during a stakeout.
As part of his plea bargain, Pérez implicated scores of officers from the Rampart
Division's anti-gang unit, describing routinely beating gang members, planting evidence on
suspects, falsifying reports and covering up unprovoked shootings .
Most terrorists are false flag terrorists or are created by our own security services.
He has himself
admitted to carrying out a false flag attack.
(87) The head and special agent in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles office said that
most terror attacks are committed by the CIA and FBI as false flags.
(88) The Director of Analytics at the interagency
Global Engagement Center housed at the U.S. Department of State, also an adjunct professor at
George Mason University, where he teaches the graduate course National Security Challenges in
the Department of Information Sciences and Technology, a former branch chief in the CIA's
Counterterrorism Center, and an intelligence advisor to the Secretary of Homeland Security
(J.D. Maddox) notes :
Provocation is one of the most basic, but confounding, aspects of warfare. Despite its
sometimes obvious use, it has succeeded consistently against audiences around the world, for
millennia, to compel war . A well-constructed provocation narrative mutes even the most vocal
opposition.
***
The culmination of a strategic provocation operation invariably reflects a narrative of
victimhood: we are the victims of the enemy's unforgivable atrocities .
***
In the case of strategic provocation the deaths of an aggressor's own personnel are a core
tactic of the provocation .
***
The persistent use of strategic provocation over centuries – and its apparent
importance to war planners – begs the question of its likely use by the US and other
states in the near term.
(89) In 2019, Israeli soldiers blamed Palestinians for intentionally lighting fires. But a
video shows that it was Israeli settlers who lit the fires.
I lived in Bangkok during the run up to the Iraq WMD war. During that time the Free
Publications and Newspapers around the world, including the Bangkok Post, were screaming the
Truth and warning the world about the folly of America's planned invasion. But when I
returned to America on vacation just before the War started NOBODY had any idea, or the
slightest suspicion, of being conned into a needless war, or recognized another Gulf of
Tonkin False Flag in the making either. The govt and the press had convinced America they
were Heroes.
War is simply the way sociopathic bloodlines kill off non-sociopathic bloodlines in order
to perpetuate their own, and the non-sociopaths let them. Seems no one ever wants to discuss
how the financial and political sociopaths finance, organize and pull-off this blood-letting
every so often.
Britain badly wanted the rich Babylonian Jews of Iraq to leave their palatial mansions in
Iraq to help those not-so-rich British Jews to found the fledgling nation of Israel. But
Iraqi Jews refused to budge like the present day Iranian Jews.
So, Britain started working. The modus operandi was to send British Indian soldiers
dressed as Iraqi Moslems to create explosions in the Jewish quarters of Baghdad. The puppet
Iraqi king helplessly watched.
To drag USA into the mess, Britain even bombed a cafeteria frequented by American and
Jewish professors and students of the American University of Baghdad.
Then the British hanged the richest Jewish merchant in Baghdad, an American car dealer, IN
PUBLIC as a traitor. The puppet King of Iraq again kept silent as otherwise the British would
kill him.
Yes, finally the Babylonian Jews' resolve was broken and the exodus began only to find
that while they lived in palatial mansions in Iraq, the jealous British Jews put them in
tents in Israel, so most of them escaped to USA.
Here in USA, our administration and courts sided with British Jews and the voice of Iraqi
Jews were suppressed and silenced. And we Americans are still paying a heavy price for that
blunder!
All this happened right before the eyes of present day elderly Iranian Jews, so they and
their children refuse to leave Iran NOW.
ASIDE:
To the disappointment of British oversmartness, the Iraqi hospital doctors found a wounded
guy from that Cafeteria bombing with major burns and WITH A NEPALESE GORKA KNIFE hanging from
his belt. Soon, The British commander came running to the hospital, ignored doctor's
pleadings and carried away that hapless, heavily charred guy to his death - to belatedly
cover up British responsibility for the bombings. Yes, that bomber was a soldier in the
BRITISH GORKA REGIMENT!
So, each time UK encourages USA in its Wars, this story comes to my mind.
Imagine being stuck in a fall out shelter or an underground bunker during some apocalypse
with a devoted Ayn Rand follower or followers. Gurantee they would be killed and eaten with
in the first few hours.
Rand followers remind me of my little neices and nephews when they fight over candy and
toys. You tell them they have to share and they say no mine mine it's all mine. Now imagine a
grown man or woman doing the same exact thing except they run a major corporation or worse
are an elected official. They have tried to make money off of every crisis in the past thirty
years.
Rands followers are selfish greedy, most likely insane, jackles who have destroyed and
plundered the American and world economy for thier own ends. Usually so they can have the
most toys like cars, houses, hot tubs, private jets, viagra and wild sex parties Mind you
they most likely have to pay people to have sex with them. I have nothing against capitalism
but they need to reeled in at some point. Sadly goverment does not do it's job by looking
after the public but after their own wallets. The people who view her has a sage and goddess
are seriously out of touch with reality.
Honestly her idea's are failures, the west is in debt up to it's eyeballs, Asia is rising
and Latin America is telling America and Europe to collectively go and screw ourselves. I am
not happy about this but apart of me is a bit amused by it.
The intellectual antecedents of the new right go back to Leo Strauss and the University of
Chicago among others. Canadian academic Shadia Drury wrote two books critical of Straussian
philosophy: "Leo Strauss and the American Right" (1999) and "The Political Ideas of Leo
Strauss" (first published 1988, revised 2005). Counterpunch.org carries a number of articles
by Gary Leupp, Francis Boyle and others also castigating the influence of Leo Strauss and his
followers on US foreign policy. Seymour Hersch also took a blowtorch to Strauss in an article
for The New Yorker many years ago when George W Bush was US President (link:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/05/12/030512fa_fact?currentPage=4#ixzz1437Z8MNs).
This
article was first published by GR in December 2014
Almost all wars begin with false flag operations.
The coming conflicts in North Korea and Russia are no exception.
Mass public hysteria is being manufactured to justify aggression against Moscow and
Pyongyang, in retaliation for acts attributed to the North Korean and Russian governments, but
orchestrated and carried out by the CIA and the Pentagon.
The false flagging of North Korea: CIA weaponizes Hollywood
The campaign of aggression against North Korea, from the hacking of Sony and the crescendo
of noise over the film, The Interview, bears all the markings of a CIA false flag
operation.
The hacking and alleged threats to moviegoers has been blamed entirely on North Korea,
without a shred of credible evidence beyond unsubstantiated accusations by the FBI. Pyongyang's
responsibility has not been proven. But it has already been officially endorsed, and publicly
embraced as fact.
The idea of "America under attack by North Korea" is a lie.
The actual individuals of the mysterious group responsible for the hacking remain
conveniently unidentified. A multitude of possibilities -- Sony insiders, hackers-for-hire,
generic Internet vandalism -- have not been explored in earnest. The more plausible involvement
of US spying agencies -- the CIA, the NSA, etc. , their overwhelming technological capability
and their peerless hacking and surveillance powers -- remains studiously ignored.
Who benefits? It is illogical for Pyongyang to have done it. Isolated, impoverished North
Korea, which has wanted improved relations with the United States for years (to no avail),
gains nothing by cyberattacking the United States with its relatively weak capabilities, and
face the certainty of overwhelming cyber and military response. On the other hand, Washington
benefits greatly from any action that leads to regime change in North Korea.
But discussion about Pyongyang's involvement -- or lack of -- risks missing the larger
point.
This project, from the creation of The Interview to the well-orchestrated international
incident, has been guided by the CIA, the Pentagon, and the State Department from the start. It
is propaganda. It is a weapon of psychological warfare. It is an especially perverted example
of military-intelligence manipulation of popular culture for the purpose of war.
There is nothing funny about any of it. The Interview was made with the direct and
open involvement of CIA and Rand Corporation operatives for the express purpose of
destabilizing North Korea. Star and co-director Seth Rogen has admitted that he worked
"directly with people who work in the government as consultants, who I'm convinced are in the
CIA". Originally conceived to be a plot taking place in an "unnamed country", Sony Pictures
co-chairman Michael Lynton, who also sits on the board of the Rand Corporation, encouraged the
film makers to make the movie overtly about murdering Kim Jong-Un. Bruce Bennett, the Rand
Corporation's North Korean specialist, also had an active role, expressing enthusiasm that the
film would assist regime change and spark South Korean action against Pyongyang. Other
government figures from the State Department, even operatives connected to Hillary Clinton,
read the script.
The infantile, imbecilic, tasteless, reckless idiots involved with The Interview,
including the tasteless Rogen and co-director Evan Goldberg, worked with these
military-intelligence thugs for months. "Hung out" with them. They do not seem to have had any
problem being the political whores for these Langley death merchants. In fact, they had fun
doing it. They seem not to give a damn, or even half a damn, that the CIA and the Pentagon have
used them, and co-opted the film for an agenda far bigger than the stupid movie itself. All
they seem to care about was that they are getting publicity, and more publicity, and got to
make a stupid movie. Idiots.
The CIA has now succeeded in setting off a wave of anti-North Korea war hysteria across
America. Witness the ignorant squeals and cries from ignorant Americans about how "we can't let
North Korea blackmail us", "we can't let Kim take away our free speech". Listen to the
ridiculous debate over whether Sony has the "courage" to release the film to "stand up to the
evil North Koreans" who would "blackmail America" and "violate the rights" of idiot filmgoers,
who now see it as a "patriotic duty" to see the film.
These mental midgets -- their worldviews shaped by the CIA culture ministry with its
endorsed pro-war entertainment, violent video games, and gung-ho shoot 'em ups -- are
hopelessly brain-curdled, irretrievably lost. Nihilistic and soulless, as well as stupid, most
Americans have no problem seeing Kim Jong-Un killed, on screen or in reality. This slice of
ugly America is the CIA's finest post-9/11 army: violent, hate-filled, easily manipulated,
eager to obey sheeple who march to whatever drumbeat they set.
And then there are the truly dumb, fools who are oblivious to most of reality, who would say
"hey lighten up, it's only a comedy" and "it's only a movie". Naïve, entitled,
exceptionalist Americans think the business of the war -- the murderous agenda they and their
movie are helping the CIA carry out -- is all just a game.
The CIA's business is death, and that there are actual assassination plans in the files of
the CIA, targeting heads of state. Kim Jong-Un is undoubtedly on a real assassination list.
This is no funny, either. The Modus
Operandi of Imperialist Propaganda The real act of war
The provocative, hostile diplomatic stance of the Obama administration speaks for itself.
Washington wanted to spark an international incident. It wants regime change in Pyongyang, does
not care what North Korea or China think, and does not fear anything North Korea will do about
it.
On the other hand, imagine if a film were about the assassination of Benjamin Netanyahu and
the toppling of the government in Tel Aviv. Such a film, if it would ever be permitted even in
script form, would be stopped cold. If it made it through censors that "magically" never slowed
down The Interview (and yes, there is censorship in America, a lot of it) Obama would
personally fly to Tel Aviv to apologize. At the very least, Washington would issue statements
distancing themselves from the film and its content.
Not so in the case of The Interview. Because American elites actually want the Kim family
murdered.
Despite providing no proof of North Korean involvement, President Barack Obama promised a
"proportional response". Promptly, North Korea's Internet was mysteriously shut down for a
day.
Unless one is naïve to believe in this coincidence, all signs point to US spy agencies
(CIA, NSA, etc.) or hackers working on behalf of Washington and Langley.
Given the likelihood that North Korea had nothing to do with either the hacking of Sony, the
initial pulling of the movie (a big part of the publicity stunt, that was not surprisingly
reversed) or the "blackmailing" of moviegoers, the shutting down of North Korea's Internet was
therefore a unilateral, unprovoked act of war. Washington has not officially taken
responsibility. For reasons of plausible denial, it never will.
Perhaps it was a dry run. A message. The US got to test how easily it can take down North
Korea's grid. As we witnessed, given overwhelming technological advantage, it was very easy.
And when a war against Pyongyang begins in earnest, American forces will know exactly what they
will do.
The US is flexing its Asia-Pacific muscles, sending a message not only to Pyongyang, but to
China, a big future target. Some of the other muscle-flexing in recent months included the
anti-Beijing protests in Hong Kong (assisted by the CIA and the US State Department), ongoing
provocations in the South China Sea over disputed oil, and new defense agreements that place
new anti-missile systems and missile-guided naval vessels to the region. The bottom line is
that America has once again been mobilized into supporting a new war that could take place
soon. The CIA and Sony have successfully weaponized a stupid movie, making it into a cause and
a battle cry.
If and when bombs fall on North Korea, blood will be on the hands of the makers of The
Interview, every single executive who allowed it to be made, and the hordes who paid to see
it.
If America were a decent, sane society, The Interview would be exposed, roundly denounced,
boycotted and shunned. Instead it is celebrated.
The CIA should be condemned. Instead, Seth Rogen hangs out with them. America, increasingly
dysfunctional, loves them. Obeys them.
The false flagging of Russia
Regarding The Interview, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich
issued a statement in sympathy with North Korea, correctly calling the film's concept
aggressive and scandalous, and decried the US retaliatory response as counterproductive and
dangerous to international relations.
Of course. Washington has no interest in improved international relations.
The Russians should know.
Like Kim Jong-Un, Vladimir Putin has been vilified, demonized and false-flagged,
incessantly. If Kim is today's object of ridicule, Putin is Evil Incarnate.
Consider the hysterical, desperate provocations by Washington in recent months.
A US-NATO coup, engineered by the CIA, toppled the government of Ukraine, planting a pro-US
neo-Nazi criminal apparatus on Russia's doorstep. The CIA and its worldwide network of
propagandists pinned the blame on Putin and Russia for aggression, and for obstructing
"democracy".
The MH-17 jetliner is downed by Ukrainian operatives, with the support of the CIA, Mi-6,
etc. etc. This false flag operation was blamed on Russia -- "Putin's Missile". The US and NATO
are still trying to pin these murders on Putin.
The war against the Islamic State -- a massive CIA false flag operation -- seeks to topple
with the the Assad government as well as to militarily counter Russia. The ongoing
Anglo-American conquest of regional oil and gas supplies, and energy transport routes is also
aimed at checkmating Russia and China across the region. The US and NATO have attacked the
Russian federation with sanctions. The US and Saudi Arabia have collapsed oil prices, to
further destroy the Russian economy. Full-scale military escalations are being planned. The US
Congress is pushing new legislation tantamount to an open declaration of war against
Russia.
What next? Perhaps it is time for the CIA to produce a Seth Rogen-James Franco movie about
assassinating Putin. Another "parody". Or how about a movie about killing Assad, or anyone else
the United States wants to make into a Public Enemy? Don't think Langley isn't working on
it.
The return of the Bushes (who were never gone)
In the midst of all escalating war hysteria comes news that Jeb Bush is "actively exploring"
running for president in 2016. The long predicted return of the Bush family, the kings of
terrorism, the emperors of the false flag operation, back to the White House appears
imminent.
The CIA will have its favorite family back in the Oval Office, with true CIA scion to manage
the apocalyptic wars are likely to be launched in earnest in the next two years:
Russia/Ukraine, North Korea, the Middle East.
Jeb Bush will "finish the job".
The 2016 presidential "contest" will be a charade. It is likely to put forth two corrupt
establishment political "friends" posing as adversaries, when in fact, they are longtime
comrades and conspirators. On one side, Hillary (and Bill) Clinton. On the other side, Jeb
Bush, with George H.W., George W. and all of the Bush cronies crawling back out of the rotten
woodwork. The fact is that the Clintons and Bushes, and their intertwined networks, have run
the country since the 1980s, their respective camps taking turns in power, with Obama as
transitional figurehead (his administration has always been run by neoliberal elites connected
to the Clintonistas, including Hillary Clinton herself).
The collective history of the Bushes stretches back to the very founding of the American
intelligence state. It is the very history of modern war criminality. The resume is George H.W.
Bush -- the CIA operative and CIA Director -- is long and bloody, and littered with cocaine
dust. The entire Bush family ran the Iran-Contra/CIA drug apparatus, with the Clintons among
the Bush network's full partners in the massive drug/weapons/banking frauds of that era, the
effects of which still resonate today. And we need not remind that the Bush clan and 9/11 are
responsible for the world of terror and false flag foreign policy and deception that we suffer
today.
While it remains too early to know which way the Establishment will go with their selection
(and it depends on how world war shakes out between now and 2016), it is highly likely that
Jeb
Bush would be the pick.
Hillary Clinton has already been scandalized -- "Benghazi-ed". Jeb Bush, on the other hand,
has ideal Establishment/CIA pedigree. He has waited years for the stupid American public to
forget the horrors that his family -- Georges H.W. and W. -- brought humanity. And now
Americans , with their ultra-short memories, have indeed forgotten, if they had ever understood
it in the first place.
And the American public does not know who Jeb Bush is, beyond the last name. Jeb Bush, whom
Barbara Bush always said was the "smart one", has been involved in Bush narco-criminal business
since Iran-Contra. His criminal activities in Florida, his connection with anti-Castro Cuban
terrorists and other connections are there, for those who bother to investigate them. His Latin
American connections -- including his ability to speak fluent Spanish, a Latin wife and a
half-Latin son (George P. Bush, the next up and coming political Bush) -- conveniently appeals
to the fastest-growing demographic, as well as those in the southern hemisphere drug trade.
Recent Obama overtures towards the Latino demographic -- immigration, Cuba -- appear to be a
Democratic Party move to counter Jeb Bush's known strengths in the same demographic.
Today, in the collective American mind, Kim Jong-Un and Vladimir Putin are "the bad guys".
But the mass murdering war criminal Bushes are saints. "Nice guys".
A Jeb Bush presidency will be a pure war presidency, one that promises terror, more
unspeakable than we are experiencing now, lording it over a world engulfed in holocaust.
Bias, Lies & Videotape: Doubts Dog 'Confirmed' Syria Chemical Attacks Disturbing new evidence suggests 2018 incident
might've been staged, putting everything else, including U.S. retaliation, into question. By
Scott Ritter •
June 20, 2019
It also calls into question all the other conclusions and reports by the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW) , which was assigned in 2014 "to establish facts surrounding allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly
chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic."
As you recall, the Trump administration initiated a coordinated bombing of Syrian government facilities with the UK and France
within days of the
Douma incident and
before
a full investigation of the scene could be completed, charging Assad with the "barbaric act" of using "banned chemical weapons"
to kill dozens of people on the scene. Bomb first, ask questions later.
The OPCW began their investigation days
after the strikes . The group drew on witness testimonies, environmental and biomedical sample analysis results, and additional
digital information from witnesses (i.e. video and still photography), as well as toxicological and ballistic analyses. In July 2018,
the OPCW released an
interim report
on Douma that said "no organophosphorus nerve agents or their degradation products were detected, either in the environmental
samples or in plasma samples from the alleged casualties," but that chlorine, which is not a banned chemical weapon, was detected
there.
Advertisement
The report cited ballistic tests that indicated that the canisters found at two locations on the scene were dropped from the air
(witnesses blamed Assad's forces), but investigations were ongoing.
The final report in March
reiterated the ballistics data, and the conclusions were just as underwhelming, saying that all of the evidence gathered there provides
"reasonable grounds that the use of a toxic chemical as a weapon took place," due in part to traces of chlorine and explosives at
the impact sites.
Now, the leaked
internal report apparently suppressed by the OPCW says there is a "high probability" that a pair of chlorine gas cylinders that
had been claimed as the source of the toxic chemical had been planted there by hand and not dropped by aircraft. This was based on
extensive engineering assessments and computer modeling as well as all of the evidence previously afforded to the OPCW.
What does this mean? To my mind, the canisters were planted by the opposition in an effort to frame the Syrian government.
The OPCW has confirmed with the validity of this shocking document and has offered statements to reporters, including Peter Hitchens,
who published
the organization's response to him on May 16.
The ramifications of this turn of events extend far beyond simply disproving the allegations concerning the events in April 2018.
The credibility of the OPCW itself and every report and conclusion
it has released concerning allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government are now suspect. The extent to which
the OPCW has, almost exclusively, relied upon
the same Syrian opposition sources who are now suspected of fabricating the Douma events raises serious questions about both
the methodology and motivation of an organization that had been
awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for
"its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons."
In a
response to Agence France-Presse (AFP) , OPCW director general Fernando Arias acknowledged there is an internal probe into the
memo leak but that he continues to "stand by the impartial and professional conclusions" of the group's original report. He played
down the role of the memo's author, Ian Henderson, and said his alternative hypotheses were not included in the final OPCW report
because they "pointed at possible attribution" and were therefore outside the scope of the OPCW's fact finding mission in Syria.
Self-produced videos and witness statements provided by the pro-opposition Violations Documentation Center, Syrian Civil Defense
(also known as the White Helmets), and the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS)
, a non-profit organization that operates hospitals in opposition-controlled Syria, represented the heart and soul of the case
against the Syrian government regarding the events in Douma. To my mind, the internal memo now suggests that these actors were engaging
in a systemic effort to disseminate disinformation that would facilitate Western military intervention with the goal of removing
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.
This theory has been advanced by pro-Assad forces and their Russian partners for some time. But independent reporting on the ground
since the Douma incident has sussed out many of the same concerns. From James Harkin, director of the Center for Investigative Journalism
and a fellow at Harvard University's Shorenstein Center, who traveled to the site of the attacks and
reported for The Intercept
in February of this year:
The imperative to grab the fleeting attention of an international audience certainly seems to have influenced the presentation
of the evidence. In the videos and photos that appeared that evening, most analysts and observers agree that there were some signs
that the bodies and gas canisters had been moved or tampered with after the event for maximum impact. The Syrian media activists
who'd arrived at the apartment block with the dead people weren't the first to arrive on the scene; they'd heard about the deaths
from White Helmet workers and doctors at the hospital.
The relationship between the OPCW and the Syrian opposition can be traced back to 2013. That was when the OPCW was given the responsibility
of eliminating Syria's declared arsenal of chemical weapons; this task was largely completed by 2014. However, the Syrian opposition
began making persistent allegations of chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian government in which chlorine, a substance not covered
by Syria's obligation to be disarmed of chemical weapons, was used. In response, the OPCW established the
Fact Finding Mission (FFM) in 2014 "to establish facts surrounding
allegations of the use of toxic chemicals, reportedly chlorine, for hostile purposes in the Syrian Arab Republic."
The priority of effort for the FFM early on was to investigate allegations of the use of chlorine as a weapon. Since, according
to its May 2014
summary, "all reported incidents took place at locations that the Syrian Government considers to be outside its effective control,"
the FFM determined that the success of its mission was contingent upon "identification of key actors, such as local authorities and/or
representatives of armed opposition groups in charge of the territories in which these locations are situated; the establishment
of contacts with these groups in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence that allows the mandate and objectives of the FFM to
be communicated."
So from its very inception, the FFM had to rely on the anti-Assad opposition and its supporters for nearly everything. The document
that governed the
conduct of the FFM's work in Syria was premised on the fact that the mission would be dependent in part upon "opposition representatives"
to coordinate, along with the United Nations, the "security, logistical and operational aspects of the OPCW FFM," including liaising
"for the purposes of making available persons for interviews."
One could sense the bias resulting from such an arrangement when, acting on information provided to it by the opposition regarding
an "alleged attack with chlorine" on the towns of Kafr Zeyta and Al-Lataminah, the FFM changed its original plans to investigate
an alleged chlorine attack on the town of Harasta. This decision, the FFM reported, "was welcomed by the opposition." When the FFM
attempted to inspect Kafr Zeyta, however, it was attacked by opposition forces, with one of its vehicles destroyed by a roadside
bomb, one inspector wounded, and several inspectors detained by opposition fighters.
The inability to go to Kafr Zeyta precluded the group from "presenting definitive conclusions," according to the report. But that
did not stop the FFM from saying that the information given to them from these opposition sources, "including treating physicians
with whom the FFM was able to establish contact," and public domain material, "lends credence to the view that toxic chemicals, most
likely pulmonary irritating agents such as chlorine, have been used in a systematic manner in a number of attacks" against Kafr Zeyta.
So the conclusion/non-conclusion was based not on any onsite investigation, but rather videos produced by the opposition and subsequently
released via social media and
interviews
also likely set up by opposition groups (White Helmets, SAMS, etc.), which we know, according to their own documents, served
as the key liaisons for the FFM on the ground.
All of this is worrisome. It is unclear at this point how many Syrian chemical attacks have been truly confirmed since the start
of the war. In February of this year, the Global Policy Institute
released a report
saying there were 336 such reports, but they were broken down into "confirmed," "credibly substantiated," and "comprehensively confirmed."
Out of the total, 111 were given the rigorous "comprehensively confirmed" tag, which, according to the group, meant the incidents
were "were investigated and confirmed by competent international bodies or backed up by at least three highly reliable independent
sources of evidence."
They do not go into further detail about those bodies and sources, but are sure to thank the White Helmets and their "implementing
partner" Mayday Rescue and Violations Documentation
Center, among other groups, as "friends and partners" in the study. So it becomes clear, looking at the Kafr Zeytan inspection and
beyond, that the same opposition sources that are informing the now-dubious OPCW reports are also delivering data and "assistance"
to outside groups reaching international audiences, too.
The role of the OPCW in sustaining the claims made by the obviously biased Syrian opposition sources cannot be understated --
by confirming the allegations of chemical weapons use in Douma, the OPCW lent credibility to claims that otherwise should not --
and indeed would not -- have been granted, and in doing so violated the very operating procedures that had been put in place by the
OPCW to protect the credibility of the organization and its findings.
There is an old prosecutorial rule -- one lie, all lies -- that comes into play in this case. With the leaked internal report
out there, suggesting that the sources in the Douma investigation were agenda-driven and dishonest, all information ever provided
to the OPCW by the White Helmets, SAMS, and other Syrian opposition groups must now, in my mind, be viewed as tainted and therefore
unusable.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.
The OPCW reaction clearly considering the investigation into the leak instead of apologizing for not publishing this report is
revealing its bias.
There has been a push from 'the West' to have the OPCW also attributing responsibility. Given the bias already on display this
will further politicize the OPCW.
As soon as such organizations become propaganda tools their credibility goes into the wind.
Given what we know of the Skripal hoax and the Tories attitude to the truth with their government funded 'Integrity Initiative'
through the Institute of Statecraft' that exactly what the British Intelligence intended.
One may note the specific personal links through Orbis/Steele/Miller between the 'Integrity Initiative' and the fake 'Trump
Dossier' and one ought to be alarmed by 'services' of a British intelligence out of control, but given the FBI/CIA involvement
and exploitation of that fake 'Trump Dossier' it looks that the US has a quite similar problem.
"... Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed. Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses, is the message. ..."
"... The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever learn or be educated out of their biases; ..."
"... So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated. For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that we lack judgement in real life? ..."
"... Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists" from theirs ..."
"... Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well. ..."
"... Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia. ..."
"... Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental data that is inconsistent with that theory. ..."
"... Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances. Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like to refer to a whole book about it: Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics". ..."
"... As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?) ..."
"... The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply a perfect title. ..."
Early in any psychology course, students are taught to be very cautious about accepting people's reports. A simple trick is
to stage some sort of interruption to the lecture by confederates, and later ask the students to write down what they witnessed.
Typically, they will misremember the events, sequences and even the number of people who staged the tableaux. Don't trust witnesses,
is the message.
Another approach is to show visual illusions, such as getting estimates of line lengths in the Muller-Lyer illusion, or studying
simple line lengths under social pressure, as in the Asch experiment, or trying to solve the Peter Wason logic problems, or the puzzles
set by Kahneman and Tversky. All these appear to show severe limitations of human judgment. Psychology is full of cautionary tales
about the foibles of common folk.
As a consequence of this softening up, psychology students come to regard themselves and most people as fallible, malleable, unreliable,
biased and generally irrational. No wonder psychologists feel superior to the average citizen, since they understand human limitations
and, with their superior training, hope to rise above such lowly superstitions.
However, society still functions, people overcome errors and many things work well most of the time. Have psychologists, for one
reason or another, misunderstood people, and been too quick to assume that they are incapable of rational thought?
He is particularly interested in the economic consequences of apparent irrationality, and whether our presumed biases really result
in us making bad economic decisions. If so, some argue we need a benign force, say a government, to protect us from our lack of capacity.
Perhaps we need a tattoo on our forehead: Diminished Responsibility.
The argument leading from cognitive biases to governmental paternalism -- in short, the irrationality argument -- consists
of three assumptions and one conclusion:
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public
toward better behavior.
The three assumptions -- lack of rationality, stubbornness, and costs -- imply that there is slim chance that people can ever
learn or be educated out of their biases; instead governments need to step in with a policy called libertarian paternalism (Thaler
and Sunstein, 2003).
So, are we as hopeless as some psychologists claim we are? In fact, probably not. Not all the initial claims have been substantiated.
For example, it seems we are not as loss averse as previously claimed. Does our susceptibility to printed visual illusions show that
we lack judgement in real life?
In Shepard's (1990) words, "to fool a visual system that has a full binocular and freely mobile view of a well-illuminated scene
is next to impossible" (p. 122). Thus, in psychology, the visual system is seen more as a genius than a fool in making intelligent
inferences, and inferences, after all, are necessary for making sense of the images on the retina.
Most crucially, can people make probability judgements? Let us see. Try solving this one:
A disease has a base rate of .1, and a test is performed that has a hit rate of .9 (the conditional probability of a positive
test given disease) and a false positive rate of .1 (the conditional probability of a positive test given no disease). What is
the probability that a random person with a positive test result actually has the disease?
Most people fail this test, including 79% of gynaecologists giving breast screening tests. Some researchers have drawn the conclusion
that people are fundamentally unable to deal with conditional probabilities. On the contrary, there is a way of laying out the problem
such that most people have no difficulty with it. Watch what it looks like when presented as natural frequencies:
Among every 100 people, 10 are expected to have a disease. Among those 10, nine are expected to correctly test positive. Among
the 90 people without the disease, nine are expected to falsely test positive. What proportion of those who test positive actually
have the disease?
In this format the positive test result gives us 9 people with the disease and 9 people without the disease, so the chance that
a positive test result shows a real disease is 50/50. Only 13% of gynaecologists fail this presentation.
Summing up the virtues of natural frequencies, Gigerenzer says:
When college students were given a 2-hour course in natural frequencies, the number of correct Bayesian inferences increased
from 10% to 90%; most important, this 90% rate was maintained 3 months after training (Sedlmeier and Gigerenzer, 2001). Meta-analyses
have also documented the "de-biasing" effect, and natural frequencies are now a technical term in evidence-based medicine (Akiet
al., 2011; McDowell and Jacobs, 2017). These results are consistent with a long literature on techniques for successfully teaching
statistical reasoning (e.g., Fonget al., 1986). In sum, humans can learn Bayesian inference quickly if the information is presented
in natural frequencies.
If the problem is set out in a simple format, almost all of us can all do conditional probabilities.
I taught my medical students about the base rate screening problem in the late 1970s, based on: Robyn Dawes (1962) "A note on
base rates and psychometric efficiency". Decades later, alarmed by the positive scan detection of an unexplained mass, I confided
my fears to a psychiatrist friend. He did a quick differential diagnosis on bowel cancer, showing I had no relevant symptoms, and
reminded me I had lectured him as a student on base rates decades before, so I ought to relax. Indeed, it was false positive.
Here are the relevant figures, set out in terms of natural frequencies
Every test has a false positive rate (every step is being taken to reduce these), and when screening is used for entire populations
many patients have to undergo further investigations, sometimes including surgery.
Setting out frequencies in a logical sequence can often prevent misunderstandings. Say a man on trial for having murdered his
spouse has previously physically abused her. Should his previous history of abuse not be raised in Court because only 1 woman in
2500 cases of abuse is murdered by her abuser? Of course, whatever a defence lawyer may argue and a Court may accept, this is back
to front. OJ Simpson was not on trial for spousal abuse, but for the murder of his former partner. The relevant question is: what
is the probability that a man murdered his partner, given that she has been murdered and that he previously battered her.
Accepting the figures used by the defence lawyer, if 1 in 2500 women are murdered every year by their abusive male partners, how
many women are murdered by men who did not previously abuse them? Using government figures that 5 women in 100,000 are murdered every
year then putting everything onto the same 100,000 population, the frequencies look like this:
So, 40 to 5, it is 8 times more probable that abused women are murdered by their abuser. A relevant issue to raise in Court about
the past history of an accused man.
Are people's presumed biases costly, in the sense of making them vulnerable to exploitation, such that they can be turned into
a money pump, or is it a case of "once bitten, twice shy"? In fact, there is no evidence that these apparently persistent logical
errors actually result in people continually making costly errors. That presumption turns out to be a bias bias.
Gigerenzer goes on to show that people are in fact correct in their understanding of the randomness of short sequences of coin
tosses, and Kahneman and Tversky wrong. Elegantly, he also shows that the "hot hand" of successful players in basketball is a real
phenomenon, and not a stubborn illusion as claimed.
With equal elegance he disposes of a result I had depended upon since Slovic (1982), which is that people over-estimate the frequency
of rare risks and under-estimate the frequency of common risks. This finding has led to the belief that people are no good at estimating
risk. Who could doubt that a TV series about Chernobyl will lead citizens to have an exaggerated fear of nuclear power stations?
The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students, not exactly a fair sample of humanity. The conceit of psychologists
knows no bounds. Gigerenzer looks at the data and shows that it is yet another example of regression to the mean. This is an apparent
effect which arises whenever the predictor is less than perfect (the most common case), an unsystematic error effect, which is already
evident when you calculate the correlation coefficient. Parental height and their children's heights are positively but not perfectly
correlated at about r = 0.5. Predictions made in either direction will under-predict in either direction, simply because they are
not perfect, and do not capture all the variation. Try drawing out the correlation as an ellipse to see the effect of regression,
compared to the perfect case of the straight line of r= 1.0
What diminishes in the presence of noise is the variability of the estimates, both the estimates of the height of the sons based
on that of their fathers, and vice versa. Regression toward the mean is a result of unsystematic, not systematic error (Stigler,1999).
Gigerenzer also looks at the supposed finding that people are over-confidence in predictions, and finds that it is another regression
to the mean problem.
Gigerenzer then goes on to consider that old favourite, that most people think they are better than average, which supposedly
cannot be the case, because average people are average.
Consider the finding that most drivers think they drive better than average. If better driving is interpreted as meaning fewer
accidents, then most drivers' beliefs are actually true. The number of accidents per person has a skewed distribution, and an
analysis of U.S. accident statistics showed that some 80% of drivers have fewer accidents than the average number of accidents
(Mousavi and Gigerenzer, 2011)
Then he looks at the classical demonstration of framing, that is to say, the way people appear to be easily swayed by how the
same facts are "framed" or presented to the person who has to make a decision.
A patient suffering from a serious heart disease considers high-risk surgery and asks a doctor about its prospects.
The doctor can frame the answer in two ways:
Positive Frame: Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive.
Negative Frame: Five years after surgery, 10% of patients are dead.
Should the patient listen to how the doctor frames the answer? Behavioral economists say no because both frames are logically
equivalent (Kahneman, 2011). Nevertheless, people do listen. More are willing to agree to a medical procedure if the doctor uses
positive framing (90% alive) than if negative framing is used (10% dead) (Moxeyet al., 2003). Framing effects challenge the assumption
of stable preferences, leading to preference reversals. Thaler and Sunstein (2008) who presented the above surgery problem, concluded
that "framing works because people tend to be somewhat mindless, passive decisionmakers" (p. 40)
Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. If you know that you have a datum which is more influential. These are the sorts of questions patients
will often ask about, and discuss with other patients, or with several doctors. Furthermore, you don't have to spin a statistic.
You could simply say: "Five years after surgery, 90% of patients are alive and 10% are dead".
Gigerenzer gives an explanation which is very relevant to current discussions about the meaning of intelligence, and about the
power of intelligence tests:
In sum, the principle of logical equivalence or "description invariance" is a poor guide to understanding how human intelligence
deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence, the ability
to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)
The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias.
One important conclusion I draw from this entire paper is that the logical puzzles enjoyed by Kahneman, Tversky, Stanovich and
others are rightly rejected by psychometricians as usually being poor indicators of real ability. They fail because they are designed
to lead people up the garden path, and depend on idiosyncratic interpretations.
Critics of examinations of either intellectual ability or scholastic attainment are fond of claiming that the items are "arbitrary".
Not really. Scholastic tests have to be close to the curriculum in question, but still need to a have question forms which are simple
to understand so that the stress lies in how students formulate the answer, not in how they decipher the structure of the question.
Intellectual tests have to avoid particular curricula and restrict themselves to the common ground of what most people in a community
understand. Questions have to be super-simple, so that the correct answer follows easily from the question, with minimal ambiguity.
Furthermore, in the case of national scholastic tests, and particularly in the case of intelligence tests, legal authorities will
pore over the test, looking at each item for suspected biases of a sexual, racial or socio-economic nature. Designing an intelligence
test is a difficult and expensive matter. Many putative new tests of intelligence never even get to the legal hurdle, because they
flounder on matters of reliability and validity, and reveal themselves to be little better than the current range of assessments.
In conclusion, both in psychology and behavioural economics, some researchers have probably been too keen to allege bias in cases
where there are unsystematic errors, or no errors at all. The corrective is to learn about base rates, and to use natural frequencies
as a guide to good decision-making.
Don't bother boosting your IQ. Boost your understanding of natural frequencies.
Good concrete advice. Perhaps even more useful for those who need to explain things like this to others than for those seeking
to understand for themselves.
"intelligence deals with an uncertain world where not everything is stated explicitly. It misses the very nature of intelligence,
the ability to go beyond the information given (Bruner, 1973)"
"The key is to take uncertainty seriously, take heuristics seriously, and beware of the bias bias."
Actually I think this is an example of an increasingly common genre of malapropism, where the writer gropes for the right word,
finds one that is similar, and settles for that. The worst of it is that readers intuitively understand what was intended, and
then adopt the marginally incorrect usage themselves. That's perhaps how the world and his dog came to say "literally" when they
mean "figuratively". Maybe a topic for a future article?
In 2009 Google finished engineering a reverse search engine to find out what kind of searches people did most often. Seth Davidowitz
and Steven Pinker wrote a very fascinating/entertaining book using the tool called Everybody Lies
Everybody Lies offers fascinating, surprising, and sometimes laugh-out-loud insights into everything from economics to ethics
to sports to race to sex, gender, and more, all drawn from the world of big data. What percentage of white voters didn't vote
for Barack Obama because he's black? Does where you go to school effect how successful you are in life? Do parents secretly
favor boy children over girls? Do violent films affect the crime rate? Can you beat the stock market? How regularly do we lie
about our sex lives, and who's more self-conscious about sex, men or women?
Investigating these questions and a host of others, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz offers revelations that can help us understand
ourselves and our lives better. Drawing on studies and experiments on how we really live and think, he demonstrates in fascinating
and often funny ways the extent to which all the world is indeed a lab. With conclusions ranging from strange-but-true to thought-provoking
to disturbing, he explores the power of this digital truth serum and its deeper potential – revealing biases deeply embedded
within us, information we can use to change our culture, and the questions we're afraid to ask that might be essential to our
health – both emotional and physical. All of us are touched by big data every day, and its influence is multiplying. Everybody
Lies challenges us to think differently about how we see it and the world.
I shall treat this posting (for which many thanks, doc) as an invitation to sing a much-loved song: everybody should read Gigerenzer's
Reckoning with Risk. With great clarity it teaches what everyone ought to know about probability.
(It could also serve as a model for writing in English about technical subjects. Americans and Britons should study the English
of this German – he knows how, you know.)
Inspired by "The original Slovic study was based on 39 college students" I shall also sing another favorite song. Much of Psychology
is based on what small numbers of American undergraduates report they think they think.
" Gigerenzer points out that in this particular example, subjects are having to make their judgements without knowing a key fact:
how many survive without surgery. "
This one reminds of the false dichotomy. The patient has additional options! Like changing diet, and behaviours such as exercise,
elimination of occupational stress , etc.
The statistical outcomes for a person change when the person changes their circumstances/conditions.
@Tom
Welsh A disposition (conveyance) of an awkwardly shaped chunk out of a vast estate contained reference to "the slither of
ground bounded on or towards the north east and extending two hundred and twenty four meters or thereby along a chain link fence "
Not poor clients (either side) nor cheap lawyers. And who never erred?
Better than deliberately inserting "errors" to guarantee a stream of tidy up work (not unknown in the "professional" world)
in future.
Good article. 79% of gynaecologists fail a simple conditional probability test?! Many if not most medical research papers use
advanced statistics. Medical doctors must read these papers to fully understand their field. So, if medical doctors don't fully
understand them, they are not properly doing their job. Those papers use mathematical expressions, not English. Converting them
to another form of English, instead of using the mathematical expressions isn't a solution.
Regarding witnesses: When that jet crashed into Rockaway several years ago, a high percentage of witnesses said that they saw
smoke before the crash. But there was actually no smoke. The witnesses were adjusting what they saw to conform to their past experience
of seeing movie and newsreel footage of planes smoking in the air before a crash. Children actually make very good witnesses.
Regarding the chart. Missing, up there in the vicinity of cancer and heart disease. The third-leading cause of death. 250,000
per year, according to a 2016 Hopkins study. Medical negligence.
1. Lack of rationality. Experiments have shown that people's intuitions are systematically biased.
2. Stubbornness. Like visual illusions, biases are persistent and hardly corrigible by education.
3. Substantial costs. Biases may incur substantial welfare-relevant costs such as lower wealth, health, or happiness.
4. Biases justify governmental paternalism. To protect people from theirbiases, governments should "nudge" the public toward
better behavior.
Well the sad fact is that there's nobody in the position to protect "governments" from their own biases, and "scientists"
from theirs.
So, behind the smoke of all words and rationalisations, the law is unchanged: everyone strives to gain and exert as much power
as possible over as many others as possible. Most do that without writing papers to say it is right, others write papers,
others books. Anyway, the fundamental law would stay as it is even if all this writing labour was spared, wouldn't it?
But then another fundamental law, the law of framing all one's drives as moral and beneffective comes into play the papers
and the books are useful, after all.
An interesting article. However, I think that the only thing we have to know about how illogical psychiatry is this:
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) asked all members attending its convention to vote on whether they believed
homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain
it.
The APA then compromised, removing homosexuality from the DSM but replacing it, in effect, with "sexual orientation disturbance"
for people "in conflict with" their sexual orientation. Not until 1987 did homosexuality completely fall out of the DSM.
The article makes no mention of the fact that no "new science" was brought to support the resolution.
It appears that the psychiatrists were voting based on feelings rather than science. Since that time, the now 50+ genders have
been accepted as "normal" by the APA. My family has had members in multiple generations suffering from mental illness. None were
"cured". I know others with the same circumstances.
How does one conclude that being repulsed by the prime directive of every
living organism – reproduce yourself – is "normal"? That is not to say these people are horrible or evil, just not normal. How
can someone, who thinks (s)he is a cat be mentally ill, but a grown man thinking he is a female child is not?
Long ago a lawyer acquaintance, referring to a specific judge, told me that the judge seemed to "make shit up as he was going
along". I have long held psychiatry fits that statement very well.
Thank you for this article. I find the information about the interpretation of statistical data very interesting. My take on the
background of the article is this:
Here we have a real scientist fighting the nonsense spreading from (neoclassical) economics into other realms of science/academia.
Behavioral economics is a sideline by-product of neoclassical micro-economic theory. It tries to cope with experimental
data that is inconsistent with that theory.
Everything in neoclassical economics is a travesty. "Rational choice theory" and its application in "micro economics" is
false from the ground up. It basically assumes that people are gobbling up resources without plan, meaning or relevant circumstances.
Neoclassical micro economic theory is so false and illogical that I would not know where to start in a comment, so I should like
to refer to a whole book about it:
Keen, Steve: "Debunking economics".
As the theory is totally wrong it is really not surprising that countless experiments show that people do not behave the
way neoclassical theory predicts. How do economists react to this? Of course they assume that people are "irrational" because
they do not behave according to their studied theory. (Why would you ever change your basic theory because of some tedious facts?)
We live in a strange world in which such people have control over university faculties, journals, famous prizes. But at least
we have some scientists who defend their area of knowledge against the spreading nonsense produced by economists.
The title of the 1st ed. of Keen's book was "Debunking Economics: The Naked Emperor of the Social Sciences" which was simply
a perfect title.
"... - Collin Powell's "clear and convincing" evidence of Sadam's mobile missile lauchers (aka mobile weather balloons). And the GWB admin's attempts to literally destroy Hans Blix' reputation, and as it turned out Blix was right about everything. ..."
"... - "Incubator baby" lies to US Senate, swaying Desert Storm I approval by 1 vote (many senators said that fabrication was the difference in their vote). And this after Sadam's incursion into Kuwait was after 18 months of US vetoing Iraq UN resolutions seeking to condemn Kuwait's angle drilling into Iraq's largest southern oil fields. ..."
May be the intention was never to sink the tanker - but just to draw attention with some
heavy smoke. The limpet mines may exists in various size, so they may have intentionaly
used a small one for this.
As B (and many other
media ) pointed out: the crew of the Japanese tanker all said the ship was hit by an
air borne projectile. This was not a mine. Seems obvious if US was interested in the
truth, they would recover and identify the projectile.
Just for shits and giggles, a brief reminder of some of US "evidence" and false flags (all
lies) in service of these "endeavors" previously:
- reading the several excellent books and released CIA docs of the CIA engineered
Mosaddegh coup, among other things was CIA bombs set off in Mosques (this was before the
Ayatollahs were political), then flooding media with "accesssments" Mosaddegh was
responsable. Kermit Roosevelt literally boasted about this.
- Collin Powell's "clear and convincing" evidence of Sadam's mobile missile lauchers (aka
mobile weather balloons). And the GWB admin's attempts to literally destroy Hans Blix'
reputation, and as it turned out Blix was right about everything.
- Fake Satellite photos of Sadam's troops on Saudi border.
- "Incubator baby" lies to US Senate, swaying Desert Storm I approval by 1 vote (many
senators said that fabrication was the difference in their vote). And this after Sadam's
incursion into Kuwait was after 18 months of US vetoing Iraq UN resolutions seeking to
condemn Kuwait's angle drilling into Iraq's largest southern oil fields.
That's just a few from memory. At what point do US lawmakers finally put all this together
(especially given Bolton's association with those who drove GWB's Iraq invasion) and refuse
to even consider the non persuasive evidence (not to mention contradictory... aka crew says
air borne attack), remind their colleagues and America of the cost of these lies just in last
20 years, and DEMAND proof that can be verified with THEIR OWN EYES.
"... The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid. ..."
"... When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it. ..."
"... This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies. ..."
"... Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag". ..."
"... As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that. ..."
"... If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo, Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual? ..."
"... The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation. The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency. ..."
"... But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp. ..."
The Gulf of Credibility - I really cannot begin to fathom how stupid you would have to be to believe that Iran would attack
a Japanese oil tanker at the very moment that the Japanese Prime Minister was sitting down to friendly, US-disapproved talks in
https://t.co/P1wE1Y886i
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Iraq they invented incubator babies and WMD programs that didn't exist. Their inventions
were far fetched, but not unbelievable. However, the idea that the paranoid dictator Saddam was just going to hand over his most
powerful weapons to religious fanatics that hated his guts, was laughably stupid.
When the ruling elite wanted a war with Libya they invented a genocidal, Viagra-fueled, rape army. Their invention was far
fetched, and bit lazy, but you could be forgiven for believing that the Mandarins believed it.
This latest anti-Iran warmongering is just plain stupid. It's as if they don't really care if anyone believes the lies they
are telling. For starters, look at the shameless liar who is telling these lies.
You mean "Mr. We Lied, We Cheated, We Stole"? What a disgraceful character...
pic.twitter.com/pMtAgKaZcG
Then there are the many problems of their "proof".
Where is the video of the Iranians PLACING explosives & detonating them? Removal would be prudent by any Navy/CG. Also location
of explosives is VERY high off waterline ...Weird. It's not a limpet mine, it's a demo charge. Had to be put on by fairly high
boat w/ a long gaff/pole https://t.co/3qzB7TrrYv
The distress call went out at 6 am. So, according to CENTCOM's analysis of this video, they're suggesting that 10 hours after
the tanker was hit, the IRGC just casually pulled up to the tanker to remove unexploded limpet mine in broad daylight?!
The Japanese company that owns the ship has refused to cooperate in this
false flag mission.
But in remarks to Japanese media, the president of the company that owns the ship said the vessel wasn't damaged by a mine. "A
mine doesn't damage a ship above sea level," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo, the owner and operator of the vessel.
"We aren't sure exactly what hit, but it was something flying towards the ship," he said.
Looking at this incident/narrative from any/every angle leaves one to conclude "false flag".
Finally, there is the question of "why"?
What would Iran hope to accomplish by this? I found one
establishment source that tried to rationalize.
Iran denied responsibility, with Foreign Minister Javad Zarif descending to bazaar-level conspiracy theories involving a false-flag
operation by Israel's Mossad.
If you're not inclined to believe the Trump administration – and such skepticism is entirely reasonable – most detectives would
still tell you that the most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime.
To those seeking logic behind the attacks, though, it may be hard to see why Iran would do this – but that assumes that the
regime in Tehran is a rational actor.
The Gulf of Oman attacks are especially hard to explain: targeting Japanese shipping on the very day that Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe was meeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on a well-publicized peace mission would seem extraordinarily counterproductive, even
for a regime with an almost fanatical commitment to self-harm.
Have you ever noticed that everyone that we want to start a war with is crazy? Regimes that stand solid for generations under
hostile conditions are always run by maniacs. You'd think that insanity would prevent them from taking power in the first place,
but that seems to only be true with our allies.
As for the "most obvious culprit is usually responsible for the crime" that also happens to be "bazaar-level conspiracy theories
involving a false-flag operation by Israel's Mossad". Because Mossad actually does that.
Since the U.S.'s tightening of sanctions has squeezed Iranian oil exports, nobody else's should be allowed to pass through
waters within reach of the IRGC.
The Iranians know that these threats, if repeated, can lose their power if not followed with action. The attacks on the tankers,
then, can be explained as a demonstration that Khamenei's attack dogs have some teeth.
There is another rationale. If Iran does eventually agree to negotiate with the U.S., it will want to bring some bargaining
chips to the table – something it can exchange for the removal of sanctions. In the negotiations over the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran
was able to offer the suspension of its nuclear program. It doesn't have that particular chip now, although Tehran has recently
threatened to crank up the centrifuges again.
Meanwhile, the regime may have calculated that the only way to secure some kind of negotiating position is blackmail: End the
sanctions, or we take out some more tankers, and send oil prices surging.
This almost sounds logical, except for one thing: Iran tried that in 1988 and it didn't work. It only caused the one thing the
U.S. was itching for: to kill some Iranians.
Do you think that they've forgotten? Or that the U.S. is less warlike? Oh wait. Iranians are crazy and can't be reasoned with, amirite?
US public radio @NPR does not mention it was Iranians
who saved the crew. That's how terrible they are at journalism
-- boomerWithaLandline (@Irene34799239)
June 14, 2019
The only real question is, why such a transparent lie? Has the ruling elite gotten lazy or stupid? Or do they think that we are
that lazy and stupid? I have an alternative
theory .
For the last two years, as you've probably noticed, the corporate media have been not so subtly alternating between manufacturing
Russia hysteria and Nazi hysteria, and sometimes whipping up both at once. Thus, I've dubbed the new Official Enemy of Freedom
"the Putin-Nazis." They don't really make any sense, rationally, but let's not get all hung up on that. Official enemies don't
have to make sense. The important thing is, they're coming to get us, and to kill the Jews and destroy democracy and something
about Stalin, if memory serves. Putin is their leader, of course. Trump is his diabolical puppet. Julian Assange is well, Goebbels,
or something. Glenn Greenwald is also on the payroll, as are countless "useful idiots" like myself, whose job it is to sow division,
discord, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-capitalism, anti-Hillaryism, collusion rejectionism, ontological skepticism, and any other
horrible thing you can think of.
Their bullsh*t lies have gotten lazy and stupid because real effort isn't required to start a war and kill a lot of people.
That is the question, I ask thee? If El Trumpo was going to drain the swamp, why did he take these cretins, Bolton, Pompeo,
Haspel, Abrams into his cabinet? Is the tail, wagging the dog as usual?
The elite are both lazy and stupid. Even the Orange Man will not be sucked into another Douma style false flag operation.
The reasons why this is a basic false flag is obvious. If anybody reading about this doesn't understand the culprits responsible
weren't Iranian, then they should be interviewed for mental competency.
My money, the little that I have, is on either the Saudis or the Israelis; maybe even both.
But Pompous Mike and Bolt-on Bolt-off need to be removed from any semblance of governmental authority. I could go on but
this whole affair is making me tired...I'm going back to my swamp.
Gina Haspel is
facing a Congressional grilling as her confirmation hearings for the CIA director's position
get underway.
Should she overcome it, she'll be the first woman to hold the director's job. It's a high
profile position, but Haspel has been a pretty low profile person up until this point. So who
is Trump's nominee to run the government's spy agency?
Haspel, who would replace new secretary of state Mike Pompeo , has been
with the agency since 1985, spending much of her career undercover. She has received several
awards, including the George H. W. Bush Award for excellence in counterterrorism and the
Presidential Rank Award, the highest award in the federal civil service. She also has overseen
the
torture of some terror suspects , which is what critics and former ambassadors are worried
about.
A 2017 New York Times report says Haspel, in 2002, oversaw the torture of two
suspects at a secret prison in Thailand and later was involved in the destruction of videotapes
documenting that torture.
One of those prisoners was waterboarded 83 times in a
single month, had his head repeatedly slammed into
walls , and endured other harsh methods before interrogators decided he had no useful
information to provide, says the Times .
As a result of such torture, she was shifted out of her role as head of the CIA's
clandestine service.
Haspel was picked to run the CIA's clandestine operations unit in 2013, but Senator
Dianne Feinstein , who was the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the
time, blocked the promotion because of Haspel's history of torture.
Within the agency, though, Haspel is reportedly widely respected – and has support
from members of both the Bush and Obama administrations. Where she stands personally on issues
such as extreme interrogation techniques is an unknown, as she has not offered any public
comments on policy, as you would expect for an undercover officer.
And that's what Senators are hoping to learn more about as their questioning gets
underway.
Declassified documents show President John Kennedy in 1963 warned Israeli Prime Minister
Levi Eshkol that U.S. support for the young country would be "seriously jeopardized" if Israel
did not allow the United States periodic inspections of Israel's nuclear reactor to make sure
Israel was not manufacturing weapons-grade nuclear material
:
A telegram from Kennedy dated July 4, 1963, congratulates Eshkol on assuming the prime
ministership after Ben Gurion's resignation and recounts talks between Kennedy and Ben Gurion
about inspections at the reactor in Dimona.
"As I wrote Mr. Ben Gurion, this government's commitment to and support of Israel could be
seriously jeopardized if it should be thought that we were unable to obtain reliable
information on a subject as vital to peace as Israel's effort in the nuclear field," the
telegram said.
The telegram was declassified in the 1990s but was not widely available until last week
when the National Security Archives, a project affiliated with George Washington University,
posted it on its website.
Kennedy who was otherwise close to Israel was furious with its ostensible nuclear weapons
program, fearing that the Soviet Union could use it as leverage to maintain its influence in
the Middle East.
Eshkol, caught off guard by the tone of the telegram, took seven weeks to assent, and the
twice-yearly inspections continued until 1969 when President Richard Nixon ended them.
Also revealed in the trove of documents the NSA posted is the origin of Israel's
oft-repeated credo that it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons -- a
deliberately ambiguous statement that left Israel room to develop the weapons, but not arm
them.
Shimon Peres, then the deputy defense minister who later would lead the country as prime
minister for two stints and then become president, improvised the statement when he was
surprised by Kennedy during a meeting Peres had scheduled with Kennedy's adviser, Myer
Feldman, who also functioned as the administration's liaison to Israel and the U.S. Jewish
community . Unbeknownst to Peres, Kennedy and Feldman had planned the "surprise"
encounter.
According to a Hebrew-language Foreign Ministry of Israel account of the April 2 meeting,
Kennedy asked Peres into the Oval Office for 30 minutes and questioned him on Israel's
nuclear capacity.
"You know that we follow very closely the discovery of any nuclear development in the
region," Kennedy said. "This could create a very dangerous situation. For this reason, we
monitor your nuclear effort. What could you tell me about this?"
Peres improvised, "I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons
to the region, and certainly we will not be the first."
"... For the United States, as for all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was the climax of that bloody history. ..."
"... It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early 1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change operations, much less explained why he favored them. ..."
For most of history, seizing another country or territory was a straightforward proposition.
You assembled an army and ordered it to invade. Combat determined the victor. The toll in death
and suffering was usually horrific, but it was all done in the open. That is how Alexander
overran Persia and how countless conquerors since have bent weaker nations to their will.
Invasion is the old-fashioned way.
When the United States joined the race for empire at the end of the 19th century, that was
the tactic it used. It sent a large expeditionary force to the Philippines to crush an
independence movement, ultimately killing some 200,000 Filipinos. At the other end of the
carnage spectrum, it seized Guam without the loss of a single life and Puerto Rico with few
casualties. Every time, though, U.S. victory was the result of superior military power. In the
few cases when the United States failed, as in its attempt to defend a client regime by
suppressing Augusto Cesar Sandino's nationalist rebellion in Nicaragua during the 1920s and
30s, the failure was also the product of military confrontation. For the United States, as for
all warlike nations, military power has traditionally been the decisive factor determining
whether it wins or loses its campaigns to capture or subdue other countries. World War II was
the climax of that bloody history.
After that war, however, something important changed. The United States no longer felt free
to land troops on every foreign shore that was ruled by a government it disliked or considered
threatening. Suddenly there was a new constraint: the Red Army. If American troops invaded a
country and overthrew its government, the Soviets might respond in kind. Combat between
American and Soviet forces could easily escalate into nuclear holocaust, so it had to be
avoided at all costs. Yet during the Cold War, the United States remained determined to shape
the world according to its liking -- perhaps more determined than ever. The United States
needed a new weapon. The search led to covert action.
A news agency
During World War II the United States used a covert agency, the Office of Strategic
Services, to carry out clandestine actions across Europe and Asia. As soon as the war ended, to
the shock of many OSS agents, Harry Truman abolished it. He believed there was no need for such
an agency during peacetime. In 1947 he changed his mind and signed the National Security Act,
under which the Central Intelligence Agency was established. That marked the beginning of a new
era. Covert action replaced overt action as the principal means of projecting American power
around the world.
Truman later insisted that he had intended the CIA to serve as a kind of private global news
service. "It was not intended as a 'Cloak & Dagger Outfit!'" he wrote. "It was intended
merely as a center for keeping the President informed on what was going on in the world [not]
to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized." Nonetheless
he did not hesitate to use the new CIA for covert action. Its first major campaign, aimed at
influencing the 1948 Italian election to ensure that pro-American Christian Democrats would
defeat their Communist rivals, was vast in scale and ultimately successful -- setting the
pattern for CIA intervention in every Italian election for the next two decades. Yet Truman
drew the line at covert action to overthrow governments.
The CIA's covert-action chief, Allen Dulles, twice proposed such projects. In both cases,
the target he chose was a government that had inflicted harm on corporations that he and his
brother, John Foster Dulles, had represented during their years as partners at the globally
powerful Wall Street law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. In 1952 he proposed that the CIA
overthrow President Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala, whose government was carrying out land reform
that affected the interests of United Fruit. By one account, State Department officials "hit
the roof" when they heard his proposal, and the diplomat David Bruce told him that the
Department "disapproves of the entire deal." Then Dulles proposed an operation to overthrow
Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran, who had nationalized his country's oil industry.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson flatly rejected it.
White House resistance to covert regime-change operations dissolved when Dwight Eisenhower
succeeded Truman at the beginning of 1953. Part of the new administration's enthusiasm came
from Allen Dulles, Washington's most relentless advocate of such operations, whom Eisenhower
named to head the CIA. The fact that he named Dulles's brother as secretary of State ensured
that covert operations would have all the necessary diplomatic cover from the State Department.
During the Dulles brothers' long careers at Sullivan & Cromwell, they had not only learned
the techniques of covert regime change but practiced them. They were masters at marshaling
hidden power in the service of their corporate clients overseas. Now they could do the same
with all the worldwide resources of the CIA.
It was not only the Dulles brothers, however, who brought the United States into the regime-change era in the early
1950s. Eisenhower himself was a fervent advocate of covert action. Officially his defense and security policy, which he called
the "New Look," rested on two foundations, a smaller army and an increased nuclear arsenal. In reality, the "New Look" had a
third foundation: covert action. Eisenhower may have been the last president to believe that no one would ever discover what he
sent the CIA to do. With a soldier's commitment to keeping secrets, he never admitted that he had ordered covert regime-change
operations, much less explained why he favored them. He would, however, have had at least two reasons.
Since Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe during World War II, he was aware of
the role that covert operations such as breaking Nazi codes had played in the war victory --
something few other people knew at the time. That would have given him an appreciation for how
important and effective such operations could be. His second reason was even more powerful. In
Europe he had had the grim responsibility of sending thousands of young men out to die. That
must have weighed on him. He saw covert action as a kind of peace project. After all, if the
CIA could overthrow a government with the loss of just a few lives, wasn't that preferable to
war? Like most Americans, Eisenhower saw a world of threats. He also understood that the threat
of nuclear war made overt invasions all but unthinkable. Covert action was his answer. Within a
year and a half of his inauguration, the CIA had deposed the governments of both Guatemala and
Iran. It went on to other regime-change operations from Albania to Cuba to Indonesia.
Successive presidents followed his lead.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was once again free to launch
direct military invasions. When it found a leader it didn't like -- such as Saddam Hussein or
Muammar Qaddafi -- it deposed him not through covert action, but by returning to the approach
it had used before World War II: the force of arms. Covert efforts to overthrow governments
have hardly ceased, as any Iranian or Venezuelan could attest. The era when covert action was
America's principal weapon in world affairs, however, is over. That makes this a good time to
look back.
Metrics for covert action
Books about the Cold War heyday of covert action era are a mini-genre. Lindsey A. O'Rourke's
contribution is especially valuable. Unlike many other books built around accounts of CIA
plots, Covert Regime Change takes a scholarly and quantitative approach. It provides
charts, graphs, and data sets. Meticulous analysis makes this not the quickest read of any book
on the subject, but certainly one of the best informed. Chapters on the disastrous effort to
overthrow communist rule in Eastern Europe, which cost the lives of hundreds of deceived
partisans, and on the covert-action aspects of America's doomed campaign in Vietnam are
especially trenchant.
O'Rourke identifies three kinds of covert operations that are aimed at securing perceived
friends in power and keeping perceived enemies out: offensive operations to overthrow
governments, preventive operations aimed at preserving the status quo, and hegemonic operations
aimed at keeping a foreign nation subservient. From 1947 to 1989, by her count, the United
States launched 64 covert regime-change operations, while using the overt tool -- war -- just
six times. She traces the motivations behind these operations, the means by which they were
carried out, and their effects. Her text is based on meticulous analysis of individual
operations. Some other books about covert action are rip-roaring yarns. This one injects a dose
of
rigorous analysis into a debate that is often based on emotion. That rigor lends credence to
her conclusions:
When policymakers want to conduct an operation that they know violates international
norms, they simply conduct it covertly to hide their involvement.
Covert missions typically have lower potential costs than their overt counterparts, but
they are also less likely to succeed.
Can interveners acquire reliable allies by covertly overthrowing foreign governments?
Overall, I find the answer is no. Covert regime changes seldom worked out as intended.
The new leader's opponents often accused him of being a U.S. puppet and, in some cases,
even took up arms against the regime. In fact, approximately half of the governments that
came to power in a U.S.-backed covert regime change during the Cold War were later violently
removed from power.
States targeted in a covert regime-change operation appear less likely to be democratic
afterward and more likely to experience civil war, adverse regime changes, or human-rights
abuses
Covert regime changes can have disastrous consequences for civilians within the target
states. Countries that were targeted by the United States for a covert regime change during
the Cold War were more likely to experience a civil war or an episode of mass killing
afterward.
Even nominally successful covert regime changes -- where U.S.-backed forces came to power
-- seldom delivered on their promise to improve interstate relations.
Although these conclusions are not new, they have rarely if ever been presented as the
result of such persuasive statistical evidence. Yet even this evidence seems unlikely to force
a reassessment of covert action as a way to influence or depose governments. It is an American
"addiction." The reasons are many and varied, but one of the simplest is that covert action
seems so easy. Changing an unfriendly country's behavior through diplomacy is a long, complex,
multi-faceted project. It takes careful thought and planning. Often it requires compromise.
Sending the CIA to overthrow a "bad guy" is far more tempting. It's the cheap and easy way out.
History shows that it often produces terrible results for both the target country and the
United States. To a military and security elite as contemptuous of history as America's,
however, that is no obstacle.
Although covert regime-change operations remain a major part of American foreign policy,
they are not as effective as they once were. The first victims of CIA overthrows, Prime
Minister Mossadegh and President Arbenz, did not understand the tools the CIA had at its
disposal and so were easy targets. They were also democratic, meaning that they allowed open
societies in which the press, political parties, and civic groups functioned freely -- making
them easy for the CIA to penetrate. Later generations of leaders learned from their ignorance.
They paid closer attention to their own security, and imposed tightly controlled regimes in
which there were few independent power centers that the CIA could manipulate.
If Eisenhower could come back to life, he would see the havoc that his regime-change
operations wreaked. After his overthrow of Mossadegh, Iran fell under royal dictatorship that
lasted a quarter-century and was followed by decades of rule by repressive mullahs who have
worked relentlessly to undermine American interests around the world. The operation he ordered
in Guatemala led to a civil war that killed 200,000 people, turning a promising young democracy
into a charnel house and inflicting a blow on Central America from which it has never
recovered. His campaign against Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, which included the
fabrication of a poison kit in a CIA laboratory, helped turn that country into one of the most
violent places on Earth.
How would Eisenhower respond to the long-term disasters that followed his covert action
victories? He might well have come up with a highly convincing way to excuse himself. It's now
clear, he could argue, that covert action to overthrow governments usually has terrible
long-term results -- but that was not clear in the 1950s. Eisenhower had no way of knowing that
even covert regime-change operations that seem successful at the time could have devastating
results decades later.
We today, however, do know that. The careful analysis that is at the center of Covert
Regime Change makes clearer than ever that when America sets out to change the world
covertly, it usually does more harm than good -- to itself as well as others. O'Rourke
contributes to the growing body of literature that clearly explains this sad fact of
geopolitics. The intellectual leadership for a national movement against regime-change
operations -- overt or covert -- is coalescing. The next step is to take this growing body of
knowledge into the political arena. Washington remains the province of those who believe not
only that the United States should try to reconfigure the world into an immense American sphere
of influence, but that that is an achievable goal. In the Beltway morass of pro-intervention
think tanks, members of Congress, and op-ed columnists, America's role in the world is usually
not up for debate. Now, as a presidential campaign unfolds and intriguing new currents surge
through the American body politic, is an ideal moment for that debate to re-emerge. If it does,
we may be surprised to see how many voters are ready to abandon the dogma of regime change and
wonder, with George Washington, "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?"
This article was originally published in the June 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
This post was written by: Stephen Kinzer Stephen Kinzer is an author and
newspaper reporter. He is a veteran New York Times correspondent who has reported from more
than 50 countries on five continents. His books include "Overthrow" and "All the Shah's Men".
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The UK vassal state will spout any peice of crap in their assigned role as vassal state.
Australia is just as gushingly sycophantic and cravenly jellified.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
William HBonney
Yeah, well I'm not a great fan of those who would appease Assad, Putin, Hussein, Gaddafi
You must be so proud.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
axisofoil
You must be a big fan of CNN and the NYT. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
<img
src="https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/caitlin-johnstone-130x130.jpeg"
alt="" width="100" height="100" /> I n a move that surprised exactly zero people, Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo has wasted no time scrambling
to blame Iran for damage done to two sea
vessels in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday, citing exactly zero evidence.
"This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a
high-degree of sophistication," Pompeo told the press in a
statement .
"The United States will defend its forces, interests, and stand with our partners and allies
to safeguard global commerce and regional stability. And we call upon all nations threatened by
Iran's provocative acts to join us in that endeavor," Pompeo concluded before hastily shambling
off, taking exactly zero questions .
Here are seven reasons to be extremely skeptical of everything Pompeo said:
No. 1: Pompeo is a known liar, especially when it comes to Iran.
Pompeo has a
well-established history of circulating blatant lies about Iran. He recently told an audience at Texas
A&M University that when he was leading the CIA, "We lied, we cheated, we stole. We had
entire training courses."
No. 2: The US empire is known to use lies and false flags to start wars.
The U.S.-centralized power alliance has an extensive and well-documented history of
advancing preexisting military agendas using lies, false flags and psyops to make targeted
governments appear to be the aggressors. This is such a well-established pattern that "Gulf of
Tonkin" briefly trended on Twitter
after the Gulf of Oman incident. Any number of government agencies could have been involved
from any number of the nations in this alliance, including the U.S., the U.K., Saudi Arabia,
the UAE or Israel.
No. 3: John Bolton has openly endorsed lying to advance military agendas.
I
wrote an article about this last month because the Trump administration had already begun
rapidly escalating against Iran in ways that happen to align perfectly with the longtime
agendas of Trump's psychopathic Iran hawk National security adviser. At that time people were
so aware of the possibility that Bolton might involve himself in staging yet another Middle
Eastern war based on lies that The Onion
was already spoofing it .
On a December 2010 episode of Fox News' "Freedom Watch," Bolton and the show's host
Andrew Napolitano were debating about
recent WikiLeaks publications , and naturally the subject of government secrecy came
up.
"Now I want to make the case for secrecy in government when it comes to the conduct of
national security affairs, and possibly for deception where that's appropriate," Bolton said . "You know
Winston Churchill said during World War Two that in wartime truth is so important it should
be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies."
"Do you really believe that?" asked an incredulous Napolitano.
"Absolutely," Bolton replied.
"You would lie in order to preserve the truth?"
"If I had to say something I knew was false to protect American national security, I would
do it," Bolton answered.
No. 4: Using false flags to start a war with Iran is already an established idea in the DC
swamp.
Back in 2012 at a forum for the Washington Institute of Near East Policy think tank, the
group's Director of Research Patrick Clawson
openly talked about the possibility of using a false flag to provoke a war with Iran,
citing the various ways the U.S. has done exactly that with its previous wars.
"I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough, and it's very hard for me to see
how the United States president can get us to war with Iran," Clawson began .
"Which leads me to conclude that if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional
way that America gets to war is what would be best for U.S. interests," Clawson added. "Some
people might think that Mr. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war you may recall we had to
wait for Pearl Harbor. Some people might think that Mr. Wilson wanted to get us into World War
One; you may recall we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mr.
Johnson wanted to get us into Vietnam; you may recall we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin
episode. We didn't go to war with Spain until the USS Maine exploded. And may I point out that
Mr. Lincoln did not feel that he could call out the Army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which
is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South
Carolinians said would cause an attack."
"So if, in fact, the Iranians aren't going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else
started the war," Clawson continued. "One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I
mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people,
Iranian submarines periodically go down. Some day, one of them might not come up. Who would
know why? [Smattering of sociopathic laughter from the crowd.] We can do a variety of things,
if we wish to increase the pressure (I'm not advocating that) but I'm just suggesting that this
is not an either/or proposition -- just sanctions have to succeed or other things. We are in
the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that."
No. 5: The US State Department has already been running psyops to manipulate the public Iran
narrative.
State Department officials admitted to congressional staff at a closed-door meeting on
Monday that a $1.5 million troll farm had gone "beyond the scope of its mandate" by
aggressively smearing American critics of the Trump administration's Iran policy as
propagandists for the Iranian government, according to
a new report from The Independent . That "mandate" had reportedly consisted of
"countering propaganda from Iran," also known as conducting anti-Iran propaganda.
"Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of
troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad," says The Independent .
"One woman behind the harassment campaign, a longtime Iranian-American activist, has
received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the State Department over the years to promote
'freedom of expression and free access to information,'" the report reads.
No. 6: The Gulf of Oman narrative makes no sense.
One of the ships damaged in the attacks was Japanese-owned, and the other was bound for
Japan . This happened just as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe was in Tehran attempting to negotiate a de-escalation between the U.S. and Iran with
Trump's blessing, and just after Iran had released a
prisoner accused of conducting espionage for the U.S. in what many took to be a gesture of
good faith.
Iran has been conducting itself with remarkable restraint in the face
of relentless sanctions and provocations from the U.S. and its allies. It wouldn't make much
sense for it to suddenly abandon that restraint with attacks on sea vessels, then
rescue their crew , then deny perpetrating the attacks ,
during a time of diplomatic exchanges and while
trying to preserve the nuclear deal with Europe. If Tehran did perpetrate the attacks in
order to send a strong message to the Americans, it would have been a very mixed message sent
in a very weird way with very odd timing.
No. 7: Even if Iran did perpetrate the attack, Pompeo would still be lying.
Pompeo's statement
uses the words "unprovoked" twice and "Iran's provocative acts" once, explicitly claiming that
the U.S. empire was just minding its own business leaving Iran alone when it was attacked out
of the blue by a violent aggressor. Sometimes the things put out by the U.S. State Department
feel like they're conducting experiments on us, just to test the limits of our stupidity.
As noted in
this article by Moon of Alabama and this discussion on the Ron Paul Liberty Report , the
U.S. has been provoking Iran with extremely aggressive and steadily tightening sanctions, which
means that even if Tehran is behind the attacks, it would not be the aggressor and the attacks
would most certainly not have been "unprovoked." Economic sanctions are an act of war ; if China were to do
to America's economy what America is doing to Iran's, the U.S. would be in a hot war with China
immediately. It could technically be possible that Iran is pushing back on U.S. aggressions and
provocations, albeit in a strange and neoconservatively convenient fashion.
Either way, we have seen exactly zero evidence supporting Pompeo's claims, so anyone you see
hastening to blame Iran for the Gulf of Oman incident is either a war whore or a slobbering
moron, or both. Knowing what we know about the U.S.-centralized empire and its pre-existing regime change agenda
against Iran , there is no reason to believe Pompeo and many reasons not to.
Caitlin Johnstone could have added several more reasons to doubt. For example, there is no
evidence that the regime in Iran is now or ever has been suicidal. Another might be that
weighing what Pompeo says against what his Iranian counterpart says on any given day about
the same subject leads to invidious conclusions about Pompeo. And yet another might be to
recall that Iran has about 200 years of not attacking others. And the USA?
bob , June 15, 2019 at 01:46
I hate amerika
Tom Kath , June 15, 2019 at 00:44
My father grew up in nazi Germany and taught us 3 basic rules about how to interpret the
news media. – Always ask yourself
1/ Why this? (of all the millions of happenings in the world)
2/ Why now? (There is always some strategic reason that you are being focused on this at this
time)
3/ Why in this way? (Any occurrence can be presented to make someone appear favourably or
unfavourably)
The nazi press was no better than our MSM at teaching us this.
Joe S. , June 15, 2019 at 00:19
I don't know how they expect us to buy the narrative of Iran wishing to bomb a Japanese
tanker as Japan is attempting to overstep US's ridiculous sanctions and develop business ties
with Iran.
This makes me believe they were not only attempting a false flag, but also sending Japan a
message in the process.
dasit , June 15, 2019 at 00:08
fire your proofreader
it's spelled "gulf of tonkin"
Don Bacon , June 15, 2019 at 00:05
One reason to accept Pompeo's view.
Johnstone
The U.S. has been provoking Iran with extremely aggressive and steadily tightening sanctions,
which means that even if Tehran is behind the attacks, it would not be the aggressor and the
attacks would most certainly not have been "unprovoked."
Economic sanctions are an act of
war; if China were to do to America's economy what America is doing to Iran's, the U.S. would
be in a hot war with China immediately. It could technically be possible that Iran is pushing
back on U.S. aggressions and provocations, albeit in a strange and neoconservatively
convenient fashion.
So it possible (and likely, in my view) that Iran is reacting against US aggression, and
who can blame them. Iran has said it will react, and it has. There may well be more,
asymmetric Iran warfare against the Great Satan who will be powerless to react
effectively.
Joe , June 15, 2019 at 00:22
Why would they take it out on a country that seems willing to overstep US's ridiculous
sanctions (Japan)? Makes absolutely no sense to attack a country willing to give the US the
middle finger.
Tom Kath , June 15, 2019 at 00:51
Mr Shakespeare, you missed Caitlin's point – "Even If" (Iran was responsible),
"Pompeo would still be lying".
Linda Lewis , June 14, 2019 at 23:44
Quote: "This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise
needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact
that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such
a high-degree of sophistication," Pompeo told the press in a statement.
Apparently, they using the same assessment boilerplate used to justify attacking Syria
over alleged (and now discredited) sarin attacks.
CNN reports tonight at 10:45 p.m. that before the tanker attack, Iranians fired a missile
at a US MQ-9 Reaper Drone. So why wasn't this the actual source of the flying ordinance that
the Japanese tanker owner said struck his tanker?
Just wondering, what was the mission of that US drone?
"The Reaper has a 950-shaft-horsepower (712 kW) turboprop engine [that] allows the Reaper to
carry 15 times more ordnance payload and cruise at about three times the speed of the
MQ-1.[6] The aircraft is monitored and controlled by aircrew in the Ground Control Station
(GCS), including weapons employment." [Wikipedia]
"This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed
to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no
proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a
high-degree of sophistication," does Pompeo admit that his "assessment" is baseless?
intelligence -- to paraphrase Ghandi, "it would be an excellent idea"
the weapons use -- so far, there is no clarity what weapons were used, US Navy suspect
"limpet mines", the crew member talked about "flying objects" which is highly non-specific,
but most probably it would be drones
expertise needed to execute the operation, as drones seem to be most probable, Gulfie
proxies in Syria used drones many times, Americans and allies obviously have drone expertise,
Hoothi have them -- basically, if your reference point is clerical personnel, such expertise
would be baffling, but ME warriors of all sorts know how to use it, particularly against
large slowly moving targets with no air defenses
recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping -- number one, ascribing the attacks in Fujaira
to Iran is debatable, number two, limpet mines were used at that time, which explains why US
Navy makes torturous arguments that they were used in this case too
too sophisticated for the dim bulbs living on the southern shores of the Gulf or other
putative black flaggers -- now, is Pompeo insulting Mossad, intelligence of KSA and UAE and
so on?
too sophisticated for the moro
old geezer , June 14, 2019 at 22:17
an interesting thought experiment ; let the iranians close the straight of hormuz.
i wonder how long before ms johnstone et all would whine about the obscene profits of
american oil producers.
Kevin Schmidt , June 14, 2019 at 22:44
I wonder how long it took you to build that whiny thought experiment strawman.
Joe S , June 15, 2019 at 00:26
I can see the paid shills are working overtime. Have to clean up the sloppiness of the war
oligarchs because they have ran out of ideas on how to gain support. It is actually kind of
funny watching them make a fool of themselves. It is also funny to watch you shills stumble
for things to say. The only thing you can think of is saying "strawman" but offer no
explanation. Smart dude. I'm sur they will take it out of your pay.
CitizenOne , June 14, 2019 at 21:53
I agree. There is a common theme here and this administration seems to be covert actions
on steroids. It is not Trump but he has been persuaded to let these neocons in the room and
run wild and free with power disruptions, riots, coups and assassination attempts in
Venezuela and all sorts of threats to Iran.
Isn't it odd that the US government should be enraged about the two primary nationalized
oil companies. Iran and Venezuela.
If there is a war, it will be a war purely about oil and nothing else. Perhaps when we
come through the ashes of our greedy war for oil we will abandon our addiction to fossil
fuel.
Nah, who am I kidding. It will be Mad Max World on the toxic dying planet. Planet of the
Apes.
mike k , June 14, 2019 at 21:40
The best reason for disbelieving Pompeo is his record of lying, war mongering, and blind
support for Israel. This man has utter disregard and contempt for the truth.
"... "The Times has run neck-and-neck with the Washington Post in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and illicit involvement with Trump. The Times now easily conflates fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa Eddy's 'Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News,' February 20, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept as a given the CIA's assessment of the Russian hacking and transmission to WikiLeaks, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and 'non-partisan' investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new war-party line has extended widely in the liberal media. Both the Times and Washington Post have lent tacit support to the idea that this 'fake news' threat needs to be curbed, possibly by some form of voluntary media-organized censorship or government intervention that would at least expose the fakery. ..."
"... "The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence-campaign was the Post's piece by Craig Timberg, 'Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say,' which featured a report by a group of anonymous "experts" entity called PropOrNot that claimed to have identified two hundred websites that, wittingly or not, were 'routine peddlers of Russian propaganda.' While smearing these websites, many of them independent news outlets whose only shared trait was their critical stance toward U.S. foreign policy, the 'experts' refused to identify themselves, allegedly out of fear of being 'targeted by legions of skilled hackers.' As journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, 'You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to your claims? Take a hike.' ..."
"... But the Post welcomed and promoted this McCarthyite effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon or CIA information warfare. (And these entities are themselves well-funded and heavily into the propaganda business.) ..."
"... "The success of the war party's campaign to contain or reverse any tendency to ease tensions with Russia was made dramatically clear in the Trump administration's speedy bombing response to the April 4, 2017, Syrian chemical weapons deaths. The Times and other mainstream media editors and journalists greeted this aggressive move with almost uniform enthusiasm, and once again did not require evidence of Assad's guilt beyond their government's claims. The action was damaging to Assad and Russia, but served the rebels well. ..."
"It has been amusing to watch the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets express their dismay over the rise and
spread of 'fake news.' These publications take it as an obvious truth that what they provide is straightforward, unbiased, fact-based
reporting. They do offer such news, but they also provide a steady flow of their own varied forms of fake news, often by disseminating
false or misleading information supplied to them by the national security state, other branches of government, and sites of corporate
power.
"An important form of mainstream media fake news is that which is presented while suppressing information that calls the preferred
news into question. [ ]
"The Times has run neck-and-neck with the Washington Post in stirring up fears of the Russian information war and illicit involvement
with Trump. The Times now easily conflates fake news with any criticism of established institutions, as in Mark Scott and Melissa
Eddy's 'Europe Combats a New Foe of Political Stability: Fake News,' February 20, 2017. But what is more extraordinary is the
uniformity with which the paper's regular columnists accept as a given the CIA's assessment of the Russian hacking and transmission
to WikiLeaks, the possibility or likelihood that Trump is a Putin puppet, and the urgent need of a congressional and 'non-partisan'
investigation of these claims. This swallowing of a new war-party line has extended widely in the liberal media. Both the Times
and Washington Post have lent tacit support to the idea that this 'fake news' threat needs to be curbed, possibly by some form
of voluntary media-organized censorship or government intervention that would at least expose the fakery.
"The most remarkable media episode in this anti-influence-campaign was the Post's piece by Craig Timberg, 'Russian propaganda
effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say,' which featured a report by a group of anonymous "experts" entity
called PropOrNot that claimed to have identified two hundred websites that, wittingly or not, were 'routine peddlers of Russian
propaganda.' While smearing these websites, many of them independent news outlets whose only shared trait was their critical stance
toward U.S. foreign policy, the 'experts' refused to identify themselves, allegedly out of fear of being 'targeted by legions
of skilled hackers.' As journalist Matt Taibbi wrote, 'You want to blacklist hundreds of people, but you won't put your name to
your claims? Take a hike.'
But the Post welcomed and promoted this McCarthyite effort, which might well be a product of Pentagon
or CIA information warfare. (And these entities are themselves well-funded and heavily into the propaganda business.)
"On December 23, 2016, President Obama signed the Portman-Murphy Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act, which will supposedly
allow the United States to more effectively combat foreign (namely Russian and Chinese) propaganda and disinformation. It will
encourage more government counter-propaganda efforts, and provide funding to non-government entities to help in this enterprise.
It is clearly a follow-on to the claims of Russian hacking and propaganda, and shares the spirit of the listing of two hundred
tools of Moscow featured in the Washington Post. (Perhaps PropOrNot will qualify for a subsidy and be able to enlarge its list.)
Liberals have been quiet on this new threat to freedom of speech, undoubtedly influenced by their fears of Russian-based fake
news and propaganda. But they may yet take notice, even if belatedly, when Trump or one of his successors puts it to work on their
own notions of fake news and propaganda.
"The success of the war party's campaign to contain or reverse any tendency to ease tensions with Russia was made dramatically
clear in the Trump administration's speedy bombing response to the April 4, 2017, Syrian chemical weapons deaths. The Times and
other mainstream media editors and journalists greeted this aggressive move with almost uniform enthusiasm, and once again did
not require evidence of Assad's guilt beyond their government's claims. The action was damaging to Assad and Russia, but served
the rebels well.
"But the mainstream media never ask cui bono? in cases like this. In 2013, a similar charge against Assad, which brought the
United States to the brink of a full-scale bombing war in Syria, turned out to be a false flag operation, and some authorities
believe the current case is equally problematic. Nevertheless, Trump moved quickly (and illegally), dealing a blow to any further
rapprochement between the United States and Russia. The CIA, the Pentagon, leading Democrats, and the rest of the war party had
won an important skirmish in the struggle over permanent war."
Fake News on Russia and Other Official Enemies: The New York Times, 1917–2017
Articles like this are what make Ray McGovern sound like the limited-hangout artist of the
century, this era's Ellsberg.
You've got Barr, who functioned as DCI Bush's mob lip ever since Iran/Contra, who calls in
Durham, renowned for CIA's CAT-illegal torture whitewash. No sane professional expects
anything but a moist and well-consolidated sigmoid coil of exculpation. Ray is not nearly
stupid enough to believe this is for real. Ray himself has said there are two CIAs. These
guys are from the criminal one, and Ray knows it.
Russiagate is not the fever dream of lone bad apple Brennan. Russiagate is an
institutional initiative of CIA. Current DCI Gina Haspel was in London marshalling the
foreign intelligence cutouts for the anti-Russian war propaganda that got repackaged for
publication as Dem oppo research.
Ray has brass balls. But wake me up when he goes up against the CIA DO like he went up
against DoS or Israeli navy pussies.
hetro , June 13, 2019 at 20:23
Yeah but this flagrant in your face we're-going-to-fuck-with-you people (again), and now
with this particular fantasy, is rapidly un-entangling for all to see (and who can resist the
naked lady in the sky?):
they used their intelligence assets to frame the whole thing, starting with Brennan's
fixation on the juicy Steele thing. And why? A little more on why? What's beyond their
repugnance for Trump, in the money angle? Is that coming out too?
Imagery of these people in prison garb behind bars sends a shiver through me.
David Otness , June 13, 2019 at 17:36
"Our long national nightmare is finally over ?"
For those too young, that was for Nixon finally having abdicated after a quite similar in
national intrigue episode, his own imperial Presidency caught up short in impeachment. The
difference being here, albeit from a scenario contrived for impeachment, it is the
prosecutors of a sitting President who are in the spotlight, if not the crosshairs, for
having contrived the plot to impeach.
The image of a meddling foreign power, the ultimate "other" as manifested in the
decades-now-long demonizing of anything Putin from the CIA -- his Slavic-Asian features, a
'thug,' 'his oligarchs,' (versus our billionaire and quite as lawless 'tycoon/plutocrats')
and the ludicrous Russian 'territorial expansion ambitions' (that from the by-far world's
largest country and "Pssst, you're thinking of Israel) makes this transition back into the
land of approximate reality of 2019 a different kettle of fish.
Meaning the U.S./CIA's easily ginned-up exploitable Cold War 2.0 recidivism is going to be
a tenacious monkey to shake from the country's collective back. It's been drilled in --
intentionally -- hard and deep. And that isolates and nullifies the Dem true-believers who
won't let go of it. And they continue to show they don't want to.
They are likely the leading edge of the Biden-Believers too; stuck in an unimaginative world
that craves the Obama era even as its worse (liberal-approved) elements come back to haunt
with these brooding personages like Brennan and the predatory Clapper-Thing foremost. Why
does that matter? Because they both committed public perjury under oath. And walked.
Unscathed. What does that say about the rule of law? And what does that say about those who
lionize them, all the while knowing of that perjury?
Most people in the U.S. despised Nixon in 1974, and the D and R political parties had not
reached the unconscionable and corrupt nadir at which we now find them in the pig-sty they
have wrought for themselves and drug us into. And despising Trump is something most find easy
enough, but his defenders are in the right on this if Brennan is exposed for such infamy.
"And such a beautiful fantasy Rachel Maddow had woven for us. Why did it ever have to end
?"
If Dems had been honest with themselves, had critically-thought for themselves, had not
fallen for the cheapest of tricks and been lucid-enough to see they were but foils in a mass
psy-op they'd be well assured of regaining the Presidency almost by default.
But, as Mark Twain rightfully observed: "It's much easer to fool people than to convince them
they've been fooled."
To have observed so many 'leftish' Dems claiming-to-be-progressives lionizing the likes of
Brennan, Comey, and Clapper in their televised role-playing as saviors was hard enough to
take, but then we come to the specter of Mueller who kept up the act in the face of knowing
he had nothing from the get-go, but did his best to obfuscate for 2 years; likely all the
while knowing this was Brennan's Brains' 'love child.'
Now even as the msm/House aspersions and egging-on continue post-Mueller report, these
same plotters have only further-enfurled themselves in the flag and beckon for the Dem party
faithful to drench themselves in further delusions; anything but confront the fact they've
been so thoroughly used and abused already by Clinton Inc and its wholly-owned DNC. Silly
humans. Mendacious masochists too.
And what of the nation as it spirals ever-downward to the drain ?
Bush would tell you to go shopping.
Obama would lay one of his patented "folks" on you. And tell you to never forget how
"exceptional" you really are. It's your 'participation' trophy, mah fellow Americans. You
swept the Apathy and Complacency divisions! Congratulations!
Jeff B , June 13, 2019 at 17:09
What the government (Deep State) values more than the truth or global stability is faith
in government. They cannot afford to have the reality of this attempted coup come to light
because normal, everyday citizens will be more appalled that this could happen more than it
was revealed. The investigation may reach the grass roots reality of what transpired but I
doubt the public will ever know. Even the hint of a conniving, dishonest Deep State will
cause ripples even the media can gloss over. (Have you seen any of the network news programs
do any story on the fabrication of WMD intelligence?)
Abe , June 13, 2019 at 17:00
"John Brennan has always been a failure as an intelligence officer even as he successfully
climbed the promotion ladder. He was the CIA's Chief of Station (COS) in Saudi Arabia when
the Khobar Towers were bombed, killing 19 Americans, a disaster which he incorrectly blamed
on the Iranians. He was deputy executive director on 9/11 and was complicit in that
intelligence failure. He subsequently served as CIA chief of staff when his boss George Tenet
concocted phony stories about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. He also approved of the
Agency torture and rendition programs and was complicit in the destruction of Libya as well
as the attempt to do the same to Syria.
"Barack Obama wanted Brennan to be his CIA Director but his record with the Agency torture
and rendition programs made approval by the Senate problematical. Instead, he became the
president's homeland security advisor and deputy national security advisor for
counterterrorism, where he did even more damage, expanding the parameters of the death by
drone operations and sitting down with the POTUS for the Tuesday morning counterterrorism
sessions spent refining the kill list of American citizens.
"After Obama was re-elected in 2012, he was able to overcome objections and appoint
Brennan CIA Director. Conniving as ever, Brennan then ordered the Agency to read the
communications of the congressional committee then engaged in investigating CIA torture, the
very program that he had been complicit in. Brennan then denied to Congress under oath that
any such intramural spying had occurred, afterwards apologizing when the truth came out."
I think it is oversimplification. It was the intelligence agencies that controlled Hillary,
not vise versa. The interests of intelligence agencies and Hillary campaign coincided, that's why
she got as much support form CIA and FBI: Trump represented a central danger to flow of funds to
"national security parasites" so their reaction was predictable reaction of any large bureaucracy
of the possibility of losing power -- they circle the wagons.
Notable quotes:
"... But Steele's first overture on July 5, 2016, failed to capture the FBI's imagination. So the Clinton machine escalated. Steele, a British national, went to senior Department of Justice official Bruce Ohr -- whose wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion -- to push his Trump dirt to the top of the FBI. ..."
"... Nellie Ohr likewise sent some of her own anti-Trump research augmenting Steele's dossier to the FBI through her husband. Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann used his connection to former FBI general counsel James Baker to dump Trump dirt at the FBI, too. ..."
"... In short, the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with pressure -- and bad intel -- until an investigation of Trump was started. The bureau and its hapless sheriff at the time, James Comey, eventually acquiesced with the help of such Clinton fans as then-FBI employees Peter Strzok and Lisa Page. ..."
"... The Clinton team's dirty trick was as diabolical as it was brilliant. It literally used house money and a large part of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to carry out its political hit job on Trump. ..."
"... After two years of American discomfort, and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent, it's time for the house to call in its IOU. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton owes us answers -- lots of them. So far, she has ducked them, even while doing many high-profile media interviews. ..."
"... Longtime Clinton adviser Douglas Schoen said Friday night on Fox News that it's time for Clinton to answer what she knew and when she knew it. ..."
"... John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports . ..."
During the combined two decades she served as a U.S. senator and secretary of State,
Hillary Clinton 's
patrons regularly donated to her family charity when they had official business pending before
America's most powerful political woman.
The pattern of political IOUs paid to the Clinton Foundation was so pernicious that the
State Department even tried to execute a special
agreement with the charity to avoid the overt appearance of "pay-to-play" policy.
Still, the money continued to flow by the millions of dollars, from foreigners and Americans
alike who were perceived to be indebted to the Clinton machine or in need of its help.
It's time for the American public to call in their own IOU on political transparency.
The reason? Never before -- until 2016 -- had the apparatus of a U.S. presidential candidate
managed to sic the weight of the FBI and U.S. intelligence community on a rival nominee during
an election, and by using a foreign-fed, uncorroborated political opposition research
document.
But Clinton's campaign, in concert with the Democratic Party and through their shared law
firm, funded Christopher Steele's unverified
dossier which, it turns out, falsely portrayed Republican Donald Trump as a treasonous asset colluding with
Russian President Vladimir Putin to hijack the U.S. election.
Steele went to the FBI to get an investigation started and then leaked the existence of the
investigation, with the hope of sinking Trump's presidential aspirations.
On its face, it is arguably the most devious political dirty trick in American history and
one of the most overt intrusions of a foreigner into a U.S. election.
It appears the Clinton machine knew that what it was doing was controversial. That's why it
did backflips to disguise the operation from Congress and the public, and in its Federal
Election Commission (FEC) spending reports.
Clinton and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
used the law firm of Perkins Coie to hire Glenn Simpson's research firm, Fusion GPS, which
then hired Steele -- several layers that obfuscated transparency, kept the operation off the
campaign's public FEC reports and gave the Clintons plausible deniability.
But Steele's first overture on July 5, 2016, failed to capture the FBI's imagination. So
the Clinton machine escalated. Steele, a British national, went to senior Department of Justice
official Bruce Ohr -- whose wife, Nellie, also worked for Fusion -- to push his Trump dirt to
the top of the FBI.
Nellie Ohr likewise sent some of her own anti-Trump research augmenting Steele's dossier
to the FBI through her husband. Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
used his connection to former FBI general counsel James Baker to dump Trump dirt at the
FBI, too.
In short, the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with pressure -- and bad intel -- until an
investigation of Trump was started. The bureau and its hapless sheriff at the time, James
Comey, eventually acquiesced with the help of such Clinton fans as then-FBI employees Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page.
To finish the mission, Simpson and Steele leaked the existence of the FBI investigation to
the news media to ensure it would hurt Trump politically. Simpson even
called the leaks a "hail Mary" that failed.
Trump won, however. And now, thanks to special counsel Robert Mueller, we know the
Russia-collusion allegations relentlessly peddled by Team Clinton were bogus. But not before
the FBI used the Clinton-funded, foreign-created research to get a total of four warrants to
spy on the Trump campaign , transition and presidency from October 2016 through the
following autumn.
The Clinton team's dirty trick was as diabolical as it was brilliant. It literally used
house money and a large part of the U.S. intelligence apparatus to carry out its political hit
job on Trump.
After two years of American discomfort, and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars spent,
it's time for the house to call in its IOU.
Hillary Clinton owes us answers -- lots of them. So far, she has ducked them, even while
doing many high-profile media interviews.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Longtime Clinton adviser Douglas Schoen said
Friday night on Fox News that it's time for Clinton to answer what she knew and when she knew
it.
Here are 10 essential questions:
Please identify each person in your campaign, including Perkins Coie lawyers, who were
aware that Steele provided information to the FBI or State Department, and when they learned
it.
Describe any information you and your campaign staff received, or were briefed on, before
Election Day that was derived from the work of Simpson, Steele, Fusion GPS, Nellie Ohr or
Perkins Coie and that tried to connect Trump, his campaign or his business empire with
Russia.
Did you or any senior members of your campaign, including lawyers such as Michael
Sussmann, have any contact with the CIA, its former Director John Brennan, current Director
Gina Haspel, James Baker, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page or former FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe?
Describe all
contacts your campaign had with Cody Shearer and Sidney Blumenthal concerning Trump,
Russia and Ukraine.
Describe all contacts you and your campaign had
with DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukraine government, the Ukraine Embassy in the
United States or the U.S. Embassy in Kiev concerning Trump, Russia or former Trump campaign
chairman Paul Manafort.
Why did your campaign and the Democratic Party make a concerted effort to portray Trump as
a Russian asset?
Given that investigations by a House committee, a Senate committee and a special
prosecutor all have concluded there isn't evidence of Trump-Russia collusion, do you regret
the actions by your campaign and by Steele, Simpson and Sussmann to inject these unfounded
allegations into the FBI, the U.S. intelligence community and the news media?
Hillary Clinton owes us answers to each of these questions. She should skip the lawyer-speak
and answer them with the candor worthy of an elder American stateswoman.
John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has
exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists'
misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political
corruption. He serves as an investigative columnist and executive vice president for video at
The Hill. Follow him on Twitter @jsolomonReports .
"... Despite special counsel Robert Mueller clearing Trump of collusion with Russia in 2016, Brennan still maintains the counterintelligence operation against the Republican nominee's campaign was more than justified. ..."
"... "I was there in the summer of '16 and it was very well predicated," the former intelligence official told MSNBC's Deadline host Nicole Wallace last month. "To launch this counterintelligence investigation about what the Russians were doing to interfere in our election and how among American citizens might have been working with them." ..."
"... Eventually 0bama will be asked when he authorized the spying on the 2012 election, and you can bet 0bama will toss Brennan under that proverbial bus. 0bama will have to answer the question, because there is a massive paper trail of evidence. ..."
"... President Trump weathered the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax storm. Those slow-moving wheels of real justice are finally starting to turn. ..."
Former CIA Director John Brennan has once against spoken out against President Donald
Trump, describing him in a recent interview as a "pathological deceiver" who "rankles" him "to
no end."
Speaking to the Irish Times over the weekend, Brennan discussed what he claims is the root of his
harsh and repeated criticism of President Trump. The longtime Deep Stater's attacks, he claims,
aren't driven as much by president's policy prescriptions but by his character.
"So my beef with Donald Trump is not because he has done some very foolish things –
like reneging on the Iran nuclear deal, or how he has handled the North Korea situation –
I find that many of his policies are deeply flawed and are purely tactical to give him a
political bounce," he
told interviewer Suzanne Lynch, the Times' Washington Correspondent.
"But if that was the only problem I had with him, I would be silent. What really just
rankles me to no end is his dishonesty, his lack of ethics and principles and character, the
way he demeans and degrades and denigrates individuals or institutions of government, what he
has done and said about the FBI and CIA and the former leadership, the fact that he wilfully
misleads not just the American people but the world," the former Obama spy chief
continued .
Brennan concluded his thoughts on Trump by
stating : "He is a pathological deceiver and that lack of ethical, principled behaviour is
something that I never thought I would see in the president of the United States who is the
most powerful person in the world, who should serve as a role model to all Americans.
Brennan's remarks come as his conduct during the U.S. government's Russia investigation is
under review by the Department of Justice. Last month, President Trump directed several federal
departments and agencies to cooperate with Attorney General William Barr's examination of the
Russia probe's origins, as well as the declassification of intelligence related to it.
Despite special counsel Robert Mueller clearing Trump of collusion with Russia in 2016,
Brennan still maintains the counterintelligence operation against the Republican nominee's
campaign was more than justified.
"I was there in the summer of '16 and it was very well predicated," the former
intelligence official
told MSNBC's Deadline host Nicole Wallace last month. "To launch this counterintelligence
investigation about what the Russians were doing to interfere in our election and how among
American citizens might have been working with them."
Brennan is worried about what President Trump is doing with the metric-tons of
#Spygate & #Obamagate evidence.
Eventually 0bama will be asked when he authorized the spying on the 2012 election, and you
can bet 0bama will toss Brennan under that proverbial bus. 0bama will have to answer the
question, because there is a massive paper trail of evidence.
They never thought Hillary could lose. Mueller's special counsel, was only a temporary
cover-up. President Trump weathered the Russia-Russia-Russia hoax storm. Those slow-moving
wheels of real justice are finally starting to turn.
Scandal?
JFK went against the flow of the good old boys and their networks.
'Bay of Pigs' was a disaster but did JFK really have that much input into the planning of
that mess?
He stopped it, eventually, probably because he thought it might escalate into a full blown
war with Russia.
He did some amazing stuff during the Cuban crises.
He kept his rabid war hawks at bay until a resolution was worked out with Russia.
Khrushchev did should be thanked too by keeping his military maniacs leashed too.
What's with the tea baggers redefining history?
You guys have started burning books over there yet? and
"... Other than it is against the law for CIA to spy in the US. It is FBI's job. And Brennan lied to Congress under oath, a crime for which Clinton was impeached. And the fact that if they are coneding this crime, they must've been caught on something even bigger. ..."
"... They are way out of control. They need to take a step back and reevaluate their reason for being and their goals. You can't protect the people if you see them as the enemy. ..."
"... The intelligence agencies are civil servants who need to be reigned in whenever they exceed the instructions given to them by their civilian bosses. ..."
"... And the CIA torture? ..."
"... Who ever was over the hacking of the Senator's computer and the Senator's staffers computers should be invited to leave. If that extends all the way up to Brennan, so be it. ..."
"... Unfortunately, that corrective action has to come from those who are perpetrating these crimes in order for it to be legal. It's the classic Catch-22 of political corruption. ..."
"... "They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretences, and all of this they hail as the construction of empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace." ― Tacitus (AD56 to after AD117) The Agricola and the Germania ..."
"... The problem with political power is that it proves to be a magnet to those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies and they are easily corrupted. ..."
"... Back in the day, the people of Russia knew that what they were being fed was propaganda, in the US and the UK we thought it was news. ..."
"... Intelligence Agencies have their own Agenda. The CIA spy on everyone including the Senate it seems. Meanwhile the Israeli Intelligence Agencies spy on many people Including the USA,the very people who give them the money... ..."
"... If the CIA are Spying on the Senate you have to ask the Question who are they working for ? ..."
There should be no discussion about this! However just like Mockingbird, National Students Ass., Tailwind, PBSUCCESS,and so many
others, they will stall until they get it dropped from the media and we will forget again.
John Brennan's next job should be in a orange jump suit earning pennies and hour.
But we all know that this will never happen. Brennan is the right hand of the commander and chief of death, destruction and torture.
and has been for a long time. This is the work of evil, plain and simple.
How can you have any faith or trust in a government like this? It's one damn thing after another. The Executive branch, the Congress,
the high courts, the Justice Dept. are all corrupt. Laws are broken, constitutional protections are laughed at, we are constantly
being spied on. No charges are brought. Nobody goes to jail.
A minor detail?
The CIA and security services have every right to know who is who on all and every politician and their staff.
That's why we are safe. :-)
Other than it is against the law for CIA to spy in the US. It is FBI's job.
And Brennan lied to Congress under oath, a crime for which Clinton was impeached. And the fact that if they are coneding this
crime, they must've been caught on something even bigger.
Sure, everything else is just fine. As far as we know, that is.
They are way out of control. They need to take a step back and reevaluate their reason for being and their goals.
You can't protect the people if you see them as the enemy.
So it appears that some in Congress will get upset if a Executive agency misuses its powers? Are these the same folks who seem
to be okay with the IRS focus on Conservative 501(c)(3) applicants?
Who ever was over the hacking of the Senator's computer and the Senator's staffers computers should be invited to leave. If that
extends all the way up to Brennan, so be it.
Unfortunately, that corrective action has to come from those who are perpetrating these crimes in order for it to be legal. It's
the classic Catch-22 of political corruption.
Don't fire Brennan. Arrest him and charge him violating the prohibition against domestic surveillance, lying under oath and,
arguably, treason. Maybe there is space in Guantanamo for him to reflect upon the meaning of the Constitution and the rule of
law.
And the reason that we never hear of these supposed 'facts' is what? That we're all too dumb to know? Dumbing down America is
getting mighty costly of late, n'est-pas?
Just because they say you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Remember: America is not a democracy. That's a
sideshow. It's an oligarchy and don't you forget it.
You can always trust some govts/agencies/people to always take the wrong path/back door. It would simply never occur to them to
take the right one. This is who they are.
Staffs carry out directives. I'm not buying that staff had cause to go looking otherwise.
Feinstein has problems with being spied on, yet heads the Intelligence Committee who for several years has been authorizing
spying on - well, everybody.
Feinstein shouldn't worry about spying, unless she's doing something wrong. Isn't that the proposition?
So why is it scandalous for public officials in our supposed western liberal democracies to spy on officials in other agencies,
and deserving of an apology, but it's Okay for officials to spy on fellow citizens?
What might a government of the people that does not trust the people it governs be properly called?
I would like to point out that beyond what is touted in the press as "the story" the nature of these sorts of things can remain
hidden for many years. Recent events in Germany and in Washington, if viewed from a different perspective may be connected. In
the past when such revelations come to light it is resultant from security issues that are of such magnitude that those tasked
with intelligence responsibilities remain in power because they are simply doing their job and are doing so at the command of
elected officials, who when made aware of covert matters go all quiet and allow the chips to fall as they may. Seldom does the
public ever hear of the actual facts in a timely way, and by the time that does happens they have long since moved on to more
pressing matters.
Has any politician asked them to explain why they spied, in terms of their motivations ? It seems the 'why' is surely more damaging
than the act of spying itself?
What else is new!...Corruption / deceit / fraud / theft, at the highest level of tax payers money is being conducted..War criminals
being sponsored by their own corrupt government ministers / agencies, to create carnage, by divide & rule tactics...Its a fatal
backfiring failure / disaster which is causing their downfall.
Not surprising...All these out of control "rogue agencies" I.E. CIA / NSA / MI5 / MI6 / GCHG / MOSAD, must be brought to book
for their corrupt / deceitful / fraudulent workings...Their most senior officers are involved in a worldwide cover up into illegal
involvement of creating criminal wars around the world, by using spying techniques upon government institutions & citizens...The
recent scandal of phone tapping / voice mail / email interception, goes to show the lengths they are prepared to conduct / cover
up their own war criminality acts. They are the REAL terrorists !!
"They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by
ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretences, and all of this they hail as the construction of
empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."
― Tacitus (AD56 to after AD117) The Agricola and the Germania
They'll even eat their own... How this behaviour doesn't equate to criminal actions is part of the disgrace. The US government
have morphed in to a dystopian movement.
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley (ISBN: 9780930852375) another good read and makes a plausible case
for a coup carried out on America.
In the reign of Elizabeth 1st a blacksmith was executed for treason because he was overhead saying that he believed the uncrowned
King Edward V was still alive.
A quick search on Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's Secretary of State will reveal for just how long and how sophisticated
state spying on state has been.
Yes, they don't like others to be in a position to know of their venality, their sexual deviances and assorted other human failings.
Else that knowledge be used to control them...............
The problem of how the rest of the world views the actions of the US is exacerbated by the seeming inability or disinterest of
its citizens in doing anything about it.
Admittedly, a frustration shared by many citizens/subjects in Western countries, that pretend to be functioning democracies but
are in fact anything but.
The problem with political power is that it proves to be a magnet to those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies and they
are easily corrupted.
We are politically and economically very poorly educated and are daily fed propaganda and mind filling mush by media that are
'on message'.
The media ownership needs to be broken up but politicians, corporations and the media are one self serving body and would resist
that and have the power to do so.
Back in the day, the people of Russia knew that what they were being fed was propaganda, in the US and the UK we thought it
was news.
Intelligence Agencies have their own Agenda.
The CIA spy on everyone including the Senate it seems.
Meanwhile the Israeli Intelligence Agencies spy on many people Including the USA,the very people who give them the money...
(Out of Control is the thought that springs to mind)
If the CIA are Spying on the Senate you have to ask the Question who are they working for ? Is it the American Government ? Is
it the American Military? Is it The American Citizen ? Or are we seeing the henchmen of the illuminati in action here !
Their fingers seem to be in every pie and no one seems to be able to control them .
"... A sincere question: who is running the CIA and on whose behalf? ..."
"... They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians' criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo. ..."
"... Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the world can live with the same blissful ignorance. ..."
"... The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do. ..."
"... This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people. ..."
"... I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam opponents to the War on US soil. ..."
"... The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never. They are all being blackmailed. ..."
"... The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions' the CIA is. ..."
"... Yes and the only politician who has called for the abolition of the CIA is Ron Paul. ..."
"... The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists. ..."
They consider us the people, their enemy. We are the 'enemy within', because as we become increasingly aware of our politicians'
criminality any action we take may threaten the status quo.
leaders haven't been voted into office for a while now - they're rigged into office - from the lowly dog catcher to the president
- and its happening all over the world.
If you take the easy way now, you will take the easy way in the future. This not a sandlot baseball game here. These are high-
powered people , who are responsible for matters extremely operant to the people of our country, and it must be admitted, the
world.
To simply brush off these serious breaches of Government procedure (law) would serve to perpetuate the Executive Branch intrusions
into the business of the Legislative Branch.
Separation of the powers is a time-honored method of setting up a government that has kept us 'moving along' for quite
awhile now. Most of its problems stem from the populace placing too much trust in their elected officials .
It is everyone's responsibility to collectively maintain our government. It was never the intention of our founders that our
leaders become reclusive despots: from today's vantage point, we can see this. It is a short walk to realize where the blame should
be laid. Up and on your way to no future.
Just because Americans don't tend to care about anything that happens beyond their own borders doesn't mean the rest of the
world can live with the same blissful ignorance.
The NSA scandal has made us realize that the US regards us as second-rated citizens who are nondeserving of the 'special
protections' that Anglo-speaking countries do.
I find it absolutely shocking that this guy's dismissal is still debatable. Should be a no-brainer is any democracy
In the UK and USA these spooks backed by politicians and civil servants are getting way out of hand. Having the technology to
do things doesn't provide the need or right to do such things. They are getting to the point where they are "protecting" us from
the very people and system they have become.
although the White House indicated its support for a man who has been one of Barack Obama's most trusted security aides.
This is extremely telling about Obama's continued failure to discern good character in his aides and cabinet. His administration
has been a shambles largely due to his inability to surround himself with good people.
I guess so, as we all know that the CIA always tried to silent war opponents. This had been largely documented about Vietnam
opponents to the War on US soil.
They're all fuc@#$g rogue. Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely. Who polices the police? No one apparently. They
and all their UK counterparts will walk away from this unscathed. If the heat gets a little too warm just play your joker, 'Terrorism'.
The CIA is now a discredited organization run by proven liars. When will Congress do something about it? Answer -- never.
They are all being blackmailed.
Your state can imprison anyone it wants, for as long as it wants, without having to justify it in any way... hell they are not
even required to let relatives know. That is a police state. The US is operating what effectively are concentration camps all
over the place, Guantanamo being the flagship.
The CIA is completely out of control. This begs the question, as to why do, or should, American citizen vote for candidates when
those candidates are effectively being 'managed' and spied on by people in the CIA. Senators in both houses are not making 'decisions'
the CIA is.
Quite how the CIA, White House or any other government body think that they have any credibility regarding any matter, is amazing.
I JUST PUT A LIST OF QUESTIONS ON MY TIME LINE THIS SHOULD KEEP THE SPY NETWORK BUSY FOR A WHILE ! BUT THEY NEVER DO ANYTHING
THAT MAKES SENSE ANYWAY ; THEY ONLY HAVE A 30 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET ; BUT CANNOT TELL US WHAT HAPPENED TO MH370 MALAYSIAN AIRPLANE
! WOW ! SOME SPY NETWORK ! IT 'S EASY FOR THEM TO SCREW WITH US ; BECAUSE WE ARE EVERYDAY MARKS !
If the United States government doesn't even govern by popular mandate, it certainly won't give a fuck about anyone's respect,
dear fellow internet commentator.
The penalties for lying under oath are quite strict and can include up to 5 years of prison time. But nobody is willing to go
after these guys, they have too much information on too many people. The day the US congress voted for the patriot act was the
last day of their democracy.
What exactly does a CIA member have to do to get arrested, prosecuted and convicted for an action inside the USA?
It is not spying on Congress. It it spying on the Supreme court, or killing a Senator? Do they walk away free after assassinating
their own president? Do they need to do more?
The NSA isn't hindering your movements as you are not a danger to the status quo. You can keep getting blasted at your BBQ's and
coming online to defend the indefensible, you're not a threat. But it's not about you. It's about the people who are in a position
to challenge the system. This can include anti-war activists, judges, politicians and journalists.
Everyone who matters can be
kept inline with blackmail and for public figures it can be the smallest thing. Recently, during a primary, a candidate lost as
questions were raised about the fact he had checked in the a mental care facility. He probably had a breakdown and needed to be
observed for a couple of days. This piece of information would be easy to pick up with the various NSA programmes.
If this candidate
had the same views as you, this little fact would not have been released but I believe he was a defender of your constitution
and that could cause problems for the criminal regime you now live under.
Snooping is poison in a democracy. Your system was built so that it had self correction and could hence adapt to new situations
and constantly improve. This served Americans well for many years, but it has ended.
Feinstein and the word "hope" do not belong in one and the same sentence. She along with her fellow conspirators in the intelligence
committee are the ones that have been green-lighting this fascism for years. It's like expecting John McCain to repeal the Patriot
Act.
People like Feinstein are chosen to oversee mass surveillance for the simple reason that they are old, completely technologically
illiterates who can be easily fooled or if need be blackmailed through their extensive business empires
.
Yeah and let's take a look at the CIA's backing for Operation Gladio in post WW2 Europe. Yeah, you Americans were there but you
certainly weren't saving lives or making the aftermath bearable for the victims.
Notable quotes:
"... Don't fire Brennan. Arrest him and charge him violating the prohibition against domestic surveillance, lying under oath and, arguably, treason. Maybe there is space in Guantanamo for him to reflect upon the meaning of the Constitution and the rule of law. ..."
"... "What might a government of the people that does not trust the people it governs be properly called?" ..."
There should be no discussion about this! However just like Mockingbird, National Students Ass., Tailwind, PBSUCCESS,and so many
others, they will stall until they get it dropped from the media and we will forget again.
Get Smart Amarica
How can you have any faith or trust in a government like this? It's one damn thing after another. The Executive branch, the Congress,
the high courts, the Justice Dept. are all corrupt. Laws are broken, constitutional protections are laughed at, we are constantly
being spied on. No charges are brought. Nobody goes to jail. But Snowden is a traitor for revealing the truth.
A minor detail? The CIA and security services have every right to know who is who on all and every politician and their
staff.
That's why we are safe. :-)
Other than it is against the law for CIA to spy in the US. It is FBI's job. And Brennan lied to Congress under oath, a crime for
which Clinton was impeached. And the fact that if they are coneding this crime, they must've been caught on something even bigger.
Sure, everything else is just fine. As far as we know, that is.
They are way out of control. They need to take a step back and reevaluate their reason for being and their goals. You can't protect
the people if you see them as the enemy.
So it appears that some in Congress will get upset if a Executive agency misuses its powers? Are these the same folks who seem
to be okay with the IRS focus on Conservative 501(c)(3) applicants?
Um, no, Trevor Alfred, "the REAL terrorists" are still the folks who deliberately bomb civilians in areas where peace is supposed
to exist. The intelligence agencies are civil servants who need to be reigned in whenever they exceed the instructions given to
them by their civilian bosses.
Who ever was over the hacking of the Senator's computer and the Senator's staffers computers should be invited to leave. If that
extends all the way up to Brennan, so be it.
Unfortunately, that corrective action has to come from those who are perpetrating these crimes in order for it to be legal. It's
the classic Catch-22 of political corruption.
Don't fire Brennan. Arrest him and charge him violating the prohibition against domestic surveillance, lying under oath and,
arguably, treason. Maybe there is space in Guantanamo for him to reflect upon the meaning of the Constitution and the rule of
law.
And the reason that we never hear of these supposed 'facts' is what? That we're all too dumb to know? Dumbing down America is
getting mighty costly of late, n'est-pas?
Just because they say you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. Remember: America is not a democracy. That's a
sideshow. It's an oligarchy and don't you forget it.
You can always trust some govts/agencies/people to always take the wrong path/back door. It would simply never occur to them to
take the right one. This is who they are.
Staffs carry out directives. I'm not buying that staff had cause to go looking otherwise.
Feinstein has problems with being spied on, yet heads the Intelligence Committee who for several years has been authorizing
spying on - well, everybody.
Feinstein shouldn't worry about spying, unless she's doing something wrong. Isn't that the proposition?
So why is it scandalous for public officials in our supposed western liberal democracies to spy on officials in other agencies,
and deserving of an apology, but it's Okay for officials to spy on fellow citizens?
What might a government of the people that does not trust the people it governs be properly called?
I would like to point out that beyond what is touted in the press as "the story" the nature of these sorts of things can remain
hidden for many years. Recent events in Germany and in Washington, if viewed from a different perspective may be connected. In
the past when such revelations come to light it is resultant from security issues that are of such magnitude that those tasked
with intelligence responsibilities remain in power because they are simply doing their job and are doing so at the command of
elected officials, who when made aware of covert matters go all quiet and allow the chips to fall as they may. Seldom does the
public ever hear of the actual facts in a timely way, and by the time that does happens they have long since moved on to more
pressing matters.
Has any politician asked them to explain why they spied, in terms of their motivations ? It seems the 'why' is surely more damaging
than the act of spying itself?
What else is new!...Corruption / deceit / fraud / theft, at the highest level of tax payers money is being conducted..War criminals
being sponsored by their own corrupt government ministers / agencies, to create carnage, by divide & rule tactics...Its a fatal
backfiring failure / disaster which is causing their downfall.
Not surprising...All these out of control "rogue agencies" I.E. CIA / NSA / MI5 / MI6 / GCHG / MOSAD, must be brought to book
for their corrupt / deceitful / fraudulent workings...Their most senior officers are involved in a worldwide cover up into illegal
involvement of creating criminal wars around the world, by using spying techniques upon government institutions & citizens...The
recent scandal of phone tapping / voice mail / email interception, goes to show the lengths they are prepared to conduct / cover
up their own war criminality acts. They are the REAL terrorists !!
"They have plundered the world, stripping naked the land in their hunger they are driven by greed, if their enemy be rich; by
ambition, if poor They ravage, they slaughter, they seize by false pretences, and all of this they hail as the construction of
empire. And when in their wake nothing remains but a desert, they call that peace."
― Tacitus (AD56 to after AD117) The Agricola and the Germania
They'll even eat their own... How this behaviour doesn't equate to criminal actions is part of the disgrace. The US government
have morphed in to a dystopian movement.
9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Griffin Tarpley (ISBN: 9780930852375) another good read and makes a plausible case
for a coup carried out on America.
In the reign of Elizabeth 1st a blacksmith was executed for treason because he was overhead saying that he believed the uncrowned
King Edward V was still alive.
A quick search on Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth's Secretary of State will reveal for just how long and how sophisticated
state spying on state has been.
The problem of how the rest of the world views the actions of the US is exacerbated by the seeming inability or disinterest of
its citizens in doing anything about it. Admittedly, a frustration shared by many citizens/subjects in Western countries,
that pretend to be functioning democracies but are in fact anything but.
The problem with political power is that it proves to be a magnet to those with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies and they
are easily corrupted.
We are politically and economically very poorly educated and are daily fed propaganda and mind filling mush by media that are
'on message'.
The media ownership needs to be broken up but politicians, corporations and the media are one self serving body and would resist
that and have the power to do so.
Back in the day, the people of Russia knew that what they were being fed was propaganda, in the US and the UK we thought it
was news.
Intelligence Agencies have their own Agenda. The CIA spy on everyone including the Senate it seems. Meanwhile the
Israeli Intelligence Agencies spy on many people Including the USA, the very people who give them the money... (Out of Control
is the thought that springs to mind)
If the CIA are Spying on the Senate you have to ask the Question who are they working for ? Is it the American Government ? Is
it the American Military? Is it The American Citizen ? Or are we seeing the henchmen of the illuminati in action here !
Their fingers seem to be in every pie and no one seems to be able to control them .
"... The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious and public denials. ..."
"... Brennan acknowledged that an internal investigation had found agency security personnel transgressed a firewall set up on a CIA network, which allowed Senate committee investigators to review agency documents for their landmark inquiry into CIA torture. ..."
"... CIA spokesman Dean Boyd acknowledged that agency staff had improperly monitored the computers of committee staff members, who were using a network the agency had set up, called RDINet. "Some CIA employees acted in a manner inconsistent with the common understanding reached between [the committee] and the CIA in 2009 regarding access to the RDINet," he said. ..."
"... If its considered 'extraordinary' that a man apologize for his actions, then that man is either a sociopath, a criminal, or both. ..."
"... The CIA has now clearly suborned the executive. Obama now works for the CIA. He's spineless, Obama. He is craven, before the very same intelligence agencies that are supposed to work for him. ..."
"... You people are so deluded. You think it matter who you vote for. Newsflash - the CIA killed JFK. The CIA runs America. ..."
"... American foreign policy is the same no matter which party is in power. They are all screwing you six ways from Sunday. ..."
"... If America was a just state, that would happen. But America is a neo-fascist - or more properly, corporatist - state. ..."
"... The NSA/CIA in recent hearings forcefully explained to the Judiciary Committee in Congress that they only spy on foreigners and not US citizens. I guess Congressmen/women are not US citizens and must be terrorists. ..."
"... 'The CIA spying on the people supposedly in charge of the CIA' sounds as if they are reaping what they sowed... ..."
CIA director apologises for improper conduct of agency staff One senator calls on John Brennan to resign in wake of scandal
The director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, issued an extraordinary apology to leaders of the US Senate
intelligence committee on Thursday, conceding that the agency employees spied on committee staff and reversing months of furious
and public denials.
Brennan acknowledged that an internal investigation had found agency security personnel transgressed a firewall set up on
a CIA network, which allowed Senate committee investigators to review agency documents for their landmark inquiry into CIA torture.
Among other things, it was revealed that agency officials conducted keyword searches and email searches on committee staff while
they used the network.
The admission brings Brennan's already rocky tenure at the head of the CIA under renewed question. One senator on the panel said
he had lost confidence in the director, although the White House indicated its support for a man who has been one of Barack Obama's
most trusted security aides.
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd acknowledged that agency staff had improperly monitored the computers of committee staff members,
who were using a network the agency had set up, called RDINet. "Some CIA employees acted in a manner inconsistent with the common
understanding reached between [the committee] and the CIA in 2009 regarding access to the RDINet," he said.
Asked if Brennan had or would offer his resignation, a different CIA spokesman, Ryan Trapani, replied: "No."
Feinstein said the vindication, from CIA inspector general David Buckley, and Brennan's apology were "positive first steps," suggesting
that the director had further work to do before she would consider the matter closed.
She stopped short of calling for Brennan's resignation. But her committee colleague, Democrat Mark Udall of Colorado, said Brennan
should go. "I have no choice but to call for the resignation of CIA director John Brennan," Udall said after a briefing on the inspector
general's findings.
"The CIA unconstitutionally spied on Congress by hacking into Senate intelligence committee computers. This grave misconduct is
not only illegal, but it violates the US constitution's requirement of separation of powers. These offenses, along with other errors
in judgment by some at the CIA, demonstrate a tremendous failure of leadership, and there must be consequences.
Mark Udall (@MarkUdall)
. @CIA IG rprt shows John Brennan misled public, whose interests I have
championed. I will fight for change at the CIA: http://t.co/uQVsvV43nB
Boyd, the CIA spokesman, said Brennan has asked a former committee member, Evan Bayh, a former Indiana Democratic senator, to
lead an "accountability board" reviewing Buckley's report and to advise Brennan on next steps.
That advice, Boyd said, "could include potential disciplinary measures and/or steps to address systemic issues."
Steve Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, a longtime observer of the CIA, called its Thursday statement a "conciliatory
gesture" to the committee's leaders. "If Senator Feinstein is satisfied with the apology then the affair is effectively over. If
she contends there was a fundamental breach that cannot be corrected with a mere apology then some further action might be needed,"
Aftergood said.
Feinstein, in her dramatic speech on the Senate floor in March, said the agency breached the firewall to obstruct the committee's
investigation of the agency's torture of post-9/11 terrorism detainees, a years-long effort expected to be partially declassified
in the coming days or weeks. That investigation was itself prompted by a different coverup: the destruction of videotapes of brutal
interrogations by a senior official, Jose Rodriguez.
"In March, the committee chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, accused the agency of violating constitutional boundaries
by spying on the Senate."
Aahahahhahhhhahaaa. What a hypocrite hag. She must have something to hide if she doesn't like being spied on. I think that
there should be a full investigation into what Dianne...if that is even her real name, has been hiding and bring it to the light
of day.
Good point, but wrong way round imho. The CIA has now clearly suborned the executive. Obama now works for the CIA. He's spineless, Obama. He is craven, before the very same intelligence agencies that are supposed to work for him.
Just imagine how the laugh at him, speak about him, behind his back. No wonder Putin treats him like a fool.
It is time to put all the DemPublicanCFR basterds in prison for life. From the BUSH II (The torturer) to bill clinton who initiated
the covert torture operation. The clearest signal that we are not living in a self governing democracy is that; excluding Watergate,
the DemPublicanCFR ruling elite do not go to prison, there is rarely any real investigation of their crimes; as in the recent
largest public swindle in human history....the DemPublicanCFR, Wall st/Rating Company Swindle that was orchestrated by the "boys"
from the bohemian grove.The level of corruption in this Country exceeds that of ancient Rome.The best way to combat "terrorism"
is to get the hell out of other peoples countries.and imprison the DemPublicanCFR members who intentionally mislead this Country
into a fossil fuel War in Iraq. George Bush II ( the coward draft dodger) is a moron on an epic scale comparable to the Roman
Emperor who named his horse a general. We are confronted with a monumental environmental emergency and these idiot myopic assholes
debate carbon emission controls instead of leading the way to a fossil fuel nuclear free world.by initiating the largest public
works program in human history....a massive energy conversion program funded by cutting the military budget in half.The conversion
program will also be funded by the profits made by all the fossil fuel and nuclear power companies. Just imagine all the AMERICAN
JOBS WILL BE CREATED. We need leaders who put the interests of the Americam people first and who do not march to the drumb beat
of the Rockefucker internationalist DemPublicanCFR elite. It is time to send David Rockyfucker to Iran to stand trial for the
crimes he has committed against the Iranian people....We are living in a state of environmental crisis and it is time for true
American patriots to rise and confront our Enemy within who, thanks to the great American patriot Edward Snowden, we now know
for certain has all or electronic communications under 24 hour surveillance. The DemPublicanCFR ruling elite must be held to pay
for their crimes or I fear the planet that our childen, grand children and great grandchildren will be living in is doomed to
cataclysmic events that we have yet to even imagine...
Boy, once you spy on a Democrat it becomes an issue. Lying seems to be what Obama and his appointees due best as there are no
consequences for lying, even under oath as Eric Holder has done several times. So let's just move along here as this is just another
day under Obama.
Agency security personnel had transgressed? And just what is that some kind of creepy code for? We, the bigwigs, did it, but we
have language that allows us to blame it on our innocent underlings...of course. This is the height of mental illness and corruption!
Just a simple excuse used to placate a supposedly mind dead public already hypnotized by their main stream media and under their
almost absolute control. That's you and I, of course...sound familiar? Well, I will be totally under their control when they come
and kill me, and not before that! "Agency staff had improperly monitored the computers of committee staff members", well who in
the hell is agency staff if not Brennan? Considering how far Obama has fallen since he stated how good he was at killing, I do
not see how any of us in a sound state of mind can see Mr. Brennan as anything other than a criminal and a traitor to the American
people. Same as our present president, supreme court, congress, and many more.
As long as you persist in your long held delusion that there are differences between democrats and republicans - differences that
matter - nothing will change.
Open you eyes. American foreign policy is the same no matter which party is in power. They are all screwing you six ways from
Sunday.
If America was a just state, that would happen. But America is a neo-fascist - or more properly, corporatist - state.
Democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin. Political theater for the plebs to fight over while the real power
brokers hide in the shadows.
The free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip
on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse
has begun its rapid slide into despotism.
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
The NSA/CIA in recent hearings forcefully explained to the Judiciary Committee in Congress that they only spy on foreigners and
not US citizens. I guess Congressmen/women are not US citizens and must be terrorists.
Nothing will change in America until someone actually starts losing their job, being forced to resign or go to jail - both politicians
and so called "leaders" in the agencies committing these horrific crimes.
You've won the HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD award.
But you did forget the DHS who also has a Prius type
program for surveillance. The name starts with a C
but I cannot remember off the top of my head. I do
recall that Boeing's employees were involved in doing
training of technicians.
Things are "out of hand". I fear the US government will
be using contracted mercenaries to keep us in line before
too much longer. Those guys will be coming home and
taking jobs in our local police departments.
Follow the Blackwater money. Erik Prince, and cohorts.
Names may change many times, but it is still all there.
It does not seem to be doing the US any good. Their army would seem to be a complete failure. Their so called intelligence seems
to know nothing about anything that matters. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan many trillions of dollars and abject failure and we see
a nation that brakes every law of decency.
Example,
The CIA agent who shot in the back 2 Pakistani men, and then
after reloading once, he fired 10 times. This occurred during the
day on a busy street in Lahore, Pakistan. He claimed first to be
a US Embassy Staff Member. He was ransomed by Kerry, who
was not yet Secretary of State, but was sent by Obama to do so.
2 other CIA agents, the killer's roommates, who the killer had called
for help, ran over a Pakistani bystander with their jeep on the way
to aid the killer, and killed the poor man. They were immediately airlifted out of Pakistan and returned to the United States,
never to
be heard of since, nor reported by the media.
But, this CIA killer just couldn't stop there. He has been arrested by Sheriff's Deputies, inside a Colorado bar for being
involved in a knife fight. This CIA killer and his wife own a United States contracted spy agency in Las Vegas.
These are the Agents who represent our United States of America.
Who can forget Obama's Secret Servicemen, one of which, while
a guest of a South American city, tried to rip off a Whore by short-
changing her. That hit the newspapers around the world.
These are the Agents who represent our United States of America.
Don't forget this is the same agency that enabled the capture and imprisonment of Mandela, and that only scratches the surface
of some of the stuff they've been up to.
The CIA is beyond reform now, it's no longer a matter of changing who heads it.
There are places in the world where these people would
be put on a wall and quickly dispensed with.
Spies and Surveillers hide the truth from us all, and the
United States Congress pays them to do so.
Voters need to Turn Out the Incumbents. Everyone of them.
Along with their Staffers. 100,000 lobbyists need to be
stripped of their licenses, and their political connections.
It is long past time for revolution or revolt.
It is time to clean house.
Susan, thank you. Seeing is believing.
In the US Intelligence Agencies, including the Military,
there are 850,000 men and women employees who
hold Top Secret clearances and more. That is a lot of
Secrets to hide. Only a few come freely forward to report
corruption to the public at large. Only a couple have had
the guts to paper the world with these corrupt agency's
offal.
Cut off the heads, and the tails.
The United States Intelligence Agencies are corrupted.
They are killers of innocent human beings.
Will Erik Holder send any of them to Prison? He did not prosecute
any of the people responsible for our nation's debacle. Not a one of
them went to prison. He and his boss Obama are also corrupted.
They both are killers of innocent human beings.
Every man of integrity who works for the United States government
should, when he sees corruption, report it to the media 1st, and to
his superior officers 2nd. Not to do so, is a criminal act itself.
We have to wonder if there are any besides Edward Snowden, who
work for the United States government, and have the guts to let us
know when they see corruption.
Great to see truth coming out in the wash.. Also brilliant to hear on the radio,whistleblowers in the UK are going to be protected,
there's progress now....
It seems to appear the spying business is a new democratic industry where money, power, and control are prime. Words like decency
and morality are flying out the windows. The head of a spy ring can retire to form a new enterprise to charge half million to
one million dollars for spy protection...
Flagrant Violations of U.S. Constitution & International Law Continue Unabated as CIA/Feinstein Row Over Senate Spying Lands on
Front Page and Elite Politely Decline to Prosecute Peers' Crimes
I don't know if the 9/11 panic has caused the relaxation of the LAW
The law was relaxed as soon as the Church Committee wrapped up. The CIA was offended at the very idea of having to obey the
law, and their allies in Congress, and the White House after Reagan was elected, obliged them.
Who cares about what they admit to that we all already suspected. Who is getting charged and going to jail? Of course the answer
is nobody because they are either all complicit or congress is intimidated by what other information they may know about them.
Time to purge the whole system.
one has to wonder how many politicians across the Five Eyes nations (US, UK, Canada, Australia and Canada), are being blackmailed,
co-erced and manipulated, by big business/government.
Many of the decisions (and statements from some politicians) that I witness in first world government, make no sense.
for example, is there even one investigatory committee in Westminster or Washington, that has/is not been hacked and controlled
by outsiders (big business often in cahoots with senior govt/intelligence people).
look at the antics of the disgraced News of the Wooorld, deliberately targetting members of the sub-committee investigating
their hacking.
For all the abuses by powerful men in history there are those, including American Presidents, who have demonstrated both leadership
and courage in the face of obstruction, opposition.
But hey, thanks for adding bluster and hot air to the debate. I guess you'd have us all pack up and go home.
The CIA spying on the people supposedly in charge of the CIA has nothing to do with fighting 'terrorism' and everything to do
with the CIA protecting itself from any such namby-pamby libtard delusions such as integrity, accountability, congressional oversight,
responsibility, and other such pesky nuisances.
But isn't spying what the CIA is supposed to do? And isn't this what we supported for so many years during the Cold War because
of "the threat of communism"?
There are certainly still threats out there (Al Queda and Boko Haram come to mind) but is the CIA geared to handle intelligence
in terrorist organizations or are they still fighting the Communists? Revamp the Agency to make it more adapted to the new reality
of terrorist threats world wide but don't fault somebody if they're just trying to do their job. Give them some direction or don't
complain when things go awry. Maybe they're just looking for something to do. Let's be sure to keep them busy fighting terrorists
not the US Senate.
Former CIA Director John Brennan warned Republicans who support President Trump that they
are on a sinking ship, in an appearance Wednesday morning on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
"I'm waiting for the Republicans to realize that the Trump ship is a sinking one," he
said.
"There are still rats on that ship, and there are individuals who are not going to separate
themselves from Trump. They do so at their own peril. They need to fulfill their obligations,
irrespective of their political affiliations. This is now the presidency and institutions of
government we rely on to keep us safe and secure."
MIKE BARNICLE: Last week, there was another continued swipe ordered by the president of the
United States, who whatever he says is a megaphone and resonates throughout the country
because of the way it is carried, in which he basically said that people like you and several
other people in the intelligence community were responsible for trying to participate in a
coup, to undermine the presidency of the United States and to remove the president of the
United States. What does it do -- nevermind to you personally -- what does it do to
institutions like the NSA, the CIA, the FBI.
JOHN BRENNAN: It continues to show Mr. Trump's disdain for the intelligence and law
enforcement communities, who are trying to do their jobs irrespective of political winds that
might be blowing in Washington. It really is demoralizing for Mr. Trump to continue to say
there is this "deep state" that tried to launch a coup, and that he is trying to "clean the
swamp," while in fact, it is those professionals within the intelligence community, law
enforcement community, who are trying to carry out their duties and responsibilities to the
American people. Mr. Trump just continues to go down this road. I think it is having a very
damaging impact.
WILLIE GEIST: What do you think, Director Brennan, happens from here? I think people
watching want to know. They say, okay, Mueller didn't like how the report was characterized
by the attorney general. Fine, on the issue of obstruction of justice. Now, what? Is it
Mueller sitting before the Senate and answering specific questions about what is inside the
report? What is the outcome of this?
JOHN BRENNAN: Barr has to be interrogated.
WILLIE GEIST: That starts this morning at 10:00.
JOHN BRENNAN: And then Bob Mueller has to get in front of Congress, then Congress has to
do its job.
And I'm still waiting for the Republicans to realize that the Trump ship is a sinking one.
There are still rats on that ship, and there are individuals who are not going to separate
themselves from Trump. But they do so at their own peril. And they need to fulfill their
obligations, irrespective of their political affiliations. And to do it now rather than to
allow this continued sinking of not just the presidency, but of these institutions of
government that we rely on to keep us safe and secure.
If Barr represent different faction of CIA then Brennan, Brannan might pay with his head for his artistic inventions in
fomenting Russiagate color revolution and Steele dossier. Not very likely, though...
They spied on Trump because they thought it was a guaranteed win and Hillary could cover
it up. They started the witch hunt to make it look like it was a legit investigation.
"Surveillance". Would you buy a used car from Jim Comey?. Time for issuing a number of
orange jumpsuits and for the ones at the top?. A sharp drop and a sudden stop.
They spied on Trump because they thought it was a guaranteed win and Hillary could cover
it up. They started the witch hunt to make it look like it was a legit investigation.
"Surveillance". Would you buy a used car from Jim Comey?. Time for issuing a number of
orange jumpsuits and for the ones at the top?. A sharp drop and a sudden stop.
Spying Work for a government or other organization by secretly collecting information
about enemies or competitors. investigating Carry out a systematic or formal inquiry to
discover and examine the facts of (an incident, allegation, etc.) so as to establish the
truth. What a bunch of idiots
If you have to make up reasons to investigate, it becomes spying. With this logic, we can
investigate anyone! As long as we make sure to cover our tracks in lies! Perfect!
That's Judicial Watch's definition of the Deep State! It's not just a few politicians and
judges, it's almost all of Washington and many in government around the country. The Deep
State will just take its time, put it off, forget about it, make mistakes implementing it,
and so on and so forth.
"... Julian E. Barnes is obviously a long-term intelligence asset and his stories are not based on independent research but are just a repetition of the yarn that the CIA want to spin. Julian E. Barnes and the CIA obviously think Americans and other westerners are DAF. ..."
"... And should we be surprised that such false information about Gina Haspel and Donald Trump puts Trump in a bad light and somehow humanises a CIA director with a reputation for torturing prisoners? ..."
"... A week or 3 ago, a Barnes co-reported "article" flat out stated that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. This was done by pretending to quote someone in the the US Defense establishment as saying "we believe Iran will redouble its work on nuclear weapons". ..."
"... Julian Barnes is a well established liar. Sort of akin to Judith Miller and Michael Gordon. ..."
"... Now the Washington post's narrative is quite colorful too. So Trump really was concerned how many Russians Germany or France expelled? Why was he angry? The vassals did not follow his example as they should have? ..."
"... The CIA and MI6 boys must have blanked out to let this one slip through the cracks. We pay them billions to run false flag and cover-up operations. This makes those of us that believe their lying narratives look stupid. I guess we need to add more billions to their annual budgets. ..."
"... More believable that Julian Barnes performs no cross-referencing and zero research. Investigative reporting (or asking questions) is not the job of the modern MSM stenographer. His job - pushing the war machine agenda. He simply writes that which he is instructed to write. Probably emails all of his articles to his CIA liason for approval prior to publication. ..."
"... In the Skripnal psyop one can readily assess that the only truly "dead ducks" are the MSM journalists and the Western politicians who peddled this incredible slapstick nonsense story in order to further the "demonization of Russia" narrative of Western oligarchy. That these same media "dead ducks" appear to have not even the very slightest interest whatsoever in the current whereabouts or safety of said Skripnals speaks volumes about the true nature of this intelligence operation. ..."
"... both versions of the story expose Gina as a untrustworthy ratfucker ..."
"... At the moment the UK is run by MI6 which sees itself as the real political directorate of the CIA and the Deep State in the US. It seriously believes that it is on the verge of establishing global hegemony. ..."
"... Please note, everyone, that not all of these sad excuses for "journalists" are on the CIA payroll. In fact, very few of them are. Most work with the CIA out of warped senses of patriotism and duty to the empire. Most would never think of themselves as intelligence agency assets, and no small number of them probably think their relationships with the CIA are unique. They think that they are special and that their contacts on the inside at the CIA are unusual. Few would guess that they are just another propaganda mule in the CIA's stable, and that friendly guy who "leaks" to them is actually their handler; their "operator" in spook-speak. ..."
"... CIA did not control many of the Vietnam era journalists that had their pieces printed in mainstream media of the day. Not many left now and perhaps since the nineties they could no longer get their articles published. Regan brought in perception management which eventually brought all MSM 100% under US -CIA control. ..."
"... If you're a CIA guy, you get the editor and the ombudsman on the payroll and he will make certain that the desired propaganda gets published. If he's a Zionist, he's on the same page from the start, anyway. ..."
"... What a strange construction. Doesn't the CIA have PR staff? A decent PR team would review every item referencing their boss and issue clarifications and/or demand corrections immediately. There should have been no need for Julian E. Barnes to figure anything out as the CIA should have pointed out his mistake very quickly. This explanation/exculpation is utter bullshit! ..."
"... I doubt that Trump asked questions about how those ducks and kids were doing. More likely that MI5 was annoyed that they were exposed as the providers of the duck snuff pictures, and put pressure on the NY Times. ..."
"... Those who advocated the strong response to Russia are the intellectual authors of "Russia Gate" to thwart detente with Russia. ..."
A piece in the New York Times showed how in March 2018 Trump was manipulated by the
CIA and MI6 into expelling 60 Russian diplomats. Eight weeks after it was published the New
York Times 'corrects' that narrative and exculpates the CIA and MI6 of that manipulation.
Its explanation for the correction makes little sense.
On April 16 the New York Times published a report by Julian E. Barnes and Adam
Goldman about the relation between CIA Director Gina Haspal and President Donald Trump.
The piece described a scene in the White House shortly after the
contentious Skripal/Novichok incident in Britain. It originally said (emphasis added):
During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She
outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the
president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the
only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She
then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by
the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
The 60 Russian diplomats were
expelled on March 26 2018. Other countries only expelled a handful of diplomats over the
Skripal incident. On April 15 2018 the Washington Post
reported that Trump was furious about this:
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials said. To
his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian officials --
far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on. The President, who seemed to believe
that other individual countries would largely equal the United States, was furious that his
administration was being portrayed in the media as taking by far the toughest stance on
Russia.
...
Growing angrier, Trump insisted that his aides had misled him about the magnitude of the
expulsions. 'There were curse words,' the official said, 'a lot of curse words.
In that context the 2019 NYT report about Haspel showing Trump dead duck pictures
provided by the Brits made sense. Trump was, as he himself claimed, manipulated into the large
expulsion.
The NYT report created some waves. On April 18 2019 the Guardian
headlined:
The report of the dead duck pictures in the New York Times was a problem for the CIA
and the British government. Not only did it say that they manipulated Trump by providing him
with false pictures, but the non-dead ducks also demonstrated that the official narrative of
the allegedly poisoning of the Skripals has some huge holes. As Rob Slane of the
BlogMirenoted
:
In addition to the extraordinary nature of this revelation, there is also a huge irony
here. Along with many others, I have long felt that the duck feed is one of the many achilles
heels of the whole story we've been presented with about what happened in Salisbury on 4th
March 2018. And the reason for this is precisely because if it were true, there would
indeed have been dead ducks and sick children .
According to the official story, Mr Skripal and his daughter became contaminated with
"Novichok" by touching the handle of his front door at some point between 13:00 and 13:30
that afternoon. A few minutes later (13:45), they were filmed on CCTV camera feeding
ducks, and handing bread to three local boys, one of whom ate a piece . After this they
went to Zizzis, where they apparently so contaminated the table they sat at, that it had to
be incinerated.
You see the problem? According to the official story, ducks should have died. According to
the official story children should have become contaminated and ended up in hospital. Yet as
it happens, no ducks died, and no boys got sick (all that happened was that the boys' parents
were contacted two weeks later by police, the boys were sent for tests, and they were given
the all clear).
After the NYT story was published the CIA and the British government had to remove
the problematic narrative from the record. Yesterday they finally succeeded. Nearly eight weeks
after the original publishing of the White House scene the NYT recanted and issued
a correction
(emphasis. added):
Correction: June 5, 2019
An earlier version of this article incorrectly described the photos that Gina Haspel
showed to President Trump during a discussion about responding to the nerve agent attack in
Britain on a former Russian intelligence officer. Ms. Haspel displayed pictures illustrating
the consequences of nerve agent attacks, not images specific to the chemical attack in
Britain. This correction was delayed because of the time needed for research.
The original paragraphs quoted above were changed into this:
During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She
outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the
president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel tried to demonstrate the dangers of using a nerve agent like Novichok in
a populated area. Ms. Haspel showed pictures from other nerve agent attacks that showed their
effects on people.
The British government had told Trump administration officials about early intelligence
reports that said children were sickened and ducks were inadvertently killed by the sloppy
work of the Russian operatives.
The information was based on early reporting, and Trump administration officials had
requested more details about the children and ducks, a person familiar with the intelligence
said, though Ms. Haspel did not present that information to the president. After this article
was published, local health officials in Britain said that no children were harmed.
So instead of pictures of dead ducks in Salisbury the CIA director showed pictures of some
random dead ducks or hospitalized children or whatever to illustrate the effects consequences
of nerve agent incidents?
That the children were taken to hospital but unharmed was already reported in Britishmedia on
March 24 2018, before the Russian diplomats were expelled, not only after the NYT piece
was published in April 2019.
Yesterday the author of the NYT piece, Julian E. Barnes, turned to Twitter to
issue a lengthy 'apology':
I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel. It took a while to
figure out where I went wrong. Here is the correction: 1/9
[...]
The intelligence about the ducks and children were based on an early intelligence report,
according to people familiar with the matter. The intelligence was presented to the US in an
effort to share all that was known, not to deceive the Trump administration. 7/9
This correction was delayed because conducting the research to figure out what I got
wrong, how I got it wrong and what was the correct information took time. 8/9
I regret the error and offer my apology. I strive to get information right the first time.
That is what subscribers pay for. But when I get something wrong, I fix it. 9/9
Barnes covers national security and intelligence issues for the Times Washington
bureau. His job depends on good access to 'sources' in those circles.
It is remarkable that the CIA spokesperson never came out to deny the original NYT
report. There was zero visible push back against its narrative. It is also remarkable that the
correction comes just as Trump is on a state visit in Britain.
The original report was sourced on 'people briefed on the conversation'. The
corrected version is also based on 'people briefed on the conversation' but adds 'a
person familiar with the intelligence'. Do the originally cited 'people' now tell a different
story? Are we to trust a single 'person familiar with the intelligence' more than those
multiple 'people'? What kind of 'research' did the reporter do to correct what he then and now
claims was told to him by 'people'? Why did this 'research' take eight weeks?
That the 'paper of the record' now corrects said 'record' solves a big problem for Gina
Haspel, the CIA/MI6 and the British government. They can no longer be accused of manipulating
Trump (even as we can be quite sure that such manipulations happen all the time).
In the end it is for the reader to decide if the original report makes more sense than the
corrected one.
---
This is a Moon of Alabama fundraising week. Please consider to support
our work .
Posted by b on June 6, 2019 at 06:12 AM |
Permalink
Julian E. Barnes is obviously a long-term intelligence asset and his stories are not based on
independent research but are just a repetition of the yarn that the CIA want to spin. Julian
E. Barnes and the CIA obviously think Americans and other westerners are DAF.
Surely the time and effort Julian Barnes needed to check what information he had got wrong
and how he got it wrong should not have been as major as he makes out. Animals dying and
children falling sick to a toxin that could have killed them are incidents that should have
stuck out like sore thumbs and warranted careful checks with different and independent
sources before reporting that Gina Haspel apparently showed the US President pictures of dead
ducks and sick boys in Salisbury.
No wonder Barnes got such a roasting on Twitter after making his abject apology.
And should we be surprised that such false information about Gina Haspel and Donald Trump
puts Trump in a bad light and somehow humanises a CIA director with a reputation for
torturing prisoners?
During years I researched articles published in @nytimes we fact-checked BEFORE publication. Here it comes
AFTER bloggers, officials et al point out fatal flaws. That no children were poisoned, and no
ducks killed, by #novichok
in #Salisbury + was known
in Spring 2018. #propaganda
A week or 3 ago, a Barnes co-reported "article" flat out stated that Iran has a nuclear
weapons program. This was done by pretending to quote someone in the the US Defense
establishment as saying "we believe Iran will redouble its work on nuclear weapons".
Except in the Barnes construction it wasn't a quotation, or anything like a phrasing that
made clear that the Pentagon source was guessing, not stating, that Iran has a nuclear
weapons program.
This was NOT corrected.
Eric Schmitt was the other NY Times "reporter" who signed the article.
And here's what the two liars reported, pretending that an Iranian nuclear weapons program is
a real thing, first paragraph:
"Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons, administration officials said."
So Julian Barnes is a well established liar. Sort of akin to Judith Miller and Michael
Gordon.
Barnes provides the truth then provides a lie about the truth....par for the course at
NYT.
(Remember Judith Miller?) A fake news organization spreading fake news with revised fake
news.
can't really get excited by the fact that not everything in this type of creative writing is
taken serious. Did anyone expect otherwise?
During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr.
Trump. She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and
told the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the
only victims of Russia's attack.
It's pretty obvious that his/their narrative necessarily must be cobbled together by a lot
of sources. Some by phone. Those may not even share the same idea what image of the president
or Haspel they should convey. I always wonder with this type of newspaper reporting. Maybe
both writers should write novels.
Now the Washington post's narrative is quite colorful too. So Trump really was concerned
how many Russians Germany or France expelled? Why was he angry? The vassals did not follow
his example as they should have?
Superb analysis! Been coming here for 11 years now, and I just have to say that "b" is the
best propaganda analyst in the English language. He is the sturdiest anchor in these stormy
seas:)
The CIA and MI6 boys must have blanked out to let this one slip through the cracks. We pay
them billions to run false flag and cover-up operations. This makes those of us that believe
their lying narratives look stupid. I guess we need to add more billions to their annual
budgets.
Sarcasm is just about the last pleasure one can get from watching the horrific antics of
these morons.
More believable that Julian Barnes performs no cross-referencing and zero research.
Investigative reporting (or asking questions) is not the job of the modern MSM stenographer.
His job - pushing the war machine agenda.
He simply writes that which he is instructed to write. Probably emails all of his articles
to his CIA liason for approval prior to publication.
Perhaps, the liason can see what this fool types in real time. Who knows?
As the story of the dead ducks and sick children unraveled and fell apart, a sloppy patch
up had to be made. Now its fixed. Like a Boeing 737 MAX.
BoTh vErSioNs of the story (I checked with the "Wayback Machine") still include this
paragraph (6th paragraph of story):
Unusually for a president, Mr. Trump has publicly rejected not
only intelligence agencies' analysis, but also the facts they have gathered.
And that has created a perilous situation for the C.I.A.
As usual for the NYT, they did not publicly reject the intelligence agencies'
analysis,
but also the facts they had gathered.
That, of course, would have created a perilous situation for the NYT.
As the saying goes: "if it looks like a false-flag, walks like a false-flag, and talks like a
false-flag, it just might be a "duck."
In the Skripnal psyop one can readily assess that the only truly "dead ducks" are the MSM
journalists and the Western politicians who peddled this incredible slapstick nonsense story
in order to further the "demonization of Russia" narrative of Western oligarchy. That these
same media "dead ducks" appear to have not even the very slightest interest whatsoever in the
current whereabouts or safety of said Skripnals speaks volumes about the true nature of this
intelligence operation.
"I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel. It took a while to figure
out where I went wrong".
It was only when I found the horses head next to me in bed when I woke up, that I realized
what a stupid mistake I had made.
Gina Haspel has to be as dumb and incompetent as I suspected: someone is paying good money to
make her look like an ordinary sociopath, not a depraved tart who sucked cock to climb to the
head of the organisation.
Slane is ++ on the Skirpals. One 'fact' that emerged early on, made public by Slane, is that
the proposed 'official' time-line ( > press, Gvmt between the lines) of the Skripal
movements - trivial as in a town, drinkies, lunch, feeding ducks, etc. -- was never reported
correctly, obfuscated.
Idk the reasons, but it is a vital point.
___________________________________
Trump, we see, is treated like the zombie public, flashed random photos, sold tearful
narratives about babies, children, recall incubator babies, horrific bio-weapons
threats...
The PTB loathes him, Pres. are supposed to be complicit like Obama - or at least keep
their resistance toned down, be ready to compromise. .. Obama objected to, and refused to act
on, at least two engineered / fake Syria chem. 'attacks.' (Just looked on Goog and can't find
links to support.)
The only EU figure who stated there is no evidence that the Russkies novichoked
Sergei and Yulia was Macron, afaik. He didn't get the memo in time (the Elysée is
inefficient, lots of screw-ups there) but soon caught up! and expelled the minimum. -- I have
heard, hush hush, one in F was a receptionist - gofer (an excellent + extremely highly paid
position) who is now at the Emb. in Washington! Most likely merely emblematic story (see
telephone game) .. but telling.
I like this story. It makes Trump look like a naif which wouldn't bother President Teflon in
the least. On the other hand, both versions of the story expose Gina as a untrustworthy ratfucker.
I'm hoping she said "cross my heart and hope to die" when he queried her advice...
I'm glad I checked to see if anyone had mentioned this hack's article about Russia
restarting nuclear testing. Using his name as one search item I tried a number of current
issues. Like the fellows at local intersections holding up signs "will work for money",
Barnes might as well have a tattoo saying "I'll write anything if the price is right.
That it took so long to come up with a half-assed "explanation" shows he's not the brightest
bulb in the lamp. I suppose people whose jobs consist of slightly re-writing Deep State
dictation don't have to be especially clever.
That "apology" by Barnes is completely nonsensical. How would you know that there was
something wrong with your story, that there was an error in it, without knowing what it was?
If the CIA, various bloggers, commenters, etc., alerted him to the errors, it's unlikely they
would say, "There's something wrong in this story but I'm not going to say what it is. You'll
have to re-research they whole thing to figure it out." I don't think that's how people
usually point out errors.
"Which narrative is unraveling and which is gathering momentum?"psychohistorian@19
One thing that seems to be unravelling is the tight political cartel that controls Foreign
Policy in the UK.
If it does unravel and Labour turns to an independent foreign policy while it reverses the
disaster of 'austerity' and neo-liberalism, cases such as that of Assange and the Skripal
affair, both products of extremists within the Establishment who regard themselves as
privileged members of the DC Beltway, are going to be re-opened.
At the moment the UK is run by MI6 which sees itself as the real political directorate of the
CIA and the Deep State in the US. It seriously believes that it is on the verge of
establishing global hegemony. And this at a time when the UK is falling apart and its
population teeters on the brink of economic disaster. It has fallen into this delusion over
the years as it has been able to offer the CIA services which it is afraid to initiate
itself. Hence, most recently, the entire Russiagate nonsense which has British fingerprints
all over it. Hence too the new aggressiveness in DC towards Assange. Hence the disappearance,
without explanation, of the Skripals.
Julian Barnes is like Winston Smith without the intellectual curiosity. He quote happily goes
about his work. lol. What is the matter with you people? You are supposed to embrace the new
narrative!
From wikidpeida... A memory hole is any mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of
inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts or other records, such as
from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression
that something never happened.[1][2] The concept was first popularized by George Orwell's
dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, where the Party's Ministry of Truth systematically
re-created all potentially embarrassing historical documents, in effect, re-writing all of
history to match the often-changing state propaganda. These changes were complete and
undetectable.
@37 bevin... maybe they will do with assange what they have done with the skripals... the uk
is more then pathetic at this point in time.. craig murray had more to say on the assange
case yesterday - A
Swedish Court Injects Some Sense
Julian E. Barnes' humble confession (a self-incrimination) sounds like one made in a Gulag.
failure of imaginati , Jun 6, 2019 2:23:10 PM |
35
Further down the memory hole is the side tale of the daughter of Brutish Army Chief Nurse
helping Skirpals and getting an award without contaminating the news. Was the girl's father
Pablo Miller,(of Orbis Dossier MFG) and a pal of Skirpal? There's debunk in their poor
narrative. The public has a photogenic memory.
There are 2 Julian Barneses (at the very least!), one is an English writer, the other has
mostly been writing for the WSJ ( https://www.wsj.com/news/author/julian-e.-barnes)
but since recently again for the NYTimes .
Trump is a drug-addled, brain-damaged, hollowed-out shell of the dull con man he once
was.
But, he perceives himself to be a brilliant mastermind - a stable genius. So, he might
indeed, be prone to making inquiries (generally these would induce the toadies around him to
stifle their laughter).
It makes sense that he might ask, while in GB, about the Skirpal incident, since he pulled
60 people from their posts and he remembered the fantasy he was lead to believe about sick
children and dead ducks.
The fact that he overreacted without sufficient evidence, may have inspired a tiny amount
of self-reflection simply because it may have embarrassed him to have been caught on his back
foot. He was lead to believe that his contemporaries intended to react in equal measure. They
did not. Therefore - he was "fooled" or tricked.
This is the only way to embarrass the buffoon. That is to have someone fool him
personally. And to make him look stupid.
He doesn't mind that he is a fat oaf, a greed head and a pig, but that is the stuff of his
own doing. He is comfortable in this. Money is the end-all, etc.
He bought Mar A Lago, making it his own club, because the Palm Beach Club and its elite
snobs would not let him join.
Trump was betrayed by Gina Haskell, the CIA and the NYT.
All of Western media has been compromised by the CIA and friends since at least the 50s.
Remember what late CIA director William Casey said in 1981; "We'll know our disinformation
program is complete when everything the US public believes is false".
They 'CIA' controls every talking head you can name. Believe no one. Sad isn't it.
Please note, everyone, that not all of these sad excuses for "journalists" are on the
CIA payroll. In fact, very few of them are. Most work with the CIA out of warped senses of
patriotism and duty to the empire. Most would never think of themselves as intelligence
agency assets, and no small number of them probably think their relationships with the CIA
are unique. They think that they are special and that their contacts on the inside at
the CIA are unusual. Few would guess that they are just another propaganda mule in the CIA's
stable, and that friendly guy who "leaks" to them is actually their handler; their
"operator" in spook-speak.
Of course, there is also the incentive provided by just having to take the story their CIA
"friend" gives them, edit it a little to fit their employer's style guidelines, and
then submit it as their own. A whole day's worth of work and they can have it finished in
half an hour. What's not to like about that?
CIA did not control many of the Vietnam era journalists that had their pieces printed in
mainstream media of the day. Not many left now and perhaps since the nineties they could no
longer get their articles published. Regan brought in perception management which eventually
brought all MSM 100% under US -CIA control.
If you're a CIA guy, you get the editor and the ombudsman on the payroll and he will make
certain that the desired propaganda gets published. If he's a Zionist, he's on the same page from the start, anyway.
The self-important "journalists" are controlled and in fact, they are flattered by their
special relationships with informants and the owner/managers. After one has sucked his or her way to the upper level, kissing up and kicking down... Laziness is a bonus.
I made a significant error in my April 16 profile of Gina Haspel. It took a while to figure
out where I went wrong.
What a strange construction. Doesn't the CIA have PR staff? A decent PR team would review
every item referencing their boss and issue clarifications and/or demand corrections
immediately. There should have been no need for Julian E. Barnes to figure anything out as
the CIA should have pointed out his mistake very quickly. This explanation/exculpation is
utter bullshit!
Every day when I turn on my computer, I am enticed with offers to "see how the Brady Bunch
kids look today" or "what do the stars of the 80s look like today?".
Apparently, there is quite a demand for updates on celebrities and their current well
being.
So why would Julian Barnes do an article about the Skirpals without showing us how they look
today? And just where are they living? Enquiring minds want to know!
I doubt that Trump asked questions about how those ducks and kids were doing. More likely
that MI5 was annoyed that they were exposed as the providers of the duck snuff pictures, and
put pressure on the NY Times.
Using ducks is easier. Gina Haspel could always ask one of the bottom-feeding subordinates
to nip down the road to one of those Chinese BBQ shops and
photograph the display of roast ducks hanging in the shop window . The photos can be
uploaded and altered to remove the background of the chef and the cashier and then the actual
ducks can be altered or colored appropriately before the pictures are sent to Haspel. Anyone
looking at the altered pictures would never guess their actual provenance.
:-)
I'm not sure where Haspel can find hippos or any other large animals that might topple on
top of someone (with dire consequences) were s/he to apply a whiff of nerve agent.
Thanks b for a good laugh at Barnes and Goldman's expense. I note Goldman is silent and I
guess that is because he would likely get his apology wrong and contradict Barnes BS.
Here's my profile of Gina Haspal: war criminal
Here's my profile of Julian Barnes: Fwit and BShitter
Here's my profile of Adam Goldman: Fwit and BShitter.
"... In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination. ..."
"... Russiagate and the DNC hacking scandal were the attempts to reverse the presidential election. Essentially Russiagate was created to tame Trump, although I am not sure that such drastic measures were needed and I might be wrong. He betrayed his election promises with such an ease that Russiagate now looks like a paranoid overreaction of the USA intelligence agencies (and former FBI director Mueller of 9/11 and anthrax investigation fame) Which figuratively speaking moved tanks to capture the unnamed native village. ..."
"... Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping its privileges then controllers. And if the society preaches militarism it is outright impossible: any politician deviation from militaristic policies will be met with the counterattack of intelligence agencies which are intimately interested in maintaining the status quo. ..."
In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I am very sorry and sincerely apologize. Please view this as a plausible hypothesis ;-)
Some considerations (neoliberals and neocons usually interpret those facts differently so this is a view from paleoconservative
universe; you are warned):
1. Exoneration of Hillary deprived Sanders of chances to lead Democratic ticket in 2016. This is as close to the proven fact as
we can get.
2. Russiagate and the DNC hacking scandal were the attempts to reverse the presidential election. Essentially Russiagate was created
to tame Trump, although I am not sure that such drastic measures were needed and I might be wrong. He betrayed his election promises
with such an ease that Russiagate now looks like a paranoid overreaction of the USA intelligence agencies (and former FBI director
Mueller of 9/11 and anthrax investigation fame) Which figuratively speaking moved tanks to capture the unnamed native village.
3. JFK and then Robert Kennedy assassination. The key role of the CIA in the JFK assassination now is broadly accepted in the
USA.
3. Obama connection to CIA was subject of many articles, especially in the alt-right press. He definitely was raised in a family
of CIA operatives.
4. Brennan spied on Congress and was not fired, which means that the CIA hieratically is above the Congress. Proven fact.
In short, nothing in the power structure of democratic societies prevents intelligence agencies from becoming key political actors,
the Pretorian guard which selects the Presidents by keeping dirt on politicians and controls the press (see Church commission). They
have both motivation (preservation and enhancement of their status as any large bureaucracy), means (weakly controlled, oversized
budget; access to shadow funds from arms and narcotics trading) and skills (covert operations, disinformation, sabotage. This triad
is inherent in their status as the legalized mafia which operates above the law. As Pompeo recently said in a recent speech at Texas
A&M University CIA operatives lie and cheat and steal.
When intelligence agencies control MSM that alone gives them considerable power to influence the political process. For example,
in the case of Russiagate, we saw well organized and timed series of leaks. So, in fact, they can be viewed as the "Inner Party"
in terms of Orwell dystopia 1984.
And the fact of media control is a proven fact. And not only via Church commission. Dr. Ulfkotte went on public television stating
that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders
would result in him losing his job.
Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies
is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping
its privileges then controllers. And if the society preaches militarism it is outright impossible: any politician deviation from
militaristic policies will be met with the counterattack of intelligence agencies which are intimately interested in maintaining
the status quo.
In any case, the problem of "the tail wagging the dog" is a problem for any country, not only for the USA. The fact that both
Brennan and Clapper become 'talking heads' after retirement tells something about the trend. Such things would be impossible 20 years
ago.
Some insights into the problem can be obtained by reading the article about the politicization of intelligence agencies in other
countries. For example:
Ultimately, making the intelligence agencies accountable amounts to a broader reevaluation of the larger framework of civil-military
relations. As a result, not only is intelligence reform an almost intractable political issue, but it also requires a complete
change of mentality for the actors involved. Reigning in the intelligence agencies is a problem of a deeper political culture,
one that requires a systemic change in the psychology of the organizations.
the lack of civilian oversight of intelligence agencies is a byproduct of the political imbalance between civilian and military
actors, a power structure that favors the latter.
As long as the military can get its way through seemingly constitutional means, the importance of the intelligence agencies
will remain relatively limited. Their role, however, becomes essential whenever the military meets some resistance
the military's domestic political power "has always derived from [its] ability to mediate confrontations among feuding political
leaders, parties or state institutions, invariably presented as threats to the political order and stability. The military [is]
of course the only institution empowered to judge whether such threats existed based on the assumption that a polity in turmoil
cannot sustain a professional military" (Rizvi 1998: 100). Yet whenever necessary, the military has not hesitated to generate
problems itself if it believes its institutional interests would be better served by a weak and divided polity. This is where
the intelligence agencies come into play.
the link between journalists and the intelligence agencies is a complex one, and cannot be reduced to a simple power dynamic
in which the journalists are merely the victim. Journalists need information, and thus have an interest in maintaining a good
relationship with intelligence agencies. In return, journalists are often asked to provide information themselves to intelligence
agencies.
"... Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. ..."
"... The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies. ..."
"... It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did. ..."
"... Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war. ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych. They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad. The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown. ..."
"... You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient. ..."
"... Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult to deal with them. ..."
"... People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and media men should know their place. ..."
"... How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy? ..."
"... These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation. ..."
"... Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI. ..."
"... It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes. If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers. ..."
"... It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control. The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control; it's firmly IN control. ..."
"... It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism – depending on the case. ..."
"... And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money, because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism ..."
"... The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance. ..."
"... Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA. ..."
"... Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors, but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor is a spook and he does what he wants. ..."
"... John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves. ..."
"... A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country, its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion and terror. ..."
"... Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses. ..."
"... Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments. ..."
"... While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control. They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it. ..."
Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and
cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk.
It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two
kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had
decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.
German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler's Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political
ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the
job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen
also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time
for CIA instead of Abwehr.
The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending
to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who
is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine.
They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves
and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.
Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela's top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad
as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty
to his country and its constitution.
Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though
they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike
Whitney and Philip Giraldi described
the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. In
the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren't
allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England
and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to
unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.
It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal
to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is
good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the
Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians
and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.
Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of
JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq
war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.
Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the
perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982)
Yuri Andropov . He and his appointees
dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.
Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev's shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost,
Alexander Yakovlev . Andropov
also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin
to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew
of to the FBI hands.
In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters
and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB
neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.
They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an
excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed
the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev
and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.
The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened
calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play
the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir
Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took
his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.
Only recently Putin began to trim the wild growth of his own intelligence service, the FSB. It is possible the cautious president
had been alerted by the surprising insistence of the Western media that the alleged attempt on Skripal and other visible cases had
been attributed to the GRU, the relatively small Russian Military Intelligence, while the much bigger FSB had been forgotten. The
head of
FSB cybercrime department had been arrested and sentenced for lengthy term of imprisonment, and two FSB colonels had been arrested
as the search of their premises revealed immense
amounts of cash , both Russian and foreign currency. Such piles of roubles and dollars could be assembled only for an attempt
to change the regime, as it was demanded by the Network.
In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych.
They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad.
The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support
of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown.
In the US, the spooks allowed Donald Trump to become the leading Republican candidate, for they thought he would certainly lose
to Mme Clinton. Surprisingly, he had won, and since then, this man who was advanced as an easy prey, as a buffoon, had been hunted
by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry.
You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were
and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the
plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient.
Their knowledge of official leaders' faults gives them their feeling of power, but this knowledge can be translated into actual
control only for weak-minded men. Strong leaders do not submit easily. Putin has had his quota of imprudent or outright criminal
acts in his past, but he never allowed the blackmailers to dictate him their agenda. Netanyahu, another strong man of modern politics,
also had managed to survive blackmail. Meanwhile, Trump defeated all attempts to unseat him, though his enemies had used his alleged
lack of delicacy in relation to women, blacks and Jews to its utmost. He waded through the deep pond of Russiagate like Gulliver.
But he has to purge the alphabet agencies to reach safety.
In Russia, the problem is acute. Many Russian spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other
countries than to their fellow citizens. There is a freemasonic quality in their camaraderie. Such a quality could be commendable
in soldiers after the war is over, but here the war is going on. Russian spooks are particularly besotted with their declared enemies;
apparently it is the Christian quality of the Russian soul, but a very annoying one.
When Snowden reached Moscow after his daring escape from Hong Kong, the Russian TV screened a discussion that I participated in,
among journalists, members of parliament and ex-spies. The Russian spooks said that Snowden is a traitor; a person who betrayed his
agency can't be trusted and should be sent to the US in shackles. They felt they belong to the Spy World, with its inner bond, while
their loyalty to Russia was a distant second.
During recent visit of Mike Pompeo to Sochi, the head of SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr Sergey Naryshkin
proposed the State Secretary Mike Pompeo, the ex-CIA director,
to expand contacts between Russian and US special services at a higher level. He clarified that he actively interacted with Pompeo
during the period when he was the head of the CIA. Why would he need contacts with his adversary? It would be much better to avoid
contacts altogether.
Even president Putin, who is first of all a Russian nationalist (or a patriot, as they say), who has granted Snowden asylum in
Moscow at a high price of seriously worsening relations with Obama's administration, even Putin has told Stone that Snowden shouldn't
have leaked the documents the way he did. "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further",
a response proving he didn't completely freed himself from the spooks' freemasonry.
While the spooks plot, the scribes justify their plots. Media is also a weapon, and a mighty one. In Richard Wagner's opera
Lohengrin , the protagonist is defeated by the smear campaign in the media. Despite his miraculous arrival, despite his glorious
victory, the evil witch succeeds to poison minds of the hero's wife and of the court. The pen can counter the sword. When the two
are integrated, as in the union of spooks and scribes, it is too dangerous tool to leave intact.
In many countries of Europe, editorial international policies had been outsourced to the spooky Atlantic Council, the Washington-based
think tank. The Atlantic Council is strongly connected with NATO alliance and with Brussels bureaucracy, the tools of control over
Europe. Another tool is
The
Integrity Initiative , where the difference between spies and journalists is
blurred
. And so is the difference between the left and the right. The left and the right-wing media use different arguments, surprisingly
leading to the same bottom line, because both are tools of warfare for the same Network.
In 1930s, they were divided. The German and the British agents pulled and pushed in the opposite directions. The Russian military
became so friendly with the Germans, that at a certain time, Hitler believed the Russian generals would side with him against their
own leader. The Russian spooks were befriended by the Brits, and had tried to push Russia to confront Hitler. The cautious Marshal
Stalin had purged the Red Army's pro-German Generals, and the NKVD's pro-British spooks, and delayed the outbreak of hostilities
as much as he could. Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult
to deal with them.
If they are so powerful, integrated and united, shouldn't we throw a towel in the ring and surrender? Hell, no! Their success
is their undoing. They plot, but Allah is the best plotter, – our Muslim friends say. Indeed, when they succeed to suborn a party,
the people vote with their feet. The Brexit is the case to consider. The Network wanted to undermine the Brexit; so they neutralised
Corbyn by the antisemitism pursuit while May had made all she could to sabotage the Brexit while calling for it in public. Awfully
clever of them – but the British voter responded with dropping both established parties. So their clever plot misfired.
People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected
legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and
media men should know their place.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Spymasters are usually renowned for their inscrutability and for playing their cards close to their vests.
These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created
the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of
a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation.
Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution
to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI.
Forthcoming books will no doubt get into all the remarkable and bizarre details.
Donald Trump has demonstrated the ability to troll and goad many of his opponents into a state of imbecility. It's a negotiating
tactic -- knock them off balance, provoke them to lose control. No matter how smart they are, some people take the bait.
I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Spies run the world – contemporary history in a nutshell. A few provisos:
– It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes.
If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal
biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers.
– It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control.
The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control;
it's firmly IN control.
– There is a crucial difference between US and Russian spies. Russians can go over the head of their government to the world.
That's the only effective check on state criminal enterprise like CIA. Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says "in the Russian
Federation rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles
and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution." Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person
and citizen are directly applicable, which prevents the kind of bad-faith tricks the USA pulls, like declaring "non-self executing"
treaties, or making legally void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article
46(3) guarantees citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms
if internal legal redress has been exhausted. Ratified international treaties including the ICCPR supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise.
Isn't it just collusion that holds certain elite groups together, including in some businesses where a lot of chicanery goes on.
The most important thing is to be in on it as one of them, not as a person who can be trusted not to say anything, but as one
of the gang. It's exactly how absenteeism-friendly offices full of crony parents with crony-parent managers work.
The only problem for the guy at the tippy top is what would happen if such a tight group turned on him / her? Maybe, some leaders
see the value in protecting a few brave individuals, like Snowden, letting any coup-stirring spooks know that some people are
watching the Establishment's rights violators, too. Those with technical knowledge have more capacity than most to do it or, at
least, to understand how it works.
In a country founded on individual liberties, including Fourth Amendment privacy rights that were protected by less greedy
generations, the US should have elected leaders that put the US Constitution first, but that is too much to ask in an era when
the top dogs in business & government are all colluding for money.
In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the
KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing from Russian commenters myself. Some have insisted that, if Andropov had lived long
enough, he would have carried glasnost and perestroika himself.
Spies are loathsome bunch, with questionable loyalties and personal integrity. But I believe that overall they play a positive
role. They play a positive role because they help adversaries gain insight into their adversary's activities.
If it wasn't for the spies, paranoia about what the other side is doing can get out of hand and cause wrong actions to take
place. The problem with the spies is also that no one knows how much they can be trusted and on whose side they are really on.
It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected
to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism
– depending on the case.
And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money,
because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism.
The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial
espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage
them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR
close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance.
Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization
of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA.
An aspect of the rule of spies that Mr. Shamir does not touch on is the legitimization of this rule through popular culture.
This started with the James Bond novels and movies and by now has become ubiquitous. Spies and assassins are the heroes of the
masses. While secrecy is still needed for tactical reasons in the case of specific operations, overall secrecy is not needed nor
even desirable. So you have thugs like Pompeo actually boasting of their villainy before audiences of college students at Texas
A&M and you have the Mossad supporting the publication of the book Rise and Kill First which is an extensive account of their
world-wide assassination policy. They have the power; now they want the perks that go with it, including being treated like rock
stars.
dear mr Shamir, the criminals are not only stupid but also utterly wicked. they will be stricken down in the twinkling of the
eye and will cry out why God? all the righteous will shout for joy and give thanks to the Almighty for judging Babylon. woe unto
them! they will have no place to hide or run to.
Ezekiel 9 (NKJV)
The Wicked Are Slain
9 Then He called out in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, "Let those who have charge over the city draw near, each with a
deadly weapon in his hand." 2 And suddenly six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his
battle-ax in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen and had a writer's inkhorn at his side. They went in and stood
beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He
called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer's inkhorn at his side; 4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst
of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations
that are done within it."
5 To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and
begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, "Defile the temple,
and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!" And they went out and killed in the city.
8 So it was, that while they were killing them, I was left alone; and I fell on my face and cried out, and said, "Ah, Lord
God! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?"
9 Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed,
and the city full of perversity; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' 10 And as for Me also,
My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head."
11 Just then, the man clothed with linen, who had the inkhorn at his side, reported back and said, "I have done as You commanded
me."
E Michael Jones was just warning President Trump about the possibility of this in the Straits of Hormuz.
https://youtu.be/iIm3WuJAVEE?t=272
Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors,
but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor
is a spook and he does what he wants.
John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves.
@Antares that's because the Mossad
isn't like "our" spy agencies. it's closer to the old paradigm of the hashishim or true assassins. Mossad "agents" don't gad around
wearing dark glasses and tapping phones; they run proper deep cover operations. "sleepers" is a term used in the USA. they have
jobs. they look "normal". They integrate
Do spies run the world? No not really, bankers run the world.
Bankers constitute most of the deep state in the US/UK in particular and most of Europe. It is the bankers/deep state which
control the intelligence agencies. The ethnicity of a hefty proportion of said bankers is plain to see for anyone with functioning
critical faculties. How else can a tiny country in the middle east have such influence in the US? How else do we explain why 2/3
of the UK parliament are "friends of Israel" How come financial institutions can commit felonies and no one does jail time? why
is Israel allowed to commit war crimes and break international law with total impunity? who got bailed out of their gambling debts
at the expense of inflicting "austerity" on most of the western world?
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks
who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country,
its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion
and terror.
Since winning, Trump has been hunted by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry. <fallacy is that Trump could have gained the assistence
of every American, had Trump just used his powers to declassify all secret information and make it available to the public, instead
he chases Assange, and continues to conduct the affairs of his office in secret.
Propaganda preys on belief.. it is more powerful than an atomic weapon.. when the facts are hidden or when the facts are changed,
distorted or destroyed.
Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their
fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule
making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence
of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/josh-gottheimer-democrats-yemen/
<i wrote IRT to the article, that contents appearing in private media supported monopoly powered corporations and distributed
to the public, direct the use of military and the willingness of soldiers of 22 different countries.
Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended
to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately
owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments.
I am bothered by you article because it looks to be Trumped weighted and failes to make clear it is these secret apolitical,
human rights abusers, that direct the contents of the media distributed articles that appear in the privately owmed, media distributed
to the public. Also not explained is how the cost of advertising is shared by the monopoly powered corporations, and it is that
advertising that is the source of support that keeps the fake news in business, the nation state propaganda in line, and the support
of robin -hood terror.
Monopoly powered global corporation advertising funds the fake and misleading private media, that is why the open internet
has been shut in tight. In order for the evil, global acting, high technology nomads to continue their extortion and terror activities
they need the media, its their only real weapon. I have never meet a member of any of the twenty two agencies that was not a trained,
certified mental case terrorist.
I think the interplay between the spooks and scribes warrants a deeper explanation. Covert action refers to anything in which
the author can disclaim his responsibility, ie it looks like someone else or something else. The handler in a political operation
cannot abuse his agent because the agent is the actor. The handler in an intelligence gathering operation can abuse his agent
because the agent merely enables action.
The political operations in this case are propaganda. The Congress of Cultural Freedom is the most clearly described one to
date. Propaganda is necessary in any mass society to ensure that voters care about the right issues, the right way, at the right
time. Propaganda can be true, false, or a mix of the two. Black propaganda deals in falsehoods, ie the Steele Dossier. Black propaganda
works best when it enables a pre-planned operation, but it pollutes the intelligence gathering process with disinformation.
Intelligence gathering is colloquially called investigative reporting. If anyone knows about Gary Webb, Alan Frankovich, or
Michael Hastings they know you can't really do that job well for very long. So how do the old timers last so long? It's a back
and forth. The reporter brings all of his information on a subject to his intelligence source (handler). The source then says,
"print this, print that, sit on that, and since you've been a good boy here's a little something you didn't know." The true role
of the investigative reporter is to conduct counterintelligence and package it as a limited hangout.
While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control.
They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care
as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it.
@Sean McBride And now Trump should
have then all rounded up and hung from the trees in the front of the Whitehouse. Anything less should be seen as encouragement.
The worst among us rule over the rest of us. As Plato said, this needs to change. How to do that? We don't know, but we desperately
need to find out ..
Obama was a very effective promoter of what might be called the "globalist" agenda. He of course didn't invent it but did appoint
those three.
Wayne Madsen gave a convincing account in his speculation that both Obama's parent's were CIA operatives. So it's "all
the family" and in the details one might conclude with the author that indeed "spies run the world."
The US government has a tendency to hijack and weaponize revolutionary innovations, Edward
Snowden said, noting that the natural human desire to communicate with others is now being
exploited on an unprecedented scale. "Our utopian vision for the future is never guaranteed
to be realized," Snowden told the audience in Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada via
live stream from Moscow this week, stressing that the US government "corrupted our
knowledge... towards a military purpose."
They took our nuclear capability and transformed it into the most horrible weapon that
the world had ever witnessed. And we're seeing an atomic moment of computer science... Its
reach is unlimited... but its safeguards are not!
The whistleblower, who in 2013 leaked a trove of highly classified information about global
spying operations by the National Security Agency, argued that, armed with modern technology
and with the help of social media and tech giants, governments are becoming
"all-powerful" in their ability to monitor, analyze, and influence behavior.
It's through the use of new platforms and algorithms that are built on and around these
capabilities that they are able to shift our behavior. In some cases, they are able to
predict our decisions and also nudge them to different outcomes.
The natural human need for "belonging" is being exploited and users voluntarily
consent to surrender virtually all of their data by signing carefully drafted user agreements
that no one bothers to read. "Everything has hundreds and hundreds of pages of legal jargon
that we're not qualified to read and assess and yet they are considered binding upon us,"
Snowden said.
And now these institutions, which are both commercial and governmental... have
structuralized and entrenched it to where it has become now the most effective means of
social control in the history of our species.
Most of now-former special counsel Robert Mueller 's public
statement to the press last week seemed to fall under the category of "Fair enough." After all, the man did nearly two years of work,
he kept largely silent throughout, and he alternately was called a hero or a dog.
So the day Mueller resigns, he chooses to make a
fairly brief statement putting a button on all of it, and at the same time declining to take any questions, before gliding back
into private life.
But there's at least one comment Mueller made that nags at me. It's when he said, "If we had had confidence that the president
clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."
Mueller must have had his reasons for shading his commentary in that way rather than in the other direction: If they'd found adequate
evidence to implicate Trump in a crime, or even "collusion," they would have said that, too.
The statement Mueller chose to give carries with it an implication that his team looked for evidence of
President Trump 's innocence but simply could not find it.
With that in mind, I thought of a short list of questions I'd like to ask Mueller, if ever permitted to do so:
What witnesses did you interview and what evidence did you collect in an attempt to exonerate Trump or prove him not guilty?
(I believe the answer would be, "None. It's not the job of a special counsel or prosecutor to do so." Therefore, was Mueller's
comment appropriate?)
Does it concern you that the FBI claimed "
collection tool failure " in
stating that 19,000 text messages between former FBI employees Lisa Page and Peter Strozk had been deleted and were unavailable
for review by the Department of Justice (DOJ) inspector general? Is it worth investigating how the inspector general was
able to recover the messages , when the FBI said it could not? Does the FBI lack the technical expertise, or the will? Isn't
it a serious issue that should be addressed, either way?
Along the same lines, do you think it strange or inappropriate that the DOJ
wiped text messages between Strzok and Page from their special counsel cell phones? The deletions happened shortly after they
were ejected from the team and before the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General could review them -- at a time when all had been
informed that their actions were under review. Did technicians attempt to recover the messages? Were the circumstances of the
deletions thoroughly investigated?
When did you first learn that the FBI and DOJ signed off on and presented unverified, anti-Trump political opposition research
to a court
to get wiretaps on an innocent U.S. citizen? Doesn't this violate the
strict procedures enacted while you were FBI director,
intended to ensure that only verified information is seen by the court? Who will be held accountable for any lapses in this arena?
Do these issues point to larger problems within our intelligence community, in terms of how officials operate? Does that put
you in a position where there's a conflict of interest since you were in charge of the FBI when
prior surveillance abuses were identified by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court? Did you consider disclosing this
potential conflict and stepping aside, or referring any issues that overlap with your interests?
What steps did you take after Strzok and Page were exposed, to try to learn if other investigators on your team likewise were
conflicted? Did you take action to segregate the work of these agents and any potential biases they injected into your investigation
and team? Wasn't their behavior a beacon to call you to follow an investigative trail in another direction?
Did you become concerned about foreign influence beyond Russia when you learned that a foreign national, Christopher Steele,
claimed to have obtained opposition research from Russian officials connected to Putin -- and that the FBI and DOJ presented this
material to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain wiretap approvals?
Were you aware that some Democratic Party officials acknowledged
coordinating with Ukraine in 2016 to undermine Trump and his associates and to leak disparaging information to the news media?
Is it true that you
applied
for the job as FBI director but Trump rejected you, the day before then-Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appointed you
as special counsel to investigate Trump? Does that put you in a potentially conflicted position?
Do you think Donald Trump is guilty of a crime? If so, then do you believe he is perhaps the most clever criminal of our time
since he was able to conceal the evidence despite all the government wiretaps, investigations, informants, surveillance and hundreds
of interviews spanning several years?
Clearly, Robert Mueller hopes he has closed the book on his public statements about his investigation. If he has his way, he will
not discuss the case further on the record. But his parting shot raised plenty of questions.
1) You said DoJ policy prevented you from indicting a sitting president. Did anything prevent you from indicting any co-conspirators
in any obstruction efforts the president may have taken? Did anything prevent you from naming the president as an unindicted co-conspirator
if there were any obstruction?
2) You said that if you had found clear evidence the president was innocent of collusion or obstruction you would have said
so in the report. Would you have done the same if you found clear evidence the president did collude or obstruct even though you
were barred from indicting him?
3) Your report says Russian intelligence hacked into DNC servers and stole emails and then leaked the stolen emails through
Wikileaks in order to influence the election. Did your investigators ever examine the DNC servers? Did FBI investigators ever
examine the DNC servers? Did employess of any other government agency examin the servers? Did anybody other than a firm hired
by the DNC do a forensic examination of the DNC servers? What evidence do you have that the DNC servers were hacked? And what
evidence do you have that it was by Russian intelligence? How can you be certain that Wikileaks source was not Seth Rich or some
other disgruntled DNC employee?
4) Would you like to talk about Whitey Bulger you slimy son of a bitch?
She ignored the two most important questions of all: (1) that Mueller never confirmed that "Russians" hacked the DNC server
because they never looked at it and instead relied on CrowdStrike to tell them it was "Russians" and (2) that Mueller never confirmed
that "Russians" uploaded HillDog's, the DNC's and Podesta's emails to Wikileaks. Yet Mueller reaches these 2 conclusions in his
Report.
The Report is a total farce when it reaches the foregoing two conclusions as the basis for "the Russians interfering in our
elections" absent any evidentiary proof of the same admissible in a court of law. Would be hearsay if they tried to introduce
those two facts into evidence at a trial.
One of the oldest legal tactics, force your adversary to prove a negative, prove an event did not occur, prove a crime was
not committed. Won't work at bench trials, but in front of a jury of "peers" it stands a chance. Especially when you have the
dem congress/MSM-industrial complex willing to parrot the story.
In a different time, Mueller would be shredded in the editorials: two years, unlimited resources, and all you produce is an
insinuation? FU, bob.
Yes. Judge Sullivan alluded to it at the time of the Flynn sentencing. Since Muellers' hands were deliberately tied from
investigating the actual crimes of a treasonous nature - vis a vis the laundered money from the turco-talmudic gangsters -
he could not bring that element of the serious and flagrant abuses both pre and post election into the proceedings.
The "Steele Dossier" was a joint effort of Uk/USA intelligence operatives who colluded with several parties - including
the Clintons, to muddy the waters according to the plans of Urusalem.
Rhetorical. Ignore
When it became clear that the "Russian" government as such operates as a network of mafiyas doing for.... and receiving
from the state... favors which are more often than not part of the strategy of a criminal network known as Chabad. That later
party is the partner in 'collusion'... which took place in the interests of Urusalem.
Peripheral to the investigation.
Crimes have been committed by both Democrat and Republican operatives. Only those which are part of the specific mandate
of the SC were investigated.
Certain specific persons were placed "off limits" to the investigators. All of whom share in common a degree of allegiance
to/control by Urusalem
Seth Rich is alive and well, living in a small beacon of democracy in the middle east. The investigation was tasked with
investigating false flag operations staged by parties whose names can never be mentioned.
Folks, the fact that FISA courts are even "legal" on the books is so far outside the boundaries of fair play I don't even know
where to start. How is this not a civil war starting offense? We're fucked folks.
I'd add two more questions, if slightly off topic.
Why did you let 4 men rot in prison for murders they did not commit when you had evidence exonerating them and implicating
corrupt FBI agents. I guess that question answers itself.
Why did Whitey Bulger get transferred to a new Federal prison and conveniently murdered - out of the camera's view - just as
Rep. Lynch was seeking to expose the FBI's corrupt handling of informants. I guess that question answers itself too.
These questions are just a start. I would also include: "What sort of punishment should people who try to sponsor a coup to
overthrow a duly elected President be subject to?".
The problem is more complex than just CIA. The Deep state encompass more players and it replaced elected officials (surface
state) while elections now provide mostly function of legitimizing the rule of the Deep State
Notable quotes:
"... The truth is as the world's economy becomes free of the US and its think-tanks, the world gets richer but those of us in the USA who make our living by working and getting paid will become poorer. Our money will not be able to cover for a good lifestyle. ..."
"... Its sad to see the disastrous policies of the CIA's economic unit has to be paid by the hard working US citizens who only want a good life like everyone else. We did not ask for the CIA, the CIA imposed itself on us, making the decisions without our consent. Now we pay for their disastrous policies by becoming a third world country. ..."
The growth of the USA is going to depend on the ability of the people in government to
disband the Central Intelligence Agency which has become a bottleneck in the progress of the
USA. The USA cannot grow as long as you have such a powerful bottleneck similar to a dictator
with absolute power.
The truth is as the world's economy becomes free of the US and its think-tanks, the world
gets richer but those of us in the USA who make our living by working and getting paid will
become poorer. Our money will not be able to cover for a good lifestyle.
Its sad to see the disastrous policies of the CIA's economic unit has to be paid by the
hard working US citizens who only want a good life like everyone else. We did not ask for the
CIA, the CIA imposed itself on us, making the decisions without our consent. Now we pay for
their disastrous policies by becoming a third world country.
We are being left behind .... China is going to keep growing... there is nothing the USA
can do to stop her now. If war is used, the USA will lose, if economics of scale is compared
the USA loses. China is a giant with an almost monolithic population of over one billion. Can
you imagine what an educated country with over one billion people can do???
The USA has a lot of blacks, hispanics, asians, Arabs etc, we are not a single group of
people. While diversity is a good thing when you have a lot of money to keep everyone happy,
poverty will be the enermy of diversity. People will be at each other's jugulars fighting for
the little scraps of wealth left behind after the big and powerful grab all they can.
We are into a very hard future in the USA.... no thanks to the silly Central Intelligence
Agency. For heavens sake, cant the CIA learn from Chinese or Russian intelligence???? How do
the intelligence agencies of the Chinese or Russians operate? Learn instead of sitting on the
silly high horse thinking US intelligence is anything but primitive and third rate!
Now the entire USA has to pay for the silly inteliigence agencies which keep expanding
with acronyms like rats!
An interesting method of monitoring access to the particular WEB site or page by intercepting pages at the router and
inserting reference to the "snooping" site for example one pixel image) which collects IPs of devices which accessed particular
page. Does not require breaking into the particular Web site 00 just the control of provider router is is enough. That
makes it more understandable the attack on Huawei.
Notable quotes:
"... Said Mr. Snowden was at risk for extra ordinary rendition.. qualified him for application under refuge law. Said to claim refugee status Art. 33 of the refugee humanitarian grounds application is Intl Refuge Law, that those in control of governments are working to eliminate this long standing intl understanding. ..."
"... said we are experiencing the greatest and fastest and most pervasive redistribution of power since the Industrial revolution.Highly concerned that very few are going to benefit. ..."
"... Talked about Conspiracy , a group called 5 eyes (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, and UK) and prism.. explained how it worked. basically a collaboration between big corporations and government ..."
"... Explained how these corporations and government (mostly government) could intercept web page request between user at home or in office and the target server, and replace generate a blank page that has surveillance hidden in the page, then blend hidden with the legitimate page delivered by the innocent server to the unknowing user. said it goes beyond collaboration and moves to proactive surveillance. ..."
"... Said law is needed to criminalize companies and governments that make useful network devices that people buy, into evil spyware. mentioned the NSO group can remember why?. .. classified "trade in hidden exploits". as evil relayed story about how such devices were used in Mexico to defeat political opposition ..."
Describes the incredible pressure governments are applying on anyone who steps forward to
help a whistle blower.
Said Mr. Snowden was at risk for extra ordinary rendition.. qualified him for application
under refuge law. Said to claim refugee status Art. 33 of the refugee humanitarian grounds
application is Intl Refuge Law, that those in control of governments are working to eliminate
this long standing intl understanding.
Explained the constitution of Equador was the most complex constitution on planet its due
process rights solid due process safeguard, has a very high threshold but. Morales decision
was arbitrary to strip Mr. Assange of his asylum. Said HK angry at Germany over two whistle
blowers
Snowden then speaks .. excellent talk..
1st point.. progress in science has been unprecedented, especially nuclear science, but
the nation states are using that new
knowledge to make nuclear weapons.. called the progress an "Atomic Moment" in Science
evolution. .
said we are experiencing the greatest and fastest and most pervasive redistribution of
power since the Industrial revolution.Highly concerned that very few are going to benefit.
2nd point Platforms and Algorithms are being used by those in power to "shift our
behaviors" accomplished covertly by user
contracts people are required to sign when joining something on line (<=he said no one
reads these things, but they are dangerous
Talked about Conspiracy , a group called 5 eyes (USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, and UK) and
prism.. explained how it worked.
basically a collaboration between big corporations and government
Explained how these corporations and government (mostly government) could intercept web
page request between
user at home or in office and the target server, and replace generate a blank page that has
surveillance hidden in the page, then
blend hidden with the legitimate page delivered by the innocent server to the unknowing user.
said it goes beyond collaboration
and moves to proactive surveillance.
said the legal means to spy on the populations existed long before 9/11, but it could not
find daylight to be adopted until 9/11.
Basically the government and massive in size corporations have all of the data on every
single person on the earth because they gather it everywhere all of the time. discussed
warrant_less wire tap, explained why whistle blower fair trial in he USA not likely,
Said everything single call or electronic communication made by citizens is captured
suggested monitoring calls was a felony many corporations committed before the FISA Act was
enacted to protect the listener.
Mentioned Signal by Open Whisper <= for encryption??
Said law is needed to criminalize companies and governments that make useful network devices
that people buy, into evil spyware. mentioned the NSO group can remember why?. .. classified
"trade in hidden exploits". as evil relayed story about how such devices were used in Mexico
to defeat political opposition.
But the big thing I got out of it, was how website contract agreements are not innocent.
Such agreements prey on human desire to [interact, connect, share and cooperate] these
desires have been modelled into a platform that allows government or private commercial
enterprises to manipulate, exploit and prey-on any human "interacting with a such
websites.
"... Institutions can "monitor and record private activities of people on a scale that's broad enough that we can say it's close to all-powerful," said Snowden. They do this through "new platforms and algorithms," through which "they're able to shift our behavior. In some cases they're able to predict our decisions -- and also nudge them -- to different outcomes. And they do this by exploiting the human need for belonging ." ..."
"... "We don't sign up for this," he added, dismissing the notion that people know exactly what they are getting into with social media platforms like Facebook. ..."
"... That means that a company, community or country that uses Huawei technology is protecting itself from the US-led international system of surveillance and possible control. And the threats and demands that they stop using Huawei products is more about keeping US control, not so much about blocking Chinese control ..."
NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said Thursday that people in systems of power have exploited the human desire to connect in
order to create systems of mass surveillance .
Snowden appeared at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia via
livestream from Moscow to give a keynote address
for the Canadian university's Open Dialogue Series.
Right now, he said, humanity is in a sort of "atomic moment" in the field of computer science. "We're in the midst of the greatest
redistribution of power since the Industrial Revolution, and this is happening because technology has provided a new capability,"
Snowden said.
"It's related to influence that reaches everyone in every place," he said. "It has no regard for borders. Its reach is unlimited,
if you will, but its safeguards are not." Without such defenses, technology is able to affect human behavior.
Institutions can "monitor and record private activities of people on a scale that's broad enough that we can say it's close
to all-powerful," said Snowden. They do this through "new platforms and algorithms," through which "they're able to shift our behavior.
In some cases they're able to predict our decisions -- and also nudge them -- to different outcomes. And they do this by exploiting
the human need for belonging ."
"We don't sign up for this," he added, dismissing the notion that people know exactly what they are getting into with social
media platforms like Facebook.
Snowden focuses on the common-knowledge stuff to keep our attention away from mass Signals Interference (spoofing and blocking
messages, calls, and emails) and other shady programs.
Huxley's 'Ultimate Revolution' - a scientific dictatorship where the masses willingly submit to their own enslavement - is
here.
His 1962 UC Berkeley speech sums it all up. Orwell's 1984 depended on terror and force to maintain control. Much easier with
A Brave New World where the control is psychological and people 'know their place' in the world and willingly accept it.
Mass surveillance is useless if you can't organise such a huge data set into meaningful information, and what's meaningful
is always a matter of opinion. Those who paid the bazillions to build this thing must be starting to scratch their heads.
The real threat of a system like this is when some low level user with access exploits it for their personal advantage. Some
neighbor or co-worker who doesn't like you.
AI has a long way to go and in this case it just sounds like a poor excuse to keep feeding the big white elephant.
10 to 15 yrs from now, security services and police will intercept any person walking in a public place without some form
of smart device to identify who they are, and it is all being implemented by stealth, right before our eyes
Smart identification devices will become mandatory, everything in your life will be tracked, your travel, your spending,
your political affiliations, people will willingly give up their freedoms to the illusory safety of the security state, call
it slavery
I don't know but at least as it pertains to me, I think all the scare tactics aboput Artificial Inteligence is way overblown.
I don't even read the ads on the internet, and if I do happen to spend more than a nanosecond viewing them, its usually only
to getg the name of the company so I make sure NOTG to buy anything from them for invading my space.
SoI reallhydon't \care if some algorithm says I am likely to buy a certain kind of product, because they can bombard me with
ads all day and all night and it won't make a rat's *** bit of difference in whagt I decide to do. Same with politics...there's
nothing they can pipe intop my computer that will make me more or less likely to vote for a candidate. I have voted all over
the ballot in any election I ever voted in, and my selections were based on reading what the candidates said at debates or in
campaign speeches. Political advertising is a waste of money when itg comes to my voting.
In terms of spying, yes, I can understand how and why tech companies and the government engage in that kind of activity.
I surely don't like it, but it really doesn't bother me because I would never portray anything I do to an internet full of anonymous
people who may be collecting information. Most people are law abiding and the things they do that come close to criminal occur
so infrequently and are for such a relatively small amount of money compared to a criminal enterprise that the government probably
doesn't have time to bother with them. If you have nothing to hide than you have nothing to fear, and for the most part, most
people have nothing to hide.
In terms of drones surveilling everyone, I think they are great target practice. How often do you get the chance to fire
atga moving target outside of skeet shooting ? So if the government or some ahole company wants to spy on you with drones, have
fun shooting them out of the air. If enough people take this route, the practice will end because the cost of all those shot
up drones will be too expensive for the Peeping Toms to afford. And the government does not have the resources to prosecute
a hundred million people all shooting at drones.
Another point : when it comes to election time, go to the local Meet The Candidate forums where you live and ask the candidates
who has the balls to state they will vote against any government spying without warrants based on unimpeachable reasonable causes
? Only vote for the politicians who make such pledges, and if they break their promises vote them out of office the next time
they try to get elected. Democracy works when the people are willing to use it. So use it.
Then get off your dead *** and work to save what power the people have left. Are you that lazy physically and intellectually?
TV people own you enough to cave into deep apathy? The I hope you get FEMA camped in one form or another because that's where
this **** is headed unless you take to heart the previous poster.
I would have agreed with you 20 years ago. We're way past the point where voting matters. All politicians on both sides are
the worst pieces of **** you can imagine. They all support mass surveillance, slavery through fake Fed money, war, GMOs, vaccines
and any other evil **** their masters are trying to force on us.
I hope the voting rate in America goes under 10 percent so that 90 percent of us can say, "**** you! I didn't vote for that"
and have it be true. Because when it comes to all the important stuff, you did vote for that if you voted for one of these vile
wastes of protoplasm in DC.
"As for freedom, it will soon cease to exist in any shape or form. Living will depend upon absolute obedience to a strict
set of arrangements, which it will no longer be possible to transgress. The air traveler is not free. In the future, life's
passengers will be even less so: they will travel through their lives fastened to their (corporate) seats."
I agree with Snowden's assessment of the human need to socially connect with others which is being exploited and morphed
into mass surveillance.
But .gov cannot be trusted to take any effective action against the likes of Faceache or Goolag because these outfits are
in bed with government (see recent ZH article on this very subject). Thus, government is a prime beneficiary of the mass surveillance
data being collected.
I actually disagree with Snowden. I think social media, from what people describe and what I observe, strokes people's egos
and self-esteem. The tragedy here is that social connection becomes redefined rather narrowly within the confines of ego and
self-esteem. I note, e.g., the strident and self-righteous tones in some of the posts throughout ZH here today. Along with the
hyper-massaging of ego/self-esteem comes hyper-emotionalism. Everything is cataclysmic. You're the "good guy," and everybody
and anybody who opposes you are the "bad guys." Stark, vivid black and white thinking propelled by emotions on steroids. Combine
ego massage with steroidal emotions, and you get people wearing the equivalent of horse blinders. People who are easily duped.
I was struck by Snowden's remarks about Huawei technology. He makes the claim that in the past 6 years our best minds with
unlimited resources had been unable to find Huawei back doors or kill switches, because otherwise we would know, they would
have announced it to the world
On the other hand we can assume that American servers and the software they use do have back doors and maybe kill switches
That means that a company, community or country that uses Huawei technology is protecting itself from the US-led international
system of surveillance and possible control. And the threats and demands that they stop using Huawei products is more about
keeping US control, not so much about blocking Chinese control
This reminds me of the urgency with which the US demands that countries buy Patriot missile systems, not S400's.
STASI was privatized - now, people volunteer their information, and the CIA-funded ABC and FaceBook aggregate and sell the
data back to Big Government.
He is right. When myspace, then facebook came out I thought, Cool, I can keep in touch with all these people. Then, when
I became obvious that is was being used to spy on everyone and sell their info, I was pissed at myself for being so naive to
think that an honest company could exist without stabbing everyone in the back and becoming a tool for for the same intelligence
groups that have been standing on our necks for a couple hundred years now. Today it is too much to ask for an honest company
and a government that does not victimize its citizens in about every way it can imagine. We can have a better world. It won't
come by voting. They locked that **** down. It is time for the rope.
I get the surveillance part, but the social control part is still in the wings. China's social credit system and US' "terrorism"
databases are all but inklings of what is to come: constant and ubiquitous 24/7 monitoring with AI drone "enforcement". So far
the powers that be feel constrained in using all the data they collect in criminal court - in part because there are not enough
prisons, and in part because they don't want a revolt. But: once AI, data collection and drone automation reach the tipping
point (not far off), those constraints will be gone: there will be no ability to revolt as the drones will wipe out the "seditionists",
and prison won't be a problem because they will use other means (no food, no transportation, or corporal punishment, all administered
by integrated sales, transportation and drone systems).
The Democrat establishment are bereft of any new policy ideas or the ability to advance any policy framework through the
House let alone bring along the Senate. Egged on by the TDS afflicted "fake news" media all they've got is politicization. Their
Mueller silver bullet failed. So they'll go with an impeachment with all the media hysteria accompanying it fully realizing
that they don't have the votes in the Senate convict.
I'm not certain how this will play out in the mid-west where the next election will be decided. OTOH, an impeachment would
possibly force Trump to get aggressive about releasing all the incriminating documents and communications about the attempted
coup by the Obama administration law enforcement and intelligence leadership. Of course they would claim that what Trump is
doing is purely political and that they were only doing their patriotic duty. We're going to be in for more TDS media frenzy.
The last time they lost an election with sure thing Hillary. Do they expect to win with the same tactics with Sleepy Joe and
his long track record of being in the pocket of the financial industry?
It looks like Barr may mean business. He seems to be pushing ahead trying to get to the bottom of how the Russia collusion
investigation began in the first place.
Listen to this interview of Barr. Very interesting. As someone who has always opposed the growth in the unfettered powers
of the national security surveillance state, the fact that a sitting attorney general is using words like "praetorian guard"
in an interview is of great interest. Let's see how this is going to shake out. There is a possibility that the tide is
turning and the investigators may actually be investigated.
"The American Dream" as well as the American "Middle Class" have always bee a puzzle to me. The Dream seems to mean owning
a house to a lot of people. The Middle Class is what, a European style bourgeoisie?
As an outsider, it has always seemed to be that a succinct definition of the "American Dream" is that your kids will be better
off (you define "better") than you were.
Not unique to the USA, of course, but the inspiration for many many immigrants.
I think Trump is a buffoon who should not be President but that is not an impeachable offense. I think the Democrats would
be stupid to try to impeach, it would fail miserably in the Senate and probably lead to a trump victory in 2020. Compared with
Bush and Cheney, Trump is a minor sinner. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached for putting together a false case for going
to war in Iraq. That is the kind of mistake that cost thousands of lives a couple trillion dollars. If ever there was a case
for impeachment - that was the big one we missed.
Dick Morris agrees that impeachment will destroy the Dems "what will destroy them is that they apparently have nothing else
to say" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnI64DKD6o0
Main reassons to impeach Trump are related to its behavior on foreign policy,... if in that he would not be fully supported
by the Democrat apparatus...
The harm he has done to the US word and image throughout the world is of epic proportions, one wonders if it would be recoverable
any time....
-Storming of foreign embassies, starting with the Russian ones amd following with Venezuela´s
-Appropiating of foreign assests on basis of not liking the sign of the countryés governments.
-Naming presidents in charge of foreign countries whose government he does not like.
-Giving away foreign cities which do not belong to him to alleged allies tied to his close family.
-Illegal presence of US troops in foreign countries even after calls by legitimate authorities of those counries to go.
-Threatening every country whose government he does not like through his Twitter account and officials, even with war.
-Going against every principle of free market, which the US economy is supposedly based on, by ordering fully protectionist
measures on Us products and to private companies to comply with his overextended sanctions on everybody who could compete in
anything with the US or do not submit to US designs...
Then it is his continuous refusal to show his tax return.....There is something there, for sure...
Congratulations!
This year your birthday coincided with Al Quds Day...May be a sign...
"... "All political analysis which favors either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is inherently worthless, because both parties are made of swamp and exist in service of the swamp. If you can't see that the entire system is one unified block of corruption and that ordinary people need to come together and unite against it, then you really don't understand what you're looking at." ..."
Whatever you may think of Trump, the people who set out to 'get him' are the scum of the
Earth. I recommend listening to the two-part interview of George Papadopoulos with Mark
Steyn, where he describes the convoluted plot to use him to bring down Trump.
What they did to this guy is truly disgusting. Brennan belongs in a prison cell, and he
should be sharing it with Mueller. Papadopoulos also has written a book about his
experiences called 'Deep State Target, How I got caught in the crosshairs of the plot to
bring down President Trump.
And, a final comment. Hillary Clinton proved beyond all doubt that she and not Trump was
not fit to be President. To engage in this scheme and then to raise tensions through the
roof with a nuclear superpower, which can destroy this country, is about as low and selfish
as it is possible to be.
As I stated on the open thread, to paraphrase Muller;
I don't give a s###. figure it out yourself, Im f***ing outta' here.
The whole point of impeachment, is to have a show trial, not actually impeach. If the
thing is on TV, the American people may watch it, and that would be interesting.
Not to worry though, Pelosi and Schumer won't let that happen. Appeasing their donors,is
all they care about.
psycho @ 2 quoting C. Johnston stated;
"All political analysis which favors either the Democratic Party or the Republican
Party is inherently worthless, because both parties are made of swamp and exist in service of
the swamp. If you can't see that the entire system is one unified block of corruption and
that ordinary people need to come together and unite against it, then you really don't
understand what you're looking at."
"... IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence when you turn a massive entity like USA. ..."
Mueller plays his criminal hand of innuendo until the end. Were he ever to submit to questions in a Congressional setting,
Mueller would be out-Giancana-ing Sam on taking the Fifth. The Special Counsel format is at this stage a superseded footnote.
The ball's now in Barr/Durham's court now and the theme is Hunt for Red Predicates.
Breaking news. The Russia Collusion time-zero may in fact lead to Rome as all roads are wont to do. Italy is not a Five Eyes
member. However that did not prevent Obama and Brennan from treating it like one. Both spent a lot of time there at opportune
moments.
As it turns out the oft-cited, oft-profaned Steele Dossier was the barest of predicates that was always meant to be hopped
over anyway. The Mother of all Predicates was a a failed effort on the the part of Italian intelligence and the FBI to frame
Trump in a stolen (Clinton) email scandal. How did the Italians get hold of these emails and who thwarted the frame-up attempt?
Hmm.
Just when you think the transnational plot is thick enough, it gets thickerer, and if Obama's Milan itinerary's any indication,
it may well reach the tippy-top.
Nine Days in May (2017) is where 90% of the action is.
@29 bruce... everyone here at moa is saying much the same which is why some of us are saying the cia is running the usa at this
point.. that and a confluence of other interests... mueller - ex cia... so, basically the mueller investigation was more cover
up and b.s. for the masses... it seems to have worked to a limited degree..
Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the
end of the Cold War, it became more apparent.
IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold
War while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence
when you turn a massive entity like USA.
Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in
alt-media) can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't bring
themselves to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "cia is running the usa".
Some think the CIA has been running the show since the Kennedy assassination. But with the rise of the neocons and the end
of the Cold War, it became more apparent.
IMO it also became more apparent when the Deep State f*cked up by no bringing Russia on-side after the end of the Cold War
while continuing to assist China's "peaceful rise". That caused the dislocation known as Trump. There's gonna be some turbulence
when you turn a massive entity like USA.
Last thing that as become 'apparent' is this: the vast majority of people in the West (including many smart people in
alt-media) can't dislodge their thinking from the MSM narratives. Despite being skeptical of MSM and USA, they just can't
bring themselves to see the degree of manipulation that leads to the logical conclusion: "cia is running the usa" .
"... They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition. Trump makes a threat by declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but so far no heads have rolled and perhaps never will. ..."
"... There is a high probability that we could see two hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader ..."
"... but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks. ..."
"... and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia russia russia ..."
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
May 23
"Today, at the request and recommendation of the Attorney General of the United States, President Donald J. Trump directed the
intelligence community to quickly and fully cooperate with the Attorney General's investigation into surveillance
activities....
....during the 2016 Presidential election. The Attorney General has also been delegated full and complete authority to
declassify information pertaining to this investigation, in accordance with the long-established standards for handling
classified information....
....Today's action will help ensure that all Americans learn the truth about the events that occurred, and the actions that
were taken, during the last Presidential election and will restore confidence in our public institutions."
They all have dirt to hide and at the moment, none are game to start a war of attrition. Trump makes a threat by
declassifying some documents from the Mueller investigation and Mueller comes back with his move, but so far no heads have
rolled and perhaps never will.
Absolutely brothers, you nailed it. There is a high probability that we could see two
hulks (Dems and Repugs) bashing it out in the ring. The spectacle could totally trash the
leadership of both and leave the field open for a leader. If only it were easier to have a
new third party for the Presidential race. AFAIK establishing a third party to run takes
years and can only be registered after immense hurdles are crossed.
And no, I am not advocating the Greens for Bernie or Tulsi. That way is suicide.
I am sure there are many reasons why democrats want to impeach trump but to me it comes down
to this, they are hot about impeachment because they are so afraid they won't be able to
defeat him in the next election. get it. this is really simple.
there are two ways to get him out of power, so they think - either successful impeachment
(highly doubtful both on the actual charges, and convincing 67 senators to go along with the
house), or actually defeating him in 2020..... how they gonna do that? what are the great
issues that the democrats are going to taken on, again, to defeat this wanker - bad trump bad
bad bad! you know, that worked really well the last time didn't it?
the man is a menace both to the country and to the world, and should be defeated. who's
gonna take hi s place, another neo-liberal and war monger, like biden. don't make me
laugh.
but how are the corporate hacks that run the democratic party going to do it? the core
economic and social issues are waiting to be taken up (again) by a progressive candidate - it
infuriates me what the DNC and clinton did to Sanders, because he would be sitting in the
white house right now if they hadn't pulled their dirty tricks.
and no, identity politics is not going to defeat this fucker. nor is screaming russia
russia russia
Trump is just a bloody clown and maybe the American people deserve hold.
The American people are 'exceptional' in there delusional degenerate greed.
Here is a clip from the speaker of the U.K. House of Commons (a Tory)
If Trump is impeached then this will just confirm the false-fact of Russian interference in
the US elections. While the fuss about Venezuela was going on, US mercenaries appear to have
been involved in massacres and putting down an insurrection/revolution in Haiti.
The US have (this week) encouraged Kosovo special forces to conduct operations in Serbian
held areas in violation of UN agreements and have assaulted and arrested UN officers (who are
Russian) - The US is seeking to provoke the nightmare of Balkan conflict and drag Russia into
open conflict by provoking a war between Kosovo and Serbia.
The US have (today) accused Russia of conducting Nuclear Tests when there is absolutely no
evidence of this (Nuclear explosions would have been detected).
The US is maneuvering towards war. Only the American people can stop this. The Trump
psycho-drama is a major distraction which is obscuring US actions from its own people.
This next US election looks like it's going to be a major joke. American's are going to
get a lot more comments like that of Lowdown @92 unless you start getting control of what
your Nation (on your behalf) is doing to the world.
Circe wrote: "The reason Pelosi is against impeachment is because her Zionist financiers want
Trump or Biden to win, and if Trump is impeached this will favor Sanders. Sanders would be
higher in the polls if Dems weren't so scared of Trump labelling him a radical socialist."
I can think of two reasons for Pelosi to be against impeachment - Trump will continue cry
"witch hunt!" and the media will help him with plenty of coverage, and he and the GOP will
point out that the House is wasting time with investigations instead of helping "hard working
Americans". They may even revive the old "Do nothing Congress" tag.
Trump's crimes such as they are have yet to be revealed. The federal courts in New York state
will be the venue and it is inconceivable based on any objective reading of the US Criminal
Justice System that an investigation into Trump's businesses for the prior 10-20 years will
not result crimes being uncovered.
The other objective reading that will apply is whether Trump by virtue of his now extreme
elitism will be let off the hook. I'm thinking the answer is yes he will be let off the
hook.
Anyone stuck on "Russiagate" is simply evading Trump's true legal exposure.
Trump is tooting Boris and Nigel's horn. Notice how this Zio ass kisser doesn't even give
Corbyn the time of day, but instead is slobbering all over Netanyahoo calling his win
resounding and now what is happening to BibiYahoo so unfair. Then you expect me to show
restraint where Trump is concerned?
The best thing that can happen is Sanders getting Pence as a campaign opponent! Trump
would be way more dirty with Sanders. Anyone against impeachment is in the Zionist camp!
PERIOD, end of sentence.
It utterly amazes me how you neo liberals still don't get why people voted for Trump. It will
be the same reasons why he isn't going to win again.
He won by just barely flipping three rust belt states. Has he stopped any income
depressing immigration? Nope, its accelerating. How about ending those pesky international
entanglements, and getting along? Unless your an Israel firster, the answer is a big zero.
PA, Wisconsin, Michigan all have Democrat governors now. Woohoo...more dead and illegals
voting Democrat. Make matters worse you have the impending agriculture and financial
collapse. My guess is the Donald will pull out of the election at the most inopportune time,
and not even bother with it.
By the way Trump ain't the problem. The bankers and their central bank are the problem.
The deep state was created to serve them. Guess for some as long as (D) is in back of our
politicians name, all will be good. Sad.
Re "An impeachment will be anyway be unsuccessful because the Republicans own the Senate and
will vote down any impeachment indictment that might pass the House."
Respectfully, MofA, please stick to your excellent, insightful, and informative analyses
in the international arena and stay away from US domestic politics.
The Dems are not at all sure about winning in 2020, not least because of the pathetic
gaggle of so-called candidates they've go to offer. Their main goal in pursuing impeachment
will not be to weaken Trump for 2020, it's – still – to get him out of the White
House.
As was the case in 2016, Trump's the only GOP candidate who has a shot at winning, though
it's not a sure thing. The Dems want a sure thing.
Do they have the goods to get rid of him yet? No. That's while they'll keep digging.
Taxes. Business skullduggery in NY. Babes. They hope that sooner or later they'll uncover
something that will give enough Republicans in the Senate an excuse to give Trump the
heave-ho.
A Republican Senate will "vote down any impeachment"? Ha. Compare Clinton and Nixon.
Clinton literally could have raped Juanita Broaddrick in the middle of Fifth Avenue and the
Dems still would have circled the wagons to defend him, as they in fact did, without a single
Dem vote to convict.
Nixon, however, was done in by his own party when Senate GOP leaders told Tricky Dick
(loathed by most of his party, as Trump is) that he had to resign or they would vote to
remove him. Depending on what the Dems dig up, Republicans can be counted on to see scary
editorials in the Washington Post and New York Times and run in panic. "I've always been
supportive of the president, but I can't defend that. So I have no choice but to ") Add the
fact that between a quarter and a third of GOP Senators would jump at the chance to put a
knife in Trump's back if they got the opportunity, with sanctimonious warmonger Mitt Romney
at the front of the line.
I am not predicting that Trump will be removed: the Dems might come up empty on the needed
dirt; they may fall short of the number of Republicans they need to give him the "Nixon
talk"; even if he is given an ultimatum, he may decide to fight and actually win. But don't
take it as a given that impeachment is a futile exercise undertaken only to weaken Trump for
reelection and likely to backfire. It might succeed.
If it doesn't, Trump's chances of winning reelection are better than even, though the
landscape has become less favorable. His base remains strong (most of his Deplorables think
he's actually delivering on his promises, because he says so in tweets and at his rallies.
Look at that big, beautiful invisible nonexistent Wall! Winning!). On the other hand, failure
to control our border means the demographic shift against Republicans continues, coupled with
zero efforts to police voting by non-citizens and (notably in Florida) letting felons vote.
If Trump loses either Florida or Pennsylvania, it's probably all over even with a lousy
Democratic opponent. That's aside from whatever economic hiccup occurs between now and next
fall. Or if Trump gets in a war somewhere.
Finally, I dispute the suggestion it's desirable to elect more Dems to Congress. Let's
agree Republicans are horrible. But even if you like the Dems on domestic grounds (I don't)
let's not ignore the fact that on the warmongering front the Dems are at least as bad as the
GOP and in most cases worse, especially when it comes to Russia. Note how Mueller began and
ended his swan song by emphasizing the Russian "attack" on the US in 2016. That's will
continue to be the core dogma of the Democratic Party, with most of the GOP joining them in
making sure Trump shows no sign of heresy. More Democrats means even more of a straitjacket
on whatever off-script impulses Trump occasionally displays with regard to Korea, Syria, and
Russia. Even Iran, where he has disavowed regime change (somebody tell President
Bolton!).
"... He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However, Congress can charge him thru impeachment" ..."
"... Russian spin is the key to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the election to get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda. Impeachment just serves to divide and distract, exactly what they want. ..."
"... Russia like China is a fake enemy. Fake conflict with the US serves them just as well as it does with the US. The people must have an enemy lest they focus attention on the government. So they all play along. ..."
"... we get the opportunity to vote for one clown or another, two max, is a mainstay (about the only one) of our "democratic" nation. And the wrong clown won! Damned Russians. ..."
What do you expect from the master of coverup himself?
He basically said in so many words "Russians hacked Hillary & I didn't find
Trump didn't collude with them, I just came up short on proof, and I never said he didn't
obstruct my probe, just that I wasn't allowed to charge it. However, Congress can charge
him thru impeachment"
Except for the Russian involvement that's the truth. But the Russian spin is the key
to maintaining Russia as a fake enemy and using their fake involvement in the election to
get support to suppress alt media and censor social media. This is a bipartisan agenda.
Impeachment just serves to divide and distract, exactly what they want.
Russia like China is a fake enemy. Fake conflict with the US serves them just as
well as it does with the US. The people must have an enemy lest they focus attention on the
government. So they all play along.
No wonder hollywood is producing crap now and messed up GOT finale. All the good writers
are engaged in scripting our reality under the guidance of the Deep State. Trumps nothing
more than an actor following a script.
The Dems can't believe Hillary lost all on her own. It must have been the Russians who
threatened US democracy and it's too bad we don't have the truth b/c Trump obstructed the
patriotic and sacred investigation according to a powerful person.
. . .Nancy Pelosi --
"The Special Counsel's report revealed that the President's campaign welcomed Russian
interference in the election, and laid out eleven instances of the President's
obstruction of the investigation. The Congress holds sacred its constitutional
responsibility to investigate and hold the President accountable for his abuse of power.
"The Congress will continue to investigate and legislate to protect our elections and
secure our democracy. The American people must have the truth. We call upon the Senate to
pass H.R. 1, the For The People Act, to protect our election systems.
"We salute Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his team for his patriotic duty to seek
the truth." . . . here
After all, the quadrennial presidential election, when we get the
opportunity to vote for one clown or another, two max, is a mainstay (about the only one)
of our "democratic" nation. And the wrong clown won! Damned Russians.
"... Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade. ..."
"... There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do something is the only story. ..."
"... It is very depressing to see the Dems abandoning government and the future direction of the country, to go full time witch-hunt. ..."
Muller has been and is a partisan hack. His job is to clearly state if President colluded or obstructed justice. If he did
show collusion or obstruction, and then declined to indict due to Justice Department restrictions then it will be up to the Congress
to impeach. He did no such thing but wrote a clumsy report & held a clumsy press conference. Time to drop this charade.
There is no evidence that the state of Russia officially did anything. Only a couple of private people and Ukraine (Fancy Bear
is Ukrainian). The worst thing the deep state does is continue to promote that the Russians did anything. Hillary's gang did do
something is the only story.
Wikileaks got their information from a thumb drive given to them by a disgusted Democratic Party worker. Trumps best friends
are those that are being smeared: Russia, China, Assange. When Trump believes trash talk against the innocent by the guilty, he
works against himself.
OMG. Don't you "get it?" At the very top levels, those above Trump and government officials, Trump was given exoneration
with major players, who control the leadership of their party, opposing any further action on the exoneration, and they got Assange.
Happened at the same exact time. When all of a sudden, Trump "didn't know WikiLeaks."
Fine..... time to release all documents related to Uranium One, the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi, the FISA courts, the political
spying by the Obola Administration....
The Dems want nuklear political warfare? Give them nuklear criminal and judicial warfare?
But they better be aware there won't be any Democrats around to run for 2020 'cause they will all be dealing with their own
criminal proceedings.
During a press conference in Japan U.S. President Donald Trump today
said ( video ):
And I'm not looking to hurt Iran at all. I'm looking to have Iran say, "No nuclear weapons." We have enough problems in this world
right now with nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons for Iran.
And I think we'll make a deal.
Iran said: "No nuclear weapons." It said that several times. It continues to say that.
Iran does not have the intent to make nuclear weapons. It has no nuclear weapons program.
But Trump may be confused because the U.S. 'paper of the record', the New York Times, recently again began to falsely assert
that Iran has such a program.
A May 4 editorial in the Times claimed that Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps was running such a nuclear weapons program.
After a loud public outrage the Times corrected the editorial. Iran's UN office wrote a letter to the Times which was
published on May 6:
In an early version of "Trump Dials Up the Pressure on Iran" (editorial, nytimes.com, May 4), now corrected, you referred to a
nuclear weapons program in describing the reach of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
...
The editorial is correct in criticizing the punishing aspects of the Trump administration policy toward Iran -- one that has brought
only suffering to the Iranian people and one that will not result in any change in Iran's policies. But it was wrong to refer
to a weapons program -- a dangerous assertion that could lead to a great misunderstanding among the public .
Unfortunately that did not help. The NYT continues with the "dangerous assertion".
At a meeting of President Trump's top national security aides last Thursday, Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan presented
an updated military plan that envisions sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American forces
or accelerate work on nuclear weapons , administration officials said.
One can not accelerate one's car, if one does not have one. The phrase "accelerate work on nuclear weapons" implies that Iran
has a nuclear weapons program. It may that the White House falsely claimed that but the authors use the phrase and never debunk it.
A May 14 NYT piece by Helene Cooper and Edward Wong
repeats the false claim
without pointing out that it is wrong:
The Trump administration is looking at plans to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East should Iran attack American
forces or accelerate work on nuclear weapons , The New York Times reported.
Also on May 14 the NYT 's editorial cartoon was published under the caption
Will Iran Revive Its Nuclear Program?
The caption of the orientalist cartoon falsely asserted that Iran had enriched Uranium to weapons grade. And no, Iran does not have
a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapons program in its freezer.
On May 16, after another public outcry, a correction was added to the cartoon:
An earlier version of a caption with this cartoon erroneously attributed a distinction to Iran's nuclear program. Iran has not
produced highly enriched uranium.
After this onslaught of false New York Times claims about Iran NYT critic Belen Fernandez asked:
Has the New York Times declared
war on Iran? She lists other claims made by the Times about Iran that are far from the truth.
Three days later, on May 25, Palko Karasz
reported in the
New York Times on Iran's reaction to Trump's
tiny
troop buildup in the Persian Gulf region. Again the obviously false "accelerate" phrase was used:
Under White House plans revised after pressure from hard-liners led by John R. Bolton, the president's national security adviser,
if Iran were to accelerate work on nuclear weapons , defense officials envision sending as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle
East.
Iran does not have a nuclear program. It can not "accelerate" one. The U.S. claims that Iran once had such a program but also
says that it was ended in 2003. The
standardformulation that
Reuters uses in its Iran reporting is thereby appropriate:
The United States and the U.N. nuclear watchdog believe Iran had a nuclear weapons program that it abandoned. Tehran denies ever
having had one.
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transfer or whatsoever of nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to
manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance
in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
With that Iran said "No nuclear weapons". Iran also accepted the nuclear safeguards demand in Article III of the treaty in form
of routine inspections by the treaty's nuclear watchdog organization IAEA.
Article IV of the NPT gives all non-nuclear-weapon state parties like Iran the "inalienable right" to "develop research, production
and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination." After signing the NPT Iran launched several civil nuclear
projects. These started under the Shah in 1970s and continued after the 1979 revolution in Iran.
Ever since the Iranian revolution the U.S. expressed explicit hostility to the Islamic Republic of Iran. It instigated the President
Saddam Hussein of Iraq to launch a war against the Islamic Republic and actively supported him throughout. It attempted and continues
to attempt to hobble Iran's development, nuclear and non-nuclear, by all possible means.
Under U.S. President George W. Bush the U.S. government claimed that Iran had a nuclear weapons program. The Islamic Republic
Iran rejected that claim and in 2004 signed the
Additional Protocol to the NPT which allows the IAEA
to do more rigorous, short-notice inspections at declared and undeclared nuclear facilities to look for secret nuclear activities.
With that the Islamic Republic of Iran said: "No nuclear weapons".
In a 2006 New York Times op-ed Javid Zarif, then the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations,
wrote :
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling
and use of nuclear weapons.
With that Iran's highest political and religious leader said: "No nuclear weapons".
Not only did Iran sign the NPT and its Additional Protocol but its political leadership outright rejects the development and ownership
of nuclear weapons.
Zarif also pointed out that the IAEA found that Iran had missed to declare some nuclear activities but also confirmed that it
never had the nuclear weapons program the Bush administration claimed it had:
In November 2003, for example, the agency confirmed that "to date, there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear
material and activities were related to a nuclear weapons program."
During the "previously undeclared nuclear material and activities" which the IAEA investigated, some Iranian scientists worked
on a 'plan for a plan' towards nuclear weapons. They seem to have discussed what steps Iran would have to take, what materials, and
what kind of organization it would need to launch a nuclear weapons program. The work was not officially sanctioned and no actual
nuclear weapons program was ever launched. It is believed that the Iranian scientists worked on a 'plan for a plan' because they
were concerned that Iran's then arch enemy Saddam Hussein, who had bombarded Iranian cities with chemical weapons, was working towards
nuclear weapons. In 2003, after the U.S. invaded Iraq, that concern proved to be unfounded and the 'plan for a plan' project was
shut down.
In December 2007 all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies
confirmed the shut down:
A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the
program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.
...
[T]he new [National Intelligence Estimate] declares with "high confidence" that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform
that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003, and also says with high confidence that the halt "was directed
primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure."
The National Intelligence Estimate ended efforts by the Bush administration to threaten Iran with war. But the U.S. government,
under Bush and then under President Obama, continued its effort to deny Iran its "inalienable right" to civil nuclear programs.
Obama waged a campaign of ever increasing sanctions on Iran. But the country did not give in. It countered by accelerating its
civil nuclear programs. It enriched more Uranium to civil use levels and developed more efficiant enrichment centrifuges. It was
the Obama administration that finally gave up on its escalatory course. It conceded that Iran has the "inalienable right" to run
its civil nuclear programs including Uranium enrichment. It was this concession, not the sanctions, that brought Iran to the table
for talks about its nuclear programs.
The result of those talks was the The Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) which was endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, adopted on July 20, 2015.
The JCPOA gives the IAEA additional tools to inspect
facilities in Iran. It restricts Iran's civil nuclear program to certain limits which will terminate in October 2025. The JCPOA also
reaffirms that Iran has full rights under the NPT. The IAEA since regularly inspects facilities in Iran and consistently reaffirms
in its reports that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.
The Trump administrations hostility to Iran has nothing to do with anything nuclear. The U.S. wants hegemony over the Persian Gulf
region. Iran rejects such imperial desires. The U.S. wants to control the flow of hydrocarbon resources to its competitors, primarily
China. Iran does not allow such controls over its exports. The U.S. wants that all hydrocarbon sales are made in U.S. dollars. Iran
demands payments in other currencies. Israel, which has significant influence within the Trump administration, uses claims of a non
existing Iranian nuclear weapons program to manipulate the U.S. public and to divert from its racist apartheid policies in Palestine.
Trump's talk - "I'm looking to have Iran say, "No nuclear weapons."" - is simply bullshit. Iran said so several times and continues
to say so. But Trump obviously believes that he can get away with making such idiotic claims.
The New York Times proves him right. It is again slipping into the role that it played during the propaganda run-up to
the war on Iraq in 2002/2003. False claims made by members of the Bush administration about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were
reported by the Times as true, even while diligent reporters at other outlets
debunked those claims again and again.
The Times later apologized and fired Judith Miller, one of its reporters who wrote several of the pieces that supported the
false claims.
But it was never a problem of one reporter who channeled false claims by anonymous administration officials into her reports.
It was the editorial decision by the Times , taken long before the war on Iraq began, to use its power to support such a war. That
editorial decision made it possible that those false claims appeared in the paper.
This month alone one NYT editorial, one editorial cartoon and at least five reporters in three pieces published in the New
York Times made false claims about an Iranian nuclear weapons program that, as all the relevant official institutions confirm, does
not exist. This does not happen by chance.
It it is now obvious that the Times again decided to support false claims by an administration that is pushing the U.S. towards
another war in the Middle East.
Having been practically a recluse since since the 'fake dossier' alleging links between Donald Trump and Russia that he produced
was published by BuzzFeed in January 2017, Christophe Steele has reportedly refused to cooperate with AG Barr's probes
Reuters reports that , according to a source with knowledge of the situation, Steele, a former Russia expert for the British
spy agency MI6, will not answer questions from prosecutor John Durham , named by Barr to examine the origins of the investigations
into Trump and his campaign team.
However, buried deep in
Reuters story is the same source claiming that Steele might cooperate with a parallel inquiry by the Justice Department's Inspector
General into how U.S. law enforcement agencies handled pre-election investigations into both Trump and Clinton.
In the past Steele has cooperated, willingly being interviewed twice in the special counsel's investigation, and submitting answers
in writing to the Senate Intelligence Committee, but apparently this time he is not willing.
With Steel refusing to cooperate, Joe DiGenova, former U.S. Attorney warned Monday on WMAL radio's
Mornings on the Mall radio show,
"this is full scale war," adding that "we are heading toward a gigantic, gigantic fight...
The intelligence community, which includes the FBI, is in full resistance to disclosing what they did during the presidential
campaign ."
Sara Carter reports that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz is expected to release his report on the FBI's handling of the
investigation into Trump within weeks.
These investigation will hold those in the intelligence and law enforcement community accountable, depending on what evidence
is discovered. This reporter is hearing from sources that it will be scathing. Those who abused their power and weaponized the tools
meant to target America's enemies against a political opponents should be held accountable . Tags
Politics Law Crime
It seems reasonable to demand Steele's extradition to America to explain his part in the conspiracy.
I mean is being a party to the conspiracy, attempted treason and sedition of the attempted overthrow of an elected President
not at least as important as Julian Assange who only made public some documents that someone else removed?
Oh these fuckers are scared to death. Comey lashing out at Trump...on and on. This is going to be great...and Trump will
play it perfect right into the election. And BIDEN was part of all of it. What a great next 6 years.
Funny, I was recently de-platformed on Twitter for tweeting to GCHQ (British Intelligence) that the UK's sordid involvement
in spying on the Trump campaign would be exposed and "no amount of British bluster could refute it...".
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and
other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Because they serve those who dispense such power. That is their job.
And those whom they serve make sure that checky/balancey oversight–say in the form
of chief executive of the United States of America, or an honest Congressman or
journalist–is destroyed if it threatens not to align with those masters or even
questions/reveals these individuals or these structures.
Look at how they've reacted to Donald Trump's trolling both before and while in
office.
They make sure that "the intelligence bureaucracy" reifies that exclusionary principle in
every hire, every action, every policy. Like many bureaucracies and institutions it becomes a
factory for its own viral replication rather than anything that is traditionally considered
"intelligence."
Look at their prime creation of the new millennium: Barack Obama.
"... Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee, on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance, and opening of mail. ..."
9/23/1975 Tom Charles Huston Church Committee Testimony
Tom Charles Huston testified before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, commonly known as the Church Committee,
on the 43-page plan he presented to the President Nixon and others on ways to collect
information about anti-war and "radical" groups, including burglary, electronic surveillance,
and opening of mail.
"... what is true is that May was judge, jury and executioner in convicting Russia of the poisoning and refused to follow an evidence based discovery process that lies at the heart of the UK justice system - by hiding behind those powers that the UK intelligence community "needs" in order to protect british (not russian, british) citizens from the sinister influences of foreign powers. ..."
"... the criminal activities of howler monkeys, like Strzok, Page, Brennan, McCabe, SUSAN RICE, Comey, Ohr, BIDEN, OBAMA, etc in the USA are bad enough (whilst hardly impacting civilian life in the US - BUT - the tactics used have been deployed to starve, cause disease, "dumb down", reduce life chances all over the middle east and elsewhere for countless millions of people. ..."
Couple of factors not mentioned. one is Israel and the other is more sinister still and tied
to the conclusions to be drawn from the Mueller report.
it may be true that Skripal helped Steele with some elements of the dossier compiled by
Steele, via SKripals handler Pablo Miller. It may be true that Skripal went "stir crazy" and an
attempt was made to silence him and his daughter - permanently, because they simply cold not be
trusted. a similar motivation could be drawn up against Russia - with the two Russians visiting
Salisbury used as diversionary "stool pigeons". It may be true that the "poisoning" was self
inflicted and was in fact a murder/suicide attempt as a result of depression along the ines
"what's the point of it all".
what is true is that May was judge, jury and executioner in convicting Russia of the
poisoning and refused to follow an evidence based discovery process that lies at the heart of
the UK justice system - by hiding behind those powers that the UK intelligence community
"needs" in order to protect british (not russian, british) citizens from the sinister
influences of foreign powers.
what ought to be apparent is
- the same tactics used by the special prosecutor to investigate the "Russia collusion"
smoke screen erected by the howler monkeys in the US intel agencies (aided and abetter by
howler monkeys in UK intel agencies) to stymie the US executive branch (Trump) are likely to be
used by the the UK government and some more as well - in true Le Carre fashion, but with much
dumber and less principled actors than Smiley's people.
these tactics prevented (and continue to prevent) investigation and prosecution of heinous
corruption within the obama administration of the previous 8 years - these howler monkey
intelligence agency tactics include(d) entrapment, honeypots, racketeering, blackmail, de facto
kidnapping (in the case of Skripals), bribery, wire fraud, unauthorized wire-tapping, breach of
authorized intel agency activities (like the FBI operating overseas and the CIA operating
domestically in the US, false and unverified claims in FISA warrants, NSA providing unauthorized
information to the CIA and FBI etc)
- given the howler monkey activities of the alphabet soup, it is not beyond the imagination
to draw parallels with the CIA's reporting and analysis of situations on the ground wherever
they operate to provide intel ahead of military activity. the DOD has already proved complicit
by hiring Halper (for hundreds of thousands of dollars) to assist with the entrapment of Trump
operative Papadopoulos. Mifsud is likely a CIA, not a Russian, asset.
- given that we have ample evidence of the howler monkeys in the alphabet soup seeking to
facilitate a coup against a sitting US president, it is certainly plausible that - as with the
US goverment sponsoring the mujaheedin, isis and al qaeda in afghanistan to fight the russians
in late 80's early 90's, Iraq yellow cake and WMD - that the howler monkeys paid the white
helmets to ovethrow assad and foment civil war in Syria - thus causing the migration of some 5
million syrians into europe, iraq, turkey, jordan, turkey and lebanon.
so , the case is that howler monkey activity in intel agencies of the UK and US (add
(F)rance to get FUKUS) are guilty of the manufacture of human conflict by fabricating evidence,
breaking the laws (certainly of the targeted countries, but also of the UK and US), providing
shitty analysis (howler monkeys are only good at swinging in trees and flinging ****) and
generally operating as evil actors on the dark side of humanity.
this can only be brought into sharp relief if howler monkey activities were instead shown to
be powers for good rather than the geo-political risks that persist in Iran, North Korea,
Venezuela, Yemen, Libya and so on and so forth.
Never mind how much past conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and so on relied on
evidence and analysis thrown at us by the howler monkeys in the tree tops, how much of what we
we are doing now is a fabrication causing needless suffering by civilian (not politicians or
military engaged in conflict) populations?
the criminal activities of howler monkeys, like Strzok, Page, Brennan, McCabe, SUSAN RICE,
Comey, Ohr, BIDEN, OBAMA, etc in the USA are bad enough (whilst hardly impacting civilian life
in the US - BUT - the tactics used have been deployed to starve, cause disease, "dumb down",
reduce life chances all over the middle east and elsewhere for countless millions of
people.
there are equivalents of strzok, page, ohr right throughout the US and UK government
"machines" operating overseas. think about that. crimes exposed by Barr et al in the US -
against a sitting president - are replicated wherever howler monkeys operate overseas as well.
"... In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts. ..."
"... Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones. ..."
"... The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy. ..."
"... Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was thought to be now. ..."
"... The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions. ..."
"... The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of money. ..."
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian
Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On
Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegelpublished
(German)
reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in
east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal
circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to
a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire
plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire,
who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation
but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid,
German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them.
He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could
probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws.
They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and boosts in front of the "oligarch
daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public contracts for highway building and repair.
Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire
who opposes the FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand man calms him down and vouches
for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter.
Nothing they talked about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form a coalition government with the
conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much
politically. It lacks a real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament election in which Strache's party is predicted
to achieve good results, a video of the evening on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist
leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to take part in the plot and publish extensive
reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately
stepped down and the conservatives
ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky
opines
on the case:
Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic
nationalism. Nationalist populists often agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the
videos, however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and sex scandals in Austrian politics
and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other countries) will subscribe to that view.
The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party
are astonishingly clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm. Whenever the "Russian"
puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects it.
Bershidsky continues:
Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's wealthier member states, was an important
member of the movement Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament
election that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in Milan with other like-minded
politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd
been the victim of a "political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
...
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and leftist forces ahead of next week's election.
Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was
likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support
for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while
drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video
was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was
thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing. The right-wing all over Europe will
see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers
hate against the 'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right and winning." The new
far-right block Natteo Salvini
will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their followers. This stand-offish sentence in the
Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:
In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even
the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly
snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to
do. The increasing vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center and of the lack of
real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray
put his finger on the wound:
The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting
almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami.
It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through
multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately
funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
...
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted down a number of entirely blind
alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start – Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties
– and public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the chattering classes deride the political
symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as "populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine
the received political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics for the working class. Most people,
especially working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What
was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded
with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through
austerity to make up for the loss of money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote
for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new
'populist' parties at least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the establishment parties
they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way. While he has far-right opinions,
he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes,
we will soon find us confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM |
Permalink
US President Donald Trump declared a national emergency over Huawei, which he has deemed a
national security threat. His new executive order makes it more difficult for US companies to
do business with the Chinese tech giant. RT America's Manila Chan chats with investigative
journalist Ben Swann, who says no evidence exists for the Trump administration's claim.
#RTAmerica#InQuestionRT#QuestionMore
U.S. cannot spy via Chinese made technology products. That is the problem. When did
competition against American technology get to be a national security threat? It is about
creating a monopoly of only certain products in America. I hope American companies fight
back. Prices in American stores have already started to rise. Monopolies mean high
prices.
In the age of technology...any country
who doesn't SPY on other countries or their own citizens is LYING thru their teeth! USA is NO
DIFFERENT than CHINA.....they both are rogue nations, competing for the same thing,
TECHNOLOGY LEADERSHIP! The problem is....HUAWEI just got the upper hand in 5G technology
before the US can compete...so as such, the US threatens other countries with scare tactics
until the US can develop and deploy 5G technology to compete with CHINA. It's all about MONEY
and BUSINESS.
USA has dishonestly gathered more data on it's own civilians than it can access or
understand in several lifetimes, they have the gaul to attack others without proof?
UNREAL
"... I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US government spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't imagine how many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia, Burma, Venezuela. ..."
"... The situation is even worse today as the CIA and Pentagon have massive propaganda budgets and have infiltrated the media at every level , the public is unaware that each day they are brainwashed by the MSM to support the agenda of the "deep State' and the MIC. ..."
"... No mention of the journalists as CIA assets who publish planted stories? Isn't Dr Udo Ulfkotte one who did that, repented, told all in his best-seller Bought Journalists, and as a warning to others unselfishly dropped dead of a heart attack within a couple of years? ..."
"... The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell. ..."
"... Not too sure about the US even remaining important as a continent wide farm.. The aquifers in the West and Midwest are being inexorably drawn down to sustain the current rate of farming, so it's possible North America's value would primarily be as a source of pockets of human talent in the sciences and technologies. ..."
the hysteria emanating from the nyt, cnn and the rest of the msm is the result of a conscious
or subconscious grasp that socialism dying worldwide. the great ponzi scam of forcing future
generations to pay for the cookies and ice cream of the present generation has hit the math
of the complete dearth of unencumbered assets from which to emit more unpayable debt,
insufficient economic growth upon which to pretend the debt can be serviced forget about
repayment and the simple fact demographichs throughout the west are so negative the
government and public pension scheme blowup in the several years
the more intelligent members of the establishment know in their bones the jig is up. hence
the great and urgent need to turn up .lets over throw sovereign nations so the plunder model
..venezuela, syria, russia, china et al.can find more unencumbered assets to be brought into
the nyc, london orbit of banks from which new debt can be emitted.
the west is staring at its last decade of global rule, a rule that began 500 years ago. by
the 2030's finance, manufacturing and all the global power and prestige that goes with it
moves from ny, london to shanghai and moscow.
if the united states is lucky and remains intact, a giant IF, we may wind up as continent
size farm with a smidgen of non competitive industry here and there.
the west has only disinformation with which to go to war against the rising east. the
weapons of the west are powerful ONLY in their quantity. Russian weapons already are many
years beyond anything the pentagon has in the field and the gap is only increasing, ergo the
us treasury is forced to fight the battle using sanctions and other forms of restrictions, a
long term losing strategy irrespective of any short terms gains.
so, cj worry not, the disinformation campaign is backed by nothing but hot air and the
rage from being thwarted by china and russia as well as brave pipsqueakes like iran and
venezuela.
see it for what it is, transparent sound and fury signifying nothing
I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US government
spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting Board of
Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't imagine how
many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia, Burma,
Venezuela.
I don' know what are the revenues of NYT or The Guardian, but I know that the US
government spends 750 million a year on the Agency for Global Media (formerly Broadcasting
Board of Governors). If you think US or France is under attack by warmongers, you can't
imagine how many propagandists are these 750 million hiring in low-COL places like Serbia,
Burma, Venezuela.
In 1917 US Congressman Calloway informed Congress that J.P. Morgan interests had purchased 25
of the nations leading newspapers and replaced their editors in order to control the mass
media for the benefit of the plutocrats/money interests who ran the country and who still do
. The situation is even worse today as the CIA and Pentagon have massive propaganda budgets
and have infiltrated the media at every level , the public is unaware that each day they are
brainwashed by the MSM to support the agenda of the "deep State' and the MIC.
See, half a century after McCarthy, wingers got their noses into some (not all) Soviet files,
and got to scream, nonstop and to this day, "See!@@#$% McCarthy was RIGHT!"
Betya in a half century, if we're still around, the same type people are going to get
nosing in some files somewhere and find incontrovertible evidence that: "See!@#%$%^^ The New
York Times was RIGHT!"
And then there's the evil Russian spywhale, which the disinformationists want us to
believe is just a harmless "therapy Beluga" for kids, but which has clearly been strapped
with some sort of monstrous, mind-controlling apparatus that enables the Kremlin to
remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in the brains of defenseless
Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist Viking berserkers who
will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in Brussels smelling of
akvavit and fermented shark.
You had me doing a cartoon spit-take with this beaut!
these enormous corporate media conglomerates, and the transnational corporations that
own them, and these intelligence agencies, and their fronts and cutouts, and corporate
lobbyists and PR firms, and councils, and think tanks, and research institutes, to
disinform the Western masses, or to manufacture an official narrative
No mention of the journalists as CIA assets who publish planted stories? Isn't Dr Udo
Ulfkotte one who did that, repented, told all in his best-seller Bought Journalists, and as a
warning to others unselfishly dropped dead of a heart attack within a couple of years?
" that enables the Kremlin to remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in
the brains of defenseless Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist
Viking berserkers who will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in
Brussels smelling of akvavit and fermented shark "
It isn't the akvavit that does it, but you can't do it without the akvavit.
And then there's the evil Russian spywhale, which the disinformationists want us to
believe is just a harmless "therapy Beluga" for kids, but which has clearly been strapped
with some sort of monstrous, mind-controlling apparatus that enables the Kremlin to
remotely implant a host of dangerous "populist" ideas in the brains of defenseless
Norwegian fishermen, weaponizing them into a horde of neo-Odinist Viking berserkers who
will scream down out of Scandinavia and storm the EU Parliament in Brussels smelling of
akvavit and fermented shark.
I had a good laugh at the Spy Whale schtick. One look at the thing, and you get the
idea it should've been in a Pink Panther movie.
Made up shit that only a mind of a child could believe.
The best sentence was the one expressing the Establishment's collective faux shock that
anything other than Russian spybots could be responsible for the serfs' rejection of the "two
centrist parties" that have sponged up lobbyist money for 3 decades, cashing in on the
globalist-Neoliberal economy, as rents rose and wages fell.
The serfs have to love that. How
could they not embrace it? Only spybots beaming up doom-and-gloom messages from halfway
around the globe could persuade the thick-headed serfs that the part-time / churn / gig
economy is anything but nirvana.
@paraglider I think
you're probably right about the inevitable collapse of the West as the dominant global power.
Not too sure about the US even remaining important as a continent wide farm.. The aquifers
in the West and Midwest are being inexorably drawn down to sustain the current rate of
farming, so it's possible North America's value would primarily be as a source of pockets of
human talent in the sciences and technologies.
Also Russia has been making some progress, but unless that continues it may not reach the
level of competitiveness in science, industry and domestic product to be any more than a
junior partner to China.
Whatever happens, a sea change in history seems unavoidable and it won't be what our
present rulers think it will. I don't pretend to think I can reliably predict what is
coming.
I used to know Russian disinformation when I saw it because it was obvious when it came from
the USSR. Then the MSM peddled it as authentic as when, in response to Soviet deployment of
IRBM in Europe, pinkos magically appeared to protest the American deployment of similar
weapons. It was well funded too as Brezhnev had serious oil revenues to finance both his
military and his disinformation campaigns and the USSR had 125% of America's population and a
satellite Eastern Europe to boot.
Now I am to believe a motheaten "Russia' with less than half the US population, a hostile
Ukraine and no Eastern European satrapies is able to exert more 'influence' in the West than
the mighty USSR. Yet those same 'pinkos' would have me believe a castrated Russia is an
existential threat. Come on!
"... BREAKING: A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report... Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP. ..."
"... As one example, in its FISA application, the bureau repeatedly and incorrectly assured the court in a footnote that it "does not believe" British ex-spy Christopher Steele was the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating Page in Russian collusion, and instead asserted that the Yahoo article provided an independent basis to believe Steele. - Fox News ..."
"... Graham noted a report by The Hill 's John Solomon that the FBI was specifically told that Steele was "keen" to leak his salacious dossier for the purpose of influencing the 2016 US election . The agency also knew that the document's claims were either unverified or disproven , yet it was used anyway against Trump and his campaign. ..."
"... Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are now blaming Loretta Lynch for the botched Hillary/email investigation. ..."
FBI-CIA Dispute Erupts Over Whether Comey Or Brennan Pushed Steele Dossier
by Tyler Durden Thu, 05/16/2019 - 10:25 0 SHARES
Twitter Facebook Reddit Email Print
A dispute has erupted over whether former FBI Director James Comey or his CIA counterpart, John Brennan, promoted the unverified
Steele dossier as the Obama-era intelligence community targeted the Trump campaign.
According to Fox News , an email chain exists which indicates that Comey told bureau subordinates that Brennan insisted on the
dossier's inclusion in the intelligence community assessment (ICA) on Russian interference . Also interesting is that the dossier
was referred to as "crown material" in the emails - a possible reference to the fact that Steele is a former British spy.
In a statement to Fox, however, a former CIA official "put the blame squarely on Comey ."
"Former Director Brennan, along with former [Director of National Intelligence] James Clapper, are the ones who opposed James
Comey's recommendation that the Steele Dossier be included in the intelligence report," said the official.
"They opposed this because the dossier was in no way used to develop the ICA," the official continued. "The intelligence analysts
didn't include it when they were doing their work because it wasn't corroborated intelligence, therefore it wasn't used and it wasn't
included. Brennan and Clapper prevented it from being added into the official assessment. James Comey then decided on his own to
brief Trump about the document. "
James Comey, James Clapper, and John Brennan are starting to publicly argue who was pushing the dossier that ended up in the
intelligence community assessment on Russian interference. The RATS are beginning to turn on each other.
Former GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy - a longtime
defender
of the FBI - told Fox News ' Martha MacCallum on Tuesday night that "Comey has a better argument than Brennan, based on what
I've seen."
In March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) suggested over Twitter that Brennan had "insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier"
be included in the January 2017 ICA .
BREAKING: A high-level source tells me it was Brennan who insisted that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included
in the Intelligence Report... Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP.
The dossier was ultimately not included in the ICA according to
previous testimony by Clapper. Meanwhile, word that Comey
had briefed President Trump personally on the dossier - "because he understood reporters already had that information and it could
become public soon if journalists had a "news hook," according to the
Associated Press . And as it so happens - the
fact that Comey briefed Trump is what CNN and Buzzfeed caim
legitimized
their decision to publicly release the salacious and unverified dossier.
Whether the FBI acted appropriately in obtaining the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant to Trump campaign
aide Carter Page is now the subject not only of U.S. Attorney John Durham's new probe, but also the ongoing review by Justice
Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz. U.S. Attorney for Utah John Huber has been conducting his own investigation separately,
although details of his progress were unclear.
As one example, in its FISA application, the bureau
repeatedly and incorrectly assured the court in a footnote that it "does not believe" British ex-spy Christopher Steele was
the direct source for a Yahoo News article implicating Page in Russian collusion, and instead asserted that the Yahoo article
provided an independent basis to believe Steele. -
Fox News
On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Fox News that he was pushing to declassify documents which would expose the FBI's dismal
efforts to verify the claims within the dossier.
"There's a document that's classified that I'm gonna try to get unclassified that takes the dossier -- all the pages of it --
and it has verification to one side," said Graham. "There really is no verification, other than media reports that were generated
by reporters that received the dossier."
Graham noted a report by The Hill 's John Solomon that the FBI was specifically told that Steele was "keen" to leak his salacious
dossier for the purpose of influencing the 2016 US election . The agency also knew that the document's claims were either unverified
or
disproven , yet it was used anyway against Trump and his campaign.
The Italian prime minister has suddenly requested resignations from 6 deputy directors of Italian intelligence agencies: DIS,
AISI and AISE. This was all after I outed Mifsud in Rome and the president called the Italian prime minister. Italy has flipped
and are giving up Brennan.
The Italian prime minister has suddenly requested resignations from 6 deputy directors of Italian intelligence agencies:
DIS, AISI and AISE. This was all after I outed Mifsud in Rome and the president called the Italian prime minister. Italy has flipped
and are giving up Brennan.
U.S. Attorney for Utah John Huber has been on the job for some months yet narry a peep out of him. There's not even any indication
that he gets out of bed in the morning.
He's a member of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, I imagine that should he ever get out of bed, he will whitewash whichever
agency has the most Mormons who might be affected by this scandal.
Back in the sixties, Jack Anderson, a serious investigative journalist and Mormon, noted that to Mormons the US Constitution
is a sacred document given to the founding fathers by God himself. Let's hope Huber honors this Mormon tradition.
Comey was going to blackmail Trump and be the white knight he thinks he is. Even if it were true (which it isn't) Trump didn't
give a ****. Especially after all the lies after lies of trash the Dems have sunk to (like with Kavanaugh). Never be ashamed of
**** you do, and you will be blackmail proof....except for the pedophiles in DC. We know they are there, and when we find out
who they are we will kill them. Comey's a douche.
If you kill all the pedophile in and associated with Washington, the streets will run with blood.
Imagine you or me. If we have a little sexual kink--even a little one--there is little we can do about it but fantasize or
find an occasional person/animal/or vegetable to accommodate us. But if you hold great power or are super-rich, you don't need
to fantasize. You can act out your little kink with impunity. If you hold great power or are super-rich and you have a very, very
evil kink, you can exercise it with impunity. I often thought of that looking at **** Cheney's eyes. They're the eyes of a madman.
He could have sliced and diced a man, woman, child or beast a day and gotten away with it. President Trump can grab them by the
***** (adult women) and why not. It's just a very personal way of shaking hands. But I see no insanity in his eyes at all. Hillary's
eyes remind me of Norman Bates on a bad day. And Biden. . . . Wow! A pervert of the first water but also a complete coward. Thank
God! One less sex monster in action.
Everyone knows that FBI, CIA, NSA etc., are all in the business of being in business. Helps that insider trading is not illegal
for Congress. Corporate America directs intelligence outfits. My opinion...well, ok, my chickens told me.
The hits just keep coming. It's not just Comey vs. Brennan. Peter Strzok and Lisa Page are now blaming Loretta Lynch for the
botched Hillary/email investigation. Bruce Ohr is blaming DOJ and FBI officials for ignoring his "warnings" about Christopher
Steele and the dossier.
Comey is bashing Strzok, Page, and now Rosenstein. Rosenstein is firing back at Comey. Andrew McCabe is attacking anyone pretty
much with a pulse.
She's trying to protect herself. She already testified and spilled the beans about herself and her husband. And they threw
a criminal referral at her anyway. MARK MEADOWS REFERS NELLIE OHR TO DOJ FOR INVESTIGATION
This just gets juicier and juicier. Adm. Rogers of the NSA had found that FBI contractors were overusing the NSA database to
run searches/spying so he shut them down. In April 2016! Friends, Fusion GPS wasn't hired just to fabricate dirt on Trump, they
were hired to create cover for the spying that was already happening when they knew they got caught by Rogers. They were terrified
of what Rogers would do. Enter Fusion/Steele/dossier/European & Australian intelligence. The cover-up will be the death of them.
Wait until we find out who else they were spying on during this time.
Admiral Michael S. Rogers is a hero. He has everything. He knows exactly who was being spied on and when.
EDIT: So who the hell approved the original spying? We know Brennan pushed the dossier but who pushed Brennan? I smell Barry.
Neocons and neolibs control the USA foreign policy. That's given. NYT just reflects foreign policy establishment talking points.
Links between Daniel Jones and Steele are really interesting and new information
Notable quotes:
"... "The goal here is bigger than any one election," said Daniel Jones, a former F.B.I. analyst and Senate investigator whose nonprofit group, Advance Democracy, recently flagged a number of suspicious websites and social media accounts to law enforcement authorities. ..."
"... According to a report published this morning, he notes that the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which has received "significant funding" from technology billionaires, funneled $500,000 to the non-profit group Advance Democracy. That organization shares a street address with The Democracy Integrity Project. ..."
"... That's because both organizations were founded by former Senate Intel staffer Daniel Jones, who at that time worked for Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who hails from just down the road from Silicon Valley in San Francisco. As TruNews has previously reported, those connections to the Senate Intel Committee have played a significant role in the ongoing "Russia Narrative" drama in Washington, D.C. ..."
"... Jones has been previously identified as a central figure in the investigation who served as potential go-between with the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner, and former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. ..."
"... The NYT is very much invested in the post Cold War status quo. ..."
"... That would be the Clintons and the Bushes. Both political parties and every POTUS since 1968. In fact, I believe this is the main reason why the Dems created and are pushing Russiagate so hard. They don't want us looking at what really gave us Trump: the neoliberal neoconservative fiasco of the past 40+ years. ..."
"... told about Russia and that they interfered with not only our elections, but in so many other countries too. I remember a time when people would insist on seeing the evidence on stuff the intelligence agencies tell them, but ever since Her lost the election they lost their minds. I'll see references to articles that say something, but offer no evidence. Like the one this essay is about. ..."
"... Plus they tried to kill the Skripals. And the GOP are also under Vlad's thumb. This is why Russia Gate has to be debunked. ..."
"... So, yes, it's going to take too long. Short of a miracle, I'm starting to think we're all going to be radioactive ash before Cold War II ends. There was a modicum of restraint with Cold War I; some people had enough sense to realize the end result was nuclear war. That type of sense seems nowhere to be found in Washington, D.C., these days. ..."
"... Dick Cheney is as evil as any human being I've ever heard of. I doubt whether he's done everything some folks believe he's done -- but not because he isn't evil enough, only because he lacked either the guts or the necessity. I believe he would have fit in perfectly well with Himmler and Goebbels, and he would enthusiastically embraced their approach to getting and wielding power. ..."
"... A few months ago, I made a comment to someone that it's like we're supposed to hate them (Russia) for their freedoms. ..."
gjohnsit on Sun, 05/12/2019 - 5:32pm The NY Times just posted one of the most atrocious pieces of
journalistic malpractice I have ever read.
Less than two weeks before pivotal elections for the European Parliament, a constellation of websites and social media accounts
linked to Russia or far-right groups is spreading disinformation, encouraging discord and amplifying distrust in the centrist
parties that have governed for decades.
European Union investigators, academics and advocacy groups say the new disinformation efforts share many of the same digital
fingerprints or tactics used in previous Russian attacks, including the Kremlin's interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign.
That's a powerful statement. There's just one problem: the article doesn't present a single bit of proof. Just anecdotes. In fact,
it doesn't even quote anyone to back up these claims, but for one single exception.
"The goal here is bigger than any one election," said Daniel Jones, a former F.B.I. analyst and Senate investigator whose
nonprofit group, Advance Democracy, recently flagged a number of suspicious websites and social media accounts to law enforcement
authorities.
"It is to constantly divide, increase distrust and undermine our faith in institutions and democracy itself. They're working
to destroy everything that was built post-World War II."
Russia is why people are losing faith in our government institutions. Not because they are owned by oligarchs. If you listen closely
you can hear President Bush.
So who is Daniel Jones and Advance Democracy? That's an
interesting story .
According to a report published this morning, he notes that the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, which has received "significant
funding" from technology billionaires, funneled $500,000 to the non-profit group Advance Democracy. That organization shares a
street address with The Democracy Integrity Project.
That's because both organizations were founded by former Senate Intel staffer Daniel Jones, who at that time worked for
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who hails from just down the road from Silicon Valley in San Francisco. As TruNews has previously
reported, those connections to the Senate Intel Committee have played a significant role in the ongoing "Russia Narrative" drama
in Washington, D.C.
Jones has been previously identified as a central figure in the investigation who served as potential go-between with the
committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Mark Warner, and former MI6 agent Christopher Steele. That's because TDIP, which receives
significant funding from George Soros, funneled some of that money toward Steele's research for Fusion GPS that led to the infamous
dossier on President Donald Trump.
However, as Ross reports today: "Mystery surrounds both of Jones's operations. The identities of both groups' donors have largely
been kept secret, as Jones has avoided revealing his backers.
Nothing to see here. Just two sketchy political organizations sharing the same street address. Perfectly normal.
"The election has yet to come, and we are already suspected of doing something wrong?" the Russian prime minister, Dmitri A.
Medvedev, said in March. "Suspecting someone of an event that has not yet happened is a bunch of paranoid nonsense."
It's not nonsense. It's scapegoating. There's a difference.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding Gabbard's campaign announcement. The
anchors had clearly never encountered the term anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing
and saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
They're [the Kremlin] working to destroy everything that was built post-World War II.
That would be the Clintons and the Bushes. Both political parties and every POTUS since 1968. In fact, I believe this is
the main reason why the Dems created and are pushing Russiagate so hard. They don't want us looking at what really gave us Trump:
the neoliberal neoconservative fiasco of the past 40+ years.
It's also why so many people of my generation (over 60) are having trouble understanding and accepting what's going on. To
do so will require letting go of everything they thought was true. That kind of change does not come easy to many people.
I heard someone recently say "We have to elect a Dem or else our post-War advantages will disappear."
Got to wonder where he's been for the past 40 years. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
told about Russia and that they interfered with not only our elections, but in so many other countries too. I remember
a time when people would insist on seeing the evidence on stuff the intelligence agencies tell them, but ever since Her lost the
election they lost their minds. I'll see references to articles that say something, but offer no evidence. Like the one this essay
is about.
Plus they tried to kill the Skripals. And the GOP are also under Vlad's thumb. This is why Russia Gate has to be debunked.
People say that Mueller has put to rest the fact that Russia indeed interfered with the election, but all he showed was the
FBIs "belief' that they did and that some Russians will ties to Vlad hacked the DNC computers. He didn't interview anyone involved
with that as laid out in my recent essay.
I've even seen people who were once against our invasions being okay with them and repeating the party line. Unfuckingbelievable!
The Year 2000 was not that long ago, and we were bombarded for two decades beforehand with talk of all the dreadful things
that might happen, could happen, and some people firmly believed would happen - and then didn't happen. (As it turned out,
the most obvious sign of "Y2K" was the "19100" bug that plagued Web pages for months afterward. It was cosmetic and harmless,
but annoying.)
I expected it to take about ten years for sanity to return - but it looks like being more like fifty. And there will probably
be some cultists who construct their own "reality" around what didn't happen, like the 1840s Millerites (who spun off the still-extant
Seventh Day Adventists).
The NYT and WaPoo have new articles out about how bad the dastardly Russians are still interfering with the whole dang country
now. And WaPoo had some university do a study on how Russia tried to get people to vote for Bernie and blah, blah,...
I read an article last year saying that Bernie needs to knock off being with the Russia Gaters because he is going to be accused
of being in Vlad's pockets anyway. But he's still saying that Trump is under Russia's thumb and that Russia is doing all kinds
of bad stuff.
Then there's all the websites like DK, emptyhead, democratic underground and others saying that Mueller confirmed Russia did
bad things and maybe if the democrats work harder on their investigations they will find stuff that Mueller missed. I think 10
years is optimistic, but however long it's going to take its going to be too long.
I think 10 years is optimistic, but however long it's going to take it's going to be too long.
Consider how long it took for Cold War I to finally start to ebb. It took at least a decade, and that was with the memory of
a horrendous world war fresh on most minds. Now, we're so insulated from the reality of war, not even allowed reports from the
battlefields, much less accurate information and numbers, that we have lost touch with the horror. Evil men such as Bolton spend
every minute of every day trying to embroil us in deadly excursions and foreign entanglements. Our "intelligence" agencies are
no more than modern versions of the NAZI era Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda.
So, yes, it's going to take too long. Short of a miracle, I'm starting to think we're all going to be radioactive
ash before Cold War II ends. There was a modicum of restraint with Cold War I; some people had enough sense to realize the end
result was nuclear war. That type of sense seems nowhere to be found in Washington, D.C., these days.
So, yes, it's going to take too long. Short of a miracle, I'm starting to think we're all going to be radioactive ash before
Cold War II ends. There was a modicum of restraint with Cold War I; some people had enough sense to realize the end result
was nuclear war. That type of sense seems nowhere to be found in Washington, D.C., these days.
Fortunately for us ordinary Americans, the Russians really do love their children too.....
@snoopydawg
Are they going to say they're both (Bernie and Trump) working with Russia? That would be amusing. I wonder if it would cause any
of them to vote third party or not vote at all.
...who was a software development consultant at the time, the reason nothing much happened was that's lot of people worked
their butts off for several years. COBOL programmers were dragged out of retirement and all kinds of goofy OS and library hacks
were implemented to reduce the amount of work and risk.
It's also why so many people of my generation (over 60) are having trouble understanding and accepting what's going on.
To do so will require letting go of everything they thought was true. That kind of change does not come easy to many people.
I spent several years grappling with my fall down the rabbit hole. I started freeing myself from the matrix during #Occupy
and towards the end of Obama's first term I was starting to really get it... at least get it enough to know I wasn't voting for
him a second time. Then Bernie arrived on the scene and it was music to my ears. That pretty much completed the process for me
but it STILL took time and I STILL have places where I "don't believe they are that evil" (twin towers anyone) yet I suspect that
in the fullness of time I may yet find that they are in fact that evil.
I have a lot of sympathy for those still caught in the matrix. It's a really good trap. That doesn't change the fact that I
see them as my enemy and the enemy of all mankind but I at least understand.
@SnappleBC Dick Cheney is as evil as any human being I've ever heard of. I doubt whether he's done everything some folks believe he's
done -- but not because he isn't evil enough, only because he lacked either the guts or the necessity. I believe he would have
fit in perfectly well with Himmler and Goebbels, and he would enthusiastically embraced their approach to getting and wielding
power.
Just this century this country has killed a million Iraqis and who knows how many people in the other countries we've invaded?
40,000 Venezuelans died last year because of our sanctions and no matter how many people in Yemen die every day because of the
Saudis we will continue supporting them.
Then there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki as aliasalias stated. Oh hell yes they are that evil.
killed and displaced around the Globe by the Empire in just this century alone, so many still can't believe this same government
could murder 3000 on 9/11.
Cognitive dissidence doesn't even start to explain it.
...is the intense access that these privatized propagandists have to the New York Times . And certainly the Times
should explain why it freely publishes radical divisive stories that cannot be verified from compromised sources that have previously
been exposed as disreputable. This is what Russia is accused of doing, sewing confusion and fear in the US, based on misinformation.
Now the New York Times is doing it for them. The fact that a US media outlet is deliberately sabotaging the domestic tranquility
with alarming lies is exactly what congress should be investigating. But any congressperson that did so would see their careers
destroyed. Congress surrendered to the media monopolies a long time ago.
What we can do is confirm for Americans that they must never trust anything they read in the New York Times and the
Washington Post . Remind them of the tragic facts in recent history. The lies that endangers people's lives and disables
their intelligence are written between the lines.
The NYT and WaPoo and other media are continuing to come up with new stories every day telling us something new that Russia
is doing. This is not going away any time soon. Unfortunately.
@Lookout@Lookout with
us all getting under our desks or along the walls if we are in the hallway and I don't think any one of us didn't treat this as
something critical for us to learn in order to survive.
As a kid that loved riding a bicycle one Public Service announcement I paid careful attention to was the instruction to do if
I saw that bright flash which was to throw the bike down and curl up along the curb, I even thought about that problem on unpaved
streets.
I remember bomb shelters were advertised a lot and I remember some tv dramas were about people fleeing to their bomb shelter
and the dilemma of being only fit to hold a small group but had neighbors, friends and strangers pleading to be let in.
The 'Twilight Zone' series even had one episode where a very wealthy man with a shelter picked certain important people in
his life, his school teacher, Priest and others were offered shelter only if they will apologize for things he'd caught criticism
for his behavior in his past. Trivial stuff, but he had a screen for them to watch the destruction live.
Long story short, they'd rather die than spend the rest of their lives with him. Especially with all their friends and family
gone, so he is alone, goes crazy, runs outside and is found by a policemen to be crying and babbling at a city fountain, in a
city that had not been bombed, but for him it had happened and all he could see was destruction around him.
All that aside considering we'd already dropped 'the' bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki those behind all the public warnings and
information that was needed in order for people to know how to survive couldn't really believe that nonsense.
Unless they could believe all those dead Japanese would've likely survived if they had ducked under their desks or curled up
along a curb, and if that were true they were as loony as the 'Twilight Zone' character.
Yeah if only all those schoolchildren had jumped under their desk before the building and everything around it was obliterated.
...if you see a light brighter than the sun. (1 min)
in the top of the ninth the screen goes black, the live stream has stopped because the electrical grid the Tropicana had shut
down and the stadium was without power for the lights, scoreboard, broadcast, etc. were down.
It took about forty-five minutes for power to be restored but right when it happened I thought it was the stream I was watching
so I clicked on other streaming sites and it was on a couple of them I read why all broadcasts were off.
But in the chat box I really couldn't tell if a few were joking or not when they blamed it on the Russians. One in particular
didn't look like they were joking as that person repeated the claim a few times. No kidding, and one lamented that (paraphrasing)
'now the Russians are messing with our National sport'.
Any time something happens now people will willingly accept that Russia did something that caused it. See the tweet I posted
above. Secret service agents and police are doing nothing as the Guaido goons keeps people from delivering food and stuff to the
embassy sitters. One goon tried taking the bag out of a guy's hands and they just watched. One person tried to throw a cucumber
and the cops pounced on him, pushed him to the ground and bloodied him up. But Russia is the one who put the embassy sitters into
the embassy and is supporting them. SMDH!
Advance Democracy, recently flagged a number of suspicious websites and social media accounts to law enforcement authorities."It
is to constantly divide, increase distrust and undermine our faith in institutions and democracy itself.
An organization that reports undesirable speech to law enforcement is worried about the undermining of democracy. Got it.
Important article that shed some light on the methods of disinformation in foreign events used by neoliberal MSM
Notable quotes:
"... However, there is a simple reason why the global agencies, despite their importance, are virtually unknown to the general public. To quote a Swiss media professor: "Radio and television usually do not name their sources, and only specialists can decipher references in magazines." (Blum 1995, P. 9) The motive for this discretion, however, should be clear: news outlets are not particularly keen to let readers know that they haven't researched most of their contributions themselves. ..."
"... Much of our media does not have own foreign correspondents, so they have no choice but to rely completely on global agencies for foreign news. But what about the big daily newspapers and TV stations that have their own international correspondents? In German-speaking countries, for example, these include newspapers such NZZ, FAZ, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Welt, and public broadcasters. ..."
"... Moreover, in war zones, correspondents rarely venture out. On the Syria war, for example, many journalists "reported" from cities such as Istanbul, Beirut, Cairo or even from Cyprus. In addition, many journalists lack the language skills to understand local people and media. ..."
"... How do correspondents under such circumstances know what the "news" is in their region of the world? The main answer is once again: from global agencies. The Dutch Middle East correspondent Joris Luyendijk has impressively described how correspondents work and how they depend on the world agencies in his book "People Like Us: Misrepresenting the Middle East" : ..."
"... The central role of news agencies also explains why, in geopolitical conflicts, most media use the same original sources. In the Syrian war, for example, the "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights" – a dubious one-man organization based in London – featured prominently. The media rarely inquired directly at this "Observatory", as its operator was in fact difficult to reach, even for journalists. ..."
"... Ulrich Tilgner, a veteran Middle East correspondent for German and Swiss television, warned in 2003, shortly after the Iraq war, of acts of deception by the military and the role played by the media: ..."
"... What is known to the US military, would not be foreign to US intelligence services. In a remarkable report by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical conflicts: ..."
"... "In all press systems, the news media are instruments of those who exercise political and economic power. Newspapers, periodicals, radio and television stations do not act independently, although they have the possibility of independent exercise of power." (Altschull 1984/1995, p. 298) ..."
"How does the newspaper know what it knows?" The answer to this question is likely to
surprise some newspaper readers: "The main source of information is stories from news agencies.
The almost anonymously operating news agencies are in a way the key to world events. So what
are the names of these agencies, how do they work and who finances them? To judge how well one
is informed about events in East and West, one should know the answers to these questions."
(Höhne 1977, p. 11)
A Swiss media researcher points out:
"The news agencies are the most important suppliers of material to mass media. No daily
media outlet can manage without them. () So the news agencies influence our image of the
world; above all, we get to know what they have selected." (Blum 1995, p. 9)
In view of their essential importance, it is all the more astonishing that these agencies
are hardly known to the public:
"A large part of society is unaware that news agencies exist at all In fact, they play an
enormously important role in the media market. But despite this great importance, little
attention has been paid to them in the past." (Schulten-Jaspers 2013, p. 13)
Even the head of a news agency noted:
"There is something strange about news agencies. They are little known to the public.
Unlike a newspaper, their activity is not so much in the spotlight, yet they can always be
found at the source of the story." (Segbers 2007, p. 9)
"The Invisible Nerve Center of the Media System"
So what are the names of these agencies that are "always at the source of the story"? There
are now only three global agencies left:
The American Associated Press ( AP ) with over 4000 employees worldwide.
The AP belongs to US media companies and has its main editorial office in New York. AP news
is used by around 12,000 international media outlets, reaching more than half of the world's
population every day.
The quasi-governmental French Agence France-Presse ( AFP ) based in Paris and with around
4000 employees. The AFP sends over 3000 stories and photos every day to media all over the
world.
The British agency Reuters in London, which is privately owned and employs just over 3000
people. Reuters was acquired in 2008 by Canadian media entrepreneur Thomson – one of
the 25 richest people in the world – and merged into Thomson Reuters , headquartered in New York.
In addition, many countries run their own news agencies. However, when it comes to
international news, these usually rely on the three global agencies and simply copy and
translate their reports.
The three global news agencies Reuters, AFP and AP, and the three national agencies of the
German-speaking countries of Austria (APA), Germany (DPA) and Switzerland (SDA).
Wolfgang Vyslozil, former managing director of the Austrian APA, described the key role of
news agencies with these words:
"News agencies are rarely in the public eye. Yet they are one of the most influential and
at the same time one of the least known media types. They are key institutions of substantial
importance to any media system. They are the invisible nerve center that connects all parts
of this system." (Segbers 2007, p.10)
Small abbreviation, great effect
However, there is a simple reason why the global agencies, despite their importance, are
virtually unknown to the general public. To quote a Swiss media professor: "Radio and
television usually do not name their sources, and only specialists can decipher references in
magazines." (Blum 1995, P. 9) The motive for this discretion, however, should be clear: news outlets are not particularly
keen to let readers know that they haven't researched most of their contributions
themselves.
The following figure shows some examples of source tagging in popular German-language
newspapers. Next to the agency abbreviations we find the initials of editors who have edited
the respective agency report.
News agencies as sources in newspaper articles
Occasionally, newspapers use agency material but do not label it at all. A study in 2011
from the Swiss Research Institute for the Public Sphere and Society at the University of
Zurich came to the following conclusions (FOEG 2011):
"Agency contributions are exploited integrally without labeling them, or they are
partially rewritten to make them appear as an editorial contribution. In addition, there is a
practice of 'spicing up' agency reports with little effort; for example, visualization
techniques are used: unpublished agency reports are enriched with images and graphics and
presented as comprehensive reports."
The agencies play a prominent role not only in the press, but also in private and public
broadcasting. This is confirmed by Volker Braeutigam, who worked
for the German state broadcaster ARD for ten years and views the dominance of these agencies
critically:
"One fundamental problem is that the newsroom at ARD sources its information mainly from
three sources: the news agencies DPA/AP, Reuters and AFP: one German/American, one British
and one French. () The editor working on a news topic only needs to select a few text
passages on the screen that he considers essential, rearrange them and glue them together
with a few flourishes."
Swiss Radio and Television (SRF), too, largely bases itself on reports from these agencies.
Asked by viewers why a peace march in Ukraine was not reported, the editors
said : "To date, we have not received a single report of this march from the independent
agencies Reuters, AP and AFP."
In fact, not only the text, but also the images, sound and video recordings that we
encounter in our media every day, are mostly from the very same agencies. What the uninitiated
audience might think of as contributions from their local newspaper or TV station, are actually
copied reports from New York, London and Paris.
Some media have even gone a step further and have, for lack of resources, outsourced their
entire foreign editorial office to an agency. Moreover, it is well known that many news portals
on the internet mostly publish agency reports (see e.g., Paterson 2007, Johnston 2011,
MacGregor 2013).
In the end, this dependency on the global agencies creates a striking similarity in
international reporting: from Vienna to Washington, our media often report the same topics,
using many of the same phrases – a phenomenon that would otherwise rather be associated
with "controlled media" in authoritarian states.
The following graphic shows some examples from German and international publications. As you
can see, despite the claimed objectivity, a slight (geo-)political bias sometimes creeps
in.
"Putin threatens", "Iran provokes", "NATO concerned", "Assad stronghold": Similarities in
content and wording due to reports by global news agencies.
The role of correspondents
Much of our media does not have own foreign correspondents, so they have no choice but to
rely completely on global agencies for foreign news. But what about the big daily newspapers
and TV stations that have their own international correspondents? In German-speaking countries,
for example, these include newspapers such NZZ, FAZ, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Welt, and public
broadcasters.
First of all, the size ratios should be kept in mind: while the global agencies have several
thousand employees worldwide, even the Swiss newspaper NZZ, known for its international
reporting, maintains only 35 foreign correspondents (including their business correspondents).
In huge countries such as China or India, only one correspondent is stationed; all of South
America is covered by only two journalists, while in even larger Africa no-one is on the ground
permanently.
Moreover, in war zones, correspondents rarely venture out. On the Syria war, for example,
many journalists "reported" from cities such as Istanbul, Beirut, Cairo or even from Cyprus. In
addition, many journalists lack the language skills to understand local people and media.
How do correspondents under such circumstances know what the "news" is in their region of
the world? The main answer is once again: from global agencies. The Dutch Middle East
correspondent Joris Luyendijk has impressively described how correspondents work and how they
depend on the world agencies in his book "People Like Us:
Misrepresenting the Middle East" :
"I'd imagined correspondents to be historians-of-the-moment. When something important
happened, they'd go after it, find out what was going on, and report on it. But I didn't go
off to find out what was going on; that had been done long before. I went along to present an
on-the-spot report. ()
The editors in the Netherlands called when something happened, they faxed or emailed the
press releases, and I'd retell them in my own words on the radio, or rework them into an
article for the newspaper. This was the reason my editors found it more important that I
could be reached in the place itself than that I knew what was going on. The news agencies
provided enough information for you to be able to write or talk you way through any crisis or
summit meeting.
That's why you often come across the same images and stories if you leaf through a few
different newspapers or click the news channels.
Our men and women in London, Paris, Berlin and Washington bureaus – all thought that
wrong topics were dominating the news and that we were following the standards of the news
agencies too slavishly. ()
The common idea about correspondents is that they 'have the story', () but the reality is
that the news is a conveyor belt in a bread factory. The correspondents stand at the end of
the conveyor belt, pretending we've baked that white loaf ourselves, while in fact all we've
done is put it in its wrapping. ()
Afterwards, a friend asked me how I'd managed to answer all the questions during those
cross-talks, every hour and without hesitation. When I told him that, like on the TV-news,
you knew all the questions in advance, his e-mailed response came packed with expletives. My
friend had relalized that, for decades, what he'd been watching and listening to on the news
was pure theatre." (Luyendjik 2009, p. 20-22, 76, 189)
In other words, the typical correspondent is in general not able to do independent research,
but rather deals with and reinforces those topics that are already prescribed by the news
agencies – the notorious "mainstream effect".
In addition, for cost-saving reasons many media outlets nowadays have to share their few
foreign correspondents, and within individual media groups, foreign reports are often used by
several publications – none of which contributes to diversity in reporting.
"What the agency does not report, does not take place"
The central role of news agencies also explains why, in geopolitical conflicts, most media
use the same original sources. In the Syrian war, for example, the "Syrian Observatory for
Human Rights" – a dubious one-man organization based in London – featured
prominently. The media rarely inquired directly at this "Observatory", as its operator was in
fact difficult to reach, even for journalists.
Rather, the "Observatory" delivered its stories to global agencies, which then forwarded
them to thousands of media outlets, which in turn "informed" hundreds of millions of readers
and viewers worldwide. The reason why the agencies, of all places, referred to this strange
"Observatory" in their reporting – and who really financed it – is a question that
was rarely asked.
The former chief editor of the German news agency DPA, Manfred Steffens, therefore states in
his book "The Business of News":
"A news story does not become more correct simply because one is able to provide a source
for it. It is indeed rather questionable to trust a news story more just because a source is
cited. () Behind the protective shield such a 'source' means for a news story, some people
are quite inclined to spread rather adventurous things, even if they themselves have
legitimate doubts about their correctness; the responsibility, at least morally, can always
be attributed to the cited source." (Steffens 1969, p. 106)
Dependence on global agencies is also a major reason why media coverage of geopolitical
conflicts is often superficial and erratic, while historic relationships and background are
fragmented or altogether absent. As put by Steffens:
"News agencies receive their impulses almost exclusively from current events and are
therefore by their very nature ahistoric. They are reluctant to add any more context than is
strictly required." (Steffens 1969, p. 32)
Finally, the dominance of global agencies explains why certain geopolitical issues and
events – which often do not fit very well into the US/NATO narrative or are too
"unimportant" – are not mentioned in our media at all: if the agencies do not report on
something, then most Western media will not be aware of it. As pointed out on the occasion of
the 50th anniversary of the German DPA: "What the agency does not report, does not take place."
(Wilke 2000, p. 1)
While some topics do not appear at all in our media, other topics are very prominent –
even though they shouldn't actually be: "Often the mass media do not report on reality, but on
a constructed or staged reality. () Several studies have shown that the mass media are
predominantly determined by PR activities and that passive, receptive attitudes outweigh
active-researching ones." (Blum 1995, p. 16)
In fact, due to the rather low journalistic performance of our media and their high
dependence on a few news agencies, it is easy for interested parties to spread propaganda and
disinformation in a supposedly respectable format to a worldwide audience. DPA editor Steffens
warned of this danger:
"The critical sense gets more lulled the more respected the news agency or newspaper is.
Someone who wants to introduce a questionable story into the world press only needs to try to
put his story in a reasonably reputable agency, to be sure that it then appears a little
later in the others. Sometimes it happens that a hoax passes from agency to agency and
becomes ever more credible." (Steffens 1969, p. 234)
Among the most active actors in "injecting" questionable geopolitical news are the military
and defense ministries. For example, in 2009, the head of the American news agency AP, Tom
Curley,
made public that the Pentagon employs more than 27,000 PR specialists who, with a budget of
nearly $ 5 billion a year, are working the media and circulating targeted manipulations. In
addition, high-ranking US generals had threatened that they would "ruin" the AP and him if the
journalists reported too critically on the US military.
Despite – or because of? – such threats our media regularly publish dubious
stories sourced to some unnamed "informants" from "US defense circles".
Ulrich Tilgner, a veteran Middle East correspondent for German and Swiss television, warned
in 2003, shortly after the Iraq war, of acts of deception by the military and the role played
by the media:
"With the help of the media, the military determine the public perception and use it for
their plans. They manage to stir expectations and spread scenarios and deceptions. In this
new kind of war, the PR strategists of the US administration fulfill a similar function as
the bomber pilots. The special departments for public relations in the Pentagon and in the
secret services have become combatants in the information war. () The US military
specifically uses the lack of transparency in media coverage for their deception maneuvers.
The way they spread information, which is then picked up and distributed by newspapers and
broadcasters, makes it impossible for readers, listeners or viewers to trace the original
source. Thus, the audience will fail to recognize the actual intention of the military."
(Tilgner 2003, p. 132)
What is known to the US military, would not be foreign to US intelligence services. In a
remarkable report
by British Channel 4, former CIA officials and a Reuters correspondent spoke candidly about the
systematic dissemination of propaganda and misinformation in reporting on geopolitical
conflicts:
Former CIA officer and whistleblower John Stockwell said of his work in the
Angolan war,
"The basic theme was to make it look like an [enemy] aggression in Angola. So any kind of
story that you could write and get into the media anywhere in the world, that pushed that
line, we did. One third of my staff in this task force were covert action, were
propagandists, whose professional career job was to make up stories and finding ways of
getting them into the press. () The editors in most Western newspapers are not too skeptical
of messages that conform to general views and prejudices. () So we came up with another
story, and it was kept going for weeks. () [But] it was all fiction."
Fred Bridgland
looked back on his work as a war correspondent for the Reuters agency: "We based our reports on
official communications. It was not until years later that I learned a little CIA
disinformation expert had sat in the US embassy, in Lusaka and composed that communiqué,
and it bore no relation at all to truth. () Basically, and to put it very crudely, you can
publish any old crap and it will get newspaper room."
And former CIA analyst David MacMichael described his work in the
Contra War in Nicaragua with these words:
"They said our intelligence of Nicaragua was so good that we could even register when
someone flushed a toilet. But I had the feeling that the stories we were giving to the press
came straight out of the toilet." (Hird 1985)
Of course, the intelligence services also have a large number of direct contacts in our media,
which can be "leaked" information to if necessary. But without the central role of the global
news agencies, the worldwide synchronization of propaganda and disinformation would never be so
efficient.
Through this "propaganda multiplier", dubious stories from PR experts working for
governments, military and intelligence services reach the general public more or less unchecked
and unfiltered. The journalists refer to the news agencies and the news agencies refer to their
sources. Although they often attempt to point out uncertainties with terms such as "apparent",
"alleged" and the like – by then the rumor has long been spread to the world and its
effect taken place.
The Propaganda Multiplier: Governments, military and intelligence services using global
news agencies to disseminate their messages to a worldwide audience.
As the New York Times reported
In addition to global news agencies, there is another source that is often used by media
outlets around the world to report on geopolitical conflicts, namely the major publications in
Great Britain and the US.
For example, news outlets like the New York Times or BBC have up to 100 foreign
correspondents and other external employees. However, Middle East correspondent Luyendijk
points out:
"Dutch news teams, me included, fed on the selection of news made by quality media like
CNN, the BBC, and the New York Times . We did that on the assumption
that their correspondents understood the Arab world and commanded a view of it – but
many of them turned out not to speak Arabic, or at least not enough to be able to have a
conversation in it or to follow the local media. Many of the top dogs at CNN, the BBC, the
Independent, the Guardian, the New Yorker, and the NYT were more often than not dependent on
assistants and translators." (Luyendijk p. 47)
In addition, the sources of these media outlets are often not easy to verify ("military
circles", "anonymous government officials", "intelligence officials" and the like) and can
therefore also be used for the dissemination of propaganda. In any case, the widespread
orientation towards the Anglo-Saxon publications leads to a further convergence in the
geopolitical coverage in our media.
The following figure shows some examples of such citation based on the Syria coverage of the
largest daily newspaper in Switzerland, Tages-Anzeiger. The articles are all from the first
days of October 2015, when Russia for the first time intervened directly in the Syrian war
(US/UK sources are highlighted):
Frequent citation of British and US media, exemplified by the Syria war coverage of Swiss
daily newspaper Tages-Anzeiger in October 2015.
The desired narrative
But why do journalists in our media not simply try to research and report independently of
the global agencies and the Anglo-Saxon media? Middle East correspondent Luyendijk describes
his experiences:
"You might suggest that I should have looked for sources I could trust. I did try, but
whenever I wanted to write a story without using news agencies, the main Anglo-Saxon media,
or talking heads, it fell apart. () Obviously I, as a correspondent, could tell very
different stories about one and the same situation. But the media could only present one of
them, and often enough, that was exactly the story that confirmed the prevailing image."
(Luyendijk p.54ff)
Media researcher Noam Chomsky has described this effect in his essay "What makes the mainstream media mainstream" as
follows: "If you leave the official line, if you produce dissenting reports, then you will soon
feel this. () There are many ways to get you back in line quickly. If you don't follow the
guidelines, you will not keep your job long. This system works pretty well, and it reflects
established power structures." (Chomsky 1997)
Nevertheless, some of the leading journalists continue to believe that nobody can tell them
what to write. How does this add up? Media researcher Chomsky clarifies the apparent contradiction:
"[T]he point is that they wouldn't be there unless they had already demonstrated that
nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going say the right thing. If they had
started off at the Metro desk, or something, and had pursued the wrong kind of stories, they
never would have made it to the positions where they can now say anything they like. () They
have been through the socialization system." (Chomsky 1997)
Ultimately, this "socialization process" leads to a journalism that generally no longer
independently researches and critically reports on geopolitical conflicts (and some other
topics), but seeks to consolidate the desired narrative through appropriate editorials,
commentary, and interviewees.
Conclusion: The "First Law of Journalism"
Former AP journalist Herbert Altschull called it the First Law of Journalism:
"In all press systems, the news media are instruments of those who exercise political and
economic power. Newspapers, periodicals, radio and television stations do not act
independently, although they have the possibility of independent exercise of power."
(Altschull 1984/1995, p. 298)
In that sense, it is logical that our traditional media – which are predominantly
financed by advertising or the state – represent the geopolitical interests of the
transatlantic alliance, given that both the advertising corporations as well as the states
themselves are dependent on the US dominated transatlantic economic and security
architecture.
In addition, our leading media and their key people are – in the spirit of Chomsky's
"socialization" – often themselves part of the networks of the transatlantic elite. Some
of the most important institutions in this regard include the US Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR), the Bilderberg Group, and the Trilateral Commission (see in-depth study of these networks
).
Indeed, most well-known publications basically may be seen as "establishment media". This is
because, in the past, the freedom of the press was rather theoretical, given significant entry
barriers such as broadcasting licenses, frequency slots, requirements for financing and
technical infrastructure, limited sales channels, dependence on advertising, and other
restrictions.
It was only due to the Internet that Altschull's First Law has been broken to some extent.
Thus, in recent years a high-quality, reader-funded journalism has emerged, often outperforming
traditional media in terms of critical reporting. Some of these "alternative" publications
already reach a very large audience, showing that the „mass" does not have to be a
problem for the quality of a media outlet.
Nevertheless, up to now the traditional media has been able to attract a solid majority of
online visitors, too. This, in turn, is closely linked to the hidden role of news agencies,
whose up-to-the-minute reports form the backbone of most news portals.
Will "political and economic power", according to Altschull's Law, retain control over the
news, or will "uncontrolled" news change the political and economic power structure? The coming
years will show.
Case study: Syria war coverage
As part of a case study, the Syria war coverage of nine leading daily newspapers from
Germany, Austria and Switzerland were examined for plurality of viewpoints and reliance on news
agencies. The following newspapers were selected:
For Germany: Die Welt, Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung
(FAZ)
For Switzerland: Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), Tagesanzeiger (TA), and Basler Zeitung
(BaZ)
For Austria: Standard, Kurier, and Die Presse
The investigation period was defined as October 1 to 15, 2015, i.e. the first two weeks
after Russia's direct intervention in the Syrian conflict. The entire print and online coverage
of these newspapers was taken into account. Any Sunday editions were not taken into account, as
not all of the newspapers examined have such. In total, 381 newspaper articles met the stated
criteria.
In a first step, the articles were classified according to their properties into the
following groups:
Agencies : Reports from news agencies (with agency code)
Mixed : Simple reports (with author names) that are based in whole or in part on agency
reports
Reports : Editorial background reports and analyzes
Opinions/Comments : Opinions and guest comments
Interviews : interviews with experts, politicians etc.
Investigative : Investigative research that reveals new information or context
The following Figure 1 shows the composition of the articles for the nine newspapers
analyzed in total. As can be seen, 55% of articles were news agency reports; 23% editorial
reports based on agency material; 9% background reports; 10% opinions and guest comments; 2%
interviews; and 0% based on investigative research.
Figure 1: Types of articles (total; n=381)
The pure agency texts – from short notices to the detailed reports – were mostly
on the Internet pages of the daily newspapers: on the one hand, the pressure for breaking news
is higher than in the printed edition, on the other hand, there are no space restrictions. Most
other types of articles were found in both the online and printed editions; some exclusive
interviews and background reports were found only in the printed editions. All items were
collected only once for the investigation.
The following Figure 2 shows the same classification on a per newspaper basis. During the
observation period (two weeks), most newspapers published between 40 and 50 articles on the
Syrian conflict (print and online). In the German newspaper Die Welt there were more
(58), in the Basler Zeitung and the Austrian Kurier , however, significantly less
(29 or 33).
Depending on which newspaper, the share of agency reports is almost 50% (Welt,
Süddeutsche, NZZ, Basler Zeitung), just under 60% (FAZ, Tagesanzeiger), and 60 to 70%
(Presse, Standard, Kurier). Together with the agency-based reports, the proportion in most
newspapers is between approx. 70% and 80%. These proportions are consistent with previous media
studies (e.g., Blum 1995, Johnston 2011, MacGregor 2013, Paterson 2007).
In the background reports, the Swiss newspapers were leading (five to six pieces), followed
by Welt , Süddeutsche and Standard (four each) and the other
newspapers (one to three). The background reports and analyzes were in particular devoted to
the situation and development in the Middle East, as well as to the motives and interests of
individual actors (for example Russia, Turkey, the Islamic State).
However, most of the commentaries were to be found in the German newspapers (seven comments
each), followed by Standard (five), NZZ and Tagesanzeiger (four each).
Basler Zeitung did not publish any commentaries during the observation period, but two
interviews. Other interviews were conducted by Standard (three) and Kurier and
Presse (one each). Investigative research, however, could not be found in any of the
newspapers.
In particular, in the case of the three German newspapers, a journalistically problematic
blending of opinion pieces and reports was noted. Reports contained strong expressions of
opinion even though they were not marked as commentary. The present study was in any case based
on the article labeling by the newspaper.
Figure 2: Types of articles per newspaper
The following Figure 3 shows the breakdown of agency stories (by agency abbreviation) for
each news agency, in total and per country. The 211 agency reports carried a total of 277
agency codes (a story may consist of material from more than one agency). In total, 24% of
agency reports came from the AFP; about 20% each by the DPA, APA and Reuters; 9% of the SDA; 6%
of the AP; and 11% were unknown (no labeling or blanket term "agencies").
In Germany, the DPA, AFP and Reuters each have a share of about one third of the news
stories. In Switzerland, the SDA and the AFP are in the lead, and in Austria, the APA and
Reuters.
In fact, the shares of the global agencies AFP, AP and Reuters are likely to be even higher,
as the Swiss SDA and the Austrian APA obtain their international reports mainly from the global
agencies and the German DPA cooperates closely with the American AP.
It should also be noted that, for historical reasons, the global agencies are represented
differently in different regions of the world. For events in Asia, Ukraine or Africa, the share
of each agency will therefore be different than from events in the Middle East.
Figure 3: Share of news agencies, total (n=277) and per country
In the next step, central statements were used to rate the orientation of editorial opinions
(28), guest comments (10) and interview partners (7) (a total of 45 articles). As Figure 4
shows, 82% of the contributions were generally US/NATO friendly, 16% neutral or balanced, and
2% predominantly US/NATO critical.
The only predominantly US/NATO-critical contribution was an op-ed in the Austrian
Standard on October 2, 2015, titled: "The strategy of regime change has failed. A
distinction between ‚good' and ‚bad' terrorist groups in Syria makes the Western
policy untrustworthy."
Figure 4: Orientation of editorial opinions, guest comments, and interviewees (total;
n=45).
The following Figure 5 shows the orientation of the contributions, guest comments and
interviewees, in turn broken down by individual newspapers. As can be seen, Welt,
Süddeutsche Zeitung, NZZ, Zürcher Tagesanzeiger and the Austrian newspaper
Kurier presented exclusively US/NATO-friendly opinion and guest contributions; this goes
for FAZ too, with the exception of one neutral/balanced contribution. The
Standard brought four US/NATO friendly, three balanced/neutral, as well as the already
mentioned US/NATO critical opinion contributions.
Presse was the only one of the examined newspapers to predominantly publish
neutral/balanced opinions and guest contributions. The Basler Zeitung published one
US/NATO-friendly and one balanced contribution. Shortly after the observation period (October
16, 2015), Basler Zeitung also published an interview with the President of the Russian
Parliament. This would of course have been counted as a contribution critical of the
US/NATO.
Figure 5: Basic orientation of opinion pieces and interviewees per newspaper
In a further analysis, a full-text keyword search for "propaganda" (and word combinations
thereof) was used to investigate in which cases the newspapers themselves identified propaganda
in one of the two geopolitical conflict sides, USA/NATO or Russia (the participant "IS/ISIS"
was not considered). In total, twenty such cases were identified. Figure 6 shows the result: in
85% of the cases, propaganda was identified on the Russian side of the conflict, in 15% the
identification was neutral or unstated, and in 0% of the cases propaganda was identified on the
USA/NATO side of the conflict.
It should be noted that about half of the cases (nine) were in the Swiss NZZ , which
spoke of Russian propaganda quite frequently ("Kremlin propaganda", "Moscow propaganda
machine", "propaganda stories", "Russian propaganda apparatus" etc.), followed by German
FAZ (three), Welt and Süddeutsche Zeitung (two each) and the Austrian
newspaper Kurier (one). The other newspapers did not mention propaganda, or only in a
neutral context (or in the context of IS).
Figure 6: Attribution of propaganda to conflict parties (total; n=20).
Conclusion
In this case study, the geopolitical coverage in nine leading daily newspapers from Germany,
Austria and Switzerland was examined for diversity and journalistic performance using the
example of the Syrian war.
The results confirm the high dependence on the global news agencies (63 to 90%, excluding
commentaries and interviews) and the lack of own investigative research, as well as the rather
biased commenting on events in favor of the US/NATO side (82% positive; 2% negative), whose
stories were not checked by the newspapers for any propaganda.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
"... Historians will study this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any entente between Moscow and Washington. ..."
"... Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' ( 8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts. ..."
"... This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia. Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but by the Obama administration? ..."
"... Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute to Montenegro, NATO's newest member. ..."
"... At this stage, it doesn't matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own conclusions. ..."
Trump was after a good deal from Russia. A new partnership would have reversed deteriorating relations between the powers by encouraging
their alliance against ISIS and recognising the importance of Ukraine to Russia's security. Current US paranoia about everything
Kremlin-related has encouraged amnesia about what President Barack Obama said in 2016, after the annexation of the Crimea and Russia's
direct intervention in Syria. He too put the danger posed by President Vladimir Putin into perspective: the interventions in Ukraine
and the Middle East were, Obama said, improvised 'in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp' (
5 ).
Obama went on: 'The Russians can't change us or significantly weaken us. They are a smaller country, they are a weaker country,
their economy doesn't produce anything that anybody wants to buy, except oil and gas and arms.' What he feared most about Putin was
the sympathy he inspired in Trump and his supporters: '37% of Republican voters approve of Putin, the former head of the KGB. Ronald
Reagan would roll over in his grave' ( 6 ).
By January 2017, Reagan's eternal rest was no longer threatened. 'Presidents come and go but the policy never changes,' Putin
concluded ( 7 ). Historians will study
this period when there was a convergence in the objectives of the US intelligence agencies, the leaders of the Hillary Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party, the majority of Republican politicians and the anti-Trump media. That common objective was stopping any
entente between Moscow and Washington.
Each group had its own motive. The intelligence community and elements in the Pentagon feared a rapprochement between Trump
and Putin would deprive them of a 'presentable' enemy once ISIS's military power was destroyed. The Clinton camp was keen to ascribe
an unexpected defeat to a cause other than the candidate and her inept campaign; Moscow's alleged hacking of Democratic Party emails
fitted the bill. And the neocons, who 'promoted the Iraq war, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable' (
8 ), hated Trump's neo-isolationist instincts.
The media, especially the New York Times and Washington Post, eagerly sought a new Watergate scandal and knew their
middle-class, urban, educated readers loathe Trump for his vulgarity, affection for the far right, violence and lack of culture (
9 ). So they were searching for any information
or rumour that could cause his removal or force a resignation. As in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, everyone
had his particular motive for striking the same victim.
The intrigue developed quickly as these four areas have fairly porous boundaries. The understanding between Republican hawks such
as John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and the military-industrial complex was a given. The architects
of recent US imperial adventures, especially Iraq, had not enjoyed the 2016 campaign or Trump's jibes about their expertise. During
the campaign, some 50 intellectuals and officials announced that, despite being Republicans, they would not support Trump because
he 'would put at risk our country's national security and wellbeing.' Some went so far as to vote for Clinton (
10 ).
Ambitions of a 'deep state'?
The press feared that Trump's incompetence would threaten the US-dominated international order. It had no problem with military
crusades, especially when emblazoned with grand humanitarian, internationalist or progressive principles. According to the press
criteria, Putin and his predilection for rightwing nationalists were obvious culprits. But so were Saudi Arabia or Israel, though
that did not prevent the Saudis being able to count on the ferociously anti-Russian Wall Street Journal, or Israel enjoying
the support of almost all US media, despite having a far-right element in its government.
Just over a week before Trump took office, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who broke the Edward Snowden story that revealed the mass
surveillance programmes run by the National Security Agency, warned of the direction of travel. He observed that the US media had
become the intelligence services' 'most valuable instrument, much of which reflexively reveres, serves, believes, and sides with
hidden intelligence officials.' This at a time when 'Democrats, still reeling from their unexpected and traumatic election loss as
well as a systemic collapse of their party, seemingly divorced further and further from reason with each passing day, are willing
-- eager -- to embrace any claim, cheer any tactic, align with any villain, regardless of how unsupported, tawdry and damaging
those behaviours might be' ( 11 ).
The anti-Russian coalition hadn't then achieved all its objectives, but Greenwald already discerned the ambitions of a 'deep state'.
'There really is, at this point,' he said 'obvious open warfare between this unelected but very powerful faction that resides in
Washington and sees presidents come and go, on the one hand, and the person that the American democracy elected to be the president
on the other.' One suspicion, fed by the intelligence services, galvanised all Trump's enemies: Moscow had compromising secrets about
Trump -- financial, electoral, sexual -- capable of paralysing him should a crisis between the two countries occur (
12 ).
Covert opposition to Trump
The suspicion of such a murky understanding, summed up by the pro-Clinton economist Paul Krugman as a 'Trump-Putin ticket', has
transformed the anti-Russian activity into a domestic political weapon against a president increasingly hated outside the ultraconservative
bloc. It is no longer unusual to hear leftwing activists turn FBI or CIA apologists, since these agencies became a home for a covert
opposition to Trump and the source of many leaks.
This is why the Democratic Party data hack, which the US intelligence services allege is the work of the Russians, obsesses
the party, and the press. It strikes two targets: delegitimising Trump's election and stopping his promotion of a thaw with Russia.
Has Washington's aggrieved reaction to a foreign power's interference in a state's domestic affairs, and its elections, struck no
one as odd? Why do just a handful of people point out that, not long ago, Angela Merkel's phone was tapped not by the Kremlin but
by the Obama administration?
The silence was once broken when the Republican representative for North Carolina, Tom Tillis, questioned former CIA director
James Clapper in January: 'The United States has been involved in one way or another in 81 different elections since World War II.
That doesn't include coups or the regime changes, some tangible evidence where we have tried to affect an outcome to our purpose.
Russia has done it some 36 times.' This perspective rarely disturbs the New York Times 's fulminations against Moscow's trickery.
The Times also failed to inform younger readers that Russia's president Boris Yeltsin, who picked Putin as his successor
in 1999, had been re-elected in 1996, though seriously ill and often drunk, in a fraudulent election conducted with the assistance
of US advisers and the overt support of President Bill Clinton. The Times hailed the result as 'a victory for Russian democracy'
and declared that 'the forces of democracy and reform won a vital but not definitive victory in Russia yesterday For the first time
in history, a free Russia has freely chosen its leader.'
Now the Times is in the vanguard of those preparing psychologically for conflict with Russia. There is almost no remaining
resistance to its line. On the right, as the Wall Street Journal called for the US to arm Ukraine on 3 August, Vice-President
Mike Pence spoke on a visit to Estonia about 'the spectre of [Russian] aggression', encouraged Georgia to join NATO, and paid tribute
to Montenegro, NATO's newest member.
No longer getting his way
But the Times, far from worrying about these provocative gestures coinciding with heightened tensions between great powers
(trade sanctions against Russia, Moscow's expulsion of US diplomats), poured oil on the fire. On 2 August it praised the reaffirmation
of 'America's commitment to defend democratic nations against those countries that would undermine them' and regretted that Mike
Pence's views 'aren't as eagerly embraced and celebrated by the man he works for back in the White House.'
At this stage, it doesn't
matter any more what Trump thinks. He is no longer able to get his way on the issue. Moscow has noted this and is drawing its own
conclusions.
It might well be that Trump treatment of 9/11 as unsolved investigation was one of the red flag for establishment
(and personally Brennan) which led to launching of Russiagate.
Notable quotes:
"... But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? ..."
"... Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began, that Brennan would set all of this in motion? ..."
"... For one thing, Trump, early in his campaign stated that he had suspicions regarding official explanations of 9/11. ..."
But why was Brennan so anti-Syria and anti-Ukraine? What personal motives did he have? Why
target two regimes esp hated by Jews?
It seems he's like McCain. A mean nasty son of a bitch who likes to play world politics.
It's his bullying nature. But he has no vision or compass. Like a dog, he will hunt and maul
anything that is approved by the Power. And that Power is Jewish.
Dogs love to hunt but only get to hunt what the master orders it to. If the master orders
the dog to love rabbits and hunt raccoon, it will do just that. If the master orders it to
love raccoon and hunt rabbits, it will do that. In the end, the dog doesn't care what it
hunts as long as it's given a chance to hunt something.
Same with these goy cuck dogs. Their lives feel fulfilled only in Big Power bully mode.
They need to beat up on something. But they have no vision or compass, no agency. They look
over their shoulders to the Power to tell them what to love(Israel and Saudis) and what to
hate(Iran and Syria and Russia).
Dogs growl at dogs, not at their masters. When Trump came around, Brennan didn't see him
as the new master but as a bad dog(or even wolf) displeasing his master, the Jews. Like
McCain, a very loyal dog. Also, a dog feels jealousy that the master may take to a new dog
over him.
I have to think that the pyramid goes higher still Brennan working for Hillary and Hillary
working for the combined plutocratic imperialist elite that make up the core of the Clinton
Foundation's billions these scumbags will never be touched for buying Killary, but maybe
Killary will end up in an orange jumpsuit, right beside her gopher Brennan
And maybe Trump finally has his hands untied to start doing the things he promised time
will tell
But evidence of wrongdoing is not proof that Comey was the ringleader, he was just the
hapless sad sack who was left holding the bag. The truth is, Comey was just a reluctant
follower. The real architect of the Trump-Russia treachery was the boss-man at the nation's
premier intelligence agency, the CIA.
suspect you are correct
Brennan seems like the real evil, Comey just a doofus
@R Boyd
"Can someone please explain what it was about Donald Trump at the time that this all began,
that Brennan would set all of this in motion?"
He was not truly compromised thus controlled by the spooks. So they were trying to achieve
that, and it appears based on Trump's behavior, that they did achieve that
Whats difficult to understand here is who is driving who. The white house uses the media, the
media uses the white house. The CIA uses both. All of them use the Pentagon, which in turn
uses and serves the MIC. These stories that suddenly appear could be any one of those parties
using the press, or a drive by the press to prepare the stage for war on behalf of their
corporate overlords.
It is not " the job of the media to point that out", the job of the media is to serve
shareholders interest, whoever they may be. It is, however, the responsibility of a
conscientious public to discriminate very carefully between various consumable media outlets.
It is the duty of patriotic journalists to support their country's war efforts in times of
war, is it not? America has been at war for a very long time. For as long as the latest crop
of crappy "journalists" can remember (assuming they can remember anything beyond
yesterday's breakfast, which we see precious little evidence of).
Maybe in Europe and the rest of the world outside America there remains this idealized
conception of what journalism should be about, but that is long gone in the US. In America
the journalists consider themselves the "boots on the ground" in the psy-op
information war. They know that they are just as vital to America's imperial ambitions as the
Special Forces assassins and CIA covert operatives directing the death squads.
The CIA does the coordination of media narratives. You can think of them as the conductor
of the orchestra... the organist at the Mighty Wurlitzer . The CIA also
direct a lot of covert operations to strong-arm vassals into line and to knock states off
balance that try to resist the empire. They also do lots of assassinations of labor
organizers and the like.
But who is above the CIA? Who does the CIA work for? Certainly not the US Executive
Branch! The CIA kills presidents when they feel the need.
Just ask yourself who benefits. The corporate elites at Coca-Cola, Nestle, Exxon,
Monsanto, GE, and so on; and above them the elites at maybe a dozen giant financial
syndicates whose evils psychohistorian is always going on about (he is right, by the way).
These are the folks that gather at the Bilderberg and Bohemian Grove meet-ups where the large
scale plans are hatched and corrections to faltering plans are debated and that the CIA must
then fine tune and implement.
George Papadopoulos's story on why he thinks that the RussiaGate probe was started is something out of The Parallax View but,
alas, rings true: the Trans-Pacific Partnership, stopping Brexit, and abandoning an Atlanticist foreign policy were opposed by a
CIA and corporate political establishment, who created the fake Steele dossier to bring down Trump (the TPP, and also Brexit, I believe,
were in the dossier as reasons why "Putin" wanted Trump to win)
Saudi "Nawaf Al-Hamzi, one of the 9/11 hijackers," as mentioned by b above,
arrived in the US in January of 2000.
The CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, was there in Saudi Arabia during what
would have been the early planning stages for 9/11.
He left this position and traveled back to the US to become chief of staff
to CIA director George Tenet in 1999. This was just before the 9/11 hijackers
themselves began arriving.
I have not been able to locate a time table. Was it days, weeks or months
before Nawaf Al-Hamzi arrived in the US that John Brennan, CIA station chief
in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, relocated to the US? **Anyone have John Brennan's arrival date in 1999?**
"... "The evidence is plain–there was a broad, coordinated effort by the Obama Administration, with the help of foreign governments, to target Donald Trump and paint him as a stooge of Russia. The Mueller Report provides irrefutable evidence that the so-called Russian collusion case against Donald Trump was a deliberate fabrication by intelligence and law enforcement organizations in the US and UK and organizations aligned with the Clinton Campaign." ( "How US and Foreign Intel Agencies Interfered in a US Election" , Larry C. Johnson, Consortium News) ..."
"... "Brennan was the key to the operation because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court refused to approve several requests by the FBI to initiate taps on Trump associates and Trump Tower as there was no probable cause to do so but the British and other European intelligence services were legally able to intercept communications linked to American sources. Brennan was able to use his connections with those foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, to make it look like the concerns about Trump were coming from friendly and allied countries and therefore had to be responded to as part of routine intelligence sharing. As a result, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Gen. Michael Flynn were all wiretapped. And likely there were others. This all happened during the primaries and after Trump became the GOP nominee." ( "The Conspiracy Against Trump" , Philip Giraldi) ..."
"... According to a report in The Guardian (where the story first appeared.): "GCHQ (British Government Communications Headquarters) played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016. One source called the British eavesdropping agency the "principal whistleblower". ("British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia ", The Guardian) ..."
"... Okay, so Brennan twisted a few arms and got his foreign Intel buddies to make uncorroborated claims that got the investigative ball rolling, but then what? If there was any meat to Brennan's foreign intel, then Mueller would have dug it up and used it in his report, right? But he didn't. Why? ..."
"... Because there was nothing there, the whole thing was a sham from the get go. Brennan probably "sexed up" the intelligence so it would sound like something it really wasn't. (Think: WMD) Again, if there was even a scintilla of hard evidence that Trump's campaign assistants were in bed with Russia, Mueller would have shrieked it from every mountaintop across America. But he didn't, because there wasn't any. There was no cooperation, no conspiracy and no collusion. Trump was falsely accused. End of story. ..."
Sometime in the next 4 weeks, the Justice Department's inspector general will release an internal review that will reveal the
origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. Among other matters, the IG's report is expected to determine "whether there was sufficient
justification under existing guidelines for the FBI to have started an investigation in the first place." Critics of the Trump-collusion
probe believe that there was never probable cause that a crime had been committed, therefore, there was no legal basis for launching
the investigation. The findings of the Mueller report– that there was no cooperation or collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump
campaign– seem to underscore this broader point and suggest that the fictitious Trump-Russia connection was merely a pretext for
spying on the campaign of a Beltway outsider whose political views clashed with those of the foreign policy establishment. In any
event, the upcoming release of the Horowitz report will formally end the the first phase of the long-running Russiagate scandal and
mark the beginning of Phase 2, in which high-profile officials from the previous administration face criminal prosecution for their
role in what looks to be a botched attempt at a coup d'etat.
Here's a brief summary from political analyst, Larry C. Johnson, who previously worked at the CIA and U.S. State Department:
"The evidence is plain–there was a broad, coordinated effort by the Obama Administration, with the help of foreign governments,
to target Donald Trump and paint him as a stooge of Russia. The Mueller Report provides irrefutable evidence that the so-called
Russian collusion case against Donald Trump was a deliberate fabrication by intelligence and law enforcement organizations in
the US and UK and organizations aligned with the Clinton Campaign." (
"How US and Foreign Intel Agencies Interfered in a US Election" , Larry C. Johnson, Consortium News)
Bingo. Attorney General William Barr has already stated his belief that spying on the Trump campaign "did occur" and that, in
his mind, it is "a big deal". He also reiterated his commitment to thoroughly investigate the matter in order to find out whether
the spying was adequately "predicated", that is, whether the FBI followed the required protocols for such spying, or not. Barr already
knows the answer to this question as he is fully aware of the fact that the FBI used information that they knew was false to obtain
warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Having no hard evidence of cooperation with the Kremlin, senior-level FBI officials and their
counterparts at the Obama Justice Department used parts of an "opposition research" document (The Trump Dossier) that they knew was
unreliable to procure warrants that allowed them to treat a presidential campaign the same way the intelligence agencies treat foreign
enemies; using electronic surveillance, wiretapping, confidential informants and "honey trap" schemes designed to gather embarrassing
or incriminating information on their target. Barr knows all of this already which is why the Democrats are doing everything in their
power to discredit him and have him removed from office. His determination to "get to the bottom of this" is not just a threat to
the FBI, it's a threat to multiple agencies that may have had a hand in this expansive domestic espionage operation including the
CIA, the NSA, the DOJ, the State Department and, perhaps, even the Obama White House. No one knows yet how far up the political food-chain
the skulduggery actually goes, but Barr appears to be serious about finding out.
Here's Barr again: "Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant
.I would like to find out whether that is in fact true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence
effort designed to stop the threat as it's being represented."
In other words, Barr knows that the Trump campaign was riddled with spies and he is going to do his damnedest to find out what
happened. He also knows that the FISA warrants were improperly obtained using the shabby disinformation from an opposition research
"hit piece" (The Steele Dossier) that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, just like he knows that government agents had
concocted a strategy for leaking classified information to the media to fuel the public hysteria. Barr knows most of what happened
already. It's just a matter of compiling the research in the proper format and delivering it in a way that helps to emphasize how
trusted government agents abused their power by pursuing a vicious partisan plot to either destroy the president's reputation or
force him from office. Like Barr said, that's a "big deal".
The name that seems to feature larger than all others in the ongoing Trump-Russia saga, is James Comey, the former FBI Director
who oversaw the spying operations that are now under investigation at the DOJ. But was Comey really the central figure in these felonious
hi-jinks or was he a mere lieutenant following directives from someone more powerful than himself? While the preponderance of new
evidence suggests that the FBI was deeply involved, it does not answer this crucial question. For example, just this week, a report
by veteran journalist John Solomon, showed that former British spy Christopher Steele admitted to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Kathleen Kavalec that his "Trump Dossier" was "political research", implying that the contents couldn't be trusted because they were
shaped by Steele's political bias. Kavalec passed along this information to the FBI which shrugged it off and then, just days later,
used the dossier to obtain warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign. Think about that for a minute. The FBI had "written
proof . that Steele had a political motive", but went ahead and used the dossier to procure the warrants anyway. That's what I'd
call a premeditated felony.
But evidence of wrongdoing is not proof that Comey was the ringleader, he was just the hapless sad sack who was left holding the
bag. The truth is, Comey was just a reluctant follower. The real architect of the Trump-Russia treachery was the boss-man at the
nation's premier intelligence agency, the CIA. That's where the headwaters of this shameful burlesque are located, in Langley. More
on that in a minute, but first check out this excerpt from an article at The Hill which sums up Comey's role fairly well:
(There) "will be an examination of whether Comey was unduly influenced by political agendas emanating from the previous White
House and its director of national intelligence, CIA director and attorney general. This, above all, is what's causing the 360-degree
head spin.
"There are early indicators that troubling behaviors may have occurred in all three scenarios. Barr will want to zero in on
a particular area of concern: the use by the FBI of confidential human sources, whether its own or those offered up by the then-CIA
director.
In addition, the cast of characters leveraged by the FBI against the Trump campaign all appear to have their genesis as CIA
sources ("assets," in agency vernacular) shared at times with the FBI. From Stefan Halper and possibly Joseph Mifsud, to Christopher
Steele, to Carter Page himself, and now a mysterious "government investigator" posing as Halper's assistant and cited in The New
York Times article, legitimate questions arise as to whether Comey was manipulated into furthering a CIA political operation more
than an FBI counterintelligence case." (
"James Comey
is in trouble and he knows it" , The Hill)
Why is the Inspector General so curious as to whether Comey "was unduly influenced by political agendas emanating from the previous
White House and its director of national intelligence, CIA director? And why did Comey draw from "a cast of characters " . that "all
appear to have their genesis as CIA sources"??
Could it be that Comey was just an unwitting pawn in a domestic regime change operation launched by former CIA Director John Brennan,
the one public figure who has expressed greater personal animus towards Trump than all the others combined? Could Trump's promise
to normalize relations with Russia have intensified Brennan's visceral hatred of him given the fact that Russia had frustrated Brennan's
strategic plans in Ukraine and Syria? Keep in mind, the CIA had been arming, training and providing logistical support to the Sunni
militants who were trying to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al Assad. Putin's intervention crushed the jihadist militias delivering
a humiliating defeat to Generalissimo Brennan who, soon after, left office in disgrace. Isn't this at least part of the reason why
Brennan hates Trump?
Regular readers of this column know that I have always thought that Brennan was the central figure in the Trump-Russia charade.
It was Brennan who first referred the case to Comey, just as it was Brennan who "hand-picked" the analysts who stitched together
the dodgy Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) (which said that "Putin and the Russian government aspired to help Trump's election
chances.") It was also Brennan who persuaded Harry Reid to petition Comey to open an investigation in the first place. Brennan was
chief instigator of the Trump-Russia fiasco, the omniscient puppet-master who persuaded Clapper and Comey to do his bidding while
still-unidentified agents strategically leaked stories to the media to inflame passions and sow social unrest. At every turn, Brennan
was there guiding the perfidious project along. According to journalist Philip Giraldi, the CIA may have even assisted in the obtaining
of FISA warrants on Trump campaign aids as this excerpt from an article at The Unz Review indicates:
"Brennan was the key to the operation because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court refused to approve
several requests by the FBI to initiate taps on Trump associates and Trump Tower as there was no probable cause to do so but the
British and other European intelligence services were legally able to intercept communications linked to American sources. Brennan
was able to use his connections with those foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, to make it look like the
concerns about Trump were coming from friendly and allied countries and therefore had to be responded to as part of routine intelligence
sharing. As a result, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Gen. Michael Flynn were all wiretapped.
And likely there were others. This all happened during the primaries and after Trump became the GOP nominee." (
"The Conspiracy Against Trump" , Philip
Giraldi)
Can you see how important this is? The FBI was having trouble getting warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, so Brennan helped
them out by persuading his foreign intelligence allies (the British and other European intelligence services) to come up with bogus
"intercepted communications linked to American sources," which helped to secure the FISA warrants. We have no idea of what these
foreign agents heard on these alleged intercepted communications, all we know is that they were effectively used to achieve Brennan's
ultimate objective, which was to acquire the means of taking down Trump via a relentless and expansive surveillance campaign.
According to a report in The Guardian (where the story first appeared.): "GCHQ (British Government Communications Headquarters)
played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation, which began in late July 2016. One source called
the British eavesdropping agency the "principal whistleblower". ("British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia
", The Guardian)
Okay, so Brennan twisted a few arms and got his foreign Intel buddies to make uncorroborated claims that got the investigative
ball rolling, but then what? If there was any meat to Brennan's foreign intel, then Mueller would have dug it up and used it in his
report, right? But he didn't. Why?
Because there was nothing there, the whole thing was a sham from the get go. Brennan probably "sexed up" the intelligence
so it would sound like something it really wasn't. (Think: WMD) Again, if there was even a scintilla of hard evidence that Trump's
campaign assistants were in bed with Russia, Mueller would have shrieked it from every mountaintop across America. But he didn't,
because there wasn't any. There was no cooperation, no conspiracy and no collusion. Trump was falsely accused. End of story.
Here's more from the same article:
"The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump's team
and Moscow ahead of the US election." (Guardian)
"The extensive nature of contacts between Trump's team and Moscow"???
Really? This is precisely the type of hyperventilating journalism that fueled the absurd conspiracy theory that the president
of the United States was a Russian agent. It's hard to believe that we're even discussing the matter at this point.
There was an interesting aside in John Solomon's article that suggests that he might be thinking along the same lines. He says:
"One legal justification cited for redacting the Oct. 13, 2016, email is the National Security Act of 1947, which can be used to
shield communications involving the CIA or the White House National Security Council."
Why would Solomon draw attention to "to shielding communications involving the CIA or the White House", after all, the bulk of
his article focused on the State Department and the FBI? Is he suggesting that the CIA and Obama White House may have been involved
in these spying shenanigans, is that why Kavalec's damning notes (which stated that Steele's dossier could not be trusted.) have
been retroactively classified?
Take a look at this email from the FBI's chief investigator in the Russia collusion probe, Peter Strzok, to his fellow agents
in April 2017.
"I'm beginning to think the agency (CIA) got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn't shared it completely with us. Might
explain all those weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as source of some leaks."
-Peter Strzok.
Ha! So even the FBI's chief investigator was in the dark about the CIA's shadowy machinations behind the scenes. Clearly, Brennan
wanted to prevent the other junta leaders from fully knowing what he was up to.
All of this is bound to come out in the inspector general's report sometime in the next month or so. Both Attorney General William
Barr and IG Horowitz appear to be fully committed to revealing the criminal leaks, the illegal electronic surveillance, the improperly
obtained FISA warrants, and the multiple confidential human sources (spies) that were placed in the Trump campaign. They are going
to face withering criticism for their efforts, but they are resolutely moving forward all the same. Bravo, for that.
Bottom line: The agents and officials who conducted this seditious attack on the presidency never thought they'd be held accountable
for their crimes. But they were wrong, and now their day of reckoning is fast approaching. The main players in this palace coup are
about to be exposed, criminally charged and prosecuted. Some of them will probably wind up in jail.
"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine."
Speaking of getting led around by the nose, we come to one Gina Haspel's great deceptions.
This deception plays directly into the hands of Russiagaters. This woman, supposedly brought
into CIA leadership in order to demolish the agency, is proving quite adept in perpetuating its
reign of terror. Again, we have a neocon undermining Trump's prestige and authority.
(EIRNS) -- The New York Times ran a story yesterday titled, "Gina Haspel
Relies on Spy Skills To Connect with Trump. He Doesn't Always Listen." Based on interviews with
former and current CIA agents who worked with CIA Director Haspel (but not interviewing her),
the Times praises her skills and attempts to denigrate Trump, but they also retail a story
about her and Trump which could cost Haspel deeply.
Following the March 2018 breaking of the Skripal poisoning story in England, the Times
writes, Trump had initially "written off the poisoning as part of legitimate spy games,
distasteful but within the bounds of espionage." Haspel, on the other hand, was backing
London's demand for Trump to blame Russia immediately and expel dozens of Russian
diplomats.
Writes the Times:
"During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy CIA director, turned toward Mr. Trump. She
outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told the
President that the 'strong option' was to expel 60 diplomats.
"To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not the
only victims of Russia's attack.
"Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She
then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by
the sloppy work of the Russian operatives."
This appeal reportedly swayed Trump to go along with Haspel's advice.
If it sounds like the British "White Helmet" terrorists in Syria faking pictures of children
being hit with chemical weapons to convince Trump to bomb Syrian targets, it is indeed
precisely the same.
Former British Ambassador Craig Murray, an outspoken critic of these British imperial lies
and atrocities, posted a response today to the Times garbage on his blog. He states first that
yet another truth behind the Skripal lies was revealed recently by police, acknowledging that
"the perfume bottle Charlie Rowley found was sealed and could not have been the container used
on the Skripals." He goes on: "It took nine months for us to learn that, by a truly wonderful
coincidence, the first person to find the Skripals ill on the bench was the Chief Nurse of the
British Army."
But on the Haspel story in the Times, Murray is furious. "The problem is," he writes,
"there were no hospitalized children. No children have been reported as becoming ill
following their duck feeding with the Skripals. We have heard from one of the parents that
they were shown by the police extremely clear [closed-circuit surveillance] CCTV footage of
the duck feeding, which has never been made public. Surely if the child had been
hospitalized, the parent would have mentioned it?"
He quotes Dr. Stephen Davies of Salisbury Hospital, who wrote to the New York Times on March
14 stating clearly that no children had been hospitalized, and that every person who came to
the hospital fearing they had been contaminated had no symptoms and tests turned out negative.
Murray states:
"We also know that the duck feeding was the time that Boshirov and Petrov [the alleged
Russian culprits] were physically closest to the Skripals. But this is the first time there
has ever been any mention of any harm to the ducks. Dead ducks would have been noticed by the
public."
It appears that the British Empire is the dead duck in this myth.
Sometime in the next 4 weeks, the Justice Department's inspector general will release an internal review that will reveal the
origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. Among other matters, the IG's report is expected to determine "whether there was sufficient
justification under existing guidelines for the FBI to have started an investigation in the first place." Critics of the Trump-collusion
probe believe that there was never probable cause that a crime had been committed, therefore, there was no legal basis for launching
the investigation.
The findings of the Mueller report– that there was no cooperation or collusion between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign– seem
to underscore this broader point and suggest that the fictitious Trump-Russia connection was merely a pretext for spying on the campaign
of a Beltway outsider whose political views clashed with those of the foreign policy establishment.
In any event, the upcoming release of the Horowitz report will formally end the the first phase of the long-running Russiagate
scandal and mark the beginning of Phase 2, in which high-profile officials from the previous administration face criminal prosecution
for their role in what looks to be a botched attempt at a coup d'etat.
Here's a brief summary from political analyst, Larry C. Johnson, who previously worked at the CIA and U.S. State Department:
" The evidence is plain–there was a broad, coordinated effort by the Obama Administration, with the help of foreign governments,
to target Donald Trump and paint him as a stooge of Russia. The Mueller Report provides irrefutable evidence that the so-called
Russian collusion case against Donald Trump was a deliberate fabrication by intelligence and law enforcement organizations in
the US and UK and organizations aligned with the Clinton Campaign." (
"How US and Foreign Intel Agencies Interfered in a US Election" , Larry C. Johnson, Consortium News)
Bingo. Attorney General William Barr has already stated his belief that spying on the Trump campaign "did occur" and that, in
his mind, it is "a big deal". He also reiterated his commitment to thoroughly investigate the matter in order to find out whether
the spying was adequately "predicated", that is, whether the FBI followed the required protocols for such spying, or not. Barr already
knows the answer to this question as he is fully aware of the fact that the FBI used information that they knew was false to obtain
warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. Having no hard evidence of cooperation with the Kremlin, senior-level FBI officials and their
counterparts at the Obama Justice Department used parts of an "opposition research" document (The Trump Dossier) that they knew was
unreliable to procure warrants that allowed them to treat a presidential campaign the same way the intelligence agencies treat foreign
enemies; using electronic surveillance, wiretapping, confidential informants and "honey trap" schemes designed to gather embarrassing
or incriminating information on their target. Barr knows all of this already which is why the Democrats are doing everything in their
power to discredit him and have him removed from office.
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4855
His determination to "get to the bottom of this" is not just a threat to the FBI, it's a threat to multiple agencies that may
have had a hand in this expansive domestic espionage operation including the CIA, the NSA, the DOJ, the State Department and, perhaps,
even the Obama White House. No one knows yet how far up the political food-chain the skulduggery actually goes, but Barr appears
to be serious about finding out.
Here's Barr again:
"Many people seem to assume that the only intelligence collection that occurred was a single confidential informant .I would
like to find out whether that is in fact true. It strikes me as a fairly anemic effort if that was the counterintelligence effort
designed to stop the threat as it's being represented."
In other words, Barr knows that the Trump campaign was riddled with spies and he is going to do his damnedest to find out what
happened. He also knows that the FISA warrants were improperly obtained using the shabby disinformation from an opposition research
"hit piece" (The Steele Dossier) that was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, just like he knows that government agents had
concocted a strategy for leaking classified information to the media to fuel the public hysteria. Barr knows most of what happened
already. It's just a matter of compiling the research in the proper format and delivering it in a way that helps to emphasize how
trusted government agents abused their power by pursuing a vicious partisan plot to either destroy the president's reputation or
force him from office. Like Barr said, that's a "big deal".
The name that seems to feature larger than all others in the ongoing Trump-Russia saga, is James Comey, the former FBI Director
who oversaw the spying operations that are now under investigation at the DOJ. But was Comey really the central figure in these felonious
hi-jinks or was he a mere lieutenant following directives from someone more powerful than himself? While the preponderance of new
evidence suggests that the FBI was deeply involved, it does not answer this crucial question. For example, just this week, a report
by veteran journalist John Solomon, showed that former British spy Christopher Steele admitted to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Kathleen Kavalec that his "Trump Dossier" was "political research", implying that the contents couldn't be trusted because they were
shaped by Steele's political bias. Kavalec passed along this information to the FBI which shrugged it off and then, just days later,
used the dossier to obtain warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign. Think about that for a minute. The FBI had "written
proof . that Steele had a political motive", but went ahead and used the dossier to procure the warrants anyway. That's what I'd
call a premeditated felony.
But evidence of wrongdoing is not proof that Comey was the ringleader, he was just the hapless sad sack who was left holding the
bag. The truth is, Comey was just a reluctant follower. The real architect of the Trump-Russia treachery was the boss-man at the
nation's premier intelligence agency, the CIA. That's where the headwaters of this shameful burlesque are located, in Langley. More
on that in a minute, but first check out this excerpt from an article at The Hill which sums up Comey's role fairly well:
(There) "will be an examination of whether Comey was unduly influenced by political agendas emanating from the previous White
House and its director of national intelligence, CIA director and attorney general. This, above all, is what's causing the 360-degree
head spin.
"There are early indicators that troubling behaviors may have occurred in all three scenarios. Barr will want to zero in on
a particular area of concern: the use by the FBI of confidential human sources, whether its own or those offered up by the then-CIA
director.
In addition, the cast of characters leveraged by the FBI against the Trump campaign all appear to have their genesis as CIA
sources ("assets," in agency vernacular) shared at times with the FBI. From Stefan Halper and possibly Joseph Mifsud, to Christopher
Steele, to Carter Page himself, and now a mysterious "government investigator" posing as Halper's assistant and cited in The New
York Times article, legitimate questions arise as to whether Comey was manipulated into furthering a CIA political operation more
than an FBI counterintelligence case." (
"James Comey
is in trouble and he knows it" , The Hill)
Why is the Inspector General so curious as to whether Comey "was unduly influenced by political agendas emanating from the previous
White House and its director of national intelligence, CIA director? And why did Comey draw from "a cast of characters " . that "all
appear to have their genesis as CIA sources"??
Could it be that Comey was just an unwitting pawn in a domestic regime change operation launched by former CIA Director John Brennan,
the one public figure who has expressed greater personal animus towards Trump than all the others combined? Could Trump's promise
to normalize relations with Russia have intensified Brennan's visceral hatred of him given the fact that Russia had frustrated Brennan's
strategic plans in Ukraine and Syria? Keep in mind, the CIA had been arming, training and providing logistical support to the Sunni
militants who were trying to overthrow Syrian president Bashar al Assad. Putin's intervention crushed the jihadist militias delivering
a humiliating defeat to Generalissimo Brennan who, soon after, left office in disgrace. Isn't this at least part of the reason why
Brennan hates Trump?
Regular readers of this column know that I have always thought that Brennan was the central figure in the Trump-Russia charade.
It was Brennan who first referred the case to Comey, just as it was Brennan who "hand-picked" the analysts who stitched together
the dodgy Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) (which said that "Putin and the Russian government aspired to help Trump's election
chances.") It was also Brennan who persuaded Harry Reid to petition Comey to open an investigation in the first place. Brennan was
chief instigator of the Trump-Russia fiasco, the omniscient puppet-master who persuaded Clapper and Comey to do his bidding while
still-unidentified agents strategically leaked stories to the media to inflame passions and sow social unrest. At every turn, Brennan
was there guiding the perfidious project along. According to journalist Philip Giraldi, the CIA may have even assisted in the obtaining
of FISA warrants on Trump campaign aids as this excerpt from an article at The Unz Review indicates:
"Brennan was the key to the operation because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court refused to approve several
requests by the FBI to initiate taps on Trump associates and Trump Tower as there was no probable cause to do so but the British
and other European intelligence services were legally able to intercept communications linked to American sources. Brennan was
able to use his connections with those foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, to make it look like the concerns
about Trump were coming from friendly and allied countries and therefore had to be responded to as part of routine intelligence
sharing. As a result, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Gen. Michael Flynn were all wiretapped.
And likely there were others. This all happened during the primaries and after Trump became the GOP nominee." (
"The Conspiracy Against Trump" , Philip
Giraldi)
Can you see how important this is? The FBI was having trouble getting warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, so Brennan helped
them out by persuading his foreign intelligence allies (the British and other European intelligence services) to come up with bogus
"intercepted communications linked to American sources," which helped to secure the FISA warrants. We have no idea of what these
foreign agents heard on these alleged intercepted communications, all we know is that they were effectively used to achieve Brennan's
ultimate objective, which was to acquire the means of taking down Trump via a relentless and expansive surveillance campaign.
According to a report in The Guardian (where the story first appeared.):
"GCHQ (British Government Communications Headquarters) played an early, prominent role in kickstarting the FBI's Trump-Russia
investigation, which began in late July 2016. One source called the British eavesdropping agency the "principal whistleblower".
("British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia ", The Guardian)
Okay, so Brennan twisted a few arms and got his foreign Intel buddies to make uncorroborated claims that got the investigative
ball rolling, but then what? If there was any meat to Brennan's foreign intel, then Mueller would have dug it up and used it in his
report, right? But he didn't. Why?
Because there was nothing there, the whole thing was a sham from the get go. Brennan probably "sexed up" the intelligence so it
would sound like something it really wasn't. (Think: WMD) Again, if there was even a scintilla of hard evidence that Trump's campaign
assistants were in bed with Russia, Mueller would have shrieked it from every mountaintop across America. But he didn't, because
there wasn't any. There was no cooperation, no conspiracy and no collusion. Trump was falsely accused. End of story.
Here's more from the same article:
"The Guardian has been told the FBI and the CIA were slow to appreciate the extensive nature of contacts between Trump's team
and Moscow ahead of the US election." (Guardian)
"The extensive nature of contacts between Trump's team and Moscow"???
Really? This is precisely the type of hyperventilating journalism that fueled the absurd conspiracy theory that the president
of the United States was a Russian agent. It's hard to believe that we're even discussing the matter at this point.
There was an interesting aside in John Solomon's article that suggests that he might be thinking along the same lines. He says:
"One legal justification cited for redacting the Oct. 13, 2016, email is the National Security Act of 1947, which can be used to
shield communications involving the CIA or the White House National Security Council."
Why would Solomon draw attention to "to shielding communications involving the CIA or the White House", after all, the bulk of
his article focused on the State Department and the FBI? Is he suggesting that the CIA and Obama White House may have been involved
in these spying shenanigans, is that why Kavalec's damning notes (which stated that Steele's dossier could not be trusted.) have
been retroactively classified?
Take a look at this email from the FBI's chief investigator in the Russia collusion probe, Peter Strzok, to his fellow agents
in April 2017.
"I'm beginning to think the agency (CIA) got info a lot earlier than we thought and hasn't shared it completely with us. Might
explain all those weird/seemingly incorrect leads all these media folks have. Would also highlight agency as source of some leaks."
-Peter Strzok.
Ha! So even the FBI's chief investigator was in the dark about the CIA's shadowy machinations behind the scenes. Clearly, Brennan
wanted to prevent the other junta leaders from fully knowing what he was up to.
All of this is bound to come out in the inspector general's report sometime in the next month or so. Both Attorney General William
Barr and IG Horowitz appear to be fully committed to revealing the criminal leaks, the illegal electronic surveillance, the improperly
obtained FISA warrants, and the multiple confidential human sources (spies) that were placed in the Trump campaign. They are going
to face withering criticism for their efforts, but they are resolutely moving forward all the same. Bravo, for that.
Bottom line : The agents and officials who conducted this seditious attack on the presidency never thought they'd be held accountable
for their crimes. But they were wrong, and now their day of reckoning is fast approaching. The main players in this palace coup are
about to be exposed, criminally charged and prosecuted. Some of them will probably wind up in jail.
"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine."
There is ZERO evidence that Russia played ANY role in the 2016 USSA election and yet are sanctioned to the max, threatened
with war etc. HOWEVER there IS proof of the UK/GCHQ involvement.
I am waiting to see if Trump still goes to the UK in June or if he tells them he is "busy with more important things at home"
aka F...off.
Apocalypse, I would say that word describes it pretty well.
Middle English Apocalipse "Revelation (the New Testament book)," borrowed from Anglo-French, borrowed from Late Latin
apocalypsis "revelation, the Book of Revelation," borrowed from Greek apokálypsis "uncovering, disclosure, revelation,"
from apokalyp-, stem of apokalýptein "to uncover, disclose, reveal" (from apo- APO- + kalýptein "to cover, protect,
conceal," of uncertain origin) + -sis -SIS
"No one knows yet how far up the political food-chain the skulduggery actually goes"
Too kind. We all know it is impossible that Susan Rice did not know -- she would have to authorize the FBI to conduct any foreign
spying operations.
And if Susan Rice knew, it is impossible that Barack Obama didn't know. And approved of it, if only by not putting a stop to
it.
The string that hasn't been pulled yet is the role of British intelligence. Brennan is obviously not a very bright man. He's
a post-turtle, so how a dull-witted former communist ended up as head of the CIA is yet another story that needs looking into.
Was he actually a British mole?
The intersection of British establishment political goals and donated assets in the operation of this plot is nakedly obvious.
It will be for Barr to expose that "angle", with the distinct possibility the ultimate origin of this scheme was the Blairite
UK civil service who wished to eliminate a potentially powerful political actor who repeatedly and strongly indicated his unreserved
support for Brexit.
All the things you mentioned were obfuscated by Clinton, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr., Cheney, several Generals, heads of
state, foreign intelligence. Do you think someone just snaps a finger and the MIC disappears?
You conflate 'past' leadership with the current. The deep state is crumbling. We need to keep digging and indicting until Rothschild
takes a one way rocket off planet Earth.
It will only end when treasonous traitor hang by their necks. I'm still hoping and informing others.
"I've talked to the members of the Israeli government at the highest levels. I know who they want elected here. It's not
Hillary Clinton." – Former NY Mayor Rudy Giuliani
The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Israhell.
A foreign intelligence asset was used to justify surveillance of Trump[ and some of his associates
Notable quotes:
"... What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent? ..."
"... The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA) and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant"). ..."
"... The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their hand on the scale. ..."
"... Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power. ..."
"... I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors. ..."
"... if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know? ..."
"... Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost. ..."
"... Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance. ..."
"... From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. ..."
"... He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI. ..."
"... its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered. ..."
"... Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this? ..."
"... A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as 'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies. ..."
"... It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries ..."
"... If, as seems likely, both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary. ..."
"... An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him ..."
"... A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the supposed termination ..."
"... 'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence probes in American history.' ..."
"... I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief. ..."
"... Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it. ..."
"... Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense. So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs. ..."
"... Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly: ..."
"... Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. ..."
"... One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get 'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt on Trump...how is this not the same...? ..."
"... What role did Stefan Halper and Mifsud play as Confidential Human Sources in all this? ..."
"... Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation that may have already begun? ..."
"... British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete), his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy. ..."
"... British Intelligence is verifiably the foreign source with the most extensive and effective meddling in the 2016 election. Perfidious Albion. ..."
"... Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, ..."
"... I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws they have that prohibits spying on their people. ..."
"... still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources ..."
"... I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia. ..."
"... Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these people think they are. ..."
"... It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things ..."
The revelations from US Government records about the FBI/Intel Community plot to take out Donald Trump continue to flow thanks
to the dogged efforts of Judicial Watch. The latest nugget came last Friday with the release of FBI records detailing their recruitment
and management of Britain's ostensibly retired Intelligence Officer, Christopher Steele. He was an officially recruited FBI source
and received at least 11 payments during the 9 month period that he was signed up as a Confidential Human Source.
You may find it strange that we can glean so much information from
a document dump that is almost
entirely redacted . The key is to look at the report forms; there are three types--FD-1023 (Source Reports), FD-209a (Contact
Reports) and FD-794b (Payment Requests). There are 15 different 1023s, 13 209a reports and 11 794b payment requests covering the
period from 2 February 2016 thru 1 November 2016. That is a total of nine months.
These reports totally destroy the existing meme that Steele only came into contact with the FBI sometime in July 2016. It is important
for you to understand that a 1023 Source Report is filled out each time that the FBI source handler has contact with the source.
This can be an in person meeting or a phone call. Each report lists the name of the Case Agent; the date, time and location of the
meeting; any other people attending the meeting; and a summary of what was discussed.
What is clear from the new records is that Christopher Steele, a foreign intelligence officer, had frequent and extensive
contacts with the FBI. Who was his FBI Case Agent?
The main thing I want to know is WHEN was the decision made to tar Trump with Russia - both at the FBI (and likely CIA)
and at the DNC (over the leak) - and WHO was the deciding entity - Comey, Brennan, Clinton, Obama or someone else? And perhaps
who came up with the idea in the first place (at the DNC, it was very likely Alexandra Chalupa, the Ukrainian-American DNC "consultant").
We can be pretty sure this predates any alleged Russian "hacking" (unless it occurred as a result of alleged Russian hacking
of the DNC in 2015).
This needs to be pinned down if anyone is to be successfully prosecuted for creating this treasonous hoax.
A very closely related topic, Victor Davis Hanson is onto something but it is darker than he suggests,
https://www.nationalreview.... Paraphrasing, he gives the typical, rally around the flag we must stop the Russians intro but
then documents how govt flaks abused their power to influence our elections and then makes the point, 'this is why the public
is skeptical of their claims'.
The bad thing is that our MSM is so reverent of our Intel agencies that I see them encouraged to increasingly put their
hand on the scale.
Recently, I saw arm flailing by a Congressman, Dan Coats, and Mueller about how the Russians are still at it. They are
trying to disrupt or influence the 2018. Really, then I demand to get a list of the pro-Kremlin candidates. How long before the
mere threat of being outed as a Kremlin agent is used to punish elected officials if they are not sufficiently hawkish or don't
support certain programs. Unchallenged claims by Intel agencies gives them a lot of political power.
I am skeptical. Russia has a lot of fish to fry, why would they expend resources on midterm elections. Now everyone in
the U.S. hates them, both traditional hawk Republicans and born again uber-hawk Democrats. There is a tiger behind both doors.
What I can't figure out is: if Steele had been a CHS since at least February of 2016, what was the purpose of passing the
Dossier to the FBI through Fusion GPS? Why not just going to his FBI handler? Was Steele collaboration with Fusion even in compliance
with FBI regulations? Did the FBI know?
Because part of the plan was to leak the information in order to damage Trump. FBI could not do that. Would have exposed them
to some real legal jeopardy. This was a dual track strategy. Diabolical almost.
Don't forget the Nellie Ohr (Fusion GPS) -> Bruce Ohr (DOJ) back channel. The husband & wife tag team. Yes, the same Nellie
that was investigating using ham radio to communicate to avoid NSA mass surveillance.
From the very beginning that information about all this was slowly leaking from the Congressional investigation, this whole
thing smelled very fishy. Then add intense effort at DOJ & FBI to obstruct and obfuscate. And the unhinged tweets and interviews
by Brennan, Clapper & Comey. And of course the media narrative that Rep. Nunes, Goodlatte and others were endangering "national
security" by casting aspersions on the "patriotic" law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
He was working with FBI and GPS at the same time. GPS was in the dark supposedly about his work with the FBI and Steele got
their approval to hand over what he had delivered to GPS to the FBI as a cover for his work with the FBI.
Of course, he had most likely already done so and its also likely FBI had some input into the content of what was delivered
to GPS, and more importantly what was not delivered.
Re the 'standing agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence personnel for clandestine activities.' As Steele was
not by this time a current employee of MI6, was the FBI in technical violation of this?
The point is not merely a quibble. A central question in regard to Steele, as with quite a number of former intelligence/law
enforcement/military people who have started at least ostensibly private sector operations, is how far these are being used as
'cover' for activities conducted on behalf of either the state agencies for which they used to work, or other state agencies.
It is at least possible that one advantage of such arrangements may be that they make it possible to evade the letter of
agreements between intelligence agencies in different countries.
Another related matter has to do with the termination of Steele as a 'Confidential Human Source.'
It has long seemed to me that it was more than possible that this was not to be taken at face value. If, as seems likely,
both current and former top FBI and DOJ people – very likely Mueller as well as Comey, Strzok and many others – were intimately
involved in the conspiracy to subvert the constitution, then a means of making it possible for Steele to combine feeding information
to the FBI while also engaging in 'StratCom' via the MSM could have been necessary.
An obvious means of 'squaring the circle' would have been to issue a formal 'termination' to Steele, while creating 'back
channels' to those who were officially supposed not to be talking to him.
A report yesterday by John Solomon in 'The Hill' quotes from messages exchanged between Steele and Bruce Ohr after the
supposed termination.
When on 31 January 2017 – well after the publication of the dossier by BuzzFeed – Ohr provided reassurance that he could continue
to help feed information to the FBI, Steele texted back:
"If you end up out though, I really need another (bureau?) contact point/number who is briefed. We can't allow our guy to be
forced to go back home. It would be disastrous."
At that point, Solomon tells us that 'Investigators are trying to determine who Steele was referring to.' This seems to me
a rather important question. It would seem likely, although not certain, that he is talking about another Brit. If he is, would
it have been someone else employed by Orbis? Or someone currently working for British intelligence? What is the precise significance
of 'forced to go back home', and why would this have been 'disastrous'?
Another crucial paragraph:
'In all, Ohr's notes, emails and texts identify more than 60 contacts with Steele and/or Simpson, some dating to 2002 in
London. But the vast majority occurred during the 2016-2017 timeframe that gave birth to one of the most controversial counterintelligence
probes in American history.'
The earlier contacts may be of little interest, but there again they may not be.
As it happens, it was following Berezovsky's arrival in London in October 2001 that the 'information operations' network he
created began to move into high gear. It is moreover clear that this was always a transatlantic operation, and also fragments
of evidence suggest that the FBI may have had some involvement from early on.
I have just finished taking a fresh look at Sir Robert Owen's travesty of a report into the death of Litvinenko. In large
measure, this develops claims originally made in Christopher Steele's first attempt to provide a convincing account of why figures
close to Putin might have thought it made sense to assassinate that figure, and to do so with polonium. The sheer volume of fabrication
which has been deployed in an attempt to defend the patently indefensible almost beggars belief.
The original attempt came in a radio programme broadcast by the BBC – which was to become known to some of us as the 'Berezovsky
Broadcasting Corporation' – on 16 December 2006, presented by Tom Mangold, a familiar 'trusty' for the intelligence services.
(A transcript sent out from the Cabinet Office at the time is available on the archived 'Evidence' page for the Inquiry, at
http://webarchive.nationala... , as HMG000513. There is an interesting and rather important question as to whether those who
sent it out, and those who received it, knew that it was more or less BS from start to finish.)
The programme was wholly devoted to claims made by the former KGB operative Yuri Shvets, who was presented as an independent
'due diligence' expert, without any mention of the rather major role he had played in the original 'Orange Revolution.'
Back-up was provided by his supposed collaborator in 'due diligence', the former FBI operative Robert 'Bobby' Levinson. No
mention was made of the fact that he had been, in the 'Nineties, a, if not the lead FBI investigator into the notorious Ukrainian
Jewish mobster Semyon Mogilevich.
The following March Levinson would disappear on the Iranian island of Kish, on what we now know was a covert mission on behalf
of elements in the CIA.
Just as a question arises as to whether Steele is essentially acting on behalf of MI6, a question also arises as to whether
the FBI leadership were knowledgeable about, and possibly involved with, the various shenanigans in which Shvets and Levinson
were involved. Given that claims about Mogilevich have turned out to be central to 'Russiagate', that seems a rather important
issue, and I am curious as to whether Ohr's communications with Steele may cast any light on it.
Apparently the FBI got Deripaksa to fund the rescue of Levinson from Iran. Furthermore apparently FBI personnel maybe including
McCabe visited with Deripaksa and showed him the Steele dossier. He supposedly had a nice guffaw and dismissed it as nonsense.
So on the one hand while they make Russia out to be the most evil they play footsie with Russian oligarchs.
Thinking about "Christopher Steele was terminated as a Confidential Human Source for cause.", something that doesn't seem
to have gotten as much attention is that Peter Strzok failed his poly:
Steele's relationship with the FBI extends far further back than February 2016. Shortly after he left MI6, he contracted with
the Football Association to investigate possible FIFA corruption. Once he realized the massiveness of this corruption he contacted
his old friends at the FBI Eurasian Crimes Task Force in 2011. Thus began his association with the FBI as a CHS. That investigation
culminated in the 2015 FIFA corruption indictments and convictions. His initial contact with old friends at the FBI Eurasian
Crime Task Force is awfully similar to his contacting these same friends in 2016 after deciding his initial Trump research was
potentially bigger than mere opposition research.
One thing I don't understand...we have the anti-Trumpers saying that Donald Junior meeting with a Russian national to get
'dirt' on Hillary is illegal...due to some law about candidates collaborating with foreigners or something like that...[obviously
I'm foggy on the technical details]... Yet we know that the Hillary campaign worked with a foreign national, Steele, to get dirt
on Trump...how is this not the same...?
Even worse is that the FBI was using this same foreign agent that a presidential
candidate had hired to get dirt on an opponent... Even knowing nothing about legalities this just doesn't look very good...
Stupid question? As the Col. has explained, the President can declassify any document he pleases. So, why doesn't Donaldo unredact
the redacted portions of these bullcrap docs? What is he afraid of? That the Intel community will get mad and be out to get him?
Isn't time for him to show some cojones?
Why was British Intelligence allegedly collecting and passing along info about Donald Trump in the first place? Or could this
have been a pretext created to give cover and/or support to the agenda here in the US to insure his defeat? Could a foreign intelligence
source such as this trigger/facilitate/justify the US counterintelligence investigation of Trump, or give cover to a covert investigation
that may have already begun?
British intelligence was collecting / passing on info about Trump because of his campaign stance on NATO (he said it was obsolete),
his desire to end regime change wars (he castigated the fiasco in Iraq, took Bush to task over it etc.), and his often stated
desire to get along with Russia (and China). Trump also talked of ending certain economic policies (NAFTA, TPP, etc.) and reenacting
others (Glass-Steagall, the American System of Economics i.e. Hamilton, Carey, Clay), If Trump had acted on those, which he has
not so far, he would changed the entire world system, a system in place since the end of WW II, or earlier. That was a risk too
big to take without some kind of insurance policy - I believe Christopher Steele was that insurance policy.
Or, GSHQ was hovering up signint on Trump campaign early-on (using domestics US resources and databases via their 5-Eyes "sharing
agreement" with NSA) cuz Brennan asked them to do it? And therefore without having to mess about with any formal FISA warrant
thingy's ... But, then use what might be found (or plausibly alleged) to try to get a proper FISA warrant later on (July 2016)?
'Parallel Discovery' of sorts; with Fusion GPS also a leaky cut-out: channelling media reports to be used as confirmation of Steele's
"raw intelligence" in the formal FISA application(s)?
Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching him, they
would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates,
" Trump announced his run for President in 2015. I'm pretty sure that every intel service on the planet was watching
him, they would be derelict not to. GCHQ may have been collecting intel on all the candidates, "
That's a good question, could it legally enable an end run around the FISC until enough evidence was gathered for a FISC surveillance
authorization?.
I've heard that the Echelon system is used by the Five Eyes IC to do something similar. The Brits spy on US, and give the
NSA the data so the NSA can evade US laws prohibiting spying on us, and we return the favor to help them evade what (few) laws
they have that prohibits spying on their people.
Only a matter of time until someone figured out the same method could be used to "meddle" in national affairs.
I understand, but still wonder why the US would need to rely so much on British intelligence sources such as Steele about
a very high profile American citizen and businessman -- aren't our intelligence services competent enough to have known and discovered
as much if not more about Trump than other countries' intelligence services? I've read that Steele's cover was blown 20 years
ago and he hasn't even been to Russia since, so I wonder why he was considered such a reliable source by both the US and UK? In
my opinion as an absolute naif about such things, Steele seems like he may be a has-been when it comes to Russia.
Here is a simple explanation from someone who knows almost nothing about how any of the people in power work: Most of them
are not as clever and smart as they think they are. And most of the regular people who are just citizens are smarter than these
people think they are.
It's simply that their arrogant assessment of their own superiority caused them to do really stupid things.
This "shadowy Russian" might well be Sergey Skripal. This suggests that Steele dossier was CIA operation with British MI6 as transfer mechanism and
Steele as a cover. And implicates Brennan. So this is next level of leaks after "Stormy Daniel"...
Another NYT leak out of a set of well coordinated leans from anonymous intelligence officials ;-) Poor Melania...
Notable quotes:
"... But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to a fascinating report from The New York Times. ..."
"... If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7 during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries. ..."
"... More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia is still being stoked no matter what. ..."
"... Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine, McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down. ..."
"... the CIA has to turn America into a criminal totalitarian regime in order to make the world safe for democracy ..."
"... How much you wanna bet that Brennan, Obama's CIA Director, was behind ..."
"... You mean the same Brennan who is the godfather of ISIS? ..."
"... "U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can call off the hounds. ..."
"... Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it... ..."
"... Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big bad russkies tricked us. ..."
"... 'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope. Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a long shot. ..."
"... i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds. this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to trump. ..."
"... Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a cloth." ..."
"... And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works ..."
"... So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers for procurers of hosebags for him to screw? ..."
When they said "Russian collusion", few expected it to be between the CIA and a "shadowy
Russian operative." And yet, according to a blockbuster NYT report, that's precisely what
happened.
* * *
The CIA paid $100,000 last year to a Russian operative who claimed to have derogatory
information about President Trump, including a video tape of the Republican engaged with
prostitutes in a Moscow hotel room. If the video showed Trump, it would support claims made in
the infamous Steele dossier, the salacious opposition research report financed by the Clinton
campaign and DNC.
But U.S. intelligence officials have reason to doubt the veracity of the video and other
information about Trump associates provided by the Russian, according to
a fascinating report from The New York Times.
American spies made contact with the Russia early in 2017 after he offered to sell the Trump
material along with cyber hacking tools that were stolen from the NSA that year, according to
The Times. U.S. intelligence officials told The Times they were so desperate to retrieve those
tools that they negotiated with the operative for months despite several red flags, including
indications that he was working in concert with Russian intelligence.
Another red flag was the Russian's financial request. He initially sought $10 million for
the information but dropped the asking price to $1 million.
After months of negotiations, American spies handed over $100,000 in cash in a brief case to
the Russian during a meeting in Berlin in September.
The operative also offered documents and emails that purported to implicate other Trump
associates, including former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But The Times viewed the
documents and reported that they were mostly information that is already in the public
domain.
The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers, showed the video
purported to be Trump to a Berlin-based American businessman who served as his intermediary to
the CIA. But according to the Times, the footage and the location of the viewing raised
questions about its authenticity.
The 15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was
Trump, and there was no audio. The Russian also showed the video to his American partner at the
Russian embassy in Berlin, a sign that the operative had ties to Russian intelligence.
The Russian stonewalled the production of the cyber tools, and U.S. officials eventually cut
ties, according to The Times. After the payout in Berlin, the man provided information about
Trump and his associates of questionable veracity.
The Americans gave him an ultimatum earlier in 2018 to either play ball, leave Western
Europe, or face criminal charges. He left, according to The Times, which interviewed U.S.
officials, the American intermediary and the Russian for its article.
The Times' U.S. sources -- who appear to paint the American side in a positive light -- said
that they were reluctant to purchase information because they did not want to be seen buying
dirt on the president.
The officials also expressed concern that the Russian operative was planting disinformation
on behalf of the Russian government. U.S. officials were worried that the Russian government
has sought to sow discord between U.S. intelligence agencies and Trump. The revelation that the
CIA purchased dirt on him would likely do the trick.
The Times report also has other new details.
Four other Russians with ties to the spy world have surfaced over the past year offering to
sell dirt on Trump that closely mirrors allegations made in the dossier, according to the
article. But officials have reason to believe that some of sellers have ties to Russian
intelligence agencies.
The Times also provides new details on Cody Shearer, a notorious operative close to the
Clintons. Shearer was recently revealed to have shopped
around a so-called "second dossier" prior to the campaign which mirrored the sex allegations of
the Steele report.
According to The Times, he has criss-crossed Europe over the past six months in an attempt
to find video footage of Trump from the Moscow hotel room. Shearer claimed to have information
from the FSB, Russia's spy service, that a video existed of Trump with prostitutes in a Moscow
hotel room.
He shared a memo making the allegations with his friend and fellow Clinton fixer, Sidney
Blumenthal. Blumenthal in turn passed the memo to his friend, Jonathan Winer, a Department of
State official. Winer then gave the information to Steele who provided it to the FBI in October
2016.
Steele also provided information to Winer, who wrote up a two-page memo that was circulated
within the State Department.
Trump has denied allegations that he used prostitutes in Moscow. He has called the dossier a
"hoax" and "crap."
* * *
On Saturday morning, Trump tweeted that "according to the @nytimes, a Russian sold phony
secrets on "Trump" to the U.S. Asking price was $10 million, brought down to $1 million to be
paid over time. I hope people are now seeing & understanding what is going on here. It is
all now starting to come out - DRAIN THE SWAMP!
Of course, if Trump really wants to "drain the swamp", any such decision would have
originate with him. Tags PoliticsCommercial Banks
Release the pee pee video now! No one pee peed in the $100,000 video in question. The
15-second clip showed two women speaking with a man. It is not clear if the man was Trump,
and there was no audio. And how can anyone be more fascinated by the prospect of pee pee than
by the fact that US intelligence agencies were buying bad information from extremely shady
foreigners in an attempt to overthrow the President of the United States?
Trump is starting to assume that the people are dumber than Obowel did. Earth to Don, you
sir have the drain pump, you sir have surrounded yourself with Swamp creatures.... You sir
are.............
According to this, the Russians stole the hacking tools needed to cut through the Swamp
levee, which were developed by the NSA, and now the CIA cannot buy them back. Now, since the
USA wanted its Swamp, the Russians are more than happy to let the USA drown in its swamp.
Anyone have a link for the Qanon posts. I haven't seen them in a couple of weeks since he
left 8chan where he was posting. I don't want the Youtube BS, I just want the link... anyone
got one. Its strangely not googleable... LOLZ.
If you think that the CIA is a U.S. intelligence agency working on the best interests of
the United States, you better wake up and smell the treason. They only work for the best
interests of themselves.
Here is a question. Why does the CIA not come out and clear the air re: Trump?
I mean they were even paying people to come up with dirt. He is now your president and the
country is a fucking mess. Should the CIA not come out and say we tried but we got nothing?
They do have the ability to fix all this Trump shit and yet crickets.
And the best interests of clients. The CIA started out is the muscle for the Dulles
Brothers clients who were being booted out of various countries they were super-exploiting.
The Agency hasn't looked back since.
Nobody got whizzed on. That lurid fantasy came soley out of the head of Hillary Clinton,
given to Blumenthal, passed around and made to look like it came from Russia.
It IS remarkable the stuff people believe when all logic goes against it. Like Oswald
firing magic bullets from an old Italian Carcano...and jet fuel melting steel beams...and a
building collapsing through the path of greatest resistance into its own footprint after NOT
being hit by an airplane...and Kennedy being shot from behind, but his head snapping
backwards from the impact...and Oswald picking the worst possible shooting location, but in
front of Kennedy were two intersecting highways going in any direction...and terrorist
passports floating gently down from the sky.
RFK and Nixon knew immediately the assassination of JFK was a CIA hit job because they had
CHAIRED those hit squad operations themselves for Cuban Operations. They saw the CIA- Cuban
hit squad fingerprints all over the kill. RFK had personally fired Wm Harvey, Dulles' chief
of assassinations. However, RFK was silenced because he and Jack had been tag-teaming Marilyn
Monroe.
The reason JFK was killed was a) his openly stated determination to shatter the CIA into a
thousand pieces so they could no longer operate as a dangerous, renegade private army; and b)
in the Spring of '63 JFK delivered his famous American U address calling for the end of the
Cold War...
Oswald was always a patsie... the WC documents how his rifle was inoperable... scope
needed parts just to be be sited and take aim... even after parts installed the rifle
attributed to Oswald remained highly inaccurate... Military sharpshooters couldn't even hit
stationary targets reliably.
Drain the swamp! Townsquare justice for Odumbo and Hitlery! George Soros to bathe in the
Amazon River with 1 million Piranha Fish until it completely disappears. Drain the evil
Dumorat swamp. Drain the banana republic CIA and FBI. Our tax dollars and constitution did
not pay for this shit.
With today's technology, the CIA is most likely working on a fake video for you right now.
They might release it on Vimeo or Netflix to cover the costs and give themselves plausible
deniability. To add a finishing touch they will make a fake video of Julian Assange claiming
he is releasing it. You'll be in hog heaven. Which is where folks like you go just before
being slaughtered by your owners and turned into spam.
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
Of course the story is a plant to introduce the hacking tools to cover the payment to
Russians for dirt on a sitting POTUS by his own Intel Agency...
And CNN, MSNBC, etc are still wall to wall Trump impeachment... they no longer even
pretend. Brain dead Erin Burnett opened with "the Republicans are at it again" to night (in
my regular 30 secs of checking in for a laugh)!
No shit, this is what I tell every Libtard when they cry the tired "Trump is corrupt and
evil" meme. If there was ANYTHING on Trump, it would have oversaturated the airwaves 24/7
during his candidacy, and he would have never made it out of the primaries.
So which is it? Is he the world's greatest evil retard idiot, or a 9000+ IQ genius that is
so slick and underhanded that he was able to collude with Putin, hide all evidence, and pull
off the biggest caper in the history of the United States by sneaking into the Presidency?
You can't have it both ways.
We must also give credit to the army of Russian bots that tell us how to think and act all
day, where would we be without them?
More than you know, whenever Russian is stated, replace with Ukrainian. TPTB cannot help
themselves but push forward on another agenda as the current one falls apart. The Russophobia
is still being stoked no matter what.
Steele was a double agent, maybe triple. British,Ukrainian and probably American. Does
that start to make a little more sense ? Those huuuge donations to the CF from Ukraine,
McStains involvement, Steele's early retirement from MI6, Brennan's frequent trips to
Ukraine, State Dept.s role. Investigate the Chalupa sisters to find out who the rest of the
rats are.Lee Stranahan started before he was shut down.
Good point in the last sentence. If someone is going to "drain the swamp" it is going to
have to be the president of the United States. I think I'm correct that he can fire anyone
that works in the executive department for cause. He can also order investigations or hire
people who will launch real investigations.
Mr. President, if you want to "drain the swamp," drain it.
If there was a video it would of been leaked during the election, they have nothing that
sticks on the guy.
All the evidence thus far states
Obama Hillary the FBI, DNC, CIA all spied on Trump and colluded with foreign governments
(U.K. , Ukraine , Russia) to try and dig up dirt to use against Trump (and they more or less
failed).
They turned over every rock they could, look at that stupid hot-mic video in the bus, how
many hours of video did they have to go through to dig up that crumb? they went back
searching through 30+ years of content and thats all they could come up with.... some locker
room talk lol
People have to just face it.
Your government was and still is corrupt and its a weaponized system of control, Your
government colluded with the enemy in a desperate attempt to stop Trump from becoming
president. Your government started a sham "Russia investigation" to cover up its own crimes.
Your government applied a different standard of justice to the clintons than it would have to
you or anyone else.
To date ZERO evidence has been brought forward that Trump or anyone in his campaign did
anything wrong, and the only people that have done anything wrong so far were picked by "the
swamp" to fill positions..... all the others fell into petty perjury Traps on meaningless
topics and insignificant factoids.
Isn't it lovely to find out that your money and mine is being used by government agents to
give us the government they want?
It's sort of like a thug robbing you and using part of your money to pay another thug to
rough you up from time time to time if you ask any questions with the thugs believing it's
for our own good.
Thanks, Hillary, for looking out for us. You and your best buds are the best. Such
bighearted givers! Meanwhile, give our regards to your partner in slime Obama, although it
must pain you to have been bested by 'Beavis' who thinks so much of himself to balance out
how little he impresses anyone who knows him.
"U.S. intelligence officials told The Times" Sounds like the Donald is finally learning to cooperate better with his masters. They can
call off the hounds.
Ok - so we have yet another (likely factual) story here of overt, in-your-face abuse of
power and agency aimed directly at American citizens for political gain. And tomorrow? Probably another. And then another. Until: 'Bimbo Fatigue' Remember that phrase. If real justice isn't thrown down soon, you can forget it. Looks to me like (possibly) Trump imploring for public support - i.e., he can't do this
himself, or it's too dangerous and he knows it...
As taxpayers can we sue the CIA for misusing our funds? Pretty sure that buying sex videos
for commercial release isn't part of the CIA's lawful mandate even at bargain prices.
Why is the CIA trying to purchase dirt on a sitting President in 2017! Because they have nothing on him! And they are desperate to not all hang by the neck. The times are trying to portray this as Russian intelligence sowing discord between the US
intelligence agencies and Trump...Wrong! The US Intel agencies are sowing that discord all on
their fucking own. They weren't fooled at all, they created this fucking mess for their own
treasonous reasons and now want us to believe that hey...if we fucked up its because the big
bad russkies tricked us.
my sauces tell me that pink pussyhat wearing hollywood types have been called in because
they have a doppelganger for trump and access to 30,000 sexually abused victims that can act
as Russian prostitutes for just ten bucks each. snapchat has a trump emoji that can be transplanted onto any porn video star - male or
female - thus confirming that trump is a serial (serious?) user of ladies of the night
my sauces also tell me that the CIA offers a reward of 100,000 bucks (or 10 BTC) for every
photo-shopped (snap-shopped or porn-shopped) material.
of course, the CIA already owns many many porn movie studios and films, but it would
prefer third "party" movies - not from epstein's island where its operatives choose to rela
with a pizza.
the CIA "pink" budget for such movies is limited to just 5,000 clips or 5 billion of
taxpayers funds, whichever is the higher.
'The Russian, who has ties to organized criminals and money launderers' wtf! So far the
Russians are playing our CIA like a bunch of amateurs. And the deep state/dem's bought it
hook, line and sinker. Trump was right again. Dem's and Russia are colluding against a duly
elected Presidential candidate. I guess it's safe to say we need another order for more Rope.
Dem's and deepshit state just can't get enough of hanging themselves. This ain't over by a
long shot.
i call bullshit. you dont 'buy back' a software program that can be copied in 30 seconds.
this whole story is a fabrication just like the dossier. made up to inflect bad info on to
trump.
Yeah, I loved that one. "Here. I'm giving you back that software I ripped off from you. I
copied it to this CD and then deleted it from my computer... You know: wiped it with a
cloth."
And I love that the CIA thinks they can get away with a tale like that when everyone but
my 90-year-old mother-in-law knows how a digital file works.
So were these "patriotic" CIA superheroes interested in Bill Clinton's rapes, rapes and
more rapes? Were they concerned that he was snorting coke and using Arkansas state troopers
for procurers of hosebags for him to screw?
I mean if they're so concerned about Trump and a couple of hookers... Better put some ice on that, CIA.
You all are so ridiculous and fooled with your "drain the swamp" bs. It's a great idea but
Trump doing it is a joke, I mean just look at who he has hired, what's wrong with you all are
you blind?!!
He can't even fill 1/3 of the government positions he's supposed to and the ones he has
have no business holding the positions given to them and are so incompetent, downright
criminal or just personally horrendous humans that they can't stay in office more than a few
months. All their blatant and moronically concocted lies are backing them into corners every
day that they just try and lie out of again. America is over if we really have gotten to the
point that a group like Trump's has support, it's just astonishing.
If prophecy does not happen, Russiagaters like typical members of "Doomsday
cults" just became more bound to their sect as admitting this means destroying self-respect.
Notable quotes:
"... What does it say about American society that so many people are actually enrolled in believing that this man could be any kind of a savior? What does that say about the divisions and the conflicts and the contradictions and the genuine problems in this culture? And how do we address those issues? ..."
"... I mean there was a massive denial of the actual dynamics in American society that led to the election of this traumatized and traumatizing individual as President, number one. ..."
"... Now, you may think that's a good thing to do. I'm not arguing about that. I'm not arguing politics. All I'm saying is projection is when we project onto somebody else the things that we do ourselves, and we refuse to deal with the implications of it. So there's denial and then there's projection. ..."
"... And I think there was this huge element of victimhood in this Russiagate process. ..."
"... ("The Resistance With Keith Olbermann", GQ, December 2016) ..."
"... ("The Rachel Maddow Show", MSNBC, March 2017) ..."
"... ("All In With Chris Hayes", MSNBC, February 2018) ..."
"... ("AM Joy", MSNBC, February 2018) ..."
"... GABOR MATÉ : And the assumption, that even if you take all the things that Russia was charged with in this whole Russiagate narrative over the last two and a half years, and if you multiply it by a hundred times, even then, you could not have possibly destroyed the United States. Even then, what is our self image if we think we're that weak, that that kind of external interference could undermine everything that you believed this country has built over the last few centuries?' ..."
"... (FBI Director Robert Mueller, Congressional Testimony, February 2003) ..."
"... ROBERT MUELLER : As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and willfully attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological material. ..."
"... GABOR MATÉ : So given the line supported by Mueller led to the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi people and thousands of Americans, and has incurred costs that we all are fully aware of in terms of rise in terrorism and embroilment in multiple wars and situations, it takes an act of powerful historical amnesia for people to believe that this man is going to be our savior. That's the first point. Just incredible historical amnesia number one. ..."
"... ooking at how under the Bushes and under Obama, there was this massive transfer of wealth upwards. Instead of asking why Barack Obama gets $400,000 for an hour speech to Wall Street, which means that maybe our faith in how our system operates needs to be shaken a bit so we can actually look at what's really going on, let's just put our attention on some foreign devil again. ..."
"... How did the Democratic elite deliberately try to marginalize the progressive candidate? ..."
"... Like if he lacks discretion, let's assume that Russia did leak those Democratic e mails. Let's assume that. We don't know that they did. But we don't know that they didn't either. Let's assume that they did. Which is the greater assault on American democracy? The fact that the Russians leaked the document? Or that the American national Democratic leadership deliberately tried to marginalize one of their own candidates? ..."
"... We screwed up. We actually tried to undemocratically interfere with the Democratic nomination. We didn't pay attention to the people that were really hurting in the society because of our policies. We as the press gave this man all kinds of attention that he never deserved and never merited because he was interesting news and sold copies. ..."
"... AARON MATÉ: And there's a material incentive to do it. Because as you've talked about, if you're the Democrats and you look at the lessons of the election, you saw that people rejected your neoliberal economic legacy, that means you have to start challenging the powerful corporate sectors that you've been representing for a long time, actually posing real alternative policies to Donald Trump. ..."
"... If you do that, though, you risk losing your privileged status within the power structure. And the same thing if you're in the media and you identify with that faction of the power structure. ..."
AARON MATÉ : So we've just been through this two-year ordeal with
Russiagate. It's in a new phase now with Robert Mueller rejecting the outcome that so many were
expecting, that there would be a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Your sense of how this whole thing
has gone?
GABOR MATÉ : What's interesting is that in the aftermath of the Mueller thunderbolt
of no proof of collusion, there were articles about how people are disappointed about this
finding.
Now, disappointment means that you're expecting something and you wanted something to
happen, and it didn't happen. So that means that some people wanted Mueller to find evidence of
collusion, which means that emotionally they were invested in it. It wasn't just that they
wanted to know the truth. They actually wanted the truth to look a certain way. And wherever we
want the truth to look a certain way, there's some reason that has to do with their own
emotional needs and not just with the concern for reality.
And in politics in general, we think that people make decisions on intellectual grounds
based on facts and beliefs. Very often, actually, people's dynamics are driven by emotional
forces that they're not even aware of in themselves. And I, really, as I observed this whole
Russiagate phenomenon from the beginning, it really seemed to me that there was a lot of
emotionality in it that had little to do with the actual facts of the case.
... ... ...
What does it say about American society that so many people are actually enrolled in
believing that this man could be any kind of a savior? What does that say about the divisions
and the conflicts and the contradictions and the genuine problems in this culture? And how do
we address those issues?
... ... ...
I mean there was a massive denial of the actual dynamics in American society that led to
the election of this traumatized and traumatizing individual as President, number one.
... ... ...
GABOR MATÉ : So even if it's true what the Russians have even if it's the worst thing
that's alleged about the Russians is true, it's not even on miniscule proportion of what
America has publicly acknowledged it has done all around the world. And so this rage that we
project, then, and this bad guy image that we project onto the Russians, it's simply a mirror a
very inadequate mirror of what America publicly and openly and repeatedly does all around the
world.
Now, you may think that's a good thing to do. I'm not arguing about that. I'm not arguing
politics. All I'm saying is projection is when we project onto somebody else the things that we
do ourselves, and we refuse to deal with the implications of it. So there's denial and then
there's projection.
And then, there's just something in people. I can tell you well, your mother can tell you
this that in relationships it's always easier to see ourselves as the victims than as the
perpetrators. So there's something comforting about seeing oneself as the victim of somebody
else. Nobody likes to be a victim. But people like to see themselves as victims because it
means they don't have to take responsibility for what we do ourselves.
AARON MATÉ : I can relate to that, too.
GABOR MATÉ : Yeah. I'm just saying the effect of somebody else. So this functions
beautifully in politics. And populist politicians and xenophobic politicians around the world
use this dynamic all the time. That whether it's Great Britain, or whether it's France with
their vast colonial empires, they're always the victims of everybody else. The United States is
always the victim of everybody else. All these enemies that are threatening us. It's the most
powerful nation on earth, a nation that could single handedly destroy the earth a billion times
over with the weapons that are at its disposal, and it's always the victim.
So this victimhood, there is something comforting about it because, again, it allows us not
to look at ourselves. And I think there was this huge element of victimhood in this
Russiagate process.
Noam Chomsky on Mass Media Obsession with Russia & the Stories Not Being Covered in the
Trump Era
("The Resistance With Keith Olbermann", GQ, December 2016)
KEITH OLBERMANN : The nation and all of our freedoms hang by a thread. And the military
apparatus of this country is about to be handed over to scum who are beholden to scum,
Russian scum. As things are today, January 20th will not be an inauguration but rather the
end of the United States as an independent country
("The Rachel Maddow Show", MSNBC, March 2017)
RACHEL MADDOW : But the important thing here is that that Bernie Sanders lovers page run
out of Albania, it's still there. Still running. Still operating. Still churning this stuff
out. Now. This is not part of American politics. This is not, you know, partisan warfare
between Republicans and Democrats. This is international warfare against our country.
("All In With Chris Hayes", MSNBC, February 2018)
JERROLD NADLER : Imagine if FDR had denied that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor
and didn't react, that's the equivalent.
CHRIS HAYES : Well, it's a bit of a different thing. I mean --
JERROLD NADLER : No, it's not.
CHRIS HAYES : They didn't kill anyone.
JERROLD NADLER : They didn't kill anyone, but they're destroying our country, our
democratic process.
CHRIS HAYES : Do you really think it's on par?
JERROLD NADLER : Not in the amount of violence, but I think in the seriousness it is very
much on par. This country exists to have a democratic system with a small D, that's what the
country's all about, and this is an attempt to destroy that.
("AM Joy", MSNBC, February 2018)
ROB REINER : We have been invaded in such a subtle way because we don't see planes hitting
the buildings. We don't see bombs dropping in Pearl Harbor. But we have been invaded as
Malcolm [Nance] points out. We are under attack, but we don't feel it. But it's like walking
around with high blood pressure and then all of a sudden you're not aware of it and you drop
dead.
So it's insidious, and it has affected our blood stream. And if we don't do something
about it – and that's why, guys like John Brennan and James Clapper are running around
with their hair on fire because they're trying to wake people up to tell them: We have to do
something about it. We have to protect ourselves and if we don't, our 241 years of democracy
and self-governance will start to collapse.
GABOR MATÉ : And the assumption, that even if you take all the things that Russia
was charged with in this whole Russiagate narrative over the last two and a half years, and if
you multiply it by a hundred times, even then, you could not have possibly destroyed the United
States. Even then, what is our self image if we think we're that weak, that that kind of
external interference could undermine everything that you believed this country has built over
the last few centuries?'
So it shows to me a real shock reaction. And what has been shocked here is our beliefs in
what this country is about.
And again, as I said before, it's in a sense more comforting. It's frightening, but at the
same time more comforting to see the problem as coming from the outside than to search for it
with amongst ourselves and within ourselves.
AARON MATÉ : How about then the aspect of this that puts so much hope into Robert
Mueller? Because Robert Mueller was supposed to be our savior.
GABOR MATÉ : First of all, if we actually look at who Mueller is, who is he?
He's a man who, amongst many others, was 100 percent convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass
discussion.
VIDEO CLIP
(FBI Director Robert Mueller, Congressional Testimony, February 2003)
ROBERT MUELLER : As Director Tenet has pointed out, Secretary Powell presented evidence
last week that Baghdad has failed to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and willfully
attempting to evade and deceive the international community. Our particular concern is that
Saddam Hussein may supply terrorists with biological, chemical or radiological
material.
GABOR MATÉ : So given the line supported by Mueller led to the deaths of several
hundred thousand Iraqi people and thousands of Americans, and has incurred costs that we all
are fully aware of in terms of rise in terrorism and embroilment in multiple wars and
situations, it takes an act of powerful historical amnesia for people to believe that this man
is going to be our savior. That's the first point. Just incredible historical amnesia number
one.
Number two, America, if you can judge by its TV shows, is very much addicted to the good
guy/bad guy scenario. So that reality is not complex. And it's not subtle. And it's not a build
up of multiple dynamics, internal and external. But, basically, there's evil and there's good.
And evil is going to be cut out by the good and destroyed by it. And that's really how the
American narrative very often is presented.
Now, the same thing is projected into politics. So now if there's a bad guy called Putin and
his puppet called Trump, then there has to be a good guy that is going to save us from it. Some
guy on a white charger that's going to move in here, and is silver haired, patrician looking
man who's going to find the truth and rescue us all, which again is a projection of people's
hopes for truth outside of themselves onto some kind of a benevolent savior figure.
Needless to say, when that savior figure doesn't deliver, then we have to argue that maybe
he was bought off or corrupt or stupid himself or insufficient himself. Or that there's
something secret that has yet to be uncovered that some day will come to the surface that
Mueller himself was unable to discover for himself.
But, again, this projection of hope onto some savior figure. Rather than saying, okay,
there's a big problem here. We've elected a highly traumatized grandiose, intellectually
unstable, emotionally unstable, misogynist, self aggrandizer to power. Something in our society
made that happen. And let's look at what that was. And let's clear up those issues if we can.
And let's look at the people on the liberal side who, instead of challenging all those issues,
put all their energies into this foreign conspiracy explanation. Because to have challenged
those issues would have meant looking at their own policies, which tended in the same
direction.
Rather than looking at how under the Clinton, they've jailed hundreds of thousands of people
who should never have been in jail. L ooking at how under the Bushes and under Obama, there
was this massive transfer of wealth upwards. Instead of asking why Barack Obama gets $400,000
for an hour speech to Wall Street, which means that maybe our faith in how our system operates
needs to be shaken a bit so we can actually look at what's really going on, let's just put our
attention on some foreign devil again.
... ... ...
GABOR MATÉ : .... How did the Democratic elite deliberately try to marginalize the
progressive candidate?
Like if he lacks discretion, let's assume that Russia did leak those Democratic e mails.
Let's assume that. We don't know that they did. But we don't know that they didn't either.
Let's assume that they did. Which is the greater assault on American democracy? The fact that
the Russians leaked the document? Or that the American national Democratic leadership
deliberately tried to marginalize one of their own candidates?
... ... ...
GABOR MATÉ : Let me just interrupt to say that if I were those people, then, then
quite apart from the shock defense that we've already talked about, it'd be so much more
convenient for me to go to the Russia narrative than to say publicly, you know what? We
screwed up. We actually tried to undemocratically interfere with the Democratic nomination. We
didn't pay attention to the people that were really hurting in the society because of our
policies. We as the press gave this man all kinds of attention that he never deserved and never
merited because he was interesting news and sold copies.
... ... ...
AARON MATÉ: And there's a material incentive to do it. Because as you've talked
about, if you're the Democrats and you look at the lessons of the election, you saw that people
rejected your neoliberal economic legacy, that means you have to start challenging the powerful
corporate sectors that you've been representing for a long time, actually posing real
alternative policies to Donald Trump.
If you do that, though, you risk losing your privileged status within the power
structure. And the same thing if you're in the media and you identify with that faction of the
power structure.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not
understanding it."
― Upton Sinclair
As more evidence is being uncovered like the the Kathy Kavalec contemporaneous notes &
email to FBI on her meeting with Steele, it is getting more & more apparent that there
was a program to entrap and smear Trump as a Putin stooge by top officials in the Obama
administration, directly interfering in a presidential election.
Mueller was conflicted right from the very beginning. The fact that Strzok, Page &
Weisman were on his initial staff points to that conflict. Considering the inherent bias it
should be instructive that they could not find any evidence and had to conclude that the
Trump campaign did not collude with agents of the Russian government.
It would be an understatement to say that author Haley does not like Lyndon Baines
Johnson. And despite the fact that his book is an unrelenting tirade against all things
Lyndon, it provides a useful service in reminding the reader of how Johnson trampled and
double-crossed friend and foe alike in his single-minded lust for power.
I am fairly conservative politically, but I am open-minded enough to recognize and oppose
corruption whether practiced by liberals or conservatives. In my lifetime, Johnson, Nixon,
and Clinton have been shining examples of the worst impulses in American presidential
politics in which greed and lust for either power or money ended up overshadowing any of
their real achievements.
Haley shows that Johnson was a man of few real principles, neither liberal nor
conservative, but rather a man who usually always wanted to know which way the wind was
blowing before taking a stand on any important issue. Johnson was a man who used all his
powers of persuasion and veiled threats to get what he wanted and woe unto anyone who stood
in his way.
He was a man who knew and used the old adage "It's not what you know, but who you know" to
Machiavellian extremes.
But he was also a man of sometimes great political courage who would rarely give an inch
once he took a stand. He hated those who opposed him, nursed resentments, and wreaked revenge
on those who crossed him in the least as most of his enemies and many of his friends learned
to their sorrow. From the earliest days, he was involved with corrupt Texas politicians from
the local to the state level and swam in the seas of corporate corruption with the likes of
the infamous swindler Billy Sol Estes and others of his stripe.
Admittedly, the conservatism of the author is the conservatism of a bygone age and the
reader will recognize that the book is meant to be a partisan attack on Johnson. Some of the
attacks on Johnson are made solely for political reasons as Johnson was clever enough to
outmaneuver Haley's ideological brothers and sisters. But Johnson surrounded himself with
enough scummy characters and got involved in so many underhanded political AND business deals
that he deserves the rough treatment given him in Haley's devastating diatribe.
No matter your political leanings, your eyes will be opened when you read A Texan Looks At
Lyndon. The book is well-written and often riveting in its allegations and revelations, but
it loses one star for occasional hysteria. If US or Texas politics interests you, then I
highly recommend this.
Randall Ivey
You have been warned, July 31, 2000
Haley wrote this book (and published it himself) in 1964 basically as a campaign tract for
Barry Goldwater. In the intervening years it has become a classic of its kind, a philippic,
to use M.E. Bradford's term, tracing the illegitimate rise to power of Lyndon Baines
Johnson.
If you're politically naive, this book will grown hair on your chest. It's an unblinking,
fearless portrait of Johnson's wheeling dealing and underhanded methods to achieve the power,
prestige, and money he craved all his life.
Haley names all the names and lays out facts and figures for the reader to make up his
mind. And the reader winds up shaking his head in utter astonishment. The best part of the
book is that detailing Johnson's eventual election to the U.S. Senate in a contest with
former Gov. Coke Stevenson.
The election was clearly Stevenson's, but through the machinations of George Parr, the
notorious Duke of Duval County, the results were turned around in LBJ's favor. Investigators
later found that among those voting in the primary were people who didn't live in the county
anymore and people who weren't alive at all. But the results stood.
(An interesting and amusing aside: when Haley ran for Texas governor in 1956, he
approached Parr and said, "I'm Evetts Haley. I'm running for governor, and if I win, it will
be my privilege to put you in jail."
Parr's reply: "I believe you will." Parr, the Artful Dodger of Texas politics for years,
eventually killed himself.)
At times the book grows tiresome, especially in the Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes
scandals, where Haley turns a virtual torrent of names and numbers on the reader as to be
sometimes confusing.
Brennan role in weaponizing dossier now became more clear.
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier. ..."
"... The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product." ..."
"... A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire," Chalupa told CNN in July of this year. ..."
"... Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states: ..."
"... Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists. ..."
"... it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump." ..."
"... The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation. ..."
"... She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only" top secret meetings with President Obama about it. ..."
"... CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference. ..."
"... It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier. ..."
"... Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings. ..."
"... The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad." ..."
"... But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?" ..."
Did the Obama administration launch an investigation into the Trump campaign based solely off of unverified political opposition
research? And was that "research" dressed up and given more credibility than it should have? It appears that way
based on an
investigation of open-source information by Tablet.
The outlet's investigation begins with a June 24, 2017, Facebook post by Mary Jacoby, the wife of Glenn Simpson, the former
Wall Street Journal reporter who started Fusion GPS, the firm behind the dossier.
Jacoby, a former Wall Street Journal reporter who once shared bylines with Simpson, bragged how her husband was not getting
the credit he deserved for the dossier.
"It's come to my attention that some people still don't realize what Glenn's role was in exposing Putin's control of Donald Trump,"
she wrote on Facebook. "Let's be clear. Glenn conducted the investigation. Glenn hired Chris Steele. Chris Steele worked for Glenn."
Until this day, the dossier is often referred to as the "Steele dossier," named after the former British spy Christopher Steele
who is believed to have authored the document.
Steele's background has been used by collusion-believers to argue that the document is credible. But Jacoby's post suggests that
Steele might not have played as big of a role in the dossier as he is given credit.
Indeed, Fusion GPS hiring of Nellie Ohr -- the wife of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr -- also shows that Steele's
role in producing the dossier may be exaggerated. Ohr is a Stanford Ph.D. whose expertise is Russia and she appears to be fluent
in Russian. She may have conducted interviews or written parts of the dossier.
The dossier, however, only has Steele's name on it -- helping to credential the research as an "intelligence product."
Tablet also took a look at Simpson and Jacoby's work for the WSJ . In April 2007 -- in the lead-up to the 2008 election
-- they co-wrote a story about Republican links to Russians.
In that story, titled "How Lobbyists Help Ex-Soviets Woo Washington," they detail how prominent Republicans helped open doors
for "Kremlin-affiliated oligarchs and other friends of Vladimir Putin."
They reported on Viktor Yanukovich, who had paid political fixer Paul Manafort to introduce Yanukovich to powerful Washington,
DC, figures. They later reported on May 14, 2008, that Manafort's lobbying firm was escorting Yanukovich around Washington. Yanukovich
would later become president of Ukraine in 2010.
Tablet explains how their reporting may have been the origins of the Trump dossier:
So when the Trump campaign named Paul Manafort as its campaign convention manager on March 28, 2016, you can bet that Simpson
and Jacoby's eyes lit up. And as it happened, at the exact same time that Trump hired Manafort, Fusion GPS was in negotiations
with Perkins Coie, the law firm representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, to see if there was interest in the firm continuing
the opposition research on the Trump campaign they had started for the Washington Free Beacon. In addition to whatever sales pitch
Simpson might have offered about Manafort, the Clinton campaign had independent reason to believe that research into Manafort's
connections might pay some real political dividends: A Democratic consultant and Ukrainian-American activist named Alexandra
Chalupa, told the Clinton campaign about Manafort's work for Yanukovich. "I flagged for the DNC the significance of his hire,"
Chalupa told CNN in July of this year.
Perkins Coie hired Fusion GPS in April, shortly after Trump hired Manafort. Manafort's role now allowed Simpson to highlight
corruption that he already knew to exist, from his reporting. A line from the dossier states:
Ex-Ukrainian President YANUKOVYCH confides directly to PUTIN that he authorised (sic) kick-back payments to MANAFORT, as alleged
in western media Assures Russian President however there is no documentary evidence/trail.
Tablet notes that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would later find corruption by Manafort related to money laundering (before he
joined the Trump campaign). It also points out that Tony Podesta -- Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta's brother -- worked
for Manafort at the time he represented Yanukovich. (The Podesta Group disbanded this year after those connections were made public,
and the special counsel is reportedly investigating Podesta too.)
Tablet notes that while Simpson had begun working on the dossier on Trump collusion with Russia, he was also working for a Russian
lawyer to undermine an American law called the Magnitsky Act and that Steele may have been hired to disguise that contradiction.
Steele -- it notes -- had not lived or worked in Russia for nearly 25 years, but his name "at a minimum" would be useful in
marketing whatever his firm pulled together. Plus, Steele had a good relationship with the FBI and could "spill secrets" to journalists.
Ohr -- Simpson's next hire -- also hadn't lived in Russia for decades and was "not a spy, or even a journalist." "In this world,
she was definitely an amateur," Tablet writes.
"Presumably, as a result of all the above, much of the reporting in the dossier is recognizably the kind of patter that locals
in closed or semi-closed societies engage in to impress expats -- the kind of thing you hear in a bar, or on the cab ride from the
airport to the hotel," it says.
Tablet then goes into the bad shape of U.S. intelligence on Russia -- likely making officials less skeptical of the dossier even
though, to date, they have not been able to confirm any of its allegations on collusion.
And Tablet notes that it is likely that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook cited Fusion GPS's work in a July 22 interview
after embarrassing leaks of Democratic National Committee emails. He told ABC News's George Stephanopoulos that "some experts are
now telling us that this was done by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
At that point, a tech firm had attributed the leaks to Russia but was not able to explain why. The FBI was looking at the leak
but had not yet publicly determined political motivation.
"But the DNC and Clinton campaign did have an oppo-research firm under contract that was in the middle of putting together a file
that would claim that the Russians were trying to get Trump elected," Tablet notes.
The FBI did launch an investigation into possible collusion, however, known by "only a dozen or so people at the FBI," including
then-director James Comey and Peter Strzok, who was chosen to supervise the investigation.
But by late October, they had not yet found any evidence that showed Russia was working to elect Trump. So, ten days before the
election, angry Clinton supporters and unnamed intelligence officials
spoke to
the New York Times in an October 31, 2016, story about what the investigation had found so far.
Jacoby would post that story in her June 24 Facebook post, slamming the FBI and accusing it of "ineptitude," while the CIA "hopped
to and immediately worked to verify" the dossier.
She said by August 2016, the CIA had "verified the key finding of the dossier" to the point that it was having "eyes only"
top secret meetings with President Obama about it.
Thus, while the document could not be verified and was not used in any intelligence assessment because of its inability to be
verified, it was now the topic of meetings with the president.
CIA Director John Brennan had also briefed top lawmakers on Russian efforts to help Trump last summer and had said the CIA
had limited legal ability to investigate Russian connections to Trump, prompting Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) to write a public letter
to the FBI -- which collects domestic intelligence -- about the threat of Russian interference.
Reid then wrote another letter to Comey after he reopened the investigation into Clinton's emails -- accusing him of letting Trump
slide.
"It has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his
top advisers, and the Russian government -- a foreign interest openly hostile to the United States, which Trump praises at every
opportunity," he wrote.
"I wrote to you months ago calling for this information to be released to the public and yet, you continue to resist calls
to inform the public of this critical information."
That "information" Reid was referring to was the dossier, according to Tablet:
According to David Corn's Oct. 31, 2016, article in Mother Jones , the Nevada lawmaker was referencing the findings
of "a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence."
Corn now explains that the "former Western intelligence officer -- who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters
and who now works with a U.S. firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients" is Christopher Steele. According
to Corn, Steele said that "in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources,
contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump."
It appears that Brennan was briefing Reid on the Steele dossier.
Brennan apparently sent the dossier to the White House, prompting the "eyes only" meetings.
"An envelope with extraordinary handling restrictions arrived at the White House. Sent by courier from the CIA, it carried 'eyes
only' instructions that its contents be shown to just four people: President Barack Obama and three senior aides," the
Washington
Post
reported on June 23, 2017.
"So was the Steele dossier in the envelope?" Tablet asks.
The Post writes that inside that envelope "was an intelligence bombshell" -- a report drawn from sourcing deep inside
the Russian government that detained Putin's direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the presidential race,
defeat or at least damage Hillary Clinton, and help elect Donald Trump.
The Post also writes that the "material was so sensitive that CIA Director John O. Brennan kept it out of the president's
daily brief, concerned that even that restricted report's distribution was too broad."
But as Tablet asks, "if the material was so sensitive that it had to be kept out of the PDB and withheld from the Senate majority
leader, why was someone telling The Washington Post about it?"
Tablet writes:
Sources and methods are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community. And yet someone has just told a major American
newspaper about a "report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government that captured Putin's specific instructions."
If the CIA had a human intelligence source that close to Putin, publication of the Post article could have exposed that
source -- doing incalculable damage to American national security. He and many of his loved ones would then have presumably died
horrible deaths.
Or, as Mary Jacoby surmised, it was her husband's handiwork that landed on the president's desk.
Looks more and more like Crowdstrike conducted false flag operation to implicate Russians, not a real investigation.
I always assumed that #Guccifer2 was either a Crowdstryke construction at DNC request (that's probably why it was so badly,
incompetently done) or a NSA construction (then, we somehow need to explain, why it was so badly done?). In both cases the
goal was to implicate Russia in a DNC 'hack' ...
Craig Murray has stated he received the DNC files in Wash DC from a leaker. Mueller failed to interview him, which
suggest the Mueller and his team were the part of cover-up, not the part of investigation.
Notable quotes:
"... We are told the GRU obtained files from the DNC network on April 22, 2016, (this is a little different to the Netyksho indictment that states the files were archived on April 22, 2016 and extracted later): ..."
"... The malware samples provided by CrowdStrike show that the earliest compile date of Fancy Bear malware reportedly discovered at the DNC was April 25, 2016 . ..."
"... Whoever was controlling the Guccifer 2.0 persona went out of their way to be perceived as Russian and made specious claims about having already sent WikiLeaks documents, even claiming that WikiLeaks would release them soon (all before Mueller records any initial contact between the parties) . ..."
"... The Special Counsel seems to have been impervious to critical pieces of countervailing evidence (some of which demonstrates that Guccifer 2.0 deliberately manufactured Russian breadcrumbs) and they have failed to accurately account for the acquisition of WikiLeaks' DNC emails (missing the date on which approximately 70% of them were collected) , which is, in itself, a stunning failure for a supposedly thorough investigation costing US taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. ..."
"... There should have been a proper, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the Guccifer 2.0 persona. The Special Counsel certainly hasn't done that job and, in retrospect, looks to have been ill-equipped (and perhaps somewhat reluctant) to do so from the outset. ..."
On April 18, 2019, a redacted version of Robert Mueller's report on "RussiaGate" related
activities was released to the public.
This article focuses on Volume I Part III titled "Russian Hacking & Dumping Operations"
and provides details of the errors made, critical omissions, lack of conclusive evidence and
reliance on assumptions and speculation.
We will also look at problems relating to attribution methods used, countervailing evidence
that has clearly been disregarded and other problems that are likely to have affected the
quality of the investigation and the report.
The Mueller Report: Context & Contradiction
We start with a read-through of this section of the report, highlighting missing context,
contradictions and errors.
Page 36
[To minimize repetition, we'll deal with statements made in this introduction where the
basis is explained or details are provided on other pages ahead.]
Page 36
While the Netyksho
indictment does provide details of intrusions and infrastructure used, it's still unclear
how the infrastructure has been attributed back to individuals in the GRU and no conclusive
evidence has been presented to support that in the indictment or the report.
In the Netyksho
indictment it is stated that the "middle-servers" are overseas:
So, what was the point in having a US-based AMS Panel if you're using overseas servers as
proxies?
This seems to be a needlessly noisy setup that somewhat defeats the purpose of having a
US-based server for the AMS panel.
This setup makes the assets allegedly used by GRU officers subject to US laws, subject to
Internet monitoring by US intelligence agencies and prone to being physically seized.
With the GRU using middle-servers, as alleged, there would have been absolutely no reason to
have the AMS panel hosted on a server within the US and every reason to have it hosted
elsewhere.
It almost seems like they wanted to get caught!
Page 40
We are told the GRU obtained files from the DNC network on April 22, 2016, (this is a
little different to the Netyksho indictment that states the files were archived on April 22,
2016 and extracted later):
The problem with this is that it suggests the GRU had their implant on the DNC network
earlier than what the available evidence supports.
Perhaps they didn't discover all the malware until later? (Though, with their flagship
product installed across the network, one would think they'd have detected all the malware
present by the time they reported on discoveries).
The implication that this was stolen from the DNC is questionable due to this.
Going further, the story surrounding this changed in November 2017 when the Associated Press
published a story titled " How Russians
hacked the Democrats' emails " in which they cite an anonymous former DNC official who
asserts that Guccifer 2.0's first document (the Trump opposition report) did not
originate in the DNC as initially reported.
Another interesting point relating to this is the "HRC_pass.zip" archive released by
Guccifer 2.0 on June 21, 2016 (
which also provided another US central timezone indication ) contained files with last
modification dates of April 26, 2016. While this fits within the above timeframe, the transfer
of the files individually, the apparent transfer speeds involved and the presence of FAT-like
2-second rounding artifacts ( noted elsewhere
in Guccifer 2.0's releases ) when the files came from an NTFS system (and the ZIP
implementation was not the cause) does not correlate well with what the report
outlines.
In spite of its name ("HRC_pass.zip") this archive appears to contain files that can be
sourced to the DNC. Out of 200 files, only one showed up as an attachment (in the Podesta
emails) .
Regarding the May 25 - June 1 timeframe cited, this seems to exclude the date on which
approximately 70% of the DNC's emails published on WikiLeaks' website were acquired (May 23,
2016)
What makes this interesting is that this is apparently being evaluated on evidence that was
very likely to have been provided by CrowdStrike:
Page 40
How did Crowdstrike's evidence not inform the FBI and Special Counsel of the real initial
acquisition date of WikiLeaks' DNC emails?
Was the May 23, 2016 activity not recorded?
Going back to the Netyksho indictment , we have also been
told that Yermakov was searching for Powershell commands between the May 25 - June 1st
period:
However, we know 70% of the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks had already been acquired
prior to that time, before Yermakov had allegedly researched how to access and manage the
Exchange server.
Page 41
We can tell from the use of "appear" here that the Special Counsel does not have conclusive
evidence to demonstrate this.
Page 41
While the overlap between reported phishing victims and the output of DCLeaks cannot be
denied, it is still unclear how bitcoin pools or leased infrastructure have been definitively
tied back to any GRU officers or the GRU itself.
This isn't to say that there isn't evidence of it (I would assume there is some evidence
or intelligence that supports the premise to some degree, at the very least) but we have no
idea what that could be and there is no explanation of how associations to individual GRU
officers were made (perhaps to protect HUMINT but this still leaves us completely in the
dark as to how attributions were made) .
We know already that things are assumed by the Special Counsel on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, so there is good reason to question whether the attributions made are
based on conclusive evidence.
Page 42
This is the first point at which to recall Assange's announcement on 12 June that WikiLeaks
was working on a release of "emails related to Hillary Clinton" - two days before the DNC goes
public about being hacked by Russians, and three days before the appearance of Guccifer
2.0.
It's also approximately one month before Mueller says Guccifer 2.0 first successfully sent
anything to WikiLeaks.
While WikiLeaks did mention this via their Twitter feed on June 16, 2016, they were clearly
skeptical of his claims to be a hacker and although they cite his claim about sending material
to WikiLeaks, they don't confirm it:
It also seems a little odd that the GRU would do searches for already translated phrases
(using Google translate to get English translations would be more understandable) and if
it's Guccifer 2.0 doing it why did he not use the VPN he used for his other activities
throughout the same day?
Why does the Mueller report not report on the IP address of the Moscow-based server from
which searches occurred? It wouldn't really expose sources and methods to disclose it and it's
unclear how it was determined to have been used and managed by a unit of the GRU. (Citation
#146 references the Netyksho indictment, however, that fails to provide evidence or explanation
of this too.)
The body content of a Trump Opposition research document (originally authored by Lauren
Dillon) that was attached to another of Podesta's emails was then
copied into the template document.
The document was saved (with a Russian author name), its body content cleared and this was
then re-used to produce two further "Russia-tainted" documents.
It was no accident that led to the documents being tainted in the way that they were and it
looks like Guccifer 2.0's version of the Trump opposition research didn't really come from the
DNC.
It should be noted that the data referenced above was also unrelated to the general election
and didn't have any noticeable impact on it (the 2.5Gb of data Guccifer 2.0 provided to
Aaron Nevins was unlikely to have hurt the Clinton campaign or affect the outcome of the
general election) .
In the states that the data related to, general election results didn't flip between the
time of the publication of the documents and the election:
Page 43
Interesting to note that Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a "sub project" of
WikiLeaks.
Page 44
The only materials Mueller alleges that WikiLeaks confirmed receipt of was a "1gb or so"
archive, for which, instructions to access were communicated in an attached message
(none-too-discreetly titled "wk dnc link1.txt.gpg") and sent by Guccifer 2 via
unencrypted email.
It is an assumption that this was an archive of DNC emails (it could have contained other
files Guccifer 2.0 subsequently released elsewhere).
We don't even know for sure whether WikiLeaks released what had been sent to them by either
entity.
This, of course, doesn't rule out the possibility of it being a portion of the overall
collection but what the persona had sent to WikiLeaks could also easily have been other
material relating to the DNC that we know Guccifer 2.0 later released or shared with other
parties.
Page 45
This is the second point at which to recall Assange's 12 June TV announcement of upcoming
"emails related to Hillary Clinton", coming two days before Guccifer 2.0's colleagues at
DCLeaks reach out to WikiLeaks via unencrypted means on 14 June 2016 to offer "sensitive
information" on Clinton.
Then, seven days after Guccifer 2 had already claimed to have sent material to WikiLeaks and
stated that they'd soon release it (which made it sound as though he'd had confirmation
back), we see that WikiLeaks reaches out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggests he sends material to
them (as though there's never been any prior contact or provision of materials previously
discussed) .
Page 45
How is it "clear" that both the DNC and Podesta documents were transferred from the GRU to
WikiLeaks when there is only around a gigabyte of data acknowledged as received (and we
don't even know what that data is) and little is known about the rest (and the report
just speculates at possibilities) ?
Page 46
We aren't provided the full dialogue between WikiLeaks and Guccifer 2.0. Instead we have
just a few words selected from the communication that could easily be out of context. The
Netyksho indictment did exactly the same thing. Neither the indictment nor the report provide
the full DM conversation in context.
(It certainly wouldn't harm HUMINT resources or expose methods if this evidence was
released in full context.)
Would the GRU really engage in internal communications (eg GRU Guccifer 2.0 to GRU
DCLeaks) via Twitter DMs? Maybe, but it seems insanely sloppy with regards to operational
security of a clandestine organization communicating between its own staff.
The statement that concludes on the following page (see below) also seems a little
bizarre. Would WikiLeaks really ask Guccifer 2.0 to DM DCLeaks to pass on such a message on
their behalf?
Why doesn't Mueller provide the comms evidence of WikiLeaks asking Guccifer 2.0 for
assistance in contacting DCLeaks?
As written, we are expected to take the words of Guccifer 2.0 (stating that the media
organisation wished to talk to DCLeaks) at face value.
It was actually the last-modification date, not the creation date that was recorded as 19
September, 2016.
This wasn't necessarily the creation date and is only indicative of the last recorded
write/copy operation (unless last modification date is preserved when copying but there's no
way to determine that based on the available evidence) .
The gap between email file timestamps and attachment timestamps may simply be explained by
WikiLeaks extracting the attachments from the EML files at a later stage. With the DNC emails
we observed last-modifications dates as far back as May 23, 2016 but the attachments had
last-modification dates that were much later (eg. July 21, 2016).
The wording is also worth noting: "Based on information about Assange's computer and its
possible operating system" [emphasis mine] does not sound like it's based on
reliable and factual information, it sounds like this is based on assessment/estimation. This
also seems to be relying on an assumption that the only person handling files for WikiLeaks is
Assange.
How have the Special Counsel cited WikiLeaks metadata for evidence where it's suited them
yet, somehow, have managed to miss the May 23, 2016 date on which the DNC emails were initially
being collected?
Going further, the report, based on speculation, suggests that the GRU staged releases in
July (for DNC emails) and September (for Podesta emails). However, going off the same logic as
the Special Counsel, with last-modification dates indicating when the email files are "staged",
the evidence would theoretically point to the DNC emails being "staged" in May 2016).
It doesn't seem so reliable when the rule is applied multilaterally.
Of course, if both assumptions about staging dates are true, then we're left wondering what
Julian Assange could have been talking about on June 12, 2016 when mentioning having emails
relating to Hillary Clinton.
The speculation in the final paragraph of the above section also shows us that the Special
Counsel lacks certainty on sources.
Page 48
Really, this correlation of dates (March 21, 2016 and the reported phishing incident
relating to March 19, 2016) is one of the best arguments for saying that emails published
by WikiLeaks were acquired through phishing or hacking incidents reported.
However, this merely suggests the method of acquisition, it says nothing of how the material
got to WikiLeaks. We can make assumptions, but that's all we can do because the available
evidence is circumstantial rather than conclusive.
Page 48
Far from "discredit[ing] WikiLeaks' claims about the source of the material it posted", the
file transfer evidence doesn't conclusively demonstrate that WikiLeaks published anything sent
to it by Guccifer 2.0 or DCLeaks.
Although there are hints that what was sent by Guccifer 2.0 related to the DNC, we don't
know if this contained DNC emails or the other DNC related content he later released and shared
with others.
"The statements about Seth Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen
DNC emails" is itself a false statement. The reason Assange gave for offering a reward for
information leading to the conviction of Seth Rich's killers was "Our sources take risks and
they become concerned when they see things occurring like that [the death of DNC worker Seth
Rich]... We have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States" ( source ) .
This implies WikiLeaks is offering the reward for info about Seth Rich at the behest of its
actual source/s.
Page 49
By the time Trump had made the statements cited above, it was already assumed that Hillary
had been hacked by the Russians, so Trump saying he hoped the Russians would find the emails
seems more likely to have been in reference to what he assumed was already in their
possession.
What is being described here is, to a considerable extent, just common exploit scanning on
web services, scanning that will almost certainly have come from other nodes based in other
nations too .
These scans are typically done via compromised machines, often with machines that are in
nations completely separate to the nationality of those running the scanning effort.
The Department of Homeland Security threw
cold water on this a long time ago.
DHS would not characterize these efforts as attacks, only "simple scanning ... which occurs
all the time".
The remaining pages in this section of the report include a lot of redactions and mostly
cover the actions of individuals in the US in relation to communications they had with or in
relation to WikiLeaks. As this article is about the technical claims made in relation to
hacking and so much is redacted, we'll only look at those really relevant to this.
[The remaining pages in this section have little relevance to the technical aspects of
this section of the report and/or acquisition of materials that this article is intended to
cover.]
While the above does show numerous issues with the report, it's important not to fall into
the trap of outright dismissing as false anything for which evidence is lacking or assuming
there is no evidence at all to support assertions.
However, without knowing what evidence exists we're left to make assumptions about whether
it's conclusive or circumstantial, we don't know if the source of evidence is dependable and
it's clear in the report that the Special Counsel has relied on assumptions and made numerous
statements on the basis of presuppositions.
There is also a considerable amount of circumstantial evidence that, although it doesn't
conclusively prove what the report tries to convince us of, it does at least raise questions
about relationships between different entities, especially with regards to any overlaps in
resources and infrastructure used.
For example, based on the cited evidence, it is perfectly understandable that people will
assume Guccifer 2.0 provided DNC emails to WikiLeaks and will also assume that WikiLeaks
published whatever it was that Guccifer 2.0 had sent them (especially with Mueller
presenting that conversation in the form of a couple of words devoid of all context) .
The apparent overlap between a VPN service used by Guccifer 2.0 and by DCLeaks does suggest
the two could be associated beyond Guccifer 2.0 just being a source of leaks for them.
Also, DCLeaks publishing some DNC emails that later appeared in the DNC email collection
(though not necessarily from the same mailboxes) also suggests that DCLeaks and WikiLeaks could
have had access to some of the same material and/or sources.
The same is true for Guccifer 2.0 releasing Podesta and DNC email attachments before
WikiLeaks released both collections. Unless given good reason to consider any ulterior motive,
the implied explanation, on the surface, seems to be that it was this persona that was a source
for those emails. If nothing else, that's how it appears based on the little information
typically made available to us by the mainstream press.
However, despite all of this, we still have not seen conclusive evidence showing that either
of the entities was really controlled by the GRU and, when the countervailing evidence
(which seems to have been completely ignored by the Special Counsel's investigation) is
considered, there is reason to give consideration to Guccifer 2.0's efforts to not just
associate himself with WikiLeaks and DCLeaks but also to associate third parties with each
other through false claims.
The Mystery Of The May 23, 2016 Omission
One of the most notable omissions is the date on which emails from several mailboxes
(including Luis Miranda's) were originally collected.
Not only is this prior to the May 25, 2016 - June 1, 2016 timeframe given for the DNC's
exchange server being hacked, this activity is unmentioned throughout the entire report.
How has this failed to come to the surface when it should have been apparent in evidence
CrowdStrike provided to the FBI and also apparent based on the WikiLeaks metadata? How is it
the Special Counsel can cite some of the metadata in relation to WikiLeaks releases yet somehow
manage to miss this?
Countervailing Evidence
What the Special Counsel's investigation also seems to have completely disregarded is the
volume of countervailing evidence that has been discovered by several independent researchers
in relation to the Guccifer 2.0 persona.
It's worth considering what evidence the Special Counsel has brought to the surface and
comparing it with the evidence that has come to the surface as a result of discoveries being
made by independent researchers over the past two years and the differences between the two
sets of evidence (especially with regards to falsifiability and verifiability of
evidence) .
Some excellent examples are covered in the following articles:
Skip Folden (who introduced me to VIPS members and has been a good friend ever since)
recently shared with me his assessment of problems with the current attribution methods being
relied on by the Special Counsel and others.
It covered several important points and was far more concise than anything I would have
written, so, with his permission, I'm publishing his comments on this topic:
No basis whatsoever
APT28, aka Fancy Bear, Sofacy, Strontium, Pawn Storm, Sednit, etc., and APT29, aka Cozy
Bear, Cozy Duke, Monkeys, CozyCar,The Dukes, etc., are used as 'proof' of Russia 'hacking' by
Russian Intelligence agencies GRU and FSB respectively.
There is no basis whatsoever to attribute the use of known intrusion elements to Russia,
not even if they were once reverse routed to Russia, which claim has never been made by NSA
or any other of our IC.
On June 15, 2016 Dmitri Alperovitch himself, in an Atlantic Council article, gave only
"medium-level of confidence that Fancy Bear is GRU" and "low-level of confidence that Cozy
Bear is FSB." These assessments, from the main source himself, that either APT is Russian
intelligence, averages 37%-38% [(50 + 25) / 2].
Exclusivity :
None of the technical indicators, e.g., intrusion tools (such as X-Agent, X-Tunnel),
facilities, tactics, techniques, or procedures, etc., of the 28 and 29 APTs can be uniquely
attributed to Russia, even if one or more had ever been trace routed to Russia. Once an
element of a set of intrusion tools is used in the public domain it can be reverse-engineered
and used by other groups which precludes the assumption of exclusivity in future use. The
proof that any of these tools have never been reverse engineered and used by others is left
to the student - or prosecutor.
Using targets
Also, targets have been used as basis for attributing intrusions to Russia, and that is
pure nonsense. Both many state and non-state players have deep interests in the same targets
and have the technical expertise to launch intrusions. In Grizzly Steppe, page 2, second
paragraph, beginning with, "Both groups have historically targeted ...," is there anything in
that paragraph which can be claimed as unique to Russia or which excludes all other major
state players in the world or any of the non-state organizations? No.
Key Logger Consideration
On the subject of naming specific GRU officers initiating specific actions on GRU Russian
facilities on certain dates / times, other than via implanted ID chips under the finger tips
of these named GRU officers, the logical assumption would be by installed key logger
capabilities, physical or malware, on one or more GRU Russian computers.
The GRU is a highly advanced Russian intelligence unit. It would be very surprising were
the GRU open to any method used to install key logger capabilities. It would be even more
surprising, if not beyond comprehension that the GRU did not scan all systems upon start-up
and in real time, including key logger protection and anomalies of performance degradation
and data transmissions.
Foreign intelligence source
Other option would be via a foreign intelligence unit source with local GRU access. Any
such would be quite anti-Russian and be another nail in the coffin of any chain of evidence /
custody validity at Russian site.
Chain Of Custody - Without An Anchor There Is No Chain
Another big problem with the whole RussiaGate investigation is the reliance on a private
firm, hired by the DNC, to be the source of evidence.
As I don't have a good understanding of US law and processes surrounding evidence collection
and handling, I will, again, defer to something that my aforementioned contact shared:
Chain of Evidence / Custody at US end, i.e., DNC and related computing facilities
Summary: There is no US end Chain of Evidence / Custody
The anchor of any chain of evidence custody is the on-site crime scene investigation of a
jurisdictional law enforcement agency and neutral jurisdictional forensic team which
investigate, discover, identify where possible, log, mark, package, seal, or takes images
there of, of all identified elements of potential evidence as discovered at the scene of a
crime by the authorized teams. The chain of this anchor is then the careful, documented
movement of each element of captured evidence from crime scene to court.
In the case of the alleged series of intrusions into the DNC computing facilities, there
is no anchor to any chain of evidence / custody.
There has been no claim that any jurisdictional law enforcement agency was allowed access
to the DNC computing facilities. The FBI was denied access to DNC facilities, thereby
supposedly denying the FBI the ability to conduct any on-site investigation of the alleged
crime scene for discovery or collection of evidence.
Nor did the FBI exercise its authority to investigate the crime scene of a purported
federal crime. Since when does the FBI need permission to investigate an alleged crime site
where it is claimed a foreign government's intelligence attacked political files in order to
interfere in a US presidential election?
Instead, the FBI accepted images of purported crime scene evidence from a contractor hired
by and, therefore, working for the DNC. On July 05, 2017 a Crowdstrike statement said that
they had provided "... forensic images of the DNC system to the FBI." It was not stated when
these images were provided. Crowdstrike was working for the DNC as a contractor at the
time.
This scenario is analogous to an employee of a crime scene owner telling law enforcement,
"Trust me; I have examined the crime scene for you and here's what I've found. It's not
necessary for you to see the crime scene."
Crowdstrike cannot be accepted as a neutral forensic organization. It was working for and
being paid by the DNC. It is neither a law enforcement agency nor a federal forensic
organization. Further Crowdstrike has serious conflicts of interest when it comes to any
investigation of Russia.
Crowdstrike co-founder and Director of Technology, Dimitri Alperovitch, is a Nonresident
Senior Fellow, Cyber Statecraft Initiative, of the Atlantic Council. Alperovitch has made it
clear of his dislike of the government of Putin, and The Atlantic Council can not be
considered neutral to Russia, receiving funding from many very staunch and outspoken enemies
of Russia.
Summary: Not only was no federal jurisdictional law enforcement agency allowed to
investigate the alleged crime scene, but the organization which allegedly collected and
provided the 'evidence' was not neutral by being employed by the owner of the alleged crime
scene, but seriously compromised by strong anti-Russian links.
This issue of this substitute for an anchor then leads us to our next problem: an apparent
conflict of interest from the investigation's outset.
Conflict of Interest Inherent In The Investigation?
Would it seem like a conflict of interest if the person in charge of an investigation were
friends with a witness and source of critical evidence relied upon by that investigation?
This is effectively the situation we have with the Special Counsel investigation because
Robert Mueller and CrowdStrike's CSO (and President) Shawn Henry are former colleagues
and friends.
If nothing else, it's understandable for people to feel that the Special Counsel would have
struggled to be truly impartial due to such relationships.
Conclusion
The Special Counsel seems to have been impervious to critical pieces of countervailing
evidence (some of which demonstrates that Guccifer 2.0 deliberately manufactured Russian
breadcrumbs) and they have failed to accurately account for the acquisition of WikiLeaks'
DNC emails (missing the date on which approximately 70% of them were collected) , which
is, in itself, a stunning failure for a supposedly thorough investigation costing US taxpayers
tens of millions of dollars.
There should have been a proper, thorough, independent and impartial investigation into the
Guccifer 2.0 persona. The Special Counsel certainly hasn't done that job and, in retrospect,
looks to have been ill-equipped (and perhaps somewhat reluctant) to do so from the
outset.
This article may be republished/reproduced in part or in full on condition that content
above is unaltered and that the author is credited (or, alternatively, that a link to the full
article is included).
"... DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed 2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016, report by the Office of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review. ..."
"... The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016. ..."
"... After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing numerous "about query" violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and reported his findings to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are not "to" or "from" the target. ..."
"... On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally informed the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings of his audit. ..."
"... Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant. ..."
"... The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page. ..."
"... While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director. ..."
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
The insurance policy was the false flag operation directed at establishing the Trump–Russia collusion
narrative. The key part was the appointment of Special Prosecutor in which McCabe played an important if not the decisive role.
Notable quotes:
"... The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative. It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation into the Trump campaign. ..."
"... The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation. ..."
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance
policy," the term has been the subject of wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to
monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump
campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying meaning of the
text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion
narrative. It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the
Steele dossier and James Clapper's leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The
intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation into the Trump
campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe
would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, served as the foundation for the Russia narrative.
The
intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the
dossier as a launching pad for creating their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers
having only moderate confidence in its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the
narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the
narrative that Russia helped Trump win the elections was aggressively pushed throughout
2017.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be
followed on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe. ..."
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate."
He directed the activities of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the
Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance policy" text
message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He
was placed into a somewhat chaotic situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recluses
himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months earlier, on March
2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of
the ongoing investigation being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased
scrutiny as the result of actions taken leading up to and following the election, particularly
Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject
of the memo was "Restoring Public Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day.
McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration for
the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the
FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016,
Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe" by Devlin
Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of
Investigation of Certain Allegations Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the
darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions,
regarding potential lack of candor before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with
Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly
record President Trump. This remark was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced
from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former FBI general
counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence.
Rosenstein issued a statement denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the
Justice Department to open an investigation into the president."
An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the
conversation somewhat differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying,
"What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met
with Mueller, reportedly as an interview for the FBI director job.
On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after
Rosenstein's encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from
the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any
expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed
-- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would have remained in charge of the Russia investigation.
McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was reportedly under
consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement
and the FBI would have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath
regarding authorization of the leaking to The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew
McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of
investigation and definition of authority" that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of
this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the new FBI
director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks
investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray were tasked with overseeing all leak
investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove
any residual FBI influence -- specifically that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The
appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and
is currently the subject of a grand jury investigation.
"... Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers. In the following year, Hannigan abruptly announced his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration. ..."
"... Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele retains close ties with Dearlove. ..."
"... Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter Page to attend. ..."
"... Dearlove knows Halper through their mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and retains close ties to UK intelligence services. ..."
"... Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has co-authored two books. ..."
"... Downer, who met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting established through a chain of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016 Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known each other for years and maintain several mutual associations. ..."
"... Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with Page. Current information suggests there was only one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named in the Buryakov case. ..."
"... Page, who cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was deported to Russia. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes said in August that exculpatory evidence on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case. ..."
"... If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated. ..."
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted
version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence
community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern
that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for
the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter
Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application.
According to the indictment
, Wolfe exchanged 82 text messages
with Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call.
The original Page FISA application is 83 pages long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided
by Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
"... The CIA, with the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, worked with British counterparts starting in the summer of 2015 to collect intelligence on Republican and at least one Democrat candidate. John Brennan was probably hoping that his proactive steps to help the Hillary Clinton campaign would ensure him taking over as DNI in the new Clinton Administration. Regardless of motives, the CIA enlisted the British intelligence community to start gathering intelligence on most major Republican candidates and on Bernie Sanders. This initial phase of intelligence gathering goes beyond opposition research. The information being gathered identified the key personnel in each campaign and identified the people outside the United States receiving their calls, texts and emails. This information was turned into intelligence reports that then were passed back to the United States intel community as "liaison reporting." This was not put into normal classified channels. This intelligence was put into a SAP, i.e. a Special Access Program. ..."
"... One person who needs to be called on the carpet and asked some hard questions is current CIA Director Gina Haspel. She was CIA Chief of Station in London at the time and was a regular attendee at the meeting of the Brit's Joint Intelligence Committee aka the JIC. I suppose it is possible she was cut out of the process, but I believe that is unlikely. ..."
"... I am confident that a survey of NSA and CIA liaison reporting will show that George Papadopoulos was identified as a possible target by the fall of 2015. Initially, his name was "masked." But we now know that many people on the Trump campaign had their names "unmasked." You cannot unmask someone unless their name is in an intelligence report. ..."
"... Sater's communication with Rozov were intercepted by western intelligence agencies -- GCHQ and NSA. I do not know which agency put it into an intel report, but it was put into the system. The Sater FD-1023 will tell us whether or not Sater did this at the direction of the FBI or acted on his own initiative. The key point is that the "bait" to do something with the Russians came from a registered FBI informant. ..."
"... That's good, sooner it's clarified the better, and the stronger the better, ..."
"... Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria ..."
"... Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's Henry Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking " ..."
"... I do not believe that it is a mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, was the one credited by the FBI for launching the investigation into George Papadopolous : It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired," The Times reported. ..."
"... Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially, he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network reported in a January 2016 exclusive: ..."
"... I'm curious why they went after minor characters in the Trump campaign and not Jared or one of Trump's sons? From what I've read of Hoover, it seems he was constantly building "dossiers" of the powerful and those he considered "subversives" so that he would remain preeminent. Then there was the Church Committee investigation. Is this qualitatively different? Can we ever expect that law enforcement & intelligence with so much secretive power are not the 4th branch of government? ..."
"... Also involved - and I think Judge Ellis was very well aware of this - is a fundamental distinction relating to what law enforcement authorities are trying to achieve. If Mueller was honestly - even of perhaps misguidedly - trying to get witnesses to 'sing', that is hardly a mortal sin. If he was trying to get them to 'compose', then the question becomes whether he should be under indictment for subversion of the Constitution. ..."
"... Why aren't the MSM having a hissy fit about the real, documented election interference by the British Commonwealth/5 Eyes spooks in the 2016 campaign (and before)? The hoax of projecting onto Putin what they themselves have done must be exposed before the country move forward on any front. ..."
"... So, was Skripal one of Steele's so-called Kremlin insiders? I see Pablo Miller is connected to both Porton Down and Steele via the ironically titled II's media pods. And Miller is certainly connected to Skripal. ..."
Do not focus on July 2016 as the so-called start of the counter intelligence investigation of Donald Trump. That is a lie. We
know, thanks to the work of Judicial Watch, that the FBI had signed up Christopher Steele as a Confidential Human Source (aka CHS)
by February of 2016. It is incumbent on Attorney General Barr to examine the contact reports filed by Steele's FBI handler (those
reports are known as FD-1023s). He also, as I have noted in a previous post, needs to look at the FD-1023s for Felix Sater and Henry
Greenberg. But these will only tell a small part of the story. There is a massive intelligence side to this story.
The CIA, with the knowledge of the Director of National Intelligence, worked with British counterparts starting in the summer
of 2015 to collect intelligence on Republican and at least one Democrat candidate. John Brennan was probably hoping that his proactive
steps to help the Hillary Clinton campaign would ensure him taking over as DNI in the new Clinton Administration. Regardless of motives,
the CIA enlisted the British intelligence community to start gathering intelligence on most major Republican candidates and on Bernie
Sanders. This initial phase of intelligence gathering goes beyond opposition research. The information being gathered identified
the key personnel in each campaign and identified the people outside the United States receiving their calls, texts and emails. This
information was turned into intelligence reports that then were passed back to the United States intel community as "liaison reporting."
This was not put into normal classified channels. This intelligence was put into a SAP, i.e. a Special Access Program.
One person who needs to be called on the carpet and asked some hard questions is current CIA Director Gina Haspel. She was
CIA Chief of Station in London at the time and was a regular attendee at the meeting of the Brit's Joint Intelligence Committee aka
the JIC. I suppose it is possible she was cut out of the process, but I believe that is unlikely.
This initial phase of intelligence collection produced a great volume of intelligence that allowed analysts to identify key personnel
and the people they were communicating with overseas. You don't have to have access to intelligence information to understand this.
For example, you simply have to ask the question, "how did George Papadopoulos get on the radar." I am confident that a survey
of NSA and CIA liaison reporting will show that George Papadopoulos was identified as a possible target by the fall of 2015. Initially,
his name was "masked." But we now know that many people on the Trump campaign had their names "unmasked." You cannot unmask someone
unless their name is in an intelligence report. We also know that Felix Sater, a longtime business associate of Donald Trump
and an FBI informant since December 1998 (he was signed up by Andrew Weismann), initiated the proposal to do a Trump Tower in Moscow.
Don't take my word for it, that's what Robert Mueller reported:
In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately
September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen (i.e., Michael Cohen) on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert),
a Russian real-estate development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov. Sater had known Rozov since approximately
2007 and, in 2014, had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov's purchase of a building in New York City. Sater later
contacted Rozov and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and
brand from the Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee
of I.C. Expert. (see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
Sater's communication with Rozov were intercepted by western intelligence agencies -- GCHQ and NSA. I do not know which agency
put it into an intel report, but it was put into the system. The Sater FD-1023 will tell us whether or not Sater did this at the
direction of the FBI or acted on his own initiative. The key point is that the "bait" to do something with the Russians came from
a registered FBI informant.
By December of 2015, the Hillary Campaign decided to use the Russian angle on Donald Trump. Thanks to Wikileaks we have Campaign
Manager John Podesta's email exchange in December 2015 with Democratic operative Brent Budowsky:
" That's good, sooner it's clarified the better, and the stronger the better, " Budowski replies, later adding: "
Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria ."
The program to slaughter Donald Trump using Russia as the hatchet was already underway. This was more the opposition research.
This was the weaponization of law enforcement and intelligence assets to attack political opponents. Hillary had covered the opposition
research angle in London by hiring a firm comprised of former MI6 assets--
Hakluyt: there was a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence firm lurking about
with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign for president against
Donald Trump.
Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. , founded by three former British intelligence
operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations
pay huge sums. . . .
Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's
Henry
Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6
[British foreign intelligence] officers, but it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking "
I do not believe that it is a mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, was the one credited by the FBI
for launching the investigation into
George Papadopolous : It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving factors that
led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's
associates conspired," The Times reported.
Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory board since 2008. Officially,
he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network
reported in a January 2016 exclusive:
But it can be revealed Mr. Downer has still been attending client conferences and gatherings of the group, including a client
cocktail soirée at the Orangery at Kensington Palace a few months ago.
His attendance at that event is understood to have come days after he also attended a two-day country retreat at the invitation
of the group, which has been involved in a number of corporate spy scandals in recent times.
Much remains to be uncovered in this plot. But this much is certain--there is an extensive documentary record, including TOP SECRET
intelligence reports (SIGINT and HUMINT) and emails and phone calls that will show there was a concerted covert action operation
mounted against Donald Trump and his campaign. Those documents will tell the story. This cannot be allowed to happen again.
Having watched interviews of Papadopoulos on TeeVee I would say that this creature would be easy to manipulate. His ego is so
enormous that a minimal effort would be required.
I'm curious why they went after minor characters in the Trump campaign and not Jared or one of Trump's sons? From what
I've read of Hoover, it seems he was constantly building "dossiers" of the powerful and those he considered "subversives" so that
he would remain preeminent. Then there was the Church Committee investigation. Is this qualitatively different? Can we ever expect
that law enforcement & intelligence with so much secretive power are not the 4th branch of government?
The guts of the matter was well expressed by Judge T.S. Ellis when he made the distinction between different results which
can be expected from exerting pressures on witnesses: they may 'sing' - which is, commonly, in the interests of justice - but,
there again, they may 'compose', which is not.
Also involved - and I think Judge Ellis was very well aware of this - is a fundamental distinction relating to what law
enforcement authorities are trying to achieve. If Mueller was honestly - even of perhaps misguidedly - trying to get witnesses
to 'sing', that is hardly a mortal sin. If he was trying to get them to 'compose', then the question becomes whether he should
be under indictment for subversion of the Constitution.
Yes, indeed, many a composition have been elicited by prosecutors in criminal cases. The issue is there is no penalty for prosecutorial
misconduct while the advancement points ratchet up with each conviction. The incentives are aligned perfectly for the "institution"
to run rough shod on ordinary Americans. Only those wealthy enough to fight the unlimited funds of the government have a chance.
But of course in matters relating to national security there is the added twist of state secrets that protects government malfeasance.
I don't know how the national security state we continue to build ever gets rolled back. A small victory would be for Trump
to declassify all documents and communications relating to the multifaceted spying on his campaign and as Larry so eloquently
writes to frame him as a Manchurian Candidate. At least the public will learn about what their grandchildren are paying for. But
it seems that Trump prefers tweeting to taking any kind of action. Not that it would matter much as half the country will still
believe that Trump deserves it until the tables are turned on their team. While most Americans will say to use Ben Hunt's phrasing
Yay! Constitution. Yay! Liberty. they sure don't care as the state oligarchy tighten their chokehold.
Yes, he seems young and ambitious enough to be easy (and willing) prey. Having been involved in some local political campaigns
though, I've observed that more and more than before, young people like him are hyper-concerned with networking. Papadopoulos'
ego aside, of course he and many people who sign on hope to make self-serving connections. Not only that, it's also been my observation
that casual sexual hook-ups go with the territory, and not only among young, single guys like him. I have to say I've been shocked
a few times by how risky and cavalier some liaisons have been that've come to my attention, considering "public figures" are involved.
No doubt that's why a "honeypot" was dispatched to try to help entrap Papadopoulos.
Why aren't the MSM having a hissy fit about the real, documented election interference by the British Commonwealth/5 Eyes
spooks in the 2016 campaign (and before)? The hoax of projecting onto Putin what they themselves have done must be exposed before
the country move forward on any front.
So, was Skripal one of Steele's so-called Kremlin insiders? I see Pablo Miller is connected to both Porton Down and Steele
via the ironically titled II's media pods. And Miller is certainly connected to Skripal.
Papadopolos was very young hence the nativity getting sucked in. The ego helped for sure. Probably exciting to be part of something
important probably for the first time since he started working for Trump campaign
One thing that's always concerned me about Larry's informative and insightful essays on these matters is how can we be assured
that the IC documentation mentioned has been filled out honestly and accurately -- or that the forms even still exist and haven't
been conveniently "lost" or surreptitiously destroyed?
"... I don't think the US government should use operating systems made in China for the same reason that most governments shouldn't use operating systems made in the US and in fact we just got proof since Microsoft is now known to be telling the NSA about bugs in Windows before it fixes them. ..."
"... All the major western tech companies cooperate with the western security services. In Murder in Samarkand I gave the first public revelation that the government can and does listen through your mobile phone microphone even when the phone is ostensibly switched off, a fact that got almost no traction until Edward Snowden released documents confirming it six years later. China is full of western devices with backdoors that are exploited by western intelligence. That the tables turn as Chinese technology advances is scarcely surprising. ..."
Theresa May almost certainly sacked Gavin Williamson not just on the basis of a telephone billing record showing he had a phone
call with a Telegraph journalist, but on the basis of a recording of the conversation itself.
It astonishes me that still, after Snowden and his
PRISM revelations, after Wikileaks
Vault 7 releases , and after numerous other sources including
my own humble contribution, people still manage to avoid the cognitive dissonance that goes with really understanding how much we
are surveilled and listened to. Even Cabinet Ministers manage
to pretend
to themselves it is not happening.
The budget of the NSA, which does nothing else but communications intercept, is US $14.2 billion this year. Think about that enormous
sum, devoted to just communications surveillance, and what it can achieve. The budget of the UK equivalent, GCHQ, is Ł1.2 billion,
of which about 10% is paid by the NSA. Domestic surveillance in the UK has been vastly expanded and many taboos broken. But the bedrock
of the system with regard to domestic intercepts is still that legal restrictions are dodged, as the USA's NSA spies on UK citizens
while the UK's GCHQ spies on US citizens, and then the information is swapped. It was thus probably the NSA that harvested Williamson's
phone call, passing the details on. Given official US opposition to the UK employing Huawei technology, Williamson's call would have
been a "legitimate" NSA target.
Mass surveillance works on electronic harvesting. Targeted phone numbers apart, millions of essentially random calls are listened
to electronically using voice recognition technology and certain key words trigger an escalation of the call. Williamson's call discussing
Huawei, China, the intelligence services, and backdoors would certainly have triggered recording and been marked up to a human listener,
even if his phone was not specifically targeted by the Americans – which it almost certainly was.
Williamson of course is relying on the security services' secrecy about their methods to maintain his protests of innocence, secure
in the knowledge that the recording of him would not be produced. The existence of the recording – of which I am extremely confident
– is the only possible explanation for May's degree of certainty and swift action against one of her very few loyal allies.
All of which of course throws into stark relief the stunning hypocrisy of those who are worried that Huawei will be used for electronic
eavesdropping, when they are up to their ears in electronic eavesdropping themselves. One of my heroes is the great Richard Stallman,
who put it this way six years ago:
RMS: Well, it's perfectly reasonable suspicion to me. I don't think the US government should use operating systems made in
China for the same reason that most governments shouldn't use operating systems made in the US and in fact we just got proof since
Microsoft is now known to be telling the NSA about bugs in Windows before it fixes them.
RSS: I was just going to bring this up exactly, so I was saying that the NSA recently received notifications about the zero-day
holes in advance and [incomprehensible] the NSA and the CIA to just crack PCs abroad for espionage purposes.
RMS: Now, [incomprehensible] that this proves my point, which is that you have to be nuts if you were some other country and
using Windows on your computers. But, you know, given that Windows has a universal back door in it, Microsoft would hardly need
to tell the NSA about any bugs, it can tell the NSA about the mal-feature of the universal back door and that would be enough
for the NSA to attack any computer running Windows, which unfortunately is a large fraction of them.
All the major western tech companies cooperate with the western security services. In Murder in Samarkand I gave the first public
revelation that the government can and does listen through your mobile phone microphone
even when the phone is ostensibly switched off, a fact that got almost no traction until Edward Snowden released documents confirming
it six years later. China is full of western devices with backdoors that are exploited by western intelligence. That the tables turn
as Chinese technology advances is scarcely surprising.
Personally I do not want the Chinese, Americans, Russians or British eavesdropping on me, or on each other, and I wish that they
would stop. The spy games will of course continue, as they make money for a lot of well-connected people. But for any side to claim
moral superiority in all of this is just nonsense.
"It is the ultimate irony that how the old Soviet Union's judiciary used to function is
now becoming standing operating procedure in the United States."
When you consider how many of today's Democrat luminaries were self described as dedicated
Communists in the 60's, 70's, and 80's it is not surprising at all.
If, the information in this article is true, I feel bad for this young lady getting hemmed
up in international shenanigans.
If a person loves her country (her home), wants the opportunity for fellow citizens to be
free with a right to bare arms, and seeks out the assistance of the USA both as a model for
having the 2nd Amendment, and an organization that leads in advocating for personal firearms
ownership, the NRA, how is she committing any crime? She should not be locked up for pursuing
God given, inalienable rights for her fellow countrymen. She should be encouraged and
sponsored by Pro2A groups and manufacturers. Again, if the information as presented is
true.
Thank you DOJ. There's no need for guns in Russia. These people intoxicated by the alcohol
and hard drugs will kill one another by the thousands. I feel for Masha Butina, but as far
away she is from Russia, as better for this poor country. Luckily she is in US and even
better in prison. Thank you Russophobes, warmongers and sheep that neocons will send to the
slaughterhouse, you can not do any better.
Our courts are totally corrupt. There's a prosecutor/FBI/judge cabal which convicts 98+%
of its victims at trials. The excessive long sentences are used to convince the large
majority unable to afford a slightly possible defense to bargain a plea. The Exceptional
morons selected for juries think, why would the FBI lie. They lie to be promoted. What do you
think happens to an agent whose testimony aids the defense?
Kangaroo courts would be more honest in their convictions.
If a case is merely "plausible", that's not enough to indict.
Based on that thread-bare criterion, the FBI could probably come up with "plausible" cause
to indict half the US population for something or other. Never mind Russians, all of whom
might "plausibly" be suspected as secret agents for the Kremlin because they know other
Russians.
The true criminals are attempting to cover their tracks through diversion. The magnitude
of the scheme they are executing now is commensurate with the magnitude of their own crimes
against the United States.
I agree, it was much more scary in the 80's hiding under our desks at school and learning
each week how many times one country could blow up the world, multiple times over. Now, so
many people around the world call ********, not because MAD doesn't exist, but everyone
realized no matter the quality of your bunker and fortitude of cement, those things only mean
you die slower than those outside near the big flash. Hypersonic weapons seem like a step
backwards in the whole 'my missile is bigger than your missile' game of Coldwar 2.0.
The Obama adminstration knew about the Russian attempts, yet did not alert the Trump
campaign. Instead the Obama administration sent spies to entrap low level operatives, with
the hope of eventually nailing Trump himself or a close advisor. Why?
Because the intelligence community wanted that insurance policy on Trump. Not to remove
him from office, but to control him in the event he won. The intelligence community and
defense community wants and needs perpetual war and conflict to justify themselves. Trump was
campaigning on better relations with Russia and pulling back the us global defense footprint.
This was not acceptable to them, so they needed to make sure they could control him. Do what
we want or certain information is released.
Somehow, they lost control over the operation, which resulted in the appointmemt of
Mueller. Forcing the plot against Trump out into the open is the best thing that could have
happened to Trump. Trump now holds all the cards in his control and possible retaliation
against the wrongdoers. I predict no action against any of the real wrongdoers, so Trump
maintains his control over a severly wounded intelligence community. He has the power over
them now, by threating prosecutions and disclosure of what they really did.
1 week ago
"Sprawling" How many CIA fucksticks, or boondoggle procuring disinformation spewing,
sell-their-own-mother contractors, like New Knowledge, are out there conspiring to screw
people over and install some goomed poodle puppet of the empire like Juan Guido? Jesus
titty-fucking Christ. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Look! Russians!
"[Risen and his ilk] are engaged in a calculated rear-guard campaign to prevent the public
from moving on to the next level of implications. Since the MSM and deep state PTB were so
clearly willing and able to fabricate 'collusion', what other articles of faith are
fabrications? WMDs of course.
But then there are the others: ISIS and Al Qaeda were our enemies? The news media tells
the truth? Syrian government gas attacks? Iran is a menace? Russian "invasion" of Ukraine?
[Anita Hill and Christine Blasey were 'abused' by being asked questions?]
Assertions that Qadafi and now Maduro were/are bad guys?
America is a free country? Mass immigration is AOK? The rich create wealth?
The 9/11 attacks were the work of a handful of Arab guys? Israel is our true friend and
wants peace?
The whole edifice is undermined and Congressional and media reciters [and deep state
shills posting here like Alberto, Lela, Felix95, and Mike5000] have the job of diverting the
public from thinking the unthinkable."
1 week ago
"Too little too late."
Not for all of us. A significant number of progressives who ardently rejected the
evidence-free hysteria retain credibility to press for all of those things.
1 week ago
"If you or Glenn cared about any of those things, you'd be writing incessantly about them,
but you don't."
Even if that were true, it would not alter that we were right about this Russiagate moral
panic, and many of you were recklessly wrong
"It's not a non sequitur to say so."
It is. (As is your peculiar fixation on Pierre Omidyar.) See above.
1 week ago
that's a reply to Mona above...
1 week ago
" let's look at gun control, climate change, immigration, infrastructure, medical needs,
college debt, abortion rights, justice for people of color, gerrymandering, voting
rights"
What progressives and Democrats should have been doing the last three years, not promoting
and agitating for a baseless -- and recklessly dangerous -- moral panic. Direction for how to
proceed should come from those who had the wisdom and reason to reject the evidence-free
mania.
1 week ago
Instead of telling others what they should be doing, why don't you do it yourself?
Too exhausted trying to control what you can't?
1 week ago
" why don't you do it yourself?"
I do. Part of that effort is making clear to one and all that many progressives never
promoted a baseless moral panic that made Democrats and the media look like Alex Jones. Some
of us can be trusted to be evidence-based.
1 week ago
And you dont think that was part of the purpose?
You think the DNC cares about any of those important things? Keeping the focus off the
democrats was the most important objective of Russiagate.That and starting another cold war
which makes them even more dangerous than Trump.
1 week ago
you won't find it on the 2020 Democratic Party platform either ... which is still stuck on
2016:
Hopefully, this the coda of the Russiagate saga. From my perspective it revealed more
about America's Deep State than it did about Russia's alleged malign intent.
The Deep State has entered into mainstream American politics. We know it is there and that
it is a potent threat to American self rule, far more dangerous than Russia or any of the
external challenges.
Many things remain unanswered. For example, in an interconnected, internet world, where
does big tech fit in? Are Google, Facebook et al American companies? Do they enforce American
policy? Is it just America or do they whore for anybody with money? Does it mean that people
in China and Russia are not allowed to use these platforms even though it is freely available
on the net? One thing remains the same. The Establishment likes a rigged game.
It's nasty mess and over all looms the specter of the Deep State.
1 week ago
Absolutely. Also, all this banter about Russia influence and Trump, will not change the
*fact* that Mueller did not recommend to indict Trump on the 'collusion/conspiracy' issue,
nor the 'obstruction' issue. It's fact. Fact. Meaning it can't go backwards. Meaning all the
howling and screaming is not going to change anything from that report. Mueller would have
nailed Trump to the proverbial wall if he could, but didn't, because he Just.Didn' t.Have.It .
Secondly, we have a much more serious issue. We have the Deep State who has infiltrated
our political system, to the point that they attempted a coup. Like they do in totalitarian
countries. Right here in the good ole USA.
While voters naively went to vote in 2016, the intelligence agencies coupled with the
strong arm of HRC and the DNC conspired to upend the election because they wanted their
favorite to win. And they were so sure she was going to win, that they all jumped on
it...gleefully.
They committed sedition. They all need to go to jail.
They did far more damage to this country and our laws, our Constitution, and our belief in
an honest voting system than all the Russian bots around. Add in a conspiring media, who
spewed lies and half truths and glaring omissions of facts to the American people..
What more do you folks need? This isn't about Trump. It's about the rule of law. If they
get away with this travesty, you can kiss our elections goodbye. Totalitarianism here we
come.
1 week ago (Edited)
"You can kiss our elections goodbye"
I did that back in 2004 when our voting system turned into a Black Box with
moronic/ignorant government officials overseeing a cabal of opportunistic, conflict of
interest ridden, behind-closed-doors contractors, running a back door littered, populace
duping sham.
1 week ago
How about December 12, 2000, when the Supreme Court lawlessly intervened to hand the
presidency to Bush and the entire political establishment submitted with barely a peep? That
was a judicial coup, and we cannot escape the consequences.
1 week ago
Yes. That, too.
But now we have stinging evidence that the coup was attempted and they used false
information to obtain FISAs to unmask people in their scheme to get Trump to take him
down.
I don't like Trump. But I will stick up for any President who is duly elected by the
people. For the people, by the people, of the people. Anyone who tries to take away our
rights because THEY feel they are arbiters of who becomes President, needs to have their
proverbial heads on a platter. Put orange suits on all of them, and let them ponder about
their stupidity and arrogance behind bars.
And that goes also for Missy Hillary, the ringleader.
1 week ago
Understatement of the year - hell, the millennia:
The Deep State has entered into mainstream American politics. We know it is there and that
it is a potent threat to American self rule, far more dangerous than Russia or any of the
external challenges.
The U.S. Deep State most likely did that in November, 1963, and has been
ensconced in power ever since.
1 week ago
They dont even hide it anymore.Heck they are out front cheer leading this ruse...How do
criminals like Brennan and Clapper and Haden get jobs at MSNBC and CNN?
They belong in prison.
1 week ago
The classic rumor I remember was the Russians employing a killer whale with a bear trap
attached as an anti-personnel device esp. against SEAL types.
1 week ago
We need to address the Clientelist War Wing of the Dem Party that has formed an ugly
alliance with our intelligence apparatus, before we can even start confronting Trump.Repeat
after me, "The Russiagate Spin has actually worked in Trump's favor"..
Chomsky: "By Focusing On Russia, Democrats Handed Trump A "Huge Gift" And Possibly The
2020 Election"
Did Trump lie the world into wars?
That madman wanted to work with Russia and not start WW3.....
That madman wanted to pull out of Syria and Afghanistan and make peace with N korea
That madman hasnt started any new wars and wouldn't be in Venezuela if not for Russia
gate.
Trump is lot of unsavory thing but the real madmen are the people who pushed this
Russiagte ruse and another Cold War with Russia based on lies and there is this....
The Mueller Report Indicts the Trump-Russia Conspiracy Theory The real Russiagate scandal
is the damage it has done to our democratic system and media. By Aaron Maté
Since, as Woody Allen once famously observed 90% of life is just showing up, I might
recommend you'd have a better sense of accomplishment if you didn't waste all your time on an
internet comment board. Then maybe you could earn some kind of descriptive label beyond TDS
victim.
1 week ago
THIS:
This dead end conspiracy theory is the only weapon Trump will have in 2020 and he will use
it mercilessly. Provided him by clowns like you.
Russiagters have handed Donald Trump a pretty package going into the 2020
election. Now he can accurately say the establishment media and Democrats traffic in
conspiracies and delusional lies. That he is also a deluded lying freak won't destroy the
value of the gift -- delivered with a big lovely bow called the Mueller Report.
1 week ago (Edited)
Even if every accusation, every hyped news story, every rumour of the Russian
"interference" in the US election, an "interference" that we are bizarrely told did not
influence the outcome of the election, were true, it would amount to an existential madness
by a species whose "sell by" date has long passed on this planet.
Prove that Russian "interference," as opposed to Israeli or Saudi or every other
interference, influenced the results of an election where lobbies and billionaires hold sway,
where political party corruption determines the candidate, where the loser refuses to concede
the results, where local corruption and disenfranchisement determine state results, where
corporations are considered human beings and where Americans cannot vote directly for
President in an undemocratic system and you will have grounds to fulfill the wish of
blindered journalists like James Risen whose unwitting obsession is to extinguish human life
on Earth, a consequence that, truth be told, is only conditionally negative.
1 week ago
More embarrassing, paranoid nonsense from Intercept's house Russiagater, James Risen. I
usually skim the works of Risen, just to make sure he's still as lunatic as ever. This is the
line that sums up the entire laughably dangerous farrago of Risen-think above:
"Manafort and Butina may have been on two sides of a complex new kind of spy game that few
outsiders understand."
Boy, you got that right, James. C'mon, Mr. Insider, explain it to us Outsiders again.
1 week ago
The first casualty of Russia's sprawling spy game seems to have been the mental health of
large swathes of America's 4th Estate.
Just because Sergei Millain is Johnny Foreigner (or Ivan Foreigner if you prefer), it
doesn't follow he is in Putin's pocket.
Sergei Millain offered money to George Papadopolous for the sole reason of justifying the
FBI's FISA warrant. Because Papadopolous refused Millain's offer they had to claim they
believed he was an agent of Israel.
1 week ago
Stephen F. Cohen: Mueller Probe Hysteria Endangers National Security By Preventing Trump
From Talking With Russia
And the Rachel Maddow prize for investigative conspiracy theorising goes to...
1 week ago
The point of these articles is not to make Liberals hate Trump, it is to make liberals
hate Russia. Why is that? Why did Obama and his admin, including Neocons Susan Powers, Susan
Rice, Victoria Nuland and Billary Clinton want to create a new cold war. Of all the nations
to be worried about influencing our elections, Russia is way down on the list.
Just embarrassing. Come out and say it. You are a voice for the lobbies and special
interests
1 week ago
When can we expect Mr. Risen's series of articles about Israel's documented and
undocumented interference in our elections, ongoing spy campaign and/or (much) worse?
We await with bated breath.
1 week ago
LOL. James Risen article with "Russia" in headline. Stopped reading went straight to
comments.
1 week ago
Same. Risen is a one-dimensional hack.
1 week ago
"Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
The above statement completely negates any impact from Risen's article, as the entire
wretched thing is innuendo.
1 week ago
Maddow shows how Russiagate borders on clinically significance delusion:
Glenn Greenwald Verified account @ggreenwald
Maddow is claiming the Republic is existentially threatened because YouTube recommended
a show hosted by Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer-winning ex-NYT reporter, talking to @aaronjmate,
Izzy Award winner, all because it's hosted on RT. Both have more journalistic achievements
then she. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1122552675445420032
1 week ago (Edited)
Jesus Christ.....rather than let the Bush era neocon/rightwing nonsense peter out or
self-destruct, the so-called liberal corporate MIC/Wall Street-captured MSM and establishment
insiders have decided to fully discredit themselves too by doubling down on the Fox News
model. I doubt they or their followers really grasp the magnitude of the implications. And
they've been silent on the gubmint's big data approach to warehousing all of our
communications in any format which they've been illegally intercepting for at least two
decades. The Intercept is now silent on this, perhaps in part because of Omidyar's
conflicting financial interests.
Sadly, or perhaps mercifully, we will be put out of our collective misery by the AI
killer-bot army that will begin to exert its control within the next 10 years.
1 week ago
Watch Aaron Maté Destroy Russiagate Propagandist and "Collusion" Author Luke
Harding
What Risen is really proposing is that Obama ignored all this even while spying on
everyone
Thats called logic
1 week ago
Yes and No.
Risen, like a lot people I believe, is simply unable to accept the hard, cold reality that
his neighbors, friends, countrymen ~ Americans ~ actually, truly voted for the creature from
the black lagoon. It's too painful. The mind reels.
*therefore, in Risen's mind, Putin did it.
1 week ago
"The mind reels. *therefore, in Risen's mind, Putin did it."
This is true for a great many. I had my own rather severe emotional crisis in the weeks
after the 2016 election -- and a close friend who is a therapist reported that this was
virtually all that most of her clients wanted to discuss.
Fear and shock do odd things to the mind. None of us is immune, some just got particularly
afflicted and along came Russiagate into which to direct their distorted and distressed
minds.
1 week ago
If regurgitating the same theme over and over again is the game for Mr. Risen, well, we
can all play at that game, can't we? Here, however, is a fact-based narrative that nobody on
any side of Russiagate seems to want to discuss, not the RT-sector, not the
billionaire-foundation neoliberal sector (Intercept fits in here), the corporate
shareholder-military-industrial sectors (MSNBC, Fox, etc.). It's really very strange.
One of the more fundamental flaws in the Russiagate story that's important to understand
is that Trump really hasnʼt changed direction on the core US policy towards Russia - the
evidence for that is Trumpʼs assault on the Nordstream 2 pipeline deal that would bring
Russian gas to Germany via an undersea pipeline across the Baltic, bypassing Ukraine (which
is basically now a US client state, since the 2014 coup). That's been US policy on Russia
since about 2003, unchanged under Bush, Obama, and Trump - it's about who gets to sell gas to
Europe and oil to the world, basically, and where the money from those sales is parked.
What the likes of Risen will not go into is how the US and Wall Street had a positive view
of Putin up till about 2003. Steve Collʼs Private Empire: ExxonMobil and American Power
outlines the break point in US-Russian relations, when ExxonMobil tried to acquire a majority
interest in Russian oil in 2003, and Putin rejected the offer and arrested Mikhail
Khodorkovsky on tax evasion charges; thatʼs officially when Russia became the bad guy,
as he was clearly not going to become a Saudi-like partner in the global petrodollar
recycling scheme.
This opened the door to the pipeline wars over who was going to deliver oil and gas to
European markets; this was a central story in Georgia, Ukraine, Syria, and continues to this
day with the US trying to sell LNG shipments to Europe while Russia tries to build Nordstream
2 to Germany, bringing us up to today. Clearly, US fossil fuel corporations want to ship LNG
to Europe, and Nordstream 2 is competition, and Trump, like Obama is a tool of US corporate
interests who really want that market:
However, there is a confounding factor - and also, one of the main reasons to distrust the
corporate media narrative on this story - i.e. the refusal to bring ExxonMobil into the
picture. ExxonMobil has lost several billion dollars over the Russia sanctions (over oil
deals more than gas), and as a private company, really wants a piece of the Russian oil
production:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/business/energy-environment/exxon-mobil-russia-sanctions-waiveroil.html
The PR monkeys in the corporate media (including Risen & Co.) and the "humanitarians"
in the State Department wonʼt touch this story, because it reveals too much about
whatʼs really going on - i.e. that this kind of oil/gas policy by Trump is largely what
Clinton would have done (i.e. opposed Nordstream), and that the whole Russiagate story is
merely political theater run on behalf of war profiteers and the diehard Hilllary Clinton
camp in the Democratic Party. Everything else - Manfort in the Ukraine, Trump Tower in
Moscow, etc. - is just business as usual in the American Empire, as seen in the Clinton
Foundation, Viktor Pinchuk, Uranium One, Frank Giustra, come on...
Leaving nothing but this hysterical spy game nonsense ... utter garbage, just like the
KGB-CIA private meeting rules story that Risen hyped recently - pure neocon propaganda
"President Reagan and Mikhail S. Gorbachev held three more private meetings today and
agreed to conclude their conference here with a joint appearance on Thursday morning, Larry
Speakes, the White House spokesman, announced tonight. . . Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev
began their second day of talks with a private meeting that had been scheduled to last 15
minutes but ran for nearly 70 minutes, with only interpreters present. They met in a small
room in the Soviet Mission, with the Soviet leader seated in a small armchair and Mr.
Reagan on a sofa. In the afternoon, they meet alone for a little over 20 minutes and then
again for 90 minutes. All told, the two leaders have spent 4 hours and 51 minutes alone,
except for interpreters, over the two days here."
These kind of private meetings at diplomatic events are entirely not unusual. In
fact anything that gets world leaders to talk to one another is a good idea, that can lead
to, for example, talks on nuclear weapons reductions.
Risen, turned into a PR monkey for the National Security State... that's just sad. Why
don't you parachute him into Yemen so he can see up close the results of what he's
cheerleading for?
1 week ago
Not a single American voter was influenced by Russian bots. No American voter was
strong-armed in the voting booth when they voted for Trump. Hillary lost after she ignored
great swathes of ordinary working class folks and called them 'irredeemable deplorables'....
because they voted for Trump.
She didn't even have the insight to understand that they voted for him over her because
she had a smug, condescending 'tude and it rankled.
The Democrats will have to unseat Trump under a strong economy. The average American
working class stiff is not spending sleepless nights worried about climate change. They are
worried about how they will pay their bills.
All the other issues are secondary to this. Democrats will have to get up at home base and
bat it out of the ballpark. Or they will lose again. Mocking religious people, particularly
Christians, is not a good idea, unless you think denigrating voters are going to make them
want to vote for you. The contempt for these white, Christian, Catholic, Jewish voters is
wide and long within the Democrat party.
Not wise.
1 week ago
The Democrats will have to unseat Trump under a strong economy. The average American
working class stiff is not spending sleepless nights worried about climate change. They are
worried about how they will pay their bills.
Partly true, but the economy is not actually very strong. The corporate media
won't tell you this - and that is proof that they're not "liberal" in any meaningful fashion,
but the indicators are being skewed and lied about.
But keep believing your "black unemployment" at a record low propaganda as such. At least
you might be retired and the inevitable crash that is coming after Trump's re-election won't
hurt you much. In any case, if it does you can bet that Trump will attack Iran, as he is a
complete stooge to Israel and Saudi Arabia at this point - just like his swamp neocon
cabinet.
1 week ago
I think Trump is pragmatic...financially. He ran on "no more wars' that leave our economy
in shreds and killing millions of innocents and thousands of our soldiers. He was explicit
about this, so if he turn now to attacking Iran, he will have lost his head completely.
Everyone knows a war in the ME will ignite another Holocaust, Armageddon if you will. It
will be certainly, WWIII.
No, I have no idea, nor anyone else, if the economy improve or plummets, but I still
believe it is the bread and butter issues that cause the American voter to push that lever.
And they one they trust most; that they feel understand them best.
1 week ago
Borrowing one from Tom Drake though he agrees with your conclusions more than I do,
Jim.
I'm old enough to remember when Jim Risen wrote about the sprawling American spy
game.
1 week ago
Fer chrissake, Jim, give it up! You are becoming like the Japanese soldier who didn't know
World War 2 ended 20 years earlier and his side LOST!
1 week ago
Butina was "not a spy in the traditional sense," the Justice Department now says.
This is true .. . traditional spies rarely "infiltrate the NRA (National Rifle
Association)" and various associated "right wing groups".
*what could the NRA possibly have of value?
1 week ago
She wanted to sell guns and make money.....You do know the USA is the biggest arms dealer
on the planet right ?......bar none?
1 week ago
Maybe I misunderstood? Did I miss the irony? I thought he was saying that Butina was a
Russian spy? And her association with the NRA was a link to that? Putin is vociferously
against gun rights and she was under constant surveillance from Putin.
1 week ago
Heres another unanswered question....
Why did the FBI allow a private company with proved Bias against Russia and worked for the
DNC to investigate the servers?......Wasnt this a crime scene and then hacking was blamed on
Russia based on this bogus and biased investigation?
"Both the DNC and the security firm Crowdstrike, hired to respond to the breach, have said
repeatedly over the years that they gave the FBI a "COPY"of all the DNC images back in 2016."
"The FBI was given" IMAGES" of servers, forensic "COPIES", as well as a host of other
forensic information we collected from our systems," said Adrienne Watson, the DNC's deputy
communications director.
"We were in close contact and worked cooperatively with the FBI and were always responsive
to their requests. Any suggestion that they were denied access to what they wanted for their
investigation is completely incorrect." The FBI declined comment for this story, but in
testimony before the House Intelligence Committee last year, then-director James Comey said
that Crowdstrike "ultimately shared with us their forensics.
"At that same hearing, Comey complained that the DNC didn't give the FBI direct access to
the DNC's servers" Comey: DNC denied FBI's requests for access to hacked servers
By Joe Lauria The two sources that originated the allegations claiming that Russia meddled
in the 2016 election -- without providing convincing evidence -- were both paid for by the
Democratic National Committee, and in one instance also by the Clinton campaign: the Steele
dossier and the CrowdStrike analysis of the DNC servers.
They always forget the disclaimer: "No animals were harmed in the writing of this story,
only humans."
1 week ago
You know what they are still pushing this right?.......to get Assange and criminalize real
journalism.
They have already tried to tie Assange to Stone....who is a liar and fraud
And they need this ruse to tie Assange to Russia and Trumps election....its about
criminalizing journalism and overturning a USA election.
1 week ago (Edited)
"Manafort and Butina may have been on two sides of a complex new kind of spy game that few
outsiders understand." - Risen
If that's so, why aren't you busting the chops of Mueller and our "intelligence"
agencies for not doing their job? Hell, the Mueller report cost more than the Russians
allegedly spent to influene both our election and Trump.
Also, specifically regarding Butina, who was actually quite overt in her activities during
the years preceding this imbroglio, the only "conspiracy" seems to be the "conspiracy" to act
as an agent for a foreign government (which is not being a "spy") and which has never
garnered this type of charge or sentencing based on the evidence that existed or what was
actually presented at trial.
It's this ongoing Russiagate hysteria that The Intercept, via Risen, Reed, Schwarz, et al
keep promoting for all the wrong reasons that gives us a world where journalists and
publishers like Assange are facing jail time in a foreign country; where Chelsea Manning is
in jail right now for refusing to cooperate with charades like this; and where harmless
foreigners like Butina are tortured in solitary confinement, then sentenced to prison by
misusing the law in order to punish them.
How in the world can the article here even approach the Intercepts own standards
of: "holding the powerful accountable...[with] in-depth investigations and unflinching
analysis..." when it starts with an unverified premise that hasn't been corroborated
independently and ends with the exact same theme?
"[Russiagate is] a complex new kind of spy game that few outsiders understand." - Risen
& The Intercept editors
Again - this type of "journalism" is what prevents me and many others from donating to
The Intercept. We simply won't pay for elaborate and unqualified hearsay.
1 week ago
Real journalism... The Spy who Wasnt
The U.S. government went looking for someone to blame for Russia's interference in the
2016 election -- and found Maria Butina, the perfect scapegoat. By James Bamford
But internally, some employees say Greenwald's presence undermines the site's work.
"People assume Glenn's tweets reflect some sort of internal consensus, but the truth is I
don't think there's a single other person here who agreed with him on Trump/Russia," says
one Intercept staffer. "I'd hope people don't view us as less legitimate just because of
one guy."
No they view TI as less legit because of James Risen, Mehdi Hasan, Juan
Thompson, Betsy Reed, and Beto Mackey.
Exactly...
1 week ago
The last sentence mentioning Manafort and Butina is unsettling.
Already Manafort, an acknowledged operative for hire, got the shaft.
Risen bringing in Butina, who already spent a good time in solitary confinement smells really
bad.
She got no justice.
She is the new symbol of mind-boggling Russophobia.
1 week ago
"Risen bringing in Butina, who already spent a good time in solitary confinement smells
really bad. She got no justice."
It really is a travesty of justice. James Bamford published this in The New Republic:
"The Russian Spy Who Wasn't: The U.S. government went looking for someone to blame for
Russia's interference in the 2016 election -- and found Maria Butina, the perfect
scapegoat."https://newrepublic.com/article/153036/maria-butina-profile-wasnt-russian-spy
Prosecutors were hoping to get her to plead guilty rather than go to trial, and had even
agreed to drop the major charge against her: acting as an unregistered foreign agent of
Russia. Born and raised in Siberia, she is terrified of solitary confinement. Fifteen days
later, still in solitary, she signed the agreement, pleading guilty to the lesser charge,
one count of conspiracy. During our interviews before her arrest, Butina told me
that she was "a huge fan" of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. "I love the story," she
said. "For some reason it fascinates me. It seems to be simple, but it's so complicated a
story." Stepping off the plane to begin grad school at the start of the Trump-Russia
maelstrom, she, like Alice, began her tumble down the rabbit hole.
1 week ago
It is mind boggling. I would expect a man of Risen' s experience to have the nous to start
rowing back now. Instead he's doubling down, getting wilder, allowing the very last vestiges
of his credibility to circle the drain. Very sad to witness.
1 week ago
Maybe he is crying for help....his hysteria and hyperbole are almost comical.
the deep state seems to have gotten him and good
1 week ago
It's reminiscent of what Risen did to Mr Wen Ho Lee who also served time in solitary and
did so because Risen had singled him out to be the spy of the century.
Ultimately Risen's former employer, The New York Times, apologized for their coverage of
Lee but that may have had something to do with Lee's lawsuit against the Times and other
major outlets in which he ultimately won.
But having a 1.3 million in legal fees, loss of his job, 9 months in solitary, reputation
obliterated does make the 1.6 million award seem merely symbolic. Risen's career continued
and now he's doing the same thing to others here. In this country, scoundrels are rewarded
while their victims suffer more under the system.
Butina's treatment under our "justice" system is even worse than Lee's and being a non
citizen, she may have fewer recourse available to her to address this injustice.
1 week ago
Democrats didnt protest when Obama tortured Manning to try to get her to lie about
Assange....this is the new normal
Washington Has Destroyed Western Liberty: The Era of Tyranny Has Begun
"The entire Western world is adopting Washington's approach to Assange and criminalizing
the practice of journalism, thus protecting governments' criminality. If you reveal a
government crime, as Wikileaks did, you will be prosecuted by the criminal government for
doing so. It is like permitting a criminal to prosecute the police and prosecutor who want
him arrested."
The "war on terror" was a disguise for an attack on the US Constitution, an attack that
has succeeded. The worst act of treason in history is the US government's destruction of the
US Constitution. The era of tyranny has begun. Elections cannot stop it. "
Risen is desperately trying to revive his career by reanimating this Russia zombie.
His sprawling narrative has gone from "Trump committed treason" to "Trump conspired" to
"Trump and co made illicit contacts". At each step, what has motivated the change in
narrative is cold hard reality.
He's a grifter. We can all see this.
1 week ago
Risen is right that there are plenty of unanswered questions. Just not the ones he is
asking
Special Counsel Mueller: Disingenuous and Dishonest Larry C. Johnson "The impetus, the
encouragement for the Moscow project came from one man -- Felix Sater. This produced nothing.
No deal, no trip. But Sater persisted, targeting Michael Cohen, Trump's personal lawyer and
an executive in the Trump Organization To reiterate -- if the Steele Dossier were based on
truthful intelligence then the Trump Organization only had to sit back, stretch out its hands
and seize the moment. Instead, little Felix Sater keeps coming back to the well. "Why was
Felix Sater the one repeatedly identified pushing to arrange deals with the Russians and yet
did not face any subsequent charges by the Mueller team? Sater had been working as part of
the Trump team since 2003. Why is it that the proposed deals and travel to Moscow came
predominantly from Felix Sater? As I noted in my previous piece -- The FBI Tried and Failed
to Entrap Trump -- Sater was an active FBI undercover informant. He had been working with the
FBI since 1998. When he agreed to start working as an undercover informant aka cooperator in
December 1998 guess who signed off on the deal? Andrew Weissman, a member of Mueller's
special counsel team.You can see the deal here.
It was signed Dec. 10, 1998." "An honest prosecutor would have and should have disclosed this
fact. He, Sater, was the one encouraging the Trump team to cozy up to Russia. Mueller does
not disclose one single instance of Trump or Cohen or any of the Trump kids calling Sater on
the carpet and chewing his ass for not bringing them deals and not opening doors in Russia.
Omitting this key fact goes beyond simple disingenuity. It is a conscious lie. The
circumstantial evidence indicates that Sater was doing this at the behest of FBI handlers. We
do not yet know who they are."
Larry C. Johnson is a former CIA analyst and counterterrorism official at the State
Department.
1 week ago
Stefan Halper was also an FBI 'player' who was feeding information to Papadopoulos, and
Joseph Midsuf, Alexander Downer and Christopher Steele were also working for the Brits and
American intelligence groups (although the FBI cut off paying Steele for lying to them).
Natalya Veselnitskaya was the Russian lawyer who met with the Trump people. She had meetings
with Fusion GPS both before and after her meetings with Trump's campaign, and since Fusion
GPS was also working with the Ohrs and FBI/Justice department with the Kremlin dossier, it
seems Russiagate was an elaborate entrapment scheme by the DNC/ Obama administration that
failed. Once Hillary stated that Trump was a Putin puppet, that made it official and the
wheels started turning.
Moreover as Risen notes Manafort and Kelly went to jail for lying under oath. Mueller lied
under oath about WMD in Iraq, and Clapper and Brennan also lied under oath about illegally
surveilling Americans. Hopefully they'll also be in jail soon.
1 week ago
Dont hold your breath.....Criminals are now in complete control.No matter how much "evidence" is provided there is no
consequence for them.
ask Bush and Cheney who lied the world into war.....and worse.....
Clapper and Brennan and Haden and Haskel were all promoted FOR LYING....{As was
Mueller.}.. and even given jobs on MSNBC and CNN........!!
Apparently the more heinous the crime the higher you get in the USA government.Isnt that
the only lesson here?And democrats are the cheerleader for the Bush criminals?
I afraid the only people who will see the inside of a jail cell are the ones who go
against them....and they are being purged from the internet left and right!!
1 week ago
The real sprawling Russian spy games were on the democrats side.
The bogus Steele Dossier was compiled from top Russian government officials and used to
illegally spy on the Trump campaign.
Halper a FBI Informant in the U.K. pushed Trump advisors to seek out dirt on Hillary as
did FBI Informant Felix Sater
The Russian lawyer who met with Trump jr worked for Fusion GPS and had nothing.
The FBI never saw the servers but used the company that worked for the DNC and has proved
anti Russia bias to do the "investigation "
Wasnt this a crime scene?
Now all the "evidence " of Russian "hacking " is tainted and can't be used in any trials
or court.
Both Assange and Ambassador Craig Murray say that it was a leak and not a hack and neither
of them have ever been interviewed by the FBI even though they both offered to.
Worse than Watergate and it went to the very Top!
FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
Thats the only spy games and Russian collusion that can be proved.
1 week ago
So, Mike5000, why do you think millions of Democratic-leaning and Democratic voters
didn't turn out to vote for Hillary Clinton? Was it all the "Buff Bernie" coloring books St.
Petersberg trolls were pitching on FB?
1 week ago
Mueller is a bush criminal who hates Trump
FBI texts: Obama 'wants to know everything we're doing'
A rather significant "unanswered question" that predates Trump slightly is why Obama
didn't initiate both investigation and counter measures to attempts he claimed had been going
on for years .... (because the internet is porous and hackers will hack, regardless of
"motive" (like the bear and the mountain**) or even reward.
** The bear went over the mountain to see what he could see.
1 week ago
Risen omitting the fact that Manafort was working with the Podesta Group seems quite the
oversight.
Obama and Biden were well aware of Manaforts efforts in the Ukraine. Manafort was working
against Russian interests. Remember that the USA backed a coup in the Ukraine with Nazis with
PNAC Victoria " F the EU" Nuland support. Manafort's pro-Ukraine lobbying campaign reached
Obama, Biden
"Alan Friedman, a former journalist based in Europe who helped Manafort launch the group,
told Manafort after the meeting that the member of the Hapsburg Group "delivered the message
of not letting 'Russians steal Ukraine from the West,'" prosecutors say."
What the USA did in the Ukraine was the real crime.
1 week ago
yes, Trump in a crook, a conman, a liar and a racist and is oddly "collateral damage", a
bit part, in this passion play that began when Putin took office and eventually took the
reins to the Russian economy back from the wanna-be American rulers of the universe. I
saw/heard a day or so ago a brilliant Max Blumental 3 minute oral summary of this ongoing
vendetta against Putin for thwarting American interests in gutting Russia.
There probably is a real scandal here ... just not the one the media is interested in
...
1 week ago
Exactly!!
Putin dares to fight back against the looting and starvation of the Russian people.
Start here
The usual suspects
Can We Blame Larry Summers for the Collapse of Russia?
Man, this Risen guy sure has a serious case of TDS.
GIVE IT UP, RISEN; THERE'S NO GOOD REASON TO TREAT RUSSIA AS AN ENEMY, and LOTS of good
reasons NOT to!
It's called THERMONUCLEAR WAR, silly.
Don't beat the drum of war with them, you just might get it!
1 week ago
Trump couldn't even get the tower project through and never talked to anyone above a
secretary and asked Stone to connect with Wikileaks
If he was at all colluding with Putin he wouldn't have needed Wikileaks
All Logic has disappeared from these people.
1 week ago
Russian ruling class oligarchs colluding with American ruling class oligarchs? Oh so
unbelievable! Ties and lies --- shocking, just shocking. I'm sure we will have the
oligarchy-owned mainstream media to black this rumor out and telling us it just ain't so.
1 week ago
Much of this is being pushed by the olygarchs Putin kicked out!
They went to the UK and USA and are working to depose Putin.
1 week ago
The problem with your thinking is that the American oligarchs hate Trump, and loved
Hillary, while the Russian oligarchs hate the American oligarchs because the American
oligarchs want to crush them.
And the best way for AMERICAN oligarchs to keep the American public from voting in an
antiTrump (not a pseudoliberal of the Clinton and Obama type, but an ACTUAL liberal of the
MLK type, whose antioligarch stances have been almost edited away) is to divert attention
away from the flaws in the American system he lays bare (the cheating, thieving, and racism
endemic amongst the oligarchs) is to create a 'hidden enemy of the people' (The same tactic
that a certain short Austrian used in Germany)
1 week ago
Like the one Israeli govt has been doing, especially as uncovered in the Al Jazeera
documentary?
In the end, Mueller's investigators could not find evidence that Manafort coordinated his
actions with the sophisticated Russian cybercampaign to help Trump win. But the report
makes clear that there were many instances in which Mueller wasn't able to get to the
bottom of things and often couldn't determine the whole story behind the Trump-Russia
contacts.
For whatever reason, the pro-Trump narrative leaves out the fact that Mueller
was repeatedly stonewalled or lied to by members of the Trump team.
I think they leave out this crucial bit of information because they think it's fine for
their side to lie, dissemble and stonewall investigations, but not for the
other side. It's hypocritical and a double standard, but it's worse than that because it
makes clear that lying, stonewalling and all the rest is OK and getting away with it is
admirable -- depending of course on who gets away with it. If it's Trump,
whoo-hoo! If it's Hillary or Obama, booooooooo! These are examples of pure
partisanship but the process extends well beyond political calculations.
Risen, of all people, should be all too familiar with the process, as he was very deeply
involved as a reporter and conduit of misinformation and scapegoating in the Wen Ho Lee
debacle. A reporter is in a tough position when s/he is lied to and stonewalled, but as I
often say, "skepticism is a virtue," regardless of who is doing the lying and
stonewalling.
Instead of normalizing this behavior, we should be refusing to accept the lack of
accountability by our leaders, whoever they are, and we should reject a double standard that
encourages impunity and immunity depending on one's status.
1 week ago
"Manafort coordinated his actions with the sophisticated Russian cybercampaign to
help Trump win."
Yes, we know your pro-Trump narrative is one of denial about what was going on during the
2016 campaign and what is documented in the Mueller Report -- which itself is incomplete.
Yes, it's objectively "pro-Trump" to have panic attacks about Facebook ads advising that
Jesus will help masturbating young lads "beat it together." pfffft
Oh, I'm sure Kellyanne is deeply concerned about the dread scourge of masturbating
American youth. Just so long as she doesn't also support the dire Russian threats Risen
alludes to, the ones that seek to exploit those poor suffering, self-abusing children of god.
Lured to the Kremlin's lair by Yosemite Sam!
1 week ago
If you ever bother to read the report -- or even if you have more than superficial
memories of what was going on during the 2016 election campaign -- you'll find out that your
continued denials are simply stupid. You really should be skeptical of the White House's
spin, Greenwald's triumphalism, Maté's authority, and yes, Mueller's incomplete
report.
Laugh while you can. Blowback is a bitch.
1 week ago
A wee-tad over the top, Felix
phase two of the Kubler Ross "Five Stages of Grief".
Sadly, there is no one in the Cult of Mueller who can help you.
You need to understand that many good progressives contend that Russiagate actually served
Trump; so, please chill it.
1 week ago
Whut? You're really out of your depth.
Reread:
You really should be skeptical of the White House's spin, Greenwald's triumphalism,
Maté's authority, and yes, Mueller's incomplete report.
Then tell me again about the Cult of Mueller.
Mona, Glenn, Barr, Trump and many others like to mischaracterize what's in the Mueller
Report in order to keep their "exoneration" narrative going. They would be delighted if Trump
were kept in the White House after the 2020 election. If they can celebrate his
invincibility, so much the better.
Whether or not the myriad investigations into Trump's corruption and criminality are
helping him is beside the point.
If he didn't have the kind of help he needs from the right people who matter, whether
media, politicians, billionaires or the smartest people in the room, he wouldn't be in
office. So long as those people are happy enough with Trump, he stays, no matter what the
Dems do or don't do.
"Progressives" have no say in the matter.
Well, maybe except for that "progressive" named "Pierre."
Have a nice day.
1 week ago
Now see, Felix, this is no the product of a temperate mind with a capacity for sound
reasoning:
Mona, Glenn, Barr, Trump and many others like to mischaracterize what's in the Mueller
Report in order to keep their "exoneration" narrative going. They would be delighted if
Trump were kept in the White House after the 2020 election.
I've read the Mueller Report -- parts of it multiple times. Nothing therein salvages the
Russian trolls as anything but the silly, financially motivated goofballs my quotes of
their adolescent output show them to be. That you take their childish junk with the
utmost seriousness suggests disturbing things about your emotional health.
1 week ago
Guess what? I don't believe you have read the report. I think you're lying again. If you
think the only thing Mueller describes Russian interests doing is buying a few ads on
Facebook (just as Jared was saying the other day) you couldn't have read it, nor could you
have any memory at all what was taking place during the 2016 campaign.
Losing one's mind to perpetuate a false narrative is a terrible thing. Watching your
deterioration as Mueller's report makes mincemeat of your pathetic revisionism and Glenn's
triumphalism is sad.
1 week ago
This is...like arguing evolution with a creationist fundamentalist:
"Watching your deterioration as Mueller's report makes mincemeat of your pathetic
revisionism and Glenn's triumphalism is sad."
"Mueller describes Russian interests doing is buying a few ads on Facebook"
Like what, and please be specific about the three most serious.
1 week ago
What happened during the campaign was Hillary Clinton picked Trump and cheated Sanders and
conspired with the FBI and DOJ to blackmail and illegally spy on the Trump campaign and put
moles in his campaign and with the help of Fusion GPS and FBI informants Halper I'm the UK
and Felix Sater pushed meetings with Russians.
Not a mention of Fusion GPS and the bogus Steele Dossier that the FBI used to lie to the
FISA court and illegally spy on Trump campaign.
Thats quite the omission.
We need to get Steele and Halper and Fusion GPS CEO under oath to testify.
1 week ago
None of the " lies" had anything to do with Russia collusion.Most of the "Lies" didn't
even have an underlying crime.
Gen Flynn didn't lie but they did bankrupt him and blackmail him and destroy his life.And
got him to plea guilty to make it stop.
Comey Told Congress FBI Agents Didn't Think Flynn Lied
In the end, Mueller's investigators could not find evidence that Manafort coordinated his
actions with the sophisticated Russian cybercampaign to help Trump win.
Narrator: "Risen never mentioned in his piece that Manafort was found in
the investigation to have been working with the Ukrainian government, trying to get them to
move away from Russia, and embrace the West in economic policies. That the reality of what
Manafort was doing undercut the core Russiagate allegation that Manafort was working as a
go-between for Russia and Trump didn't seem to perturb Risen one bit."
The report doesn't offer any other explanation for the release of the Podesta emails on
what turned out to be one of the most important days of the 2016 campaign.
Narrator: "Risen seems to argue that, in the absence of any evidence that
his conspiracy theory is true, the absence of any counter-explanation is nonetheless evidence
in favor of his conspiracy theory."
1 week ago
"In the end, Mueller's investigators could not find evidence [of] the sophisticated Russian
cybercampaign to help Trump win."
It's garbage journalism that allows this uncorroborated assertion to take
what has always been the first step in the downward spiral of hysteria that is Russiagate.
Everything that follows this argument is based on this claim being true. Without this
claim there would be no Russiagate.
Again, it's journalistic malpractice to allow this claim to remain unchallenged - yet Jim
Risen, Jon Schwarz, and the Intercept editorial staff just continue the ruse.
I'm not saying it didn't happen; I'm saying there's not enough independent
corroboration to allow for the amount of coverage here (of all places) and elsewhere
based on the single-source- consensus (our intelligence agencies) that this continues to
receive.
Is The Intercept is buying into the gateway drug of "Russia Attacks!" because they either
want to be "fair and balanced" or they want the traffic generated by the articles to attract
readership?
Creating content that, whatever the subject, 1) assumes an allegation to be true, 2)
posits further possible outcomes based on that assumption is not journalism, it's reading tea
leaves.
Aaron reports he's been blackballed from this site since his one piece (on Rachel Maddow
and Russigate) in 2017. (Scahill had Aaron on a podcast, but the site refused to publish
anything Aaron submitted.) Instead we get the dreck above, notwithstanding that Aaron won
an Izzy Award for his Russigate reporting.
1 week ago
Greenwald extensively addresses the dynamics with his Intercept colleagues -- and with the
world of journalism more broadly -- in this podcast with Michael Tracey from a few days ago:
"Glenn Greenwald on Mueller Report fallout and media corruption - Glennzilla shares his
insights on the horrendous conduct of the American media in relation to the spellbindingly
deluded fallout from the Mueller Report."https://www.patreon.com/posts/26365124
1. RUSSIAGATE WITHOUT RUSSIA
2. RUSSIAGATE'S PREDICATE LED NOWHERE
3. SERGEY KISLYAK HAD "BRIEF AND NON-SUBSTANTIVE" INTERACTIONS WITH THE TRUMP CAMP
4. TRUMP TOWER MOSCOW HAD NO HELP FROM MOSCOW
5. AND TRUMP DIDN'T ASK COHEN TO LIE ABOUT IT
6. THE TRUMP TOWER MEETING REALLY WAS JUST A "WASTE OF TIME"
7. MANAFORT DID NOT SHARE POLLING DATA TO MEDDLE IN THE US ELECTION
8. THE STEELE DOSSIER WAS FICTION
9. THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN HAD NO SECRET CHANNEL TO WIKILEAKS
10. THERE WAS NO COVER-UP
About Point 1, Aaron writes:
The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin
representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador
and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a
conspiracy (more on them later).
It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government
officials and prominent Russian businessmen began trying to make inroads into the new
administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call.
These powerful Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and
struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect." If top Russians
did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they
supposedly conspired with, perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.
This podcast interview with Lisa Pease on her new 500-page primary-sourced book, A Lie Too
Big To Fail, on the RFK assassination, is fascinating, sobering, terrifying.
It should put to rest any notion that US elections have fundamentally mattered since 1963.
Amazing the stuff the CIA pulled off in quick succession in the 60's. Also did not yet know
the likely Israel connection in the RFK assassination and the convenient framing of Sirhan
Sirhan as "the first Palestinian terrorist..." RFK was according to Pease going to demand
that Israel register its lobbying actions, and other connections to the six-day war also
noted by interviewers...
Laurent Guyénot has some good pieces at Unz Review on this topic. I don't think I
can post a link to Unz here, but this piece covers both JFK and Bobby: "Did Israel Kill
the Kennedys?" It shouldn't be hard to find over there, the search is good.
The incentive for Israel to kill JFK was large. Bobby was running for the presidency in
order to reopen the investigation. Apparently the Kennedy family has never forgotten. John F.
Kennedy, Jr was grooming himself for that same presidential run. He was killed when his small
plane crashed, mysteriously.
Thanks for that reference to the laurent guyenot piece. It holds together very well as a
unified account of the JFK and RFK murders and contains several bits of info about the JFK
assassination I was not aware of. It would seem to me that if we accept that Israel was
behind both assassinations it must have been with *at least* the foreknowledge of and likely
cooperation with certain elements within the CIA. The extent of direct CIA involvement in the
RFK murder is likely (and surprisingly for most) easier to demonstrate than in the earlier
JFK killing; and that makes sense, given Johnson's complicity in the murder and five-years of
state cover up. By 1968, many people in the CIA had almost as much to fear as Israel did at
the prospect of RFK's reinvestigating his brother's murder, so that the RFK was likely a
joint operation between the two groups. At least I find it hard to imagine that the CIA was
not actively involved in the latter. I also--and here perhaps I differ from
Guyénot--do not believe that *if* elements of the CIA were involved in either murder
it was only or largely due to these same elements having ties to Israel. Perhaps this is so;
but I think it is likely not. Good ole American evil existed before foreign Zionist evil and,
while
the two have often been inextricably linked since the mid 20th-century, I do not think either
finally reduces to the other. I say this not because I believe you think this, but only to
try to articulate my one quibble with Guyenot's approach. Yet it is a very minor quibble and
I thank you again for pointing me to her work.
"... "What if you substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me). ..."
"... "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller investigation into possible collusion with Israel?" ..."
"... The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller pulled the plug, I can’t say. ..."
Second hour: Journalist and TV host Ken Meyercord (also based in Washington, DC)
writes:
"I attended an event at the Brookings Institution yesterday on the Mueller Report. As is
sadly customary at DC think tanks, the panelists and the moderator were all of one mind.
Nevertheless, one panelist, a former US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia (a
court notorious for rubber-stamping any charge the government brings against those who
disrupt the smooth functioning of our foreign policy apparatus), made a curious analogy,
arguing that the contacts Trump and his associates had with Russians would be culpable even
if the contacts were with some other, less hostile country:
His remark got me to thinking, so in the Q & A I sought to ask him "What if you
substituted 'Israel' for 'Russia'?" (The moderator, who apparently knows me, had to look
right at me with my hand raised whenever he called on someone but never called on me).
I don't know what his response would have been; but if he said it would still apply, I
would have followed up with "Has there ever been an investigation on the scale of the Mueller
investigation into possible collusion with Israel?"
"The more I think about it, the more intriguing I find Mr. Rosenberg's remark. He seemed
to think the sheer number of contacts by Trump folks with Russians proved culpability. It
might be interesting to compare Trump's contacts with the Russians during the campaign with
his contacts with Israelis. I suspect the latter were more numerous and of greater
significance. Certainly, Trump's acts as President would seem to indicate he's more
Netanyahu's puppet than Putin's: moving the embassy to Jerusalem, cutting off aid to the
Palestinians, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Imagine if Putin
proposed naming a village in Russia after Trump in appreciation, as Netanyahu has proposed
doing in the Golan Heights!
"P.S. Ueli Maurer is the President of the Swiss Confederation."
The entire Western media is the enemy of the people. The Demogangsters and the mediocrats,
Public Enemy #1, were angry that Trump won the election, so they fabricated a scam called
contacts with Russians.
They are saying that Trump and his people talked to the Russians as private citizens
before the election, so it is illegal.
What? Talking to Russians is illegal? Really? Says who?
They will not tell you the law that was allegedly broken, because the law that was
allegedly broken itself is illegal.
It is the Logan Act which “criminalizes negotiations by unauthorized persons with
foreign governments having a dispute with the United States.”
Only in America—the criminal Democrats have investigated an innocent man for a
non-existent crime of violating an unconstitutional law.
While I would not say this happens only in America, this sort of thing is actually
long-standing policy in the US. As long ago as 1944 in Wickard vs. Filburn, the Democrat
Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man for not merely raising food on his own land, but
for failing to offer the food for sale, on the rationale that the non-sale affected
Interstate Commerce as much as if he had offered it for sale. Since then it has been
‘constitutional’ to find federal jurisdiction over even private vegetable gardens
grown exclusively for domestic consumption. Under this theory, even breathing oxygen places
one under federal jurisdiction because it is followed by exhaling CO2.
One of the most surprising things I discovered when I began to practice law was the fact
that no one is ‘innocent’. I.e, there is always some law somewhere that is being
‘broken’ no matter what one does, which means that if the government wants
someone, they can always convict him because the government can always find some law he has
broken. I’m speaking ironically, of course. Many of these laws should be
unconstitutional. Just don’t bet that SCOTUS will ever rule that way because, as
Gorsuch recently pronounced, “that’s all been settled.”
The surprising thing about the Mueller report is that he found nothing. That’s
impossible because when the government wants to find something, they find it. Why Mueller
pulled the plug, I can’t say.
"... Former American spies have been complaining for years that capturing the keystrokes of all people in America 24/7 produces information overload -- too much data to sift through when searching for those trying to harm our way of life. ..."
But the American intelligence community should have known. It captures all the fiber optic
communications of all people in America. This mass suspicionless surveillance is unlawful and
unconstitutional, but the leadership of our 60,000-person strong domestic spying apparatus has
persuaded every president since George H.W. Bush that all this spying keeps America safe. We
now know that it doesn't. It didn't find a single Russian spy bent on influencing the
election.
Former American spies have been complaining for years that capturing the keystrokes of
all people in America 24/7 produces information overload -- too much data to sift through when
searching for those trying to harm our way of life.
"... Well. There you have Andrew McCabe calling Rod Rosenstein a liar. Can't wait for the Inspector General's report. Apparently some doo-doo is hitting the fan. ..."
"... The FBI has history of sedition, how do you J. Edgar Hoover stayed in charge for long? The FBI (Deepthroat, Deputy Director Mark Felt) brought down Nixon by leaking to the Washing Post. This stuff going on now is part of a long standing tradition at the FBI. ..."
"... McCabe and Rosenstein are enemies within! ..."
"... When law enforcement is involved in politics that is just like banana republics and communist countries. If these people can plan to remove a Republican President they can do it to a democrat president. THAT should alarm CNN and all the democrats, but it won't. These FBI folks were acting under the orders of Obama and probably through Hillary. The FBI big-shots only work under orders they don't think on their own. ..."
"... Mccabe is a weasel beyond a doubt, and the FBI is complicit in there doing nothing about it until the fool admits to it on primetime TV for the whole world to see!! He tarnished your agency along with comey, strozk, and the other traitors. Own it FBI he is one of yours. ..."
"... The bureaunazis are so protected in their deep state they have no fear of admitting their collusion efforts against Trump. A special counsel needs to investigate the FBI and DOJ connections to Russia and Democrats. Nothing changes if no one goes to jail. These bureaunazis watch too much Game of Thrones and House of Cards. ..."
"... Mueller, while FBI Director, turned the FBI into an intelligence agency from that of a crime fighting agency. Which was then used by the political class to support their positions of power. ..."
"... Deep State poster boy. Full of hubris and entitlement. Power corrupts. ..."
"... McCabe has totally self admited for a deep state coup attempt against a duly elected president. ..."
"... So McCabe appointed himself the FBI, Pratorian Guard, to protect us against Russia? ..."
Kevin Brock, former FBI assistant director for intelligence, and Terry Turchie, former
deputy assistant director of the counterterrorism division, fire back at former FBI Director
Andrew McCabe.
Well. There you have Andrew McCabe calling Rod Rosenstein a liar. Can't wait for the
Inspector General's report. Apparently some doo-doo is hitting the fan.
The FBI has history of sedition, how do you J. Edgar Hoover stayed in charge for long?
The FBI (Deepthroat, Deputy Director Mark Felt) brought down Nixon by leaking to the Washing
Post. This stuff going on now is part of a long standing tradition at the
FBI.
When law enforcement is involved in politics that is just like banana republics and
communist countries. If these people can plan to remove a Republican President they can do it
to a democrat president. THAT should alarm CNN and all the democrats, but it won't. These FBI
folks were acting under the orders of Obama and probably through Hillary. The FBI big-shots
only work under orders they don't think on their own.
Mccabe is a weasel beyond a doubt, and the FBI is complicit in there doing nothing
about it until the fool admits to it on primetime TV for the whole world to see!! He
tarnished your agency along with comey, strozk, and the other traitors. Own it FBI he is one
of yours.
The fix was in. The bureaunazis are so protected in their deep state they have no fear of
admitting their collusion efforts against Trump. A special counsel needs to investigate the
FBI and DOJ connections to Russia and Democrats. Nothing changes if no one goes to jail.
These bureaunazis watch too much Game of Thrones and House of Cards.
Mueller, while FBI Director, turned the FBI into an intelligence agency from that of a
crime fighting agency. Which was then used by the political class to support their positions
of power. Mr Trump upset their world with his electoral victory. President Trump is hated by
the political class because he has come as the destroyer of their world.
McCabe has totally self admited for a deep state coup attempt against a duly elected
president. He should be behind bars rather than selling his book on TV. Lock up McCabe,
Rosenstein and the rest of the Deep State coup gang and DRAIN-THE-SWAMP.
Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe discussed his career, the FBI, and his firing from
the Bureau. He was interviewed by New York Times reporter Adam Goldman.
There Was Spying: NYT Admits Obama Admin Used 'Honeypot' To Spy Against Trump Campaign In
2016
My response: Why would the MSM want to get out in front of what is coming by issuing this
news story? May be they are implicated as well! Below is the list of MSM career criminals who
are facing the real possibility of jail time.
=== List of MSM Career Criminals Guilty of TREASON, SEDITION and/or SUBVERSIVE
activities!! ===
These reporters and networks have been named in the WikiLeaks to have colluded with the
DNC or Hillary campaign during the 2016 election cycle:
ABC – Cecilia Vega ABC - David Muir ABC – Diane Sawyer ABC – George Stephanoplous ABC – Jon Karl ABC – Liz Kreutz AP – Julie Pace AP – Ken Thomas AP – Lisa Lerer AURN – April Ryan Bloomberg – Jennifer Epstein Bloomberg – John Heillman Bloomberg/MSNBC – Jonathan Alter Bloomberg – Mark Halperin Buzzfeed – Ben Smith Buzzfeed – Ruby Cramer CBS – Gayle King CBS – John Dickerson CBS – Norah O'Donnell CBS – Steve Chagaris CBS – Vicki Gordon CNBC – John Harwood CNN – Brianna Keilar CNN – Dan Merica CNN – David Chailan CNN – Erin Burnett CNN – Gloria Borger CNN – Jake Tapper CNN – Jeff Zeleny CNN - Jeff Zucker CNN – John Berman CNN – Kate Bouldan CNN – Maria Cardona CNN – Mark Preston CNN – Sam Feist Daily Beast – Jackie Kucinich GPG – Mike Feldman HuffPo – Amanda Terkel HuffPo – Arianna Huffington HuffPo – Sam Stein HuffPo – Whitney Snyder LAT – Evan Handler LAT – Mike Memoli McClatchy – Anita Kumar MORE – Betsy Fisher Martin MSNBC – Alex Seitz-Wald MSNBC – Alex Wagner MSNBC – Andrea Mitchell MSNBC - Beth Fouhy MSNBC – Ed Schultz MSNBC – Joe Scarborough MSNBC – Mika Brzezinski MSNBC – Phil Griffin MSNBC – Rachel Maddow MSNBC – Rachel Racusen MSNBC – Thomas Roberts National Journal – Emily Schultheis NBC – Chuck Todd NBC – Mark Murray NBC – Savannah Gutherie New Yorker – David Remnick New Yorker – Ryan Liza NPR – Mike Oreskes NPR – Tamara Keith NY Post – Geofe Earl NYT – Amy Chozik NYT – Carolyn Ryan NYT – Gail Collins NYT – John Harwoodje NYT – Jonathan Martin NYT – Maggie Haberman NYT – Pat Healey PBS – Charlie Rose People – Sandra Sobieraj Westfall Politico – Annie Karni Politico – Gabe Debenedetti Politico – Glenn Thrush Politico – Kenneth Vogel Politico – Mike Allen Reuters – Amanda Becker Tina Brown – Tina Brown The Hill – Amie Parnes Univision – Maria-Elena Salinas Vice – Alyssa Mastramonoco Vox – Jon Allen WaPo – Anne Gearan WaPo – Greg Sargent WSJ – Laura Meckler WSJ – Peter Nicholas WSJ – Colleen McCain Nelson Yahoo – Matt Bai
"... Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization. Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies. ..."
The world is at a dangerous crossroads. The United States and its allies have launched a military adventure which threatens
the future of humanity. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East,
Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The US-NATO military agenda combines both major theater operations
as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.
America's hegemonic project is to destabilize and destroy countries through acts of war, covert operations in support of terrorist
organizations, regime change and economic warfare. The latter includes the imposition of deadly macro-economic reforms on indebted
countries as well the manipulation of financial markets, the engineered collapse of national currencies, the privatization of State
property, the imposition of economic sanctions, the triggering of inflation and black markets.
The economic dimensions of this military agenda must be clearly understood. War and Globalization are intimately related. These
military and intelligence operations are implemented alongside a process of economic and political destabilization targeting specific
countries in all major regions of World.
Neoliberalism is an integral part of this foreign policy agenda. It constitutes an all encompassing mechanism of economic destabilization.
Since the 1997 Asian crisis, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) has evolved towards a broader framework which
consists in ultimately undermining national governments' ability to formulate and implement national economic and social policies.
In turn, the demise of national sovereignty was also facilitated by the instatement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995,
evolving towards the global trading agreements (TTIP and TPP) which (if adopted) would essentially transfer state policy entirely
into the hands of corporations. In recent years, neoliberalism has extend its grip from the so-called developing countries to the
developed countries of both Eastern and Western Europe. Bankruptcy programs have been set in motion. Island, Portugal, Greece, Ireland,
etc, have been the target of sweeping austerity measures coupled with the privatization of key sectors of the national economy.
The global economic crisis is intimately related to America's hegemonic agenda. In the US and the EU, a spiralling defense budget
backlashes on the civilian sectors of economic activity. "War is Good for Business": the powerful financial groups which routinely
manipulate stock markets, currency and commodity markets, are also promoting the continuation and escalation of the Middle East war.
A worldwide process of impoverishment is an integral part of the New World Order agenda.
Beyond the Globalization of Poverty
Historically, impoverishment of large sectors of the World population has been engineered through the imposition of IMF-style macro-economic
reforms. Yet, in the course of the last 15 years, a new destructive phase has been set in motion. The World has moved beyond the
"globalization of poverty": countries are transformed in open territories,
State institutions collapse, schools and hospitals are closed down, the legal system disintegrates, borders are redefined, broad
sectors of economic activity including agriculture and manufacturing are precipitated into bankruptcy, all of which ultimately leads
to a process of social collapse, exclusion and destruction of human life including the outbreak of famines, the displacement of entire
populations (refugee crisis).
This "second stage" goes beyond the process of impoverishment instigated in the early 1980s by creditors and international financial
institutions. In this regard, mass poverty resulting from macro-economic reform sets the stage of a process of outright destruction
of human life.
In turn, under conditions of widespread unemployment, the costs of labor in developing countries has plummeted. The driving force
of the global economy is luxury consumption and the weapons industry.
The New World Order
Broadly speaking, the main corporate actors of the New World Order are
Wall Street and the Western banking conglomerates including its offshore money laundering facilities, tax havens, hedge funds
and secret accounts,
the Military Industrial Complex regrouping major "defense contractors", security and mercenary companies, intelligence outfits,
on contract to the Pentagon;
the Anglo-American Oil and Energy Giants,
The Biotech Conglomerates, which increasingly control agriculture and the food chain;
Big Pharma,
The Communication Giants and Media conglomerates, which constitute the propaganda arm of the New World Order.
There is of course overlap, between Big Pharma and the Weapons industry, the oil conglomerates and Wall Street, etc.
These various corporate entities interact with government bodies, international financial institutions, US intelligence. The state
structure has evolved towards what Peter Dale Scott calls the "Deep State", integrated by covert intelligence bodies, think tanks,
secret councils and consultative bodies, where important New World Order decisions are ultimately reached on behalf of powerful corporate
interests.
In turn, intelligence operatives increasingly permeate the United Nations including its specialized agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, trade unions, political parties.
What this means is that the executive and legislature constitute a smokescreen, a mechanism for providing political legitimacy
to decisions taken by the corporate establishment behind closed doors.
Media Propaganda
The corporate media, which constitutes the propaganda arm of the New World Order, has a long history whereby intelligence ops
oversee the news chain. In turn, the corporate media serves the useful purpose of obfuscating war crimes, of presenting a humanitarian
narrative which upholds the legitimacy of politicians in high office.
Acts of war and economic destabilization are granted legitimacy. War is presented as a peace-keeping undertaking.
Both the global economy as well as the political fabric of Western capitalism have become criminalized. The judicial apparatus
at a national level as well the various international human rights tribunals and criminal courts serve the useful function of upholding
the legitimacy of US-NATO led wars and human rights violations.
Destabilizing Competing Poles of Capitalist Development
There are of course significant divisions and capitalist rivalry within the corporate establishment. In the post Cold War era,
the US hegemonic project consists in destabilizing competing poles of capitalist development including China, Russia and Iran as
well as countries such as India, Brazil and Argentina.
In recent developments, the US has also exerted pressure on the capitalist structures of the member states of the European Union.
Washington exerts influence in the election of heads of State including Germany and France, which are increasingly aligned with Washington.
The monetary dimensions are crucial. The international financial system established under Bretton Woods prevails. The global financial
apparatus is dollarized. The powers of money creation are used as a mechanism to appropriate real economy assets. Speculative financial
trade has become an instrument of enrichment at the expense of the real economy. Excess corporate profits and multibillion dollar
speculative earnings (deposited in tax free corporate charities) are also recycled towards the corporate control of politicians,
civil society organizations, not to mention scientists and intellectuals. It's called corruption, co-optation, fraud.
Latin America: The Transition towards a "Democratic Dictatorship"
In Latin America, the military dictatorships of the 1960s and 1970s have in large part been replaced by US proxy regimes, i.e.
a democratic dictatorship has been installed which ensures continuity. At the same time the ruling elites in Latin America have remoulded.
They have become increasingly integrated into the logic of global capitalism, requiring an acceptance of the US hegemonic project.
Macro-economic reform has been conducive to the impoverishment of the entire Latin America region.
In the course of the last 40 years, impoverishment has been triggered by hyperinflation, starting with the 1973 military coup
in Chile and the devastating reforms of the 1980s and early 1990s.
The implementation of these deadly economic reforms including sweeping privatization, trade deregulation, etc. is coordinated
in liaison with US intelligence ops, including the "Dirty war" and Operation Condor, the Contra insurrection in Nicaragua, etc.
The development of a new and privileged elite integrated into the structures of Western investment and consumerism has emerged.
Regime change has been launched against a number of Latin American countries.
Any attempt to introduce reforms which departs from the neoliberal consensus is the object of "dirty tricks" including acts of
infiltration, smear campaigns, political assassinations, interference in national elections and covert operations to foment social
divisions. This process inevitably requires corruption and cooptation at the highest levels of government as well as within the corporate
and financial establishment. In some countries of the region it hinges on the criminalization of the state, the legitimacy of money
laundering and the protection of the drug trade.
The above text is an English summary of Prof. Michel Chossudovsky's Presentation, National Autonomous University of Nicaragua,
May 17, 2016. This presentation took place following the granting of a Doctor Honoris Causa in Humanities to Professor Chossudovsky
by the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN)
"... Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela ..."
"... It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs - forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden ..."
< somewhat surprising to me at first glance, but with a little further thought, as to be
expected - the US media is corporate controlled, pro-militarism, pro-interventionism,
pro-armaments sales, and totally pro-regime change - anywhere in the world. All
editorialists are neo-colonialists and imperialists at heart, regardless of who occupies
the white house>
Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela
A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate
media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period (1/15/19 --
4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti --
regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position.
Not a single commentator on the big three
Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro
stepping down from the Venezuelan government.....
Let's make a mess of Venezuela, you know, like the US has done across the middle
east/north Africa since.... well since almost forever....
It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy
at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval
office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs -
forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden
It is not amazing. That's about intelligence agencies control, nothing else.
Notable quotes:
"... Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela ..."
"... It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs - forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden ..."
< somewhat surprising to me at first glance, but with a little further thought, as to be
expected - the US media is corporate controlled, pro-militarism, pro-interventionism,
pro-armaments sales, and totally pro-regime change - anywhere in the world. All
editorialists are neo-colonialists and imperialists at heart, regardless of who occupies
the white house>
Zero Percent of Elite Commentators Oppose Regime Change in Venezuela
A FAIR survey of US opinion journalism on Venezuela found no voices in elite corporate
media that opposed regime change in that country. Over a three-month period (1/15/19 --
4/15/19), zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti --
regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position.
Not a single commentator on the big three
Sunday morning talkshows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro
stepping down from the Venezuelan government.....
Let's make a mess of Venezuela, you know, like the US has done across the middle
east/north Africa since.... well since almost forever....
It's so frustrating to see the current lunacy in the mainstream media, and the idiotocracy
at work in Washington DC, regardless of political party or who's fat ass sits in the oval
office. Tulsi Gabbard is about the only sane person in DC right now on foreign affairs -
forget Sanders, Warren and 'regular guy' Joe Biden
"... It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables. ..."
"... The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same way. ..."
"... {A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result of their personality or experience} ? ..."
"... They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism. In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the evidence - or at least they can make that claim. ..."
"... So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going. ..."
"... we're talking 1 and a half million dead so far in Iraq and Afghanistan...and that's being conservative. ..."
"... Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the Empire will be obliged to come in and "help". ..."
"... I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince targets. ..."
"... Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud. ..."
"... Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot. ..."
"... Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video." ..."
"... A history of Wahhabism which is a problem for the globe; https://ahtribune.com/religion/155-a-history-of-wahhabism.html The KSA, whose ass the empire kisses daily, is the main funder for these clowns. ..."
What's the Wonder my dear?
Duh!
He is in CIA safe house in Al-Anbar.
ISI is looking for this CIA's "Patsy" hide out. Watch this space, he has blood of 14
Pakistani soldiers on his hands via Iran hit. We will end this MOSSAD Agent.
The one hundred thousand people that died in Iraq and Afghanistan due to terrorist
activities would certainly agree that the trillions of dollars that have been spent on the
War on Terror has done very little to remove the spectre of terrorist activities from their
homes, cities and nations.
Sally Snyder: The war on terror is a war of terror and in that sense, though morally
reprehensible and costly, has been success. Regime change and the destabilization of the
Middle East has been the goal.
It's the US ruling elite that are the true deplorables.
War on terror was the war on an entire civilization. Association/Replacement of the word
terror was just for the public consumption. It's a simple strategy that makes the
aggressors appear like the good guys who are there to defend themselves or the values they
hold.
The war on civilization is never a failure for as long as the invader wins. Winning in
this case means toppling a government, destabilizing an economy and dividing a population
then leaving a country in chaos. It's not a foreign policy failure for the U.S. That is the
policy working exactly as intended. All the talk later, where they claim that they had "bad
intel" or they "made mistakes" or "miscalculated" is complete bullshit. They know what
they're doing. If they didn't, they wouldn't keep doing it over and over in the exact same
way.
War on the civilizations yields massive benefits. It's the shortcoming of the model of
the western civilization that it continuously requires massive input that can't be achieved
by the legal means of business and trade.
Auntie Gina the tit ular head of Al-CIA-duh/ Al Qaeda/ ISIS?
{A titular ruler, or titular head, is a person in an official position of leadership
who possesses few, if any, actual powers. Sometimes a person may inhabit a position of
titular leadership and yet exercise more power than would normally be expected, as a result
of their personality or experience} ?
They'd follow the money if they really wanted to end the terrorism.
In that regard, bombing Raqqa to hell was sure convenient as USA destroyed all the
evidence - or at least they can make that claim.
So he gets trotted out just in time to revive the "ISIS threat", and take the blame for
various recent funny-smelling terrist attacks, people going to odd places like New Zealand
and Sri Lanka to vent their spleens at Muslims and Christians, respectively. I have
half-a-suspicion somebody is trying to get a religious war of some sort going.
They don't seem to be having that much success with getting that war going, so I expect
the attacks will go on.
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, self declared caliph of ISIS, appeared in new video
published today.
Where? Where was it published? On what platform? Is it really that hard to trace the
IPs? Turkey is really determined to get those S-400s. The Empire first threatened to withhold
F-35s, then to impose sanctions, then to expel Turkey from NATO, then to move its bases to
Greece. Still, Turkey wouldn't budge. Time to deploy some good old terrorism, so that the
Empire will be obliged to come in and "help".
I have long believed that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi actually is associated either with Moss ad
or the CIA. That's why he's had so many miracle escapes. That's why they never catch him and often don't even know where he is. And we know that his ISIS never, never attacks Israeli targets or fat Saudi Prince
targets.
Those would in fact be the targets of choice for any genuine jihad movement. Not Syria
or Iraq, which are two states Israel has wanted to harm or eliminate for years. ISIS has always been a fraud, a very complex and deadly one, but a fraud.
Many years ago, even before this character posed as a "Syrian rebel" who was photographed
meeting with John McCain, he was outed as a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliot.
The guy in recent picture looks like one of Rita Katz's actors.
It is a show to threaten Turkey with the same as Sri Lanka (where they refine lots of
Iranian crude...and more...look it up). Many ties to Iran/Sri Lanka....and to Turkey.
Typical nazi thugs....bribes, arson, dynamite...and patsies...in this case maybe mossad
actor? Why not> Cui Bono?
As to the locus of the actor? Paramount? Warner Bros? Probably not. Does it matter?
They're parading a ringer...don't fall for the gag. Erdo won't fall for it either.
Baghdadi has nice toys by his side and not just the AK-47 with the camo bit over the
barrel. It looks like a camo case on night vision gear (or vidcam?) just below that, too.
To quote the Joker: "Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
Ahh a new game of "where in the world is ..." except instead of bin Laden (or his
stand-in) the guest in Pakistan living near a military base we have Baghdadi. Maybe
Baghdadi lives in that area, too. (awaiting his execution for the media and masses). I
doubt it though. I'm thinking Turkey or even Saudi Arabia.
... This move by Baghdadi could backfire in a big way. Got my popcorn ready. Posted by: Jackrabbit | Apr 29, 2019 5:06:26 PM | 19
It does seem unnecessarily cheeky/ fishy.
If 'they' had fiendishly brilliant plan, why wouldn't they'd just do it and leave it to the
intel wonks to figure out what went wrong?
It's big news in the J-C International media.
Al Jazeera "can't confirm the authenticity of the video."
"Russiagate without Russia" actually means "Isrealgate". This individual points that he mentions below does not matter. Russiagate was a carefully planned and
brilliantly executed false flag operation run by intelligences
agencies (with GB agencies playing an important in some episodes decisive role) and headed probably by Obama himself via Brennan. There
were two goals: (1) to exclude any possibility of detente with Russia and (2) to block any Trump attempts to change the USA foreign
policy including running foreign war that enrich Pentagon contractors and justify supersized budget for intelligence agencies. As such
is was a great success.
The fact that no American was indicted and that Mueller attempt to prosecute Russian marketing agneces failed does not matter. The
atmosphere is now posoned for a generation. Americans are brainwashed and residue of Russiagate will stay for a long, long time. Neocons
Bolton and Pompeo now run Trump administration foreign policy with Trump performing most ceremonial role in foreign policy domain.
In this sense Skripals poisoning was another false flag operation, which was the logical continuation of Russiagate. And Magnitsky
killing (with Browder now a primary suspect) was a precursor to it. Both were run from Great Britain.
It is actually interesting how Mueller report swiped under the carpet the role of Great Britain in unleashing the Russiagate hysteria.
Two important foreign forces in the 2016 US Presidential elections was the Israel lobby and Great Britain. Trump proved to be a
marionette not of Russia but of Israeli lobby. so sad...
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later). ..."
For more than two years, leading US political and media voices promoted a narrative that Donald Trump conspired with or was compromised
by the Kremlin, and that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would prove it. In the process, they overlooked countervailing evidence and
diverted anti-Trump energies into fervent speculation and prolonged anticipation. So long as Mueller was on the case, it was possible
to believe that " The Walls Are Closing In " on the
traitor /
puppet / asset in the
White House
.
The long-awaited completion of Mueller's probe, and the release of his redacted report, reveals this narrative -- and the expectations
it fueled -- to be unfounded. No American was indicted for conspiring with Russia to influence the 2016 election. Mueller's report
does lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to impede the investigation, but it declines to issue a verdict on obstruction.
It presents no evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with an alleged effort by the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton,
and instead renders this conclusion: "Ultimately, the investigation did not establish that the [Trump] Campaign coordinated or conspired
with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." As a result, Mueller's report provides the opposite of what
Russiagate promoters led their audiences to expect: Rather than detailing a sinister collusion plot with Russia, it presents what
amounts to an extended indictment of the conspiracy theory itself.
1. Russiagate Without Russia
The most fundamental element of a conspiracy is contact between the two parties doing the conspiring. Hence, on the eve of the
report's release, The New York
Times noted that among the "outstanding questions" that Mueller would answer were the nature of "contacts between Kremlin
intermediaries and the Trump campaign."
Mueller's report does answer that question: There were effectively no "Kremlin intermediaries." The report contains no evidence
that anyone from the Trump campaign spoke to a Kremlin representative during the election, aside from conversations with the Russian
ambassador and a press-office assistant, both of whom were ruled out as having participated in a conspiracy (more on them later).
It should be no surprise, then, to learn from Mueller that, when "Russian government officials and prominent Russian businessmen
began trying to make inroads into the new administration" after Trump's election victory, they did not know whom to call. These powerful
Russians, Mueller noted, "appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect."
If top Russians did not have "preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with" the people that they supposedly conspired with,
perhaps that is because they did not actually conspire.
To borrow a phrase from Nation contributing editor Stephen F. Cohen, when it comes to the core question of contacts between
Trump and the Russian government, we are left with a "Russiagate without Russia." Instead we have a series of interactions where
Trump associates speak with Russian nationals, people with ties to Russian nationals, or people who claim to have ties to
the Russian government. But none of these "links," "ties," or associations ever entail a member of the Trump campaign interacting
with a Kremlin intermediary. Russiagate promoters have nonetheless fueled a dogged media effort to track
every
known instance in which someone in Trump's orbit
interacted with " the Russians ," or
someone who can be linked
to them . There is nothing illegal or inherently suspect about speaking to a Russian national -- but there is something xenophobic
about implying as much.
2. Russiagate's Predicate Led Nowhere
The most glaring absence of a Kremlin intermediary comes in the case that ostensibly prompted the entire Trump-Russia investigation.
During an April 2016 meeting in Rome, a London-based professor named Joseph Mifsud reportedly informed Trump campaign aide George
Papadopoulos that "the Russians" had obtained "thousands of emails" containing "dirt" on Hillary Clinton. That information made its
way to the FBI, which used it as a pretext to open the "Crossfire Hurricane" probe on July 31, 2016. Papadopoulos was later indicted
for lying to FBI agents about the timing of his contacts with Mifsud. The case stoked speculation that Papadopoulos acted as an
intermediary between
Trump and Russia
.
But Papadopoulos played no such role. And while the Mueller report says that Papadopoulos "understood Mifsud to have substantial
connections to high-level Russian government officials," it never asserts that Mifsud actuall y had those connections.
Since Mifsud's suspected Russian connections were the purported predicate for the FBI's initial Trump-Russia investigation, that
is a conspicuous non-call. Another is the revelation from Mueller that
Mifsud made false statements to FBI investigators
when they interviewed him in February 2017 -- but yet, unlike Papadopoulos, Mifsud was not indicted. Thus, even the interaction that
sparked the Russia-collusion probe did not reveal collusion.
3. Sergey Kislyak Had "Brief and Non-Substantive" Interactions With the Trump Camp
Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak's conversations with Trump campaign officials and associates during and after the 2016 election
were the focus of intense controversy and speculation, leading to the recusal of
Jeff Sessions, then attorney
general, and to the indictment of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
After an exhaustive review, Mueller concluded that Kislyak's interactions with Trump campaign officials at public events "were
brief, public, and non-substantive." As for Kislyak's
much –
ballyhooed meeting which Sessions in September 2016, Mueller saw no reason to dispute that it "included any more than a passing
mention of the presidential campaign." When Kislyak spoke with other Trump aides after the August 2016 Republican National Convention,
Mueller "did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian government."
The same goes for Kislyak's post-election conversations with Flynn. Mueller indicted Flynn for making "false statements and omissions"
in an interview with the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak during the transition in December 2016. The prevailing supposition was
that Flynn lied in order to hide from the FBI an
election-related payoff or "
quid pro quo
" with the Kremlin. The report punctures that thesis by reaffirming the facts in Flynn's indictment: What Flynn hid from agents
was that he had "called Kislyak to request Russian restraint" in response to sanctions imposed by the outgoing Obama administration,
and that Kislyak had agreed. Mueller ruled out the possibility that Flynn could have implicated Trump in anything criminal by noting
the absence of evidence that Flynn "possessed information damaging to the President that would give the President a personal incentive
to end the FBI's inquiry into Flynn's conduct."
4. Trump Tower Moscow Had No Help From Moscow
The November 2018 indictment of Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was widely seen as damning, possibly impeachment-worthy,
for Trump. Cohen admitted to giving false written answers to Congress in a bid to downplay Trump's personal knowledge of his company's
failed effort to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. To proponents of the collusion theory, Cohen's admitted lies were proof that "
Trump is compromised by
Russia ," " full stop ."
But the Mueller report does not show any such compromise, and, in fact, shows there to be no Trump-Kremlin relationship. Cohen,
the report notes, "requested [Kremlin] assistance in moving the project forward, both in securing land to build the project and with
financing." The request was evidently rejected. Elena Poliakova, the personal assistant to Kremlin Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov,
spoke with Cohen by phone after he e-mailed her office for help. After their 20-minute call, the report says, "Cohen could not recall
any direct follow-up from Poliakova or from any other representative of the Russian government, nor did the [Special Counsel's] Office
identify any evidence of direct follow-up."
5. and Trump Didn't Ask Cohen to Lie About It
The Mueller report not only dispels the notion that Trump had secret dealings with the Kremlin over Trump Tower Moscow; it also
rejects a related impeachment-level "bombshell." In January, BuzzFeed News
reported that Mueller had evidence that Trump "directed" Cohen to lie to Congress about the Moscow project. But according to
Mueller, "the evidence available to us does not establish that the President directed or aided Cohen's false testimony," and that
Cohen himself testified "that he and the President did not explicitly discuss whether Cohen's testimony about the Trump Tower Moscow
project would be or was false." In a de-facto retraction, BuzzFeed updated its story with an
acknowledgment
of Mueller's conclusion .
6. The Trump Tower Meeting Really Was Just a "Waste of Time"
The June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower was
widely
dubbed
the
" Smoking
Gun ." An e-mail chain showed that Donald Trump Jr. welcomed an offer to accept compromising information about Clinton as "part
of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump." But the pitch did not come from the meeting's Russian participants, but instead
from Rob Goldstone, a British music publicist acting on their behalf. Goldstone said that he invented "publicist puff" to secure
the meeting, because in reality,
as he told NPR , "I had no idea what I was talking about."
Mueller noted that Trump Jr.'s response "showed that the Campaign anticipated receiving information from Russia that could assist
candidate Trump's electoral prospects, but the Russian lawyer's presentation did not provide such information [emphasis mine]."
The report further recounts that during the meeting Jared Kushner texted then-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort that it was a "waste
of time," and requested that his assistants "call him to give him an excuse to leave." Accordingly, when "Veselnitskaya made additional
efforts to follow up on the meeting," after the election, "the Trump Transition Team did not engage."
7. Manafort Did Not Share Polling Data to Meddle in the US Election
In January, Mueller accused Manafort of lying to investigators about several matters, including sharing Trump polling data and
discussing a Ukraine peace plan with a Ukrainian-Russian colleague, Konstantin Kilimnik, during the 2016 campaign. According to Mueller,
the FBI "assesses" that Kilimnik has unspecified "ties to Russian intelligence." To collusion proponents, the revelation was dubbed
" the closest we've seen yet to real, live, actual
collusion " and even the "
Russian collusion smoking gun ."
Mueller, of course, reached a different conclusion: He "did not identify evidence of a connection between Manafort's sharing polling
data and Russia's interference in the election," and, moreover, "did not establish that Manafort otherwise coordinated with the Russian
government on its election-interference efforts." Mueller noted that he "could not reliably determine Manafort's purpose in sharing"
the polling data, but also acknowledged (and bolstered) the explanation of his star witness, Rick Gates, that Manafort was motivated
by proving his financial value to former and future clients.
Mueller also gave us new reasons to doubt the assertions that Kilimnik himself is a Russian intelligence asset or spy. First,
Mueller did not join
media pundits in asserting such about
Kilimnik. Second, to support his vague contention that Kilimnik has, according to the FBI, "ties to Russian intelligence," Mueller
offered up a list of " pieces of the Office's
Evidence" that contains no direct evidence. For his part, Kilimnik has repeatedly stated that he has no such ties, and recently
told The Washington Post that Mueller never attempted to interview him.
8. The Steele Dossier Was Fiction
The Steele dossier -- a collection of Democratic National Committee-funded opposition research alleging a high-level Trump-Russia
criminal relationship -- played a critical role in the Russiagate saga. The FBI relied on it for leads and evidentiary material in
its investigation of the Trump campaign ties to Russia, and prominent
politicians ,
pundits , and
media
outlets promoted it as
credible .
The Mueller report,
The New York Times
noted last week , has "underscored what had grown clearer for months some of the most sensational claims in the dossier appeared
to be false, and others were impossible to prove." Steele reported that low-level Trump aide Carter Page was offered a 19 percent
stake in the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft if he could get Trump to lift Western sanctions. In October 2016 the FBI, citing
the Steele dossier, told the FISA court that it "believes that [Russia's] efforts are being coordinated with Page and perhaps other
individuals associated with" the Trump campaign. The Mueller report, however, could "not establish that Page coordinated with the
Russian government in its efforts to interfere with the 2016 presidential election."
The Steele dossier claimed that Michael Cohen visited Prague to meet Russian agents in the summer of 2016. In April 2018, McClatchy
reported to much fanfare that Mueller's team "has evidence" that placed Cohen in Prague during the period in question. Cohen later
denied the claim under oath, and Mueller agreed, noting that Cohen "never traveled to Prague."
After reports emerged in August 2016 that the Trump campaign had rejected an amendment to the Republican National Committee platform
that called for arming Ukraine, Steele claimed that it was the result of a quid pro quo. The Mueller report "did not establish that"
the rejection of the Ukraine amendment was "undertaken at the behest of candidate Trump or Russia."
9. The Trump Campaign Had No Secret Channel to WikiLeaks
In January, veteran Republican operative and conspiracy theorist Roger Stone caused a stir when he was indicted for lying to Congress
about his efforts to make contact with WikiLeaks. But Mueller's indictment actually showed that Stone
had no communications with WikiLeaks
before the election and no privileged information about its releases . Most significantly, it revealed that Trump officials were
trying to learn about the WikiLeaks releases through Stone -- a fact that underscored that the Trump campaign neither worked with
WikiLeaks nor had advance knowledge of its e-mail dumps.
Mueller's final report does nothing to alter that picture. Its sections on Stone are heavily redacted, owing to Stone's pending
trial. But they do make clear that Mueller conducted an extensive search to establish a tie between WikiLeaks, the Trump campaign,
and Stone -- and came up empty. New
reporting from The Washington Post underscores just how far their farcical efforts went. The Mueller team devoted
time and energy to determine whether far-right conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi, best known for promoting the false claim that Barack
Obama was born outside the United States, served as a link between Stone and WikiLeaks. Mueller's prosecutors "spent weeks coaxing,
cajoling and admonishing the conspiracy theorist, as they pressed him to stick to facts and not reconstruct stories," the Post
reports. "At times, they had debated the nature of memory itself." It is unsurprising that this led Mueller's prosecutors to
ultimately declare, according to Corsi's attorney, "We can't use any of this."
10. There Was No Cover-Up
The Mueller report does not just dispel the conspiracy theories that have engulfed political and media circles for two years;
it puts to rest the most popular, recent one: that Attorney General William Barr engaged in a
cover-up . According to the dominant narrative, Barr was
somehow concealing Mueller's damning evidence
, while Mueller, even more improbably, stayed silent.
One could argue that Barr's summary downplays the obstruction findings, though it accurately relays that Mueller's report does
"not exonerate" Trump. It was Mueller's decision to leave the verdict on obstruction to Barr and make clear that if Congress disagrees,
it has the power to indict Trump on its own. Mueller's office assisted with Barr's redactions, which proved to be, as Barr had pledged,
extremely limited. Despite containing numerous embarrassing details about Trump, no executive privilege was invoked to censor the
report's contents.
In the end, Mueller's report shows that the Trump-Russia collusion narrative embraced and evangelized by the US political and
media establishments to be a work of
fiction . The American public
was presented with a far different picture from what was expected, because leading pundits, outlets, and politicians ignored the
countervailing facts and promoted maximalist interpretations of others. Anonymous officials also leaked explosive yet uncorroborated
claims, leaving behind many stories that were subsequently discredited, retracted, or remain unconfirmed to this day.
It is too early to assess the damage that influential Russiagate promoters have done to their own reputations; to public confidence
in our democratic system and media; and to the prospects of defeating Trump, who always stood to benefit if the all-consuming conspiracy
theory ultimately collapsed. The scale of the wreckage, confirmed by Mueller's report, may prove to be the ultimate Russiagate scandal.
"... The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth, along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks. ..."
"... Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper policy motivation: why it was done. ..."
"... President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office, Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth, and the truth would set them free. ..."
"... The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street, or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence, ..."
"... According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. ..."
"... This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. ..."
"... Hannigan abruptly resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage control. ..."
"... In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine. Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department. ..."
"... The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA. ..."
"... As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the National Endowment for Democracy. ..."
"... Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda, against Russia. ..."
"... The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department. Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly, in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected. ..."
"... This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest. ..."
"... Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did you know: ..."
"... War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff. ..."
"... The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages. ..."
"... That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony Blair are lyers and mass murderers. ..."
The British Role in 'Russiagate' Is About to Be Fully Exposed April 8, 2019
20190408-russiagate-exposed-brits.pdf
The "fake news" media has now dropped its pretense of having ever had any intention of allowing the truth -- as documented in
U.S. Attorney General Barr's summary of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's report, exonerating President Donald Trump of having
"conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" -- to thoroughly refute the Russiagate "Big Lie." Soon, however, it is certain
that the deliberate, British Intelligence-originated, military-grade disinformation campaign carried out against the United States,
including to this day, will be exposed.
The truth is, that a foreign government did indeed meddle in the American Presidential election, in a failed attempt to fix
the outcome, but it was not Russia. It was the City of London, and the Five Eyes imperial intelligence services of the British Commonwealth,
along with treasonous, "Tory" American elements. If that admission is forced to the surface, through the vigorous actions of all
that oppose the presently dominant Big Lie tyranny, that revelation will shock and liberate people all over the world. The mental
stranglehold of "fake news" media outlets can be permanently broken. That is the task of the next days and weeks.
"It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat," says the Chinese proverb. Yet, although the Mueller
report was called a "nothing burger," it was not: it still presented the potentially lethal lie that twelve Russian gremlins, code-named
Guccifer 2.0, hacked the DNC. Sundry media meatheads thus continue to blog and broadcast about "what else is really there."
The false Russian hack story, still being repeated, marches on, undeterred, like the emperor without any clothes. One lame-brained
variation, promoted in order to cover up the British role, states that Hillary Clinton, rather than Trump, colluded with the Russians.
It is being repeated by Republicans and Democrats alike, some of them malicious, some of them confused, and all of them completely
wrong. The media, such as the failed New York Times and various electronic media, must be forced to either admit the truth,
or be even more thoroughly discredited than they already have been. They must stop their constant repetition of this Joseph Goebbels-like
Big Lie. There must be a vigorous dissemination of the truth by all those journalists, politicians, activists and citizens that love
truth more than their own assumptions, including about President Trump, or other dearly-held systems of false belief.
Apart from documenting the presence of "former" British intelligence agent Christopher Steele, former MI6 head Sir Richard
Dearlove, and former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan at the center of the Russiagate campaign against President Trump for the past several
years, we must, in order to expose this successfully, identify not only what was actually done and who was doing it, but the deeper
policy motivation: why it was done.
A New Cultural Paradigm
The world is actually on the verge of ending the military conflicts among the major world powers, such as Russia, China, the United
States, and India. These four powers, and not the City of London, are the key fulcrum around which a new era in humanity's future
will be decided. A new monetary and credit system brought into being through these four powers would foster the greatest physical
economic growth in the history of humanity. In addition, discussions involving Italy working with China on the industrialization
of the African continent (discussions which could soon also involve the United States) show that sections of Europe want to join
China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and leave the dying trans-Atlantic financial empire behind.
The recent announcement of a United States commitment to return to the Moon by 2024 can, in particular, become the basis for a
proposal to other nations -- for example, China, Russia, and India, all of whom are space powers of demonstrated capability -- to
resolve their differences on Earth in a higher, joint mission. As Russia's Roscosmos Director Dmitry Rogozin said in a recent interview:
"I am a fierce proponent of international cooperation, including with Americans, because their country is big and technologically
advanced, and they can make good partners Especially since personal and professional relations between Roscosmos and NASA at the
working level are great."
There is also the possibility of ending the danger of thermonuclear war. President Trump, speaking on April 4 of the prospects
for world peace, stated:
"Between Russia, China, and us, we're all making hundreds of billions of dollars worth of weapons, including nuclear, which is
ridiculous. I think it's much better if we all got together and didn't make these weapons those three countries I think can come
together and stop the spending and spend on things that are more productive toward long-term peace."
This is a statement of real importance. Such an outlook is a rejection of the "perpetual crisis/perpetual war" outlook of the
Bush-Obama Administration, a four-term "war presidency" which was abruptly, unexpectedly ended in 2016. The British were not amused.
It is to stop this new cultural paradigm, pivoted on the Pacific and the potential Four Powers alliance, that British imperial
forces have deployed. The 2016 election of President Trump, and his personal friendship with President Xi Jinping and desire to work
with President Putin, are an intolerable strategic threat to the eighteenth-century geopolitics of the British empire. They have
repeatedly used Russiagate to disrupt the process of deliberation among Presidents Xi, Trump, and Putin, thus increasing the danger
of war. Russiagate, in the interest of international security, must be ended by exposing it for the utter fraud that it is.
The Truth Set Free
President Donald Trump has no vested interest in protecting the British "special relationship." From his second day in office,
Trump declared that he would clean out the intelligence agencies. If Trump were to do that, however, the real, tragic history of
America's last 50 years would be exhumed from that swamp. Shining a light into that darkness would illuminate the world. The American
people would stop playing Othello to the City of London's Iago. They would denounce the British "special relationship," never again
to fight imperial wars for the greater glory of the British Empire. They would learn the true story of Vietnam, of Iraq 1991 and
Iraq 2003, of Libya 2011, and many other conflicts, special operations, and assassinations. The American people would know the truth,
and the truth would set them free.
The current insurrection against the United States Presidency is part of a global strategic battle: will a conspiracy of republican
forces overcome the modern day British imperial system, centered in the hot money centers of the City of London and Wall Street,
or will the oligarchical system once again triumph, immiserating all but the very wealthy? That is the real issue of the insurrection
against the maverick American president being conducted by the London and NATO-centered enforcers of the old world. To paraphrase
the American Declaration of Independence,
"The history of the present Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
undermining of the United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
DOCUMENTATION
While Robert Mueller found that there was "no collusion" between Donald Trump or the Trump Campaign and Russia, he also filed
two indictments regarding alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. The first alleges that 12 members of Russian Military
Intelligence hacked the DNC and John Podesta and delivered the purloined files to WikiLeaks for strategic publication before the
July 2016 Democratic National Convention and in October 2016, one month before the election. The second indictment charges the Internet
Research Agency, a Russian internet merchandising and marketing firm, with running social media campaigns in the U.S. in 2016 designed
to impact the election. When the fuller version of the Mueller report becomes public, it is certain to recharge the claims of Russian
interference based on the so-called background "evidence" supporting these indictments.
The good news, however, is that investigations in the United States and Britain, have unearthed significant contrary evidence
exposing British Intelligence, NATO, and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, as the actual foreign actors in the 2016 U.S. presidential
election. We provide a short summary of the main aspects of that evidence to spark further investigations of the British intelligence
networks, entities, and methods at issue, internationally. More detailed accounts concerning specific aspects of what we recite here
can be found on our website.
The Russian Hack That Wasn't
The Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, an association of former U.S. intelligence officials, have demonstrated that
the Russian hack of the DNC alleged by Robert Mueller, was more likely an internal leak,
rather than a hack conducted
over the internet. William Binney, who conducted the main investigations for the VIPS, spent 30 years at the National Security Agency,
becoming Technical Director. He designed the sorts of NSA programs that would detect a Russian hack if one occurred. Binney conducted
an actual forensic examination of the DNC files released by WikiLeaks, and the related files circulated by the persona Guccifer 2.0,
who Robert Mueller claims is a GRU creation. Binney has demonstrated that the calculated transfer speeds and metadata characteristics
of these files are consistent with downloading to a thumb drive or storage device rather than an internet-based hack. This supports
the account by WikiLeaks of how it obtained the files. According to WikiLeaks and former Ambassador Craig Murray, they were obtained
from a person who was not a Russian state actor of any kind, in Washington, D.C. WikiLeaks offered to tell the Justice Department
all about this, and actual negotiations to this effect were proceeding in early 2017, when Senator Mark Warner and FBI Director James
Comey acted to sabotage and end the negotiations.
Further, as opposed to the hyperbole in the media and in Robert Mueller's indictment, analysis of the Internet Research Agency's
alleged "weaponization" of Facebook in 2016 involved
a paltry total of $46,000 in Facebook
ads and $4,700 spent on Google platforms . In an election in which the major campaigns spend tens of thousands of dollars every
day on these platforms, whatever the IRA thought it was doing in its amateurish and juvenile memes and tropes was like throwing a
stone in the ocean. Most of these activities occurred after the election and never mentioned either candidate. The interpretation
that these ads were designed to draw clicks and website traffic, rather than influence the election, must be considered.
The "evidence" for Mueller's GRU hacking indictment was provided, in part, by CrowdStrike, the DNC vendor that originated the
claims that the Russians had hacked that entity. CrowdStrike is closely associated with the Atlantic Council's Digital Research Lab
(DRL), an operation jointly funded by NATO's Strategic Communications Center and the U.S. State Department, to counter Russian "hybrid
warfare." CrowdStrike has been caught more than once falsely attributing hacks to the Russians and the Atlantic Council's DRL is
a font of anti-Russian intelligence operations.
The British Target Trump
According to CIA Director John Brennan's Congressional testimony, the British began complaining loudly about candidate Trump
and Russia in late 2015. Brennan's statements were echoed in articles in The Guardian . According to Brennan, intelligence
leads about Trump and Russia had been forwarded to Brennan from both British intelligence and from Estonia. The former head
of the Russia Desk for MI6 and protégé of Sir Richard Dearlove, Christopher Steele, fresh from working for British Intelligence,
the FBI, and U.S. State Department in the 2014 Ukraine coup, assembled in 2016 a phony dossier called Operation Charlemagne, claiming
widespread Russian interference in European elections, including in the Brexit vote. By the spring of 2016, Steele was contributing
to a British/U.S. intelligence task force on the Trump Campaign which had been convened at CIA headquarters under John Brennan's
direction.
This task force targeted Trump campaign volunteers Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in entrapment operations on British
soil, using British agents, during the spring and summer of 2016. The personnel employed in these operations all had multiple
connections to the British firm Hakluyt, to Steele's firm Orbis, and to the British military's Integrity Initiative. Sometime in
the summer of 2016, Robert Hannigan, then head of GCHQ, flew to Washington to brief John Brennan personally. Hannigan abruptly
resigned from GCHQ shortly after the election, sparking widespread speculation that the British were making an attempt at damage
control.
Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort were already on the radar and under investigation by the same British, Dearlove-centered intelligence
network and by Christopher Steele specifically. Flynn had been defamed by Dearlove and Stefan Halper, as a possible Russian agent
way back in 2014 because he spoke to Russian researcher Svetlana Lokhova at a dinner sponsored by Dearlove's Cambridge Security Forum.
Or, at least that was the pretext for the targeting of Flynn, who otherwise defied British intelligence by exposing Western support
for terrorist operations in Syria and sought a collaborative relationship with Russia to counter ISIS. Manafort was under FBI investigation
throughout 2014 and 2015, largely in retaliation for his role in steering the Party of the Regions to political power in Ukraine.
In 2016, the Manafort investigation migrated to the Democratic National Committee with direct assistance provided by Ukrainian
state intelligence. This effort was led by Alexandra Chalupa, an admirer of Stepan Bandera and other heroes of Nazi history in Ukraine.
Chalupa also had deep connections to British-oriented networks at the U.S. State Department.
In or around June 2016, Christopher Steele began writing his dirty and bogus dossier about Trump and Russia. This is the dossier
which claimed that Trump was compromised by Putin and that Putin was coordinating with Trump in the 2016 election. The main "legend"
of this full-spectrum information warfare operation run from Britain, was that Donald Trump was receiving "dirt" on Hillary Clinton
from Russia. The operations targeting Page and Papadopoulos consisted of multiple attempts to plant fabricated evidence on them which
would reflect what Steele himself was fabricating in the dirty dossier. At the very same time, the infamous June 2016 meeting at
Trump Tower was being set up. That meeting involved the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, who, it was alleged in a series of
bizarre emails written by British publicist Ron Goldstone to set up the meeting, could deliver "dirt" on Hillary Clinton direct from
the Russian government. Veselnitskaya didn't deliver any such dirt. But the entire operation was being monitored by State Department
intelligence agent Kyle Parker, an expert on Russia. Parker's emails reveal deep ties to the highest levels of British intelligence
and much chatter between them about Trump and Russia.
A now-changed version of the website for Christopher Steele's firm, Orbis, trumpeted an expertise in information warfare operations,
and the networks in which Steele runs are deeply integrated into the British military's Integrity Initiative. The Integrity Initiative
is a rapid response propaganda operation using major journalists in the United States and Europe to carry out targeted defamation
campaigns. Its central charge, according to documents posted by the hacking group Anonymous, is selling the United States and Western
Europe on the immediate need for regime change in Russia, even if that involves war.
Much has been made by Republicans and other lunkheads in the U.S. Congress of Steele's contacts with Russians for his dossier.
They claim that such contacts resulted in a Russian disinformation operation being run through the duped Christopher Steele. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
MI6's Dirty Dossier on Donald Trump: Full-Spectrum Information Warfare
On its face, Steele's dossier would immediately be recognized as a complete fabrication by any competent intelligence analyst.
He cites some 32 sources inside the Russian government for his fabricated claims about Trump. What they allegedly told him is specific
enough in time and content to identify them. To believe that the dossier is true or that actual Russians contributed to it, you must
also believe that that the British government was willing to roll up this entire network, exposing them, since the intention was
for the dossier's wild claims to be published as widely as possible. By all accounts, Britain and the United States together do not
have 32 highly placed sources inside the Russian government, nor would they ever make them public in this way or with this very sloppy
tradecraft. Steele's fabrication also uses aspects of readily available public information, such as the sale of 19% of the energy
company Rosneft, (the alleged bribe offered to Carter Page for lifting sanctions) to concoct a fictional narrative of high crimes
and misdemeanors.
Other claims in the dossier were published, publicly, in various Ukrainian publications. The famous claim that Trump directed
prostitutes to urinate on a bed once slept upon by Barack Obama seems to be plagiarized from similarly fake 2009 British propaganda
stories about Silvio Berlusconi spending the night with a prostitute in a hotel room in Rome, "defiling" Putin's bed. According to
various sources in the United States, this outrageous claim was made by Sergei Millian. George Papadopoulos has stated that he believes
Millian is an FBI informant, recounting in his book how a friend of Millian's blurted this out when Millian, Papadopoulos and the
friend were having coffee.
The final nail in this case has been provided by The Hill 's John Solomon. He says that Steele told former Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr about the sources for the dirty dossier. According to Solomon, Ohr's notes reveal one main source, a former
senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States. But, as anyone familiar with the territory would know, there is
no such retired senior Russian intelligence official living in the United States whose entire life is not controlled by the CIA.
Despite its obvious fake pedigree, Steele's dossier was laundered into the Justice Department repeatedly, by the CIA and State
Department and the Obama White House. It was used to obtain FISA surveillance warrants turning key members of the Trump Campaign
into walking microphones. It was circulated endlessly by the Clinton Campaign to a network of reporters in the U.S. known to serve
as scribes for the intelligence community. John Brennan used it to conduct a special emergency briefing of the leading members of
the U.S. Congress charged with intelligence responsibilities in August of 2016 and to brief Harry Reid, who was Senate Majority Leader
at the time. All of this activity meant that the salacious accusation that Trump was a Putin pawn and the FBI was investigating the
matter, leaked out and was used by the Clinton Campaign to defame Trump for its electoral advantage. When Trump won, Steele's nonsense
received the stamp of the U.S. intelligence community and official currency in the campaign to take out the President.
As a result of Congressional investigations of Russiagate, it has become abundantly clear that the British operation against
Trump was aided and abetted by the Obama White House, the State Department, the CIA, the FBI, and personalities associated with the
National Endowment for Democracy. The individuals involved might be named Veterans of the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, since all of
them also worked on this operation. It is no accident that Victoria Nuland, the case agent for the Ukraine coup, played a major role
in bolstering Steele's credentials for the purpose of selling his dirty dossier to the media and to the Justice Department. This
went so far as Steele giving a full scale briefing on his fabricated dossier at the State Department in October 2016.
Out of the Ukraine coup, an entire military-centered propaganda apparatus arose, first through NATO, and then out from there
to military units and diplomatic centers in the U.S., Europe, and Britain, to run low intensity operations, and black propaganda,
against Russia.
The British end of the operation includes the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, and NATO's Strategic Communications
Center. In the United States, the Integrity Initiative has been integrated into the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department.
Most certainly, this operation is poised again to intervene in the U.S. elections; the British House of Lords have stated explicitly,
in their December 2018 report, British Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order, that Donald Trump must not be re-elected.
This is why the British are yelping that under no circumstances can the classified documents concerning their role in the
attempted coup against Donald Trump be declassified. It would end their leverage over the United States and much of Europe. That
is why these documents must indeed be declassified, and parallel investigations by citizens and government officials concerned with
ending the imperial system, otherwise known as the current "war party," must begin in earnest.
"in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe"
Perhaps add mainstream media to the list of such sincere believers, they will fire their own real journalists.
David Walters , April 24, 2019 at 13:14
"This doesn't mean that Russia would never use hackers to interfere in world political affairs or that Vladimir Putin is some
sort of virtuous girl scout, it just means that in a post-Iraq invasion world, only herd-minded human livestock believe the unsubstantiated
assertions of opaque and unaccountable government agencies about governments who are oppositional to those same agencies."
Absolutely correct.
Anyone who still believes what the IC says if a moron. As Pompeo recently said to the student body of Texas A&M University,
my alma matta, the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steel. He went on the explain that the CIA has courses to teach their agent
that dark "art".
Right, David Walters, and see Pompous Pompeo now. The only truths he's told was to a student body of Texas A&M University –
his own alma mater – the CIA's job is to lie, cheat and steal.
Even though he's left his post as CIA Director and assumed his current post of Secretary of State. Pompous Pompeo continues his
CIA traits of lying, cheating, and stealing. It's in a way similar to a phrase, "A leopard never changes its spots". This is why
the DPRK govt issued a Persona Non Grata on Pompous Pompeo – that he isn't a bona fide diplomat, but a CIA official.
CWG , April 22, 2019 at 17:15
Here's my take on the 'Russian Collusion Deep State LIE.
There was NO Russian Collusion at all to get Trump in the White House. Most probably, Putin would have favored Clinton, since
she could be bought. Trump can't.
What did happen was illegal spying on the Trump campaign. That started late 2015, WITHOUT a FISA warrant. They only obtained
that in 2016, through lying to the FISA Court. The basis for that first warrant was the Fusion GPS Steele Dossier.
Ever since Trump won the election, they real conspirators knew they had a problem. That was apparent ever after Devin Nunes
did the right thing by informing Trump they were spying on him.
Since they obtained those FISA warrant through lying to the FISA Court (which is treason) they needed to cover that up as quickly
as possible.
So what did they do? Instead of admitting they lied to the FISA Court they kept on lying till this very day. The same lie through
which they obtained the FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign was being pushed openly.
The lie is and was 'Trump colluded with the Russians in order to win the Presidential Election'.
They knew from day one Trump didn't do anything wrong. They did know they spied on Trump through lying to the FISA Court, which
again, is treason. According to the Constitution, lying to the FISA court= Treason.
In order to avoid being indicted and prosecuted, they somehow needed to 'take down' the Attorney General. At all costs, they
needed to try and hide what really happened.
So there they went. 'Trump colluded with the Russians. Not just Trump, but the entire Trump campaign!'.
'Sessions should recuse himself', the propaganda MSM said in unison. 'Recuse, recuse'.
Sessions, naively recused himself. Back then, even he probably didn't know the entire story. It was only later on that Sarah
Carter and Jon Solomon found out it had been Hillary who ordered and paid the Steele Dossier.
The real conspirators hoped that through the Special Counsel rat Mueller they might be able to achieve three main objectives.
1: Convince the American people Russia indeed was meddling in the Presidential Election.
2: Find any sort of dirt on Trump and/or people who helped him win the Election in order to 'take them down'.
Many people were indicted, some were prosecuted. Yet NONE of them were convicted for a crime that had ANYTHING to with with
the elections. NONE.
They stretched it out as long as possible. 'The longer you repeat a lie, the more people are willing to believe the lie'.
So that is what they did. They still do it. Mueller took TWO years to brainwash as many people as possible. 'Russian Collusion,
Russian Collusion. Russia. Russia. Russia. Russia. Rusiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh ..
Why did they want to make sure they could keep telling that lie as long as possible?
Because they FEAR people will learn the truth. There was NEVER any Russian Collusion with the Trump campaign.
There was spying on the Trump campaign by Obama in order to try and make Hillary win the Presidential Election.
That is the actual COLLUSION between the Clinton Campaign and a weaponized Obama regime!!
So what did 'Herr Mueller' do?
He took YEARS to come up with the conclusion that the Trump campaign did NOT collude with Russia.
The MSM tried to make us all believe it was about that. Yet it was NOT.
His conclusive report is all about the question 'did or didn't the Trump campaign collude with the Russians'.
Trump exonerated, and the MSM only talks about that. Trump, Trump, Trump.
They still want us all to believe that was what the Mueller 'investigation' was all about. Yet it was not.
The most important objective of the Mueller 'investigation' was not to 'investigate'.
It was to 'instigate' that HUGE lie.
The same lie which they used to obtain the FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
"Russia'.
So what has 'Herr Mueller' done?
A: He finds ZERO evidence at all which proves the Trump campaign colluded with ANY Russians.
And now the huge lie, which after all was the main objective right from the get go. (A was only a distraction)
B: Russians hacked the DNC.
That is what they wants us all to believe. That Russia somehow did bad stuff.
Now it was not Russia who did bad stuff.
It was Obama working together with the Clinton campaign. Obama weaponized his entire regime in order to let Clinton win the
Presidency.
That is the REAL collusion. The real CRIME. Treason!
In order to create a 'cover up' Mueller NEEDED to instigate that Russia somehow did bad things.
That's what the Mueller Dossier is ALL about. They now have 'black on white' 'evidence' that Russia somehow did bad things.
Because if Russia didn't do anything like that, it would make us all ask the fair question 'why did Obama spy on the Trump
Campaign'.
Let's go a bit deeper still.
Here's a trap Mueller created. What if Trump would openly doubt the LIE they still push? The HUGE lie that Russia did bad things?
After all, they NEED that LIE in order to COVER UP their own crime.
If Trump would say 'I do not believe Russia did anything to influence the elections, I think Mueller wrote that to COVER UP
the real crime', what would happen?
They would say 'GOTCHA now, see Trump is colluding with Russia? He even refuses to accept Russia hacked the DNC, this ultimately
proofs Trump indeed is a Russian asset'.
They believe that trap will work. They needed that trap, since if Russia wasn't doing anything wrong, it would show us all
THEY were the criminals.
They NEED that lie, in order to COVER UP.
That is the 'Insurance Policy' Stzrok and Page texted about. Even Sarah Carter and Jon Solomon still don't seem to see all
that.
They should have attacked the HUGE lie that Russia was somehow hacking the DNC. That is simply not true. It's a Mueller created
LIE.
That LIE = the Insurance Policy.
What did they need an Insurance Policy for? They want us all to believe that was about preventing Trump from being elected.
Although true, that is only A.
They NEEDED an Insurance Policy in the unlikely case Trump would become President and would find out they were illegally spying
on him!
The REAL crime is Obama weaponized the American Government to spy on even a duly elected President.
What's the punishment for Treason?
About Assange and Seth Rich.
Days after Mueller finishes his 'mission' (Establish the LIE Russia did bad things) which seems to be succesfull, the Deep
State arrest the ONLY source who could undermine that lie.
Assange Since he knows who is (Seth Rich?) and who isn't (Russia) the source.
If Assange could testify under oath the emails did not come from Russia, the LIE would be exposed.
No coincidences here. I fear Assange will never testify under oath. I actually fear for his life.
Deniz , April 23, 2019 at 13:48
While I wholeheartedly agree with you that Obama and Clinton are criminals, the far less convincing part of your argument is
that Trump is not now beholden to the same MIC interests. Bolton, Abrahams, Pompeo, Pence his relationship with Netanyahu, the
overthrow of Madura are all glaring examples that contradict the Rights narrative that he is some type of hero. Trump may not
have colluded with Russia, but he does seem to be colluding with Saudia Arabia, Israel, Big Oil and the MIC.
Whether one is on the Right or Left, the house is still made of glass.
boxerwars , April 22, 2019 at 17:13
RE: "A Russian Agent Smear"
:::
Was Pat Tillman Murdered?
JUL 30, 2007
I don't know, but it seems increasingly conceivable. Just absorb these facts:
O'Neal said Tillman, a corporal, threw a smoke grenade to identify themselves to fellow soldiers who were firing at them. Tillman
was waving his arms shouting "Cease fire, friendlies, I am Pat [expletive] Tillman, damn it!" again and again when he was killed,
O'Neal said
In the same testimony, medical examiners said the bullet holes in Tillman's head were so close together that it appeared the
Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
The motive? I don't know. It's still likeliest it was an accident. But there's some mysterious testimony in the SI report about
nameless snipers. A reader suggests the following interpretation:
News this weekend said that there were "snipers" present and the witnesses didn't remember their names. I believe that's code
in the Army–these guys were Delta. In the Tillman incident, these snipers weren't part of the unit and they were never mentioned
publicly before. That's a key indicator that they weren't supposed to be acknowledged.
If you've ever read Blackhawk Down, Mark Bowden explains how he grew frustrated because interviewed Rangers kept referring
to "soldiers from another unit" while claiming they didn't know the unit ID or the soldiers' names. It took him months to crack
the unit ID and find people from Delta who were present at the fight.
Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon, the Delta operators who earned Medals of Honor in Mogadishu, have always been identified as
snipers, too.
If my theory is correct, the Delta guys could have fired the shots – a three-round burst to the forehead from 50 yards is impossible
for normal soldiers and Rangers, but is probably an easy shot for those guys. But because Delta doesn't officially exist and Tillman
was a hero, nobody in the Army would want to have to explain exactly how the event went down. Easier just to claim hostile fire
until the family forced them to do otherwise.
This makes some sense to me, although we shouldn't dismiss the chance he was murdered. Tillman was a star and might have aroused
jealousy or resentment. He also opposed the Iraq war and was a proud atheist. In Bush's increasingly sectarian military, that
might have stirred hostility. I don't know. But I know enough to want a deeper investigation. My atheist readers will no doubt
admire the way Tillman left this world, according to the man who was with him:
As bullets flew above their heads, the young soldier at Pat Tillman's side started praying. "I thought I was praying to myself,
but I guess he heard me," Sgt. Bryan O'Neal recalled in an interview Saturday with The Associated Press. "He said something like,
'Hey, O'Neal, why are you praying? God can't help us now."'
(Maybe the Congress can )
////// The USA is aghast with "smears" and "internal investigations" and promised but never produced "White Papers" 'as the
world turns' and circles continents Dominated by American Military Power / Predominantly Barbarous / Uncivilized Use of Force
/ and Arrogantly Effective in it's use of Dominating Military Power.
\\\\ The Poorer Peoples of the World accept their lots-in-life with some acceptance of reality vis-a-vis the "lot-in-life"
they've been alleged/assigned.
/// But How Do We Accept The Fact that our Self-Sacrificiing Hero,Pat Tillman, was slaughtered in Afghanistan,
(WITH POSITIVE PROOF) – by his own Fellow American soldiers – ???
!!!! What i'm say'n is, if Tillman represents the Life Surrendering "American Hero"
WHY DID HIS FELLOW "AMERICAN SOLDIERS" ASSASSINATE & MURDER HIM ???????
AND WHY IS THIS STORY BURIED ALONG WITH MANY OTHER SMEAR Stories
that provide prophylactic protection for all the Trump pianist prophylaxis cover
Up for the Right Wing theft of American Democracy under FDR
In favor of Ayn Rand's prevalent OBJECTIVISM under Trump.
"Capitalism and Altruism
are incompatible
capitalism and altruism
cannot coexist in man,
or in the same society".
President Trump represents
Stark & Total Capitalism
Just as "Conservative Party"
Core is in The Confederacy
AKA; The RIGHT WING
The Right Wing of US Gov't
Is All About PRESERVING
Confederate States' Laws
Written by Thomas Jefferson
Prior to The Constitution, which
became the Received/Judicial
Constitutional Law of the Land in
The Republic of the "United States"
It's not enough that Trump is clearly a classic narcissist whose behavior will continue to deteriorate the more his actions
and statements are attacked and countered? You know what happens when narcissists are driven into a corner by people tearing them
down? They get weapons and start killing people.
There is already more than ample evidence to remove Donald Trump from office, not the least being he's clearly mentally unfit.
Yet the Democrats, some of whom ran for office on a promise to impeach, are suddenly reticent to act without "more investigation".
Nancy Pelosi stated on the record prior to release of the Mueller report impeachment wasn't on the agenda "for now". She's now
making noises in the opposite direction, but that's all they are: noise.
The bottom line is the Clintonite New Democrats currently running the party have only one issue to run on next year: getting
rid of Donald Trump. They still operate under the delusion they will be able to use him to draw off moderate Republican voters,
the same ones they were positive would come out for Hillary Clinton in '16. Their multitude of candidates pay lip service to progressive
policy then carefully walk back to the standard centrist positions once the donations start coming, but the common underlying
theme was and continues to be "Donald Trump is evil, and we need to elect a Democrat."
In short, without Donald Trump in the Oval Office, the Democrat Party has no platform. They need him there as a target, because
Mike Pence would be impossible for them to beat. They are under orders, according to various writers who've addressed the Clinton
campaign, to block Bernie Sanders and his platform at all costs; and they will allow the country to crash and burn before they
disobey those orders. That means keeping Donald Trump right where he is through next November.
Eddie S , April 24, 2019 at 21:14
Exactly right, EKB -- - you can't ballroom dance without a partner! Also reminds me of the couples you occasionally run into
where one partner repeatedly runs-down the other, and you get the feeling that the critical partner doesn't have much going on
in his/her life so they deflect that by focusing on the other partner
Johnny Ryan S , April 22, 2019 at 13:38
Why did the DNC not allow the FBI to investigate the so-called" Russian hacked" emails? Rather, they hire CrowdStrike did
you know:
1)Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC
2) CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire
3) DNC stayed that the FBI never asked to investigate the servers – that is a lie.
4) CrowdStrike received $100 million in investments led by Google Capital (since re-branded as CapitalG) in 2015. CapitalG is
owned by Alphabet, and Eric Schmidt, Alphabet's chairman, was a supporter of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. More than just
supporting Clinton, leaked emails from Wikileaks in November 2016 showed that in 2014 he wanted to have an active role in the
campaign.
-daily caller and dan bongino have been bringing these points up since 2016.
Deniz , April 22, 2019 at 12:36
The Right is currently salivating over the tough law enforcement rhetoric coming out of Barr and Trump.
It reminds me of when Obama was running for office in 2008 when everyone, including myself, was in awe of him. What kept slipping
into his soaring anti-intervention speeches, was a commitment to the good war in Afghanistan, which seemed totally out of place
with the rest of his rhetoric. The fine print was far more reflective of his administration actions as the rest of it his communications
turned out to be just telling people what they wanted to hear.
War with Afghanistan was Obama's payoff to the MIC, just as Russia is now Trump's payoff.
The argument about not inserting Rich and the download is a good one as a defense strategy but doesn't help with finding the
truth about the emails. We can only hope that pursuing the truth and producing it will have a cumulative effect and the illusory
truth effect will include this truth.
Red Douglas , April 22, 2019 at 16:00
>>> ". . . doesn't help with finding the truth about the emails."
The important truth about the emails is in their authenticity and in the contents. No one has even attempted to claim that
they are not authentic or that the contents we've seen are other than the actual contents of the authentic messages.
Why should we much care how they were acquired and provided to the publisher?
Lily , April 22, 2019 at 17:55
That is what i think. People should not concentrate on how, who and where. This is just a smokescreen to avoid talking about
the content of the emails and Hillary Clinton's disgusting actions. She is a criminal and a murderess just like Obama and Tony
Blair are lyers and mass murderers.
All three of them are free, earning millions with their publicity whereas two brave persons who were telling the truth have
been tortured and are still in jail. Reality has become like the most horrible nightmare. Everything simply seems to have turned
upside down. No writer would invent such a primitive plot. And yet it is the unbelievable reality.
Dump Pelousy , April 23, 2019 at 13:21
I totally agree with you, and in fact believe that this whole 22month expensive and mind numbing circus has been played out
JUST to keep the public from knowing what the emails actually said. Can you imagine Madcow focusing with such ferocity on John
Pedesta as she has on Putin, by discussing what he wrote during a presidential campaign to "influence the election" ? We'd be
a different country now, not fighting our way thru the McCarthite Swamp she helped create.
It's a dog & pony show. Trump folded very quickly, in april 2017 or three moth after inauguration. He proved
to be no fighter, a weakling, a marionette. Appointment of Bolton and Pompeo just added insult to injury. this is classic bait and
switch similar to what was executed by Obama after then election. In a way Trump is a Republican version of Obama.
I wonder if he did not want to fight to the death and sacrifice himself for the course, why he entered the Presidential race at
all ? He is not stupid enough not to understand the he will be covered with dirt and all skeletons in his closet will be dug
out for display by the US intelligence agencies, which protect that interest of Wall Street and MIC (Israel is a part of the
US MIC -- its biggest lobbyist and beneficiary) , not the USA as a sovereign state.
Notable quotes:
"... Mueller did none of these things which simply proves that his final report was what many people had expected from the very beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller's particular objectives. But to understand what those objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. ..."
"... To help sabotage Trump's political agenda ..."
"... To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump's election ..."
"... And to prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia. ..."
"... These were the real objectives of the investigation, to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage or, even worse, a traitor. ..."
"... The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment. Mueller played a key role in this travesty. His assignment was undermine Trump's moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment over his head. This is how a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington. ..."
"... "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will." ..."
"... Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime change wars? Are you kidding me? That's what we do: Regime-Change-Is-Us., ..."
"... Interesting, isn't it? Here's Hillary, the "liberal" Democrat, pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria even though the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, stated clearly that "Right now for us to control all of the airspace in Syria would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia." In other words, if Hillary had been elected, she was all ready to flip the switch and start WW3 ASAP. Is it any wonder why the establishment loved her? ..."
"... War, war and more war, that's the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell. It was Hillary's relentless hawkishness that pushed leftists into the Trump camp, not that they ever believed that Trump was anything more than what he appeared to be, an unprincipled narcissist with an insatiable lust for power. But they did hope that his dovish comments would steer the country away from nuclear annihilation. That was the hope at least, but then everything changed. And after it changed, Mueller released his report saying: "Trump is not guilty after all!" ..."
"... Think about it: In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines. The US has also increased its troop levels on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn't lifted a finger to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap. The US is not withdrawing from Syria. Washington is beefing up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul. But, why? Why did Trump change his mind and do a complete about-face? ..."
"... Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted. Which was the point, because the foreign policy establishment doesn't want a deal. They want regime change, they've made that perfectly clear. But wasn't Trump supposed to change all that? Wasn't Trump going to pursue "a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past"? ..."
"... There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudi's genocidal war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring up trouble in the South China Sea. At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and "stop toppling regimes and overthrowing governments." ' At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized. ..."
"... Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment. In Libya, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Iran, in Lebanon, he is faithfully implementing the neocon agenda. Trump "the peacemaker" is no where to be found, while Trump the 'madman with a knife' is on the loose. ..."
Why did Robert Mueller end the Russia investigation when he did? He could have let it drag it out for another year or so and severely
hurt Trump's chances for reelection. But he didn't do that. Why?
Of course, we're assuming that the investigation was never intended to uncover the truth. If it was, then Mueller would have interviewed
Julian Assange, Craig Murray and retired members of the Intelligence Community (Ray McGovern, Bill Binney) who have shown that the
Podesta emails were leaked by an insider (on a thumbdrive) not hacked by foreign agents. Mueller would have also seized the servers
at DNC headquarters and done the necessary forensic investigation, which he never did.
He also would have indicted senior-level agents
at the FBI and DOJ who improperly obtained FISA warrants by withholding critical information from the FISA court. He didn't do that
either.
Mueller did none of these things which simply proves that his final report was what many people had expected from the very
beginning; a purely political document that twists the truth to achieve Mueller's particular objectives. But to understand what those
objectives are, we need to determine what the real goals of the investigation were. So, here they are:
To help sabotage Trump's political agenda
To create a cloud of illegitimacy over Trump's election
And to prevent Trump from implementing his plan to normalize relations with Russia.
These were the real objectives of the investigation, to create a forth branch of government (Special Counsel) that had the power
to keep Trump permanently on the defensive while the media made him out to be either an unwitting accomplice in Russian espionage
or, even worse, a traitor.
The aim was to reign him in and keep the pressure on until a case could be made for his impeachment. Mueller
played a key role in this travesty. His assignment was undermine Trump's moral authority by brandishing the cudgel of criminal indictment
over his head. This is how a D.O.J. appointee, who had never held public office in his life, became the most powerful man in Washington.
My question is simply this: Why did Mueller give up all that power when he did?
I think I can answer that, but first, we need a little more background. Check out this quote from candidate Trump in 2016:
"We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past We will stop looking to topple regimes
and overthrow governments . Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States] We will
partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism In our dealings
with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will."
Imagine how terrified the foreign policy establishment must have been when they heard Trump utter these words. No more regime
change wars? Are you kidding me? That's what we do: Regime-Change-Is-Us., and now this upstart, New York real estate tycoon is promising
to do a complete 180 and move in another direction altogether. No more destabilizing coups, no more bloody military interventions,
instead, we're going to work collaboratively with countries like Russia and China to see if we can settle regional disputes and fight
terrorism together? Really?
At the same time Trump was promising this new era of "peace, understanding, and good will," Hillary Clinton was issuing her war
whoop at every opportunity. Here's candidate Hillary trying to drum up support for taking on the Russians in Syria:
"The situation in Syria is catastrophic. And every day that goes by, we see the results of the Assad regime in partnership
with the Iranians on the ground, and the Russians in the air When I was Secretary of State, I advocated and I advocate today a
no-fly zone and safe zones."
Interesting, isn't it? Here's Hillary, the "liberal" Democrat, pushing for a no-fly zone in Syria even though the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, stated clearly that "Right now for us to control all of the airspace in Syria
would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia." In other words, if Hillary had been elected, she was all ready to flip the
switch and start WW3 ASAP. Is it any wonder why the establishment loved her?
"We have to work more closely with our partners and allies on the ground," boomed Hillary, meaning that she fully supported
the continued use of jihadist proxies in the fight against Assad. "I do think the use of special forces, the use of enablers and
trainers in Iraq, which has had some positive effects, are very much in our interests, and so I do support what is happening."
War, war and more war, that's the Hillary Doctrine in a nutshell. It was Hillary's relentless hawkishness that pushed leftists into the Trump camp, not that they ever believed that Trump was anything
more than what he appeared to be, an unprincipled narcissist with an insatiable lust for power. But they did hope that his dovish
comments would steer the country away from nuclear annihilation. That was the hope at least, but then everything changed. And after
it changed, Mueller released his report saying: "Trump is not guilty after all!"
So, what changed? Trump changed.
Think about it: In mid December 2018, Trump announced the withdrawal of all U.S. troops in Syria within 30 days. But instead of
withdrawal, the US has been sending hundreds of trucks with weapons to the front lines. The US has also increased its troop levels
on the ground, the YPG (Kurdish militia, US proxies) are digging in on the Syria-Turkish border, and the US hasn't lifted a finger
to implement its agreements with NATO-ally Turkey under the Manbij Roadmap. The US is not withdrawing from Syria. Washington is beefing
up its defenses and settling in for the long-haul. But, why? Why did Trump change his mind and do a complete about-face?
The same thing happened in Korea. For a while it looked like Trump was serious about cutting a deal with Kim Jong un. But then,
sometime after the first summit, he began to backpeddle. He never honored any of his commitments under the Panmunjom Declaration
and he never reciprocated for Kim's cessation of all nuclear weapons and ballistic missile testing. Trump has made no effort to "build
a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula" or to strengthen trust between the two leaders. Then, at the Hanoi Summit,
Trump blindsided Kim by making demands that had never even been previously discussed. Kim was told that the North must destroy all
of its chemical and biological weapons as well as its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs before the US will take reciprocal
steps. In other words, Trump demanded that Kim completely and irreversibly disarm with the feint hope that the US would eventually
lift sanctions.
Trump made these outrageous demands knowing that they would never be accepted. Which was the point, because the foreign policy
establishment doesn't want a deal. They want regime change, they've made that perfectly clear. But wasn't Trump supposed to change
all that? Wasn't Trump going to pursue "a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past"?
Yes, that was Trump's campaign promise. So, what happened?
There are other signs of capitulation too; like providing lethal weapons to the Ukrainian military, or nixing the short-range
nuclear missile ban, or joining the Saudi's genocidal war on Yemen, or threatening to topple the government of Venezuela, or stirring
up trouble in the South China Sea. At every turn, Trump has backtracked on his promise to break with tradition and "stop toppling
regimes and overthrowing governments." ' At every turn, Trump has joined the ranks of the warhawks he once criticized.
Trump is now marching in lockstep with the foreign policy establishment. In Libya, in Sudan, in Somalia, in Iran, in Lebanon,
he is faithfully implementing the neocon agenda. Trump "the peacemaker" is no where to be found, while Trump the 'madman with a knife'
is on the loose.
Is that why Mueller let Trump off the hook? Was there a quid pro quo: "You follow our foreign policy directives and we'll make
Mueller disappear?
It sure looks like it. play_arrow 2 Reply reply Report flag
the report was finished last august. hed got all the juice in that squeeze. but i also guess he got a call from somebodys in
the GOG mafia[continuity of .gov] deepstate after all is their little bitch
He had to stop before he implicated himself. For instance, still waiting on "the why" he never put Steele or McCabe or Hillary
or Perkins Coie or Rosenstein or Comey etc under oath when it was...THEY... who supplied false evidence to a FISA court
, "evidence gathered" (according to Steele) from...ta daaah!...Russians ;-)
You can drive yourself crazy wondering whether it was all theater from the start, or whether they put a gun to the head of
the guy who was going to expose it was theater until he started playing along. End result, theater.
exactly. Just like you can wonder why Justice John Roberts turned on Obamacare and **** on conservatives. Was he sincere or
did he get a 3:00 am phone call that if he didn't uphold it, his wife and kids would die in an unfortunate accident?
Oh, I dunno...maybe because even with a crack team of demoncraft operatives, Deep State Hillary deadenders and a limitless
supply of federal funding even they couldn't come up with "Russian collusion" because...none ever existed? ;-)
SBS broadcast a 4 part doco called The Fourth Estate in June last year. It's about the NYT unhealthy obsession with Trump.
Episode 1 begins with his swearing in and cuts to stunned(?) NYT staffers watching the speech in which he says "For too long,
our politicians have prospered while (blah blah blah) and this stops, right here, and right now."
From then on it consists of an endless stream of huddles as various groups of staffers ponder the best way to spin various 'angles'
and approaches, or solo senior staffers pontificating on all manner of hypotheticals. There are lots of opinionated people working
at the NYT and none of them is 'stupid'.
I recorded Episode 1 and my conclusion from watching it is that NOTHING the NYT publishes is accidental. I began recording Episode
2 but aborted the mission after 30 minutes or so because the repetitive self-worship and drivel was eerily similar to Episode
1.
Wikipedia has an entry devoted to the series and it's freely available on the www. I recommend watching the first few minutes
of Episode 1 just to get a feeling for the tone.
The cartoon in question was published in an International Edition as a gloat or a public (private) joke, imo. I remain unconvinced
that the Editorial Staff at the Jew York Times was blissfully unaware that the cartoon 'might' create an opportunity for the "Anti-Semitism!!?"
crowd to stir up, and capitalise upon, the ensuing indignation and outrage.
While I knew about Nellie Ohr and her DOJ husband , what I didn't know was that while she
worked for Fusion GPS , fusion was a FBI contractor that had access to NSA database until
Admiral Rogers shut it down .
Sounds Like Brennan's CIA laundered information to EX-CIA Nellie Ohr when she was working
for Fusion GPS who then laundered this info to Steele , another person employed by Fusion who
then gave this back to Bruce Ohr of DOJ who then gave it to the FBI . And they all got paid
for their " research " . This then was used to deceive the FISA court . But Admiral Rogers
went to this court and warned Trump of the spying and violations of constitutional rights .
Shortly after Obama fired admiral Rogers . Sounds fishy to me ? what do you think ?
"... Significantly, Google CEO Sundar Pichai testified to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on December 11th, 2018 that "ad accounts linked to Russia" spent about $4,700 in advertising" to politically influence Americans during the 2016 presidential election season. ..."
The Mueller Report is now public, and our Mainstream Media have filled the airways with all sorts of commentaries and interpretations.
We know that - despite the very best efforts of the dedicated Leftist attorneys on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff - there
was absolutely no coordination between members of the Trump campaign, or any of his staffers, with Russians. No additional charges
have come as a result, other than accusations made earlier of "process crimes" (e.g. failure to report earnings on tax forms, failure
to report lobbying work, or not telling investigators what they demanded to hear -- "crimes" that practically every politician in
Washington has been guilty of at one time or another and would normally not cause much of a stir). None of these involved Russia.
Of course, that finding has not satisfied many Democrats or the unhinged Leftist crazies in the media, who continue to have visions
of "collusion" -- a kind of communications Alzheimers that has poisoned our media now for years. Thus, Representative Eric Swalwell
(who is one of nearly two dozen Democrats running for president) continues to assert that there was "collusion," as does the irrepressible
(and irresponsible) Adam Schiff: "it's there in plain sight," they insist, "if you just look hard enough, and maybe squint just a
bit -- or maybe have those specialized 3-D Russia glasses!"
Such political leaders -- along with those further out in the Leftist loonysphere like Representatives Maxine Waters and Alexandra
Ocasio-Cortes -- continue down their Primrose path of post-Marxist madness.
But beyond the collusion/coordination issue, the past couple of weeks have been filled with a swirling controversy concerning
what is called "obstruction of justice." And once again, the fundamental issues have been incredibly politicized. Special Counsel
Robert Mueller had an obligation, if he and his minions discovered "obstruction of justice," that is, concerted and illegal attempts
to obstruct the investigations by the president or his staff, to present charges to the Department of Justice. Yet, all he was able
to do was assemble a farrago of "he said/she said" instances, none of which rose to the level of criminal activity. Apparently President
Trump told a subaltern "I wish would you fire Mueller," or he wished in a speech in his joking style that "if the Russians had Hillary's
emails, they would release them," or he had a private conversation with Vladimir Putin when they met (as all national leaders do!),
or his son met with a Russian attorney who supposedly had some "dirt" on the Hillary Clinton campaign (which did not turn out to
be the reason for the Trump Tower meeting at all).
None of the ten or eleven cited instances came anywhere close to being actionable or criminal under settled law. In each instance
cited, the president's actions (or desires) fell within his purview and authority under Article II of the Constitution. And regarding
Trump's desire to fire Mueller, he was on solid legal ground; the Supreme Court in its 1997 decision, Edmonds vs. the United States
, declared that "inferior" officials, including an independent counsel, could be removed by presidential action as part of
his delegated powers . And, in any case, Mueller
was not dismissed.
Mueller had an obligation after examining these situations to make a finding; he did not. By so doing, by avoiding decisions and
stringing out such instances in an obviously political sense, he abdicated his responsibility and did his best to impugn Donald Trump
and his administration and thus offer grist for continued Democrat attacks on the president all the way through the 2020 election.
Mueller left it up to the Attorney General William Barr and Congress to decide how to proceed. And that is where we are today.
The one issue that both Democrats and most Republicans seem to agree on, the issue which both say is "proven conclusively" by
Mueller is that the Russians "attempted to interfere and did interfere" in our 2016 election.
Interesting, is it not, that the Republicans who zealously defend the president and attack the obviously political nature of the
Mueller Report would accept, as if on faith and without question, the accusations of Russian interference, also contained in the
report?
Turn on Fox and watch, say, Martha MacCallum (e.g., "The Story," April 24, 2019) declare "we all know now without doubt that the
Russians tried to interfere" in our elections, or listen to most any GOP congressman repeat that same narrative with unquestioning
certitude.
But that assertion - is it truly backed up factually? Where is the evidence, other than largely questionable information sourced
from our largely discredited intelligence agencies which, as we know, had a determined goal of overthrowing the president by any
means possible?
Almost three years have passed from the first fake news that appeared in the media on the subject of "Russian collusion," a concerted
effort launched to discredit at first the Donald Trump candidacy and then sabotage his presidency, including his efforts to stabilize
Russian-American relations.
As proof of Russian actions, the Mueller Report cites the indictments against twenty-five Russian citizens who were indicted for
attempted "interference" (those Russians are, let us add, quite conveniently out of the country and thus not prosecutable). When
those indictments were issued, Russia pointed out the flimsy, unsupported and transparently made-up nature of the charges, and demanded
that American authorities provide conclusive proof. Such requests were rebuffed.
In order to evaluate the evidence, the Russian government proposed reestablishing the bilateral expert group on information security
that the Obama Administration had terminated, which could have served as a platform for conversation on these matters. The American
side was also invited to send Justice Department officials to Russia to attend the proposed public questioning of the Russian citizens
named by Mueller. Additionally, Russia offered to publicize the exchanges between the two countries following the publication of
the accusations of cyberattacks, exchanges which were conducted through existing channels between October 2016 and January 2017.
Our government refused every offer.
A careful analysis, in fact, fails to show any substantial evidence of Russian cyberattacks and attempts to "subvert democracy."
By some estimates, possibly $160,000 -- a paltry sum -- was spent by the Russians during 2016 on social media activities in the United
States. Does anyone wish to discover and compare the amount the Chinese Communists or the Saudis would have expended during the same
period, for their continued influence and power in Washington and inside-the-Beltway?
It is helpful to examine the charges that have been made, some included in the Mueller Report and accepted blindly by most pundits
and politicians, both on the Left and by establishment conservatives.
The Russian government, via their embassy in Washington, has published
a 120 page "white paper,"
The Russiagate Hysteria: A Case of Severe Russiaphobia , responding to the accusations made against them since 2016. Obviously,
the Russian document has a particular viewpoint and very specific goal, but that should not deter us from examining it and evaluating
its arguments. (I have written on Russia and its relations with the United States on a number of occasions since 2015 and had pieces
published by The Unz Review , Communities Digital News , and elsewhere.
On my blog , "MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey," I have authored
a dozen columns addressing this question).
Here following I list twenty-one claims made regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election and in American domestic affairs.
I follow each claim with the Russian response and how others, as noted, have also responded. In most cases I retain the original
text, at times with my editing, but, in every case, with all the referenced sources.
These twenty-one claims should be examined more closely and more calmly, and the "Russophobic" hysteria we have experienced during
the past several years needs to be put aside for the sake of rational investigative inquiry -- and discovering how the Managerial
State and global elites have attempted a "silent coup" against what's left of our republic.
These claims and the responses deserve respectful consideration and detailed responses:
CLAIM: Russia "meddled" in the U.S. elections by conducting influence operations, including through social media.
FACT
All of the claims of Russian trolls that surfaced over the last few years (such as Russians using the Pokémon Go mobile
game and sex toy ads
to meddle in the elections
– ) are so preposterous and contradictory that they virtually disprove themselves.
Not to mention the absurdity of the whole notion of 13 persons and 3 organizations (whichever country they might represent)
charged on February 16, 2018, by Robert Mueller with criminally interfering with the elections, affecting in any way electoral
processes in a country of more than 300 million people.
It is telling that when pressed about the scope of the alleged influence campaign, representatives of American social media
companies give numbers, that even if they were valid (and there's no evidence of a connection to the Russian government), are
so minuscule as to be basically non-existent. For example, Facebook has identified 3,000 Russia-linked ads costing a total
of about $100,000. That's a
miniscule number of ads
and a fraction of Facebook's revenues, which totaled $28 billion. Facebook estimates that 126 million people might – the
emphasis is on the word "might" – have seen this content. But this number represents just 0.004% of the content those people
saw on the Facebook platform.
Significantly, Google CEO Sundar Pichai
testified
to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee hearing on December 11th, 2018 that "ad accounts linked to Russia" spent
about $4,700 in advertising" to politically influence Americans during the 2016 presidential election season.
To further cast doubt on the allegations, an American watchdog group "Campaign for Accountability" ("CFA") admitted on September
4th, 2018, that it deliberately posted propaganda materials on Google disguised as "Russian hackers from the Internet Research
Agency" to check how they would be filtered for "foreign interference". Google officials then accused the CFA as having ties
to a rival tech company "Oracle". In other words,
corporate intrigues disguised
as "Russian interference".
As American media has admitted, out of several dozen pre-election rallies supposedly organized by Russians, Special Counsel
Mueller mentions in his indictment that only a couple actually appear to have successfully attracted anyone, and those that
did were sparsely attended and, almost without exception, in deep-red enclaves that
would have voted for Trump anyway
.
Amidst all the hysteria about the alleged Russian meddling it is worth reading various research studies which show, quoting
"The Washington Post", that it is Americans, in particular our intelligence service,
that peddle disinformation
and hate speech.
According to Graham Brookie, director of the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab, the scale and scope of domestic
disinformation is much larger than any foreign influence operation. And academics from the Harvard's Shorenstein Center on
Media, Politics and Public Policy document in their study that there had been major spikes in outright fabrication and misleading
information proliferating online before the 2018 U.S. election. A "significant portion" of the disinformation appeared to come
from Americans, not foreigners, the Harvard researchers said.
CLAIM:Russian hackers accessed computer servers of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and leaked materials through Wikileaks
and other intermediaries
FACT
As President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin noted in his interview with NBC on June 5, 2017, when flatly denying
any allegations of Russia interfering in internal affairs of the U.S., that today's technology is such that the final internet
address can be masked and camouflaged to an extent that no one will be able to understand the origin of that address. It is possible
to set up any entity that may indicate one source when, in fact,
the source is completely different .
No evidence has been presented linking Russia to leaked emails. In fact, there are credible studies arguing that DNC servers
are much more likely to have been breached by someone with immediate and physical access. In 2017 a group of former officers of
the U.S. intelligence community, members of the "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" (VIPS), met with then-CIA Director
Mike Pompeo to present their findings.
Another counterargument to the "Russian hackers" claim is that the DNC files published by Wikileaks were initially stored under
the FAT (File Allocation System) method which is not related to internet transfers and can only be forwarded to an external device
such as a thumb drive.
It is also suspicious that the DNC prohibited the FBI from examining the servers. Instead, a third-party tech firm was hired,
"Crowd Strike", which is known for peddling the "Russian interference" claims. And soon enough it, indeed, announced that "Russian
malware" has been found, but again no solid evidence was produced.
According to the respected former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter,
the indictment by the Mueller
team on July 13, 2018 of the 12 supposed Russian operatives was
a politically motivated fraud . As Ritter explains, Mueller seems to have borrowed his list from an organizational chart of
a supposed Russian military intelligence unit, contained in a classified document from the NSA titled "Spear-Phishing Campaign
TTPs Used Against U.S. And Foreign Government Political Entities", which
was published by The Intercept online. As stated in that document, this is just a subjective judgement, not a known fact.
Ritter concludes, that this is a far cry from the kind of incontrovertible proof that Mueller's team suggests as existing to support
its indictment.
Moreover, it is telling that the indictment
was released just before the
meeting between President Putin and Trump in Helsinki on July 16, 2018, seemingly as if the aim was to intentionally derail the
bilateral summit.
CLAIM: Donald Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.
FACT
As concluded in the summary of the Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report, the investigation did not find that the Trump campaign
or anyone associated with
it conspired
or coordinated with Russia
If the Mueller team, having all the resources of the U.S. government, after 22 months of work,
many millions
of dollars spent , more than 2800 subpoenas issued, nearly 500 search warrants and 500 witness interviews, didn't find any
evidence of "collusion", it is simply because there was never any. The whole claim of collusion was launched and peddled by the
same group of Democrats, liberal-leaning media and the so-called "Never Trump Republicans", as it became clear that Donald Trump
had real chances of winning the election. And later it morphed into a campaign to derail the newly-elected President agenda, including
his efforts to mitigate the damage done to U.S.-Russian relations.
CLAIM: Hacking of American political institutions was personally ordered by the Russian President Vladimir Putin.
FACT
This claim is based on nothing else but the infamous fraudulent
"Steele Dossier" , paid for by political opponents [i.e., the Hilary Clinton campaign] of Donald Trump, and
wild conjectures that "nothing in Russia happens without Putin's approval" .
Needless to say, zero proof is presented. By the same logic, nothing in the U.S. happens without the President's approval.
For example, is he also responsible for Edward Snowden? After all, Mr. Snowden was doing work for the U.S. intelligence services.
Or the deaths of all the civilians killed abroad by U.S. drone strikes? Every minute detail approved by the President?
CLAIM: Russia did not cooperate with the U.S. in tracing the source of the alleged hacking.
FACT
Russia has repeatedly offered to set up a professional and de-politicized dialogue on international information security only
to be rebuffed by the U.S. State Department. For instance, following the discussion between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald
Trump in Hamburg on July 7, 2017, Russia forwarded to the U.S. a proposal to reestablish a bilateral working group on cyber threats
which would have been a perfect medium to discuss American concerns. Moreover, during his meeting with Donald Trump in Helsinki
on July 17, 2018, Vladimir Putin offered to allow U.S. representatives to be present at an interrogation of the Russian citizens
who were previously accused by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller of
being guilty of electoral interference.
Furthermore, in February 2019 the Russian government suggested publishing bilateral correspondence on the subject of unsanctioned
access to U.S. electronic networks, which was conducted between Washington and Moscow through the Nuclear Threat Reduction Centers
in the period from October 2016 to the end of January 2017.
Needless to say, all Russian offers were rejected. A conclusion is naturally reached that American State Department officials
have little interest in hearing anything that contradicts their own narrative or the discredited version of the CIA.
CLAIM: Russia is interfering in elections all over the world
FACT
No credible evidence has been produced not only of Russia's supposed meddling in the U.S. political processes, but to support
similar allegations made by the U.S. in respect to other countries. For example, former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster
insinuated that Russia was interfering in
the Mexican presidential elections of 2018. However, Mexican officials,
including
the president of the Mexican Senate Ernesto Cordero Arroyo, and Ambassador to Russia Norma Pensado
during a press conference in Moscow in February, 2018, debunked
this baseless claim.
Another example of fake news were reports saying that U.S.
was increasingly convinced that Russia hacked French election on May 9, 2017. However, on June 1, 2017, the head of the French
government's cyber security agency said no trace
was found of the claimed Russian hacking group behind the attack. On the other hand, the history of U.S. interfering in other
countries' elections
is well documented by American sources (see: ).
For example, a Carnegie Mellon scholar, Dov H. Levin, has scoured the historical record and
found 81 examples of U.S. election influence operations from 1946- to 2000. Often cited examples include Chile in 1964, Guyana
in 1968, Nicaragua in 1990, Yugoslavia in 2000, Afghanistan in 2009, Ukraine in 2014, not to mention Russia in 1996! And how else
could the current situation in Ukraine and Venezuela be described, with U.S. representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker openly pressuring
Ukrainian voters
to support the incumbent , and Washington
possibly plotting a
coup in Caracas?
CLAIM: The lawsuit of the Democratic National Committee against the Russian Federation related to "interference in the election"
has a legal standing.
FACT
The DNC filed a civil lawsuit on April 20, 2018 against the Russian Federation and other entities and individuals. Named as
defendants in the lawsuit are the Russian Federation; the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (GRU); the
GRU operative using the pseudonym "Guccifer 2.0"; Aras Iskenerovich Agalarov; Emin Araz Agalarov; Joseph Mifsud; WikiLeaks; Julian
Assange; the Trump campaign (formally "Donald J. Trump for President, Inc."); Donald Trump, Jr.; Paul Manafort; Roger Stone; Jared
Kushner; George Papadopoulos; Richard W. Gates; and unnamed defendants sued as John Does 1–10. The DNC's complaint accuses the
Trump campaign of engaging in a racketeering enterprise in conjunction with Russia and WikiLeaks.
Even irrespective of the fact that there was no "interference" in the first place, the case has no legal standing. Exercise
of U.S. jurisdiction over the pending case with respect to the Russian Federation is a violation of the international law, specifically,
violation of jurisdictional immunities of the Russian Federation arising from the principle of the sovereign equality of states.
CLAIM: Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak was a spy.
FACT
In March of 2017 U.S. media
began libeling
Sergey Kislyak a "top spy and spy-recruiter" This preposterous claim was based on nothing but his contacts with Trump confidant
Senator Jeff Sessions – carrying out work any ambassador would do. Per the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961,
among core diplomatic functions is ascertaining
by all lawful means conditions
and developments in the receiving state, and that certainly includes openly meeting leaders of Congress on Capitol Hill. Even
former CIA Director John McLaughlin
noted that Mr. Kislyak is an experienced diplomat, not a spy.
CLAIM: Russian Embassy retreat in Maryland was an intelligence base
FACT.
Among the unlawful acts that U.S. administrations undertook was the expropriation of a legal Russian property in Maryland,
a summer retreat near the Chesapeake Bay under the pretext
it was used for intelligence gathering. But where is the supposed-treasure trove of alleged spy equipment that U.S. authorities
reportedly found there? Why not show them publicly to back up the claim? After the expropriation and the claims, not a word –
silence.
The retreat, "dacha" as Russians would call it, was bought by the former Soviet Union in 1972. Since then, it was used for
recreation, including hosting a children's summer camp and regularly entertaining American visitors. One of the more popular events
was the stop-over during the annual Chesapeake Regatta, completed with an expansive tour of the property. Presumably U.S. intelligence
services could have used this for years to inspect the property. Why was nothing ever mentioned before the Obama Administration
action?
CLAIM: The meeting in Trump Tower in New York on June 9, 2016 between Trump campaign officials and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya
was to discuss compromising materials that Russian had on Hillary Clinton.
FACT
According
to testimony provided to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Veselnitskaya focused on explaining the illicit activities
of U.S.-British investor Bill Browder, wanted in Russia for crimes, and brought attention to the adverse effects of the so-called
"Magnitskiy Act", adopted by U.S. Congress in 2012 and lobbied for by Browder.
CLAIM: Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, met with Russians in Prague to "collude".
FACT
It was reported in American media that the Justice Department special counsel had evidence that Donald Trump's personal lawyer,
Michael Cohen, secretly made a trip to Prague during the 2016 presidential campaign to meet with Russian representatives,
a fact also mentioned
in the discredited "Steele Dossier". This was given as further evidence of "collusion". But Cohen vehemently denied this –
under oath. Passport records
indicate
that he never was in Prague. He was actually on vacation with his son at the supposed time. Given that he publicly turned
on his former boss and still denied the fact of ever going to Prague disproves this claim further.
CLAIM: Former member of the Trump campaign team Carter Page was a Russian intelligence asset.
FACT
According to members of Congress and journalistic investigations, the redacted declassified documents of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC, also called the FISA Court)
show that the main source used by U.S. counterintelligence to justify spying on Mr. Page was the fraudulent so-called "Steele
Dossier".
Thus, Mr. Page for obvious reasons was not accused by the team of Robert Mueller of being involved in a "Russian conspiracy".
CLAIM: On August 22, 2018, The Democratic National Committee filed a claim with the FBI, accusing the "Russian hackers" of
infiltrating its electoral database.
FACT
Several days later members of the Democratic Party
admitted that it was a "false alarm", as it was simply a security check-up performed at the initiative of the Democratic Party's
affiliate in Michigan.
CLAIM: On August 8, 2018 U.S. Senator Bill Nelson accused Russia of breaching the infrastructure of the voter registration
systems in several local election offices of Florida.
FACT
Florida's Department of State spokesperson, Sarah Revell, stated on August 9, 2018, that Florida's government had not received
any evidence from competent authorities that Florida's voting systems or election records had been compromised. The U.S. Department
of Homeland Security and the FBI also
could not confirm in any manner the accusations.
CLAIM: In September, 2017 the U.S. media, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, accused Russia of "cyberattacks"
on electoral infrastructure in 21 states during the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections.
FACT
On September 27, 2017, Wisconsin and California authorities stated that their electoral systems were not targeted by cyberattacks.
On November 12, 2017, the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Steven Mnuchin said in a CBS interview that the "hackers' activity" had
no significant consequences and did not influence the outcome of the elections. And, indeed, the
source of those attacks was not clear.
CLAIM: Russia meddled in the Alabama 2017 Senate elections to help the Republican candidate.
FACT
Despite
the initial claims , it turned out that a group of Democratic tech experts decided to imitate so-called "Russian tactics"
in the fiercely contested Alabama Senate racе. Even more jarring is the fact that one participant in the "Alabama project", Jonathon
Morgan, is chief executive of "New Knowledge", a cyber security firm that
wrote a scathing account
of Russia's social media operations in the 2016 election that was released in 2018 by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Once
again, we have one of the main private sector players in hyping the Russian threat caught red-handed.
CLAIM: Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's presidential campaign chairman, was a secret link to Russian intelligence.
FACT
Trump's former campaign chairman was hit with two indictments from Mueller's office. However, even as American media notes,
both cases have nothing to do with Russia and stemmed from his years as a political consultant for the Ukrainian government and
his failure to pay taxes on the millions he earned, his failure to report the foreign bank accounts he used to stash that money,
and his failure to report his work to the US government. In his second case in Virginia,
he was also charged with committing bank fraud to boost his assets when the Ukraine work dried up.
In fact, serious concerns have been raised in the U.S. that it was Ukrainian officials who tried to influence the 2016 elections
by leaking compromising
materials on Mr. Manafort.
The Ukrainian connection is also prevalent in the case of money transferred to accounts of American politicians. For instance,
according to a "New York Times" article, Ukrainian billionaire Viktor Pinchuk
donated over
10 million dollars to the "Clinton Foundation while just 150 thousand dollars to the "Trump Foundation".
CLAIM: Russia compromised the Vermont power grid.
FACT
On December 31, 2016, "The Washington Post", accused "Russian hackers" of compromising the Vermont power grid. The local company,
"Burlington Electric", allegedly traced a malware code in a laptop of one of its employees. It was stated that the same "code"
was used to hack the Democratic Party servers in 2016. However, the "Wordfence" cybersecurity firm checked "Burlington Electric"
for hacking, and said that the malware code was openly available, for instance, on a web-site of Ukrainian hackers . The attackers
were using IP-addresses from across the world. "The Washington Post"
later admitted that conclusions on Russia's involvement were false.
CLAIM: Russian Alfa Bank was used as a secret communication link with the Trump campaign .
FACT
In October 2016 a new "accusation" appeared,
alleging that a message exchange between the Alfa Bank server and Trump organizations indicated a "secret" Trump – Russia
communication channel.
CLAIM: Russia cracked voter registration systems during the 2016 U.S. elections.
FACT
In July 2016 the U.S. Department of Homeland Security accused Russia of gaining unauthorized access to electronic voter registration
systems in Arizona. But on April 8, 2018, "Reuters",
referring to a high-ranking U.S. administration official, wrote there was no proof Russia had anything to do with the mentioned
cyberattack.
CLAIM: Russian Embassy bank transactions were linked to "election interference".
FACT
American publication "Buzzfeed"
repeatedly claimed that U.S. authorities flagged Russian Embassy financial transfers as suspicious, many of them dated around
the 2016 election. In reality, the media outlet, by twisting the facts and placing them out of context, made routine banking transactions
– salary transfers, payments to contractors – look nefarious.
It is not
uncommon for embassy personnel to receive larger payouts, transfer or withdraw larger sums of money at the end of their work.
Furthermore, leaking of confidential banking information of persons and organizations protected by diplomatic immunity raised
concerns about the likely involvement of security services.
The
arrest in October 2018 of a U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network official, charged with leaking
information both about the Russian Embassy accounts and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, provides further proof to
the theory of political skullduggery.
* * *
Most of these responses have not been fully examined or addressed by major media, nor, for that matter, by Fox News, dominated
as it is by an almost instinctive Neoconservative Russophobia (the one possible exception being Tucker Carlson).
For the American Left, since the collapse of Communism and the growth of a traditionalist nationalism (under Vladimir Putin),
Russia has become a convenient target. When the Soviets were in power prior to 1991, the USSR was seen as a "progressive" presence
in the world, even if by the requirements of American politics the Left was forced to make ritualistic condemnations of the more
extreme elements of Soviet statecraft. Now that post-Communist Russia bans same sex marriage, glorifies the traditional family,
and the conservative Russian Orthodox Church occupies a special position of esteem and prominence, that admiration has turned
to fear and loathing. And that Russia and its president have been viewed as favorable to the hated Donald Trump doubly confirms
that hostility and targeting.
For the dominant Neoconservatives and many Republicans, contemporary Russia is seen as "anti-democratic," "reactionary," and
a threat to American world hegemony (and the refusal to bow to that hegemony, whether economically, politically, or culturally).
Indeed, as a major intellectual force, Neoconservatism owes much of its origins to Eastern European and Russia Jews, many of whose
ancestors were at direct odds with the old pre-1917 Tsarist state. That animus, those nightmares of pogroms and oppression, have
never completely subsided. A modern traditionalist, Orthodox Russia is viewed as antithetical to their more liberal, even Leftwing
ideas (e.g., increasing "conservative" acceptance of same sex marriage, "moderate" feminism, and a whole panoply of "forward looking"
views on civil rights issues -- all of which are present on Fox News.)
Memory of "the bad old days" has never disappeared.
None of this history should prevent a close examination of the current accusations against Russia, nor our search for the truth.
Much -- perhaps the future of Western civilization itself -- depends on it.
"... Russia, and specifically President Putin, were presented as the ultimate global bogeyman after Crimea's 2014 reunification and Moscow's 2015 anti-terrorist military intervention in Syria changed the balance of power around the world and unquestionably ushered in the multipolar era after two and a half decades of American unipolarity. ..."
"... It was therefore thought by the ruling anti-Trump faction of the US' permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies ("deep state") at the time that they could easily convince the electorate to vote against the seemingly "anti-systemic" political insurgent by implying that he's a "Russian puppet" and then later, after that didn't work, manufacturing so-called "evidence" purporting to prove this through unverified fake news claims designed to defame him. ..."
Mueller report proved that Russiagate was one long series of hoaxes designed to discredit
Trump and pave the way for his impeachment
It's finally official -- Trump and his team didn't "collude" with Russia like the Democrats
and their supporters incessantly claimed for nearly the past three years. Positive coverage of
candidate Trump's promising foreign policy platform by Russian international media and truthful
reporting about Clinton's aggressive one don't amount to "hacking" an election, nor do some
internet researchers from Russia supposedly sharing some political memes on Facebook. It's now
been revealed that Russiagate was one long series of hoaxes designed to discredit Trump and
pave the way for his impeachment after it first failed to stop him from winning the presidency.
Like the American leader himself has said on several occasions already, Russiagate was an
unconstitutional coup attempt against the country's democratically elected leadership, which
deserves to be analyzed more in depth.
Russia, and specifically President Putin, were presented as the ultimate global bogeyman
after Crimea's 2014 reunification and Moscow's 2015 anti-terrorist military intervention in
Syria changed the balance of power around the world and unquestionably ushered in the
multipolar era after two and a half decades of American unipolarity.
It was therefore thought by the ruling anti-Trump faction of the US' permanent military,
intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies ("deep state") at the time that they could easily
convince the electorate to vote against the seemingly "anti-systemic" political insurgent by
implying that he's a "Russian puppet" and then later, after that didn't work, manufacturing
so-called "evidence" purporting to prove this through unverified fake news claims designed to
defame him.
Psyops and propaganda have a cumulative effect on the thought processes of the target
populations. After 9/11 it became legal for our intelligence services to turn these insidious
weapons on our own people. The result is a metastasis of political polarization into fear and
loathing in more vulnerable minds. These Dark State practitioners are manipulating the
outcomes and expect cult-like (or occult) spasms of mass murder. The crude scapegoating, the
Orwellian menagerie of enemies, the contamination of public forums with trolls, the false
flags, and constant promotion of political hysteria, has a methodology that we have seen in
the 20th Century. I am always grateful when b reminds us of this danger.
Mediastan: A Wikileaks Road Movie: Due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the
arrests of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning, Sixteen Films and Journeyman Pictures are
providing a time-limited free access to the Wikileaks road movie Mediastan. Mediastan is a
documentary film directed by Johannes Wahlström and co-produced by Julian Assange,
detailing the publication of the very documents for which both Assange and Manning have
been incarcerated.
"... Deerlove was also directly involved in setting up several Trump Campaign operatives for fake links to Russia (George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Gen. Flynn), together with British intelligence assets Joseph Mifsud and CIA asset Stefan Halper, a close ally of Deerlove at Cambridge. ..."
"... Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told Fox News Tuesday that he will immediately investigate three cases of suspected "set ups," efforts to create fake connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, all directly run by British operatives: the Mifsud role with Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer in falsely connecting George Papadopoulos to Russian spies; Halper and Deerlove setting up Gen. Flynn with fake Russian connections; and the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian lawyer, set up by the slimy British operative Rob Goldstone. ..."
On Thursday morning, Attorney General William Barr is scheduled to release the Mueller
report, with redactions, according to laws regarding security and the privacy of Grand Jury
proceedings. While the Trump haters and conspirators are preparing various operations to keep
Russiagate going, despite the report's exoneration of Trump's imagined "collusion," the reality
that the British ran the entire operation, as identified from the beginning by EIR, is now
bursting out into the open, and is threatening to be the subject of criminal investigations in
the Department of Justice and in the Congress.
The Daily Caller's Chuck Ross on Tuesday ran an article titled: "Former British Spymaster
Has Flown Under the Radar in Russia Probe, Despite Links to Key Figures." He names Richard
Deerlove, MI6 chief from 1999 to 2004, as a key operative working with fellow MI6 operative
Christopher Steele, the author of the now discredited dossier on Trump's supposed collusion
with Russia. Deerlove was also directly involved in setting up several Trump Campaign
operatives for fake links to Russia (George Papadopolous, Carter Page, Gen. Flynn), together
with British intelligence assets Joseph Mifsud and CIA asset Stefan Halper, a close ally of
Deerlove at Cambridge.
Meanwhile, Rep. Devin Nunes, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, told
Fox News Tuesday that he will immediately investigate three cases of suspected "set ups,"
efforts to create fake connections between the Trump campaign and the Russians, all directly
run by British operatives: the Mifsud role with Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer in
falsely connecting George Papadopoulos to Russian spies; Halper and Deerlove setting up Gen.
Flynn with fake Russian connections; and the infamous Trump Tower meeting with a Russian
lawyer, set up by the slimy British operative Rob Goldstone.
What's more, the VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) issued a public
Memorandum for President Trump on Tuesday, called "The Fly in the Mueller Ointment," warning
him that the Mueller report, despite finding no evidence of collusion, maintains the lie that
the Russians hacked leading Democratic Party computers and provided their emails to Wikileaks,
falsely described as a Russian front. Detailing their forensic proof that the emails were
downloaded, not hacked, the VIPS warn the President that if these lies are allowed to stand,
the idea that Trump was elected due to Russian "interference" in the election will remain, "and
that melody will linger on for the rest of your presidency, unless you seize the moment.... You
are the President, and there may be no better time than now to face them down." (see Bill Binney interview with
LPAC.)
03/28/2016 With the increasing propaganda wars, we thought a reminder of just how naive many
Westerners are when it comes to their news-feed. As
Arjun Walia, of GlobalResearch.ca, notes, Dr. Ulfkotte went on public television stating
that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding
that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job.
He recently made an appearance on RT news to share these facts:
I've been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not
to tell the truth to the public.
But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to
bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia -- this is a point of no return and
I'm going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate
people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have
done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over
Europe.
The ceding of democracy to an unaccountable deep state in the US is at the heart of many of
the world's woes.
'The Devils Chessboard' (by DAvid Talbot) provides a riveting account of how cold war
paranoia became the engine to so much US thinking culminating in the murder of JFK (by the
CIA) once Kennedy became the first president to meaningfully challenge the authority of the
security apperatus.
The murderous policies Kennedy tried and failed to confront have only mushroomed since
then so that today we have a form of cryptofascism in the US that the media are in absolute
denial about.
JFK was gunned down.
Julian Assange will be consigned to solitary if the deep state has it's way.
But this doesn't stop MPs like jess Phillips, hacks like Hadley Freeman or other assorted
phonies in the 'liberal media' cheering them on – this is what we are up against.
Except JFK didn't do anything of the sort: and conducted a fair few murderous policies of his
own – inter alia: against Cuba and South Vietnam. But I am tired of arguing the point
with actual facts. What I will say, is that this pseudo-historic construct hides the and
heroifies the crimes of Empire and Unpeoples more than half the world. And normalises
Armageddon as a game of nuclear brinksmanship. We won't be so lucky again following the
satandardised diplomatic "13 Days" diplomacy. [That was a typo: but its staying as far more
eloquent than 'standardised']. A point I have made consistently for about two years: with
evidence. But opinion is averse to contradictory facticity. It would be nice to see a
symmetric history emerging: one that returns the humanity to the dehumanised of the world.
Not one that focuses on and normalises the murderous hagiography of the Great Men of Empire
but hey, ho. Loading...
What we do know is that JFK was preceived as sufficiently threating (to the interests of the
deep state) that the CIA blew his brains out.
It is this fundemental power dynamic that I am mostly alluding to – in other words
the way in which the intelligence apperatus rose above the law so that by '63 even the
president of the USA was not safe from their nefarious scheming.
By comparison a whitleblower is a far more vulnerable target and it appears the CIA have
been prepared to bide their time while a sham legal process goes through the motions in order
to create an illusion that justice is being served when in facts it's not, because as we all
know Asssange's fate has already been sealed.
I take your point about JFKs failings but given the fascistic nature of US power it is
very unlikely that an untainted politician could negotiate the many hurdles the prevent less
amoral individuals from reaching such rarefied heights.
With all due respect, Harry, we do not know that JFK was perceived as a 'threat' at all. That
is a retroactive conclusion drawn from a fabricated virtual JFK. I've shown he was not
turning to peace, not withdrawing from Vietnam, the MIC was doing rather well out of him
– particularly the Rand Corporation that was driving policy in Vietnam. He doubled the
nuclear arsenal and ordered a whole fleet of Polaris subs, alongside massively strengthening
his conventional forces – including his counterinsurgency forces that were currently
raping, torturing and murdering their way round any designated 'gooks' in Vietnam. He even
gave them a valedictory shoutout in his last recorded speech. And added that Vietnam would
fall overnight without them.
Millions of man hours and a trillion dollar industry have shone very little light on the
why. Speculation abounds. What he did do was really piss off a whole bunch of psychopaths (my
money is on Lyman Lemnitzer). The whole metaconspiracy thing seems contrived to me –
especially as it does not fit the evidence.
Points about the power structure are well made. The CIA and international intelligence
agencies – not strictly limited to 'Five Eyes' or even 'Fourteen Eyes' – seem to
have at least some integrated policy and are out of control.
Any derogatory remarks about the medias alternative Labour leader – Jess Phillips
– are welcome too.
BigB. Wrong again. A Washington journalist 3 weeks before the assassination wrote about the
CIA being out of control in Vietnam. His highly placed source reckoned too that a coup would
more likely come from the CIA before the Pentagon. The source in all likelihood was JFK. Just
because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean it wasn't so. Loading...
Well, Hugh – what can I say? You have steadfastly refused to even contemplate that the
Douglass pulp fiction is tripe. I have offered to go through the key pages and
cross-reference with any of Sheldon Stern's Excomm books – that show how contrived a
narrative fiction it is. You will not hear it. Nor will you hear anything of the murderous
policies of the Diem clan – and their forced Catholicisation and cultural genocide. Now
you are countering what I have adequately referenced in the past with "a reporter said".
Reporters say a lot of things: not necessarily linked to reality. Can you substantiate what
this anonymous reporter said?
His well chronicled persecution of, inter alia, the Cubans and the South Vietnamese speaks
volumes to those who have ears to hear. I believe the first thing he did was sign a
counterinsurgency order against North Vietnam – but I can't be bothered to check. His
whole programme there was illegal, contra International Humanitarian Law, contra the Geneva
Accords, contra humanity, contra life. They still have deformed children and environmental
problems from the rainbow of chemical warfare defoliants used in Operation Ranch Hand –
every run signed off by JFK initially. And still you defend him, denigrating the unpeopled
and deformed Other because a reporter said? Get real: he is not worthy of anyone's adulation.
You can't hide behind the CIA forever. He made plenty of anti-human decisions on his own.
Some of which nearly precipitated Armageddon.
Coming right back at ya: just because you are ignorant of something doesn't mean it wasn't
so.
"... The CIA is the center of a vast mechanism that specializes in Covert Operations ... or as Allen Dulles used to call it, "Peacetime Operations." ..."
"... the CIA is the willing tool of a higher level Secret Team, or High Cabal, that usually includes representatives of the CIA and other instrumentalities of the government, certain cells of the business and professional world and, almost always, foreign participation. It is this Secret Team, its allies, and its method of operation that are the principal subjects of this book. ..."
"... vast intergovernmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses. The Secret Team has very close affiliations with elements of power in more than three-score foreign countries and is able when it chooses to topple governments, to create governments, and to influence governments almost anywhere in the world. ..."
"... the power of the Team is enhanced by the "cult of the gun" and by its sometimes brutal and always arbitrary anti-Communist flag waving, even when real Communism had nothing to do with the matter at hand. ..."
"... To be a member, you don't question, you don't ask; it's "Get on the Team" or else. One of its most powerful weapons in the most political and powerful capitals of the world is that of exclusion. To be denied the "need to know" status, like being a member of the Team, even though one may have all the necessary clearances, is to be totally blackballed and eliminated from further participation. Politically, if you are cut from the Team and from its insider's knowledge, you are dead. In many ways and by many criteria the Secret Team is the inner sanctum of a new religious order. ..."
"... At the heart of the Team, of course, arc a handful of top executives of the CIA and of the National Security Council (NSC), most notably the chief White House adviser to the President on foreign policy affairs. ..."
"... It is often quite difficult to tell exactly who many of these men really are, because some may wear a uniform and the rank of general and really be with the CIA and others may be as inconspicuous as the executive assistant to some Cabinet officer's chief deputy. ..."
"... even more damaging to the coherent conduct of foreign and military affairs, it is a bewildering collection of semi-permanent or temporarily assembled action committees and networks that respond pretty much ad hoc to specific troubles and to flash-intelligence data inputs from various parts of the world, sometimes in ways that duplicate the activities of regular American missions, sometimes in ways that undermine those activities, and very often in ways that interfere with and muddle them. ..."
"... This report is a prime example of how the Secret Team, which has gained so much control over the vital foreign and political activities of this government, functions. ..."
"... Although even in his time he had seen the beginning of the move of the CIA into covert activities, there can be little doubt that the "diversion" to which he made reference was not one that he would have attributed to himself or to any other President. Rather, the fact that the CIA had gone into clandestine operations and had been "injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations," and "has been so much removed from its intended role" was more properly attributable to the growing and secret pressures of some other power source. As he said, the CIA had become "a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue." ..."
I was the first author to point out that the CIA's most important "Cover Story" is that of an "Intelligence" agency. Of course
the CIA does make use of "intelligence" and "intelligence gathering," but that is largely a front for its primary interest, "Fun
and Games." The CIA is the center of a vast mechanism that specializes in Covert Operations ... or as Allen Dulles used to call
it, "Peacetime Operations."
In this sense, the CIA is the willing tool of a higher level Secret Team, or High Cabal, that usually includes representatives
of the CIA and other instrumentalities of the government, certain cells of the business and professional world and, almost always,
foreign participation. It is this Secret Team, its allies, and its method of operation that are the principal subjects of this book.
It must be made clear that at the heart of Covert Operations is the denial by the "operator," i.e. the U.S. Government, of the
existence of national sovereignty. The Covert operator can, and does, make the world his playground ... including the U.S.A. Today,
early 1990, the most important events of this century are taking place with the ending of the "Cold War" era, and the beginning of
the new age of "One World" under the control of businessmen and their lawyers, rather than the threat of military power. This scenario
for change has been brought about by a series of Secret Team operations skillfully orchestrated while the contrived hostilities of
the Cold War were at their zenith.
... ... ...
We may wish to note that in a book "Gentleman Spy, the Life of Allen Dulles" the author, Peter Grose cites Allen Dulles response
to an invitation to the luncheon table from Hoover's Secretary of State, Henry L. Stimson. Allen Dulles assured his partners in the
Sullivan & Cromwell law firm, "Let it be known quietly that I am a lawyer and not a diplomat." He could not have made a more characteristic
and truthful statement about himself. He always made it clear that he did not "plan" his work, he was always the "lawyer" who carried
out the orders of his client whether the President of the United States, or the President of the local bank.
The Secret Team (ST) being described herein consists of securitycleared individuals in and out of government who receive secret
intelligence data gathered by the CIA and the National Security Agency (NSA) and who react to those data, when it seems appropriate
to them, wide paramilitary plans and activities, e.g. training and "advising" -- a not exactly impenetrable euphemism for such things
as leading into battle and actual combat -- Laotian tribal troops, Tibetan rebel horsemen, or Jordanian elite Palace Guards.
Membership on the Team, granted on a "need-to-know" basis, varies with the nature and location of the problems that come to its
attention, and its origins derive from that sometimes elite band of men who served with the World War II Office of Strategic Services
(OSS) under the father of them all, General "Wild Bill" William J. Donovan, and in the old CIA.
The power of the team derives from its vast intergovernmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great
private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media, including foreign and domestic publishing
houses. The Secret Team has very close affiliations with elements of power in more than three-score foreign countries and is able
when it chooses to topple governments, to create governments, and to influence governments almost anywhere in the world.
Whether or not the Secret Team had anything whatsoever to do with the deaths of Rafael Trujillo, Ngo Dinh Diem, Ngo Dinh Nhu,
Dag Hammarskjold, John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and others may never be revealed, but what is known is
that the power of the Team is enhanced by the "cult of the gun" and by its sometimes brutal and always arbitrary anti-Communist
flag waving, even when real Communism had nothing to do with the matter at hand.
The Secret Team docs not like criticism, investigation, or his- tory and is always prone to see the world as divided into but
two camps -- "Them" and "Us." Sometimes the distinction may be as little as one dot, as in "So. Viets" and "Soviets," the So. Viets
being our friends in Indochina, and the Soviets being the enemy of that period. To be a member, you don't question, you don't
ask; it's "Get on the Team" or else. One of its most powerful weapons in the most political and powerful capitals of the world is
that of exclusion. To be denied the "need to know" status, like being a member of the Team, even though one may have all the necessary
clearances, is to be totally blackballed and eliminated from further participation. Politically, if you are cut from the Team and
from its insider's knowledge, you are dead. In many ways and by many criteria the Secret Team is the inner sanctum of a new religious
order.
At the heart of the Team, of course, arc a handful of top executives of the CIA and of the National Security Council (NSC),
most notably the chief White House adviser to the President on foreign policy affairs. Around them revolves a sort of inner
ring of Presidential officials, civilians, and military men from the Pentagon, and career professionals of the intelligence community.
It is often quite difficult to tell exactly who many of these men really are, because some may wear a uniform and the rank of
general and really be with the CIA and others may be as inconspicuous as the executive assistant to some Cabinet officer's chief
deputy.
Out beyond this ring is an extensive and intricate network of government officials with responsibility for, or expertise in, some
specific field that touches on national security or foreign affairs: "Think Tank" analysts, businessmen who travel a lot or whose
businesses (e.g., import-export or cargo airline operations) are useful, academic experts in this or that technical subject or geographic
region, and quite importantly, alumni of the intelligence community -- a service from which there are no unconditional resignations.
All true members of the Team remain in the power center whether in office with the incumbent administration or out of office with
the hard-core set. They simply rotate to and from official jobs and the business world or the pleasant haven of academe.
Thus, the Secret Team is not a clandestine super-planning-board or super-general-staff. But even more damaging to the coherent
conduct of foreign and military affairs, it is a bewildering collection of semi-permanent or temporarily assembled action committees
and networks that respond pretty much ad hoc to specific troubles and to flash-intelligence data inputs from various parts of the
world, sometimes in ways that duplicate the activities of regular American missions, sometimes in ways that undermine those activities,
and very often in ways that interfere with and muddle them. At no time did the powerful and deft hand of the Secret Team evidence
more catalytic influence than in the events of those final ninety days of 1963, which the "Pentagon Papers" were supposed to have
exposed. The New York Times shocked the world on Sunday, June 13,1971, with the publication of the first elements of the Pentagon
Papers.
The first document the Times selected to print was a trip report on the situation in Saigon, credited to the Secretary of Defense,
Robert S. McNamara, and dated December 21,1963. This was the first such report on the situation in Indochina to be submitted to President
Lyndon B. Johnson. It came less than thirty days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and less than sixty days after
the assassinations of President Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam and his brother and counselor Ngo Dinh Nhu.
Whether from some inner wisdom or real prescience or merely simple random selection, the Times chose to publish first from among
the three thousand pages of analysis and tour thousand pages of official documents that had come into its hands that report which
may stand out in history as one of the key documents affecting national policy in the past quarter-century -- not so much for what
it said as for what it signified. This report is a prime example of how the Secret Team, which has gained so much control over
the vital foreign and political activities of this government, functions.
... ... ...
...President Harry S. Truman, observing the turn of events since the death of President Kennedy, and pondering developments since
his Administration, wrote for the Washington Post a column also datelined December 21, 1963:
For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational
and at times a policy-making arm of the government.... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected
into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations.
Some of the complications and embarrassment that I think we have experienced arc in part attributable to the fact that this
quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of
sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda.
Truman was disturbed by the events of the past ninety days, those ominous days of October, November, and December 1963. Men all over
the world were disturbed by those events. Few men, however could have judged them with more wisdom and experience than Harry S. Truman,
for it was he who, in late 1947, had signed unto law the National Security Act. This Act, in addition to establishing the Department
of Defense (DOD) with a single Secretary at its head and with three equal and independent services -- the Army, Navy, and Air Force
-- also provided for a National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency. And during those historic and sometimes tragic
sixteen years since the Act had become law, he had witnessed changes that disturbed him, as he saw that the CIA "had been diverted"
from the original assignment that he and the legislators who drafted the Act had so carefully planned.
Although even in his
time he had seen the beginning of the move of the CIA into covert activities, there can be little doubt that the "diversion" to which
he made reference was not one that he would have attributed to himself or to any other President. Rather, the fact that the CIA had
gone into clandestine operations and had been "injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations," and "has been so much removed
from its intended role" was more properly attributable to the growing and secret pressures of some other power source. As he said,
the CIA had become "a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue."
While we sit stunned into complete disbelief and silence trying to make sense of, understand, and decode the strongly suspected
connections between the most curious political and military events of our times, this author, Colonel, L. Fletcher Prouty, in
this book, "The Secret Team," has already decoded everything for us. From the JFK assassination, Watergate, the Iran-Contra Affair,
the Gulf of Tonkin incident, repeated bank bust-outs (like BCCI and Silverado), the cocaine connection from Mena Arkansas to Nicaragua,
the "crack" cocaine explosion in America's inner cities, the recent housing crash, and the general Wall Street sponsored financial
meltdown, and now even from the wildest recesses of our collective imagination (dare I say it, maybe even 911?), Colonel Prouty,
the fabled Mr. "X" in the movie "JFK," has the bureaucratic structure of all the answers here.
What Colonel Prouty tells us is that right before our own eyes, we are experiencing a paradigm shift in international relations
and world affairs, one that has quietly moved us from the "old order" where the sovereign nation and its armies and national ideologies
once sat at the center of world events and predominated, into a new "One World business run corporate, privatized global order,"
in which "the corporate powers that be" sit on the throne in the clock tower; and where, as a result of their machinations, true
national sovereignty has seeped away to the point that we say safely say, it no longer exists.
The good Colonel tells us that the most important events of this century are taking place right before our eyes, as the Cold
War era has already given way to a new age of "One World" under the control of businessmen and their hired guns, their lawyers
-- rather than under the threat of military power and ideological differences. In this new, completely "privatized world order,"
big business, big lawyers, big bankers, big politicians, big lobbyists, and even bigger money-men, run and rule the entire world
from behind a national security screen inaccessible to the average citizen. It is this paradigm shift, and the wall of secrecy
that has brought us the "Secret Team" and the series of strange inexplicable events that it has skillfully orchestrated, and that
keep recurring from time to time both within the U.S. and throughout the world.
This new bureaucratic entity is called a "Secret Team" for good reasons: because like any team, it does not create its own
game plan, its own rules, or its own reality. The team plays for a coach and an owner. It is the coach and the owner that writes
the scripts, creates and "calls" the plays. The drama of reality that we see on the international screen is a creation of the
"Power elite, as it is executed by the "secret Team." The power of the team comes from its vast intergovernmental undercover infrastructure
and its direct relationship with private industries, the military, mutual funds, and investment houses, universities, and the
news media, including foreign and domestic publishing houses. The beauty of the "Secret team," is that it is not a clandestine
super-planning-board, or super-general staff like as is frequently attributed to the Bilderburg Group, or the Trilateral Commission,
but is a bewildering collection of ad hoc and semi-permanent action committees and networks that can come into being and then
dissolve as specific needs troubles and flash-points dictate. It can create, influence or topple governments around the globe
at the behest and on the whim of its coaches, "the Power Elite."
As the Sociologist C. Wright Mills told us nearly a half century ago, the members of the "Power Elite," operate beyond national
borders, beyond the reach of the public, and have no national loyalties -- or even return addresses. They operate in the shadows
and run the world by remote control and by making us completely dependent upon them and their hidden machinations. Invisibly,
they maneuver and jockey to control every aspect of our lives and the infrastructure and markets upon which we depend for our
survival: The most important and essential among them being our ability to produce and distribute our own food, water, and energy.
As a result of this dependency, and despite mythology to the contrary, Colonel Prouty tells us that we are becoming the most dependent
society that has ever lived. And the future viability of an infrastructure that is not controlled and manipulated by this "global
power Elite," is diminishing to the point of non-existence.
With climate changes and terrorism already causing serious disruptions in the normal flow of our lives, governments are becoming
less and less able to serve as the people's protector of last resort. Already, one of the politicians who ran for President of
the United States in its most recent election, Governor Mitt Romney, suggested that FEMA be turned over to a private run firm?
And all of the agencies of government that he did not suggest be privatized (or that have not already been privatized), except
for the military, he suggested be abolished. As well, we also see the concomitant rise of the Backwaters' of the world, a private
firm that has already begun to take over a lion's share of the responsibilities of our volunteer military. Likewise, our prisons,
healthcare system and schools are also being privatized, and everything else is being "outsourced" to the lowest bidder on the
global labor market. The book however is not just about international politics or international economics, per se, but is also
about the primary bureaucratic instrumentality through which the "Power Elite" operates. This instrumentality, as noted above,
is called "the Secret Team."
How does Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty know about the "Secret Team:" because he used to be one of its Pentagon operational managers.
I believe then that out of prudence, when the man who oversaw management of and liaised with "the Secret team" for nine years
as a Pentagon as an Air Force Colonel, (and who incidentally was also sent on a wild goose chase to Antarctica in order to get
him out of the country, days before the JFK assassination), tells us that something is wrong in Denmark, I believe it is high
time to listen up. In a chilling narrative, Colonel Prouty relates to us how he found out about the assassination of JFK. It was
during a stopover in New Zealand on his return from the wild goose chase his superiors had sent him on to get him out of the way.
Hours BEFORE the assassination had even occurred, somehow the New Zealand press already had the pre-planned talking points on
Lee Harvey Oswald. Somehow they mistakenly deployed them prematurely, reporting well in advance of the assassination itself, that
Oswald was JFK's lone assassin? How could such a thing happen unless there was a very high level conspiracy?
The Secret team, according to Prouty consists of a bunch of renegade CIA intelligence operatives that are signed up for life
and operate under the full protection and pay of the "Power Elite," itself a cabal of wealthy men with interlocking interests
beholden only to their own hunger for power, profit and greed. The "Power Elite" relies upon this covert team of highly trained
specialists to get things done without questions being asked and without moral squeamishness.
Operating outside the normal parameters of political authorization, morality, direction, and law, and hiding behind a wall
shielded by national security secrecy, very much like the mafia, the "Secret Team" always gets the job done. They are allowed
to ply their immoral trade with both impunity and with legal immunity. In short, in the modern era, in the new "One WorldCorporate
Order," they have proven again and again that, at worse they are lawless, and at best, they are a law unto themselves. The members
of the "Secret Team" have become the new Jack-booted foot soldiers we see trampling over our dying democracy. As we move deeper
and deeper into the uncharted realms of the new Corporate run "One World Order," "we the people" have a lot of questions we must
ask ourselves if the democracy we once knew is to endure.
The climax of the book appears here in chapter 22 ( entitled "Camelot.") It is a beautifully crafted object lesson for the
future of what remains of our democracy. It is a narrative summary of how JFK tried but failed to deal with the emerging paradigm
shift in power from the Executive branch of the UGS, to the CIA and the "Secret Team," that is to say, from a system of duly elected
Representatives to one dictated by the whims of the "Power Elite" through their "Secret Team." JFK's assassination is just the
most dramatic consequence of how our then young President failed to save the USG from usurpation of its power by a cabal of anonymous
evil men intent on ruling the world. Colonel Prouty's story ends somewhat as follows.
The Bay of Pigs operation was the seminal event in the clandestine transfer of power from the "normal government" to the CIA's
Secret Team." It was done primarily via the thinly transparent interface of the military -- playing a dual role as both military
officers reporting to their Commander in Chief, and at the same time as undercover "clandestine operatives" reporting (behind
the President's back) to the CIA (and of course through it, to the "Power Elite."). In the book, there is little question where
their split loyalties lay.
The key ruse that provided the glue that made this high level "grifter-like scam" (with the U.S. President, as its "mark)"
work to perfection, was the words "anti-Communist counterinsurgency." Put to skilful use in hands of trained Specialists, these
words had a powerful and purposeful dual meaning. They meant one thing to "clandestine insider members of the "Secret Team," and
quite another to "no need to know outsiders" like the American public (and in this case the whole USG, including the Commander
in Chief, the President of the U.S. JFK himself). This willful ambiguity in terminology and the duality in the roles of those
involved does most of the heavy lifting in the drama played out by the "insiders" and that resulted in the usurpation and the
shift of power from the Presidency to the CIA.
The "Bay of Pigs operation"proved to be the defining, the seminal and pivotal case in point. It began as a small clandestine
"anti-Communist counterinsurgency" operation run by the CIA (as also was the case with Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Indonesia,
Laos, Cambodia, Granada, Angola, and Santo Domingo), ostensibly under the oversight of the "USG," but in fact ended up as a huge
CIA-run military failure, one minus the requisite oversight from the US President. The devil of how this happened lies in the
slimy details that went on behind the scenes and that are skillfully unveiled in this book. They are details that the reader can
also get from a careful reading between the lines of "The Pentagon Papers."
As the Bay of Pigs Operation slowly morphed from a small-scale USG run operation "with oversight," into a huge, expensive and
poorly run CIA operation without any oversight whatsoever, the rules of the game also changed. They changed from being about U.S.
security, to being about the greed, power and profits of the "Power Elite, as those objectives were implemented through the "Secret
Team." The key to the "Power Elite" getting what they wanted was always accomplished by stoking the ideological fires up to an
international boiling point, so that more and more military hardware could be produced, bought and sold.
Likewise, the roles of the primary players also morphed and changed -- from "clandestine operators" in military uniforms, to
"military operators" reporting to their CIA handlers, and thus to the "Power Elite." The executive branch (the ostensible oversight
body of the government) was none the wiser, since it was not yet aware that it was "being played" by the CIA and thus did not
yet know it was being treated in the same way the public is normally treated: as an "excluded outsider" lacking the required "need
to know."
Through this bureaucratic sleigh of hand, the partial control and power the USG normally exercised in its oversight role had
been covertly usurped, as the military operators (and even members of the Presidents own staff proved to be "insiders," i.e.,
members of the "Secret Team," "playing" the President like a bass fiddle as he and his team became the "marks" in an insider's
"con game" in which power and control of the USG was at stake.
When JFK finally "wised up," it was too late. By then the train had already left the station, with the CIA firmly in the driver's
seat. Since JFK era, U.S. foreign policy has become a clear case of the CIA tail wagging the USG dog. And the best proof of the
evil intentions of the "Secret Team" calling the shots within the CIA is that no sooner than the Bay of Pigs literally blew up
in a spectacular and embarrassing failure did the CIA then put the wheels back in motion to duplicate, expand and even generalize
this failed bureaucratic formulate in Vietnam.
But this time JFK was ready for them and issued NSM-55 and NSM-57, both of which were decision directives designed to put the
brakes on the CIA and return the usurped power back to the military where the President was the Commander in Chief. But the CIA
was already two steps ahead of JFK. His own staff had been so compromised that he had nowhere to turn? He was penetrated and thus
effectively checkmated by an agency of his own government? The more he fought back, the more he lost ground, and the more his
back was up against the wall. By the time November, 22, 1963 came around, JFK literally had no bureaucratic friends and nowhere
to turn?
I only regret that an earlier edition of this book had been lying around unread in my library for more than a decade. Five
Stars.
Though this book is now over 40 years old, I found the information very relevant and 100% trustworthy from one of America's
true Patriots. Colonel Prouty served his country for decades as a pilot and as an integral part of the Department of Defense and
CIA. Though for nine years Colonel Prouty was the liason between the Air Force and the CIA's clandestine affairs, he is able to
reveal confidential information that would typically be classified "Top Secret", because Colonel Prouty did not work for the CIA
and therefore did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement with the nefarious CIA.
What is fascinating about Colonel Prouty is that he was everywhere throughout his career. He watched world affairs as they
unfolded, meeting the most influencial leaders of his time. From FDR, Stalin, Churchill, Ike and every general and admiral in
our military. For the nine years from 1954 to 1963, he was involved as the go to guy for the military leaders and the president,
including both Ike and JFK. In other words, Colonel Prouty writes from personal and direct experience.
Now the meat of the book is about the creation and abuses of the 1947 created CIA. From the end of World War Two until the
mid 1970's, the CIA abused its primary responsibility of intelligence gathering to literally unchecked clandestine and covert
upheavels in every part of the world. The CIA, particularly under Allen Dulles, created one coup d'etat after another. The reader
will realize that from 1945 until the Marines reached the shores of Viet Nam in 1965, every piece of skulldruggery in Viet Nam
was done by the CIA. The CIA had infiltrated the entire government, from the Department of Defense to the Department of State.
Many people would be shocked to know that what passed as Defense activity was acually generals and admirals, wearing their uniforms
and working for the CIA. Whether it was advising the President, subverting Ambassadors or lying to Congress, the CIA ruled and
few knew what they were really doing. Colonel Prouty tells the stories accurately of every subversive, nefarious act the CIA was
involved in. One example in particular stands out. It was Ike's goal at the end of his 2nd term as president to have a peace conference
with the USSR, one to sign a peace treaty and end the cold war. In direct violation of the presidents specific instructions not
to fly U-2 flights prior to the conference in June of 1960, the CIA flew the ill fated Gary Powers flight that guaranteed that
the conference would go forth. This was a most important conference that could have brought nuclear peace accords decades before
they were eventually signed. Dulles and his henchmen deliberately insured that Gary Powers not only violated the order not to
fly these observations flights, they insured that it would be downed by sabotaging the flight and thus force Ike to either admit
he knew or fire the bastards who embarrassed him. Ike chose to take responsibility and thus the peace talks were cancelled. There
was also another flight in 1958 that was downed in the Soviet Union.
Most Americans would be shocked to know the CIA has their own private air lines, Air America. This is no small air lines. Had
Colonel Prouty written this book later, he could connect the CIA with the massive drug smuggling that has devastated American
cities. They use the proceeds of this smuggling to finance their illicit involvement of other sovereign countries.
Bottom line is this is an important book as is his 1993 JFK & Viet Nam. Colonel Prouty was a significant advisor to Oliver
Stone and his masterpiece, JFK. I am currently finishing the rereading of said book. If you want to know who has controled our
foreign policy (against the charter that created this monstrosity) since the mid 1940's, this is an excellent book to begin with.
It is my personal opinion, having read many books on the CIA, that their main function is to serve the multi-national corportations
and the bankers that exploit the less developed countries around the world and to insure that there will never be peace. There
will not be a World War Three, because nuclear weapons would most likely be used and earth as we know it will cease to exist.
Therefore, limited, no win conflicts will continually persist. Beginning with Korea, to Viet Nam, to Iraq to Afganistan. The irony
is we are wasting our human resources and our treasury to bankrupt our country while both Russia and China sit back and spend
zero (USSR & Afganistan is the exception) and develope the kind of infrastruture and consumer goods as well as education that
we should be doing.
Finally, the record of the CIA leaves a lot to be desired. There were many failures despite billions of dollars spent and the
infiltration into every branch of our society, from education to media to think tanks to the military. Read this book and you
will also discover the misadventure in Viet Nam that cost 58,000 plus American casualities, millions of Viet Namese, millions
of service men who would never be the same after this debacle. Colonel Prouty explains this better than anyone I have yet to read.
He predicted another debacle (Iraq & Afganistan) after the Viet Nam debacle. I believe Cononel Prouty passed away last decade,
but he would not have been shocked by the rediculous misadventures in both of the above foremetioned countries. Think of the trillions
of dollars and the bloodshed lost on a military misadventure that has no way of producing a positive outcome for the United States.
This book provides a rare glimpse into the secret history and evil machinations of the CIA as it mutated from its original
form between 1946 up until the time the book was published in 1973 when it had become a cancerous blight within the government.
It should not be surprising that most people never really understood the so called Vietnam War and they still don't. Even people
in the American government like the Secretary Of Defense were completely confused and manipulated by the Agency as it's called.
President Kennedy was somewhat inexperienced when he first entered office. JFK thought he could handle problems in the government
in the same way he handled problems during his presidential campaign. He had an informal style at first where he would just ask
a friend to take care of it. This caused JFK to disregard important checks and balances which had been set up to hopefully prevent
the CIA from crossing the line from being just an intelligence agency into the realm of initiating clandestine military operations.
The National Security Counsel was supposed to give direction to the CIA and then the Operations Coordination Board was supposed
to verify that the CIA had done what they were told and only what they were told. But even before JFK got into office the Agency
had taken many determined steps to undermine those controls.
JFK's informal style opened the door even wider for the Agency to circumvent whatever controls may have still been effective
to put some sort of limits on their 'fun and games'. Having an informal style with them was dangerous because they were experts
at getting around all sorts of rules and laws.
The Agency double crossed JFK during the Bay Of Pigs debacle. Publicly JFK took the blame for what happened but according to
Fletcher it was the CIA who cancelled the air support that would have destroyed Fidel Castro's planes on the ground. As a result
JFK's only options were to accept the blame or admit to the world that things were being done by the American military establishment
that he wasn't even aware of. John Kennedy was a fast learner however and he stated that he would break the CIA up into a thousand
tiny pieces. JFK was fed up with all of the Agency's fun and games.
Something similar happened with the Gary Powers U2 spy plane that had to land in the Soviet Union. The evil Secret Team sabotaged
the U2 to derail President Eisenhower's lifelong dream of holding a worldwide peace summit. Like JFK Ike accepted the blame publicly.
Ike's only other option would have been to admit that the U2 flight was unauthorized and then fire Allan Dulles and the other
leaders of the evil Secret Team. But Fletcher says Ike couldn't do this for various reasons even though Nikita Khrushchev probably
realized that Eisenhower did not break his word and authorize the U2 mission.
Ike's comments about the Military Industrial Complex which he made during his farewell address turned out to be very prophetic
indeed.
These examples provide the picture of an Agency that had become a law unto itself which reinterpreted whatever orders it was
given to make those orders conform to their evil schemes. Fletcher provides many details in the book about how the Agency was
able to circumvent laws and regulations and manipulate anyone and everyone in the government starting with the president. They
did this mainly by abusing their control of secrecy but they used many other methods as well.
Secret Team leader Allan Dulles wrote a book called 'The Craft of Intelligence'. The title of this book sort of indicates the
very problem Fletcher Prouty explains in his book. Dulles viewed himself as a sort of artist or craftsman who could distort information
and make it appear in any form he wanted. Strangely Fletcher refers to his close personal friendship with Allan Dulles in the
acknowledgements at the beginning of the book but then spends the rest of the book portraying Dulles as a sort of Joseph Goebbels
figure.
Fletcher spends over 300 pages describing the metamorphosis which occurred with the CIA as it veered very far afield from what
president Truman had intended when he created the Agency. Then towards the end of the book Fletcher finally reveals his shocking
conclusions about what this massive abuse of power lead to.
Fletcher felt that the assassination of president Kennedy was the single most pivotal event in modern American history as far
as the changes that the assassination caused.
Sadly as Fletcher points out the Vietnam War never really had any military objective. The theory was that if South Vietnam
fell this would cause a domino effect and the dreaded communism monster would start gobbling up the entire world. Then when South
Vietnam did fall with no domino effect the Secret Team published a group of documents called the Pentagon Papers. These documents
deflected blame away from the CIA and said nobody listened to the CIA when they warned that the Vietnam situation was not winnable.
But it wouldn't matter if anyone listened to the Secret Team anyway because they always lie.
This book presents an American government in chaos during the Vietnam era. It was a government that had been high jacked by
the evil Secret Team.
After the Bay Of Pigs incident Fidel Castro apparently got fed up with the CIA and America in general. Castro turned to the
Soviet Union instead. This lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was only in the last 10 years or so that people realized just
how close the world came to an all out nuclear exchange at that time.
This was a very dangerous game master craftsman Allan Dulles and his other liars were playing. They were like kids starting
fires all over the place in a big field and then just sitting back and seeing which of those fires would become an inferno as
Vietnam did.
Also in recent years people have implicated Lyndon Johnson as being part of the conspiracy to assassination JFK. So LBJ was
on the team also.
I'm not sure if Fletcher ever really spells out what the true motivations of the Secret Team were but he hints at it. Probably
the three main reasons that people engage in criminal activity are sex, money, and revenge. Usually when crimes are committed
there's a money trail somewhere. And in the case of government military spending that's a very long trail.
This is a serious book which contains many details about an approximately 25 year period that began after World War II. It
is not light reading.
The Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD Series - Episode List
1. "The Coup D'Etat" (25 October 1988)
2. "The Forces Of Darkness" (25 October 1988)
3. "The Cover-Up" (20 November 1991)
4. "The Patsy" (21 November 1991)
5. "The Witnesses" (21 November 1991)
6. "The Truth Shall Set You Free" (1995)
The Final Chapter episodes (internet only):
7. "The Smoking Guns" (2003)
8. "The Love Affair" (2003)
9. "The Guilty Men" (2003)
The fact that this book all but disappeared when it was distributed in the 1970's tells all that the CIA did not want any of
its "dirty laundry" aired in public. Prouty does an excellent (almost over the top) job of describing the rise and strategies
and evolution of the CIA up through the 70's. That the Vietnam War was still controlled by the CIA at the writing of the original
book also shows JFK had not gained control of the military-industrial complex. For those who are wanting to fill in more pieces
of the puzzle this is an excellent source from a man who found himself in the thick of things for many years. The one shot-coming
comes in the last chapter in his description of Nixon and especially LBJ not being able to control the military industrial complex
either.
Consequent independent research over many years seems to show LBJ who was about to go to jail and be dropped from the 1964
ticket, knew about and helped cover up the JFK assassination and is known to have remarked: "Just get me elected and you can have
your damn war".
There is also evidence Nixon and company undermined the 1968 peace talks as LBJ was trying to end the war and LBJ actually
called Nixon and asked him to back off. ( Kinda like the Oct 1980 surprise by Reagan). Consequently we know from Judyth Vary Baker
that Lee Oswald was the the assassin of JFK and he in fact was on the payroll of the FBI and CIA.
James E Files has confessed to being one of the shooters and E. Howard Hunt told his son, he was involved and he was CIA at
the time. But no One man can possibly know everything. Given the pervasive infiltration of government, military and probably many
civil institutions by the CIA, one wonders who comprises the shadow government in reality?
What does it mean when we say " the CIA did such and such an action"? Just what is the CIA, a whole or a part? Given its emphasis
on compartmentalization, is it accurate to say "the CIA was heavily involved in the JFK assassination" or would it be more accurate
to say parts of the CIA were? Moreover, who is the CIA, and what are the powers behind it? Also, perhaps most importantly, what
were the relations between the CIA and other parts of government, and how and when did these relationships change and evolve.
Were these changes done democratically or secretly. These last two questions are the essence of this book. Yes, it is true as
one reviewer noted, this book could have used an editor. Some times it has the feel of a collection of speeches, but not always.
So why the five instead of 4. The subject matter-- in particular the last two questions typed above-- are just too rarely mentioned
and discussed. This book really helps us understand the curiously evolving nervous system of the CIA btw 1947 and 1963, as very
very few other books do. It sees the inception of the CIA in 1947 as just the first step, and makes it clear that later developments
were neither willed nor pre-ordained by many of the elected officials who wrote the National Security Act of 1947.
The only other book that really addresses this BETWEEN WORLD--i.e. between CIA and other government agencies is one of the
Three most important books published in the last 50 years IMO. Thy Will Be Done: Nelson Rockefeller, Evangelism, and the Conquest
of the Amazon In the Age of OIl by Colby and Dennett.
Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of the Amazon : Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil
Still there is one book I recommend even more than that one. This is not the current Gold Standard merely for all current JFK
research. It is far more than that; it is the Gold Standard for all US Cold War History Research. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why
He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass. This book is so important because it is not merely who done it but why done it.
It is a book that mixes how and why of JFK and those crucial-because-contestable Cold War years 1960-63 like no other.
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
This is an extremely important book. The proof of it is that even the official copy in the Library of Congress disappeared
(!). Moreover, even after his death, the author continues to be the object of a smear campaign (see internet).
His book is not less than a frontal attack on US intelligence and concomitantly on those who control it.
Its portrait of Allen Dulles, a longtime intelligence director, says it all: `I am a lawyer'; in other words, a servant. But of
whom?
This book unveils the existence of a secret cabal, a Power Elite (G. William Domhoff), a `deep State' (P.D. Scott) within the
US and its government as well as in about 40 host countries.
This Power Elite uses the Secret Team of top intelligence and military commanders as its long arm and protects it. Together they
stand above the law and the democratic process. They get things done, whether they have the political authorization or not.
They dispose of a vast undercover political, military, intelligence, business, media and academic infrastructure, in the US as
well as worldwide. They don't respect the nation State and are able to create, to influence and to topple governments in the hemisphere
controlled by them.
The author gives a remarkable insight into the inner workings, the logistics, the strategies and the tactics of the intelligence
agency. Its creation and history show that President H. Truman never intended to create an autonomous operational agency in the
clandestine field. L.F. Prouty also gives valuable information about the U2- G. Powers incident (apparently to torpedo the US/USSR
peace talks) and the Pentagon papers (an intelligence whitewash).
At the end, the author poses the all important question: `Can any President ever be strong enough really to rule?'
This book is a must read for all those interested in US history and for all those who want to understand the world we live
in.
For more information on the Power Elite, I recommend the works of O. Tunander, D. Estulin, Peter Dale Scott, Carroll Quigley,
Gary Allen and G. W. Domhoff.
As in the case of the brilliant Jules Archer volume, The Plot To Seize The White House, it is terrific to have this masterful
study of the inner workings of the early CIA back in print after so many years of unavailability.
Skyhorse Publishing is to be commended in seeing to it that both of these crucial works are again available to the attentive
reading public who want to know the truth concerning our dark hidden history that the government has so actively strived to keep
buried.
The late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty served as chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff where he was in charge
of the global system designed to provide military support for covert activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.
In Oliver Stone's highly acclaimed film on the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, JFK, the mysterious character
"X" portrayed by Donald Sutherland was in fact Colonel Prouty, who assisted director Stone in the production and scripting of
this historical epic. Prouty had relayed the shocking information detailed in the movie to the actual New Orleans District Attorney
Jim Garrison, played by Kevin Cosner, in a series of communiques.
The Secret Team was first published in 1973 during the Watergate scandal, when many Americans were first learning about the
dark side of covert government, an outlaw executive branch headed by a renegade chief of state. Richard Nixon would not be the
last of this foul breed.
This was years before Frank Church's Senate Committee's damning revelations of CIA misdeeds and assassination plots against
foreign leaders rocked the nation.
In each chapter in his book, Prouty speaks frankly with an insiders knowledge of what he describes as the inner workings of
"the Secret Team."
This prudential judgment and keen assessment of the National Security Establishment was gained from years as a behind-the-scenes
seasoned professional in military intelligence working intimately with those of the highest rank in policy making and implimentation.
The important story Prouty boldly tells should be read by every reflective American.
The author was the liason officer between the CIA and the military during the 50's and 60's. As an air force officer (Colonel),
he was excempt from taking the CIA oath of secrecy and therefore was in a position to write the book in 1973. Apparently, shortly
after the book's publication, almost all copies disappeared, probably bought up by the CIA. I was lucky to find a copy, published
in Taiwan (Imperial Books & Records), in a used bookstore several years ago. The author details not only how the CIA conducts
its operations, but more importantly, how it manages to keep most or all of its deeds from the eyes of congress, the population
and even the President, if necessary. This is the best book I've read on the secret workings of the CIA and its misdeeds during
the 50' and early 60's. Not to belittle them, but The Secret Team is a far more informative book than Marchetti and Marks' The
CIA And The Cult Of Intelligence....
added, Jan09:
Actually, practically ever since I posted the review, I've been wanting to write a more detailed one, but since it's now been
some 20 years since I read the book, I can't remember enough details to do it justice. If I ever reread it, I'll be sure to post
a better review. I frankly think my present "review" isn't much of one - and it was cut short after my reference to the Marchetti/Marks
book, the linking to which was not allowed at the time.
For example, one item of considerable current interest which I remember from the book is the author's detailing of Operation
Northwoods, from the early 1960's - the plan by the intelligence agencies to conduct a false flag attack against American interests
and blame it on Cuba, in order to justify a war against that country.
There was a big deal made about this (deservedly, in my opinion), only four or five years ago, when the National Security Archive
(an apparently independent non-governmental research institute at George Washington University) discovered the details of this
proposed operation, supposedly for the first time, in declassified documents. (This was in light of the ongoing conspiratorial
controversies surrounding the 9-11 events.)
Yet, author Prouty detailed Operation Northwoods in his The Secret Team, first published long ago in 1973.
This is but one detail that indicates a much-needed elaborate review of this book.
I'd like to also add (since it is now apparently allowed) that The Secret Team, among other items, is available on CD from
the L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site: http://www.prouty.org/
Finally, for readers still obsessed with the JFK assassination, I would like to recommend Final Judgment - The Missing Link
in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, by Michael Collins Piper, a book which lives up to it's title. My use of the word "obsessed"
is not meant derogatorily, as I have my own bookshelf-full as testament to that particular subject, but as an inducement to read
the book, which will make the big picture very clear indeed. Do yourselves the favor.
Colonel Prouty's book on the Secret Team should be required reading for all concerned Americans. Herein, the author, a retired
Air Force Colonel and CIA insider, reveals for all to see the machinations of the Secret Team and their impact on US history in
the post World War II era. This is terribly important information.
I was particularly impressed with Prouty's depiction of Eisenhower's peace initiative and how it was sabatoged by the Secret
Team. Ike was preparing for his peace summit with Kruschev when Gary Powers was sent off on his fool's errand on April 30th, 1960,
a date with significant occult emblematics. The capture of Powers by the Soviets effectively scuttled the Eisenhower peace plan,
which would have ruined the plans of the Secret Team, for continued Cold War tension, and treasure for the merchants of venom.
The essential truths in this important book are still relevant today. Of course, the ineffectual George Walker Bush is not
entirely in charge of American foreign policy in this critical time. He is certainly still being manipulated by the sucessors
of the Secret Team depicted in this excellent and well written book. Any serious student of American foreign policy in the post
World War II era ought to read this important book.
The Colonel's book contains valuable and legitimate insider information about how factions within our government have been
dishonest, selfish, and ruthlessly brutal for a very long time now. He shows the reader more than one vivid picture of how our
American Presidents are routinely hoodwinked and manipulated by CIA moles - covert operators who often work within the D.C. Beltway.
I only wish he had expanded on the following statement (from page 15 of the 1973 edition): "There were and are many men who
are not in government who are prime movers of Secret Team activity." Perhaps he knew enough to mention their connection to and
influence over the Agency, but not enough to elaborate upon it. Or perhaps he knew better than to push that topic too far if he
wanted to get published. In 1973 there were no on-demand self-publishing formats like what we have available to us today.
Prouty also mentions the non-governmental elements of secrecy in Chapter 23, but it's closer to a defining of terms than an
elaboration. He ends the book with a view of the Secret Team as an evolved and faceless mechanism serving the cause of anti-Communism.
Today, the enemy du jour is anti-terrorism. However, I argue that secret teams are never faceless, but made up of individuals.
The Secret Team that Col. Prouty revealed was part of a larger Secret Team. My book: "Know Your Enemy: Exposing Satan's Human
Army" discusses the spiritual state of secretive operators and some of what scripture reveals on the topic.
Looks like tail wags the dog -- CIA controls the US foreign policy and in the last elections
also played active role in promoting Hillary. A the level of top brass we have
several people mentioned by Giraldi who are probably as dangerous as Allen Dulles was. Brennan
is one example.
The parade of rogues that Philip describes is really
alarming. Each with agenda that directly harms
the USA as a country promoting the interest of military-industrial complex and neocon
faction within the government...
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter. ..."
"... Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level would appear to be fully on board with that effort. ..."
"... Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was revealed in the press two weeks ago. ..."
"... Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of totally bereft of his senses. ..."
"... Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting attended by Pompeo, he told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent (one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down. ..."
"... And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration. Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been some Russian recruitment of Trump people. He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation." ..."
"... Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan, and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time. ..."
"... Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia. ..."
"... The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like the British MI5. The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words. ..."
"... As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants of the Deep State. ..."
"... The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary to its purposes. ..."
"... The CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service, long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has done. ..."
"... The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency. ..."
"... While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies, it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos, the bankster mafiosi. ..."
"... I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are – Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments. The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too well the truth about the Clintons and Obama. ..."
"... Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally oblivious to their own uselessness. ..."
"... How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries. On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN. ..."
"... Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began. ..."
"... Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside the group consensus. ..."
"... So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to face. ..."
"... Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set himself up for success in the next elections. ..."
"... What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink" in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles' thought pattern & subsequent action. ..."
"... To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically sworn in on a bible. ..."
Long ago, when I was a spear carrying middle ranker at CIA, a colleague took me aside and said
that he had something to tell me "as a friend," that was very important. He told me that his wife
had worked for years in the Agency's Administrative Directorate, as it was then called, where she
had noticed that some new officers coming out of the Career Trainee program had red tags on their
personnel files. She eventually learned from her boss that the tags represented assessments that
those officers had exceptional potential as senior managers. He added, however, that the reverse
appeared to be true in practice as they were generally speaking serial failures as they ascended
the bureaucratic ladder, even though their careers continued to be onward and upward on paper. My
friend's wife concluded, not unreasonably, that only genuine a-holes had what it took to get promoted
to the most senior ranks.
I was admittedly skeptical but some recent activity by former and current Directors and Acting
Directors of CIA has me wondering if something like my friend's wife's observation about senior management
might indeed be true. But it would have to be something other than tagging files, as many of the
directors and their deputies did not come up through the ranks and there seems to be a similar strain
of lunacy at other U.S. government intelligence agencies. It might be time to check the water supply
in the Washington area as there is very definitely something in the kool-aid that is producing odd
behavior.
Now I should pause for a moment and accept that the role of intelligence services is to identify
potential threats before they become active, so a certain level of acute paranoia goes with the job.
But at the same time, one would expect a level of professionalism which would mandate accuracy rather
than emotion in assessments coupled with an eschewing of any involvement in the politics of foreign
and national security policy formulation. The enthusiasm with which a number of senior CIA personnel
have waded into the Trump swamp and have staked out positions that contradict genuine national interests
suggests that little has been learned since CIA Director George Tenet sat behind Secretary of State
Colin Powell in the UN and nodded sagaciously as Saddam Hussein's high crimes and misdemeanors were
falsely enumerated.
Indeed, one can start with Tenet if one wants to create a roster of recent CIA Directors who
have lied to permit the White House to engage in a war crime. Tenet and his staff knew better than
anyone that the case against Saddam did not hold water, but President George W. Bush wanted his war
and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA had any say in the matter.
Back then as now, international Islamic terrorism was the name of the game. It kept the money
flowing to the national security establishment in the false belief that America was somehow being
made "safe." But today the terror narrative has been somewhat supplanted by Russia, which is headed
by a contemporary Saddam Hussein in the form of Vladimir Putin. If one believes the media and a majority
of congressmen, evil manifest lurks in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Russia has recently been
sanctioned (again) for crimes that are more alleged than demonstrated and President Putin has been
selected by the Establishment as the wedge issue that will be used to end President Donald Trump's
defiance of the Deep State and all that pertains to it. The intelligence community at its top level
would appear to be fully on board with that effort.
The most recent inexplicable comments come from the current CIA Director Mike Pompeo, speaking
at the Aspen Institute Security Forum. He began by asserting that Russia had interfered in the U.S.
election
before saying that the logic behind Russia's Middle Eastern strategy is to stay in place in Syria
so Moscow can "stick it to America." He didn't define the "it" so one must assume that "it" stands
for any utensil available, ranging from cruise missiles to dinner forks. He then elaborated, somewhat
obscurely, that "I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think
they find that something that's useful."
Remarkably, he also said that there is only "minimal evidence" that Russia is even fighting
ISIS. The statement is astonishing as Moscow has most definitely been seriously and directly engaged
in support of the Syrian Arab Army. Is it possible that the head of the CIA is unaware of that? It
just might be that Pompeo is disparaging the effort because the Russians and Syrians have also been
fighting against the U.S. backed "moderate rebels." That the moderate rebels are hardly moderate
has been known for years and they are also renowned for their ineffectiveness combined with a tendency
to defect to more radical groups taking their U.S. provided weapons with them, a combination of factors
which led to their being denied any further American support by a presidential decision that was
revealed in the press two weeks ago.
Pompeo's predecessor John Brennan is, however, my favorite Agency leader in the category of
totally bereft of his senses. In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee back in May,
he suggested that some Trump associates might have been recruited by the Russian intelligence service.
He testified that
"I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions
between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about
because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether
or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals."
In his testimony, Brennan apparently forgot to mention that the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs
on American citizens. Nor did he explain how he had come upon the information in the first place
as it had been handed over by foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians,
and at least some of it had been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first
place. Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected,
which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate started.
Brennan is certainly loyal to his cause, whatever that might be. At the same Aspen meeting
attended by Pompeo, he
told Wolf Blitzer that if Trump were to fire special counsel Robert Mueller government officials
should "refuse to carry out" his orders. In other words, they should begin a coup, admittedly non-violent
(one presumes), but nevertheless including federal employees uniting to shut the government down.
A lesser known former CIA senior official is
John McLaughlin,
who briefly served as acting Director in 2004. McLaughlin was particularly outraged by Trump's recent
speech to the Boy Scouts, which he described as having the feel "of a third world authoritarian's
youth rally." He added that "It gave me the creeps it was like watching the late Venezuelan [President
Hugo] Chavez."
And finally, there is Michael Morell, also a former Acting Director, who was closely tied
to the Hillary Clinton campaign, apparently driven by ambition to become Director in her administration.
Morell currently provides commentary for CBS television and is a frequent guest on the Charlie Rose
show. Morell considerably raised the ante on Brennan's pre-electoral speculation that there had been
some Russian recruitment of Trump people.
He observed in August that Putin, a wily ex-career intelligence officer, "trained to identify
vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them [did exactly that] early in the primaries. Mr.
Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr.
Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
I and others noted at the time that Putin and Trump had never met, not even through proxies, while
we also wondered how one could be both unwitting and a recruited agent as intelligence recruitment
implies control and taking direction. Morell was non-plussed, unflinching and just a tad sanctimonious
in affirming that his own intelligence training (as an analyst who never recruited a spy in his life)
meant that "[I] call it as I see it."
One could also cite Michael Hayden and James Clapper, though the latter was not CIA They all
basically hew to the same line about Russia, often in more-or-less the same words, even though no
actual evidence has been produced to support their claims. That unanimity of thinking is what is
peculiar while academics like Stephen Cohen, Stephen Walt, Andrew Bacevich, and John Mearsheimer,
who have studied Russia in some depth and understand the country and its leadership far better than
a senior CIA officer, detect considerable nuance in what is taking place. They all believe that the
hardline policies current in Washington are based on an eagerness to go with the flow on the comforting
inside-the- beltway narrative that paints Russia as a threat to vital interests. That unanimity of
viewpoint should surprise no one as this is more of less the same government with many of the same
people that led the U.S. into Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. They all have a vested interested in the
health and well-being of a fully funded national security state.
And the other groupthink that seems to prevail among the senior managers except Pompeo is that
they all hate Donald Trump and have done so since long before he won the election. That is somewhat
odd, but it perhaps reflects a fear that Trump would interfere with the richly rewarding establishment
politics that had enabled their careers. But it does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CIA
employees. Though it is admittedly unscientific analysis on my part, I know a lot of former and some
current CIA employees but do not know a single one who voted for Hillary Clinton. Nearly all voted
for Trump.
Beyond that exhibition of tunnel vision and sheer ignorance, the involvement of former senior
intelligence officials in politics is itself deplorable and is perhaps symptomatic of the breakdown
in the comfortable bipartisan national security consensus that has characterized the past fifty years.
Once upon time former CIA officers would retire to the Blue Ridge mountains and raise Labradors,
but we are now into something much more dangerous if the intelligence community, which has been responsible
for most of the recent leaks, begins to feel free to assert itself from behind the scenes. As Senator
Chuck Schumer
recently warned "Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community -- they have six ways
from Sunday at getting back at you."
In jumping this fascist nihilist shark, the groupthinkers have closed themselves off from the
logical conclusion to their viewpoint, which is final annihilation.
Brennan, Morell, and Pompeo should better find ways to justify their salaries: the U.S. has
suffered the greatest breach in cybersecurity on their watch:
" an enormous breach of the United States Security Apparatus by as many as 80 Democrat members
of Congress (past and present). We rail on about the Russians and Trump, but t he media avoids
providing nightly updates about these 5 spies that have compromised Congress ."
"In total, Imran's firm was employed by 31 Democrats in Congress, some of whom held extremely
sensitive positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House
Committee on Foreign Affair s."
Nothing new. In the '50s CIA was making foreign wars and cultivating chaos at home, and
blaming all of it on Russia. In the '80s CIA was cultivating anti-nuke groups to undermine Reagan,
and blaming it on Russia. CIA has been the primary wellspring of evil for a long time.
And back to reality we have VIPS Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Yes you read that right and they are going to the rotten core of this coup against the
United States by presenting a report stating that the DNC was "Leaked" not hacked. The real hacking
came from President Obama's weaponizing of our intelligence agencies against Russia.
That is war, World War Three and it would seem now that Congress is marching that way, but
the report below hold the key to fighting back.
One of the VIPS is William Binney fomer NSA Technical Director, an important expert. leading
the group is Ray McGovern with some whit and grace, well yes how about some sanity, to which humor
is important to the insight and to stay in the sights of what is clever thievery and worse. Much
worse,
and there is a twinkle in the eye when realize that it is straight forward.
And Congress could stop it tout sweet, but well old habits but they have taken an Oath of Office,
so, so what, yeah they did go after Bernie, so will you challenge your elected officials, either
do their sworn duty or resign, for what this sanctions bill against Russia and Iran is a declaration
of war, not only against Russia and Iran, but a declaration of war against the United States.
for there is no reason to do this against Russia when indeed there are great opportunities to
get along, but war is the insanity as it is sedition and treason. Tell them that,
I wonder if groupthink exists.
In any organisation people know quite well why the organisation exists, what the threats are to
its existence.
If they think about this, I wonder.
The CIA is the USA's secret army, it is not comparable to a real intelligence organization like
the British MI5.
The CIA is more like WWII SOE, designed to set fire to Europe, Churchill's words.
If indeed Trump changes USA foreign policy, no longer trying to control the world, the CIA is
obsolete, as obsolete as NATO.
" but President George W. Bush wanted his war and, by gum, he was going to get it if the CIA
had any say in the matter."
Not to defend the CIA, but didn't Rumsfeld, doubt the enthusiasm of the CIA for providing the
slanted, bogus, "sexed up" intelligence the Executive required to make its "destroy Iraq now"
case ? So Rumsfeld therefore set up an independent intelligence agency within the Defence Dept
to provide/create the required "intelligence" ?
I think they find anyplace that they can make our lives more difficult, I think they find
that something that's useful."
Yeah, because that's what resource-constrained countries with limited ability to tap the global
capital markets do. Methinks Mr. Pompeo is projecting his and the neocons' fantasies on the Russians.
As has been the case for decades the Deep State allows Presidents and legislators to make minor
decisions in our government as long as those decisions do not in any way interfere with the Deep
State's goals of total world hegemony and increase in overwhelming power and wealth. Those who
make the important decisions in this country are not elected. The elected 'officials' are sycophants
of the Deep State.
Being resistant to jargon and catch phrases it is only slowly that I have accepted that "Deep
State" is not entirely pretentious waffle when used to describe aspects of the US. However I may
not be your only reader PG who would appreciate a clear explanatory description of the American
Deep State and how it works.
Here are some suggested parameters.
The term is appropriated from the use to describe the mutually loyal corps of Ataturkians in
the Turkish military and intelligence services who were united in service to uphold the ideal
of Ataturkian secular modernisation. The term implies no public accountability or publicity unnecessary
to its purposes.
And its origins imply that it is not just one in a number of major influences ln government or
those who vote for it.
So one has to acknowledge that in the US the Deep State has to be different in the important
respect that levers of power are observably wielded by lobbies for the aged, gun owners and sellers,
Israel, Wall Street, bio fuels, sugar and other ag, pharmaceuticals, oil and gas, the arms industry,
Disney and other Hollywood and media, health insurers and the medical profession, and I could
go on.
These are all relevant to legal events like votes on impeachment or to hold up appointments.
The CIA and FBI together completely united (and note how disunited 9/11 showed them to be) wouldn't
remotely approach the old Turkish Deep State's ability to stage a coup. Are all of the putative
elements of the Deep State together today as powerful as J.Edgar Hoover with his dirt files on
everyone? (A contrast and compare exercise of today's presumed Deep State configuration and modus
operandi with the simpler Hoover days might shine some light on who does what and how today. And
how effectively).
To avoid lack of focus can a convincing account of the US Deep State be best given in terms
of a plausible scenario for
getting rid of Trump as President and/or
maintaining the lunacy and hubris which has the US wasting its substance on totally unnecessary
antagonistic relations with China and Russia and interference in the ME?
I would read such accounts with great interest. (Handwavers need not apply).
Of course the US Deep State must hate Russia. First, Jews have a very long history of hating Russia and Russians. That never changed. The
USSR was not Russia; the USSR was Marxism replacing Russia. Jews tended to love that. Rich Jews
from across the world, from the US and the UK of most interest to us, sent money to support the
Bolshevik Revolution.
Russia managed to survive the USSR and is slowly coming back around to Russian common sense
from the Christian perspective. Neither Jews nor their WASP BFFs can ever forgive that. They want
Russia to act now to commit cultural and genetic suicide, like Western Europe and the entire Anglosphere
are doing.
@polistraThe CIA's source, its birth, is from British secret service. Brit spying. And Brit secret service,
long before the official founding of MI5, did exactly the kinds of things you note the CIA has
done.
The Mossad is another direct fruit of Brit secret service, as is the Saudi General Intelligence
Presidency.
While there can be no doubt about the crackpots in high positions of the most powerful bureaucracies,
it seems to me that the CIA loonies are merely shock troops for an even worse bunch of evil psychos,
the bankster mafiosi.
But doing so would mean a voluntary end to playing the role of Sauron, determined to find and
wear the One Ring to Rule Them All. The average Elite WASP, and his Jewish BFF, definitely would
prefer to destroy the world, at least outside their gated compounds of endless luxury, than to
step down from that level of global domination.
@Wizard
of Oz Wiz – Here is an article I did on the Deep State two years ago. It was one of the first
in the US media looking at the issue. It would have to be updated now in light of Trump, but much
of what it states is still more-or-less correct.
But we need to make certain that your use of the word 'mafiosi' does not lead anyone to assume
that group has more than a handful of Italians. Jews, WASPs, and continental Germanics each will
outnumber Italians by at least 30 to 1.
I am a retired CIA operations officer (something none of the men mentioned by Giraldi are –
Brennan was a failed wanna be, couldn't cut it as an ops officer). He is spot on in his comments.
The majority of people in the CIA, the ones who do the heavy lifting, are patriotic Americans
who are proud of serving their country. I am sure that most voted for Trump as they all know too
well the truth about the Clintons and Obama.
Giraldi is not the only one to notice the upward progress of the most incompetent yes-men in the
Agency. A close look at most of them reveals a track record of little or no operational success
balanced by excellent sucking up skills. These characters quickly figured out how to get ahead
and doing your job in the field is not it. Of course, most are ego maniacs so they are totally
oblivious to their own uselessness.
Well before he was elected I had a letter delivered to President Trump in which I outlined in
detail what would happen to him if he did not immediately purge the CIA of these assholes. I know
that at least some people on his staff read it but, of course, my advice was ignored. Trump has
paid dearly for not listening to an ordinary CIA guy who wanted to give him a reality brief on
those vicious snakes.
Historical facts teach humanity that Anglo-Saxon group of Nations was built on slavery, thuggery
and theft of other peace loving Civilizations.
We Slavs are the New "niggers", hate is the glue that holds you "toGether".
People of color have been successfully conditioned and practice it as well.
Time will tell how well it holds when balloon bursts and 99% gets called to serve as cannon fodder.
Terrorizing UNARMED and WEAKER is not true test of "superiority" and "exceptionalism".
Tiny, extremely tiny minority of Anglo-Saxons and Satraps understand this.
How "Russiagate" began: After the primaries, both Hillary and Donald faced divided political parties even though they
had won the nomination. These divisions were worse than the normal situation after contested primaries.
On the Democratic side, Hillay had just subverted the will of the voters of her party, who seemed
to favor Bernie Sanders over her. Hillay had won with corrupt collusion and rigging amongst the
DNC, the higher ranks of the Democratic Party, and major media such as the NYT and CNN.
Then, a leak of emails from the DNC HQ publicized her interference in the democratic processes
of the Democratic Party. This threatened to ene the Hillary for President campaign right then
and there. If the majority of Democrats who'd favored Bernie refused to support Hillary because
of her corruption and collusion in denying democracy within the party, she was a sure loser in
the fall election. The Hillary camp then immediately started blaming Russia for the exposure of her corruption
and rigging of the Democratic process. And that's how "Russiagate" began.
It probably does as do group psychoses and group fantasies.. Anyone who's ever served in a beuaracracy
knows that groupthink exists.
Take a bunch of mediocre minds. And, they do exist, as Garrison Keiler once famously made a
joke out of with his line Welcome to Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average.
Take that bunch of mediocre thinkers, and then make most of them obsessed with their own career
advancement above all else. The most dangerous place for a career-obsessed individual is outside
the group consensus. If everyone is wrong, then there is safety in the group. After all, if they
are wrong, so was everyone else in the organization. Thus they are immune to attack and censure
for being wrong. But if someone takes a position outside of the group consensus, that can be a
career-ending move if they are wrong, as now everyone else will be in the I-told-U-So camp. And
even if they are correct, they will still be hated and shunned just for being the person who pointed
out to the group that they are wrong.
So, you take your typical average mind, and not only do they not have any great insights of
their own, but they tend to stick to the group out of sheer survival and then when you take a
mass of these mediocre minds you have 'groupthink'.
If only Trump would really clean the swamp - particularly the neo-cons and other traitors and
globalists. One can dream ....
What we've learned from Trump is that 'Draining the Swamp' will
take more than an individual. It will take a political movement.
One sees this on the fringes of politics. Someone gets the idea of running for President, and
they point out all that is wrong. But, they focus only on their own campaign, their own goal,
and they thus gloss over the fact that they'll be outnumbered and powerless even if they win.
Seen this often on the Left. The most recent example is Bernie Sanders. Likewise, had Bernie
been elected President, he too would face an entrenched establishment and media with only a small
fraction of the Congress supporting him.
Change has to be built from the bottom up. There are no shortcuts. Electing a Trump, or a Nader
or a Bernie does not lead to real change. Step one is to build the political movement such that
it has real voting block power and which has already won voting majorities in the legislature
before the movement achieves the election of a President.
What Trump has needed to be doing for this first two years is to form clear divisions that
he could then take to his voters in the mid-term elections. He's needed to lay out his own agenda.
So what if he loses votes in Congress? He then takes that agenda back to the voters in 2018 with
a nationwide slate of Congressional candidates who support that agenda and runs a midterm campaign
asking the voters to help him drain that swamp.
So, for instance, Trump should veto the act of war known as the recent sanctions bill. Who
cares if it gets overridden? Then he goes back to the voters, who are clearly sick of endless
war and who for obvious reasons don't want a nuclear war, and he says this is where I stand. Support
me by electing Fill-In-The-Blank to Congress. With the nuclear Doomsday Clock pushing ever closer
to midnight, he might just win that fight over the big money and media opposition he's sure to
face.
Not only has Trump failed to even try to fight the Deep State, but he's also failing to set
himself up for success in the next elections.
It is a serious error to consider President Trump "naive."
What we are seeing now is The Donald's role in the serial Zionist THEATER. Think deeper about the motive behind Mr. Giraldi's choice to use the Orwellian word "Groupthink"
in characterizing the CIA zeitgeist? In the classic work "1984," one observes Big Brother as the catalyst in control of the proles'
thought pattern & subsequent action.
To rise & FALL as a POTUS is a matter of theater and the American proles are entertained by
the political for either 4 or 8 years and the Zionists get their next Chosen actor/actress dramatically
sworn in on a bible.
Mr. Trump is neither naive nor stupid. Sheldon Adelson would not donate $millioms to any POTUS
wannabe who could not effectively lead the American Groupthink tradition. Subsequently, the political
horror show is brought to you in the understandable form of the perpetually elusive Deep State
which gets annual Academy Award.
"Carnage needs to destroyed" mentality is dominant among the USA neoliberal elite and drives the policy toward Russia.
They all supported neoconservative extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda directed on weakening Russian and
establishing of world dominance. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this
Notable quotes:
"... There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this. ..."
"... This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya. ..."
"... And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. ..."
"... Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky. ..."
"... it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep.. ..."
"... I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields. Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence". ..."
"... It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of defiance which they will not tolerate. ..."
"... And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear. That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that. ..."
"... Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ..."
"... They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress West's posture; say 2040 ..."
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
"... About relation Steele-MI6, well, you never leave your IS. Or to put it in another way, you are never out of the scope of your past IS ..."
"... No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming. ..."
"... Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons. ..."
"... Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing. ..."
"... Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before any Steele's Dossier. This was a program. ..."
"... IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war. ..."
"... The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem for regular people, to worry about. ..."
"... A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario Scaramella. ..."
"... Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality? Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear. ..."
Steele, Shvets, Levinson, Litvinenko and the 'Billion Dollar Don.'
In the light of the suggestion in the Nunes memo that Steele was 'a longtime FBI source' it seems worth sketching out some background,
which may also make it easier to see some possible reasons why he 'was desperate that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate
about him not being president.'
There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. It also seems clear that influential journalists, such as Glenn Simpson was before founding Fusion
GPS, along with his wife Mary Jacoby, have been strongly involved in this.
This agenda has involved hopes for 'régime change' in Russia, whether as the result of an oligarchic coup, a popular revolt, or
some combination of both. Also central have been hopes for a further 'rollback' of Russia influence in the post-Soviet space, both
in areas now independent, such as Ukraine, and also ones still part of the Russian Federation, notably Chechnya.
And, crucially, it involved exploiting the retreat of Russian power from the Middle East for 'régime change' projects which it
was hoped would provide a definitive solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the
area.
Important support for these strategies was provided by the 'StratCom' network centred around the late Boris Berezovsky, which
clearly collaborated closely with MI6. As was apparent from the witness list at Sir Robert Owen's Inquiry into the death of Alexander
Litvinenko, which produced a report based essentially on a recycling of claims made by the network's members, key players were on
your side of the Atlantic – notably Alex Goldfarb, Yuri Shvets, and Yuri Felshtinsky.
The question of what links these had, or did not have, with elements in U.S. intelligence agencies is thus a critical one.
In making some sense of it, the fact that one key figure we know to have been involved in this network was missing at the Inquiry
– the former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared on the Iranian island of Kish in March 2007 – is important.
Unfortunately, I only recently came across a book on Levinson published in 2016 by the 'New York Times' journalist Barry Meier,
which is now hopefully winging its way across the Atlantic. From the accounts of the book I have seen, such as one by Jeff Stein
in 'Newsweek', it seems likely that its author did not look at any of the evidence presented at Owen's Inquiry.
Had he done so, Meier might have discovered that his subject had been, as it were, 'top supporting actor' in the first fumbling
attempt by Christopher Steele et al to produce a plausible-sounding scenario as to the background to Litvinenko's death. A Radio
4 programme on 16 December 2006, presented by the veteran BBC presenter Tom Mangold, had been wholly devoted to an account by Shvets,
backed up by Levinson. Both of these were, like Litvinenko, supposed to be impartial 'due diligence' operatives.
The notion that any of them might have connections with Western intelligence agencies was not considered. The – publicly available
– evidence of the involvement of Shvets, whose surname means 'cobbler' or 'shoemaker' in Ukrainian, in the processing of the tapes
of conversations involving the former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma supposedly recorded by Major Melnychenko, which had played
a crucial role in the 2004-5 'Orange Revolution' was not mentioned.
Still less was it mentioned that claims that the – very dangerous – late Soviet Kolchuga system, which made it possible the kind
of identification of incoming aircraft which radar had traditionally done, without sending out signals which made the destruction
of the facilities doing it possible, had been sold by Kuchma to Iraq had proven spurious.
What Shvets had done had been to take – genuine – audio in which Kuchma had discussed a possible sale, and edit it to suggest
a sale had been completed.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
As a former television current affairs producer, I can talk to you of the marvels which London audio editors can produce, very
happily. Unfortunately, the days when not all BBC and 'Guardian' journalists were corrupt stenographers for corrupt and incompetent
spooks, as Mangold and his like have been for Steele and Levinson, are long gone.
All this has become particularly relevant now, given that Simpson has placed the notorious Jewish Ukrainian mobster Semyon Mogilevich
and the 'Solntsevskaya Bratva' mafia group centre stage in his accounts not simply of Trump and Manafort, but also of William Browder.
For most of the 'Nineties, Levinson had been a, if not the, lead FBI investigator on Mogilevich.
(On this, see the 1999 BBC 'Panorama' programme 'The Billion Dollar Don', also presented by Tom Mangold, which has extensive interviews
both with Mogilevich and Levinson at
In the months leading up to Levinson's disappearance, a key priority for the advocates of the strategy I have described was to
prevent it being totally derailed by the patently catastrophic outcome of the Iraqi adventure.
Compounding the problem was the fact that this had created the 'Shia Crescent', which in turn exacerbated the potential 'existential
threat' to Israel posed by the steadily increasing range, accuracy and numbers of missiles available to Hizbullah in hardened positions
north of the Litani.
These, obviously, provided both a 'deterrent' for that organisation and Iran, and also a radical threat to the whole notion that
somehow Israel could ever be a 'safe haven' for Jews, against the supposedly ineradicable disposition of the 'goyim' sooner or later
to, as it were, revert to type. The dreadful thought that Israel might not be necessary had to be resisted at all costs.
What followed from the disaster unleashed by the – Anglo-American – 'own goal' in toppling Saddam was, ironically, a need on the
part of key players to 'double down.' Above all, it was necessary for many of those involved to counter suggestions from the Russian
side that going around smashing up 'régimes' that one might not like sometimes blew up in one's face.
Even more threatening were suggestions from the Russian side that it was foolish to think one could use jihadists without risking
'blowback', and that there might be an overwhelming common interest in combating Islamic extremism.
Another priority was to counter the pushback in the American 'intelligence community' and military, which was to produce the drastic
downgrading of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear programme in the November 2007 NIE and then the resignation of Admiral William
Fallon as head of 'Centcom' the following March.
So in 2005 Shvets came to London. He and his audio editors had another 'bite at the cherry' of the Melnychenko tapes, so that
material that did in fact establish that both the SBU and FSB had collaborated with Mogilevich could be employed to make it seem
that Putin had a close personal relationship with the mobster.
All kinds of supposedly respectable American and British academics, like Professors Karen Dawisha and Robert Service, have fallen
for this, hook, line and sinker. It gives a new meaning to the term 'useful idiot.'
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
In a letter sent in December that year by Litvinenko to the 'Mitrokhin Commission', for which his Italian associate Mario Scaramella
was a consultant, this was used in an attempt to demonstrate that Mogilevich, while acting as an agent for the FSB and under Putin's
personal 'krysha', had attempted to supply a 'mini atomic bomb' – aka 'suitcase nuke' – to Al Qaeda. Shortly after the letter was
sent Scaramella departed on a trip to Washington, where he appears to have got access to Aldrich Ames.
(See http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160613090333/https://www.litvinenkoinquiry.org/evidence .)
At precisely this time, as Meier explains, Levinson was in the process of being recruited by a lady called Anne Jablonski who
then worked as a CIA analyst. It appears that she was furious at the failure of the operational side at the Agency to produce evidence
which would have established that Iran did indeed have an ongoing nuclear programme, and she may well have hoped would implicate
Russia in supplying materials.
There are grounds to suspect that one of the things that Berezovsky and Shvets were doing was fabricating such 'evidence.' Whether
Levinson was involved in such attempts, or genuinely looking for evidence he was convinced must be there, I cannot say. It appears
that he fell for a rather elementary entrapment operation – which could well have been organised with the collaboration of Russian
intelligence. (People do get fed up with being framed, particular if 'régime change' is the goal.)
It also seems likely that, quite possibly in a different but related entrapment operation, related to propaganda wars in which
claims and counter claims about a polonium-beryllium 'initiator' as the crucial missing part which might make a 'suitcase nuke' functional,
Litvinenko accidentally ingested fatal quantities of polonium. A good deal of evidence suggests that this may have been at Berezovsky's
offices on the night before he was supposedly assassinated.
It was, obviously, important for Steele et al to ensure that nobody looked at the 'StratCom' wars about 'suitcase nukes.' Here,
a figure who has played a key role in such wars in relation to Syria plays an interesting minor one in the story.
Some time following the destruction of the case for an immediate war by the November 2007 NIE, a chemical weapons specialist called
Dan Kaszeta, who had worked in the White House for twelve years, moved to London.
In 2011, in addition to founding a consultancy called 'Strongpoint Security', he began a writing career with articles in 'CBRNe
World.' Later, he would become the conduit through which the notorious 'hexamine hypothesis', supposedly clinching proof that the
Syrian government was responsible for the sarin incidents at Khan Sheikhoun, Ghouta, Saraqeb, and Khan Al-Asal, was disseminated.
Having been forced by the threat of a case being opened against them under human rights law into resuming the inquest into Litvinenko's
death, in August 2012 the British authorities appointed Sir Robert Owen to conduct it. (There are many honest judges in Britain,
but obviously, if one sets out to find someone who will 'cover up' for the incompetence and corruption of people like Steele, as
Lord Hutton did before him, you can find them.)
That same month, a piece appeared in 'CBRNe World' with the the strapline: 'Dan Kaszeta looks into the ultimate press story: Suitcase
nukes', and the main title 'Carry on or checked bags?' Among the grounds he gives for playing down the scare:
'Some components rely on materials with shelf life. Tritium, for example, is used in many nuclear weapon designs and has a twelve
year half-life. Polonium, used in neutron initiators in some earlier types of weapon designs, has a very short halflife. US documents
state that every nuclear weapon has "limited life components" that require periodic replacement (do an internet search for nuclear
limited life components and you can read for weeks).'
What Kaszeta has actually described are the reasons why polonium is a perfect 'StratCom' instrument. In terms of scientific plausibility,
in fact there were no 'suitcase nukes', and in any case 'initiators' using polonium had been abandoned very early on, in favour of
ones which lasted longer.
For 'StratCom' scenarios, as experience with the 'hexamine hypothesis' has proved, scientific plausibility can be irrelevant.
What polonium provides is a means of suggesting that Al Qaeda have in fact got hold of a nuclear device which they could easily
smuggle into, say, Rome or New York, or indeed Moscow, but there is a crucial missing component which the FSB is trying to provide
to them. By the same token, of course, that missing component could be depicted as one that Berezovsky and Litvinenko are conspiring
to suppl to the Chechen insurgents.
In addition, the sole known source of global supply is the Avangard plant at Sarov in Russia, so the substance is naturally suited
for 'StratCom' directed against that country, which its intelligence services would – rather naturally – try to make 'boomerang.'
According to Glenn Simpson, Christopher Steele is a 'boy scout.' This seems to me quite wrong – but, even if it were true, would
you want to unleash a 'boy scout' into these kinds of intrigue?
As it is not clear why Kaszeta introduced his – accurate but irrelevant – point about polonium into an article which was concerned
with scientific plausibility, one is left with an interesting question as to whether he cut his teeth on 'StratCom' attempting to
ensure that nobody seriously interested in CBRN science followed an obvious lead.
In relation to the question of whether current FBI personnel had been involved in the kind of 'StratCom' exercises, I have been
describing, a critical issue is the involvement of Shvets and Levinson in the Alexander Khonanykhine affair back in the 'Nineties,
and the latter's use of claims about the Solntsevskaya to prevent the key figure's extradition. But that is a matter for another
day.
A corollary of all this is that we cannot – yet at least – be absolutely confident that the account in the Nunes memo, according
to which Steele was suspended and then dismissed as an FBI source for what the organisation is reported to define as 'the most serious
of violations' – the unauthorised disclosure of a relationship with the organisation – is necessarily wholly accurate.
Who did and did not authorise which disclosures to the media, up to and including the extraordinary decision to have the full
dossier, including claims about Aleksej Gubarev and the Alfa oligarchs, in flagrant disregard of the obvious risks of defamation
suits, and who may be trying to pass the buck to others, remains I think less than totally clear.
thanks david... fascinating overview and conjecture..
it seems to me the usa and uk have been tied at the hip for a very long time... when it comes to foreign affairs policy
and wars - the one will always vouch for the other without hesitation... it tells me the relationship is really deep..
Thank you very. As ever you have illuminated a few more things for me. Kaszeta's involvement is interesting. He is someone
I am in the middle of researching in relation to Higgins and Bellingcat.
I think the English are using you, they are unsentimental empirical people that only do these that benefit the Number One.
The chief beneficiary of the Coup in Iran was England and not US.
That Newsweek piece about Levinson is very superficial to me.
Re: Levinson
# Who suggested to who 'first' the Iran caper...Anne Jablonski to Levinson or Levinson to Jablonski? It was reported earlier
by Meier that in December 2005, when Levinson was pitching Jablonski on projects he might take on when his CIA contract was approved
he sent her a lengthy memo about Dawud's potential as an informant.
# Ira Silverman, the Iran hating NBC guy, pitched a Iraq caper to Levinson with Dawud Salahuddin, as his Iran contact and Levinson
went to Jablonski with it.
# And what was with Boris Birshstein, a Russian organized crime figure who had fled to Israel and Oleg Deripaska, the "aluminum
czar" of Russia whose organized crime contacts have kept him from entering the United States jumping in to help find Levinson?
The FBI allowed Deripaska in for two visits in 2009 in exchange for his alleged help in locating Levinson but obviously nothing
came of it.
I think there were more little agents/agendas in this than Levinson and Jablonski and US CIA.
As usual a wonderful analysis. I admire your insight, integrity and courage. I wish you could write more on why the Borg
is so much against Trump, even though they have Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference for them.
I and my friends consider it a given that most, if not all, anglo-zionist moves in the ME are to "provide a definitive
solution to the – inherently intractable – security problems of a Jewish settler state in the area. " It is an open secret that
the izzies are the reason why a few Russians, some Turks, lots of Kurds and countless Arabs are dying in the Syrian battlefields.
Another open secret: the takfiris and kurds have been, and are, supported by the West. That the "masters of the universe™" have
been conceiving and doubling down on such disastrous policies give lie to their much-vaunted "intelligence".
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time. "
David as usual fascinating work connecting the dots. One question that comes to my mind is about the above point you are making.
Is it your understanding or believe that these IC individuals on both side of Atlantic, are pursuing/forcing their (on behalf
of the Borg) foreign policy agenda outside of their respected seating governments? If not, why is it that incoming administration
cannot stop them? So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but
not fundamentally.
I am not David Habakkuk, obviously. But I will venture a little opinion anyway. It is not enough that the Borgists get their
policy preferences. If it were, then Kushner, Adelson and Co. running interference would be enough for them.
It is the very FACT of Trump even getting elected at ALL which outrages and terrifies them so much. They are used to seeing
themselves as successful manipulators and engineers of every major event. They were engineering the whole electoral battlespace
to get Clinton elected. The mere fact of Trump's victory in the teeth of their Electoral Engineering for Clinton is an act of
defiance which they will not tolerate.
And if they fail to bring Trump down at all, they will stand revealed as being defeatable. And this is their big fear.
That if people see they have defeated the Borg once on keeping Trump in the teeth of Borg's efforts, that people might try to
defeat and smash down the Borg on another issue. And then another. And then another after that.
So that is why the Borg cares so much. They view the Trump election as an insurgency, and they view themselves as waging a
counterinsurgency, which they dare not lose.
Thanks for your analysis. I always enjoy and learn from your posts. I wish you would post more often.
In my non-expert opinion, the Borg and the media were all in for Hillary. They were convinced that she was gonna win. To curry
favor with the Empress who would be certainly crowned after the election they were eager and convinced that their lawlessness
would become a badge for promotion and plum positions in her administration. In their conceit, they believed they could kill two
birds with one stroke. They could vilify Putin and create the mass hysteria to checkmate him, while at the same time disparage
and frame Trump as The Manchurian Candidate to seal their certain electoral victory.
Unfortunately for them voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin didn't buy their sales pitch despite the overwhelming
media barrage from all corners. Even news publications who have only endorsed Republican candidates for President for over a century
endorsed her.
Trump's election win caused panic among the political establishment, the media and the Deep State. They were already all-in.
Their only choice was to double down and get Trump impeached. Now their conspiracy is beginning to unravel. They are doing everything
possible to forestall their Armageddon. Of course they have many allies. This battle is gonna be interesting to watch. Trump is
clearly getting many Congressional Republicans on side as his base of Deplorables remains solidly behind him. That is what's befuddling
the Borg pundits.
So far I can't see any strategic changes on US foreign policy toward ME or Russia, at tactical level yes but not fundamentally.
Because it is not possible to do on fundamental level yet, especially with US foreign policy establishment and so called
consensus being built almost entirely, in ideological and, most importantly, cadres senses, on the ultimate exceptionalist agenda
in which Russia is the ultimate obstacle and enemy. Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp.
This swamp (Borg, deep state, etc.) still thinks that it can use Cold War 1.0 Playbook and address very real and dangerous
American economic issues. They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with.
They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.
You are right CWII is very much desired and on agenda, but i am not sure of setup, the setup/board has been changed tremendously
and IMO benefits the Asian side of Bosphorus, for one thing technology is no longer exclusive, and financial burden is heavier
on atlantic side.
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG)
dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded
as prime targets. Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981. Pipes predicts that
with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a
former CIA official who advised the Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241,
251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used
against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the
Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task
force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition
of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis"
and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union
"There is reason to suspect that some former and very likely current employees of the FBI have been colluding with elements
in other American and British intelligence agencies, in particular the CIA and MI6, in support of an extremely ambitious foreign
policy agenda for a very long time."
Yes, that is what appears to be just what is coming to light. I wonder just what position Trey Gowdy is going to have since
he won't be running for re-election. The rage from the left is palpable. I'm sure the next outraged guy on the left will know
how to shoot straighter than the ones who shot up Congressman Scalise or the concert goers at Mandalay Bay.
"They are wrong, since most of them didn't read the playbook correctly to start with."
-- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
England preferred NAZI Germany to USSR, this is well known. As to what would have happened, the outcome of the war, in my opinion,
did not depend on US participation in the European Theatre. All of Europe would have become USSR satellite or joined USSR.
"unsentimental empirical people"? Absolutely disagree with you. Now the Iranians, they strike me as a singularity unsentimental
people. Just general impressions, mind you.
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan
back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that
in mind, I don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war planers, will be regretting,
even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports
and other places around the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in aftermath of the
terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows what will happens to us if the opposite side start
to supply his own proxies with lethal anti air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such
an escalation.
I think it likely that what Meier produces is only a 'limited hangout', and am hoping that when the book arrives it will contain
more pointers.
It is important to be clear that one is often dealing with people playing very complicated double games.
An interesting document is the 'Petition for Writ of Habeus Corpus' made on behalf of Khodorkovsky's close associate Alexander
Konanykhin back in 1997,when the Immigration and Naturalization Service were – apparently at least – cooperating with Russian
attempts to get hold of him. An extract:
'During the immigration hearing FBI SA Robert Levinson, an INS witness, confirmed that in 1992 Petitioner was kidnapped and
afterwards pursued by assassins of the Solntsevskaya organized criminal group. This organized criminal group is reportedly the
largest and the most influential organized criminal group in Russia, and operates internationally.'
Note the similarities between the 'StratCom' that Khonanykin and his associates were producing in the 'Nineties, and that which
Simpson and his associates have been producing two decades later.
Another useful example is provided by a 2004 item in the 'New American Magazine', reproduced on Konanykhin's website:
'One of those who testified on behalf of Konanykhine was KGB defector Yuri Shvets, who declared: "I have a firsthand knowledge
on similar operations conducted by the KGB." Konanykhine had brought trouble on himself, Shvets continued, when he "started bringing
charges against people who were involved with him in setting up and running commercial enterprises. They were KGB people secretly
smuggling from Russia hundreds of millions of dollars . This is [a] serious case, and I know that KGB ... desperately wants to
win this case, and everybody who won't step to their side would face problems."'
So – 'first hand knowledge', from a Ukrainian nationalist – look at what the Chalupas have been doing, it seems not much has
changed.
For a rather different perspective on what Konanykhin had actually been up to, from someone in whose honesty – if not always
judgement – I have complete confidence, see the testimony of Karon von Gerhke-Thompson to the House Committee on Banking and Financial
Services hearings on Russian Money Laundering. In this, she described how she had been approached by him in 1993:
'"Konanykhine alleged that Menatep Bank controlled $1.7bn [Ł1bn] in assets and investment portfolios of Russia's most prominent
political and social elite," she recalled. She said he wanted to move the bank's assets off shore and asked her to help buy foreign
passports for its "very, very special clients".
'In her testimony to the committee Ms Von Gerhke-Thompson said she informed the CIA of the deal, and the agency told her that
it believed Mr Konanykhine and Mr Khodorkovsky "were engaged in an elaborate money laundering scheme to launder billions of dollars
stolen by members of the KGB and high-level government officials".
Coming back to Steele's 'StratCom', in July 2008, an item appeared on the 'Newnight' programme of the BBC – which some of us
think should by then have been rechristened the 'Berezovsky Broadcasting Corporation' – in which the introduction by the presenter,
Jeremy Paxman, read as follows:
'Good evening. The New Russian President, Dmitri Medvedev, was all smiles and warm words when he met Gordon Brown today. He
said he was keen to resolve all outstanding difficulties between the two countries. Yada yada yada. Gordon Brown smiled, but he
must know what Newsnight can now reveal: that MI5 believes the Russian state was involved in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko
by radioactive poisoning. They also believe that without their intervention another London-based Russian, Boris Berezovsky, would
have been murdered. Our diplomatic editor, Mark Urban, has this exclusive report.'
When Urban repeated the claims on his blog, there was a positive eruption from someone using the name 'timelythoughts', about
the activities of someone she referred to as 'Berezovsky's disinformation specialist' – when I came across this later, it was
immediately clear to me that she was Karon von Gerhke, and he was Shvets.
She then described a visit by Scaramella to Washington, details of which had already been unearthed by my Italian collaborator,
David Loepp. Her claim to have e-mails from Shvets, from the time immediately prior to Litvinenko's death, directly contradicting
the testimony he had given, fitted with other evidence I had already unearthed.
Later, we exchanged e-mails over a quite protracted period, and a large amount of material that came into my possession as
a result was submitted by me to the Inquest team, with some of it being used in posts on the 'European Tribune' site.
What I never used publicly, because I could only partially corroborate it from the material she provided, was an extraordinary
claim about Shvets:
'He was responsible for bringing in a Kremlin initiative that was walked Vice President Cheney's office on a US government
quid pro quo with the Kremlin FSB SVR involving the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky – a cease and desist on allegations of a politically
motivated arrest of Khodorkovsky, violations of rules of law and calls from Russia's expulsion from the G 8 in exchange for favorable
posturing of U.S. oil companies on Gazprom's Shtokman project and intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq,
Iran and Syria, all documented in reports I submitted to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and MI6.
'Berezovsky's DS could not be on both sides on that isle. His Kremlin FSB SVR sources had been vetted by the CIA and by the
National Security Council. They proved to be as represented. As we would later learn, however, he was on Berezovsky's payroll
at same time. The FSB SVR general he was coordinating the Kremlin initiative through was S. R. Subbotin, the same FSB SVR general
who was investigating Berezovsky's money laundering operations in Switzerland during the same timeframe. His FSB SVR sources surrounding
Putin were higher than any Lugovoy could have ever hoped to affiliate with.
'R. James Woolsey (former CIA DCI), Marshall Miller (former law partner of the late CIA DCI William Colby), who I coordinated
the Kremlin initiative through that Berezovsky's DS had brought in were shocked to learn that he was affiliated with Berezovsky
and Litvinenko. He was in Berezovsky's inner circle and engaged in vetting Russian business with Litvinenko. He operated Berezovsky's
Ukraine website, editing and dubbing the now infamous Kuchma tapes throughout the lead up to the elections in the Ukraine. Berezovsky
contributed $41 million to Viktor Yushchenko's campaign, which he used in an attempt to force Yushchenko to reunite with Julia
Tymoschenko. It failed but would succeed later after Berezovsky orchestrated a public relations initiative through Alan Goldfarb
in the U.S. on behalf of Tymoschenko.'
Having got to know Karon von Gerhke quite well, and also been able to corroborate a great deal of what she told me about many
things, and discussed these matters with her, it is absolutely clear to me that she was neither fabricating nor fantasising. What
later became apparent, both to her and to me, was that in the 'double game' that Shvets was playing, he had succeeded in fooling
her as to the side for which he was working.
It seems likely however that the reason Shvets could do what he did was that quite precisely that many high-up people in the
Kremlin and elsewhere were playing a 'double game.' In this, Karon von Gerhke's propensity for indiscretion – of which I, like
others, was both beneficiary and victim – could be useful.
An exercise in 'positioning', which could be used to disguise the fact that Shvets was indeed 'Berezovsky's disinformation
specialist', could be used to make it appear that 'intelligence on weapon sales during the Yeltsin era to Iraq, Iran and Syria'
was actually credible.
This could have been used to try to rescue Cheney, Bush and their associates from the mess they had got into as a result of
the failure of the invasion to provide any evidence whatsoever supporting the case which had been made for it. It could also have
been used to provide the kind of materials justifying military action against Iran for which Levinson and Jablonski were looking,
and for similar action against Syria.
Among reasons for bringing this up now is that we need to make sense of the paradox that Simpson – clearly in collusion with
Steele – was using Mogilevich and the 'Solnsetskaya Bratva' both against Manafort and Trump and against Browder.
There are various possible explanations for this. I do not want to succumb to my instinctive prejudice that this may have been
another piece of 'positioning', similar to what I think was being done with Shvets, but the hypothesis needs to be considered.
A more general point is that people in Washington and London need to 'wise up' to the kind of world with which they are dealing.
This could be done quite enjoyably: reading some of Dashiell Hammett's fictions of the United States in the Prohibition era, or
indeed buying DVDs of some of the classics of 'film noir', like 'Out of the Past' (in its British release, 'Build My Gallows High')
might be a start.
Very much of the coverage of affairs in the post-Soviet space since 1991 has read rather as though a Dashiell Hammett story
had been rewritten by someone specialising in sentimental children's, or romantic, fiction (although, come to think of it, that
is really what Brigid O'Shaughnessy does in 'The Maltese Falcon.')
The testimony of Glenn Simpson seems a case in point. The sickly sentimentality of these people does, rather often, make one
feel as though one wanted to throw up.
"They act and believe that they are Olympians. You have to wait for them to age and die before any substantive change in Fortress
West's posture; say 2040.}
No, three years at tops and could be much sooner if dimes starting dropping by exposed people that don't want to take the
fall for their superiors whom they always detested. One possible thing to get the process started sooner is if the recent Russian
Intelligence delegation to DC that Smoothie mentions on another thread gave the current administration, as a diplomatic courtesy
of course, the audio recordings of Madame Sectary Nuland's infamous mental meltdown at Kaliningrad. No telling what beans were
spilled in her moment of panic, but I am willing to bet key names were dropped. Either way the time is coming.
- If they have read the important books at all... The ongoing scandal has been revealing a stunning incompetence of the "deciders."
Too often they look comical, ridiculous, undignified. This is dangerous, considering their power.
My coming book is precisely about that. Especially, once American policy-makers who saw and experienced war (Ike, George
Marshall's generation) departed things started to roll down hill with Reagan bringing on board a whole collection of neocons.
Unawareness is always dangerous, a complete blackout in relations between two nuclear powers is more than dangerous--it
is completely reckless. Again, the way CW 1.0 is perceived in the current US "elites" it becomes extremely tempting to repeat
it. Electing Hillary was another step in unleashing CW 2.0 by people who have no understanding of what they were doing.
Obama started crushing US-Russian relations before any campaigns were launched and before Trump was even seriously considered
a GOP nominee, let alone a real contender. New confrontation hinged on HRC being elected. In fact, she was one of the major driving
forces behind a serious of geopolitical anti-Russian moves. Visceral Russo-phobia became a feature in HRC campaign long before
any Steele's Dossier. This was a program.
I think the failure of Deciders is nothing new - Fath Ali Shah attacking Russia, or the abject failure of the Deciders in 1914.
Europe is still not where she was in 1890.
I read the post and responses early on, so forgive me if this point has been addressed in the meantime. If the memo information
on non-disclosure of material evidence to the warrant issuing court is accurate, as soon as that information came to the attention
of the authorities (clearly some time ago) there was a duty on them (including the judge(s) who issued the warrants) to have the
matter brought back before the court toot sweet. If that had happened it would surely be in the public domain, so on the assumption
the prosecutors and maybe even the judge didn't see the need to review the matter, even purely on a contempt/ethics basis, the
memo information only seems convincing if the FISA system is a total sham. I really doubt that.
IMO, the bigger problem for American not shying away from wars, or being silent about them , is when your home, your mom and
dad' home, the town you grew up in, are immune and away from the war.
The security and safety of the two oceans, encourages or at least, in an all volunteer military makes it a secondary problem
for regular people, to worry about. As I remember that wasn't the case at the end of VN war when i first landed here. At
that time even though the war was on the other side of the planet and away from homeland, still people, especially young ones
in colleges were paying more attention to the cost of war.
Diana West has uncovered some interesting "Red Threads" (6 part article at dianawest-dot-net) on all the Fusion GPS folks. Seems
ole Russian speaking Nellie Ohr got herself a ham radio license recently. Wonder why she would suddenly need one of those? They
are all Marxists with potential connections back to Russia.
Been there. I am also a latecomer to SST. You have to read the back numbers. How? My IT expertise dates from the dawn of the internet
and was lamentable then but I find Wayback sometimes allows easier searches than the SST search engine. A straight search on google
also allows searches with more than one term. This link -
- gets you to a chronological list and for recent material is sometimes quicker than fiddling around with search engines. "Categories"
on the RH side is useful but then you don't get some very informative comments that cross-refer.
If those sadly elementary procedures fail resort to the nearest infant. There's a blur of fingers on the keyboard and what
you want then usually appears. Never ask them how they did it. They get so fed up when you ask them to explain it again.
"Who is David Habakkuk?" That's a quantum computer sited, from internal evidence you pick up from time to time, somewhere in
the Greater London area. Cross references like you wouldn't believe and over several fields, so maybe he's two quantum computers.
The "Borg"?. Try Wittgenstein. Likely a prog but you can't be choosy these days. Early on in "Philosophical Investigations"
(hope I get this right) he discusses the problem of how you can view as an entity something that has ill-defined or overlapping
boundaries. The "Borg" is that "you know it when you see it" sort of thing. A great merit of this site is that the owner and many
of the contributors know it from inside.
In general you may regard your new found site as a microcosm of the great battle that is raging in the West. It's a battle
between the (probably apocryphal but adequately stated) Roveian view of reality that regards truth as an adjunct to or as a by-product
of ideology and Realpolitik and the objective view of reality as something that is damned difficult to get at, and sometimes impossible,
but that has a truth in it somewhere that is independent of the views and convictions of the observer. It's a battle that's never
going to be won but unless it tilts back closer to common sense it can certainly be lost and the West with it.
Clearly the Labor Party in the UK preferred the USSR to Nazi Germany. (cepting that short interlude where the Soviets signed the
Agreement with Hitler, and the Left Organized Leadership all across Europe, for the most part, lined up with Hitler). But for
the most part, Labor was Left.
Elements (the ones that won out in the end) of the Conservative Party loathed both Hitler and Stalin. An element of the Conservative
Party was sympathetic, but only up to a certain point, with the Nazis. This ended in 1939, sept.
So I don't think it fair, or accurate, to say 'England prefered the Nazis....and even if it not those things, it certainly
not "well known", except to the people who have used the false premise to butter their wounds from supporting Stalin in his Pact
with Hitler. Or are inclined to bash the British in general.
All right, perhaps I should have said "The English Government". Google "Litvinov", you may discover how the English Government
pushed Stalin to make a deal with Hitler to buy USSR time.
Witness the infamous State Department protest memo calling for more war on Syria.
The State Department employees that signed that memo were sure that HRC would win and that their diligent work in pushing the
Deep State agenda would sure be rewarded.
Since entering office, Trump appears to have taken the line that if he gives the Deep State everything it demands, he will
be allowed to remain in office, even if he is not allowed to remain in power.
jonst That's broadly accurate, but specifically Attlee brought the motion of no confidence in Chamberlain, which the conservative
appeasers won but which led to Churchill's opportunity. Attlee was essential in cabinet to Churchill's resistance after the retreat
of the BEF.
FM
What are you doing here? You said you dislike the military. Are you really in the Spanish Basque country? Bilbao maybe? break
- David Habakkuk is a private scholar of the Litvinenko murder and Soviet/Russian politics and intelligence affairs. His surname
comes from Wales where in the 18th (?) Century the ancestral village were all "chapel" and changed their surnames to Old Testament
names. His father was master of one of the Cambridge colleges and David is himself a graduate of Cambridge. pl
The hard, blinding truth:
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/02/05/will-conspiracy-trump-american-democracy-go-unpunished/
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it,
and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting
their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations." – Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
This troll showed up recently at b's place doing the same accusations. There is group that is running sacred and pulling out
all the stops in "info ops" side of the spectrum. The damn fools don't or, most probably, won't get thru their thick heads and
even thicker hearts that it is a failed strategy that turns bystanders into their opponents.
Here for your edification is the definitive analysis of the GOP memo by Alexander Mercouris over at The Duran.
And it is a masterpriece - and quite long, possibly his longest analysis of anything so far. He buries the counterarguments
being passed around by the Democratic opposition and the anti-Trump media.
Mercouris writes on legal affairs alongside his foreign policy stuff and he writes with a lawyer's precision. And in this article
he points out that the GOP memo is writter as a legal document - probably by Trey Gowdy - with additional political insertions
by Nunes. So it should properly be referred to as the "GOP memo" or the "Gowdy memo", not the Nunes memo."
Why this is important is that the GOP memo is basically written as a defense lawyer would in contesting a case -- this case
being the FISA warrant application. Which means its orientation is proving failure to disclose relevant and material information
to the FISA court and in some cases rising to the point of contempt of court.
"Seeking transparency and cooperation should not be this challenging," Grassley said in a statement after posting a heavily
redacted version of the criminal referral that he and GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina sent to the Justice Department
last month. " The government should not be blotting out information that it admits isn't secret. "
I suppose DOJ/FBI believe that by obstructing, stalling and obfuscating they can buy time and that the Republicans in Congress
will get tired of the games and go home. This seems like a pretty straightforward memo, highlighting the discrepancy between Steele's
court filings and the FBI's version of Steele's discussions with them. Grassley is pointing out that either Steele or the FBI
is lying.
What is interesting is the difference in process and ability between the House & Senate. The House can release their memos
on its own, even if not declassified by the Executive, whereas the Senate requires the Executive to declassify it's memos that
are based on classified documents.
We have not had a self declared communist on SST before although LeaNder in her youth may have come close to that exalted status.
You might want to read the wiki on me and the CV I have posted on the blog to avoid tedious accusations of this or that. I am
thought by some to have some knowledge of the ME so please do not try to lecture me about how much you love the Arabs. I speak
their language and have lived with them for a long time. There are people who write to SST who are pro-Trump and some who are
anti-Trump. I seek a mixture of views so long as personal insult and invective are eschewed. Personally, I do not belong to a
political party and would describe myself as an original intent, strict constructionist.
Trump is the constitutionally and legally elected president of the United States. Your descriptors with regard to him are,
in my opinion, only plausible if seen from the point of view of various kinds of leftist including Marxist-Leninists like you.
You sound very smug and self-satisfied but we will see if you can have an open mind at all. pl
Found him, Ali Babacan XVPM, XFM and M of finance. Yes god forbid, if he is a decendent of Ardisher Babakan and another claimant
to Iranian throne, which CIA and Soros can jump on. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Babacan MBA from
Northeestern
I do not believe Trump is a misogynists - he stated publicly that he likes beautiful women. I also do not think he is a racist.
I think he is the first US leader in many decades who has been willing to publicly talk about US problems. For most other US politicians
- they largely live in "the best of all possible worlds".
Colonel - sincere apologies if my comment above disrupted the discussion on a fascinating article.
David Habakkuk - I should say that "Quantum Computer" referred solely to the ability to gather and collate great amounts of
material. It's an ability I admire. On Steele, you are among other things setting out something that is unfamiliar to me though
not to most others here, I imagine, and that is the milieu in which he is or was working as a UK Intelligence operative. That
you have also done in previous articles; it doesn't seem to be a particularly savoury milieu. As far as Steele's US activities
are concerned, from you I'm not getting the picture of a lone operative, all ties with MI6 neatly severed, working solo in the
States on some chance assignment in 2016. I'm getting the picture of someone still very much in the swim and selected because
of that.
The only problem with that second picture is the dossier, or the 30% or so of it - what Comey, I think it was, described as
"salacious and unverified". Surely that's got to be amateur night. Not something that a practised professional working with other
professionals would put his hand to. Does that not support the picture of an ex-operative who's gone off the rails and is fumbling
around unsupervised?
The Steele affair touched a nerve. One is always I suppose aware that IC professionals are getting up to all sorts and it doesn't
seem improbable that "all sorts" includes political stuff and smear campaigns. But it's not heaps of corpses in Syria or farm
boys being sent to certain death in the Ukraine. And even within the UK Intelligence Community and their contractors or whatever
they're called, compared with what our IC people have done in the ME or compared with what one fears Hamish de Bretton Gordon
might have got himself involved in, Christopher Steele's just a choirboy. Nevertheless there's something deeply repellent about
what he did. Whatever your view of Trump there he was, newly elected, obviously wanting to make a go of it, and already faced
with difficulties. Then some chancer throws "Golden Showers" in his face and makes his position, not maybe for the insiders but
for the general public, that bit more untenable.
So from a UK perspective the question of whether Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK becomes important. If he
was truly working solo then that from a UK point of view is regrettable but one of those things. In that case MI6 would just have
to tighten up its controls on what ex-operatives get up to, put out the appropriate disclaimers, and that's the end of it as far
as the UK is concerned. But if Golden Showers and the rest of it was a "Welcome Mr President" from UK IC professionals as a group
then those professionals should be hung drawn and quartered together with whoever set them on.
I've read your article several times now and apart from the fact that much of what you pull together isn't material I'm up
on, it doesn't seem to me that you're definitely coming to one conclusion or the other. There are many more facts to come out
so perhaps this question is premature, but do you think Steele was acting in concert with others in the UK or was he, at least
as far as the UK is concerned, working solo?
Most Iranian females Named Fatima/ Fatimah after prophet' daughter, call themselves Fati, and if they are of aristocrat type,
they are called Bibi Fati Khanam, which is honorable lady Fati and if they are westernized they become Fay or Fifi.
Much of your commentary seems directed to David Habakkuk and PT rather than I. I don't think the FBI would have started to
pay him until he left UK service. pl
Colonel - Further apologies - I should have submitted comment 79 as two items.
Yes, the question about Steele was in response to DH's article. The UK side of the affair is I suppose only a small part of
the question you and your Committee are examining but it's a dubious part however one looks at it. Although it's early days yet
I was hoping DH, with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the UK intelligence scene, might feel able to cast more light on that UK
side.
Cortes - " ... where, exactly, do you expect the great public to look beyond the initial scabrously defamatory storytelling about
the "golden showers"? "
I don't think one can expect the public, at least in the UK, to look very far beyond the initial scandal. The investigations
and enquiries presently under way in the US are complex and are taking place in a different system. This member of the UK public
wouldn't be able to give you a coherent account of those enquiries and I doubt many of my fellows could.
So we have to take on trust, most of us, what we're told. As far as I can tell the underlying theme from the BBC and the media
is generally that Trump is subverting the American Justice system in order to ensure his own misdemeanours aren't investigated.
Some of us take that as gospel. Others of us assume that the politicians and the media are untrustworthy and ignore them. I
doubt many of us go into much more detail than that. Therefore the original story will stick in our minds.
But for some in the UK there are questions in there as well. How come the UK got mixed up in all this? How much did the UK
get mixed up in it?
When I belatedly started looking at the Litvinenko mystery, as a result of a strange email provoked by comments of mine on
SST which arrived in my inbox in March 2007 from someone who turned out to be a key protagonist, it was rather obvious that improvised
and chaotic 'StratCom' operations had been put into place on both the Russian and British sides to cover up what had happened.
A particular interesting feature of those on the British side – in which we now know Christopher Steele must have played
a leading role – were the bizarre gyrations those responsible were going through trying to explain away the extraordinary fact
that when he had broken the story of his poisoning, Litvinenko had pointed the finger of suspicion at his Italian associate Mario
Scaramella.
When I started delving, I came across some very interesting pieces on Scaramella and related matters posted on the 'European
Tribune' website by a Rome-based blogger using the name 'de Gondi' in the period after the story broke.
His actual name is David Loepp, by profession he is an artisan jeweller specialising in ancient and traditional goldsmith techniques,
and I already knew and respected his work from his contributions to the transnational internet investigation into the Niger uranium
forgeries – an earlier MI6 clusterf**ck.
So in May 2008 I posted a longish piece on that site, setting out the problems with the evidence about the Litvinenko case
as I saw them, in the hope of reactivating his interest. This paid off in spades, when he linked to, and translated a key extract
from, the request from Italian prosecutors to use wiretaps of conversations with Senator Paolo Guzzanti in connection with their
prosecution of Scaramella for 'aggravated calumny.'
The request, which up to not so long ago was freely available on the website of the Italian Senate, was denied, but the extensive
summaries of the transcripts provided a lot of material.
The extract from the wiretap request which David Loepp posted, which like Litvinenko's letter containing the claims he and
Yuri Shvets had concocted about Putin using Mogilevich to attempt to supply Al Qaeda with a 'mini nuclear bomb' is dated 1 December
2005, contains key pointers to the conspiracy. It concludes:
'A passage on Simon Moghilevic and an agreement between the camorra to search for nuclear weapons lost during the Cold War
to be consigned to Bin Laden, a revelation made by the Israeli. According to Scaramella the circle closes: camorra, Moghilevic-
Russian mafia- services- nuclear bombs in Naples.'
Subsequent conversations make clear that Scaramella left on 6 December 2005 for Washington, on a trip where he was to meet
Shvets. The summary of a report on this to Guzzanti reads:
'12) conversation that took place on number [omissis] on December 18, 2005, at 9:41:51 n. 1426, containing explicit references
to the authenticity of the declarations of Alexander Litvinenko acquired by Scaramella, to the trustworthiness of the affirmations
made by Scaramella in his reports to the commission and to the meetings Scaramella had with Talik after having denounced them
[presumably Talik and his alleged accomplices]. (They can talk with HEIMS thanks to the help of MILLER. SHVEZ says that he had
been a companion of CARLOS at the academy; SHVEZ has already made declarations and is willing to continue collaboration. Guzzanti
warns that a document in Russian arrived in commission in which the name of SCARAMELLA appears several times, these [sic] say
that directives to the contrary had been given to Litvinenko. Scaramella says that he went to the meeting with TALIK in the company
of two treasury [police] and a cop, Talik spoke of a person from the Ukrainian GRU who would be willing to talk and a strange
Chechen ring in Naples. Assassination attempt against the pope, CASAROLI was a Soviet agent.)'
The summary of a later conversation also refers to 'MILLER':
'conversation that took place on number [omissis] on January 13, 2006, at 11:22:11 n. 2287, containing references to Scaramella's
sources in relation to facts referred in the Commission, the means by which they were obtained by Scaramella from declarations
made abroad, the role of Litvinenko, also on the occasion of declarations made by third parties and the credibility of the news
and theses given by Scaramella to the commission (Scaramella reads a text in English on the relation between the KGB and PRODI.
Guzzanti asks if its credibility can be confirmed and if the taped declarations can be backed up; Scaramella answers that there
were two testimonies, Lou Palumbo and Alexander (Litvinenko), and that the registration made in London at the beginning of the
assignment [Scaramella's?] had been authenticated by a certain BAKER of the FBI. As he translates the text from English, Scaramella
notes that the person testifying does not say he knows Prodi but only that he thinks that Prodi ...; all those who worked for
the person testifying in Scandinavia said that Prodi was "theirs." The affair in Rimini, Bielli is preparing the battle in Rimini.
Meetings with MILLER for the three things that are needed. Polemic about Pollari over the pressure exerted on Gordievski.)'
In the exchanges on my May 2008 post, I mentioned and linked to some extraordinary comments on a crucial article by Edward
Jay Epstein, in which Karon von Gerhke claimed that his sceptical account fitted with what her contacts in the British investigation
had told her. When that July I came across her equally extraordinary claims in response to the BBC's Mark Urban piece of stenography
– which Steele may also have had a hand in organising – I found she was referring to precisely that visit to Washington by Scaramella
which had been described in the wiretap request.
As you can perhaps imagine, the fact that 'Miller' had featured in the conversations with Guzzanti both as a key contact, who
could introduce Scaramella to Aldrich Ames (which is who 'Heims' clearly is), and with whom there had been meetings about 'the
three things that are needed' made me inclined to take seriously what Karon von Gerhke said about his role.
In December 2008, I put up another post on 'European Tribune', putting together the material from David Loepp and that from
Karon von Gerhke – but not discussing the references to 'Miller.' As I had hoped, this led to her getting in touch.
Among the material with which she supplied me, which I in turn supplied to the Solicitor to the Inquest, were covers of faxes
to John Rizzo, then Acting General Counsel of the CIA. From a fax dated 23 October 2005.
'John: See attached email to Chuck Patrizia. Berezovsky alleges he is in possession of a copy of a classified file given to
the CIA by Russia's FSB, which he further alleges the CIA disseminated to British, French, Italian and Israeli intelligence agencies
implicating him in business associations with the Mafia and to ties with terrorist organizations. Yuri Shvets was authorised/directed
by Berezovsky to raise the issue with Bud McFarlane scheduled for Thursday. McFarlane is unaware the issue will be raised with
him.'
From a fax dated 7 November 2005:
'John: I am attaching an email exchange between Yuri Shvets and me re: 1) article he published on his Ukraine website on alleged
sale of nuclear choke to Iran, which I reproached him on as having been planted by Berezovsky and 2 the alleged FSB/CIA document
file that Berezovsky obtained from Scaramella, which Yuri acknowledges in his e-mail to me. Like extracting wisdom teeth to get
him to put anything on paper, especially in an e-mail! [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is the source McFarlane referred Yuri to re:
Berezovsky's visa issue. She proposed meeting Berezovsky in London. Alleged it would take a year to clear up USG issues and even
then could not guarantee him a visa. She too has access to USG intelligence on Berezovsky. Open book.'
From a fax dated 5 December 2005:
'John. From Mario Scaramella to Yuri Shvets to my ears, the DOJ has authorised Mario Scaramella to interview Aldrich Ames with
regard to members of the Italian Intelligence Service agent recruited by Ames for the KGB. Scaramella, as you may recall, is who
gave Boris Berezovsky's aide, a former FSB Colonel [LITVINENKO – DH], that alleged document number to the FSB file that the CIA
disseminated on Berezovsky – a file that Bud McFarlane's "Madam Visa" [NAME REDACTED BY ME – DH] is alleged is totting off to
London for a meeting with Berezovsky, who has agreed to retain her re: his visa issue. Quid pro quo's with Berezovsky and Scaramella
on the CIA agent currently facing kidnapping charges for the rendition of the Muslim cleric? Scott Armstrong has a most telling
file on Scaramella. Not a single redeeming quality.'
In the course of very extensive exchanges with Karon von Gerhke subsequently, we had some rather acute disagreements. It was
unfortunate that her filing was a shambles – a crucial hard disk failed without a backup, and the 'hard copies' appeared to be
in a chaotic state.
However, the only occasion when I can recall having reason to believe that was deliberately lying to me was when David Loepp
unearthed a cache of documentation including the full Italian text of the letter from Litvinenko containing the 'StratCom' designed
to suggest that Putin had attempted to supply a 'mini nuclear bomb' to Al Qaeda. Having been asked to keep this between ourselves
for the time being, Karon insisted on immediately sending it to her contacts in Counter Terrorism Command, and then produced bogus
justifications.
Time and again, moreover, I found that I could confirm statements that she made – see for example the two posts I put up on
the legal battles following the death in February 2008 of Berezovsky's long-term partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili in June
and July 2009, which were based on careful corroboration of what she told me.
(I should also say that I acquired the greatest respect for her courage.)
And while Owen and his team suppressed all the evidence from her, and almost all of that from David Loepp, which I had I provided
to them, the dossier about Berezovsky is described in a statement made by Litvinenko in Tel Aviv in April 2006, presented in evidence
in the Inquiry.
Other evidence, moreover, strongly inclines me to believe that there were overtures for a 'quid pro quo', purporting to come
from Putin, but that this was a ruse orchestrated by Berezovsky.
Part of the purpose of this would almost certainly have been to supply probably bogus 'evidence' about arms sales in the Yeltsin
years to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Moreover, I think there was an article on the second 'Fifth Element' site run by Shvets about the
supposed sale of a nuclear 'choke' – whatever that is – to Iran.
The likelihood of the involvement of elements in the FBI in these shenanigans seems to quite high, given what has already emerged
about the activities of Levinson. Also relevant may be the fact that the 'declaration' which was part of the attempt to frame
Romano Prodi was authenticated, in London, by 'a certain BAKER of the FBI.')
I know something of spectroscopy. The critical issue here is the provenance of the samples and not the sophistication of the techniques used in the analysis
itself or its instrumentation. The paragraph that you have quoted:
"To figure out signatures based on various synthetic routes and conditions, Chipuk says that the synthetic chemists on his
team will make the same chemical threat agent as many as 2,000 times in an ..." reeks of intellectual intimidation - trying to
brow-beat any skeptic by the size of one's instrument - as it were."
And then there is a little matter of confidence level in any of the analysis - such things are normally based on prior statistics
- which did not and could not exist in this situation.
David, it's no doubt interesting to watch how attention on Victor Ivanov in another deficient inquiry on the British Isles, was
managed in that inquiry. If I may, since he pops up again in the Steele dossier. You take what's available? Is that all there
is to know?
I know its hard to communicate basics if you are deeply into matters. Usually people prefer to opt out. It's getting way too
complicated for them to follow. You made me understand this experience. But isn't this (fake) intelligence continuity "via" Yuri
Svets what connects your, no harm meant I do understand your obsession with the case, with what we deal with now in the Steele
Dossier? Again, one of the most central figures is Ivanov.
Of course later reports in the Steele Dossier go hand in hand with a larger public relations campaign. Creating reality?
Irony alert: as informer/source I would by then know what the other side wants to hear.
By the way, babbling mode, I found your Tom Mangold transcription. It felt it wasn't there on the link you gave. I used the
date, and other search terms. Maybe I am wrong. Haven't looked at what the judge ruled out of the collection. Yes, cozy session/setting.
why California, Kooshy #18? California among other things left this verbal trace, since I once upon time thought a luggage storage
in SF might be free/available now: this is my home, lady.
Tourists from many -- but not all -- foreign nations wishing to enter Kish Free Zone from legal ports are not required to
obtain any visa prior to travel. For those travelers, upon-arrival travel permits are stamped valid for 14 days by Kish officials.
Who are the not all? Can we assume Britain is not one of those? The German link is different. How about the Iranian? or isn't this the Kish we are talking about?
another Ivanov. I struggled with names (...) in Russian crime novels, admittedly. But that's long ago from times Russian crime
and Russian money flows and rogues getting hold of its nuclear material surfaced more often in Europe. 90s
"... North Stream is a problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support
our new client state -- Ukraine. ..."
"... But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of this
alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad ..."
Best bet is for Russia to want to trade with the US and Europe. The gas pipeline will not be enough leverage on Germany
as it provides 9% of their needs.
Yes. And that's against the USA interests (or more correctly the US-led neoliberal empire interests). North Stream is a
problem as the goal is to economically weaken Russia, tie the EU to the USA via energy supplies and support our new client state
-- Ukraine.
As you know, nothing was proven yet in Russiagate (and DNC hacks looks more and more like a false flag operation, especially
this Guccifer 2.0 personality ), but sanctions were already imposed. And when the US government speaks "Russia" in most cases
they mean "China+Russia" ;-). Russia is just a weaker link in this alliance and, as such, it is attacked first. Russiagate is
just yet another pretext after MH17, Magnitsky and such.
To me the current Anti-Russian hysteria is mainly a smokescreen to hide attempt to cement cracks in the façade of the USA neoliberal
society that Trump election revealed (including apparent legitimization of ruling neoliberal elite represented by Hillary).
And a desperate attempt to unite the society using (false) war propaganda which requires demonization of the "enemy of the
people" and neo-McCarthyism.
But this is also related to attempts to prevent/weaken the alliance of Russia and China. As geopolitical consequences of
this alliance for the USA-led neoliberal empire are very bad (for example, military alliance means the end of the USA global
military domination; energy alliance means that is now impossible to impose a blockade on China energy supplies from Middle East
even if Iran is occupied)
In this sense the recent descent into a prolonged fit of vintage Cold War jingoistic paranoia is quite understandable. While,
at the same time, totally abhorrent. My feeling is that unless Russia folds, which is unlikely, the side effects/externalities
of this posture can be very bad for the USA. In any case, the alliance of Russia and China which Obama administration policies
forged spells troubles to the global neoliberal empire dominated by the USA.
Trump rejection of existing forms of neoliberal globalization is one sign that this process already started and some politicians
already are trying to catch the wind and adapt to a "new brave world" by using preemptive adjustments.
Which is why all this Trump-Putin summit hysteria is about.
Neither hard, nor soft neoliberals want any adjustments. They are ready to fight for the US-led neoliberal empire till the
last American (excluding, of course, themselves and their families)
"... Makes me wonder if this started out as a standard operation by the FBI to gain leverage over a presidential contender. That would explain Sater's early attempts at apparent entrapment. Since that didn't work, a different strategy had to be devised to deny the presidency to someone over whom the intelligence services lacked sufficient leverage. ..."
"... Hillary gladly cooperated and raised the specter of collusion with Russia, which she trumpeted in the debates, downplaying other issues that could have resonated more with voters. Since she thought she was a slam dunk, she thought she could afford to cooperate. It could only help ingratiate her with the borg. ..."
"... On the other hand, Brennan and others in the borg used their allies in the media to promote and propagate the story, which mushroomed when Trump defied the odds and won. Hillary was eager to play the victim as a way to excuse her failure. And the borg began hyping the story to cripple Trump unless he heeled. Initially Trump resisted, firing Comey. But with Bolton now ensconced as the National Security Advisor, it is clear that the borg has won, and the lack of any conspiracy could now be revealed. ..."
"... IMO the FBI leadership, Clapper, Brennan and his flunkies were working with the Brits at some senior level of their IO apparatus to screw Trump. Mueller's testimony before the Congress should be revelatory of his true position. ..."
"... Don't hold your breath .The so called deep state which in reality are our plutocratic oligarchical class that win. Look at the new boss same as the old boss. ..."
"... Look at all the hair triggers that have been laid out with the TRUMP regime since he became POTUS with regards to the ME and the Russian Federation. ..."
"... both Dems and Repub are trying to introduce a bill that labels the Russian Federation as a sponsor of terrorism. You just can't make this stuff up. Least we forget replacing the meme of ASSAD HAS TO GO TO MADURRO HAS TO GO. War is a racket and as per usual we the sheeple just fall for it. Ret. Col Wilkerson lays all out at last years Israeli influence conference. ..."
"... It appears that Bill Barr's light editing may have been intended to expose the bias and sloppiness of Mueller and his team. ..."
"... The most farcical thing in the Mueller report is that he did not fill obstruction charges or even recommend that it should be filled, but yet he did not "exonerate" Trump. ..."
"... In other words, Mueller did not think that he had enough to make an obstruction case in the courts of justice, and keep in mind that an indictment requires only "probable cause", not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for a criminal conviction, but nevertheless he went out of his way to leave the obstruction sword hanging over Trump`s head so the political infighting does not end. ..."
Makes me wonder if this started out as a standard operation by the FBI to gain leverage over a presidential contender. That would
explain Sater's early attempts at apparent entrapment. Since that didn't work, a different strategy had to be devised to deny
the presidency to someone over whom the intelligence services lacked sufficient leverage.
Hillary gladly cooperated and raised the specter of collusion with Russia, which she trumpeted in the debates, downplaying
other issues that could have resonated more with voters. Since she thought she was a slam dunk, she thought she could afford to
cooperate. It could only help ingratiate her with the borg.
On the other hand, Brennan and others in the borg used their allies in the media to promote and propagate the story, which
mushroomed when Trump defied the odds and won. Hillary was eager to play the victim as a way to excuse her failure. And the borg
began hyping the story to cripple Trump unless he heeled. Initially Trump resisted, firing Comey. But with Bolton now ensconced
as the National Security Advisor, it is clear that the borg has won, and the lack of any conspiracy could now be revealed.
Such a scenario would explain why Sater, Mufid, Steele and apparent attempts at entrapment got buried. And, with obstruction
still hanging over Trump's head, the borg's leverage is still there if needed.
IMO the FBI leadership, Clapper, Brennan and his flunkies were working with the Brits at some senior level of their IO
apparatus
to screw Trump. Mueller's testimony before the Congress should be revelatory of his true position.
Don't hold your breath .The so called deep state which in reality are our plutocratic oligarchical class that win. Look at the
new boss same as the old boss.
It was obvious from way back in June 2016 when most of the fabricated /novella known as the
Steele Dossier was floating around and the role Fusion GPS played in the Clinton POTUS machine. There is a lot out there but as
per usual smokey mirrors and deception.
I live you with this one thought.
Look at all the hair triggers that have been laid out with the TRUMP regime since he became POTUS with regards to the ME and
the Russian Federation.
THe IRGC being labeled a terrorist organization and further more both Dems and Repub are trying to introduce
a bill that labels the Russian Federation as a sponsor of terrorism. You just can't make this stuff up. Least we forget replacing the meme of ASSAD HAS TO GO TO MADURRO HAS TO GO. War is a racket and as per usual we the sheeple just fall for it. Ret. Col Wilkerson lays all out at last years Israeli influence
conference.
Special Relationship? All it's possible for the outsider to see in that are questions.
The UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the US in repelling the Russian threat. Also, along with France, helps with any R2P
that needs doing. That's a consistent if by now bedraggled story.
But Europe, including the UK, is now going hell for leather at the "European Army" project. How long will it be before that
becomes a respectable independent force? A decade?
In the meantime all recognise that the US is the only significant European defence force. It's not just the money. The US ties
the European components of NATO together and provides the big reserves of men and equipment. Even Mr Blair accepts that reality.
I've been listening to his talk at the Munich Security Conference.
So the US is to hold the fort in Europe while the Europeans prepare to supplant NATO? Do the Europeans plan to be a military
superpower themselves eventually?
And where does Trump fit in? Trumpphobia is as strong as Russophobia in the UK and stronger than Russophobia in continental
Europe. So Trump is supposed to sit there placidly defending Europe until the Europeans are strong enough to dispense with the
American alliance, and that while the Europeans, including the UK, throw mud at him?
Neither in neocon terms nor in terms of sensible defence are these various stories compatible. Is there any sort of coherent
defense policy in this respect on either side of the Atlantic? Or are they all just winging it and ignoring the inconsistencies?
Bravo ! One word "Bravo!!!" This is a very good, probably the best so far in depth analysis of Mueller's final report. And your phase "disingenuous and dishonest" is like a stamp on Mueller's hatchet job:
A careful reading of the report reveals that Mueller has issued findings that are both disingenuous and dishonest. The report
is a failed hatchet job.
Part of the failure can be attributed to the amount of material that Attorney General Barr allowed to be released.
It appears that Bill Barr's light editing may have been intended to expose the bias and sloppiness of Mueller and his team.
The most farcical thing in the Mueller report is that he did not fill obstruction charges or even recommend that it should be
filled, but yet he did not "exonerate" Trump.
In other words, Mueller did not think that he had enough to make an obstruction case in the courts of justice, and keep in
mind that an indictment requires only "probable cause", not the "beyond a reasonable doubt" required for a criminal conviction,
but nevertheless he went out of his way to leave the obstruction sword hanging over Trump`s head so the political infighting does
not end.
IMO, that is the biggest evidence that the whole thing was an attempt at facilitating a political power grab instead of a serious
criminal investigation.
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. ..."
"... The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment, as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player. ..."
"... Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time. The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence of NATO, for instance. ..."
"... Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown. Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline. ..."
"... Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues, will consolidate its economic domination. ..."
"... A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its different dimensions ..."
"... Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous combination. ..."
Donald Trump's presidency, like preceding ones, is trapped by the interests of the power elite
that has ruled America since World War II. The constraints imposed on domestic policy by this elite
inevitably have a direct impact on America's foreign policy. Alternative social forces, like
the ones behind Trump's presidential triumph, only have a limited impact on domestic and ultimately
on foreign policy. A conceptual detour and a brief on history and on Trump's domestic setting when
he was elected will help clarifying these theses.
Beyond the different costumes that it wears (dealing with ideology, international law, and even
religion), foreign policy follows domestic policy. The domestic policy actors are the social forces
at work at a given point of time, mainly the economic agents and their ambitions (in their multiple
expressions), including the ruling power elite. Society's aspirations not only relate to material
welfare, but also to ideological priorities that population segments may have at a given point of
time.
From America's initial days until the mid 1800s, there seems to have been a broad alignment of
US foreign policy with the wishes of its power elite and other social forces. America's expansionism,
a fundamental bulwark of its foreign policy from early days, reflected the need to fulfill its growing
population's ambitions for land and, later on, the need to find foreign markets for its excess production,
initially agricultural and later on manufacturing. It can be said that American foreign policy was
broadly populist at that time. The power elite was more or less aligned in achieving these expansionist
goals and was able to provide convenient ideological justification through the writings of Jefferson
and Madison, among others.
As the country expanded, diverging interests became stronger and ultimately differing social forces
caused a significant fracture in society. The American Civil War was the climax of the conflicted
interests between agricultural and manufacturing led societies. Fifty years later, a revealing manifestation
of this divergence (which survived the Civil War), as it relates to foreign policy, is found during
the early days of the Russian Revolution when, beyond the ideological revulsion of Bolshevism, the
US was paralyzed between the agricultural and farming businesses seeking exports to Russia and the
domestic extractive industries interested in stopping exports of natural resources from this country.
The growing misalignment between government policies and people's yearnings coincides with the
ascent of the military establishment within the power elite that rules America. Despite the country's
aggressive expansionism, America's power elite was initially driven mainly by political and economic
forces and much less by its growing military strength. It is fair to say that the military establishment,
as an influential component of the American power elite, only appeared in the context of World War
II. Nowadays, it is a dominant player.
Today's power elite in America is fundamentally the same as the one that emerged after World War
II and which was accurately described by C. Wright Mills in the 1950s. Consequently, the main forces
shaping US domestic and foreign policies have not changed since then. The collapse of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War did not make irrelevant the existing power elite at that time.
The elite only became more vocal in its efforts to justify itself and this explains today's existence
of NATO, for instance.
Despite its economic and entrepreneurial might, the US distilled version of capitalism is unable
to attain the needs of a growing number of its population, as the Great Recession of 2008 has shown.
Within the OECD, arguably the club with the highest levels of economic and social development in
the world, US rankings are abysmal, for instance concerning education and health, as it lays at the
bottom in learning metrics and on critical health measures such as obesity. The wealth gap has widened
and the social fabric is broken. American economic decline is evident and growing social conflict
across economic, social and geographic lines is just a reaction to this decline.
Trump won his presidency because he was able to get support from the country's growing frustrated
white population. His main social themes (bringing jobs to America by stopping the decline of its
manufacturing industry, preventing further US consumer dependence on foreign imports and halting
immigration) fitted well with the electors' anger. Traditional populist themes linked to foreign
policy (like Russophobia) did not play a big role in the last election. But whether or not the Trump
administration can align with the ruling power elite in a manner that addresses the key social and
economic needs of the American people is still to be seen.
Back to foreign policy, we need to distinguish between Trump's style of government and his administration's
actions. At least until now, focusing excessively on Trump's style has dangerously distracted from
his true intentions. One example is the confusion about his initial stance on NATO which was simplistically
seen as highly critical to the very existence of this organization. On NATO, all that Trump really
cared was to achieve a "fair" sharing of expenditures with other members and to press them to
honor
their funding commitments.
From immigration to defense spending, there is nothing irrational about Trump's foreign policy
initiatives, as they just reflect a different reading on the American people's aspirations and, consequently,
they attempt to rely on supporting points within the power elite which are different from the ones
used in the past.
Concerning China, Trump is learning about the limits of his ability to successfully challenge
it economically. It seems virtually impossible to reverse China's momentum which, if it continues,
will consolidate its economic domination. A far-reaching lesson, although still being ignored, is
that China's economic might is showing that capitalism as understood in the West is not winning,
much less in its American format. It also shows that democracy may not be that relevant, as it is
not necessarily a corollary or a condition for economic development. Perhaps it even shows the superiority
of China's economic model, but this is a different matter.
As Trump becomes more aware about his limitations, he has naturally reversed to the basic imprints
of America's traditional foreign policy, particularly concerning defense. His emphasis on a further
increase in defense spending is not done for prestigious or national security reasons, but as an
attempt to preserve a job generating infrastructure without considering the catastrophic consequences
that it may cause.
On Iran, Obama's initiative to seek normalization was an attempt to walk a fine line (and to find
a less conflictive path) between supporting the US traditional Middle East allies (mainly the odd
combination of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) and recognizing Iran's growing aspirations. Deep
down, Obama was trying to acknowledge Iran's historical viability as a country and a society that
will not disappear from the map, while Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, may not be around in a few
years. Trump's Iran policy until now only represents a different weighing of priorities, although
it is having far reaching consequences on America's credibility as a reliable contractual party in
international affairs.
In the case of Afghanistan, Trump's decision to increase boots on the ground does not break the
inertia of US past administrations. Aside from temporary containment, an increasing military presence
or a change in tactics will not alter fundamentally this reality.
Concerning Russia, and regardless of what Trump has said, actions speak more than words. A continuous
deterioration of relations seems inevitable.
Trump will also learn, if he has not done so already, about the growth of multipolar forces in
world's events. Russia has mastered this reality for several years and is quite skillful at using
it as a basic tool of its own foreign goals. Our multipolar world will expand, and Trump may even
inadvertently exacerbate it through its actions (for instance in connection with the different stands
taken by the US and its European allies concerning Iran).
While fulfilling the aspirations of the American people seems more difficult within the existing
capitalist framework, there are also growing apprehensions coming from America's power elite as it
becomes more frustrated due to its incapacity of being more effective at the world level. America's
relative adolescence in world's history will become more and more apparent in the coming years.
A fundamental weakness of American foreign policy is its inability to understand war in all its
different dimensions. The US has never suffered the consequences of an international conflict in
its own backyard. The American Civil War, despite all the suffering that it caused, was primarily
a domestic event with no foreign intervention (contrary to the wishes of the Confederation). The
deep social and psychological damage caused by war is not part of America's consciousness as it is,
for instance in Germany, Russia or Japan. America is insensitive to the lessons of history because
it has a very short history itself.
Despite the need to see through Trump's true intentions beyond his pomp and circumstance, there
is an important warning to be made. Trump's eventual inability to fulfill his promises, combined
with his bravado and America's incapacity to take a more sobering approach to world events is a dangerous
combination.
Oscar Silva-Valladares is a former investment banker that has lived and worked in North and
Latin America, Western & Eastern Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan, the Philippines and Western Africa.
He currently chairs Davos International Advisory, an advisory firm focused on strategic consulting
across emerging markets.
"... As I noted in my previous piece-- The FBI Tried and Failed to Entrap Trump --Sater was an active FBI undercover informant. ..."
"... An honest prosecutor would have and should have disclosed this fact. He, Sater, was the one encouraging the Trump team to cozy up to Russia. Mueller does not disclose one single instance of Trump or Cohen or any of the Trump kids calling Sater on the carpet and chewing his ass for not bringing them deals and not opening doors in Russia. Omitting this key fact goes beyond simple disingenuity. It is a conscious lie. ..."
"... The circumstantial evidence indicates that Sater was doing this at the behest of FBI handlers. We do not yet know who they are. ..."
"... We also have the case of Michael Caputo and Roger Stone being approached by a Russian gangster named Henry Greenberg. ..."
"... How does a guy like Vorkretsov/Greenberg, with an extensive criminal record and circumstantial ties to the Russian mob gain entrance into the United States? Very simple answer. He too was an FBI informant : ..."
"... Please take time to read the full dossier at democrat dossier . This is more than an odd coincidence. This is a pattern. The FBI was targeting the Trump campaign and personnel in a deliberate effort to implicate them in wanting to work with Russians. ..."
"... Once again, the Mueller team treats the provocateur -- -i.e., Joseph Mifsud -- -as some simple guy with ties to Russia's political elites. Another egregious lie. Mifsud was not working on behalf of Russia. He was deployed by MI-6. Disobedient Media has been on the forefront of exposing Mifsud's ties to western intelligence in general and the Brits in particular . ..."
"... A number of Twitter users recently observed that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee at Mifsud’s LINK campus in Rome. Newsmax and Buzzfeed later reported that the professor’s name and biography had been removed from the campus’ website, writing that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had served the institution for “years.” ..."
"... WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange likewise noted the connection between Mifsud and Smith in a Twitter thread, additionally pointing out his connections with Saudi intelligence: “[Mifsud] and Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee and eight-year member of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link University in Rome and appear to both be present in this [photo].” ..."
"... This is not a mere matter of Mueller and his team "failing" to disclose some important facts. If they were operating honestly they should have investigated Mifsud, Greenberg and Sater. But they did not. Two of the three--Sater and Greenber--alleged Russian stooges have ties to the FBI. And Mifsud has been living and working in the belly of the intelligence community. ..."
"... Don't hold your breath .The so called deep state which in reality are our plutocratic oligarchical class that win. Look at the new boss same as the old boss. ..."
"... Look at all the hair triggers that have been laid out with the TRUMP regime since he became POTUS with regards to the ME and the Russian Federation . THe IRGC being labelled a terrorist organization and further more both Dems and Repub are trying to introduce a bill that labels the Russian Federation as a sponsor of terrorism. ..."
"... You just can't make this stuff up. Least we forget replacing the meme of ASSAD HAS TO GO TO MADURRO HAS TO GO. War is a racket and as per usual we the sheeple just fall for it. Ret. Col Wilkerson lays all out at last years Israeli influence conference. ..."
"... The Special Relationship is hopefully entering the divorce stage. None too soon. Great work, Mr. Johnson. ..."
While President Trump is correct to celebrate the Mueller Report’s conclusion that no one on Trump’s side of the ledger attempted
to or succeeded in collaborating or colluding with the Russian Government or Russian spies, there remains a dark cloud behind the
silver lining. And I am not referring to the claims of alleged obstruction of justice. A careful reading of the report reveals
that Mueller has issued findings that are both disingenuous and dishonest. The report is a failed hatchet job. Part of the failure
can be attributed to the amount of material that Attorney General Barr allowed to be released. It appears that Bill Barr's light
editing may have been intended to expose the bias and sloppiness of Mueller and his team.
Let us start with the case of trying to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. If you were to believe that the Steele Dossier accurately
reported Vladimir Putin's attitude towards Trump, then a Trump real estate deal in Moscow was a slam dunk. According to one of Steele's
breathless reports:
The Kremlin's cultivation operation on TRUMP also had comprised offering him various lucrative real estate development business
deals in Russia, especially in relation to the ongoing 2018 World Cup soccer tournament.
How ever, so far, for reasons unknown, TRUMP had not taken up any of these.
Then there is reality. The impetus, the encouragement for the Moscow project came from one man--Felix
Sater.
In the late summer of 2015, the Trump Organization received a new inquiry about pursuing a Trump Tower project in Moscow. In approximately
September 2015, Felix Sater . . . contacted Cohen on behalf of I.C. Expert Investment Company (I.C. Expert), a Russian real-estate
development corporation controlled by Andrei Vladimirovich Rozov.J07 Sater had known Rozov since approximately 2007 and, in 2014,
had served as an agent on behalf of Rozov during Rozov's purchase of a building in New York City.30S Sater later contacted Rozov
and proposed that I.C. Expert pursue a Trump Tower Moscow project in which I.C. Expert would license the name and brand from the
Trump Organization but construct the building on its own. Sater worked on the deal with Rozov and another employee of I.C. Expert.
(see page 69 of the Mueller Report).
To reiterate--if the Steele Dossier was based on truthful intelligence then the Trump organization only had to sit back, stretch
out their hands and seize the moment. Instead, little Felix Sater keeps coming back to the well. In January 2016, according to the
Mueller report,
Sater then sent a draft invitation for Cohen to visit Moscow to discuss the Trump Moscow project,along with a note to "[t]ell
me if the letter is good as amended by me or make whatever changes you want and send it back to me."
After a further round
of edits, on January 25, 2016, Sater sent Cohen an invitation -- signed by Andrey Ryabinskiy of the company MHJ -- to travel to
"Moscow for a working visit" about the "prospects of development and the construction business in Russia," "the various land plots
available suited for construction of this enormous Tower," and "the opportunity to co-ordinate a follow up visit to Moscow by
Mr. Donald Trump..
This produced nothing. No deal, no trip. But Sater persisted:
Beginning in late 2015, Sater repeatedly tried to arrange for Cohen and candidate Trump, as representatives of the Trump Organization,
to travel to Russia to meet with Russian government officials and possible financing partners. . . .
Into the spring of 2016, Sater and Cohen continued to discuss a trip to Moscow in connection with the Trump Moscow project.
On April 20, 2016, Sater wrote Cohen, " [t)he People wanted to know when you are coming?,,
On May 4, 2016, Sater followed up:
“I had a chat with Moscow. ASSUMING the trip does happen the question is before or after the convention. I said I believe,
but don't know for sure, that's it's probably after the convention. Obviously the pre-meeting trip (you only) can happen anytime
you want but he 2 big guys where [sic) the question. I said I would confirm and revert.”
On May 5, 2016, Sater wrote to Cohen:
“Peskov would like to invite you as his guest to the St. Petersburg Forum which is Russia's Davos it's June 16-19. He wants
to meet there with you and possibly introduce you to either Putin or Medvedev, as they are not sure if 1 or both will be there.
This is perfect. The entire business class of Russia will be there as well.”
On June 14, 2016, Cohen met Sater in the lobby of the Trump Tower in New York and informed him that he would not be traveling
at that time.
Why was Felix Sater the one repeatedly identified pushing to arrange deals with the Russians and yet did not face any subsequent
charges by the Mueller team? Sater had been working as part of the Trump team since 2003. Why is it that the proposed deals and travel
to Moscow came predominantly from Felix Sater?
As I noted in my previous piece--The
FBI Tried and Failed to Entrap Trump--Sater was an active FBI undercover informant. He had been working with the
FBI since 1998. When he agreed to start working as an undercover informant aka cooperator in December 1998 guess who signed off on
the deal? Andrew Weissman. You can see the
deal here. It was signed 10
December 1998.
An honest prosecutor would have and should have disclosed this fact. He, Sater, was the one encouraging the Trump team to
cozy up to Russia. Mueller does not disclose one single instance of Trump or Cohen or any of the Trump kids calling Sater on the
carpet and chewing his ass for not bringing them deals and not opening doors in Russia. Omitting this key fact goes beyond simple
disingenuity. It is a conscious lie.
The circumstantial evidence indicates that Sater was doing this at the behest of FBI handlers. We do not yet know who they are.
But Sater's behavior and status as an FBI Informant was not an isolated incident. We also have the case of Michael Caputo and
Roger Stone being approached by a Russian gangster named Henry Greenberg. According to
democratdossier.com:
Greenberg's birth name is Gennady Vasilievich Vostretsov, the son of Yekatrina Vostretsova and Vasliy Vostretsov. He later adopted
new names twice as a result of two different marriages and became Gennady V. Arzhanik and later Henry Oknyansky. Henry Greenberg
is not a legal alias, but he uses it quite commonly in recent years.
But you would not know this from reading the Mueller report. Mr. Disingenuous strikes again:
In the spring of 2016, Trump Campaign advisor Michael Caputo learned through a Florida-based Russian business partner that another
Florida-based Russian, Henry Oknyansky (who also went by the name Henry Greenberg), claimed to have information pertaining to
Hillary Clinton . Caputo notified Roger Stone and brokered communication between Stone and Oknyansky.
Oknyansky and Stone set
up a May 2016 in-person meeting. 260 Oknyansky was accompanied to the meeting by Alexei Rasin, a Ukrainian associate involved
in Florida real estate. At the meeting, Rasin offered to sell Stone derogatory information on Clinton that Rasin claimed to have
obtained while working for Clinton. Rasin claimed to possess financial statements demonstrating Clinton's involvement in money
laundering with Rasin's companies. According to Oknyansky, Stone asked if the amounts in question totaled millions of dollars
but was told it was closer to hundreds of thousands. Stone refused the offer, stating that Trump would not pay for opposition
research.
How does a guy like Vorkretsov/Greenberg, with an extensive criminal record and circumstantial ties to the Russian mob gain entrance
into the United States? Very simple answer. He too
was an FBI informant:
In an affidavit, Vostretsov explained to an immigration judge he worked for the FBI for 17 years throughout the world, including
in the US, Iran and North Korea. He explained in the same paperwork the FBI granted him several temporary visas to visit the US in
exchange for information about criminal activities.
Please take time to read the full dossier at
democrat dossier. This is more than
an odd coincidence. This is a pattern. The FBI was targeting the Trump campaign and personnel in a deliberate effort to implicate
them in wanting to work with Russians.
And there is more. George Papodopoulus was entrapped by individuals linked to British MI-6 and the CIA with offers to provide
meetings with Russians and Putin. The Mueller account is a lie:
In late April 2016, Papadopoulos was told by London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, immediately after Mifsud 's return from a trip
to Moscow, that the Russian government had obtained "dirt" on candidate Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. One week later,
on May 6, 2016, Papadopoulos suggested to a representative of a foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications
from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information that would be damaging
to candidate Clinton.
Papadopoulos shared information about Russian "dirt " with people outside of the Campaign, and the Office
investigated whether he also provided it to a Campaign official. Papadopoulos and the Campaign officials with whom he interacted
told the Office that they did · not recall that Papadopoulos passed them the information. Throughout the relevant period of time
and for several months thereafter, Papadopoulos worked with Mifsud and two Russian nationals to arrange a meeting between the
Campaign and the Russian government. That meeting never came to pass.
Once again, the Mueller team treats the provocateur -- -i.e., Joseph Mifsud -- -as some simple guy with ties to Russia's political
elites. Another egregious lie. Mifsud was not working on behalf of Russia. He was deployed by MI-6. Disobedient Media has been on
the forefront of exposing Mifsud's ties to
western intelligence in general and the Brits in particular.
Mifsud’s alleged links to Russian intelligence are summarily debunked by his close working relationship
with Claire Smith, a major figure in the upper echelons of British intelligence. A number of Twitter users recently observed
that Joseph Mifsud had been photographed standing next to Claire Smith of the UK Joint Intelligence Committee at Mifsud’s LINK campus
in Rome. Newsmax and Buzzfeed later reported that the professor’s name and biography had been removed from the campus’ website, writing
that the mysterious removal took place after Mifsud had served the institution for “years.”
WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief Julian Assange likewise noted the connection between Mifsud and Smith
in a Twitter thread, additionally pointing out his connections with Saudi intelligence: “[Mifsud] and Claire Smith of the UK Joint
Intelligence Committee and eight-year member of the UK Security Vetting panel both trained Italian security services at the Link
University in Rome and appear to both be present in this [photo].”
The photograph in question originated on Geodiplomatics.com, where it specified that Joseph Mifsud
is indeed standing next to Claire Smith, who was attending a: “…Training program on International Security which was organised by
Link Campus University and London Academy of Diplomacy.” The event is listed as taking place in October, 2012. This is highly significant
for a number of reasons.
This is not a mere matter of Mueller and his team "failing" to disclose some important facts. If they were operating
honestly they should have investigated Mifsud, Greenberg and Sater. But they did not. Two of the three--Sater and Greenber--alleged
Russian stooges have ties to the FBI. And Mifsud has been living and working in the belly of the intelligence community.
When you put these facts together it is clear that there is real meat on the bone for Barr's upcoming investigation of the "spying"
that was being done on the Trump campaign by law enforcement and intelligence. These facts must become a part of the public consciousness.
The foreign country that worked feverishly to meddle in the 2016 Presidential election and the subsequent rule of Donald Trump is
the United Kingdom. Russia is the patsy.
turcopolier, 20 April 2019 at 10:44 PM
IMO the FBI leadership, Clapper, Brennan and his flunkies were working with the Brits at some senior level of their IO apparatus
to screw Trump. Mueller's testimony before the Congress should be revelatory of his true position.
falcemartello, 20 April 2019 at 11:28 PM
Don't hold your breath .The so called deep state which in reality are our plutocratic oligarchical class that win. Look
at the new boss same as the old boss.
It was obvious from way back in June 2016 when most of the fabricated /novella known as the Steele Dossier was floating around
and the role Fusion GPS played in the Clinton POTUS machine. There is a lot out there but as per usual smokey mirrors and deception.
I live you with this one thought.
Look at all the hair triggers that have been laid out with the TRUMP regime since he became POTUS with regards to the ME
and the Russian Federation . THe IRGC being labelled a terrorist organization and further more both Dems and Repub are trying
to introduce a bill that labels the Russian Federation as a sponsor of terrorism.
You just can't make this stuff up. Least we forget replacing the meme of ASSAD HAS TO GO TO MADURRO HAS TO GO. War is a
racket and as per usual we the sheeple just fall for it. Ret. Col Wilkerson lays all out at last years Israeli influence
conference.
Rick Merlotti
The Special Relationship is hopefully entering the divorce stage. None too soon. Great work, Mr. Johnson.
"... Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy." ..."
Who is taking the over/under on whether Barr will actually investigate the origins of the attempted entrapment of Trump in Russia
collusion and the roles played by key players in US law enforcement and intelligence agencies as well as the Brits & Aussie government
agencies therein?
I'm willing to bet that it will all be swept under the rug and that Clapper, Brennan, Comey, Lynch & Rice will not be testifying
to any grand jury. Barr has received multiple criminal & conspiracy referrals from Rep. Devin Nunes. However, Trump himself disregarded
Nunes recommendation to declassify several documents & communications including the FISA application on Carter Page. The question
is does Trump want to get to the bottom of the conspiracy? So far all he's done is tweet. IMO, Barr is the epitome of a Swamp
Rat.
"Let your plans be dark and as impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt." – Sun Tzu
I have a feeling that President Trump will declassify and release the relevant documents in a manner that they will have maximum
effect. It is stunning that the entirety of federal law enforcement, intelligence, and State department embraced and fortified
Russian misinformation in their jihad against Trump.
This must never happen again. At least the operation was run by political hacks, former analysts who fancied themselves as
operators. Their ham- fisted prints are over this shit storm. Thank you God for Comey, Brennan, and Clapper -- the three stooges
of espionage.
I suppose that it's possible that AG Barr's DoJ will mount a serious investigation into the many tentacles ongoing governmental
debacle that began with the Lynch DoJ providing political direction and cover for Comey's FBI to lie down on the Clinton e-mail
investigation. Which came first, the cover up, or the capitulation, is not completely clear. Perhaps it was a hand in glove affair.
Suffice it to say that by any standard of competence, it was a faux effort.
In my opinion, what was not done should constitute the elements of an obstruction violation. It would be a difficult charge
to argue before a jury. Was the level of incompetence such that a reasonable person could not believe that it could not exist
in the FBI, that there had to be malicious intent?
Nevertheless, while it appeared to the Clinton partisans in the Obama White House, in the DoJ, the CIA, the FBI and overseas
in the UK, that the e-mail case had been quashed sufficiently to preserve the likelihood of Clinton's accession, they had enough
reservations to exploit a garbage pail of political dirt to take out an "insurance policy."
Once again the question, could they possibly have been so incompetent. "What the heck" appears to have been the launching pad;
Clinton's going to win anyway, Trump will be crushed under the unmaskings, leaks, and innuendo; and no one will ever find out.
But Trump wins, and the unwholesome political cabal is now stuck with an investigation of an incoming President whom they had
tried to frag on the skimpiest evidentiary grounds imaginable. And worse, he appears to be sensing there is something rotten in
the state of Denmark, and Cardinal Jim Comey is a shitty liar, and now he's out, and what is going to happen to this garbage scow
they've launched, now with Comey gone. How do they kill this thing? Worse, how do they kill the political riot this thing has
caused. They can't; they double down; they take out another insurance policy - Jim Comey's good bud, Bob Mueller with a posse
of partisan attorneys, many vets of the Obama DoJ, a couple of squads of FBI Agents, including two who were prominent in the e
mail case and the Steele inquiry, and a set up akin to a shadow DoJ. What could go wrong? They would hound the bastard out of
office.
Which returns us to the question of whether Barr will mount a serious investigation into the political scandal of the last
100 years, at least. I suppose it is possible, but right now I'm not optimistic. For one thing Barr appeared at the big press
conference with Rod Rosenstein. Rod Rosenstein is at minimum a critical witness. There is every reason to suspect that Comey,
McCabe, Mueller, and Rosenstein conferred before Comey's leak to the NYT via a lawyer friend in furtherance of Mueller's appointment.
Going side by side with Rosenstein at this juncture doesn't augur well.
On the other hand, the continuing lunatic behavior of the demented left may give Barr no other choice but to sort the mess
out once and for all for the good of the country. We'll see.
The biggest take I got out of the Mueller report is that Trump is a sleazy character and that is not what I want from the president,
the Face of America to the rest of the world. Whether the Deep State went after Trump in an organized fashion is just noise in
my ears. To me that is just normal political infighting the same as Trump and other Republicans went after Obama for being an
illegitimate President as a non-citizen.
Sorry, but it IS NOT "normal political infighting" for the cabal to have sought and still to seek the overthrow of of the legitimate
head of state and government.
"... John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence Assessments Branch. ..."
"... But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic; that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast hacking/cyber espionage repertoire. ..."
"... This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart. ..."
"... The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work of a state actor – and he could prove it technically. ..."
"... The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI director James Comey killed it. The question is why. ..."
"... Some theoretically sound reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew – via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it was a leak. ..."
"... Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources; one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel. ..."
"... he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in "Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran, or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework "destroys this story about Russian hacking." ..."
"... No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile intelligence agency" ..."
"... Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7, has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he aggress to testify against Julian Assange. ..."
"... George Galloway has a guest who explains it all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VvPFMyPvHM&t=8s ..."
"... Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it. ..."
The Made-by-FBI indictment of
Julian Assange does look like a dead man walking. No evidence. No documents. No surefire
testimony. Just a crossfire of conditionals...
But never underestimate the legalese contortionism of US government (USG) functionaries. As
much as Assange may not be characterized as a journalist and publisher, the thrust of the
affidavit is to accuse him of conspiring to commit espionage.
In fact the charge is not even that Assange hacked a USG computer and obtained classified
information; it's that he may have discussed it with Chelsea Manning and may have had the
intention to go for a hack. Orwellian-style thought crime charges don't get any better than
that. Now the only thing missing is an AI software to detect them.
Assange legal adviser Geoffrey Robertson – who also happens to represent another
stellar political prisoner, Brazil's Lula – cut
straight to the chase (at 19:22 minutes);
"The justice he is facing is justice, or injustice, in America I would hope the British
judges would have enough belief in freedom of information to throw out the extradition
request."
That's far from a done deal. Thus the inevitable consequence; Assange's legal team is
getting ready to prove, no holds barred, in a British court, that this USG indictment for
conspiracy to commit computer hacking is just an hors d'oeuvre for subsequent espionage
charges, in case Assange is extradited to US soil.
All about Vault 7
John Pilger, among few others, has already stressed how a plan to
destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange was laid out as far back as 2008 – at the tail end
of the Cheney regime – concocted by the Pentagon's shady Cyber Counter-Intelligence
Assessments Branch.
It was all about criminalizing WikiLeaks and personally smearing Assange, using "shock
troops enlisted in the media -- those who are meant to keep the record straight and tell us the
truth."
This plan remains more than active – considering how Assange's arrest has been covered
by the bulk of US/UK mainstream media.
By 2012, already in the Obama era, WikiLeaks detailed the astonishing "scale of the US Grand
Jury Investigation" of itself. The USG always denied such a grand jury existed.
"The US Government has stood up and coordinated a joint interagency criminal investigation
of Wikileaks comprised of a partnership between the Department of Defense (DOD) including:
CENTCOM; SOUTHCOM; the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA); Defense Information Systems Agency
(DISA); Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA); US Army Criminal Investigation Division
(CID) for USFI (US Forces Iraq) and 1st Armored Division (AD); US Army Computer Crimes
Investigative Unit (CCIU); 2nd Army (US Army Cyber Command); Within that or in addition,
three military intelligence investigations were conducted. Department of Justice (DOJ) Grand
Jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of State (DOS) and Diplomatic
Security Service (DSS). In addition, Wikileaks has been investigated by the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Office of the National CounterIntelligence
Executive (ONCIX), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the House Oversight Committee; the
National Security Staff Interagency Committee, and the PIAB (President's Intelligence
Advisory Board)."
But it was only in 2017, in the Trump era, that the Deep State went totally ballistic;
that's when WikiLeaks published the Vault 7 files – detailing the CIA's vast
hacking/cyber espionage repertoire.
This was the CIA as a Naked Emperor like never before – including the dodgy
overseeing ops of the Center for Cyber Intelligence, an ultra-secret NSA counterpart.
WikiLeaks got Vault 7 in early 2017. At the time WikiLeaks had already published the DNC
files – which the unimpeachable Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
systematically proved was a leak, not a hack.
The monolithic narrative by the Deep State faction aligned with the Clinton machine was
that "the Russians" hacked the DNC servers. Assange was always adamant; that was not the work
of a state actor – and he could prove it technically.
There was some movement towards a deal, brokered by one of Assange's lawyers; WikiLeaks
would not publish the most damning Vault 7 information in exchange for Assange's safe passage
to be interviewed by the US Department of Justice (DoJ).
The DoJ wanted a deal – and they did make an offer to WikiLeaks. But then FBI
director James Comey killed it. The question is why.
It's a leak, not a hack
Some theoretically sound
reconstructions of Comey's move are available. But the key fact is Comey already knew
– via his close connections to the top of the DNC – that this was not a hack; it
was a leak.
Ambassador Craig Murray has stressed, over and over again (see
here ) how the DNC/Podesta files published by WikiLeaks came from two different US sources;
one from within the DNC and the other from within US intel.
There was nothing for Comey to "investigate". Or there would have, if Comey had ordered the
FBI to examine the DNC servers. So why talk to Julian Assange?
T he release by WikiLeaks in April 2017 of the malware mechanisms inbuilt in
"Grasshopper" and the "Marble Framework" were indeed a bombshell. This is how the CIA inserts
foreign language strings in source code to disguise them as originating from Russia, from Iran,
or from China. The inestimable Ray McGovern, a VIPS member, stressed how Marble Framework
"destroys this story about Russian hacking."
No wonder then CIA director Mike Pompeo accused WikiLeaks of being a "non-state hostile
intelligence agency", usually manipulated by Russia.
Joshua Schulte, the alleged leaker of Vault 7,
has not faced a US court yet. There's no question he will be offered a deal by the USG if he
aggress to testify against Julian Assange.
It's a long and winding road, to be traversed in at least two years, if Julian Assange is
ever to be extradited to the US. Two things for the moment are already crystal clear. The USG
is obsessed to shut down WikiLeaks once and for all. And because of that, Julian Assange will
never get a fair trial in the "so-called 'Espionage Court'" of the Eastern District of
Virginia, as
detailed by former CIA counterterrorism officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou.
Meanwhile, the non-stop demonization of Julian Assange will proceed unabated, faithful to
guidelines established over a decade ago. Assange is even accused of being a US intel op, and
WikiLeaks a splinter Deep State deep cover op.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile intelligence
agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood. It's all ultra-high-stakes shadow play
– and the show has not even begun.
Not to mention the Pentagram has silenced 100,000 whistleblower complaints by
Intimidation, threats, money or accidents over 5 years . A Whistleblower only does this when
know there is something seriously wrong. Just Imagine how many knew something was wrong but
looked the other way.
Maybe President Trump will maneuver the hegemonic Deep State into having Assange testify
against the corruption of the DNC; or maybe Trump caved in completely to "hostile
intelligence agency" Pompeo and his CIA gang baying for blood.
Escobar is brain dead if he can't figure out that Trumpenstein is totally on board with
destroying Assange. As if bringing on pukes like PompAss, BoltON, and Abrams doesn't scream it.
assange and wikileaks are the real criminals despite being crimeless. the **** is a
sanctioned criminal, allowed to be criminal with the system because the rest of the
sanctioned criminals would be exposed if she was investigated.
this is not the rule of laws. this is the law of rulers.
"... Almost by accident, I had launched my academic career by doing something a bit different. Embedded within that study of drug trafficking was an analytical approach that would take me, almost unwittingly, on a lifelong exploration of U.S. global hegemony in its many manifestations, including diplomatic alliances, CIA interventions, developing military technology, recourse to torture, and global surveillance. Step by step, topic by topic, decade after decade, I would slowly accumulate sufficient understanding of the parts to try to assemble the whole. In writing my new book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , I drew on this research to assess the overall character of U.S. global power and the forces that might contribute to its perpetuation or decline. ..."
"... In the process, I slowly came to see a striking continuity and coherence in Washington's century-long rise to global dominion. CIA torture techniques emerged at the start of the Cold War in the 1950s; much of its futuristic robotic aerospace technology had its first trial in the Vietnam War of the 1960s; and, above all, Washington's reliance on surveillance first appeared in the colonial Philippines around 1900 and soon became an essential though essentially illegal tool for the FBI's repression of domestic dissent that continued through the 1970s. ..."
"... After occupying the Philippines in 1898, the U.S. Army, facing a difficult pacification campaign in a restive land, discovered the power of systematic surveillance to crush the resistance of the country's political elite. Then, during World War I, the Army's "father of military intelligence," the dour General Ralph Van Deman, who had learned his trade in the Philippines, drew upon his years pacifying those islands to mobilize a legion of 1,700 soldiers and 350,000 citizen-vigilantes for an intense surveillance program against suspected enemy spies among German-Americans, including my own grandfather. In studying Military Intelligence files at the National Archives, I found "suspicious" letters purloined from my grandfather's army locker. In fact, his mother had been writing him in her native German about such subversive subjects as knitting him socks for guard duty. ..."
"... In the 1950s, Hoover's FBI agents tapped thousands of phones without warrants and kept suspected subversives under close surveillance, including my mother's cousin Gerard Piel, an anti-nuclear activist and the publisher of Scientific American magazine. During the Vietnam War, the bureau expanded its activities with an amazing array of spiteful, often illegal, intrigues in a bid to cripple the antiwar movement with pervasive surveillance of the sort seen in my own FBI file. ..."
"... What about using the historical method to explore the nature of USA's reducing EU nations to "vassals" – and keeping them in the status of vassals, such that they can be depended on to undermine their own economies and sovereignty for the sake of USA's global initiatives? ..."
"... An interesting question might be whether the NATO-to-Afghanistan highway (truck route for munitions, etc.), c. 2010, was also, on the back-haul – Afghanistan to EU – the major supply route for heroin throughout the EU and thus the key to corruption of EU governments (and of Russia) and domination of those governments by USA's neocon operatives? (E.g., was/is the distribution system of the "Chocolate King" Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine, delivering something besides just chocolate?) ..."
"... The Puppet Masters Behind Georgia President Saakashvili http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20569.htm ..."
In the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks, Washington pursued its elusive enemies across the landscapes of Asia and Africa, thanks
in part to a massive expansion of its intelligence infrastructure, particularly of the emerging technologies for digital surveillance,
agile drones, and biometric identification. In 2010, almost a decade into this secret war with its voracious appetite for information,
the Washington Post reported that the
national security state had swelled into a "fourth branch" of the federal government -- with 854,000 vetted officials, 263 security
organizations, and over 3,000 intelligence units, issuing 50,000 special reports every year.
Though stunning, these statistics only skimmed the visible surface of what had become history's largest and most lethal clandestine
apparatus. According to classified documents that Edward Snowden
leaked in 2013, the nation's 16 intelligence agencies alone had 107,035 employees and a combined "black budget" of $52.6 billion,
the
equivalent of 10% percent of the vast defense budget.
By sweeping the skies and probing the worldwide web's undersea cables, the National Security Agency (NSA) could surgically penetrate
the confidential communications of just about
any leader on the
planet, while simultaneously sweeping up
billions of
ordinary messages. For its classified missions, the CIA had access to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, with
69,000 elite troops (Rangers, SEALs, Air Commandos)
and their agile arsenal. In addition to this formidable paramilitary capacity, the CIA
operated 30 Predator and Reaper drones
responsible for more
than 3,000 deaths in Pakistan and Yemen.
While Americans practiced a collective form of duck and cover as the Department of Homeland Security's
colored alerts pulsed nervously from yellow to red,
few paused to ask the hard question: Was all this security really directed solely at enemies beyond our borders? After half a century
of domestic security abuses -- from the "red scare" of the 1920s through the FBI's illegal harassment of antiwar protesters in the
1960s and 1970s -- could we really be confident that there wasn't a hidden cost to all these secret measures right here at home?
Maybe, just maybe, all this security wasn't really so benign when it came to us.
From my own personal experience over the past half-century, and my family's history over three generations, I've found out in
the most personal way possible that there's a real cost to entrusting our civil liberties to the discretion of secret agencies. Let
me share just a few of my own "war" stories to explain how I've been forced to keep learning and relearning this uncomfortable lesson
the hard way.
On the Heroin Trail
After finishing college in the late 1960s, I decided to pursue a Ph.D. in Japanese history and was pleasantly surprised when Yale
Graduate School admitted me with a full fellowship. But the Ivy League in those days was no ivory tower. During my first year at
Yale, the Justice Department indicted Black Panther leader Bobby Seale for a local murder and the May Day protests that filled the
New Haven green also shut the campus for a week. Almost simultaneously, President Nixon ordered the invasion of Cambodia and student
protests closed hundreds of campuses across America for the rest of the semester.
In the midst of all this tumult, the focus of my studies shifted from Japan to Southeast Asia, and from the past to the war in
Vietnam. Yes, that war. So what did I do about the draft? During my first semester at Yale, on December 1, 1969, to be precise, the
Selective Service cut up the calendar for a lottery. The first 100 birthdays picked were certain to be drafted, but any dates above
200 were likely exempt. My birthday, June 8th, was the very last date drawn, not number 365 but 366 (don't forget leap year) -- the
only lottery I have ever won, except for a Sunbeam electric frying pan in a high school raffle. Through a convoluted moral calculus
typical of the 1960s, I decided that my draft exemption, although acquired by sheer luck, demanded that I devote myself, above all
else, to thinking about, writing about, and working to end the Vietnam War.
During those campus protests over Cambodia in the spring of 1970, our small group of graduate students in Southeast Asian history
at Yale realized that the U.S. strategic predicament in Indochina would soon require an invasion of Laos to cut the flow of enemy
supplies into South Vietnam. So, while protests over Cambodia swept campuses nationwide, we were huddled inside the library, preparing
for the next invasion by editing a book of essays on Laos for the publisher Harper & Row. A few months after that book appeared,
one of the company's junior editors, Elizabeth Jakab, intrigued by an account we had included about that country's opium crop, telephoned
from New York to ask if I could research and write a "quickie" paperback about the history behind the heroin epidemic then infecting
the U.S. Army in Vietnam.
I promptly started the research at my student carrel in the Gothic tower that is Yale's Sterling Library, tracking old colonial
reports about the Southeast Asian opium trade that ended suddenly in the 1950s, just as the story got interesting. So, quite tentatively
at first, I stepped outside the library to do a few interviews and soon found myself following an investigative trail that circled
the globe. First, I traveled across America for meetings with retired CIA operatives. Then I crossed the Pacific to Hong Kong to
study drug syndicates, courtesy of that colony's police drug squad. Next, I went south to Saigon, then the capital of South Vietnam,
to investigate the heroin traffic that was targeting the GIs, and on into the mountains of Laos to observe CIA alliances with opium
warlords and the hill-tribe militias that grew the opium poppy. Finally, I flew from Singapore to Paris for interviews with retired
French intelligence officers about their opium trafficking during the first Indochina War of the 1950s.
The drug traffic that supplied heroin for the U.S. troops fighting in South Vietnam was not, I discovered, exclusively the work
of criminals. Once the opium left tribal poppy fields in Laos, the traffic required official complicity at every level. The helicopters
of Air America, the airline the CIA then ran, carried raw opium out of the villages of its hill-tribe allies. The commander of the
Royal Lao Army, a close American collaborator, operated the world's largest heroin lab and was so oblivious to the implications of
the traffic that he opened his opium ledgers for my inspection. Several of Saigon's top generals were complicit in the drug's distribution
to U.S. soldiers. By 1971, this web of collusion ensured that heroin, according to a later
White House survey of a thousand veterans, would be "commonly used" by 34% of American troops in South Vietnam.
None of this had been covered in my college history seminars. I had no models for researching an uncharted netherworld of crime
and covert operations. After stepping off the plane in Saigon, body slammed by the tropical heat, I found myself in a sprawling foreign
city of four million, lost in a swarm of snarling motorcycles and a maze of nameless streets, without contacts or a clue about how
to probe these secrets. Every day on the heroin trail confronted me with new challenges -- where to look, what to look for, and,
above all, how to ask hard questions.
Reading all that history had, however, taught me something I didn't know I knew. Instead of confronting my sources with questions
about sensitive current events, I started with the French colonial past when the opium trade was still legal, gradually uncovering
the underlying, unchanging logistics of drug production. As I followed this historical trail into the present, when the traffic became
illegal and dangerously controversial, I began to use pieces from this past to assemble the present puzzle, until the names of contemporary
dealers fell into place. In short, I had crafted a historical method that would prove, over the next 40 years of my career, surprisingly
useful in analyzing a diverse array of foreign policy controversies -- CIA alliances with drug lords, the agency's propagation of
psychological torture, and our spreading state surveillance.
The CIA Makes Its Entrance in My Life
Those months on the road, meeting gangsters and warlords in isolated places, offered only one bit of real danger. While hiking
in the mountains of Laos, interviewing Hmong farmers about their opium shipments on CIA helicopters, I was descending a steep slope
when a burst of bullets ripped the ground at my feet. I had walked into an ambush by agency mercenaries.
While the five Hmong militia escorts whom the local village headman had prudently provided laid down a covering fire, my Australian
photographer John Everingham and I flattened ourselves
in the elephant grass and crawled through the mud to safety. Without those armed escorts, my research would have been at an end and
so would I. After that ambush failed, a CIA paramilitary officer summoned me to a mountaintop meeting where he threatened to murder
my Lao interpreter unless I ended my research. After winning assurances from the U.S. embassy that my interpreter would not be harmed,
I decided to ignore that warning and keep going.
Six months and 30,000 miles later, I returned to New Haven. My investigation of CIA alliances with drug lords had taught me more
than I could have imagined about the covert aspects of U.S. global power. Settling into my attic apartment for an academic year of
writing, I was confident that I knew more than enough for a book on this unconventional topic. But my education, it turned out, was
just beginning.
Within weeks, a massive, middle-aged guy in a suit interrupted my scholarly isolation. He appeared at my front door and identified
himself as
Tom Tripodi , senior agent for the Bureau of Narcotics, which later became the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). His agency,
he confessed during a second visit, was worried about my writing and he had been sent to investigate. He needed something to tell
his superiors. Tom was a guy you could trust. So I showed him a few draft pages of my book. He disappeared into the living room for
a while and came back saying, "Pretty good stuff. You got your ducks in a row." But there were some things, he added, that weren't
quite right, some things he could help me fix.
Best of all, there was the one about how the Bureau of Narcotics caught French intelligence protecting the Corsican syndicates
smuggling heroin into New York City. Some of his stories, usually unacknowledged, would appear in my book,
The Politics of Heroin in Southeast
Asia . These conversations with an undercover operative, who had trained Cuban exiles for the CIA in Florida and later investigated
Mafia heroin syndicates for the DEA in Sicily, were akin to an advanced seminar, a master class in covert operations.
In the summer of 1972, with the book at press, I went to Washington to testify before Congress. As I was making the rounds of
congressional offices on Capitol Hill, my editor rang unexpectedly and summoned me to New York for a meeting with the president and
vice president of Harper & Row, my book's publisher. Ushered into a plush suite of offices overlooking the spires of St. Patrick's
Cathedral, I listened to those executives tell me that Cord Meyer, Jr., the CIA's deputy director for covert operations, had called
on their company's president emeritus, Cass Canfield, Sr. The visit was no accident, for Canfield, according to an
authoritative history , "enjoyed prolific links to the world of intelligence, both as a former psychological warfare officer
and as a close personal friend of Allen Dulles," the ex-head of the CIA Meyer denounced my book as a threat to national security.
He asked Canfield, also an old friend, to quietly suppress it.
I was in serious trouble. Not only was Meyer a senior CIA official but he also had impeccable social connections and covert assets
in every corner of American intellectual life. After graduating from Yale in 1942, he served with the marines in the Pacific, writing
eloquent war dispatches published in the Atlantic Monthly . He later worked with the U.S. delegation drafting the U.N. charter.
Personally recruited by spymaster Allen Dulles, Meyer joined the CIA in 1951 and was soon running its International Organizations
Division, which, in the words of that
same history , "constituted the greatest single concentration of covert political and propaganda activities of the by now octopus-like
CIA," including " Operation Mockingbird " that
planted disinformation in major U.S. newspapers meant to aid agency operations. Informed sources told me that the CIA still had assets
inside every major New York publisher and it already had every page of my manuscript.
As the child of a wealthy New York family, Cord Meyer moved in elite social circles, meeting and marrying Mary Pinchot, the niece
of Gifford Pinchot, founder of the U.S. Forestry Service and a former governor of Pennsylvania. Pinchot was a breathtaking beauty
who later became President Kennedy's mistress, making dozens of
secret visits to the White House. When she was found
shot dead
along the banks of a canal in Washington in 1964, the head of CIA counterintelligence, James Jesus Angleton, another Yale alumnus,
broke into her home in an unsuccessful attempt to secure her diary. Mary's sister Toni and her husband, Washington Post editor
Ben Bradlee, later found the diary and gave it to Angleton for destruction by the agency. To this day, her unsolved murder remains
a subject of mystery and
controversy.
Cord Meyer was also in the Social Register of New York's fine families along with my publisher, Cass Canfield, which added
a dash of social cachet to the pressure to suppress my book. By the time he walked into Harper & Row's office in that summer of 1972,
two decades of CIA service had
changed Meyer (according to that same authoritative history) from a liberal idealist into "a relentless, implacable advocate
for his own ideas," driven by "a paranoiac distrust of everyone who didn't agree with him" and a manner that was "histrionic and
even bellicose." An unpublished 26-year-old graduate student versus the master of CIA media manipulation. It was hardly a fair fight.
I began to fear my book would never appear.
To his credit, Canfield refused Meyer's request to suppress the book. But he did allow the agency a chance to review the manuscript
prior to publication. Instead of waiting quietly for the CIA's critique, I contacted Seymour Hersh, then an investigative reporter
for the New York Times . The same day the CIA courier arrived from Langley to collect my manuscript, Hersh swept through Harper
& Row's offices like a tropical storm, pelting hapless executives with incessant, unsettling questions. The next day, his exposé
of the CIA's attempt at censorship appeared on the paper's
front page . Other national media organizations followed his lead. Faced with a barrage of negative coverage, the CIA gave Harper
& Row a critique full of unconvincing
denials . The book was published unaltered.
My Life as an Open Book for the Agency
I had learned another important lesson: the Constitution's protection of press freedom could check even the world's most powerful
espionage agency. Cord Meyer reportedly learned the same lesson. According to his
obituary in the Washington Post , "It was assumed that Mr. Meyer would eventually advance" to head CIA covert operations,
"but the public disclosure about the book deal apparently dampened his prospects." He was instead exiled to London and eased into
early retirement.
Meyer and his colleagues were not, however, used to losing. Defeated in the public arena, the CIA retreated to the shadows and
retaliated by tugging at every thread in the threadbare life of a graduate student. Over the next few months, federal officials from
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare turned up at Yale to investigate my graduate fellowship. The Internal Revenue Service
audited my poverty-level income. The FBI tapped my New Haven telephone (something I learned years later from a class-action lawsuit).
In August 1972, at the height of the controversy over the book, FBI agents told the bureau's director that they had "conducted
[an] investigation concerning McCoy," searching the files they had compiled on me for the past two years and interviewing numerous
"sources whose identities are concealed [who] have furnished reliable information in the past" -- thereby producing an 11-page report
detailing my birth, education, and campus antiwar activities.
A college classmate I hadn't seen in four years, who served in military intelligence, magically appeared at my side in the book
section of the Yale Co-op, seemingly eager to resume our relationship. The same week that a
laudatory review of my book appeared on the front page of the New York Times Book Review , an extraordinary achievement
for any historian, Yale's History Department placed me on academic probation. Unless I could somehow do a year's worth of overdue
work in a single semester, I faced dismissal.
In those days, the ties between the CIA and Yale were wide and deep. The campus residential colleges screened students, including
future CIA Director Porter Goss, for possible careers in espionage. Alumni like Cord Meyer and James Angleton held senior slots at
the agency. Had I not had a faculty adviser visiting from Germany, the distinguished scholar
Bernhard Dahm who was a stranger to this covert nexus,
that probation would likely have become expulsion, ending my academic career and destroying my credibility.
During those difficult days, New York Congressman Ogden Reid, a ranking member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, telephoned
to say that he was sending staff investigators to Laos to look into the opium situation. Amid this controversy, a CIA helicopter
landed near the village where I had escaped that ambush and flew the Hmong headman who had helped my research to an agency airstrip.
There, a CIA interrogator made it clear that he had better deny what he had said to me about the opium. Fearing, as he later told
my photographer, that "they will send a helicopter to arrest me, or soldiers to shoot me," the Hmong headman did just that.
At a personal level, I was discovering just how deep the country's intelligence agencies could reach, even in a democracy, leaving
no part of my life untouched: my publisher, my university, my sources, my taxes, my phone, and even my friends.
Although I had won the first battle of this war with a media blitz, the CIA was winning the longer bureaucratic struggle. By silencing
my sources and denying any culpability, its officials convinced Congress that it was innocent of any direct complicity in the Indochina
drug trade. During Senate hearings into CIA assassinations by the famed
Church Committee three years later,
Congress accepted the agency's assurance that none of its operatives had been directly involved in heroin trafficking (an allegation
I had never actually made). The committee's report did confirm the core of my critique, however, finding that "the CIA is particularly
vulnerable to criticism" over indigenous assets in Laos "of considerable importance to the Agency," including "people who either
were known to be, or were suspected of being, involved in narcotics trafficking." But the senators did not press the CIA for any
resolution or reform of what its own inspector general had called the "particular dilemma" posed by those alliances with drug lords
-- the key aspect, in my view, of its complicity in the traffic.
During the mid-1970s, as the flow of drugs into the United States slowed and the number of addicts declined, the heroin problem
receded into the inner cities and the media moved on to new sensations. Unfortunately, Congress had forfeited an opportunity to check
the CIA and correct its way of waging covert wars. In less than 10 years, the problem of the CIA's tactical alliances with drug traffickers
to support its far-flung covert wars was back with a vengeance.
During the 1980s, as the crack-cocaine epidemic swept America's cities, the agency, as its own Inspector General later
reported , allied itself with the largest drug
smuggler in the Caribbean, using his port facilities to ship arms to the Contra guerrillas fighting in Nicaragua and protecting him
from any prosecution for five years. Simultaneously on the other side of the planet in Afghanistan, mujahedeen guerrillas imposed
an opium
tax on farmers to fund their fight against the Soviet occupation and, with the
CIA's tacit consent , operated heroin labs along the Pakistani border to supply international markets. By the mid-1980s, Afghanistan's
opium harvest had grown 10-fold and was providing 60% of the heroin for America's addicts and as much as
90% in New York City.
Almost by accident, I had launched my academic career by doing something a bit different. Embedded within that study of drug
trafficking was an analytical approach that would take me, almost unwittingly, on a lifelong exploration of U.S. global hegemony
in its many manifestations, including diplomatic alliances, CIA interventions, developing military technology, recourse to torture,
and global surveillance. Step by step, topic by topic, decade after decade, I would slowly accumulate sufficient understanding of
the parts to try to assemble the whole. In writing my new book,
In the Shadows of the American Century:
The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power , I drew on this research to assess the overall character of U.S. global power
and the forces that might contribute to its perpetuation or decline.
In the process, I slowly came to see a striking continuity and coherence in Washington's century-long rise to global dominion.
CIA torture techniques emerged at the start of the Cold War in the 1950s; much of its futuristic robotic aerospace technology had
its first trial in the Vietnam War of the 1960s; and, above all, Washington's reliance on surveillance first appeared in the colonial
Philippines around 1900 and soon became an essential though essentially illegal tool for the FBI's repression of domestic dissent
that continued through the 1970s.
Surveillance Today
In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, I dusted off that historical method, and used it to explore the origins and character
of domestic surveillance inside the United States.
After occupying the Philippines in 1898, the U.S. Army, facing a difficult pacification campaign in a restive land, discovered
the power of systematic surveillance to crush the resistance of the country's political elite. Then, during World War I, the Army's
"father of military intelligence," the dour General Ralph Van Deman, who had learned his trade in the Philippines, drew upon his
years pacifying those islands to mobilize a legion of 1,700 soldiers and 350,000 citizen-vigilantes for an intense surveillance program
against suspected enemy spies among German-Americans, including my own grandfather. In studying Military Intelligence files at the
National Archives, I found "suspicious" letters purloined from my grandfather's army locker. In fact, his mother had been writing
him in her native German about such subversive subjects as knitting him socks for guard duty.
In the 1950s, Hoover's FBI agents tapped thousands of phones without warrants and kept suspected subversives under close surveillance,
including my mother's cousin Gerard Piel, an anti-nuclear activist and the publisher of Scientific American magazine. During the
Vietnam War, the bureau expanded
its activities with an amazing array of spiteful, often illegal, intrigues in a bid to cripple the antiwar movement with pervasive
surveillance of the sort seen in my own FBI file.
Memory of the FBI's illegal surveillance programs was largely washed away after the Vietnam War thanks to Congressional reforms
that required judicial warrants for all government wiretaps. The terror attacks of September 2001, however, gave the National Security
Agency the leeway to launch renewed surveillance on a previously unimaginable scale. Writing for TomDispatch in 2009, I
observed that coercive methods first tested in the Middle East
were being repatriated and might lay the groundwork for "a domestic surveillance state." Sophisticated biometric and cyber techniques
forged in the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq had made a "digital surveillance state a reality" and so were fundamentally changing
the character of American democracy.
Four years later, Edward Snowden's leak of secret NSA documents revealed that, after a century-long gestation period, a U.S. digital
surveillance state had finally arrived. In the age of the Internet, the NSA could monitor tens of millions of private lives worldwide,
including American ones, via a few hundred computerized probes into the global grid of fiber-optic cables.
And then, as if to remind me in the most personal way possible of our new reality, four years ago, I found myself the target yet
again of an IRS audit, of TSA body searches at national airports, and -- as I discovered when the line went dead -- a tap on my office
telephone at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Why? Maybe it was my current writing on sensitive topics like CIA torture and NSA
surveillance, or maybe my name popped up from some old database of suspected subversives left over from the 1970s. Whatever the explanation,
it was a reasonable reminder that, if my own family's experience across three generations is in any way representative, state surveillance
has been an integral part of American political life far longer than we might imagine.
At the cost of personal privacy, Washington's worldwide web of surveillance has now become a weapon of exceptional power in a
bid to extend U.S. global hegemony deeper into the twenty-first century. Yet it's worth remembering that sooner or later what we
do overseas always seems to come home to haunt us, just as the CIA and crew have haunted me this last half-century. When we learn
to love Big Brother, the world becomes a more, not less, dangerous place.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch regular
, is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of the now-classic book The
Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert operations
over 50 years, and the forthcoming In
the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power (Dispatch Books, September) from which this piece
is adapted. (Republished from
TomDispatch by permission
of author or representative)
"In the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks, I dusted off that historical method, and used it to explore the origins and character
of domestic surveillance inside the United States." -- Alfred McCoy
What about using the historical method to explore the nature of USA's reducing EU nations to "vassals" – and keeping them
in the status of vassals, such that they can be depended on to undermine their own economies and sovereignty for the sake of USA's
global initiatives?
An interesting question might be whether the NATO-to-Afghanistan highway (truck route for munitions, etc.), c. 2010, was
also, on the back-haul – Afghanistan to EU – the major supply route for heroin throughout the EU and thus the key to corruption
of EU governments (and of Russia) and domination of those governments by USA's neocon operatives? (E.g., was/is the distribution
system of the "Chocolate King" Petro Poroshenko, President of Ukraine, delivering something besides just chocolate?)
"Just over one third of all cargo goes on routes dubbed the "northern distribution network" through Central Asia, and the Caucasus
or Russia. " -- Reuters, 2011
Just a thought, speculative, based in part on the assumption that such trucks would not be subject to narcotics search-and-seizure
going across borders.
"... Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues (such as street murders in Mexico). ..."
"... The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving the FBI in 2005. ..."
"... Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins, is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI. All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration itself. ..."
"... Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations, particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the 1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at either. ..."
I made the mistake of listening to NPR last week to find out what Conventional Wisdom had to say
about Trump firing Comey, on the assumption that their standardized Mister-Rogers-on-Nyquil voice
tones would rein in the hysteria pitch a little. And on the surface, it did-the NPR host and guests
weren't directly shrieking "the world is ending! We're all gonna die SHEEPLE!" the way they were
on CNN. But in a sense they were screaming "fire!", if you know how to distinguish the very minute
pitch level differences in the standard NPR Nyquil voice.
The host of the daytime NPR program asked his guests how serious, and how "unprecedented" Trump's
decision to fire his FBI chief was. The guests answers were strange: they spoke about "rule of law"
and "violating the Constitution" but then switched to Trump "violating norms"-and back again, interchanging
"norms" and "laws" as if they're synonyms. One of the guests admitted that Trump firing Comey was
100% legal, but that didn't seem to matter in this talk about Trump having abandoned rule-of-law
for a Putinist dictatorship. These guys wouldn't pass a high school civics class, but there they
were, garbling it all up. What mattered was the proper sense of panic and outrage-I'm not sure anyone
really cared about the actual legality of the thing, or the legal, political or "normative" history
of the FBI.
For starters, the FBI hardly belongs in the same set with concepts like "constitutional" or "
rule of law." That's because the FBI was never established by a law. US Lawmakers refused to approve
an FBI bureau over a century ago when it was first proposed by Teddy Roosevelt. So he ignored Congress,
and went ahead and set it up by presidential fiat. That's one thing the civil liberties crowd hates
discussing - how centralized US political power is in the executive branch, a feature in the constitutional
system put there by the holy Founders.
In the late 1970s, at the tail end of our brief Glasnost, there was a lot of talk in Washington
about finally creating a
legal charter for the FBI -70 years after its founding. A lot of serious ink was spilled trying
to transform the FBI from an extralegal secret police agency to something legal and defined. If you
want to play archeologist to America's recent history, you can find this in the New York Times' archives,
articles with headlines like
"Draft of Charter for F.B.I. Limits Inquiry Methods" :
The Carter Administration will soon send to Congress the first governing charter for the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. The proposed charter imposes extensive but not absolute restrictions
on the bureau's employment of controversial investigative techniques, .including the use of informers,
undercover agents and covert criminal activity.
The charter also specifies the duties and powers of the bureau, setting precise standards and
procedures for the initiation ,and conduct of investigations. It specifically requires the F.B.I.
to observe constitutional rights and establishes safeguards against unchecked harassment, break‐ins
and other abuses.
followed by the inevitable lament, like this editorial from the Christian Science Monitor a year
later, "Don't Forget the
FBI Charter". Which of course we did forget-that was Reagan's purpose and value for the post-Glasnost
reaction: forgetting. As historian Athan Theoharis
wrote , "After 1981, Congress never seriously considered again any of the FBI charter proposals."
The origins of the FBI have been obscured both because of its dubious legality and because of
its original political purpose-to help the president battle the all-powerful American capitalists.
It wasn't that Teddy Roosevelt was a radical leftist-he was a Progressive Republican, which sounds
like an oxymoron today but which was mainstream and ascendant politics in his time. Roosevelt was
probably the first president since Andrew Jackson to try to smash concentrated wealth-power, or at
least some of it. He could be brutally anti-labor, but so were the powerful capitalists he fought,
and all the structures of government power. He met little opposition pursuing his imperial Social
Darwinist ambitions outside America's borders-but he had a much harder time fighting the powerful
capitalists at home against Roosevelt's most honorable political obsession: preserving forests, parks
and public lands from greedy capitalists. An early FBI memo to Hoover about the FBI's origins explains,
"Roosevelt, in his characteristic dynamic fashion, asserted that the plunderers of the public
domain would be prosecuted and brought to justice."
According to New York Times reporter Tim Wiener's Enemies: A History of the FBI , it
was the Oregon land fraud scandal of 1905-6 that put the idea of an FBI in TR's hyperactive mind.
The scandal involved leading Oregon politicians helping railroad tycoon Edward Harriman illegally
sell off pristine Oregon forest lands to timber interests, and it ended with an Oregon senator and
the state's only two House representatives criminally charged and put on trial-along with dozens
of other Oregonians. Basically, they were raping the state's public lands and forests like colonists
stripping a foreign country-and that stuck in TR's craw.
TR wanted his attorney general-Charles Bonaparte (yes, he really was a descendant of that
Bonaparte)-to make a full report to on the rampant land fraud scams that the robber barons were
running to despoil the American West, and which threatened TR's vision of land and forest conservation
and parks. Bonaparte created an investigative team from the US Secret Service, but TR thought their
report was a "whitewash" and proposed a new separate federal investigative service within Bonaparte's
Department of Justice that would report only to the Attorney General.
Until then, the US government had to rely on private contractors like the notorious, dreaded Pinkerton
Agency, who were great at strikebreaking, clubbing workers and shooting organizers, but not so good
at taking down down robber barons, who happened to also be important clients for the private detective
agencies.
In early 1908, Attorney General Bonaparte wrote to Congress asking for the legal authority (and
budget funds) to create a "permanent detective force" under the DOJ. Congress rebelled, denouncing
it as a plan to create an American okhrana . Democrat Joseph Sherley wrote that "spying
on men and prying into what would ordinarily be considered their private affairs" went against "American
ideas of government"; Rep. George Waldo, a New York Republican, said the proposed FBI was a "great
blow to freedom and to free institutions if there should arise in this country any such great central
secret-service bureau as there is in Russia."
So Congress's response was the opposite, banning Bonaparte's DOJ from spending any funds at all
on a proposed FBI. Another Congressman wrote another provision into the budget bill banning the DOJ
from hiring Secret Service employees for any sort of FBI type agency. So Bonaparte waited until Congress
took its summer recess, set aside some DOJ funds, recruited some Secret Service agents, and created
a new federal detective bureau with 34 agents. This was how the FBI was born. Congress wasn't notified
until the end of 1908, in a few lines in a standard report - "oh yeah, forgot to tell you-the executive
branch went ahead and created an American okhrana because, well, the ol' joke about dogs
licking their balls. Happy New Year!"
The sordid history of America's extralegal secret police-initially named the Bureau of Investigation,
changed to the FBI ("Federal") in the 30's, is mostly a history of xenophobic panic-mongering, illegal
domestic spying, mass roundups and plans for mass-roundups, false entrapment schemes, and planting
what Russians call "kompromat"- compromising information about a target's sex life-to blackmail or
destroy American political figures that the FBI didn't like.
The first political victim of J Edgar Hoover's kompromat was Louis Post, the assistant secretary
of labor under Woodrow Wilson. Post's crime was releasing over 1,000 alleged Reds from detention
facilities near the end of the FBI's Red Scare crackdown, when they jailed and deported untold thousands
on suspicion of being Communists. The FBI's mass purge began with popular media support in 1919,
but by the middle of 1920, some (not the FBI) were starting to get a little queasy. A legal challenge
to the FBI's mass purges and exiles in Boston ended with a federal judge denouncing the FBI. After
that ruling, assistant secretary Louis Post, a 71-year-old well-meaning progressive, reviewed the
cases against the last 1500 detainees that the FBI wanted to deport, and found that there was absolutely
nothing on at least 75 percent of the cases. Post's review threatened to undo thousands more FBI
persecutions of alleged Moscow-controlled radicals.
So one of the FBI's most ambitious young agents, J Edgar Hoover, collected kompromat on Post and
his alleged associations with other alleged Moscow-controlled leftists, and gave the file to the
Republican-controlled House of Representatives-which promptly announced it would hold hearings to
investigate Post as a left subversive. The House tried to impeach Post, but ultimately he defended
himself. Post's lawyer compared his political persecutors to the okhrana (Russia, again!):
"We in America have sunk to the level of the government of Russia under the Czarist regime," describing
the FBI's smear campaign as "even lower in some of their methods than the old Russian officials."
Under Harding, the FBI had a new chief, William Burns, who made headlines blaming the terror bombing
attack on Wall Street of 1920 that killed 34 people on a Kremlin-run conspiracy. The FBI claimed
it had a highly reliable inside source who told them that Lenin sent $30,000 to the Soviets' diplomatic
mission in New York, which was distributed to four local Communist agents who arranged the Wall Street
bombing. The source claimed to have personally spoken with Lenin, who boasted that the bombing was
so successful he'd ordered up more.
The only problem was that the FBI's reliable source, a Jewish-Polish petty criminal named Wolf
Lindenfeld, turned out to be a bullshitter-nicknamed "Windy Linde"-who thought his fake confession
about Lenin funding the bombing campaign would get him out of Poland's jails and set up in a comfortable
new life in New York.
By 1923, the FBI had thoroughly destroyed America's communist and radical labor movements-allowing
it to focus on its other favorite pastime: spying on and destroying political opponents. The FBI
spied on US Senators who supported opening diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union: Idaho's William
Borah, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee; Thomas Walsh of the Judiciary Committee, and
Burton K Wheeler, the prairie Populist senator from Montana, who visited the Soviet Union and pushed
for diplomatic relations. Harding's corrupt Attorney General Dougherty denounced Sen. Wheeler as
"the Communist leader in the Senate" and "no more a Democrat than Stalin, his comrade in Moscow."
Dougherty accused Sen. Wheeler of being part of a conspiracy "to capture, by deceit and design, as
many members of the Senate as possible and to spread through Washington and the cloakrooms of Congress
a poison gas as deadly as that which sapped and destroyed brave soldiers in the last war."
Hoover, now a top FBI official, quietly fed kompromat to journalists he cultivated, particularly
an AP reporter named Richard Whitney, who published a popular book in 1924, "Reds In America" alleging
Kremlin agents "had an all-pervasive influence over American institutions; they had infiltrated every
corner of American life." Whitney named Charlie Chaplin as a Kremlin agent, along with Felix Frankfurter
and members of the Senate pushing for recognition of the Soviet Union. That killed any hope for diplomatic
recognition for the next decade.
Then the first Harding scandals broke-Teapot Dome, Veterans Affairs, bribery at the highest rungs.
When Senators Wheeler and Walsh opened bribery investigations, the FBI sent agents to the senators'
home state to drum up false bribery charges against Sen. Wheeler. The charges were clearly fake,
and a jury dismissed the charges. But Attorney General Dougherty was indicted for fraud and forced
to resign, as was his FBI chief Burns-but not Burns' underling Hoover, who stayed in the shadows.
"We want no Gestapo or Secret Police. FBI is tending in that direction. They are dabbling in
sex-life scandals and plain blackmail This must stop."
With the Cold War, the FBI became obsessed with homosexuals as America's Fifth Column under Moscow's
control. Homosexuals, the FBI believed, were susceptible to Kremlin kompromat-so the FBI collected
and disseminated its own kompromat on alleged American homosexuals, supposedly to protect America
from the Kremlin. In the early 1950s, Hoover launched the Sex Deviates Program to spy on American
homosexuals and purge them from public life. The FBI built up 300,000 pages of files on suspected
homosexuals and contacted their employers, local law enforcement and universities to "to drive homosexuals
from every institution of government, higher learning, and law enforcement in the nation," according
to Tim Weiner's book Enemies. No one but the FBI knows exactly how many Americans' lives and careers
were destroyed by the FBI's Sex Deviants Program but Hoover-who never married, lived with his mother
until he was 40, and traveled everywhere with his
"friend" Clyde Tolson .
In the 1952 election, Hoover was so committed to helping the Republicans and Eisenhower win that
he compiled and disseminated a 19-page kompromat file alleging that his Democratic Party rival Adlai
Stevenson was gay. The FBI's file on Stevenson was kept in the Sex Deviants Program section-it included
libelous gossip, claiming that Stevenson was one of Illinois' "best known homosexuals" who went by
the name "Adeline" in gay cruising circles.
In the 1960s, Hoover and his FBI chiefs collected kompromat on the sex lives of JFK and Martin
Luther King. Hoover presented some of his kompromat on JFK to Bobby Kennedy, in a concern-trollish
way claiming to "warn" him that the president was opening himself up to blackmail. It was really
a way for Hoover to let the despised Kennedy brothers know he could destroy them, should they try
to Comey him out of his FBI office. Hoover's kompromat on MLK's sex life was a particular obsession
of his-he now believed that African-Americans, not homosexuals, posed the greatest threat to become
a Kremlin Fifth Column. The FBI wiretapped MLK's private life, collecting tapes of his affairs with
other women, which a top FBI official then mailed to Martin Luther King's wife, along with a note
urging King to commit suicide.
FBI letter anonymously mailed to Martin Luther King Jr's wife, along with kompromat sex tapes
After JFK was murdered, when Bobby Kennedy ran for the Senate in 1964, he recounted another disturbing
FBI/kompromat story that President Johnson shared with him on the campaign trail. LBJ told Bobby
about a stack of kompromat files - FBI reports "detailing the sexual debauchery of members of the
Senate and House who consorted with prostitutes." LBJ asked RFK if the kompromat should be leaked
selectively to destroy Republicans before the 1964 elections. Kennedy recalled,
"He told me he had spent all night sitting up and reading the files of the FBI on all these
people. And Lyndon talks about that information and material so freely. Lyndon talks about everybody,
you see, with everybody. And of course that's dangerous."
Kennedy had seen some of the same FBI kompromat files as attorney general, but he was totally
opposed to releasing such unsubstantiated kompromat-such as, say, the Trump piss files-because doing
so would "destroy the confidence that people in the United States had in their government and really
make us a laughingstock around the world."
Imagine that.
Which brings me to the big analogy every hack threw around last week, calling Trump firing Comey
"Nixonian." Actually, what Trump did was more like the very opposite of Nixon, who badly wanted to
fire Hoover in 1971-2, but was too afraid of the kompromat Hoover might've had on him to make the
move. Nixon fell out with his old friend and onetime mentor J Edgar Hoover in 1971, when the ailing
old FBI chief refused to get sucked in to the Daniel Ellsberg/Pentagon Papers investigation, especially
after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the New York Times. Part of the reason Nixon created his
Plumbers team of black bag burglars was because Hoover had become a bit skittish in his last year
on this planet-and that drove Nixon crazy.
Nixon called his chief of staff Haldeman:
Nixon: I talked to Hoover last night and Hoover is not going after this case [Ellsberg] as
strong as I would like. There's something dragging him.
Haldeman: You don't have the feeling the FBI is really pursuing this?
Nixon: Yeah, particularly the conspiracy side. I want to go after everyone. I'm not so interested
in Ellsberg, but we have to go after everybody who's a member of this conspiracy.
Hoover's ambitious deputies in the FBI were smelling blood, angling to replace him. His number
3, Bill Sullivan (who sent MLK the sex tapes and suicide note) was especially keen to get rid of
Hoover and take his place. So as J Edgar was stonewalling the Daniel Ellsberg investigation, Sullivan
showed up in a Department of Justice office with two suitcases packed full of transcripts and summaries
of illegal wiretaps that Kissinger and Nixon had ordered on their own staff and on American journalists.
The taps were ordered in Nixon's first months in the White House in 1969, to plug up the barrage
of leaks, the likes of which no one had ever seen before. Sullivan took the leaks from J Edgar's
possession and told the DOJ official that they needed to be hidden from Hoover, who planned to use
them as kompromat to blackmail Nixon.
Nixon decided he was going to fire J Edgar the next day. This was in September, 1971. But the
next day came, and Nixon got scared. So he tried to convince his attorney general John Mitchell to
fire Hoover for him, but Mitchell said only the President could fire J Edgar Hoover. So Nixon met
him for breakfast, and, well, he just didn't have the guts. Over breakfast, Hoover flattered Nixon
and told him there was nothing more in the world he wanted than to see Nixon re-elected. Nixon caved;
the next day, J Edgar Hoover unceremoniously fired his number 3 Bill Sullivan, locking him out of
the building and out of his office so that he couldn't take anything with him. Sullivan was done.
The lesson here, I suppose, is that if an FBI director doesn't want to be fired, it's best to
keep your kompromat a little closer to your chest, as a gun to hold to your boss's head. Comey's
crew already released the piss tapes kompromat on Trump-the damage was done. What was left to hold
back Trump from firing Comey? "Laws"? The FBI isn't even legal. "Norms" would be the real reason.
Which pretty much sums up everything Trump has been doing so far. We've learned the past two decades
that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What
does bind them are "norms"-and while those norms may mean everything to the ruling class, it's an
open question how much these norms mean to a lot of Americans outside that club.
The USA doesn't have a legal basis either, it is a revolting crown colony of the British Empire.
Treason and heresy all the way down. Maybe the British need to burn Washington DC again?
Wondered how Comey thought he could get away with his conviction and pardon of Sec Clinton.
Seems like part of the culture of FBI is a "above and beyond" the law mentality.
Back in the early 1970s a high school friend moved to Alabama because his father was transferred
by his employer.
My friend sent a post card describing among other things the fact that Alabama had done away
with the requirement of a math class to graduate high school, and substituted a required class
called "The Evils of Communism" complete with a text-book written by J. Edgar Hoover; Masters
of Deceit.
In Dallas,Texas my 1959 Civics class had to read the same book. We all were given paperback
copies of it to take home and read. It was required reading enacted by Texas legislature.
So I'd guess you weren't fooled by any of those commie plots of the sixties, like the campaigns
for civil rights or against the Vietnamese war.
I can't really brag, I didn't stop worrying about the Red Menace until 1970 or so, that's when
I started running into returning vets who mostly had no patience for that stuff.
We've learned the past two decades that we're hardly a nation of laws, at least not when
it comes to the plutocratic ruling class. What does bind them are "norms"
Or as David Broder put it (re Bill Clinton): he came in and trashed the place and it wasn't
his place.
It was David Broder's place. Of course the media play a key role with all that kompromat since
they are the ones needed to convey it to the public. The tragedy is that even many of the sensible
in their ranks such as Bill Moyers have been sucked into the kompromat due to their hysteria over
Trump. Ames is surely on point in this great article. The mistake was allowing secret police agencies
like the FBI and CIA to be created in the first place.
Sorry, my initial reaction was that people who don't know the difference between "rein" and
"reign" are not to be trusted to provide reliable information. Recognizing that as petty, I kept
reading, and presently found the statement that Congress was not informed of the founding of the
FBI until a century after the fact, which seems implausible. If in fact the author meant the end
of 1908 it was quite an achievement to write 2008.
Interesting to the extent it may be true, but with few sources, no footnotes, and little evidence
of critical editing who knows what that may be?
Who he is is irrelevant. I don't take things on faith because "the Pope said" or because Mark
Ames said. People who expect their information to be taken seriously should substantiate it.
So anything the FBI does to get rid of him must by definition be ok! Besides, surely our civic-minded
IC would never use their power on the Good Guys™!
Ah yes, the voice of "caution." And such attention to the lack of footnotes, in this day when
the curious can so easily cut and paste a bit of salient text into a search engine and pull up
a feast of parse-able writings and video, from which they can "judiciously assess" claims and
statements. If they care to spend the time, which is in such short supply among those who are
struggling to keep up with the horrors and revelations people of good will confront every blinking
day
Classic impeachment indeed. All from the height of "academic rigor" and "caution." Especially
the "apologetic" bit about "reign" vs "rein." Typos destroy credibility, don't they? And the coup
de grass (sic), the unrebuttable "plausibility" claim.
One wonders at the nature of the author's curriculum vitae. One also marvels at the yawning
gulf between the Very Serious Stuff I was taught in grade and high school civics and history,
back in the late '50s and the '60s, about the Fundamental Nature Of Our Great Nation and its founding
fathers and the Beautiful Documents they wrote, on the one hand, and what we mopes learn, through
a drip-drip-drip process punctuated occasionally by Major Revelations, about the real nature of
the Empire and our fellow creatures
PS: My earliest memory of television viewing was a day at a friend's house - his middle-class
parents had the first "set" in the neighborhood, I think an RCA, in a massive sideboard cabinet
where the picture tube pointed up and you viewed the "content" in a mirror mounted to the underside
of the lid. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5onSwx7_Cn0
The family was watching a hearing of Joe McCarthy's kangaroo court, complete with announcements
of the latest number in the "list of known Communists in the State Department" and how Commyanism
was spreading like an unstoppable epidemic mortal disease through the Great US Body Politic and
its Heroic Institutions of Democracy. I was maybe 6 years old, but that grainy black and white
"reality TV" content had me asking "WTF?" at a very early age. And I'd say it's on the commentor
to show that the "2008" claim is wrong, by something other than "implausible" as drive-by impeachment.
Given the content of the original post, and what people paying attention to all this stuff have
a pretty good idea is the general contours of a vast corruption and manipulation.
Interesting article on the history of the FBI, although the post-Hoover era doesn't get any
treatment. The Church Committee hearings on the CIA and FBI, after the exposure of notably
Operation CHAOS (early
60s to early 70s) by the CIA and
COINTELPRO(late 1950s to
early 1970s) by the FBI, didn't really get to the bottom of the issue although some reforms
were initiated.
Today, it seems, the best description of the FBI's main activity is corporate enforcer for
the white-collar mafia known as Wall Street. There is an analogy to organized crime, where the
most powerful mobsters settled disputes between other gangs of criminals. Similarly, if a criminal
gang is robbed by one of its own members, the mafia would go after the guilty party; the FBI plays
this role for Wall Street institutions targeted by con artists and fraudsters. Compare and contrast
a pharmaceutical company making opiates which is targeted by thieves vs. a black market drug cartel
targeted by thieves. In one case, the FBI investigates; in the other, a violent vendetta ensues
(such as street murders in Mexico).
The FBI executives are rewarded for this service with lucrative post-retirement careers within
corporate America – Louis Freeh went to credit card fraudster, MBNA, Richard Mueller to a corporate
Washington law firm, WilmerHale, and Comey, before Obama picked him as Director, worked for Lockheed
Martin and HSBC (cleaning up after their $2 billion drug cartel marketing scandal) after leaving
the FBI in 2005.
Maybe this is legitimate, but this only applies to their protection of the interests of large
corporations – as the 2008 economic collapse and aftermath showed, they don't prosecute corporate
executives who rip off poor people and middle-class homeowners. Banks who rob people, they aren't
investigated or prosecuted; that's just for people who rob banks.
When it comes to political issues and national security, however, the FBI has such a terrible
record on so many issues over the years that anything they claim has to be taken with a grain
or two of salt. Consider domestic political activity: from the McCarthyite 'Red Scare' of the
1950s to COINTELPRO in the 1960s and 1970s to targeting of environmental groups in the 1980s and
1990s to targeting anti-war protesters under GW Bush to their obsession with domestic mass surveillance
under Obama, it's not a record that should inspire any confidence.
Some say they have a key role to play in national security and terrorism – but their record
on the 2001 anthrax attacks is incredibly shady and suspicious. The final suspect, Bruce Ivins,
is clearly innocent of the crime, just as their previous suspect, Steven Hatfill was. Ivins, if
still alive, could have won a similar multi-million dollar defamation lawsuit against the FBI.
All honest bioweapons experts know this to be true – the perpetrators of those anthrax letters
are still at large, and may very well have had close associations with the Bush Administration
itself.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about the
Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences. The
Saudi intelligence agency role in 9/11 was buried for over a decade, as well. Since 9/11, most
of the FBI investigations seem to have involved recruiting mentally disabled young Islamic men
in sting operations in which the FBI provides everything needed. You could probably get any number
of mentally ill homeless people across the U.S., regardless of race or religion, to play this
role.
Comey's actions over the past year are certainly highly questionable, as well. Neglecting to
investigate the Clinton Foundation ties to Saudi Arabia and other foreign governments and corporations,
particularly things like State Department approval of various arms deals in which bribes may have
been paid, is as much a dereliction of duty as neglecting to investigate Trump ties to Russian
business interests – but then, Trump has a record of shady business dealings dating back to the
1970s, of strange bankruptcies and bailouts and government sales that the FBI never looked at
either.
Ultimately, this is because FBI executives are paid off not to investigate Wall Street criminality,
nor shady U.S. government activity, with lucrative positions as corporate board members and so
on after their 'retirements'. I don't doubt that many of their junior members mean well and are
dedicated to their jobs – but the fish rots from the head down.
As far as terrorist activities? Many of their low-level agents did seem concerned about
the Saudis and bin Laden in the late 1990s and pre-9/11 – but Saudi investigations were considered
politically problematic due to "geostrategic relationships with our Saudi allies" – hence people
like John O'Neil and Coleen Rowley were sidelined and ignored, with disastrous consequences.
The Clinton Administration had other priorities. You know, I think I'll let ex-FBI Director
Freeh explain what happened when the FBI tried to get the Saudis to cooperate with their investigation
into the bombing of the Khobar Towers.
"That September, Crown Prince Abdullah and his entourage took over the entire 143-room Hay-Adams
Hotel, just across from Lafayette Park from the White House, for six days. The visit, I figured,
was pretty much our last chance. Again, we prepared talking points for the president. Again,
I contacted Prince Bandar and asked him to soften up the crown prince for the moment when Clinton,
-- or Al Gore I didn't care who -- would raise the matter and start to exert the necessary pressure."
"The story that came back to me, from "usually reliable sources," as they say in Washington,
was that Bill Clinton briefly raised the subject only to tell the Crown Prince that he certainly
understood the Saudis; reluctance to cooperate. Then, according to my sources, he hit Abdullah
up for a contribution to the still-to-be-built Clinton presidential library. Gore, who was
supposed to press hardest of all in his meeting with the crown Prince, barely mentioned the
matter, I was told." -Louis J. Freeh, My FBI (2005)
In my defense I picked the book up to see if there was any dirt on the DNC's electoral funding
scandal in 1996. I'm actually glad I did. The best part of the book is when Freeh recounts running
into a veteran of the Lincoln Brigade and listens to how Hoover's FBI ruined his life despite
having broken no laws. As if a little thing like laws mattered to Hoover. The commies were after
our precious bodily fluids!
I'm not sure there are many functioning norms left within the national political leadership.
Seemed to me Gingrich started blowing those up and it just got worse from there. McConnell not
allowing Garland to be considered comes to mind
Thanks to Mark Ames now we know what Pres. Trump meant when he tweeted about his tapes with
AG Comey. Not some taped conversation between Pres. Trump & AG Comey but bunch of kompromat tapes
that AG Comey has provided Pres. Trump that might not make departing AG Comey looked so clean.
"... "I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," warns former CIA Director Jack Devine, saying that, with "frankly uncivilized" ISIS, there is a greater risk of violence worldwide than ever before. ..."
"... Devine argued that dismantling ISIS's command structure is crucial for minimizing the danger it presents, much like al Qaeda before them. "We killed three-fourths of their leadership," he said of al Qaeda. "We have to do the same thing with ISIS. "We have to destroy their refuge over there. When they start to lose, their recruiting numbers start to fall." ..."
"... My guess is that Iran have done a deal with Putin in that once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe. Russia is allowing Iran into the European gas market because Bandar threatened Sochi, and Putin wants to end the House of Saud in retaliation. Two weeks from now the world is going to make laws that pushes countries towards natural gas and away from coal and oil. ..."
"... I would say that's accurate, since the U.S. put ISIS there to block the Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline. When Russia destroys ISIS, the previously planned pipeline can proceed. It has nothing to do with Russian 'permission' - Putin expects someone to eventually be sending gas up from the Middle East once the slaughter stops. He doesn't care who it is or how much. It's not going to displace more than a fraction of the Russian supply to Europe. Syria rejected the Qatari pipeline for its own reasons - probably because Qatar was planning on killing Assad and replacing him with a Western stooge well before the Qatari-Turkey pipeline was announced. In fact, the announcement was pretty much an insult to Syria. Qatar quite arrogantly announced that they WOULD be building the pipeline through Syria without bothering to ask them. ..."
"... Putin negotiates with everyone. He was even talking with Israel about helping them with the Leviathan pipeline. The U.S. seems to favor 'regime change' as the preferred strategy to expand its oil interests where it has no business doing so. ..."
"... The CIA serves no master, it is the fucking master. It does deals that are anti American, and they don't care, because America is just a sugar daddy to them. We are the chumps who pay their bills, while they put half of all honest Americans on their enemies list. ..."
"... CIA is international, not American. They are the hit men for the biggest corporations on earth, and most especially the biggest energy firms. Oil and CIA go together, and there is the Saudi connection. ..."
"... CIA is the lead agent if world Islamic extremism, they don't fight it, they nurture it! Their long term goal is to use mass Islamic terror armies to do what the CIA and Corporate masters want done. Need a police state in America? Do a hit on America 9/11. Need to eliminate Russia? Create ISIS and direct them against Russia's allies. And you can take it from there. It will continue on as before. Nobody left has the power to take down the CIA terror rings. ..."
"... No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today! Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame. ..."
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," warns former CIA Director Jack Devine, saying that, with
"frankly uncivilized" ISIS, there is a greater risk of violence worldwide than ever before.
"I think this is the most dangerous time in terms of sustained violence," he said on "The Cats Roundtable"
in an interview airing Sunday on New York's AM-970.
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," he told host John Catsimatidis. "Some percentage of the world today
is always either unbalanced or radicalized. When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill
anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Devine cited the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as an unprecedented threat in terms of its wanton disregard for human
life...
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children indiscriminately,"
he said.
"You have a group in ISIS today that is frankly uncivilized. These folks could get stronger and stronger.
We basically have to destroy ISIS over there," Devine said.
Devine argued that dismantling ISIS's command structure is crucial for minimizing the danger it presents, much like al
Qaeda before them. "We killed three-fourths of their leadership," he said of al Qaeda. "We have to do the same thing with ISIS.
"We have to destroy their refuge over there. When they start to lose, their recruiting numbers start to fall."
Devine, who mainly served during the Cold War, said ISIS is a scourge without parallel because it has no concern for self-preservation.
"There is nothing that can be compared with nuclear weapons and their use," he said of tensions between the U.S. and the former
Soviet Union.
"[But] people felt safe in the sense there was countervailing balance," he added. "Early in our contest with
the Russians, it was clear we had checks and balances."
Finally Devine admits...
"If there's blame to be put, it's on our failure to have done that by this point."
Selected Skeptical Comments
i_call_you_my_base
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s..."
"And by dealt I mean trained and funded."
Looney
John Kerry to the MSM:
Do not use "Al Qaeda" or "Al Nustra" - just call them "Allies" (pronounced Al Lies). ;-)
Looney
Vatican_cameo
"I have never felt more uncomfortable than I do today," he told host John Catsimatidis. "Some percentage of the world today
is always either unbalanced or radicalized. When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill
anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
By small group he means CIA, Right? I thought he would have been a little clearer.
Occident Mortal
My guess is that Iran have done a deal with Putin in that once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through
Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe. Russia is allowing Iran into the European gas market because Bandar threatened
Sochi, and Putin wants to end the House of Saud in retaliation. Two weeks from now the world is going to make laws that pushes
countries towards natural gas and away from coal and oil.
Paveway IV
"...once ISIS is swept away Iran gets to build a gas pipeline through Iraq (which it controls) and through Syria into Europe..."
I would say that's accurate, since the U.S. put ISIS there to block the Iran - Iraq - Syria pipeline. When Russia destroys
ISIS, the previously planned pipeline can proceed. It has nothing to do with Russian 'permission' - Putin expects someone to eventually
be sending gas up from the Middle East once the slaughter stops. He doesn't care who it is or how much. It's not going to displace
more than a fraction of the Russian supply to Europe. Syria rejected the Qatari pipeline for its own reasons - probably because
Qatar was planning on killing Assad and replacing him with a Western stooge well before the Qatari-Turkey pipeline was announced.
In fact, the announcement was pretty much an insult to Syria. Qatar quite arrogantly announced that they WOULD be building the
pipeline through Syria without bothering to ask them.
The U.S. blocked the first Iran pipeline (called the Persian Pipeline) FROM IRAN to Iraq in 2010 by forcing the Swiss company
that partnered with Iran to back out due to Israeli - ooops, 'Western' sanctions on Iran. The second Iran-sourced NG pipeline
from Iran through Iraq and Syria - called the Friendship Pipeline - was agreed to in 2012 by the countries involved. That's when
the U.S. launched it's failed coup attempt in Syria and let its ISIS mad-dogs loose in Iraq. Tyler usually refers to this by the
derogatory label of "Islamic Pipeline" - a snide label that Kagan-PNAC and Western oil companies used. Tyler never refers to the
Western-backed Qatari pipeline as the Jihadi Pipeline, nor does he refer to the Kirkuk-Haifa oil pipeline as the Jewish Pipeline.
I'm not sure about the inconsistency - maybe he's trying to make some point.
Putin negotiates with everyone. He was even talking with Israel about helping them with the Leviathan pipeline. The U.S.
seems to favor 'regime change' as the preferred strategy to expand its oil interests where it has no business doing so.
goldhedge
The CIA guy doesn't mention the House of Saud.
Pfft.
Jack Burton
Good catch! And there never do.
CIA and House of Saud have done a long term deal to look out for each other in this world. The CIA serves no master, it
is the fucking master. It does deals that are anti American, and they don't care, because America is just a sugar daddy to them.
We are the chumps who pay their bills, while they put half of all honest Americans on their enemies list.
CIA is international, not American. They are the hit men for the biggest corporations on earth, and most especially the
biggest energy firms. Oil and CIA go together, and there is the Saudi connection.
CIA is the lead agent if world Islamic extremism, they don't fight it, they nurture it! Their long term goal is to use
mass Islamic terror armies to do what the CIA and Corporate masters want done. Need a police state in America? Do a hit on America
9/11. Need to eliminate Russia? Create ISIS and direct them against Russia's allies. And you can take it from there. It will continue
on as before. Nobody left has the power to take down the CIA terror rings.
"I dealt with terrorists in South America in the 1970s, but they never attacked innocent women and children indiscriminately,"
he said.
No shit, sherlock, and it's because of you and the most vile mass murderer of all time, the CIA (and DIA, and NSA, and
FBI, etc.), but predominantly the CIA and the Pentagon, that ISIS and such exists today!
Whether it was Allen Dulles coordinating the escape of endless number of mass murderering Nazis, who would end up in CIA-overthrown
countries, aiding and abetting their secret police (Example: Walter Rauff, who was responsible for at least 200,000 deaths, ending
up as an advisor to Augusto Pinochet's secret police or DINA) or the grandson of the first chairman of the Bank for International
Settlements, Richard Helms and his MKULTRA, you devils are to blame.
Recommended reading (to better understand why the USA is known as the Great Satan):
Funny how these fucks can come out and say this kind of shit and get away with it. The fucker's basically pleading guilty to murder,
FFS.
Ms No
They didn't kill anybody in South America my ass.... The school of Americas, Operation Condor, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia,
Nicaragua, Guatamala, El Salvador .... who the hell are they kidding? The CIA has always been covered and nobody ever cared.
Perimetr
"If there's blame to be put. . ."
It's on the CIA for running its global terrorist operations, funded by the $1 trillion dollars a year coming from its Afghanistan
heroin operation.
sirs and madams,
.
"Christmas celebration this year is going to be a charade because the whole world is at war. We are close to Christmas. There
will be lights, there will be parties, bright trees, even Nativity scenes – all decked out – while the world continues to wage
war.
It's all a charade. The world has not understood the way of peace. The whole world is at war. A war can be justified, so to
speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world as it is today, at war, piecemeal though that war may be-a little here,
a little there-there is no justification.
What shall remain in the wake of this war, in the midst of which we are living now? What shall remain? Ruins, thousands of
children without education, so many innocent victims, and lots of money in the pockets of arms dealers."
The discovery of America by Europe had to happen. The savages had to be eliminated and The Revolutionary War had to happen.
Slavery had to begin, and after it, segregation had to begin, but, what must be, will be, slavery and segregation had to end.
Old School colonization of poor nations had to happen. The Boer War had to happen. The Spanish American War had to happen. The
Main had to be sunk. WWI had to happen. Calvary charges had to end. Totalitarian Communism had to happen. Germany's 20's depression
had to happen, reactionary jingoism had to happen, and Kristallnacht and the Reichstag fire had to happen. The Allies had to win
WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki had to be publicity stunts, and the Cold War had to begin. JFK had to be wacked, the Vietnam War
had to happen, the FED still was happening. Civil Rights laws had to be passed. Recognition of China had to happen, going off
the gold standard had to happen, and Nixon had to be kicked out of office. Corporate Globalization had to begin. After Carter
an actor had to be President. Unions had to be stifled. Perestroika and glasnost had to happen. The Berlin Wall had to come down.
The MIC had to find another enemy, and suddenly 9/11 had to happen.
Over population has to happen, poisoning the environment has to happen, and the NWO has to happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, the NWO is here, and there is nothing you can do, and nothing you could have done to stop it.
Edit. I see none of our supposed enemies 'truth bombing' 9/11, 7/7, and the 13th Paris attacks. I see no trade embagoes, I
see no arguments in the Security Council over the illegality of US/Nato bombing in Syria.
blindman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/jimmy-carter-is-correct-t_b_79...
Jimmy Carter Is Correct That the U.S. Is No Longer a Democracy
Posted: 08/03/2015 11:48 am EDT
.
On July 28, Thom Hartmann interviewed former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and, at the very end of his show (as if this massive
question were merely an afterthought), asked him his opinion of the 2010 Citizens United decision and the 2014 McCutcheon decision,
both decisions by the five Republican judges on the U.S. Supreme Court. These two historic decisions enable unlimited secret money
(including foreign money) now to pour into U.S. political and judicial campaigns. Carter answered:
It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it's just an oligarchy with unlimited
political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies
to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members. So, now we've just seen a subversion of our political system as a payoff
to major contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for themselves after the election is over. ... At the present
time the incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody that
is already in Congress has a great deal more to sell." ...
.
it is the money "system", man.
blindman
corporations and hoodwink powers ride on the indifference of the damned, the silence of the dead and doomed.
Dinero D. Profit
The Satus Quo can rely upon the loyalty of their employees, Congress, the military, the military industrial contractors, their
workers and family members, the crime control establishment, all Uniersity professors and employees, and every employee of all
publically traded companies, and every person employed by the MSM.
The dead and doomed are irrelevant. If you have an establishment job, you'll obey and ask no vital questions.
Dick Buttkiss
Sunnis and Shiites hate each other far more than they hate Christians, Jews, or anyone else. If it weren't for oil, the USG wouldn't
give a flyiing fuck if they anihilated each other. Instead, it conspires with them in ways far beyond its ability to comprehend,
much less navigate. Thus is the US ship of state heading for the shoals of its destruction, the only question being how much of
the country and the outside world it takes down with it.
ross81
thats bullshit Western propaganda that Shiites hate Sunnis and vice versa. In the same way that the Brits stirred up Protestant
hatred of Catholics in Ulster for centuries, the US/Israel/Saudi does the same with Sunnis vs Shiites on a much bigger scale in
the Middle East. Divide and Conquer.
geno-econ
This is getting scary in that one or two more attacks will result in travel freezes, flow of Middle East oil and result in huge
increase in military as well as Homeland security costs. A depression or economic collapse a real possibility Perhaps time for
a Peace Conference of all interested parties. The US started this shit and should be the first to call for a Peace Conference.
Macho talk will only make things worse.
moonmac
We can print trillions out of thin air at the drop of a hat but we can't kill a small group of terrorists. Got it!
sgt_doom
Or, we pour billions of dollars every year into the CIA, NSA, and DIA, and only a poor old fart such as myself can figure out
that Bilal Erdogan is the ISIS connection to oil trading (Turkish president, Erdogan's son) and Erdogan's daughter is with ISIS?
GRDguy
Ex-CIA boss gets it wrong, again.
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
should be:
"When you have a small group of financial sociopaths willing to lie-to, steal-from and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
and you'll probably be punished, jailed or shot for tryin' to protect yourself and your family.
Ban KKiller
War profiteer. That is it. Along wth James Comey, James Clapper, Jack Welch and the list is almost endless...
BarnacleBill
"When you have a small group of people who are willing to lose their lives and kill anyone they can, we're all vulnerable."
Simply take out the word "their", and the description perfectly fits the CIA, MI6 and their like. For them, it's all a business
deal, nothing more - a massive slum-clearance project. Destroy people's houses, provide accommodation and food, ship them somewhere
else; do it again and again until the money-printing machine conks out. It's money for old rope.
And, yes, we're all vulnerable. The man got that right.
Duc888
"You get the politicians you deserve."
CIA types are appointed, not elected.
Duc888
I do not know if there are any Catherine Austin Fitts fans on this web site but this is definitely worth the time. The FEDGOV
came after her non stop for 6 years when she worked for HUD under Bush Sr. If nothing else this lady is tenacious. In this presentation
she uncorks exactly HOW the deep black budgets are paid for...and it ain't your tax dollars. What she uncovered while at HUD was
simply amazing..... and she made an excellent point. At the top... it's NOT "fraud" because that's how it was all deigned right
from the get go after wwII. It brings to mind the funny computer saying....."it's a feature, not a bug".
She digs right into how the CIA was funded... Truly amazing stuff. ...of course the dick head brigade will come along here
and deride her because of the conference she is speaking at.... well, who the fuck cares, her presentation is excellent and filled
with facts.
Yes it is 1 hour 20 minutes long but imho it is well worth the watch...
"... And I have yet to hear a mainstream journo challenge or question that word or ask what could be at stake that requires protective secrecy even as the U.S. government seemingly threatens to collapse around Michael Flynn, America's national security advisor for three weeks, and his relationship to Russia. Is there really any there there? ..."
"... I'm not suggesting that there isn't, or that it's all fake news. Trump and pals are undoubtedly entwined financially with Russian oligarchs, which of course is deeply problematic. And maybe there's more. And maybe some of that "more" is arguably classified for a valid reason, but I want, at the very least, to know why it's classified. What I read and hear feels, instead, like collusion: journalists unquestioningly honoring bureaucratic keep-out signs as objective, even sacred, stopping points. Public knowledge must go no further because . . . you know, national security. But the drama continues! ..."
"... And this is troubling to me because, for starters, nations built on secrecy are far more unstable than those that aren't. ..."
"... The United States is engaged in endless war, at unbelievable and never-discussed cost, to no end except destruction in all directions. Those who have launched and perpetuated the wars remain the determiners of what's classified and what isn't. And Russia lurks silently in the background as a new Cold War gestates. And the media participate not in reporting the news but promoting the drama. ..."
"... Occasionally this has not been the case. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Daniel Ellsberg photocopied a multi-thousand-page secret history of the Vietnam War in 1971 and handed it over to the New York Times. It was classified! But papers printed it. And Sen. Mike Gravel later read portions of the text aloud at a Senate subcommittee hearing. ..."
"... "These portions," notes history.com , "revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of US involvement in Vietnam, from Truman's decision to give military aid to France during its struggle against the communist-led Viet Minh to Johnson's development of plans to escalate the war in Vietnam as early as 1964, even as he claimed the opposite during that year's presidential election." ..."
"... Our own government, in short, is as untrustworthy as the governments of our allies and our enemies. Government officials left to operate free of public scrutiny – bereft of public input – have proven themselves over and over to be shockingly shortsighted and cold-blooded in their decision-making, and indifferent to the impact they have on the future. ..."
"... "It is nearly a truism," writes Jeffrey Sachs , "that US wars of regime change have rarely served America's security needs. Even when the wars succeed in overthrowing a government, as in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Moammar Khadafy in Libya, the result is rarely a stable government, and is more often a civil war. ..."
Classified America: Why Is the US Public Allowed To Know So Little?
by Robert Koehler
, May 13, 2017
Print This | Share This
For a journalist – especially one covering government and politics – the most suspicious, least
trustworthy word in the language ought to be: "classified."
As the drama continues to swirl around Russiagate, or whatever the central controversy of the
Trump administration winds up being known as, that word keeps popping up, teasingly, seductively:
"It appeared that there was a great deal more (former acting Attorney General Sally) Yates wished
she could share," the
Washington Post informed us the other day, for instance, "but most of the information surrounding
everything that happened remains classified."
And the drama continues! And I have yet to hear a mainstream journo challenge or question
that word or ask what could be at stake that requires protective secrecy even as the U.S. government
seemingly threatens to collapse around Michael Flynn, America's national security advisor for three
weeks, and his relationship to Russia. Is there really any there there?
I'm not suggesting that there isn't, or that it's all fake news. Trump and pals are undoubtedly
entwined financially with Russian oligarchs, which of course is deeply problematic. And maybe there's
more. And maybe some of that "more" is arguably classified for a valid reason, but I want, at the
very least, to know why it's classified. What I read and hear feels, instead, like collusion:
journalists unquestioningly honoring bureaucratic keep-out signs as objective, even sacred, stopping
points. Public knowledge must go no further because . . . you know, national security. But the drama
continues!
And this is troubling to me because, for starters, nations built on secrecy are far more unstable
than those that aren't. Job #1 of a free, independent media is the full-on, continuous challenge
to government secrecy. Such a media understands that it answers to the public, or rather, that it's
a manifestation of the public will. Stability and freedom are not the result of private tinkering.
And peace is something created openly. The best of who we are is contained in the public soul, not
bequeathed to us by unfathomably wise leaders.
So I cringe every time I hear the news stop at the word "classified." Indeed, in the Trump era,
it seems like a plot device: a way to maintain the drama. ". . . there was a great deal more Yates
wished she could share, but most of the information surrounding everything that happened remains
classified."
Stay tuned, and keep your imaginations turned to high! This is Russia we're talking about. They
messed with our election. They "attacked" us in cyberspace. We'd tell you more about how bad things
are, but . . . you know, national security.
If nothing else, this endless retreat behind the word "classified" is a waste of the Trump presidency.
This administration's recklessness is opening all sorts of random doors on national secrets that
need airing. It's not as though the country was sailing along smoothly and keeping the world safe
and peaceful till Donald Trump showed up.
Trump could well be making a bad situation worse, but, as
William Hartung pointed out: "After all, he inherited no less than seven conflicts from Barack
Obama: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria and Yemen."
The United States is engaged in endless war, at unbelievable and never-discussed cost, to
no end except destruction in all directions. Those who have launched and perpetuated the wars remain
the determiners of what's classified and what isn't. And Russia lurks silently in the background
as a new Cold War gestates. And the media participate not in reporting the news but promoting the
drama.
Occasionally this has not been the case. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Daniel Ellsberg photocopied
a multi-thousand-page secret history of the Vietnam War in 1971 and handed it over to the New York
Times. It was classified! But papers printed it. And Sen. Mike Gravel later read portions of the
text aloud at a Senate subcommittee hearing.
"These portions," notes
history.com
, "revealed that the presidential administrations of Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John
F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson had all misled the public about the degree of US involvement in
Vietnam, from Truman's decision to give military aid to France during its struggle against the communist-led
Viet Minh to Johnson's development of plans to escalate the war in Vietnam as early as 1964, even
as he claimed the opposite during that year's presidential election."
Our own government, in short, is as untrustworthy as the governments of our allies and our
enemies. Government officials left to operate free of public scrutiny – bereft of public input –
have proven themselves over and over to be shockingly shortsighted and cold-blooded in their decision-making,
and indifferent to the impact they have on the future.
"It is nearly a truism," writes
Jeffrey Sachs , "that US wars of regime change have rarely served America's security needs. Even
when the wars succeed in overthrowing a government, as in the case of the Taliban in Afghanistan,
Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Moammar Khadafy in Libya, the result is rarely a stable government, and
is more often a civil war. A 'successful' regime change often lights a long fuse leading to
a future explosion, such as the 1953 overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government and installation
of the autocratic Shah of Iran, which was followed by the Iranian Revolution of 1979."
All of this, and so much more, preceded Trump. He's only the tail end of our troubles.
"... The debate over whether Snowden was a traitor is fatuous. As a result of Snowden's revelations, we learned that the National Security Agency logged domestic phone calls and emails for years, recorded the metadata of correspondence between Americans, and, in some cases, exploited the content of emails. The case against Private Manning was similarly fatuous. Manning provided evidence of the US cover-up of torture by our Iraqi allies; a US Army helicopter opening fire on a group of civilians, including two Reuters journalists; and the use of an air strike to cover up the execution of civilians. Some of these acts were war crimes. ..."
"... According to US law, the term "whistleblower" applies to anyone who "reasonably believes" he or she is disclosing a violation of law or gross mismanagement, gross waste, or abuse of authority. My testimony documented for the first time the intentional distortion of intelligence by CIA director William Casey and Deputy Director Gates in order to serve the agenda of Ronald Reagan and his administration. ..."
"... Being a contrarian was easy and natural for me. In fact, no one should think about entering the intelligence profession without good contrarian instincts. Such instincts would include an innate skepticism, the doubting of conventional wisdom and a willingness to challenge authority, which translates to an ability to tell truth to power. These contrarian instincts are essential to the success of any intelligence organization. As Rogers and Hammerstein would have it, it was "doing what comes naturally!" ..."
"... My book The Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA was the first insider account from an intelligence analyst regarding the skewed and politicized assessments of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence -- the Agency's analytic arm. I also exposed the strategic failure of covert actions that were never intended to be a part of President Harry Truman's CIA ..."
"... The political pliancy of these directors fully compromised the intelligence mission of the CIA, and it was political pliancy that made directors such as Gates and Tenet so attractive to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. ..."
"... In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, Truman wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post to document the wrongs of the CIA He concluded that his efforts to "create the quiet intelligence arm of the Presidency" had been subverted by a "sinister" and "mysterious" agency that was conducting far too many clandestine activities in peacetime. I lectured at the Truman Library in the summer of 2014, and found a note in Truman's hand that stated the CIA was not designed to "initiate policy or to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized." ..."
"... In The Failure of Intelligence , I documented the CIA's resistance to reform and the corruption in both the analytical and operational directorates. I made a case for starting over at the CIA, not dissimilar from the case made by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan 25 years ago as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Not every agency or department of government can be reformed, and it is possible that the intricate web of habits, procedures, and culture places the CIA in the non-reformable category. Once the political culture of an institution such as the CIA has been broken, it is extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to rebuild or repair it. ..."
In this excerpt, , former CIA intelligence analyst Melvin A. Goodman ponders the meanings of the words whistleblower, dissident
and contrarian, how they apply to himself and others, and whether the CIA can ever be repaired or rebuilt.
Whistleblowers. Dissidents. Contrarians.
The terms are used synonymously by pundits and the public, and I've been all three at one time or another in order to expose improprieties
and illegalities in the secret government, and to inform the American public of policies that compromise the freedom and security
of US citizens and weaken US standing in the global community.
I have never liked the terms contrarian or dissident. I've always believed that my criticism should be conventional wisdom. The
term whistleblower is more complex because it often raises questions of patriotism or sedition. Chelsea Manning received commutation
from her 35-year prison sentence for revealing so-called secrets that documented the terror and violence of the baseless US war in
Iraq. Members of the Bush administration who launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 are considered honorable members of our society,
although their acts involved the corruption of intelligence; caused the death of thousands of US soldiers and foreign civilians;
terrorized civilian populations; perpetrated the criminal use of torture and abuse; sanctioned use of secret prisons and extraordinary
rendition; and caused the destabilization of the region that has set the stage for strategic advances by Al Qaeda and ISIS.
Edward Snowden, if he had remained in the United States, would have faced an even longer prison sentence because he revealed the
massive NSA surveillance program that was illegal and immoral, and that violated the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal
seizures and searches. Manning and Snowden admit to breaking US laws, but their actions were never as serious as the law-breaking,
including massive violations of privacy, that they exposed.
The debate over whether Snowden was a traitor is fatuous. As a result of Snowden's revelations, we learned that the National Security
Agency logged domestic phone calls and emails for years, recorded the metadata of correspondence between Americans, and, in some
cases, exploited the content of emails. The case against Private Manning was similarly fatuous. Manning provided evidence of the
US cover-up of torture by our Iraqi allies; a US Army helicopter opening fire on a group of civilians, including two Reuters journalists;
and the use of an air strike to cover up the execution of civilians. Some of these acts were war crimes.
There is no more compelling evidence of the unconscionable behavior of US personnel in Iraq than the callous dialogue between
the crew members of the helicopter regarding the civilian deaths and particularly the firing on those Iraqis who came to recover
the dead bodies of Iraqi civilians. Manning's documents exposed this behavior, but her efforts were ridiculed by former secretary
of defense Robert Gates, who described it as examining war by "looking through a straw."
To make matters worse, American journalists have criticized their colleagues (Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and Glenn Greenwald
[then of The Guardian]) who brought the Snowden-Manning revelations to the attention of the public. David Gregory, then host of the
venerable "Meet the Press" on NBC, asked Greenwald "to the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden ... why shouldn't you ...
be charged with a crime?"
Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer who labors for CNN and The New Yorker, called Snowden a "grandiose narcissist
who belongs in prison" and referred to Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, who was detained by British authorities for nine hours
under anti-terror laws, the equivalent of a "drug mule."
The king of calumny is Michael Grunwald, a senior correspondent for Time, who wrote on Twitter that he couldn't "wait to write
a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange." The New York Times also targeted Assange, although the paper cooperated
with WikiLeaks in 2010 in publishing reams of information from Private Manning's revelations. Of course, if Time or the New York
Times had broken these stories, they would have built new shelves to hold their Pulitzer Prizes.
Their hypocrisy was exposed by David
Carr of the New York Times, who expressed shock at finding Assange and Greenwald "under attack, not just from a government bent on
keeping its secrets, but from friendly fire by fellow journalists."
I didn't reveal abuses as great as those revealed by Manning and Snowden or Daniel Ellsberg, but I do claim status as a whistleblower
because of my revelations before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during confirmation hearings for Bob Gates, who was
nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 to be director of central intelligence.
According to US law, the term "whistleblower"
applies to anyone who "reasonably believes" he or she is disclosing a violation of law or gross mismanagement, gross waste, or abuse
of authority. My testimony documented for the first time the intentional distortion of intelligence by CIA director William Casey
and Deputy Director Gates in order to serve the agenda of Ronald Reagan and his administration.
Bob Gates was an old friend, but the friendship ended when he routinely distorted intelligence throughout the 1980s as deputy
director for intelligence and deputy director of the CIA In destroying the political culture of the CIA, he created a toxic and corrupt
environment at the Agency, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA detention and torture reminds us that the Agency
hasn't recovered.
Being a contrarian was easy and natural for me. In fact, no one should think about entering the intelligence profession without
good contrarian instincts. Such instincts would include an innate skepticism, the doubting of conventional wisdom and a willingness
to challenge authority, which translates to an ability to tell truth to power. These contrarian instincts are essential to the success
of any intelligence organization. As Rogers and Hammerstein would have it, it was "doing what comes naturally!"
My book The Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA was the first insider account from an intelligence
analyst regarding the skewed and politicized assessments of the CIA's Directorate of Intelligence -- the Agency's analytic arm. I
also exposed the strategic failure of covert actions that were never intended to be a part of President Harry Truman's CIA
I wrote
the book for many reasons, including the need to describe the inability of journalists to take into account, let alone understand,
the dangers of politicization and the actions of CIA directors such as Casey, Gates, and more recently Goss and Tenet. The political
pliancy of these directors fully compromised the intelligence mission of the CIA, and it was political pliancy that made directors
such as Gates and Tenet so attractive to Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
For the past quarter century, my testimony and writings have exposed the failure to honor President Truman's purpose in creating
a CIA to provide policymakers with accurate, unbiased accounts of international developments, and have highlighted the CIA's readiness
to cater to the White House. This view is not original with me; in fact, it was President Truman who first acknowledged that the
CIA he created in 1947 had gotten off the tracks under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy in the 1950s and early
1960s.
In December 1963, less than a month after the assassination of President Kennedy, Truman wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post
to document the wrongs of the CIA He concluded that his efforts to "create the quiet intelligence arm of the Presidency" had been
subverted by a "sinister" and "mysterious" agency that was conducting far too many clandestine activities in peacetime. I lectured
at the Truman Library in the summer of 2014, and found a note in Truman's hand that stated the CIA was not designed to "initiate
policy or to act as a spy organization. That was never the intention when it was organized."
In The Failure of Intelligence , I documented the CIA's resistance to reform and the corruption in both the analytical
and operational directorates. I made a case for starting over at the CIA, not dissimilar from the case made by Senator Daniel Patrick
Moynihan 25 years ago as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Not every agency or department of government can
be reformed, and it is possible that the intricate web of habits, procedures, and culture places the CIA in the non-reformable category.
Once the political culture of an institution such as the CIA has been broken, it is extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to
rebuild or repair it.
Assange actually undermined the key pre-condition of the Deep state existence -- secrecy.
Notable quotes:
"... Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. ..."
"... The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US empire. ..."
"... HItchen's Razor: "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." ..."
I'm just going to toss this one here at the end because I'm seeing it go around a lot in the
wake of the Mueller report.
Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has
claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks' 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that
WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth
Rich.
This claim is unsubstantiated because, as we discussed in Smear 4, the public has not seen a
shred of evidence proving who was or was not WikiLeaks' source, so there's no way to know there
was any deception happening there. We've never seen any hard proof, nor indeed anything besides
official narrative, connecting the Russian government to Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer 2.0 to
WikiLeaks, and Daniel Lazare for Consortium News documents that there are in fact some
major
plot holes in Mueller's timeline. Longtime Assange friend and WikiLeaks ally Craig Murray
maintains that he knows the
source of the DNC Leaks and Podesta Emails were two different Americans, not Russians, and
hints that one of them was a DNC insider. There is exactly as much publicly available evidence
for Murray's claim as there is for Mueller's.
Mainstream media has been blaring day after day for years that it is an absolute known fact
that the Russian government was WikiLeaks' source, and the only reason people scoff and roll
their eyes at anyone who makes the indisputably factual claim that we've seen no evidence for
this is because
the illusory truth effect causes the human brain to mistake repetition for fact.
The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he
implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something
happened, and it's interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There's no evidence for any
of this, and there's no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which
incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US
empire.
And I guess that's it for now. Again, this article is an ongoing project, so I'll be
updating it and adding to it regularly as new information comes in and new smears need
refutation. If I missed something or got something wrong, or even if you spotted a typo, please
email me at [email protected] and let
me know. I'm trying to create the best possible tool for people to refute Assange smears, so
I'll keep sharpening this baby to make sure it cuts like a razor. Thanks for reading, and
thanks to everyone who helped! Phew! That was long.
We don't have to like Julian Assange, but the release of the "Collateral Damage" video
alone is enough to justify defending Assange and the freedom of the press.
She really didn't debunk the thing about Seth Rich very well. Basically just said that
whatever Mueller said wasn't true, which doesn't go very far for me. He definitely did imply
that he got at least some of his info from Rich so if there is some sort of proof of that, it
needs to be supplied; otherwise Mueller's story is the only one.
I have recently seen a political cartoon with Dotard then saying: "I love Wikileaks" + " I
will throw her in jail" and now saying: "I know nothing about Wikileaks" + "I will throw him
in jail"
It summed up perfectly that swine's lack of integrity.
It's so simple. Assange and Wikileaks exposed Hillary, Podesta, and the entire DNC to be
lying, deceiving, hypocritical, disingenuous, elitist bastards. His crimes are miniscule
compared to that, and all who attempt to condemn Assange only show us that they are members
of that foul group.
Excellent thorough content. And Kim Schmitz pointed out they'll drag things on for as long
as possible and try to add additional things as they go. Such a bunch of sad, pathetic
control freaks. Covering up their own failures, crimes and short comings with a highly
publicized distraction putting the screws to a single journalist.
“ Ty Clevenger has FOIAed information from NSA asking for any data that involved
both Seth Rich and also Julian Assange .
And they responded by saying we’ve got 15 files , 32 pages , but they’re all
classified in accordance with executive order 13526 covering classification, and therefore
you can’t have them.
That says that NSA has records of communications between Seth Rich and Julian Assange. I
mean, that’s the only business that NSA is in — copying communications between
people and devices.”
Assange and Snowden are freedom fighters, exposing the duplicitous, corrupt, and criminals
to the entire world.
The hundreds of millions of mindless zombies are so brainwashed by the fake news industry,
that if Assange and Snowden are not spies, they are criminal in some capacity.
I have liberal, conservative, and libertarian leaning friends, and virtually every one of
them believe Assange and Snowden are traitors to America, got innocent people killed, are
rapists, or too cowardly to stand trial in the USA.
What has happened to common sense and some necessary cynicism?
Why even bother arguing with these people. Assange gave up his liberty to reveal the
truth, and the American public said in essence "so what." No one except the leakers and
whistle-blowers faced any punishment, and I can't think of a single national politician who
even talks about doing anything about the misconduct that was revealed. Yeah, a small
percentage of the population is outraged at what was revealed, but the vast majority
literally don't give a ****.
Hehe... I guess you will find out how wrong you are in 2020 :-) His release of Hillary's
emails gave Trump 2016... and him turning his back on Assange took away his chances in
2020
Most regular readers on ZH know but this is an echo chamber for "Always Trumpers" so there
won't be many commenters on this article. Rather than defend his DOJ's extradition attempts
with implausible theories they'll be chattering back and forth about the Mueller Report.
Agreed. It's amazing to me that people who claim to be believers of the MAGA message don't
see the harm associated with the arrest of Assange, and all of the other uniparty **** Trump
is perpetuating. A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.
Yeah and yet.... everyone seemed to credit Hillary's loss to the release of her emails on
wikileaks... Hmm that narrative that seems to be trying to minimize the impact on Trumps
chances in 2020 really breaks down in the face of that fact doesn't it?? Trump has no hope...
just stop... get behind a republican that has a chance... Trump doesn't... he lost half of
his base... get over it...
"... My reasoning starts with a desire to counter Russian and Chinese assertiveness as proposed by Kissinger in an WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 in which Kissinger expressed a desire for a strengthened USA - very much aligned with what one might expect a MAGA nationalist President to achieve. ..."
"... Kissinger is considered to be the "dean" of US FP establishment and his opinions are respected by 'Deep State' leaders that I mentioned. ..."
Did he order the new McCarthyism (aka "Code Red") which included electing Trump as
President, setting up Wikileaks to be smeared as a foreign agent, and settling scores with
Michael Flynn?
Acting on 'Deep State' approval from the likes of Clinton, McCain, Mueller, Bush Sr., et
al.
"Brennan on trial" is an imagined future occurrence based on informed speculation that
I've previously described.
My reasoning starts with a desire to counter Russian and Chinese assertiveness as
proposed by Kissinger in an WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 in which Kissinger expressed a desire
for a strengthened USA - very much aligned with what one might expect a MAGA nationalist
President to achieve.
Kissinger is considered to be the "dean" of US FP establishment and his opinions are
respected by 'Deep State' leaders that I mentioned.
"... When Mossad was caught by an alert bystander planting a bomb under a car in Tel Aviv, it was later announced that it had all been a "training exercise gone awry". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8377746.stm ..."
"... When bomb parts (not yet assembled) mailed to the US embassy in Tunisia were discovered by Fedex workers at Charles de Gaulle airport the ready explanation was...you guessed it..."training exercise gone awry". https://www.yahoo.com/news/tempers-flare-paris-airport-fake-bombs-found-070909988.html ..."
"... The culprit is most likely the same of always, US and Israel intelligence, acting directly or through contractors... ..."
Speaking of Tunisia, there were bomb parts being mailed in the other direction - from
the US to the embassy in Tunisia.
The bomb parts were discovered by accident and so the best response was ... "nothing to see
here, folks, just a training exercise".
Often wondered what the planned abort scenario was for 9/11 .
If the CIA etal had indeed wired the towers with explosives
how would they go about deinstalling said explosives if there
had been a major muck up and the plans for 9/11 were called off or delayed?
"Training exercises" is a good cover.
When Mossad was caught
by an alert bystander planting a bomb under a car in Tel Aviv, it was
later announced that it had all been a "training exercise gone awry".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8377746.stm
"September 8, 2001: Bioterrorism Exercise Is Held at a New York Airport
A training exercise is held at New York's La Guardia Airport, based around the scenario of
a terrorist attack with a biological weapon"
And, you probably recall that active anthrax was being shipped,
although "no one was at fault", for years all over the place.
That is, anthrax created by the Pentagon that was "believed to be inactive" was actually
live anthrax
and being shipped around the world. But no one was at fault.
Thus, if someone decided to pull the plug on 9/11 and had to remove
the explosives from the towers they could have declared
"training exercise has gone awry". The Pentagon could merely declare that
they had held an adjunct exercise in the towers and what the biological terror
exercise thought was inactive anthrax was actually live and the
towers would need to be evacuated while decontamination took place.
That could have been the ready made abort-scenario to 9/11 .
Nor it would be very difficult to imagine that just after naming the IRGC as terrorist
organization, they will be most probably to blame....Sounds like the perfect alibi to
unleash the WoT on Iran...
The simple explanation is the the explosives were supposed to end up in Kuwait where our
soldier friend would use them for whatever murderous or false flag mischief his owners
commanded. The luggage wasn't supposed to be checked by the plebs in Kuwait but due to the
mission being cancelled the goods ended up in their hands. The conduit from Tunisia to
Kuwait was primed to let the cargo through but there was not enough time to set up the
transit from Kuwait to the USA. Hence the discovery by the wrong people.
Anon @1: Yes, C4 is one of the most stable explosives currently in use, you can throw it,
hit it, drop it, shoot it, even set fire to it and it will not detonate, unless you run a
electric current through it (even a tiny current like from a watch battery can set it off).
Without a detonator the C4 would be almost harmless (there's a tiny, tiny chance a static
electric spark could detonate it if the C4 wasn't property prepared for transit). So,
assuming there wasn't a detonator with the C4, I would lean to this C4 being smuggled to
somewhere to be sold or used in an assassination attempt, rather than an attempt to bring
down an airplane.
The simple explanation is the the explosives were supposed to end up in Kuwait
Posted by: corkie | Apr 18, 2019 7:38:02 PM | 17
Another possibility - in my view significantly more likely - is that the originally
intended destination for the explosive was the US, and that the Soldier-Mule was the patsy.
I.e. the putative posting to Kuwait AND its annulment were set up to enable means
for the bag to go through special handling channels that would normally get only token
inspection. The text from LW confirms that inspection was indeed utterly token at almost
every step, and the alertness of the Kuwaitis was probably unanticipated because they were
out of the loop. One critical stage in the transfer - that an explosive detector would be
in the path and switched on - was not adequately planned for by the plotters.
The aim would most likely be to get undocumented C4 into the US, as whoever
planned this operation might well have access to documented C4 in the US anyway. That might
well signal planned false flag use, so that the false flag can be more easily be blamed on
someone else. A putative culprit might be some minor faction in the Deep State.
One possible target for the false flag might be
Russia/Iran/Hezbolla/Syria/China/Venezuela etc ... but in my view this has the wiff of
having a somewhat smaller faction behind it, such as NAZIs/white supremacists. What
immediately comes to mind was the incident a couple of years ago where a German NAZI
sympethising member of the Bundeswehr smuggles weapons and(?) explosives into a stach
hidden in a toilet in an Austrian airport for a planned terrorist incident. I haven't
followed it/read anything about it recently, but a large network of NAZI sympethising
supremacists was unearthed inside and throughout the Bundeswehr in the course of the
investigation. Linked is the well established fact that the NAZI movement have extremely
high level and strong infiltration in the German BND, police, judiciary, Ministry of
Interior, etc - for example one time when a court ordered the Interior Ministry to hand
over documents about NAZI activities in Germany, the Interior Ministry illegally shredded
millions of documents rather than hand them over.
In my opinion, it would be a wise move by Russia to start as quickly as possible a
covert collaboration with countries around the world - including relatively minor US allies
- to ensure that ALL US embassy incidental traffic, such as the bag in this case,
get an effective check for explosives, fire hazards, chemical weapons, bio weapons and
drugs, despite the official channels giving only token inspection. The recent surge in
incidents (or perhaps only the recent exposure of longstandingly regular incidents??)
involving US soldiers and weapons/explosives might be read as an indication of a widespread
threat.
In that case, the most probable scenario was that this marine simply wanted to ship the
C4 to the USA in order to do a terrorist attack in American soil, not to take down a
plane.
Assuming that it is correct, who might be the most likely culprit?
Making that assumption, I want to focus on this part:
The U.S. embassy in Kuwait contacted a contracted private company to send the
package to the U.S. on board of an American airline.
Government is evil. Therefore hiring enough vetted US citizens to run an embassy is to be
avoided if a Private Company can be paid to do the same job. It's been done in the Military.
NASA. National Intelligence has been "privatized". (think Edward Snowden)
What shocked me most from the recent story here about Torturer Gina Haspel lying to Trump
wasn't that she did it. The woman has no scruples at all, and her misbehavior is hardly a
surprise. The NYT piece was just another story about an ignorant old man who can be easily
managed. No, here is the part which jumped out at me.
"Houseflies buzzing around the Oval Office were drawing his attention, and ire.
After reading that I'd be surprised if there is a competent core of White House GOVERNMENT
workers remaining there. Nobody to manage the flying vermin. It took the director of the CIA
to send over some flypaper!
I doubt if the Trumpies could organize a 1-float parade, so the lax security could be
almost anywhere in the chain of events. But my present vote is on a Private Company. It might
be the transport company. If they don't have junior staffers in the Embassy to run simple
missions like delivering a package, they probably don't have an in-house cleaning staff,
either. So they may hire some locals to come in and mop and sweep the joint. Inexpensive
Outsiders.
"... Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's national security state. ..."
"... Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That country is, of course, Israel." ..."
Behind the Omar Outrage: Suppressed History of the pro-Israel Lobby
Max Blumenthal's article and his 2019 book, The Management of Savagery: How America's
National Security State Fueled the Rise of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Donald Trump (2019), is an
impressive exercise in burying the lede.
Blumenthal does chronicle a decades-long panoply of active measures by numerous pro-Israel
Lobby figures, groups and think tanks. Yet he fails to explicitly recognize the connection
between pro-Israel Lobby efforts and the covert operations and overt invasions of America's
national security state.
Julian Assange of Wikileaks was more explicit. Assange named the "country that has
interfered in U.S. elections, has endangered Americans living or working overseas and has
corrupted America's legislative and executive branches. It has exploited that corruption to
initiate legislation favorable to itself, has promoted unnecessary and unwinnable wars and
has stolen American technology and military secrets. Its ready access to the mainstream media
to spread its own propaganda provides it with cover for its actions and it accomplishes all
that and more through the agency of a powerful and well-funded domestic lobby [ ] That
country is, of course, Israel."
Speaking of Tunisia, there were bomb parts being mailed in the other direction - from
the US to the embassy in Tunisia.
The bomb parts were discovered by accident and so the best response was ... "nothing to see
here, folks, just a training exercise".
Often wondered what the planned abort scenario was for 9/11 .
If the CIA etal had indeed wired the towers with explosives
how would they go about deinstalling said explosives if there
had been a major muck up and the plans for 9/11 were called off or delayed?
"Training exercises" is a good cover.
When Mossad was caught
by an alert bystander planting a bomb under a car in Tel Aviv, it was
later announced that it had all been a "training exercise gone awry". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8377746.stm
"September 8, 2001: Bioterrorism Exercise Is Held at a New York Airport
A training exercise is held at New York's La Guardia Airport, based around the scenario of
a terrorist attack with a biological weapon"
And, you probably recall that active anthrax was being shipped,
although "no one was at fault", for years all over the place.
That is, anthrax created by the Pentagon that was "believed to be inactive" was actually
live anthrax
and being shipped around the world. But no one was at fault.
Thus, if someone decided to pull the plug on 9/11 and had to remove
the explosives from the towers they could have declared
"training exercise has gone awry". The Pentagon could merely declare that
they had held an adjunct exercise in the towers and what the biological terror
exercise thought was inactive anthrax was actually live and the
towers would need to be evacuated while decontamination took place.
That could have been the ready made abort-scenario to 9/11 .
Nor it would be very difficult to imagine that just after naming the IRGC as terrorist
organization, they will be most probably to blame....Sounds like the perfect alibi to
unleash the WoT on Iran...
The simple explanation is the the explosives were supposed to end up in Kuwait where our
soldier friend would use them for whatever murderous or false flag mischief his owners
commanded. The luggage wasn't supposed to be checked by the plebs in Kuwait but due to the
mission being cancelled the goods ended up in their hands. The conduit from Tunisia to
Kuwait was primed to let the cargo through but there was not enough time to set up the
transit from Kuwait to the USA. Hence the discovery by the wrong people.
Anon @1: Yes, C4 is one of the most stable explosives currently in use, you can throw it,
hit it, drop it, shoot it, even set fire to it and it will not detonate, unless you run a
electric current through it (even a tiny current like from a watch battery can set it off).
Without a detonator the C4 would be almost harmless (there's a tiny, tiny chance a static
electric spark could detonate it if the C4 wasn't property prepared for transit). So,
assuming there wasn't a detonator with the C4, I would lean to this C4 being smuggled to
somewhere to be sold or used in an assassination attempt, rather than an attempt to bring
down an airplane.
The simple explanation is the the explosives were supposed to end up in Kuwait
Posted by: corkie | Apr 18, 2019 7:38:02 PM | 17
Another possibility - in my view significantly more likely - is that the originally
intended destination for the explosive was the US, and that the Soldier-Mule was the patsy.
I.e. the putative posting to Kuwait AND its annulment were set up to enable means
for the bag to go through special handling channels that would normally get only token
inspection. The text from LW confirms that inspection was indeed utterly token at almost
every step, and the alertness of the Kuwaitis was probably unanticipated because they were
out of the loop. One critical stage in the transfer - that an explosive detector would be
in the path and switched on - was not adequately planned for by the plotters.
The aim would most likely be to get undocumented C4 into the US, as whoever
planned this operation might well have access to documented C4 in the US anyway. That might
well signal planned false flag use, so that the false flag can be more easily be blamed on
someone else. A putative culprit might be some minor faction in the Deep State.
One possible target for the false flag might be
Russia/Iran/Hezbolla/Syria/China/Venezuela etc ... but in my view this has the wiff of
having a somewhat smaller faction behind it, such as NAZIs/white supremacists. What
immediately comes to mind was the incident a couple of years ago where a German NAZI
sympethising member of the Bundeswehr smuggles weapons and(?) explosives into a stach
hidden in a toilet in an Austrian airport for a planned terrorist incident. I haven't
followed it/read anything about it recently, but a large network of NAZI sympethising
supremacists was unearthed inside and throughout the Bundeswehr in the course of the
investigation. Linked is the well established fact that the NAZI movement have extremely
high level and strong infiltration in the German BND, police, judiciary, Ministry of
Interior, etc - for example one time when a court ordered the Interior Ministry to hand
over documents about NAZI activities in Germany, the Interior Ministry illegally shredded
millions of documents rather than hand them over.
In my opinion, it would be a wise move by Russia to start as quickly as possible a
covert collaboration with countries around the world - including relatively minor US allies
- to ensure that ALL US embassy incidental traffic, such as the bag in this case,
get an effective check for explosives, fire hazards, chemical weapons, bio weapons and
drugs, despite the official channels giving only token inspection. The recent surge in
incidents (or perhaps only the recent exposure of longstandingly regular incidents??)
involving US soldiers and weapons/explosives might be read as an indication of a widespread
threat.
@5 I had listed some curious incidences of "training exercises" including a bioterrorism
training exercise that happened in New York three
days before 9/11.
I am adding to my own personal notes another bioterrorism training exercise that
happened just prior to the highly suspicious Skripal poisoning.
-------
Add to the list, "Toxic Dagger", a biological/chemical training exercise held
just prior to the Skripal poisoning. Toxic Dagger is the largest annual British army
biological/chemical training exercise.
"Completing the training and exercising against these scenarios provides
a challenging programme for the Royal Marines to demonstrate their proficiency in
the methods to detect, assess and mitigate a CBRN threat."
The first person to discover the Skripals was the Chief Nursing Officer of the
British Army (whose experience includes deployment to Sierre Leone to help
fight Ebola).
"An experienced officer, highly connected, who is also known for handling highly
infectious patients?"
The nurse claimed later that it was actually her daughter that was with her
that detected and assessed the Skripal scenario.
The daughter was 16 at the time and we presume the Lifesaver Award she
received would be a feather in her cap useful for her imminent application
for admission to a university. Wonder if Lori Loughlin had thought of
using such an angle?
Btw on the Skripal thing does that nurse also run over to every "spice" zombie she sees in
public? Anyone in a puddle of their own partly digested booze? Does she go hunting under
bridges for heroin addicts and glue sniffers? Does she check on everyone sleeping on a
bench or in some doorway? It is England after all.
Weird hobby she's got and with her kid in tow too :P
(Yes I'm being facetious about a bullshit narrative straight out of the
1950ies).
In that case, the most probable scenario was that this marine simply wanted to ship the
C4 to the USA in order to do a terrorist attack in American soil, not to take down a
plane.
Assuming that it is correct, who might be the most likely culprit?
Making that assumption, I want to focus on this part:
The U.S. embassy in Kuwait contacted a contracted private company to send the
package to the U.S. on board of an American airline.
Government is evil. Therefore hiring enough vetted US citizens to run an embassy is to be
avoided if a Private Company can be paid to do the same job. It's been done in the Military.
NASA. National Intelligence has been "privatized". (think Edward Snowden)
What shocked me most from the recent story here about Torturer Gina Haspel lying to Trump
wasn't that she did it. The woman has no scruples at all, and her misbehavior is hardly a
surprise. The NYT piece was just another story about an ignorant old man who can be easily
managed. No, here is the part which jumped out at me.
"Houseflies buzzing around the Oval Office were drawing his attention, and ire.
After reading that I'd be surprised if there is a competent core of White House GOVERNMENT
workers remaining there. Nobody to manage the flying vermin. It took the director of the CIA
to send over some flypaper!
I doubt if the Trumpies could organize a 1-float parade, so the lax security could be
almost anywhere in the chain of events. But my present vote is on a Private Company. It might
be the transport company. If they don't have junior staffers in the Embassy to run simple
missions like delivering a package, they probably don't have an in-house cleaning staff,
either. So they may hire some locals to come in and mop and sweep the joint. Inexpensive
Outsiders.
British propaganda is clearly as close to neofascist propaganda as one can get... British neocons are even closer to neofascists then the US neocons. And British security services are closer to
the Third Reich security services then any other.
Skripals is a such a grandiose false flag operation that Gellen (of operation Gladio fame) probably would be amazed and humbled.
Notable quotes:
"... The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story.... ..."
"... If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written previously. ..."
"... Oh dear oh dear.. It appears the UK may be denying there were any poor ducks involved... https://twitter.com/haynesdeborah/status/1118409471754153984 ..."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any remaining
truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be concluded to be
a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything said by UK's
Tory government.
"The official narrative of the Salisbury incident is ever-fluctuating. Seemingly each and
every article, news segment, official statement or documentary about any element of the case
contains new information, requiring the established account to be at least partially
rewritten and/or contradicting established elements of the story....
"If nothing else, that Haynes was willing to transmit an apparently obvious fiction speaks
volumes about the willingness of mainstream journalists to parrot each and every fresh claim
in the Skripal case, even if it wildly conflicts with what they themselves have written
previously."
"Difficult to verify your version of events given it involves nameless officials. Knowing
you're often used by security services to peddle propaganda seemed a reasonable assumption
they'd urged you to backtrack your earlier advocacy as story detonates official #Skripal
narrative."
It seems highly reasonable to conclude the NY Times item has blown away any
remaining truthfulness to the Skripal Saga and the entire Saga--like Russiagate--can be
concluded to be a very serious hoax, and that there's no reason whatsoever to trust anything
said by UK's Tory government.
I am not sure if it is clear for folks on the far side of NYT paywall that NYT reported on "children and ducks" not merely
as a quote of CIA director, but as a straight fact. This is the caption of one of the photos illustrating the article: "A former
Russian intelligence officer, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter were poisoned last year in Britain in a slipshod attack that also
sickened children, killed ducks and required careful cleanup.CreditWill Oliver/EPA, via Shutterstock"
I'm willing to believe a lot of things about the Brits and Haspel, but "stupid" isn't one of them. That they tried the Skripal
stunt demonstrates they had great confidence in their control of the UK and US press, and I'll concede that confidence was justified.
Note Haspel hasn't denied any aspect of the news item.
Why perpetrate a hoax like the Skripal Saga, which was all too real for the one confirmed dead.
Taregt: Russia
Why? Previous sanctions not performing as anticipated--indeed, they are actually backfiring.
But if that policy line's already a proven failure, why double-down?
When faced with failure, Neocons always double-down.
Meanwhile, sanctions employed for almost 4 years when Skripal Act 1 begins clearly aren't working, which brings up the question
of how Russia is actually perceived by the genuine International Community--did the provocations and sanctions diminish Russia's
standing in the world prior to March 2018?
Given ever growing attendance to Russian sponsored and located symposiums, Russia's reputation seems to be growing at the expense
of the smearing nations.
Motive for Skripal Hoax: To do what sanctions couldn't.
Outcome of Skripal Hoax: Russian reputation higher than ever. Indeed, the two hoaxes have had the opposite affect on Russia's
international standing and the entire sanctions regime helped to make Russia stronger than it otherwise would be without their
imposition.
"... Haspel is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy. ..."
"... In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President. This has been the case in the US since Kennedy. ..."
"... Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway. ..."
"If Trump were not in on the schemes he would just fire his underlings!"
This sentiment indicates a failure to understand the power dynamics at play here. Haspel
is not the "underling" . Trump is the underling. Sure, being that he is also an
oligarch makes Trump's role in the show complicated, but Presidents are installed in order to
serve the oligarchy, and the CIA are top level strategists/enforcers for the oligarchy.
In the real organization chart for the empire the CIA is above the President.
This has been the case in the US since Kennedy.
Trump cannot fire Haspel or Pompeo. They can fire him, though, and with a sniper's bullet
if they want.
Unfortunately for the oligarchy, that would cause additional complications at a time when
they have lots of tricky and inexplicably unstable (for them) operations ongoing, which is
why they are just steering Trump around instead of replacing him. And Trump is willfully
cooperating, even if they are not filling him in on the plans.
Trump will not fire Haspel. He can't. He's just an actor playing a role in a show, and
Haspel is one of the producers/writers of that show. If she doesn't put firing in the script
then Trump cannot say those lines. I doubt he really wants to anyway.
"Here is what we now know, per intelligence gleaned form federal law enforcement sources with insider knowledge of what amounts
to a plot by U.S. intelligence agencies to secure back door and illegal wiretaps of President Trump's associates:
Six U.S. agencies created a stealth task force, spearhead by CIA’s Brennan, to run domestic surveillance on Trump associates and
possibly Trump himself. To feign ignorance and to seemingly operate within U.S. laws, the agencies freelanced the wiretapping of
Trump associates to the British spy agency GCHQ. The decision to insert GCHQ as a back door to eavesdrop was sparked by the denial
of two FISA Court warrant applications filed by the FBI to seek wiretaps of Trump associates. GCHQ did not work from London or the
UK. In fact the spy agency worked from NSA’s headquarters in Fort Meade, MD with direct NSA supervision and guidance to conduct sweeping
surveillance on Trump associates. The illegal wiretaps were initiated months before the controversial Trump dossier compiled by former
British spy Christopher Steele. The Justice Department and FBI set up the meeting at Trump Tower between Trump Jr., Manafort and
Kushner with controversial Russian officials to make Trump’s associates appear compromised. Following the Trump Tower sit down, GCHQ
began digitally wiretapping Manafort, Trump Jr., and Kushner. After the concocted meeting by the Deep State, the British spy agency
could officially justify wiretapping Trump associates as an intelligence front for NSA because the Russian lawyer at the meeting
Natalia Veselnitskaya was considered an international security risk and prior to the June sit down was not even allowed entry into
the United States or the UK, federal sources said. By using GCHQ, the NSA and its intelligence partners had carved out a loophole
to wiretap Trump without a warrant. While it is illegal for U.S. agencies to monitor phones and emails of U.S. citizens inside the
United States absent a warrant, it is not illegal for British intelligence to do so. Even if the GCHQ was tapping Trump on U.S. soil
at Fort Meade. The wiretaps, secured through illicit scheming, have been used by U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of alleged
Russian collusion in the 2016 election, even though the evidence is considered “poisoned fruit.”
-----------.
Someone left this link in a comment to LJ, but as ringmaster of this circus, I choose to publish this as the best summary of all
the threads of the supposed conspiracy that I have seen thus far. pl
Wikipedia page on Paul Manafort says that the FBI began a criminal investigation into him in 2014, associated with his previous
dealings in Ukraine. He could have been a target of surveillance and wiretapping since then.
I therefore think Manafort was the key the intelligence agencies used to get to into Trump's organisation. It may have been
initially incidental to their ongoing, and much earlier surveillance of Manafort.
Robert Poling said...
Thank-you for this summary. If confirmed, Brennan (and others in the group he formed to spy on Trump and Trump's campaign)
should go to jail. Congress specifically forbid American spy agencies spying on American citizens in the U.S. Since that Congressional
action, the CIA and NSA have gotten around it by having foreign partners among the 'five eyes' do the collecting and then passing
the information back to us.
The spying on Trump was done at the behest of Obama and his minions. I'm reminded of an American president who was hounded
from office by the mainstream press for sending minions to spy and collect dirt at the opposition's political headquarters. He
had to resign and leave office. Several involved in the burglary went to jail and lost their livelihoods. Why is this situation
today any different and why is there a delay in prosecuting them? It's because the major media is bought out and controlled by
Trump's political opponents and not demanding justice, indeed is providing cover and excuses for them
Intelligence agencies, once created, has their own development dynamics and tend to escape from the control of
civilians and in turn control them. Such an interesting dynamics. In any case, the intelligence agencies and first of all top
brass of those agencies constitute the the core of the "deep state". Unlike civiliant emplorres they are protected by the veil of
secrecy and has access to large funds. Bush the elder was probably the first deep state creature who became the president of the
USA, but "special relationship" of Obama and Brennan is also not a secret.
Another problem is that secrecy and access to surveillance, Which gives intelligence agencies the ability to blackmail politicians.
Availability of unaccounted financial
resources make them real kingmakers. In a sense, as soon as such agencies were created the tail started waging the dog.
Notable quotes:
"... Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry Truman (1943-53) reportedly characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five decades – as the nation's top law enforcer? ..."
"... One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb. ..."
"... JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ. Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ into the White House. ..."
"... However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald – a cover-up that persists to this day. ..."
"... But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career. ..."
"... Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others ..."
No other individual in modern US history has a more sinister legacy than John Edgar Hoover,
the founder and lifetime director of the FBI. He founded the bureau in 1924 and was its
director until his death in 1972 at the age of 77.
Serving under nine presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon, the FBI was turned
into a "Gestapo by Hoover whose modus operandi was blackmail". That's how President Harry
Truman (1943-53) reportedly
characterized Hoover's bureau. How else do you think he survived for so long – five
decades – as the nation's top law enforcer?
J Edgar Hoover and his henchmen kept files on thousands of politicians, judges, journalists
and other public figures, according to
biographer Anthony Summers. Hoover ruthlessly used those files on the secret and often sordid
private lives of senior public figures to control their career conduct and official decisions
so as to serve his interests.
And Hoover's interests were of a rightwing, anti-communist, racist bigot.
Ironically, his own suppressed homosexuality also manifested in witch-hunts against
homosexuals in public life.
It was Hoover's secret files that largely informed the McCarthyite anti-communist
inquisitions of the 1950s, whose baleful legacy on American democracy, foreign policy and
freedom of expression continues to this day.
One of Hoover's mainstay sources is strongly believed to be Mafia crime bosses who had lots
of dirt on politicians, from bribe-taking to vote-rigging, to illicit sexual affairs. It is
suspected that the Mafia had their own dossier of images on Hoover in a compromising homosexual
tryst which, in turn, kept him under their thumb.
Absurdly, the FBI chief maintained that there was "no such thing as the Mafia" in public
statements.
Two notorious cases of how FBI wiretapping worked under Hoover can be seen in the
presidencies of John F Kennedy (1961-63) and Richard Nixon (1969-74).
As recounted by Laurent Guyénot in his 2013 book , 'JFK to 9/11: 50
Years of Deep State', Hoover made a point of letting each new president know of compromising
information he had on them. It wouldn't be brandished overtly as blackmail; the president would
be briefed subtly, "Sir, if someone were to have copies of this it would be damaging to your
career". Enough said.
JFK was particularly wide open to blackmail owing to his rampant promiscuity and
extra-marital liaisons, including with screen idol Marilyn Monroe. Kennedy more than once
confided to his aides that "the bastards" had him nailed. It was for this reason that he made
the thuggish Texan Senator Lyndon B Johnson his vice president even though he detested LBJ.
Hoover and Johnson were longtime associates and the former no doubt pulled a favor to get LBJ
into the White House.
However, Hoover's blackmail on JFK was not enough to curtail his defiance of rabidly
anti-communist Cold War politics. Against the hostility of the Pentagon, CIA and FBI, Kennedy
pursued a courageous policy of detente with the Soviet Union and Cuba. Such a policy no doubt
led to his assassination by the Deep State in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There is ample
evidence that Hoover and Johnson, who became the new president, then colluded with the Deep
State assassins to cover up the assassination as the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald –
a cover-up that persists to this day.
As for Richard Nixon, it is believed that "Tricky Dicky" engaged in secret communications
with the US-backed South Vietnamese regime on the cusp of the presidential elections in 1968.
Nixon promised the South Vietnamese stronger military support if they held off entering peace
talks with communist North Vietnam, which incumbent President Johnson was trying to organize.
LBJ wanted to claim a peace process was underway in order to boost the election chances of his
vice president Hubert Humphrey.
Nixon's scheming prevailed. The Vietnam peace gambit was scuttled, the Vietnam war raged on,
and so the Democrat candidate lost. Nixon finally got into the White House, which he had long
coveted from the time he lost out to JFK back in 1960.
But Hoover and Johnson got their revenge by subsequently letting Nixon know that there was
classified information on him – thanks to FBI wiretaps. The specter of incrimination is
possibly a factor in Nixon becoming increasingly paranoid during this presidency, culminating
in the ignominy of the Watergate scandal that ended his career.
These are but only two examples of how Deep State politics works in controlling and
subverting American democracy. The notion that lawmakers and presidents are free to serve the
people is a quaintly naive one. For the US media to pretend otherwise, and to hail the FBI as
some kind of benign bastion of justice, while also deprecating claims of "Deep State" intrusion
as "conspiracy theory", is either impossibly ignorant of history – or a sign of the
media's own compromised complicity.
Nonetheless, to blame this culture of institutionalized blackmail and corruption on one
individual – J Edgar Hoover – is not fair either.
Hoover certainly was the devious architect of a malign Deep State machine. But he was not
alone. He instilled a culture and legacy that pervades the top echelons of the bureau. And not
just the FBI. The early Cold War years saw the formation of the CIA and the NSA under the
Machiavellian guidance of men like Allen Dulles and Richard Helms and a host of others.
Once formed, the Deep State – as an alternate, unaccountable, unelected government
– does not surrender its immense power willingly. It has learnt to hold on to its power
through blackmail, media control, incitement of wars, and, even ultimately, assassination of
American dissenters.
The illegal tapping of private communications is an oxygen supply for the depredations of
the American Deep State.
Thinking that such agencies are not actively warping and working the electoral system to fix
the figurehead in the White House is a dangerous delusion.
So too are claims that American democracy is being "influenced" by malign Russian enemies,
as the US intelligence chiefs once again
chorused in front of the Senate this past week. The consummate irony of it!
The real "influence campaigns" corrupting American democracy are those of the "All-American"
agencies who claim to be law enforcers and defenders of national security.
US citizens would do well to refresh on the untold history of their country to appreciate
how they are being manipulated.
We might even surmise that a good number of citizens are already aware, if only vaguely, of
the elite corruption – and that is why Washington DC is viewed with increasing contempt
by the people.
"... The CIA fabricated a story that the Russians in Afghanistan made plastic bombs in the shape of toys, to blow up children. Casey repeated this story, knowing it to be disinformation, as fact to US journalists and politicians. ..."
Bill Bray , Former (Retired) Research Scientist at Central
Intelligence Agency
Updated Dec 14 2017 · Author has 509 answers and 261.9k answer views
I am not familiar with that particular quote, but that sounds like the hubris of the CIA. You have to understand, you put a janitor
in charge of the other janitors, and he becomes king shit of the janitors. And so it goes all the way to the point where you put
someone in charge of an agency which no longer answers to the president, the senate, congress, the UN, or any force on Earth, there
is no way you are not going to have anything but a problem. JFK wanted to dissolve them for that reason, 6 months later
If you really want to take the Dr. Bill acid test, go into Google AdWords. That is where they sell key words to the highest bidder
so that their site floats to the top (no it is not 'free information highway,' that's how Google became a multi-billion organization).
Watch the key words that are floating to the top. Then, look at tomorrow morning's headlines in Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. You will
find that magically the minds of Americans predicted the next day's news.
This of course is not the case. The multi-trillion dollar surveillance of Americans that they told you is to 'protect you from
terrorists,' and so on is not what they are doing. All cell phone calls (the verbal content, referred to as meta-data), emails, text,
are monitored. Since the Patriot Act portion that allowed this to expire, they used the clause 'on American soil,' literally and
monitor everything via the communications satellites. There are also an estimated 20,000 drones OVER (BUT NOT ON) US soil, monitoring
verbal communications that are not electronic. This can be done via unidirectional microphone, or by bouncing a laser off your window.
That includes car window.
The Welcome to FBI.gov web site collects information, but is easier to access at
Mass Shootings . In 2016 there were 384 mass shootings, almost 100
of which were listed as 'terrorist motivated.' So, the multi-trillion dollar surveillance network is not to 'protect you.'
The system is designed to gather information on the 'collective thinking,' like the Borg, of the American public, and then design
tomorrow's news and media, literally overnight, to cattle herd you into a nice neat profile of behavior and commerce.
Again, take the acid test. Look at what you have access to, AdWords, and then watch tomorrow's headlines magically appear. At
first you might think, well that's what people are interested in so that's what's in the news. Then, as you look at the flow of headlines
regarding international campaigns, what the President said yesterday, what the senators and congressmen are doing or being accused
of, it starts to get a bit freaky. Do this for several days, and you will see.
If this doesn't convince you, you fit a nice neat profile of behavior and commerce.
Otherwise, explain the multi-trillion dollar surveillance network's failure to prevent 384 mass shootings last year, of which
about 1 in 4 were 'terrorist motivated,' and I think we already passed that number this year.
You know the system is in place, the NSA admitted it publicly. The reason they say it is there is obviously not true, as per a
hundred terrorist motivated events each year, hundreds of mass shootings, most of which never make it into the 'fake news.'
Every time the President says 'fake news,' your brain says 'conspiracy theory,' and hardens your cognitive belief, your religion,
the media.
Keeping you stupid keeps you under control. If this were not the case, disinformation would not be a goal. 1.7k Views ·
View Upvoters ·
It does appear he said something very much along those lines, though I doubt it meant what it appears to mean absent the context.
He made the statement not long after he became the Director of Central Intelligence, during a discussion of the fact that, to his
amazement, about 80 percent of the contents of typical CIA intelligence publications was based on information from open, unclassified
sources, such as newspapers and magazines. Apparently, and reasonably, he judged that about the same proportion of Soviet intelligence
products was probably based on open sources, as well. That meant that CIA disinformation programs directed at the USSR wouldn't work
unless what was being disseminated by US magazines and newspapers on the same subjects comported with what the CIA was trying to
sell the Soviets. Given that the CIA could not possibly control the access to open sources of all US publications, the subjects of
CIA disinformation operations had to be limited to topics not being covered by US public media. To be sure, some items of disinformation
planted by the CIA in foreign publications might subsequently be discovered and republished by US media. I'm guessing the CIA would
not leap to correct those items.
But that is a far cry from concluding that the CIA would (or even could) arrange that "everything the American public believes
is false."
The American public has never been the primary target
of any disinformation campaign.
The CIA once had influence in a number of English language publications abroad, some of which stories were reprinted in the US
media. This was known as "blowback", and unintended in most cases.
The CIA fabricated a story that the Russians in Afghanistan made plastic bombs in the shape of toys, to blow up children. Casey
repeated this story, knowing it to be disinformation, as fact to US journalists and politicians.
"... That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. ..."
"... Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes. ..."
"... Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon, as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye and gave him a paycheck. ..."
"... I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men. ..."
"... Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using it on POWs. ..."
"... just reinforces the feeling that those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better light. ..."
"... A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and will not go away unless she come clean. ..."
Before Gina became the Chief of Staff for Rodriguez, what role did she play in the waterboarding of two AQ operatives in Thailand?
It appears that she was at least witting of what was going on. Did she have the authority to decide what measures to apply to the
two? Did she make such decisions?
Those are facts still to be determined. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. But there are others who I respect
that are adamant in opposing her nomination. The only thing I know for sure is that her nomination will be a bloody and divisive
political battle. If it comes down to embracing waterboarding as an appropriate method to use on suspected terrorists, then a majority
of Americans are supportive of that practice and will cheer the appointment of Haspel.
That fact is a very sad and disturbing commentary
on what America is or has become. Tolerating torture and excusing such an activity in the name of national security is the same justification
that Stalin and Castro employed to punish dissidents. It is true that one man's terrorist is another woman's freedom fighter.
Let me be clear about my position. If Gina was in fact the Chief of Base and oversaw the application of the waterboarding
and other inhuman treatment then she lacks the moral authority to head the CIA. Unfortunately, the United States has a long history
of overlooking human rights violations and war crimes.
Students of WW II will recall that US military intelligence recruited and protect Klaus Barbie, the Butcher of Lyon,
as an asset after the war. He murdered Jews and sent others to Auschwitz. He should have been hung. Instead, we turned a blind eye
and gave him a paycheck.
I've read that she enjoyed torture and mocked a prisoner who was drooling by accused him of faking it. I never knew anything about her sexual orientation but now I have to consider if she's so cruel because she hates men.
IIRC, Haspel was the chief of staff to whom Rodriguez refers. That does not sound like a bit player. Would you say that Kelly
is a bit player in the Trump admin? As you say, we should know the facts, but so far it looks like she both participated in torture
and in its cover-up.
With all the crap going on at the FBI, the last thing we need now is a divisive candidate for any top level government position
(torture advocacy is divisive for many of us).
A woman, a lesbian, who cares as long as they are a capable and decent law-abiding
individual.
Yes, waterboarding is torture. We considered it so egregious that we prosecuted Japanese military officers after WWII for using
it on POWs.
And where do you get "admitted" terrorists from? In America, even with suspected terrorists, there is the principle
of innocent until proven guilty. At least we once believed in that standard.
And I very much respect you for your position on this (it is this American's view as well).
What amazes me (and yet doesn't) is the example of Rodriguez's supposed introspection "How bad could this be?" Really?!? That
just strikes me as not having any feel for the media, US citizenry, or even common sense, and just reinforces the feeling that
those at the upper echelons are completely out of touch or alternatively are just lying/posturing to present themselves in a better
light.
PT -- Thank you. Much to consider in these times. I come down on the "no torture and waterboarding is torture" side of the debate
but am also just eager for some competence and professional experience in key positions.
That these positions may be mutually
exclusive says a great deal about our current situation. Again, thank you, for your opinions and information.
A torturer is a torturer, no matter how one try to glaze it, or sugar coat it. If one is against torture, or the fancy name for
it EIT, one should come out and say it like it is. This lady is accused of torturing captives ( enemy combatant) that can't and
will not go away unless she come clean.
At the end of the day that don't matter, since as a policy, and base on your own statement,
this country's government will prosecut and punish for liking of torture but not torture and tortures. And, furthermore, is not
even willing to do away with it, per it's elected president. Trying to show a clean, moral, democracy on the hilltop image, is
a BS and a joke.
Yeah, my eyes almost popped out of my head as I read it in the news. Direct brazen
manipulation of your boss, who happens to be a commander in chief of a nuclear power. And
no, I don't hear any howls about treason and conspiracy from across the pond.
"Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied".
This would indicate, if true, that the Brits desired to manipulate and used the CIA here
mainly as conduit to influence Trump. It would make more sense, historically as well,
interpreting causality and motive this way.
"... The idea that Trump was kidded along in this way with photos of suffering children is similar to that which allegedly persuaded him to bomb Syria (along with the UK and France) after the more recent also alleged Douma chemical weapons attacks. So who actually was telling him porkies and why or is this just another myth to prove Trump's crassness – in which case there is no need to make anything up. ..."
"... Trump doesn't give a toss about suffering children or suffering anyone else, so it's not likely that he was persuaded by the kind of argument that runs from injured children to the need for US diplomatic action. ..."
"... Trump forgets he lies in minutes. He'd not heard about Julian Assange? If I was reporter I would have played him his words from my laptop and ask: Mr President is this you or a fake President? ..."
"... Actually he is a fake President as most US Presidents are. The man's a dunce. I thought after George W Bush US Presidents couldn't get any worse but know history hits us up the backside with a banjo yet again. ..."
I took note when I read that on the Guardian website late last night. What struck me was
the treatment of the statement as if it could be true, but in more than one way.
The idea that Trump was kidded along in this way with photos of suffering children is
similar to that which allegedly persuaded him to bomb Syria (along with the UK and France)
after the more recent also alleged Douma chemical weapons attacks. So who actually was
telling him porkies and why or is this just another myth to prove Trump's crassness –
in which case there is no need to make anything up.
Even if the story is true, the article accepts it as fact and in no way qualifies it,
which is just plain misrepresentation as Craig points out.
The reference to the two Russian operatives at that time is certainly a give away one way
and another – but nothing in the article to highlight that inconsistency.
Strange timing too for the appearance of the article too. No doubt there will be a
response from the Russian Embassy.
Trump brings together stupidity, narcissistic mental illness and obnoxiousness such that
when an official has to deal with him their attitude must surely be to tell the moron
whatever gets him to do what they want as soon as possible, so they don't have to spend any
more time than necessary in a room with him.
He lies all the time – the guy can't stop
lying – nobody wants to spend time with a person like that – even his wife can't
stand the sight of him – and it doesn't matter what it is that you tell him or show
him.
Trump doesn't give a toss about suffering children or suffering anyone else, so it's not
likely that he was persuaded by the kind of argument that runs from injured children to the
need for US diplomatic action.
The question is who was behind the anti-Russian side of the
Skripal story and why. Not much progress will be made without looking at the British
defence review and the huge increase in military spending that warfare interests have
moved Gavin Williamson's lips to call for.
"(E)xtremely clear CCTV footage of the duck feeding"? So there are fixed cameras watching
where the ducks swim in Queen Elizabeth's Park in Salisbury, are there? Because I haven't
been able to find even some lamp posts they might be secured to. (
Some images .) Which is not to say the Skripals weren't photographed. And how's the
Nikolai Glushkov inquest going?
Trump forgets he lies in minutes. He'd not heard about Julian Assange? If I was reporter I would have played him his words from my laptop and ask: Mr President
is this you or a fake President?
Actually he is a fake President as most US Presidents are. The man's a dunce. I thought after George W Bush US Presidents couldn't get any worse but know history hits
us up the backside with a banjo yet again.
Simple really: Show the video of the Skripal actively feeding the ducks – blank the
kids faces and we'll be able to see them in all of their pre poisoned glory.
All this has been done before by the MS – The London Bridge attackers – 7/7
and so on.
So why not show the video? Because it shows something(s) which they want to hide. I have my views as to why, as do others but once you start lying you have to develop a
good memory and ' British Intelligence ' is a misnomer.
Let us not for one moment forget: Yulia musty be alive somewhere. I reckon they did in
Sergei – serve him right for being a double (or triple) agent – but Yulia must
still be around. She TOLD US in her video she was fine and getting better.
Thank god for Craig Murray and the Off-Guardian, they have preserved our sanity over this mad
story, this maddest of British Intel cockups.
@Nicholas – I'd advise delaying the conclusion that it was a cockup, except in the
sense that in most military and intelligence operations something cocks up –
until we hear what happens with British military spending plans.
Someone said to me on Twitter that confirmation of Novichock was from a Mass Spec of the
nerve agent bound to some enzyme (probably acetyl cholinesterase). Is this really the
official line? If so it's rubbish. Whoever made such a claim was clearly no chemist. Acetyl
Cholinesterase weighs about 66700 Daltons and the nerve agent weighed, say between 200 and
400 daltons. Firstly a mass spectrum of the protein would be that of the protein plus or
minus anything upto about 300 water molecules Which makes the mass (69400 +/- 2700) and a
multitude of other possible ions or other factors bound to it. The error in the mass of the
protein clearly exceeds the mass of the nerve agent. Given that, because of the blinding
uncertainties as to what species are actually hitting the detector in the mass spectrometer,
no-one anywhere attempts to study ligands bound to proteins by mass spec and certainly not
one of this size, why would they do it in this case?
The CIA Director tells outright lies to her boss, who as a result approves a stern
national rebuke.
In a cartoon version of life where Dick Dastardly gets to be an intelligence supremo, and
a total dummy gets to be President, this would be highly likely. Needless to say, to believe
such a scenario would exist in the real world requires a massive suspension of logic.
More likely there's something coming down the track that requires Haspel, and or the CIA,
to be discredited prior to its becoming visible to the public ?
What could possibly be coming down the track that isn't comparable to what we already know
about Haspel and the CIA though?
If you can straight faced maintain support for an admitted and documented human rights
abuser who heads a non accountable government spy agency that has been extra judicially
torturing, assassinating and over throwing any who stands in its way for 70 years; what on
earth could be about to come out that's suddenly going to convince our bought and paid for
media, and by extension the general public, that these monsters have been discredited?
UK spooks are switching to damage limitation mode, with the help of the Deborah Haynes of
Sky and II:
"Update: UK security sources say they're unaware of children hospitalised because of
#novichok or wildlife killed in #Skripal attack. May have been a photo of a dead swan though
not evidence swan was killed by #Novichok. If that's true, I wonder what these images used by
CIA were! "
"... I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation. Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. ..."
"... Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of Power. ..."
"... American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy." ..."
"... Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities: Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious. ..."
"... There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government. ..."
"... If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!" ..."
"... I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them. ..."
"... She was put in charge there not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect. ..."
"... furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states " For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition? ..."
"... Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be considered in the contexts of these words. ..."
Nothing will say more about who we are, across three American administrations -- one that demanded torture, one that covered it
up, and one that seeks to promote its bloody participants -- than whether Gina Haspel becomes director of the CIA.
Haspel oversaw the
torture of human beings in Thailand as the chief of a CIA black site in 2002. Since then, she's worked her way up to deputy director
at the CIA. With current director Mike Pompeo slated to move to Foggy Bottom, President Donald Trump has proposed Haspel as the Agency's
new head.
Haspel's victims waiting for death in Guantanamo cannot speak to us, though they no doubt remember their own screams as they were
waterboarded. And we can still hear former CIA officer
John Kiriakousay : "We did
call her Bloody Gina. Gina was always very quick and very willing to use force. Gina and people like Gina did it, I think, because
they enjoyed doing it. They tortured just for the sake of torture, not for the sake of gathering information."
It was Kiriakou who exposed the obsessive debate over the effectiveness of torture as false. The real purpose of torture conducted
by those like Gina Haspel was to seek vengeance, humiliation, and power. We're just slapping you now, she would have said in that
Thai prison, but we control you, and who knows what will happen next, what we're capable of? The torture victim is left to imagine
what form the hurt will take and just how severe it will be, creating his own terror.
Haspel won't be asked at her confirmation hearing to explain how torture works, but those who were waterboarded under her stewardship
certainly could.
I met my first torture victim in Korea, where I was adjudicating visas for the State Department. Persons with serious criminal
records are ineligible to travel to the United States, with an exception for dissidents who have committed political crimes. The
man I spoke with said that under the U.S.-supported military dictatorship of Park Chung Hee he was tortured for writing anti-government
verse. He was taken to a small underground cell. Two men arrived and beat him repeatedly on his testicles and sodomized him with
one of the tools they had used for the beating. They asked no questions. They barely spoke to him at all.
Though the pain was beyond his ability to describe, he said the subsequent humiliation of being left so utterly helpless was what
really affected his life. It destroyed his marriage, sent him to the repeated empty comfort of alcohol, and kept him from ever putting
pen to paper again. The men who destroyed him, he told me, did their work, and then departed, as if they had others to visit and
needed to get on with things. He was released a few days later and driven back to his apartment by the police. A forward-looking
gesture.
The second torture victim I met was while I was stationed in Iraq. The prison that had held him was under the control of shadowy
U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. Inside, masked men bound him at the wrists and ankles and hung him upside-down. He said they
neither asked him questions nor demanded information. They did whip his testicles with a leather strap, then beat the bottoms of
his feet and the area around his kidneys. They slapped him. They broke the bones in his right foot with a steel rod, a piece of rebar
ordinarily used to reinforce concrete.
It was painful, he told me, but he had felt pain before. What destroyed him was the feeling of utter helplessness, the inability
to control things around him as he once had. He showed me the caved-in portion of his foot, which still bore a rod-like indentation
with faint signs of metal grooves.
Gina Haspel is the same as those who were in the room with the Korean. She is no different than those who tormented the Iraqi.
As head of a black site, Haspel had sole authority to halt the questioning of suspects, but she allowed torture to continue.
New information
and a redaction of earlier reporting that said Haspel was present for the waterboarding and torture of Abu Zubaydah (she was
actually the station chief at the black site after those sessions) makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture
of all of the prisoners there, but pay it little mind. The confusion arises from the government's refusal to tell us what Haspel
actually did as a torturer. So many records have yet to be released and those that have been are heavily redacted. Then there are
the tapes of Zubaydah's waterboarding, which Haspel later pushed to have destroyed.
Arguing over just how much blood she has in her hands is a distraction from the fact that she indeed has blood on her hands.
Gina Haspel is now eligible for the CIA directorship because Barack Obama did not prosecute anyone for torture; he merely signed
an executive order banning it in the future. He did not hold any truth commissions, and ensured that almost all government documents
on the torture program remained classified. He did not prosecute the CIA officials who destroyed videotapes of the torture scenes.
Obama ignored the truth that sees former Nazis continue to be hunted some 70 years after the Holocaust: that those who do evil
on behalf of a government are individually responsible. "I was only following orders" is not a defense of inhuman acts. The purpose
of tracking down the guilty is to punish them, to discourage the next person from doing evil, and to morally immunize a nation-state.
To punish Gina Haspel "more than 15 years later for doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told
were lawful orders, would be a travesty and a disgrace,"
claims one of
her supporters. "Haspel did nothing more and nothing less than what the nation and the agency asked her to do, and she did it well,"
said Michael Hayden,
who headed the CIA during the height of the Iraq war from 2006-2009.
Influential people in Congress agree. Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which will soon review
Haspel's nomination,
said , "I know Gina personally and she has the right skill set, experience, and judgment to lead one of our nation's most critical
agencies."
"She'll have to answer for that period of time, but I think she's a highly qualified person,"
offered Senator
Lindsey Graham. Democratic Senator Bill Nelson
defended Haspel's
actions, saying they were "the accepted practice of the day" and shouldn't disqualify her.
His fellow Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Intelligence Committee, signaled her likely acceptance,
saying , "Since my concerns were raised over the torture situation, I have met with her extensively, talked with her She has
been, I believe, a good deputy director." Senator Susan Collins
added that Haspel "certainly has the expertise and experience as a 30-year employee of the agency." John McCain, a victim of
torture during the Vietnam War,
mumbled only that Haspel would have to explain her role.
Nearly alone at present, Republican Senator Rand Paul says he will
oppose Haspel's nomination. Senators Ron Wyden and Martin Heinrich, both Democrats, have told Trump she is unsuitable and will
likely also vote no.
Following World War II, the United States could have easily executed those Nazis responsible for the Holocaust, or thrown them
into some forever jail on an island military base. It would have been hard to find anyone who wouldn't have supported brutally torturing
them at a black site. Instead, they were put on public trial at Nuremberg and made to defend their actions as the evidence against
them was laid bare. The point was to demonstrate that We were better than Them.
Today we refuse to understand what Haspel's victims, and the Korean writer, and the Iraqi insurgent, already know on our behalf:
unless Congress awakens to confront this nightmare and deny Gina Haspel's nomination as director of the CIA, torture will have transformed
us and so it will consume us. Gina Haspel is a torturer. We are torturers. It is as if Nuremberg never happened.
Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author of
We Meant Well : How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People andHooper's War : A Novel of WWII Japan. He tweets@WeMeantWell.
Covering up torture is quite possibly the worst thing Obama did. (I'd put it neck-and-neck with targeted killing.) This nation
desperately needs a president who will expose all of these horrors, and appoint an attorney general who will prosecute these acts
as war crimes.
Trump likes waterboarding. He said so himself. One assumes he meant, being a whimpering coward himself, when someone else does
it to someone else. But who knows? Enjoy judge Gorsuch.
"doing what her country asked her to do, and in response to what she was told were lawful orders"
To complete the parallel, we would need to prosecute and punish those who asked her to do it, and those who told her those
orders were lawful. Instead, some are doing paintings of their toes, some are promoted to be Federal judges, and some are influential
professors at "liberal" law schools. Why punish *only* her?
I was not in the least surprised at reports that a known torturer was slated to head the CIA, and I expected quick confirmation.
Such is my opinion of our ruling classes. I am in full support of Mr. Van Buren's thesis. However, Pro Publica, which seems
to have been the source of much reporting of Haspel's torture record, has retracted the claim that Haspel had tortured in Thailand.
Mr. Van Buren quotes another source from his blog that supports the thesis that Haspel is a torturer. How does one know what to
believe? Whatever Haspel may be, we can be sure the CIA will continue to torture, detain people without charge, assassinate
and terrorize with its own drone force, and cause mayhem around the world and at home. No one can be trusted with the Ring of
Power.
Its because we lost our sense of what makes us who we are. We are an empire that dances for private interests. In Rome they were
called families and led by patricians, they had money private guards, gladiators, and even street people supporting them. In the
Modern USA they are called Interest Groups and/or Corporations. They are lead by CEOs and instead of gladiators they have Lawyers.
Our being better matters less then their own squabbles which is why a torturer could reach the highest seat in intel. The majority
of Americans have lost their sense of being Americans instead they are Republicans, Democrats, etc, etc. Things that once use
to be part of an American have come to define us.
American Exceptionalism is perhaps the most toxic ideology since Nazism and Stalinism. It says that the United States is always
virtuous even when it tortures, when it bombs towns, villages, cities in the name of "freedom or installs dictators, military
governments, trains torturers, and, yes, rapes and loots in the name of "democracy."
At least this appointment along with the election of Trump shows the true face of the United States in international affairs.
When we face the fact we are (a) an oligarchy and (b) a brutal Empire we might have a chance to return to something more human.
Few readers, even of TAC, will want to look at our recent history of stunning brutality and lack of interest in even being in
the neighborhood of following international law.
CIA has purposefully refused to disclose Haspel's role for a decade+ They have selectively released information last week to discredit
those criticizing her. I don't think we should play their game, letting them set the agenda. Instead, I declaim torture itself
and any role she played in it, whether she poured the water or kept the books.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of the CIA's Haspel put him at risk?
In the 2003 film "Love Actually" the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) jokes with a Downing Street employee Natalie
(Martine McCutcheon):
"PM: You live with your husband? Boyfriend, three illegitimate but charming children? –
"NATALIE: No, I've just split up with my boyfriend, so I'm back with my mum and dad for a while.
"PM: Oh. I'm sorry.
"NATALIE: No, it's fine. I'm well shot of him. He said I was getting fat.
"PM: I beg your pardon?
"NATALIE: He said no one's going to fancy a girl with thighs the size of big tree trunks. Not a nice guy, actually, in the end.
"PM: Right You know, being Prime Minister, I could just have him murdered.
"NATALIE: Thank you, sir. I'll think about it.
"PM: Do – the SAS are absolutely charming – ruthless, trained killers are just a phone call away."
It's just a film. It's just a joke. But the joke works because the public knows that – in reality – the security services have
the skills-sets and the abilities, to do damage anyone they want to do damage to -- and to probably get away with it.
Fast forward to January, 2017 and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer telling MSNBC's Rachael Maddow that President-elect
Donald Trump is "being really dumb" by criticizing the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia's cyber activities:
Shumer: "Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you, So even
for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he's being really dumb to do this." No, Shumer wasn't joking. He was serious.
Fast forward again to yesterday, March 17, 2018: Former CIA Director John Brennan wasn't joking when he reacted to the firing
of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe -- and President Donald Trump's tweeted celebration of it -- by tweeting this attack against
Trump:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes known, you will take your rightful
place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history. You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America
will triumph over you."
Obama UN Representative Samantha Power followed up on the Brennan tweet with this:
"Not a good idea to piss off John Brennan."
When public officials and former public officials -- like Shumer, Brennan and Power -- make such public statements it must
necessarily have a chilling effect on public criticism of the security services.
After all, none of the three are joking. They're serious. And the American people know that they're serious.
Does Peter Van Buren's criticism of CIA operative Haspel put him at risk?
New information makes it less clear whether Haspel oversaw the torture of all of the prisoners at her black site, but pay it little
mind. The confusion is because the government refuses to tell us what Haspel actually did as a torturer. Arguing over just how
much blood she has on her hands is a distraction when she indeed has blood on her hands.
The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient to disqualify her from heading the Agency. If the
Agency wishes to clarify her role, as was done via trial for the various Nazis at Nuremberg, we can deal with her actions more
granularly.
Since we have not had any more successful attacks on the scale of 9-11, it is very easy to be scrupulous regarding rough treatment
of terrorists.
But if we had suffered a dozen or more such attacks, of increasing magnitude and maybe involving nuclear weapons, how many
of you would still be condemning Mrs Haspel et al.? Or would you then be complaining they had not used water-boarding enough?
The 20th hijacker, Zacarias Moussaoui, was caught weeks before 9-11. Investigators figured out he was up to no good, tried
to get permission to search his computer, but were denied. The U.S. Government carefully protected his privacy rights. So are
you pleased with the outcome, Mr van Buren?
I'm sorry – this whole piece is a massive non sequitur. Ms. Haspel has no 'blood' on her hands as US extreme interrogation techniques
(sleep deprivation, uncomfortable positions, waterboarding) didn't draw any. They are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating
the genitals, pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones. US techniques might have been bad policy – won't argue – but lets not fall
for a false equivalency.
Ms. Haspel was an agent of her government, acting on it's orders under it's policies and guidelines. Which leads to
Nuremberg. The Nuremberg tribunals (they were military tribunals – not trials) were conducted by a victorious military force
against a defeated military force. They were widely criticized as vengeance even by such august people as Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court Stone and associate Justice Douglas. There won't be a 'Nuremberg' tribunal because Al Qaida didn't defeat the
United States, and you'd have to convict not just Ms. Haspel, but a sizeable portion of the U.S. Government.
And lastly there's this from a comment of the authors: "The idea is her participation on any level at the black site is sufficient
to disqualify her from heading the Agency." Utter nonsense. That was the mission of the Agency at that time. It's like saying
a 33yr old Drone Pilot who takes out an ISIS/Al Qaida operative as well as 15 civilians is disqualified to be the Sec Def 2 decades
later.
If nothing else, the appointment of Bloody Gina as CIA head finally drives a wooden stake through the heart of the myth
that "we're The Good Guys(tm)!" or its cousin "all we gotta do is elect Team D and we can be The Good Guys(R) again!"
We demonize Russia at every opportunity, but I don't see Russia rewarding torturers by appointing them to high office.
I didn't know too much about this woman's background until I read that Rand Paul opposes her nomination. I tend to take notice
whenever Rand Paul holds forth on any subject. All I can say is that if her actual record even approximates what has been alleged,
then this woman is unfit for the post–Nuremberg or no Nuremberg.
"As we've proved, we're not better than them. Any of them." Oh, -PLEASE-, spare us the hyperbole! WE burn alive captives held
in cages? WE saw off their heads?
Thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape
(S.E.R.E.) training programs.
All of the torturers should be brought to justice. So should all of the officials who ordered or authorized torture.
There is no statute of limitations on capital Federal crimes. For a U.S. citizen to kill via torture is a capital Federal crime,
no matter where the torture took place. If statutes of limitations make it too late to prosecute some acts of torture, it is not
too late to bring about some measure of justice by making torturers pariahs. As many sexual harassers have recently learned, there
is no statute of limitations in the court of public opinion.
The story linking her to torture has been formally retracted. She had nothing to do with torture anywhere. How about a retraction
of this story and an apology.
I do not know whether to admire Mr. van Buren's idealism or be astonished at his naivete. Has he never heard of the School
of the Americas, of sinister reputation, or the Condor Plan, aided and abetted by U.S. intelligence? People in Latin America know
better than to believe the U.S. protestations of virtue. They know about torturers, and the U.S. support for them.
Personally,
I prefer that the cruelty should be, as Lincoln once put it, "unalloyed by the base metal of hypocrisy"
bob sykes: you should read Pro Publica's retraction (
https://www.propublica.org/article/cia-cables-detail-its-new-deputy-directors-role-in-torture
) of the claim that Haspel was in charge of the Thai black site when Abu Zubaydeh was tortured. She was put in charge there
not long after and oversaw the waterboarding of at least one prisoner, and later followed orders to destroy the tapes of waterboarding
at that site. Your claim that " She had nothing to do with torture anywhere" is incorrect.
Winston: why do you suppose "thousands of US Navy and Air Force pilots have been waterboarded as part of their Survival, Evasion,
Resistance and Escape (S.E.R.E.) training programs"? Is it not to prepare them for the possibility of what we call torture when
used by our adversaries?
furbo: your contention that " US extreme interrogation techniques are not equivalent to forcible sodomy, beating the genitals,
pounding the kidneys, or breaking bones" is wrong. The UN Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory, states "
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
is intentionally inflicted on a person " Ask anyone who has been waterboarded whether that fits the official definition?
Wilfred, the problem was not that the Feds protected Zacarias Moussaoui's right to privacy. The problem is that it let any of
the 20 Arab Muslims into the US in the first place. Closing our borders and mass deportations would have been the best thing to
do in the aftermath of 9/11, not torture and invasions.
Very well put. Lest we forget: Bush also delivered the stern warning that "war crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be
punished, and it will be no defense to say, 'I was just following orders'."
Ceterum censeo: given that the Iraq invasion and occupation was an act of aggressive war in violation of the UN Charter
and thus illegal under US law, it is not just torturers but also war criminals in government and general staff that have to be
considered in the contexts of these words.
Chris Mallory (Mar 19 @1:47 p.m.), I agree with you. We shouldn't be letting them in.
But if someone had sneaked-a-peek at Moussaoui's laptop during the 3 weeks they had him before 9-11, we might have been able
to thwart the attack altogether. (And the Press has been strangely incurious about investigating whoever it was who issued the
injunction protecting Moussie's precious computer). This type of hand-wringing cost us 3,000 lives. Even more, considering the
Afghan & 2nd Iraq wars would never have been launched, were it not for 9-11.
"Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf of the USA but rather to its own
ends."
CIA probably was involved in Skripals false flag operation as well. Because the behaviour of Theresa May suggest that she from
the very beginning was sure about the USA full and unconditional support and putting pressure on EU allies. Then now we know
that Gina Haspel, who was also involved in Steele dossier and handled most oversees assets involved in entrapment of Trump, misled
Trump and pervaded him to expel 80 Russian diplomats.
Notable quotes:
"... Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly how the buildings came down. ..."
"... According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia ..."
"... So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our democracy. ..."
"... Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media. ..."
"... So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader. Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man? ..."
"... None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next? ..."
"... "If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics ..."
Many in the USA have come to realize this stealth organization does not work on the behalf
of the USA but rather to its own ends. And, in this realization, comes a jaded view of both the
CIA and the government it represents.
This realization may have begun with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Warren
Commission, a congressional investigation was convened. The commission concluded there was a
single lone shooter, a fringe outcast, Lee Harvey Oswald who acted alone in the assassination
of the president. Many felt, in light of the facts, that the Warren Commission was a cover up
of what really went down on November 22, 1963, in Houston, Texas.
In 1976, the Congress reopened the Kennedy investigation. They created The United States
House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) to investigate the
assassination of John F. Kennedy (and Martin Luther King Jr.).
The HSCA completed its investigation in 1978 and determined the Warren Commission was faulty
and there was more than one shooter and there was indeed a conspiracy to kill the president. So
much for the official narrative of the Warren Commission.
Why the Warren Commission cover up back then that even the Congress in 1976 (HSCA) reported
was bogus? One theory April 25, 1966, The New York Times wrote, "And, President Kennedy, as the
enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of
his Administration, that he wanted to splinter the C.I.A. in a thousand pieces and scatter it
to the winds."
Kennedy was no fan of the Director of the C.I.A. Allen Dulles or his agency, and in the
autumn of 1961 he purged the C.I.A. of Dulles and his entourage. This included Deputy Director
for Plans Richard M. Bissell Jr. and and Deputy Director Charles Cabell. You do not mess with
Allen Dulles and the C.I A. Let's leave it at that. Kennedy was dead within two years.
Then there is 9/11. This one also has a USA government narrative that defies logic. This
time it is so blatant and egregious that an organization called "Architects & Engineers for
9/11 Truth" was founded by Richard Gage, an architect with vast experience in steel structured
buildings and fire. The organization demands on official investigation by Congress into exactly
how the buildings came down.
By December 2014, over 2,300 architectural and engineering professionals had signed a
petition for this investigation. If one looks at controlled demolitions and how the buildings
actually came down it is obvious the collapse was not due to an airplane flying into the
buildings, but rather a controlled demolition. 2,300 architects and engineers with verified
credentials all testify that the narrative of the government is patently false and
scientifically implausible if not impossible.
At about nine a.m. the Twin Towers are crashed into and collapse. At about five twenty p.m.
that same day, Building Seven collapses. No planes fly into Building 7, it just collapses.
Again, the videos show a controlled demolition.
There are various theories as to why 7 WTC was taken down. Theories range from 7 WTC being
the operation center for the demolition of the Twin Towers to more nefarious motives. "
According to a statement reported by the BBC , Loose Change film producer Dylan Avery thinks the
destruction of the building was suspicious because it housed some unusual tenants, including a
clandestine CIA office on the 25th floor, an outpost of the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and New York City's emergency command center." Wikipedia
What is important to remember is that NO STEEL FRAME HIGH RISE HAS EVER TOTALLY COLLAPSED
DUE TO FIRE.
These are but two examples of hundreds where we have been mislead by the official narrative
of the government and its MSM news. Remember the Trump Dossier that was leaked and printed as
fact? Or, the death of Seth Rich, a "botched" robbery? Or, the list of 200 news outlets in the
USA that were Russian Propaganda fronts? All reported as fact by the New York Times and
Washington Post. All fake news by the MSM fed to an unsuspecting American people.
So now we have Prime Minister, Teresa May, accusing Putin and Russia of the May 4 nerve
agent attack of Sergei V. Skripal (66) and his daughter, Yulia (33), in Salibury, England. Both
are in critical condition after being found unconscious on a bench outside The Maltings
Shopping Center in Salibury. As we all know Russia is the new Antichrist. The harbinger of all evil. The enemy we all
must view with the utmost fear and loathing. Daily, the MSM in USA recoils as they report story
after story of Russia meddling in our elections, shaking the very foundations of our
democracy.
Let's get this straight. Mr. Skripal was convicted of high treason in Russia in 2004. He was
not tortured, killed or murdered, rather he was allowed to settle in Britain after a spy swap
in 2010. Sounds pretty friendly to me, considering that Putin is portrayed as a sadistic
monster out to settle scores with those who cross him, by the Western media.
Teresa May called the act "reckless" and "indiscriminate", and basically said Putin put
innocent English bystanders at risk. She upped the ante by dismissing 23 Russian diplomats, the
largest such expulsion in thirty years.
On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused May of grandstanding in her
response to the incident. Russian news agency Interfax reported that The Kremlin denies
involvement in the nerve agent poisoning, insisting one motive was to complicate Russia's
hosting of the World Cup this summer. Ah, dear Kremin, the motive was much deeper than the
World Cup games, which were only a bonus to the attack.
So, why now? Why this attempted assassination now? This is the question, dear reader.
Why attempt to assassinate Mr. Skripal now? He was convicted of high treason 14 years ago. He
has been in England for eight years. Russia knew at this point he was no threat to them with no
new secrets to betray. What would be gained at this point by assassinating the man?
None. However, if the CIA took him out, or paid unscrupulous foreign mercenaries to take
him out, much could be gained. The narrative of big bad Putin, in his big bad Russia, would be
reinforced. Now, not only is he meddling in elections, getting the dastardly Trump elected, he
is using nerve gas to take out enemies on foreign soil. My god, what will be next?
Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the UN tells us, "The United States of America believes that
Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade
nerve agent," Haley said in her remarks at a UN Security Council emergency session, blasting
the Russian government for flouting international law.
"If we don't take immediate concrete measures to address this now, Salisbury will not be
the last place we see chemical weapons used," said Haley. "They could be used here in New York
or in cities of any country that sits on this council." CNN Politics
The USA needs an enemy to foment fear to justify it's astronomical defense budget. It just
loves a good cold war. However, now that Russia is no longer a pinko commie nation to be
demonized, and is indeed a capitalist democracy, we have to resurrect a new straw man to
hate.
It is remarkable the degree to which the liberal left has bought into this
industrial-military-complex narrative. The USA always has to be bombing someone, droning
someone or napalming someone to keep the monies flowing into the defense budget. Take a look at
our spending compared to Russia or other nations.
Alas, it is certainly not out of the question that the CIA was behind the attack. After this
amount of time Mr. Putin had nothing to gain in assassinating Mr. Skripal and his daughter. In
fact, he had a lot to lose. The CIA? They had a lot to gain, and nothing to lose. Never
underestimate the CIA and its brilliance in setting the narrative for its agenda. And, never
underestimate Mr. Putin in his resolve not to become their lapdog.
Ms. Simpson was a radio personality in New York. She was a staff writer for The Liberty Report.
A PBS documentary was done on her activism for human rights. She is a psychotherapist and
political commentator.
B, here's a remarkable fact: The Skripal Novichok perfume bottle assassination story is is
eerily similar to episode 2 of BBC show 'Killing Eve' where an assassin uses a perfume bottle
to kill her target and where later an innocent person accidentally dies after coming into
contact with said perfume bottle.
The episode aired around a month after the Skripal attack but well before the other 2
people fell ill and the perfume bottle theory emerged.
"... The U.S. alone expelled 60 Russian officials. Trump was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year ago the Washington Post described the scene: ..."
"... Today the New York Times portraits Gina Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position. They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its own purpose: ..."
"... Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals. She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives. ..."
"... Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he embraced the strong option. ..."
"... If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked. ..."
"... The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to manipulate him: ..."
"... The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own policies. ..."
"... The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma all agency owned men. ..."
"... The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead. ..."
"... It is interesting to see that nations that have traditionally been pro-American feel that the threat posed by American power is growing. ..."
"... Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter. ..."
"... Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn, completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold for their putative boss. ..."
"... Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War. ..."
"... after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the msm will not be talking about integrity initiative.. ..."
"... once Teresa May has spoken in Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative version of the truth is possible. ..."
"... Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger one to blame the Russians. ..."
"... The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about both. ..."
"... Haspel will not be fired. ..."
"... It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). .. ..."
"... The actors in government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the rest of the world. ..."
An ass kissing portrait of Gina Haspel,
torture
queen and director of the CIA, reveals that she lied to Trump to push for more
aggression against Russia.
In March 2018 the British government asserted, without providing any evidence, that the
alleged 'Novichok' poisoning of Sergej and Yulia Skripal was the fault of Russia. It urged
its allies to expel Russian officials from their countries.
The U.S. alone expelled
60 Russian officials. Trump
was furious when he learned that EU countries expelled less than 60 in total. A year
ago the Washington Post described the scene:
President Trump seemed distracted in March as his aides briefed him at his Mar-a-Lago
resort on the administration's plan to expel 60 Russian diplomats and suspected spies.
The United States, they explained, would be ousting roughly the same number of
Russians as its European allies -- part of a coordinated move to punish Moscow for the
poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter on British soil.
"We'll match their numbers," Trump instructed, according to a senior administration
official. "We're not taking the lead. We're matching."
The next day, when the expulsions were announced publicly, Trump erupted, officials
said. To his shock and dismay, France and Germany were each expelling only four Russian
officials -- far fewer than the 60 his administration had decided on.
The president, who seemed to believe that other individual countries would largely
equal the United States, was furious that his administration was being portrayed in the
media as taking by far the toughest stance on Russia.
The expulsion marked a turn in the Trump administration's relation with Russia:
The incident reflects a tension at the core of the Trump administration's increasingly
hard-nosed stance on Russia: The president instinctually opposes many of the punitive
measures pushed by his Cabinet that have crippled his ability to forge a close
relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The past month, in particular, has marked a major turning point in the
administration's stance, according to senior administration officials. There have been
mass expulsions of Russian diplomats, sanctions on oligarchs that have bled billions of
dollars from Russia's already weak economy and, for the first time, a presidential tweet
that criticized Putin by name for backing Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Today the New York Timesportraits Gina
Haspel's relation with Trump. The writers seem sympathetic to her and the CIA's position.
They include an anecdote of the Skripal expulsion decision that is supposed to let her
shine in a good light. But it only proves that the CIA manipulated the president for its
own purpose:
Last March, top national security officials gathered inside the White House to discuss
with Mr. Trump how to respond to the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal,
the former Russian intelligence agent.
London was pushing for the White House to expel dozens of suspected Russian
operatives, but Mr. Trump was skeptical. ... During the discussion, Ms. Haspel, then deputy C.I.A. director, turned toward Mr. Trump.
She outlined possible responses in a quiet but firm voice, then leaned forward and told
the president that the "strong option" was to expel 60 diplomats.
To persuade Mr. Trump, according to people briefed on the conversation, officials
including Ms. Haspel also tried to show him that Mr. Skripal and his daughter were not
the only victims of Russia's attack.
Ms. Haspel showed pictures the British government had supplied her of young children
hospitalized after being sickened by the Novichok nerve agent that poisoned the Skripals.
She then showed a photograph of ducks that British officials said were inadvertently
killed by the sloppy work of the Russian operatives.
Ms Haspel was not the first to use emotional images to appeal to the president, but
pairing it with her hard-nosed realism proved effective: Mr. Trump fixated on the
pictures of the sickened children and the dead ducks. At the end of the briefing, he
embraced the strong option.
The Skripal case was widely covered and we
followed it diligently (scroll down). There were no reports of any children affected by
'Novichok' nor were their any reports of dead ducks. In the official storyline the
Skripals, before visiting a restaurant,
fed bread to ducks at a pond in the Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury.
They also
gave duck-bread to three children to do the same. The children were examined and their
blood was tested.
No
poison was found and none of them fell ill . No duck died. (The duck feeding episode
also disproves
the claim that the Skripals were poisoned by touching a door handle.)
If the NYT piece is correct, the CIA director, in cooperation with the British
government, lied to Trump about the incident. Their aim was to sabotage Trump's announced
policy of better relations with Russia. The ruse worked.
The NYT piece does not mention that the pictures Gina Haspel showed Trump were
fake. It pretends that her lies were "new information" and that she was not out to
manipulate him:
The outcome was an example, officials said, of how Ms. Haspel is one of the few people
who can get Mr. Trump to shift position based on new information.
Co-workers and friends of Ms. Haspel push back on any notion that she is manipulating
the president. She is instead trying to get him to listen and to protect the agency,
according to former intelligence officials who know her.
The job of the CIA director is to serve the president, not to protect the agencies own
policies. Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game:
Ms. Haspel won the trust of Mr. Pompeo, however, and has stayed loyal to him. As a
result, Mr. Trump sees Ms. Haspel as an extension of Mr. Pompeo, a view that has helped
protect her, current and former intelligence officials said.
Posted by b on April 16, 2019 at 08:37 AM |
Permalink
I don't see how it's possible to manipulate someone (and especially the US president) into
doing something they don't want to do with lies like the ones described here. On the
contrary presidents, CEOs etc. favor the staffers who tell them the kind of lies they want
to hear in order to reinforce what they wanted to do in the first place.
I've never seen any reason to alter my first position on Trump, that like any other
president he does what he wants to do.
The 1970s movie 3 Days of The Condor is about the evils of the See Eye A. Also they create
trial balloon in the movie about taking middle east oil. This later happens in real life
with NeoCon See Eye A stooges - Poppy Bush then later GW Bush-Cheney, Clintons and Oboma
all agency owned men.
The joke 7in the final scene Robert Redford tells See Eye A man Cliff Robertson that he
gave all the evidence to the NY Times. What a joke. The NY Times and the Wash Post are the
mouthpieces for the SEE Eye A. The AP news sources most of their stories from those two
papers and other lackey See Eye A newspapers.
One final criticism in moon's story. The head of the See Eye A is to serve the elites-Central banksters not the
President. They did not serve JFK. Any President who crosses the central bankers aka roth-schilds ends up dead.
After this, she got the top job, so what is the real lesson here? Sociopathic liars get
promoted....or you can tell the truth, try to be honorable and fade into obscurity.. In a nest of psychos, you have to really be depraved to become the top psycho...
Nuke it for orbit, it's the only way to be sure...
Backing up Russ's point, when will you realise the "buck stops" on Trump's desk for any
and all departments he oversees, which are run by his appointees? Trump is dedicated to
creating a neoconservative foreign policy melded to a neoliberal economic policy favouring
his corporate fascist sponsors. Recently, you've been all over the Assange indictment,
Trump's relationship with Nuttyahoo and the related rollback of JCPOA. Is this what you
want to see continued into a second term?
There is much evidence to show Trump and the GOP working steadily towards a "democracy"
where Congress is castrated (one might say the system castrates Congress anyway), opposing
candidates are jailed, opposition votes are suppressed and the media is weakened to the
point where no one can tell the difference.
They haven't got there quite yet but once the judiciary is controlled by GOP ideologues
it's game over. And McConnell is dedicating his life to make that the reality ASAP.
Meanwhile back at the ranch we are dedicated to knocking down any and all potential
opposition to this GOP hostile takeover for some reason I've yet to fathom.
Hopefully Trump will hear about the anecdote, recognize how he was had, and fire
Haspel. He should not stop there but also get rid of her protector who likely had a role in
the game[Pompeo]
Hopefully yes to all four propositions. Why am I sceptical though (except conceivably
the first)?
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. He's the first POTUS in decades I
believe to not even pretend to like dogs by having an official White House dog and every
policy his Administration can take against animals, they have taken. I'm not even sure I
buy the spin that he cared about dead kids either. And NYT readers know this about him, so
I don't understand what the point of peddling this fiction is other than to paint Torture
Queen in some kind of good light (and we KNOW that she certainly doesn't care about dead
anything).
another example of trump's stupidity and pathological inability to think for himself. he
gets his views from fox and his policy from bolton. his equally vapid daughter and kushner
whine to him about sooper sad syria pictures they saw in a sponsored link while googling
for new tmz gossip.
even worse that this is the twat in charge of one of russiagate's main instigating "deep
state" agencies. he spent the entirety of his presidency railing against their various lies
then takes this wankery at face value. it's just like the "chinese soldiers in venezuela";
if those pictures were legit they'd have been splattered over every front page and
permanently attached to screeching cnn and msnbc segments demanding trump "finally get
tough" on "putin's russia".
my only surprise is that she didn't tell him about british babies ripped from incubators
and dipped in anthrax powder.
the nyt shilling for a soCIopAth? not that surprising.
The consultant in emergency medicine at Salisbury hospital wrote to The Times, shortly
after the Skripal incident. His choice of words was odd, and some have said they indicate
no novichok poisoning occurred. Leaving that to one side, his letter certainly puts paid to
the idea that more than three people (the Skripals and the policeman, DCI Bailey) were
poisoned.
https://www.onaquietday.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DocSaysNoNerveAgentInSalisbury.jpg
" the nerve agent attack in Britain on Sergei V. Skripal, "
There was no attack on the Skripals. or on anyone else.
The Russophobia in whose context it falls, is of a higher order, in which a fabricated
narrative of a Skripal-like attack had an important function.
The Skripals were perfectly happy to lend their name to the fabrication, and are living
happily, probably in New Zealand.
The Daily Beast article that b linked to describes how many serious, well-informed people
felt that Haspel was unsuitable to lead the CIA. Even more strange and troubling was that Haspel was supported by Trump's nemesis,
John Brennan.
Despite all that, MAGA Trump still nominated her. Any notion that Trump is at odds with, or "manipulated" by, Haspel, Bolton, or Pompeo is
just propaganda. We've seen such reporting before (esp. wrt Bolton) and Trump has taken no
action.
I see that Trump derangement is alive and well here at MoA. Commenters talk as if Trump is
the first president stupid enough to be manipulated by the security agencies and shadow
government sometimes referred to as a "deep state". People don't have to be historians or
look back to Rome, just read the books about how the great general who "won WWII" was used
by the oligarchy which had full control of US foreign policy throughout Eisenhower's term in
office.
Works produced after WWII, C. Wright Mills, The Power elite was written in 1956,The
Brothers and The Divil's Chessboard each about the Dulles Brothers and how they operated US
foreign policy for the interests of the oligarchy, and the work Peter Phillips, GIANTS: The
Global Power Elite and the work of David Rothkopf which thoroughly describes the feudal
system under which the Western cultures are ruled.
The US government is a pantomime it is a show it has no power.
How many here can honestly say they understand that the US dollar itself and the ENTIRE
GLOBAL FINANCIAL SYSTEM is privately owned. Why do you think the "banks were bailed out"?
because the banks were in power not the government. The US is 22 trillion in debt - the
oligarchy is the creditor - take over the US gov. and you have a powerless pile of
debt.
Around 6,000 people control 85% of global assets until that changes nothing will change.
The oligarchy won virtually all the mines and control the price of all basic commodities
necessary for modern life, the internet, oil of course and more.
What is failing and what has failed over and over for 500 years is Western Civilization and
its three "great religions" which preach obedience, oppression, domination by a one god
suffocating mythology.
But the oligarchy doesn't own just the basic commodities, it owns the religions and it owns
the drugs and all illegal trade as well.
Western "civilization" is really nothing more than one vast feudal kingdom, with royal
courts in DC, Tel Aviv and Ryiadh. Wheather there is a god or not, religion is made of
flesh and blood not miracles. No Rabbi or Priest or Imam claims visitations by god to
instruct them on doctrine - they are flesh and blood and they want power so they behave
like sycophants to the money they need to expand their power...all for the good souls under
their care.
Haspel was CIA station chief in London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired
to stop Trump's candidacy. In her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more
likely she participated in it. That Brennan supported her argues for the latter.
What can we expect from a tv personality who became a US president? A man who ran with an
advertisement worthy of a business man like him, "Make America Great Again." How does he go
about doing it? Giving more money to the military industrial-Congressional complex, even
though we are really flat broke. Using aggressive tactics used by Wall Street in hostile
company takeovers to really intimidate other nations. And hire and place those he really
agrees with in important positions who really reflect his true feelings. I'm sure when he
spoke with Haspel before offering her the job, he brought up the topic of torture and
agreed with her on its use on terrorists.
I think there's a reasonable case to be made that they conspired not to stop Trump but
to further speculation of Trump's "collusion" with Russia (what would later be known as
Russiagate). The "collusion" and "Russia meddled" accusations are what fueled the new
McCarthyism.
I'll just add to Jerry's comment at #3 that the final line in the movie "Day of the Condor"
is something like "But will they print it?" which really spoke to the message of the film
in its entirety. The condor being an endangered bird for whom the hero is named, and the
beginning outrage being the brutal murder of book lovers researching useable plot details
for the 'company'makes this message current and applicable to what we see in the Skripal
case. And instead of librarians, we now have online commenters, a doughty breed, and we
have Assange.
Instead of 'Will they print it?' I am wondering 'Will they make another movie about
it?'
Remind me, where is Yulia Skripal these days? Well and truly 'disappeared' it seems. The
mask is off. the snarling face of the beast is there for all to see.
What a total waste of an article discussing a story published in NYT or WaPo.
b, the World has divided itself into those who consume alternative media such as this
and stupidos who consume MSM. There is nothing in-between that you are attempting to
discuss and dissect here. NYT = cognitive value zero.
Fake News not worth one millisecond of our time, not even to decode what the regime
wants us to know, we know all that already. Personally, I am only interested in the new
methods of domestic repression, what is next after the warning of Assange arrest, future
rendition and torture. The Deep Stare appears to be coming out into open, will it soon get
rid of the whole faux democracy construct and just use iron fist to rule? It already impose
its will as the rule of law. All of the Western block is heading in this direction.
Photos of fake dead ducks and fake sickened children confirm the Skripal story is, in turn,
completely fake. It says a lot that the NY Times either does not know this or that its
contempt for its readership matches the contempt by which the intelligence agencies hold
for their putative boss.
The story veers into complete fiction when it claims that pictures of dead ducks had any
effect on Trump. He doesn't like, nor care about animals. Mataman | Apr 16, 2019 9:45:30 AM
This assumes that Trump would primarily care about the ducks (and children) when he
approved a massive expulsion, rather that his image and "ah, in that case it would look bad
if we do not do something really decisive".
In any case, I was thinking why NYT would disclose something like that. The point is
that readers of Craig Murray (not so few, but mostly Scottish nationalists who are also
leftist and have scant possibilities and/or inclination to vote in USA) and MoonOfAlabama
would quickly catch a dead fish here, but 99.9% of the public is blissfully unaware of any
incongruences in the "established" Skripal narrative.
BTW, it is possible that the journalist who scribbled fresh yarn obtained from CIA did it
earnestly. Journalists do not necessarily follow stories that they cover -- scribbling from
given notes does not require overtaxing the precious attention span that can be devoted to
more vital cognitive challenges. I am lazy to find the link, but while checking for news on
Venezuela, I stumbled on a piece from Express, a British tabloid, where Guaido was named a
"figurehead of the oposition" supported by "450 Western countries". My interpretation was
that more literate journalists were moved for to more compelling stories as Venezuela went
to the back burner.
Yes, indeed, the Skripal Affair is one of the obviously contrived stunts we've seen.
Just outrageous in its execution. On a par with the US having a man who didn't even run for president of Venezuela swear
himself in and then pressure everyone to accept him as president.
Interesting, I had no idea Gina Haspel - aka, The Queen of Blood - played a role. I
thought it was all original dirty work by Britain's Theresa May. Boy, I hope people are through with the false notion that if women just get into
leadership, the world will become a better gentler place.
Macron was (afaik?) the only EU 'leader' who was quoted in the MSM as bruiting re. the
Skripal affair a message like:
.. no culpability in the part of Russia has been evidenced .. for now...
I suppose he was enjoined to shut his gob right quick (have been reading about brexit so
brit eng) as nothing more in that line was heard.
Hooo, the EU expelled a lot of Russ. diplomats, obeying the USuk, which certainly
created some major upsets on the ground.
Some were expelled, went into other jobs, other places, but then others arrived, etc.
The MSM has not made any counts - lists - of names numbers - etc. of R diplos on the job -
anywhere. As some left and then others arrived.
Once more, this was mostly a symbolic move, if extremely nasty, insulting, and
disruptive.
Theresa May's speech re. Novichok, Independent 14 March 2018:
.. on Monday I set out that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a
Novichok: a military grade nerve agent developed by Russia. Based on this capability,
combined with their record of conducting state sponsored assassinations – including
against former intelligence officers whom they regard as legitimate targets – the UK
Government concluded it was highly likely that Russia was responsible for this reckless and
despicable act. ..
imo, the media has, once again, simply taken its lead from trump himself, & started
making things up completely. & you're absolutely correct in pointing out that, much
like trump's true believers, the msm's targeted audience never even notices...
Thanks for bringing this Skripal segment to light, b, as most of us don't read the NY
Times in any form. Haspel likely had a hand in the planning of the overall scheme of
which the Skripal saga and Russiagate are interconnected episodes. Clearly, the Money Power
sees the challenge raised by Russia/China/Eurasia as existential and is trying to counter
hybridly as it knows its wealth won't save it from Nuclear War.
after integrity initiative, we know the uk is full of shite on most everything... thus, the
msm will not be talking about integrity initiative..
what i didn't know is what @18 lysias pointed out.."Haspel was CIA station chief in
London in 2016, when U.S. and Brit intel agencies conspired to stop Trump's candidacy. In
her position, Haspel had to know about the plotting, more likely she participated in it.
That Brennan supported her argues for the latter." ditto jr's speculation @20 too...
so gaspel shows trump some cheap propaganda that she got from who??
my main problem with b's post - i tend to see it like kiza @23) is maintaining the idea
trump isn't in on all of this.. the thought trump is being duped by his underlings.. if he
was and it mattered, he would get rid of them.. the fact he doesn't says to me, he is in on
it - get russia, being the 24/7 game plan of the west here still..
Please stop listening to idiot libertarians and their "US is flat broke" meme.
The reality is that: so long as Americans transact in dollars, the United States government
can tax anytime it feels like by issuing new dollars via the Fed.
Equally, so long as 60% of the world's trade is conducted in dollars, this is tens to
hundreds of billions of dollars of additional taxation surface area.
The MMT people - I don't agree 100% with everything they say, but they do understand the
actual operation of fiat currency.
The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion to
hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that currency
devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy.
I doubt Haspel knew the ducks were fake - she was probably just given stuff to pass up
the chain.
It is a lot like John Kerry who was shown convincing satellite data of the BUK launch that
hit MH17 - but no one could be bothered to pass on even the launch site coordinates to the
JIT. I'm sure this stuff goes on all the time, and of course, once Teresa May has spoken in
Parliament, and Trump committed to expelling embassy staff, there is no way any alternative
version of the truth is possible.
Skripal of course was a colleague of Steele, and possibly the only person he asked to
get info for the dossier beyond what Nellie Ohr had already given him. His evidence might
have been crucial. The CIA and others have a strong motive to kill Skripal and a stronger
one to blame the Russians.
The fact that the 'Dirty Dossier' and the 'Skripal "story"' both
originate in one and the same small town in the UK, tells you all you need to know about
both.
"The people who want a hard currency are either wealthy (and understand that conversion
to hard currency cements their wealth) or are useful idiots who don't understand that
currency devaluation is the single easiest way to tax in a democracy."
The useful idiocy is most surprising among US farmers. In the 19th century they broadly
understood that fiat money was good for chronic low-wealth debtors like themselves, while
hard money was bad and a gold standard lethal. This was the basis of the Populist movement.
Nothing has changed financially, but today's farmers, and the low-wealth debtor class in
general, seem more likely to be goldbuggers than to have any knowledge of economics or of
their own political history.
karlof1 36
Once a faction becomes submerged in the Mammon theocracy and becomes nothing but
mercenary nihilists, thinking is no longer necessary or desirable, except to come up with
attractive, pseudo-plausible lies.
This certainly characterizes "the right" (including liberals), but they have no monopoly
on it. By now "the left" is nearly as thoughtless and instrumental on behalf of Mammon,
except to the extent that a few people are starting to really grapple with what it means to
have an intrinsically ecocidal and therefore suicidal civilization. That's really the only
thought frontier left, all else has been engulfed in Mammon, productionism, scientism and
technocracy.
I remind that Mussolini wasted his legislature.. 1 balmy after noon @ a roadside spot.
it made his government stronger.?
It is clear the USA, France, Israel and UK are fasting approaching ungovernable .. no
one in government can keep the lies of the other hidden, and none of the governed believes
anyone in government, the MSM, the MIC or the AIG (ATT, Intel and Google). ..
The actors in
government, their lawyers, playmates and corporations have become the laughing stock of the
rest of the world. Everyone in the government is covering for the behaviors of someone else
in government, the MSM has raised the price of a pencil to just under a million, stock
markets are bags of hot thin air, and everyone in side and outside of the centers of power
at all levels of government have lied thru their teeth so much that their teeth are melting
from the continuous flow of hot deceitful air.
Corrupt is now the only qualification for
political office, trigger happy screwball the only qualification for the police and the
military and . making progress is like trying to conduct a panty raid at a female nudist
camp.
John Anthony La Pietra , Apr 16, 2019 3:47:03 PM |
link
span y Bob In Portland on Mon, 04/15/2019 - 3:59pm Under the general rubric of
conspiracy theory is the subset called "coincidence theory", which dismisses connections
between people as mere happenstance in order to dismiss any thought of networks that exist
beyond public scrutiny. But these networks do exist. Sometimes history takes decades to find
them, but they exist. Let's take a peek at networks in Paul Manafort's life.
Manafort was an advisor for four Republican presidential candidates: Gerald Ford, Ronald
Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bob Dole. Three of these men were connected to the CIA. Gerald Ford
was on the Warren Commission and helped its conclusions of a single assassin by moving the
bullet hole several inches up from JFK's back to the back of JFK's neck. It was an obvious
fraud, and he should have been prosecuted as an accessory after the fact. There are other
indications that he was involved with the CIA's mind control program prior to his political
career. Ronald Reagan while governor of California blocked extradition requests from New
Orleans DA Jim Garrison in the investigation into President Kennedy's murder. Reagan was
governor at the time of JFK's brother's assassination in Los Angeles. I'll refer readers to
Lisa Pease's A LIE TOO BIG TO FAIL about Reagan during that time. Reagan was also the spokesman
for the Crusade For Freedom, a CIA psyop started in the 1950s which in conjunction with Radio
Free Europe promoted former Nazis and fascists allied with Hitler during WWII and which
imported many of these Nazis into the US. George HW Bush was the CIA Director under Ford, and
investigations put him as a CIA agent or asset since his college days at Yale. I haven't looked
at Bob Dole's history. But three out of four of Manafort's presidential employers had roots in
the CIA.
If you look at Paul Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators who were
either put into power by the CIA, supported while in power by the CIA or taken out of power by
the CIA. And sometimes killed by the CIA. I would suggest that Manafort's ultimate employer was
the CIA. After the sitting president of the Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed
coup in Ukraine back in 2014 (under Secretary of State John Kerry) Manafort stuck around there
and helped the people who ousted Yanukovich. Even though Yanukovich was the duly elected
president of Ukraine, he has been dismissed as a Russian agent because he saw that the terms of
Russian treaties with Ukraine would be better for the economy than treaties with the European
Union. Therefore, the US branded Yanukovich as a Russian agent.
Just to refresh everyone's memory William Barr worked for the CIA in the seventies until he
got his law degree. He was named Attorney General by President GHW Bush (the first Bush
president) during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA
operation to illegally support the contras' attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government
while also illegally arming both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in
Beruit. The interagency team investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and
perished returning to the US.
Robert Mueller was the prosecutor in the Pan Am 103 case. He shifted the case to a couple of
Libyan jamokes and away from a group of Palestinian terrorists operating in Frankfurt, Germany
who allegedly were supplied the bomb used to bring down the airliner by Syrian arms and heroin
smuggler Monzer al-Kassar. Al-Kassar was a major arms supplier for the Iran-contra operation.
Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee.
However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA ranks. Mueller's wife, Ann
Cabell Standish, whom he married three years after the John F Kennedy assassination, was the
granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann
Mueller's granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy's
assassination there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset in a recent declassification of JFK
papers.
Curiously, Mueller's career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA
covert activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which
has been identified as having arrived in the US via Mena, Arkansas as part of the Iran-contra
drug importation operation. Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas at the time.
Mueller prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA's point man in Panama, where the CIA laundered
money and moved cocaine and weapons for the contras during Iran-contra. The federal prosecutor
in the Mena corner of Arkansas at the time of the Mena operations who steered clear of it was
Asa Hutchinson, who went on to become George W Bush's first "drug czar". (More curiously, the
person leading the failed attempt to uncover Iran-contra in the US Senate was John Kerry, who
just happened to be a teammate of Mueller on their prep school lacrosse team many years
earlier.)
Mueller prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money)
without seeing CIA fingerprints. Mueller became the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.
Look it up.
Some more: Go read Gregory Craig's Wiki page. Robert Mueller just indicted Craig along
the lines of Manafort, a la aiding Russians (actually representing Ukrainians). Craig himself
has an interesting past. He was the lawyer defending John Hinckley for the assassination
attempt on Ronald Reagan, which, if succcessful, would have put GHW Bush into the White House;
Craig defended CIA Director Richard Helms for his part in the coup of Salvador Allende; he was
the State Department's director of policy planning under Madeleine Albright; Craig worked with
Bill Clinton on his impeachment proceedings; he represented the Cuban father in the Elian
Gonzalez case. Craig was on the other side of the Noriega case.
Mueller prosecuted Noriega and Craig defended him. Craig helped Obama flipflop his position
over the FISA court and the big communications corporations who cooperated with them. Craig
represented John Edwards. And, of course, he did work in UKRAINE.
I realize that some people in the left-right political universe will rejoice that a
"Democrat" is being indicted, but Craig's history suggests that like Manafort, Mueller, Barr
and others he represents a party across the river in Langley, Virginia. Very interesting, he
and Mueller going toe to toe as Noriega was put behind bars without a hint of Noriega's
Iran-contra work for Bush and the CIA. If you've got both the prosecutor and the defense
attorney you're going to win the trial.
It's a small world after all, but you won't hear Rachel Maddow repeat long-winded linkages
among these characters in her stories.
CIA psyops where ever you look. Curious or should I say Q reous? Cause Q sure seems CIA to
me....or so says Seth Rich...no he said DNC=CIA. up 8 users have voted. —
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty
stream.”
@Lookout
At some point the Democratic Party was rolled. Bill Clinton got the big speech at the 1988
convention. He certainly wasn't the speaker he became. That speech went on and on. Then next
time around he won the presidency in a three-way race with a funny Texas billionaire and
George Bush.
When Bill went to Oxford his classmates presumed he was CIA.
Our election of 1992 may have been to promote Clinton while taking the heat away from GHW
Bush.
"... What's the real agenda though behind that article? It's to put Gina Haspel in a favourable light at the same time as it's criticising Trump. Is the NYT promoting Gina Haspel as someone who deserves a more influential position than the nation's top torturer? She wouldn't be the first such criminal being subtly encouraged to try for DJT's job in the future. ..."
"... I see it as a complex exercise in CYA. They need to reinforce certain narratives. ..."
"... As of almost 8 PM, there are 35 comments. In a national newspaper on a story like this? There must be a committee cherry picking them for "suitability" - the collection is as fake as the article. Wonderful Haspel at the head of an amazing CIA tutoring a clueless moron of a POTUS. The third part they got right. ..."
"... Why are they fluffing the torturer and the out-of-control CIA? Is something planned where they want both to shine in their future stories on that "something"? ..."
The New York Times article seems whiffy to me. (Is anything from the NYT not whiffy?) The
article is the work of no fewer than five writers and the part about Donald Trump being
swayed by pictures of sick children in hospital and dead ducks seems a bit like a game of
Chinese whispers.
What's the real agenda though behind that article? It's to put Gina Haspel in a favourable
light at the same time as it's criticising Trump. Is the NYT promoting Gina Haspel as someone
who deserves a more influential position than the nation's top torturer? She wouldn't be the
first such criminal being subtly encouraged to try for DJT's job in the future.
Better not play too many of those
"Call of Duty" video games either. You might find that being a pretend mercenary shooting
up innocent people in foreign lands is not just for the purpose of wasting a half of day on
mindless entertainment.
I see it as a complex exercise in CYA. They need to reinforce certain narratives.
>> The media was right about Trump: he has a soft spot for Russia.
>> Trump cares about people (and even ducks) - remember how he bombed Syria because
of the babies? Now Trump is super concerned about the people of Venezuela. What a
humanitarian!
>> Russia has no reason to oppose USA (in Venezuela or elsewhere) - they could just
contact their friend Trump! To do otherwise demonstrates malicious intent.
As of almost 8 PM, there are 35 comments. In a national newspaper on a story like this?
There must be a committee cherry picking them for "suitability" - the collection is as fake
as the article. Wonderful Haspel at the head of an amazing CIA tutoring a clueless moron of a
POTUS. The third part they got right.
Why are they fluffing the torturer and the out-of-control CIA? Is something planned where
they want both to shine in their future stories on that "something"?
"... Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the "change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they overlap. ..."
"... It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his political enemies. Again, nothing new. ..."
Trump is like a voodoo doll into which every sh**bag sticks pins. Firstly, it is
irrelevant whether he was a swamp creature before election or was coopted into it after.
Secondly, Trump was transparently chosen to be the "agent of change" for the other half of
the US population, just as Obama before.
Therefore, both individuals were both an admission that the change in the system is needed
and that the ruling regime is into life-extension by means of "whatever it takes". Once the
"change" potential is exhausted, repression must take over as the principal life extension
mechanism; clearly, these methods do not have a sharp start-over points in time - they
overlap.
This is where we are now, Assange was the most prominent member of the real
opposition to the regime, where they try to confuse with plenty of faux opposition.
Therefore, the Assange's head had to be chopped off publicly and his slowly rotting corpse
will now be on display through "courts of justice" for the next couple of years as a warning
to the consumers of alternative media. Go back to reading the approved "journalism" or ... To
understand better one just needs to read/re-read Solzhenitsyn.
The other major ongoing life-extension activity, overlapping with repression, is the
confiscation of guns from the last remaining armed Western population (lots of leftist oxen
pulling that cart). Having too many guns amongst the population is bad for resolving personal
conflicts peacefully, but it is even worse for the abusive, exploitative regime. Thus, taking
the guns away is doing the right thing for a totally wrong reason.
It is an interesting connection of dots that Bloody Gina is Brennan's
protégée and thus that Trump has truly stacked up his administration with
former i.e. current enemies, But this only shows that Trump works for the same masters as his
political enemies. Again, nothing new.
Therefore, where is a Western Solzhenitsyn to document artistically what transpires in a
society deeply in debt and in social & moral decline?
There were two last visits. During the first I was led in by a new young assistant, Ethan,
who was keen to agree with everything being said. Our conversation was mainly about Edward
Snowden. There are few subjects on which Julian would be reluctant to take what you might call
a paternalistic position, but over Snowden, whom he's never met but has chatted with and feels
largely responsible for, he expressed a kind of irritable admiration. 'Just how good is he?' I
asked.
'He's number nine,' he said.
'In the world? Among computer hackers? And where are you?'
'I'm number three.' He went on to say that he wondered whether Snowden was calm enough,
intelligent enough, and added that he should have come to them for advice before fleeing to
Hong Kong.
A fair reading of the situation might conclude, without prejudice, that Assange, like an
ageing movie star, was a little put out by the global superstardom of Snowden. He has always
cared too much about the fame and too much about the credit, while real relationships and real
action often fade to nothing. Snowden was now the central hub and Julian was keen to help him
and keen to be seen to be helping him. It's how the ego works and the ego always comes first.
Snowden, while grateful for the advice and the comradeship, was meanwhile playing a cannier
game than Julian. He was eager for credit, too, but behaving more subtly, more amiably, and
playing with bigger secrets. Julian said he hoped that others, I took him to mean the
Guardian and Glenn Greenwald, didn't claim too much credit for the flow of secrets. He
said he wanted me to help him get a film going, an account of what actually happened in Hong
Kong, how he helped Snowden. He said he had all the inside information and connections and it
would make a fantastic thriller. We discussed it at length and I told him the way to get movie
interest in such a thing was to get behind a big piece in Vanity Fair . He agreed and
said he would set aside time to get down to it. But I knew he wouldn't. It was odd the way he
spoke about Snowden, almost jealously, as if the younger man didn't quite understand what he
was about, needing much more from Julian than he knew how to ask for. I recognised the familiar
anxiety about non-influence: 'Snowden should have been with us from the beginning,' he said.
'He's flailing.' But they were now making up for lost time. As we spoke, Sarah was in Moscow
Airport, where Snowden was being held without a passport. 'I sent Sarah over,' said Julian in
his favourite mode. All he needed at that point was a white cat to stroke.
Snowden was everywhere in the news the last time I decided to drop in on Julian after I'd
been out in his neighbourhood. The embassy was quiet. I brought a couple of bottles of beer up
from the street and we sat in the dark room. It was a Friday night and Julian had never seemed
more alone. We laughed a lot and then he went very deeply into himself. He drank his beer and
then lifted mine and drank that. 'We've got some really historic things going on,' he said.
Then he opened his laptop and the blue screen lit his face and he hardly noticed me
leaving.
"... For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork??? ..."
"... I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy ..."
"... To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't be president. ..."
"... Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field (medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that catch the errors. ..."
"... Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors. ..."
"... "Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did not come home; all died at their own hands." ..."
"... Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government in the world on their side. ..."
"... It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many times! ..."
"... The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way? Not possible. ..."
The invasion of Iraq was a mistake of historic dimensions. The "weapons of mass destruction" excuse was a lie. When I see George
W. Bush smiling on TV, I want to puke. Likewise, I cannot view an image of Lyndon Johnson without revulsion. They are both responsible
for much death and suffering. I have heard people try to excuse both of them, with the statement that "they meant well." The road
to Hell is paved with good intentions.
For Christ's sake! The "Deep State"!?! With a well documented pathological liar and a seemingly endless supply of professional
sycophants in our government selling our nation to the highest bidder in plain sight why in the world do you folks continue to
need grand delusions of demons in the woodwork???
I have no reason to believe Comey, Clapper and Brennen have served this nation with honor and integrity in dealing with
more responsibility than that required to sit safely at home and blabber about as the victim of some grand conspiracy.
The war In Afghanistan would have ended 15 years ago if the sons of members of Congress were being drafted. "It's easy to send
someone else's sons to war."
You left out the phrase "anything other than" following the phrase "have served this nation with" in your last sentence.
You forgot to express your confidence in John McCain. Good luck with that. McCain's top aide flew to a foreign city to receive
the Steele dossier, gave it to the senator, who then gave it to the FBI–as per Steele's script, I assume. It's another reason
why we need a special counsel to look into the FBI's role. A special counsel can hardly omit the McCain piece of the puzzle, whereas
a regular prosecutor can easily ignore it and cover McCain's keister.
To the extent that McCain comes out looking bad in a special counsel's report, Trump haters like you will no longer be able
to talk about Trump's supposed terrible character in dissing noble John McCain, and holding it up as Exhibit A of why Trump shouldn't
be president.
More than anything else concerning the FBI's election shenanigans, the McCain-Steele nexus–specifically the report written
about it by a special counsel–could expose the deep state's modus operandi. Not even an inspector general's report can do that
as well as a special counsel's report.
Your book will go out of print. In 10 to 20 years it will be reprinted and sell well. It takes that long for people to remove
their heads from their nether regions and be willing to contemplate the errors made.
The real irony is that we know better. There is a vast body of literature on major cognitive errors, and the whole catalog
is on display in the debacle described. Our failures of statecraft are quite analogous to the ongoing errors in my field
(medicine), well described in "To Err is Human." We've made a lot of progress in medicine in addressing them, mostly though
systems engineering. That's because the tendency toward these errors is a result of how human brains are wired, and if you
have a human brain, no matter how smart or well educated you are, you have those tendencies. The key is to create systems that
catch the errors.
Now we have to figure out how to create systems to constrain politicians, and especially the military-industrial-Congressional
complex (Eisenhower's actual original term), from making those errors.
I commiserate with your disillusioning journey because I went through a similar odyssey into self-awareness like yours many decades
ago. I served as a medical corpsman in Vietnam (31 May 1967 – 31 May 1968). It's all been downhill from there. A gradual slide
down the slippy slope of history in our decline as a nation. There's not much one can really do. But at my age, I will be long
gone when our country hits burns and crashes as it hits bottom.
"Iraq wrecked me, even though I somehow didn't expect it to. I was foolish to think that traveling to the other side of the world
and spending a year seeing death and poverty, bearing witness to a war, learning how to be mortared at night and deciding it didn't
matter that I might die before breakfast, wasn't going to change me. Of the military units I was embedded in, three soldiers did
not come home; all died at their own hands."
Enough books and movies about those poor damaged American boys yet?
The navel gazing never stops.
Here is a thought; the unprovoked American aggression in Iraq wrecked Iraq! There is no comparison between the millions
of dead, dispossessed, displaced, terrorized and radicalized Iraqis and a few thousand PTSD cases with the richest government
in the world on their side.
Get over yourselves! Honestly! It's like a pimp complaining about bruised knuckles on account of hitting a woman too many
times!
The title of your book sounds like "Invading Iraq was a Good Idea but the Implementation was Bad and I Couldn't Fix It". Did
you really think we could invade a sovereign country based on lies and win "hearts and minds" if we just did it the right way?
Not possible.
"... Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing In Defense of Empire . Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. ..."
"... Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they had ruled Africa. ..."
"... Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view of social justice.... ..."
"... The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came to be nations. ..."
"... So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel. ..."
"... This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get richer that is why they went to war. ..."
"... Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. Just more dumbing down the "stupid class". ..."
"... The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general. ..."
"... In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war. ..."
"... And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire, and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their profit. NOTHING MORE. ..."
"... You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming. ..."
"... It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. ..."
Neocon Robert Kaplan is writing
In Defense of Empire
. Empire is good, he believes, even for those who a ruled by it without having any representation. The lunacy of his arguments can
be show best when one substitute the object of his essay:
Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often been provided by slavery, Western or Eastern. Anarchy reigned
in the interregnums. To wit, the British may have failed in Baghdad, Palestine, and elsewhere, but the larger history of the British
slaveholdership is one of providing a vast armature of stability, fostered by sea and rail communications, where before there
had been demonstrably less stability.
...
But slavery is now seen by global elites as altogether evil, despite slaveholdership having offered the most benign form of
order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable minimum.
Compared
with slaveholdership, democracy is a new and uncertain phenomenon. Even the two most estimable democracies in modern history,
the United States and Great Britain, were slaveholdership for long periods. "As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership
was born before the United States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto. Following their
initial settlement, and before their incorporation as states, the western territories were nothing less than slaveholdership possessions
of Washington, D.C. No surprise there: slaveholdership confers a loose and accepted form of sovereignty, occupying a middle ground
between anarchy and full state control.
...
Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of slavery
order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic
heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.
...
That, I submit, would be a policy direction that internalizes both the drawbacks and the benefits of slaveholdership, not as
it has been conventionally thought of, but as it has actually been practiced throughout history.
It is somewhat frightening that people believing such nonsense have influence in political circles.
In October of 2001, Max Boot wrote a Weekly Standard piece, "
The Case for
American Empire ," that featured perhaps the most representative neoconservative-authored sentence of all time:
Afghanistan and other troubled lands today cry out for the sort of enlightened foreign administration once provided by
self-confident Englishmen in jodhpurs and pith helmets ."
GENERAL PLAN EAST Hitler's Empire: Nazi Rule in Occupied Europe
By Mark Mazower (Allen Lane 2008)
"Hitler's empire was not, of course, simply a continuation of the Habsburg legacy. There were many other factors, not least
the persistent envy in German circles after 1919 of the other imperial powers: empire still seemed attractive to those who did
not have one, or one large enough, and Mazower shows how Japanese and Italian imperial ambitions meshed with German in trying
to divide the world up anew, as it had been divided by European states for four hundred years. The absence of any clear planning
or forethought also found Hitler dragging ex-colonial officials back into public life to try to rule Eastern Europe the way they
had ruled Africa."
isn't he married to Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland?
if it was Kagan , yes, but as already pointed above, it's Robert "how we would fight china" KaPLan... Let's say it's the KK
brotherhood of lunatic warhawks
Racism is not at all a legacy of slavery but a constitutive and sustaining element of the White Supremacy system estab lished
by European power during the centuries of trans-Atlantic enslavement of Black Africans. Hence its extreme resistance to eradication.
Racism is, certainly, not a "residual legacy" in the passive sense of the dead hand of the past. It is not like a motion imparted
to an object by an impulse withdrawn long ago; a motion sustained entirely by inertia. Because it is a constitutive element, it
has been necessary to systematically apply force and fraud to maintain, in mutant forms, this vital pillar of white supremacy.
Accordingly, new forms of "slave trade" and slavery as well as new structures of raci
sm are still being elaborated and justified, even today, as they have been, whenever needed, since the 16th century.
For example, on Nov. 11, 2006, in Philadelphia, at a Wharton Business School conference on business in Africa, World Trade
Organization representative Hanniford Schmidt announced the creation of a WTO initiative for "full private stewardry of labor"
for the parts of Africa
that have been hardest hit by the 500 years of Africa's free trade with the West. "Full, untrammelled stewardry is the best
available solution to African poverty, and the inevitable resu
lt of free-market theory," Schmidt told more than 150 attendees.
Schmidt acknowledged that the stewardry program -- which will require Western companies doing business in some parts of Africa
to own their workers outright-- was similar in many ways
to slavery, but explained that just as "compassionate conservatism" has polished the rough edges on labor relations in industrialized
countries, full stewardry, or "compassionate slavery," could be a similar boon to developing ones.
Elites who have never worked a day in their lives....never served in the military (right or wrong)....have a one dimensional view
of social justice....and on and on...
Anyone else notice the picture that went with the article? Its a picture of a man holding up the world. The same bollocks that people 150 years ago claimed that Great Britain was 'Holding Up The World' by killing Africans and ruling
over India. Such bollocks. The rhetoric of 2 centuries ago is the same rhetoric of today. Nothing ever changes, but people never learn
to see the propaganda for what it is.
Kaplan is Jewish, and it is utterly bizarre
that he can write positively about empire, given that the paradigmatic empire, the Roman one, colonized the area now called Israel,
with the Jews revolting, to which Rome responded by destroying the Temple in Jerusalem, an event which forced Kagan's religion
to be reconstituted, since up until the Temple was destroyed by the Romans, Judaism centered around the Temple.
Kagan seems to be completely unaware of his own heritage, or at least not to care about it: but then why does he start his
piece with a pogrom? This reminds me of something that Putin has said in a
speech :
Today, many nations are revising their moral values and ethical norms, eroding ethnic traditions and differences between peoples
and cultures. Society is now required not only to recognise everyone's right to the freedom of consciousness, political views
and privacy, but also to accept without question the equality of good and evil, strange as it seems, concepts that are opposite
in meaning. This destruction of traditional values from above not only leads to negative consequences for society, but is also
essentially anti-democratic, since it is carried out on the basis of abstract, speculative ideas, contrary to the will of the
majority, which does not accept the changes occurring or the proposed revision of values.
It's symptomatic that certain hasbara troll missed no opportunity to take up strategic position and drop some initial disinfo
in order to block here any inquiry into who really were the masters of the slave trade over centuries ?
Robert kagan or Robert Kaplan both are lunnies and unfortunately, in the past several US administrations, these cooks have risen
to the top. These guys are a product of nazi Germany at its worst where the thinking that the powerful nations have a god given
mission to rule and the rest of the world is here to be slaves to be taken care of.
Not sure how many people caught this, but
the prince of Wales, on a visit to Iraq was filmed during a visit to British troops saying just that. "These people are happy
to have us here to rule them just like we did before".
Neocons are today's version old British imperial superiority which led to the Second World War along with nazi ideology.
Someday we are going to have an overwhelming US neocon administration and this will be the end.
I think this is definitely the direction the neoliberal neocons want to take us -- back to slavery. I was struck by a statement
made by Silicon Valley venture capitalist Thomas Perkins (who created a stir in January with a letter published in the WSJ comparing
the 1% in the U.S. to Jews persecuted by the Nazis during Kristallnacht). In this statement, Perkins is calling for suffrage based
on the total number of tax dollars the voter pays.
Perkins gave a
talk titled "The War on the 1%" last month at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco:
Mr. Perkins' interlocutor, Adam Lashinsky, soon had the frustrated look of a man trying to swim in a vat of molasses.
Mr. Lashinsky pointed out, for instance, that it was ridiculous to equate powerless Jews in the Third Reich with extremely
powerful tech overlords in present-day America.
"No, I think the parallel holds," Mr. Perkins said calmly. For one thing, "If you pay 75 percent of your life's earnings
to the government you are being persecuted."
He had a better plan: "You don't get to vote unless you pay a dollar in taxes. later he added, "A million in taxes, you
get a million votes." He said he was kidding about that last part, kind of.
One could argue that Citizens United already creates the dollarocracy system Perkins imagines. Slavery can't be far off.
Personally I think the Neos would be fine with a modified Feudalism: Serfs are easier to control than slaves.
But the difference is minimal and largely rhetorical. Ultimately neither has much freedom.
Anyway, what Perkins was advocating (different amounts of votes depending on wealth) isnt new. Some folks advocated that in
the 1800s.
But its so weird to see a modern person advocating that openly. Thats supposed to be a thing youre only supposed to talk about
behind closed doors. But I guess times are changing and some kind of NeoFeudalism will probably be endorsed publicly by the mainstream
in a few decades.
I personally do not think bush was a neocon. He was a patsy who was manipulated by neocons. He didn't have the brains, the
ability to plot or the vision of these two loonies and the neocon masses that seems to be growing everyday in the US. Bush was
a twit. A neocon administration is what we will see with hitlery Clinton if she is elected. Nothing worse that an intelligent,
motivated, self entered, ambitious neocon to set the road for a PNAC scenario.
But Cheney was a Neocon, and he and Rumsfeld hired the whole PNAC crew and set all that crap in motion. He was also trying
to make up for damned near bankrupting what then became Halliburton. And he succeeded on both counts. There isn't a person in
the US today with any "serious" foreign policy creds who has any business running anything. So our choice next time will be...
bad and worse.
Kaplan effectively believes that the Empire is AngloZionist:
the British had their hands full in Mesopotamia in 1941: given the tendency of the Arab masses toward anti-Western and anti-Zionist
ideologies (a tendency that was itself at least in part a reaction to British dominance)
So maybe I was unfair to the Saker when I said in an earlier thread that I regretted his using this term.
Kaplan/Kagan is an amusing slip, but they're equally insane and the point is well made - that supremacists are a bit too eager
to fall in love with their own bullshit.
"As both a dream and a fact the American slaveholdership was born before the United
States," writes the mid-20th-century historian of westward expansion Bernard DeVoto.
Actually, I think these neocons fail on their on there own terms. I mean that they're actually very poor imperial strategists
even if one accepts the neocon argument that empire is a good thing. If anything, it's the neocons who have no grasp of realpolitik
and who are blinded by an ideology that is far more pro-Israel than pro-American. All the wars they've promoted have been debacles
that have diminished not increased America's standing. Unconditional support for Israel (which earns successive American administrations
only Israeli contempt, never gratitude) and the obsession with punishing and destabilizing Iran totally distorts not only American
Middle East policy but American foreign policy as a whole. Pushing for a new Cold War with Russia creates a powerful enemy where
previously there was none. So for all their seemingly shameless promotion of empire, these people will one day be noted only for
their contribution to American decline.
Robert Kagan is Victoria Nuland's husband no? My question would be how did Ms. Nuland get promoted to Under-Secretary? Hillary
Clinton had to have signed off on that.
" the most benign form of order for thousands of years, keeping the anarchy of ethnic, tribal, and sectarian war bands to a reasonable
minimum"
Am i mistaken? Because I am quite certain sectarian wars have never been worse. Syria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Rwanda, and DRC.
These countries became mixed at some point. And now they are being torn apart.
Finally, we get to discuss the poisonous, rotten core of Imperial Supremacy and who authored, promotes it and is the main driving
force behind it. Hallelujah! This is exactly where we must begin. Finally, the purpose of all these discussions becomes more defined.
I'm not sure if your error in the author's name was really so bad. Maybe it was meant this way for all to investigate further
, because that is precisely what everyone is failing to do in these discussions on imperial supremacy: to research the authors
of this evil ideological foreign policy and there are many behind it in different arenas: politics, finance, media, lobbies, religious
groups, all honing the message, driving the narrative, driving policy, bribing politicians to push this twisted ideology forward.
Your error, intentional or otherwise was nonetheless so timely and auspicious at a moment in history when we are starting to
see , what evil injustice is being advanced in our name against other nations, and this article falls into our lap in an
almost prophetic manner with such perfect timing as a warning to us all: to look for the root and squash it before it's too late,
because unless we see where it originates, we are powerless. The fact that your error perplexed many here already can only be
a good thing, because it peaks their curiosity: hey, wait a minute; this is not the author, what's going on here? And then
upon further research, they discover two names to familiarize themselves with, and then three, and then a pattern starts to emerge,
and then they go further connecting the dots until they finally get the big picture that: the advancement of imperial supremacy
in this day and age...is most definitely a Zionist-driven operation.
So they have similar names, and are no relation but they're united in the cause of Zionism and the imperial project
that will shelter Zionism permanently.:
This individual, Kaplan, is obviously trying to make the case for imperial supremacy which sets the stage for justifying
the injustice that Zionism has wrought in Israel and that Zionists want to permanently legitimize by any means possible.
These Ziocons will bombard us and the world from left, right and centre with an argument designed for every political persuasion
to justify legitimizing imperial supremacy where Zionism can exist comfortably with permanent impunity and be cleansed of its
ongoing and future crimes.
Now I know I'm going to have fun here separating the chaff from the wheat on this issue. This is a subject that Zionists, whether
liberal (a non-existent creatures in Zionism; because Zionism turns all who embrace it into fascists) or conservative, are irresistably
drawn to and at the same time it's a subject that draws out their duplicitous nature. Those who are secretly with Zionism's goals
will do ANYTHING to steer us off course and prevent us from visualizing the pattern, and if we dare to; they'll hurl their most
convenient slander; A.S.
Thank you for making us aware of this article which lays the foundation for all discussions on what we are witnessing in Ukraine
and the Middle East with advancing imperial supremacy and which hopefully will motivate everyone to further explore the depth
and scope of Zionist involvement in this expanding foreign operation that is evil to its core.
And don't worry, apparently you're not the first to mix up these names and make this fortunate mistake, because in essence,
whether one author is blunt and the other doublespeaks liberal jargon they are united in their cause and we should be aware of
what we're up against to tear their structure down and derail their agenda.
It's great to see others stumble upon the truth that was begging to be found. If not for this timely omen, I might have given
up trying to make everyone see and have started doubting even the sound of my own fury.
Who set these wheel in motion Robert Kagan and William Kristol or Dick and Rummy? Come on...the authors of the PLAN of course.
Sure Cheney's a lunatic, but even he couldn't come up with this. Cheney's part of the muscle.
We've been fighting this fight, Kalithea, for a long time now, every way we can. So you'll not find me defending a one of them.
But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. We're "just" dealing with the current
crop, and hopefully we'll somehow succeed before there's no Palestine, Palestinians or olive trees left. Or Syrians, or Iraqis,
or Ukrainians, or... Just don't think for a minute that these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews,
low and high, who share the same damned values even if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen". And they've
ALL got to be stopped.
This is from a 2004 article by Uri Avnery at Counterpunch:
The "oligarchs" are a tiny group of entrepreneurs who exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures
of the state and to amass plunder amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars. In order to safeguard the perpetuation of their
business, they took control of the state. Six out of the seven are Jews.
In the first years of post-Soviet Russian capitalism they were the bold and nimble ones who knew how to exploit the economic
anarchy in order to acquire enormous possessions for a hundredth or a thousandth of their value: oil, natural gas, nickel and
other minerals. They used every possible trick, including cheating, bribery and murder. Every one of them had a small private
army.
But the most intriguing part of the series recounts the way they took control of the political apparatus. After a period
of fighting each other, they decided that it would be more profitable for them to cooperate in order to take over the state.
At the time, President Boris Yeltsin was in a steep decline. On the eve of the new elections for the presidency, his rating
in public opinion polls stood at 4%. He was an alcoholic with a severe heart disease, working about two hours a day. The state
was, in practice, ruled by his bodyguard and his daughter; corruption was the order of the day.
The oligarchs decided to take power through him. They had almost unlimited funds, control of all TV channels and most of
the other media.
Vladimir Putin, the taciturn and tough ex-KGB operative, assumed power, took control of the media, put one of the oligarchs
(Mikhail Khodorkovsky) in prison, caused the others to flee (Berezovsky is in England, Vladimir Gusinsky is in Israel, another,
Mikhail Chernoy, is assumed to be hiding here.
George W. Bush and John Kerry both brag about their talent for raising enormous sums of money. From whom? From pensioners?
From the mythical "old lady in tennis shoes"? Of course not, but from the cabals of billionaires, the giant corporations and
powerful lobbies (arms dealers, Jewish organiztions, doctors, lawyers and such). Many of them give money to both candidates–just
to be on the safe side.
All of these expect, of course, to receive a generous bonus when their candidate is elected. "There is no such thing as
a free lunch", as the right-wing economist Milton Friedman wrote. As in Russia, every dollar (or ruble) invested wisely in
an election will yield a ten- or hundred-fold return.
Even educated Americans speak of Putin as a "thug". All he has done is restore the rule of law, what Germans used to call a
Rechtsstaat .
It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously a man
of the people. He also takes the political ideas that European civilization was built on seriously, something that can be said
for no Western leader I know of.
It is turning out as the nineteenth century Slavophiles thought it would: Russia has become the last defender of Western civilization.
Someone above mentioned the Robert Kaplan piece in the Atlantic "how we would fight china" that appeared in 2005. This was not
lunatic but a very interesting article on US military plans on how to confront China just off of China's territorial waters (I
think the lunacy is the notion that US national interests require us to maintain a war footing in the Western Pacific, but that
is an argument we have lost here in the US). I hadn't seen this before. In any case it should be read by anyone interested in
US plans against China. It explains Hillary's 'pivot to Asia' policy.
By the same token, Ukrainians can be understood when they kick out a president who wants to bring them into the Russian orbit
against their will.
I was surprised to read that. I should have thought that Avnery has a concept of the rule of law. Also, is Avnery so uninformed
not to know that most Ukrainians do not want to join NATO?
"Even educated Americans". That must be either a relative term, or the voice of the educated is never heard. It is difficult for
me to imagine how an "educated" person could be so ill-informed. Back on planet earth, this would never happen.
Maybe this is far-fetched and I know that Putin bailed out some the the Russian Oligarchy during the 2008 recession so they would
owe him support at this crucial time. But recently I watched an interview on 60 Minutes with businessman Bill Browder who trashed
talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder who at one point alleges
being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country. Anyway I'm not sure what kind of subterfuge
he was up to when he stayed in Russia but he made some nasty accusations against Putin.
A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during
Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the Soviet
Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.
Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless revolution.
Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.
I believe it is during this time Putin became aware of the power of Zionist media to destroy political careers.
In October, in an interview in Le Figaro, Putin announced that he would no longer tolerate criticism of the government by media
controlled by the oligarchs. "If necessary we will destroy those instruments that allow this blackmail", he declared.
There's no doubt in my mind that Zionist influence had a hand in what is happening in Ukraine and the protests that tried to
interfere with Putin's re-election. Maybe Putin pissed off some other Zionist oligarchs. I haven't been able to research more
on this issue but hopefully some of you will look further.
But this just reinforces the point I've been trying to make that Zionists are involved in this imperial global expansion, in
this case because the capitalist system feels threatened by Putin and potential reforms. Zionists are up to their eyeballs in
this imperial advance and I still believe they're in the driver's seat.
Are you kidding me? Do you think the U.S. could ever dream of reining 1.3 billion stray cats with nukes and a formidable army?
For gawd's sake this article is practically a manifesto on Zionism supremacy, it's that transparent. But of course, you'll never
admit it.
Oh the Neocons were absolutely behind this Ukrainian gambit, and I'm thinking their goals were twofold: to keep Russia preoccupied
and get hold of Sevastopol. That way, it would be very difficult for her to help Syria and, of course, Iran -- still the main
goals for those creeps. And yeah, find me one Neocon, anywhere, who does not support Israel. So yeah, Zionists.
remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:37:51 PM |
58
really, read some history? u s imperialism is the single most dangerous threat to humanity
israel is a vassal state
exactly as indonesia was under suharto, or colombia under any of its creep compradors
your sense of disproportion amazes me truly, maybe it is because you are american, you want to blame someoen else for your
barbarity, 'the smart jew' is again the perfect target for imbeciles
it is a puppet state, it is a non state, who does exactly what washington wants it to do. it effects only only middle east
policy & even that it is by far the junior party, if washington told israel to go live in the sudetenland, the state of israel
would, is is a pantin, a puppet increasingly with more bark than bite
you choose anti semitism because as american you are frightened of being obliged to burn your shithouse down
Oh no, rememberringgiap, no. It's the combination of the two. And for gosh sakes, I've known how bad America was since I was a
kid, and spent most of my life trying to do something about it so I'm hardly afraid to admit it. We see the end coming, it's gonna
be UGLY, and we know we deserve it; not a nice place to be but it's honest. And Israel is equally nasty, sometimes in the lead,
sometimes as a follower, and I don't hate Jews but I sure do loathe Zionists, whatever faith they may be. (And again, in America,
there are a lot more Christians blindly supporting Israel than Jews.)
remembererringgiap , Mar 21, 2014 11:49:14 PM |
60
they are puppets, nothing more nothing less. the actual state of israel began criminally with deir yassin & that state gets worse,
it is little surprise, that its population is leaving in droves, more than at any other time, so would i with nutcases like lieberman
& netanyahu
but they are no more than donkeys
pakistan on the other hand frightens the living shit out of those united states
In the atlantic.com article In Defense of Empire the words "slave" or "slavery" in fact do not exist.
or example, in the above quoted text, we find this phrase: "Throughout history, governance and relative safety have most often
been provided by slavery ...". From the atlantic.com url, instead we find: "Throughout history, governance and relative
safety have most often been provided by empires ...".
The same types of differences exist in every single case. Obviously, this is a huge problem. Either the quotes are wrong in
this post or they have been edited out in a later version of the atlantic.com version and replaced with the words "empires," "imperialism",
etc.
Which lets Israel/zionist Jewish fascists off the hook for the war crimes they are responsible for. "They're just pawns of
a larger poer, pity them, but don't condemn them. And for god's sakes, don't do anything meaningful that might interfere in their
sacred mandate from the godhead."
Which is essentially what Jewish zionist hasbara is all about, whether from the zionist left or the zionist right.
It's never "us", it's always "them".
Excuse me while I go puke, Charles Manson in drag.
@48 Yes, totally not lunatic for the United States to go to war with one of the most populated countries on the planet.
Wanting to go to war with enormous countries like China, Russia or even Iran (not as big, but still what, over twice as big
as iraq and afghanistan combined?) is totally and completely rational.
Thank goodness Putin did some house-cleaning, but he no doubt made enemies among Zionists no doubt on Wall Street as well.
They must have had capital tied up in these Zionist-run Russsian companies.
@62 WHAT Zionist left? There is none. All the Democrats or whatever that are zionists are also right wing. They just dress up
imperialism in fancy words like 'humanitarianism', thats all.
There hasnt been a zionist left since the last communist zionists in Israel retired or died decades ago.
@57 You realize that critiquing zionism, which is a modern political ideology, is NOT the same as critiquing Judaism, the religion,
right? Right? Guess not.
Because there are zionist Christians (probably more than there are zionist jews) and nonzionist jews (a growing number of young
jews realize Israel is an apartheid state).
So stop trying to slur anti-zionists as anti-semites, thats just slander.
Hey kalithea, the Russians let Khodorkovsky out of prison early. Almost the first thing the loyal Israeli citizen did was go to
the Ukraine and encourage the neo-nazis running the place now to get even more brutal and nazi like.
I could ask what's up with that, but I think everybody here knows the answer.
@65: I think b made it very clear. He used the word "substitute", and the title of the post was directly followed by the same
title, but without the substitution.
This kind of snark is just part of leftist blog culture. (I don't know if right wingers do it.)
I'm beginning to think that the substitution of "Kagan" for "Kaplan" was snark too, but that I didn't pick up on.
Do Michelle and her speechwriters really think that Chinese rulers don't take that as a big joke? I'm sure they're laughing
their heads off behind her back. I hope that the reason speechwriters put stuff like that in there is for the domestic American
audience.
And yet another Zionist oligarch who bilked Russia and hates Putin.:
On 23 August 2003, Gusinsky travelled from Israel to Athens, where he was arrested under a Greek-Russian treaty for fraud amounting
to millions in damages.[5] Intense pressure from American leaders (mainly from US ambassador in Athens Tomas Miller), Israeli
officials and the European Jewish Congress on the Greek government led to Gusinsky's release within five days.[6]
Mr Gusinsky says we will all pay the price if western leaders appease President Putin. He likens the situation apocalyptically
to the 1930s and the world's treatment of Hitler. Mr Putin's hands, he says, are already red with the blood of murdered Chechens.
Mr Putin's popularity comes in part from his promise to do away with the oligarchs, a group of 20-odd billionaire businessmen
who got rich stripping assets from privatised companies they bought for nothing.
Posted by: remembererringgiap | Mar 22, 2014 12:46:04 AM | 75
"just read strormfront that enough - that's the level of research repeated ad finitum - whether its lagos or louisiana"
It's well known stormfront is a zionist front/agent provocateur site, much like freerepublic, though tailored to the more hardcore
freak. Why promote them?
Maybe Zionists deserve to rule, they're smarter, they work harder and are better organized. You folks couldn't organize an ice
cream social. Just sayin'
But the wheels were set in motion before any of us were born, and I'm an old woman now. ... Just don't think for a minute that
these monsters were not, and are not, encouraged and enabled by non-Jews, low and high, who share the same damned values even
if they don't personally give a crap about Israel or its "chosen".
Testify Sister! Tell us who set the wheels in motion, tell us all what the plan is. What tricks did the Jews pull on us non-Jews
way back then, how are non-Jews enabling their diabolical worldwide plan?
WTF are you trying to say? The Zionist have no position on US-China relations as far as anyone can see. I read that article
by Robert Kaplan and he reported the views of officers in the US Navy. I am quite sure that Israel has not penetrated the US Navy.
This is a perspective of good old fashioned US imperialism. I know that the Zionist work in the background and try to influence
US policy, but they do not control it. Especially inside the US Navy. You have no idea how power is distributed inside the US.
"... I have told the whole truth in that, and only dead men can tell the truth in this world ..." Mark Twain
Eugenics is evil ... however, in Kagans case, his removal from the gene pool and his ilk, could only be seen as a darwinian,
evolutionary advancement for humanity.
thank you, rememberinggiap, for your calmness. you are correct in saying that many of us (and that includes myself look for causes
outside our internal history. perhaps the fixed point should be the Dulles brothers, who if they did not set us down this infernal
path, gave us a mighty and prolonged push. Mark Twain had it all figured out over a century ago. as to American zionists, Jews
of my and Nora's generaton lived through the discrimination of convenanted housing tracts, university quotas and professional
exclusions down to the Vietnam war, and they can't put it out of their mind. they probably don't know that they were not the only
ones. when I was a student at Yale living with George Bush Sr.'s aunt in New Haven, Catholics and most of the Yale professors
were excluded from the lawn tennis club situated just behind the new school of management on Whitney avenue. No Irish or italians
need apply. the us is a swarm of internal contradictions, and it's history is out of control.
Nora at 45: Kindly cancel that request. Just answer this. Do you agree with this quote from Pragma:
Neither is it coincidence that (before the creation of izrael but about the time of the balfour deal ...) Russia was poisoned
by zionist "communists" (just another projection), nor is it coincidence that Germany was relentlessly pushed into war and
later broken and crushed and not reinstated until this very day ...
If that's a good summary of them, maybe there's no need for you to tell us about your 'historical' beliefs.
Also, in fact I only think Pragma is the actual 'destroy moonofalabama' operative here. You and his other supporters seem to
hold your beliefs sincerely. FWIW and for what they're worth which is less than zero.
The US Navy has known it Carriers are simply very large targets for many, many years, and so do the PLAN.
Carrier battle groups are for projecting brute military force and creating invasive sovereignity(sic) in support of Empire
around the globe ... NEVER , in the modern era to be risked against 1st world powers. All those billions upon billions
of $ would be lost in the briefest moment of conflict with the PLAN. See: Anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM).
I must admit I didn't compare the original text with what b cited, I still had too much of a confidence into him which now vanished
totally. Others @6) and Massinissa discovered the bluff immediately, so they deserve the honour. I really don't know what the
purpose of this double bluff is: changing the text and the author??? I would say just stupid...
It also damages people like Chinweizu @10), the famous nigerian writer who presented a case of REAL stewardry of labour by
WTO close to slaveholdership
maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of
us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes to the commenters here confusing all of us.... I
think the whole blog here is really disintegrating, from top to bottom...
Knut at 83: Lenin had this figured out, imperialism is a stage of capitalism, a reaction to excess production and internal markets
being exhausted of opportunities for excess profits. The European capitalist countries began struggling with this phenomenon in
the late 19th century and the US a few decades later. There's really no solution other than ending capitalism and/or social democracy.
In that context, pinning responsibility for imperialism on Jews is just idiotic, and pinning things on the US will just make
folks less wary of its natural successor, China. That doesn't mean it's not a good thing when there is multi-polar world, because
that coincided in the post-war era and may coincide again with greater 'space' for independent, populist, democratic regimes to
arise.
And that also doesn't mean I accuse Russia of being an imperialist. Lenin was making a general observation (I think) and there
are exceptions. Regimes under attack by 'big imperialism' sometimes produce sincere democratic/populist nationalists. I hope/think
Russians are lucky enough to have one of those running their country now. The people should be aware they'll likely need to struggle
'some day soon' to avoid reverting to the 'imperialist norm'.
@87) where is the enlightment of readers doing this? all empires, great and less great, historically have been founded on slaveholdership,
now changing to a form of forced labour like in most of the arabic monarchistic countries or work without the minimum ILO standards
like in the case of the Sotchi Olympic workers....
Human Trafficking and Slavery by the US Government, Military and Corporations for MASSIVE PROFIT is very, very real,
in a 'literal' sense, too ... all of it corrupt and illegal even under US Law ... and no one will ever be prosecuted ...
12 years a Slave , indeed ... as I recall,
no individual, business or official involved was ever held accountable for the multiple crimes, even then illegal, committed against
Solomon Northup , then a Freeman ... one hundred and
sixty years has passed and where are we now ?
But if Congress approves, the Army would drop from today's active-duty force of 522,000 soldiers to between 440,000 and 450,000
over the next three years.
"Since we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged" ground wars, the Army is larger than required and "larger than we
can afford," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who announced the plan, said at the Pentagon.
California may win more than it loses in the shift of resources as older aircraft are phased out and new ones are brought
on board.
Spending for cyberwarfare will increase under the plan. That could benefit larger government contractors in Silicon Valley,
including Cisco Systems Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Oracle Corp. and a growing number of start-ups in defense-related equipment
and software.
In addition, Northrop Grumman Corp. uses a facility in Palmdale to build the unmanned RQ-4 Global Hawk drone aircraft that
will replace the high-flying U-2 spy planes, famous in the early Cold War but now proposed for retirement. The company has
about 2,500 employees on the program in Southern California.
The Pentagon previously had planned to mothball a version of the Global Hawk and keep the U-2 flying. But Hagel said
the operating costs of the drone had fallen and that with its greater range and endurance, it "makes a better high-altitude
reconnaissance platform for the future."
The Air Force has 32 U-2s based at Beale Air Force Base in Marysville, Calif.
Hagel also called for retiring the Air Force's entire fleet of A-10 "Warthog" ground attack fighters, as well as mothballing
half of the Navy's fleet of 22 cruisers, and building only 32 of the Navy's littoral combat ships, not 52 as previously planned.
The shallow-draft, lightly armed warship is designed for clearing mines and anti-submarine warfare. Hagel said it might not
be heavily armed enough and called for studying whether a new frigate would be better.
The only military force to grow would be special operations forces. Increasingly used for training and counter-terrorism
missions around the world, the elite force would increase by several thousand to 69,700 .
Which would give the US a spoiling, blackmail power to push for its interests but no imperial power.
Rather than Obama's post-imperialism, in which the secretary of state appears like a lonely and wayward operator encumbered
by an apathetic White House, I maintain that a tempered imperialism is now preferable.
No other power or constellation of powers is able to provide even a fraction of the global order provided by the United
States. U.S. air and sea dominance preserves the peace, such as it exists, in Asia and the Greater Middle East. American military
force, reasonably deployed, is what ultimately protects democracies as diverse as Poland, Israel, and Taiwan from being overrun
by enemies. If America sharply retrenched its air and sea forces, while starving its land forces of adequate supplies and training,
the world would be a far more anarchic place, with adverse repercussions for the American homeland.
Rome, Parthia, and Hapsburg Austria were great precisely because they gave significant parts of the world a modicum of imperial
order that they would not otherwise have enjoyed. America must presently do likewise, particularly in East Asia, the geographic
heartland of the world economy and the home of American treaty allies.
He seems to realize his argument is an uphill struggle as he adds this
This by no means obliges the American military to repair complex and populous Islamic countries that lack critical components
of civil society. America must roam the world with its ships and planes, but be very wary of where it gets involved on the
ground. And it must initiate military hostilities only when an overwhelming national interest is threatened. Otherwise, it
should limit its involvement to economic inducements and robust diplomacy -- diplomacy that exerts every possible pressure
in order to prevent widespread atrocities in parts of the world, such as central Africa, that are not, in the orthodox sense,
strategic.
That he goes back to "White Man's Burden" in his arguments presumably means he is too old and
out
of touch with US demography .
There is a great
RT interview
by Anastasja Churkina - the daughter of the Russian UN ambassador - with Amy Goodman on the role of corporate media - when
corporations profit from war.
It was very revealing for me to watch his recent informal press conference and his speech to the Duma. He is obviously
a man of the people.
Indeed. It's also instructive to compare a Putin speech and say an obama or merkel speech. While Putin *evidently and doubtlessly*
really addresses the people and explains what has been, or must be, done and why, the western puppets merely utter system standard
pieces of text and are ignoring the people.
kalithea (53)
Bill Browder who trashed talked Putin. Browder ran a Capital Management firm investing in Russia's largest oil companies. Browder
who at one point alleges being a supporter of Putin ended up blacklisted as being a threat to the country.
Well, depending on whom you ask, weztern media and even (reliably and confrontingly jew defending) wikipedia, or Russian investigators,
witnesses, and victims, the answer will be very different.
Actually browder was deeply and dirtily linked to a concerted crime operation that tried to steal Russias (mostly hydrocarbon)
resources in a "professional" way. This, of course *had* to be understood for what it was, a direct attack on Russias life blood,
which maybe was not even the goal of browder and accomplices but at least a non issue for them. Looking closer you will also find
khodorkovsky and the "devils advocate" magnitsky in those circles.
Funnily the wezt and wikipedia paint browder as a gently minded businessman who got thrown out by evil Putin for unmasking
Putin and his crime gang (well noted, that's how the weztern thugs paint it).
A Zionist Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky who went into exile in the U.K. after being accused of fraud and embezzlement during
Primkov's government in 1999 also hated Putin. Beresovsky is one of those oligarchs by the way who exploited the fall of the
Soviet Union to his advantange. Beresovsky later became a vocal opponent of Putin.
Berezovsky publicly threatened Putin and stated that he was on a mission to bring down Putin "by force" or by bloodless
revolution. Berezovsky held media holdings in Russia and used them to slam Putin's policies.
berezovsky didn't stick to the deal, he left the frame so clearly - and wisely - assigned by Putin. Quite possibly berezovsky
is the symbol of the "political oligarchs" which, of course, were not at all happy about Putin stopping their free looting of
Russia.
It is noteworthy - yet widely "forgotten" - that berezovsky later, in London, more or less confessed his crimes and evil spirited
attacks and asked Putin to forgive him and to please, pretty please, let him go back to Russia.
One might also have a good case here for the difference between jews and zionists. Yes, most oligarchs are jews but that's
not the point. The point is that extremely greedy people with a large crime register wanted to and still want to earn ever more
billions, jew or not jew. But that's it. And one can make agreements with them, even agreements in favour of Russia and even agreements
basically employing those oligarchs for the good of Russia.
Not so with the zionists. The zionist oligarchs never respected Putin, nor the people, nor Russia herself. To them Russia was
but a helpless but very rich lady they would loot and rob with utmost brutality. And as soon as anyone dared to stop them they
would scream "anti-semites!" and leave to izrael or another zio controlled country.
For those oligarchs who stuck and stick to the agreements one must not care about jew or not and indeed there are non-jews,
too. The most brutal and despicable criminals though are zio-jews, each and all of them.
Ad "zusa attacking China":
That must be a joke. Anyone with some basic knowledge about military issues will tell you a simple truth: zusa must hope and
pray that none of their protectees, namely japan, sk, and taiwan, ever comes in a situation to ask for zusa help. For a simple
reason. zusa would be doomed.
Japan being the least dangerous, sk would pretty much be lost before zusa could fire some shots, and taiwan (and largely sk)
are basically denied zones.
Not only are 100% of taiwan covered by Chinese anti-air systems but worse for zusa, zusa would be stopped dead in its tracks
because China can interdict the ca. 600 - 750km wide "belt" around taiwan needed for zusa air operations. About the only tool
not interdicted would be zusa firing cruise missiles; as those are old tech., and slow China would comfortably kill at least 80%
(and more realistically around 90%) of those. Would do zusa that, would zusa protect taiwan knowing there is little they could
do but there would be a very considerable risk of China (rightfully!) destroying major parts of the zusa fleet? I strongly doubt
that.
About the most realistic and favourable (for zusa) scenario I see would be a China japan war with zusa interfering somewhat.
And even that is doubtful as it might "invite" nk to use China supplied weapons against both japan and the much hated zusa.
maybe Mr Pragma is also his creation, b is a talented computer freak and I think he is LoL in his little room about all of
us; and also about having added two hysterical anti-zionist broads programmes
maybe? MAYBE? What an incompetent asshole! OF COURSE I'm a programm! But not by b; I've been programmed by KGB on a rusty typewriter.
izrael should ask zusa for more funds or they should ask one of the zio-controlled countries. Obviously izrael *urgently* needs
funds for better agents. Current ones like thomas miss even the most obvious points.
Ceterum censeo israel americanamque vehementer delenda esse!
He has been an active supporter of Jewish initiatives in Russia and Europe. In 1996 Fridman was one of the founders of the
Russian Jewish Congress, now sitting on the RJC Presidium. He makes large contribution to the work of the European Jewish Fund,
a non-profit organization aimed at developing European Jewry and promoting tolerance and reconciliation on the continent.[5]
Presently, a member of the Public Chamber of Russia. Was presented with an award by Bill Clinton, uber-supporter of Zionism.
What is this? A case of keep your friends close and enemies closer? I wouldn't trust a Zionist as far as I can spit! How many
Zionists are in his entourage? I hope Putin doesn't end up like Caesar - stabbled in the back by those close to him - et tu Brute?
Mikhail Fridman and his fellow Russian Jewish philanthropists are ponying up some serious cash to create what is being touted
as a "Jewish Nobel Prize." The Russian billionaire and co-founder of the five-year-old Genesis philanthropy group announced
the creation of a $1 million prize that will be awarded to Jews who win global recognition for their professional achievements,
including in the world of science and the arts. The prize, launched in collaboration with the Israeli government, was announced
on Tuesday, which coincided with the visit of Russian president Vladimir Putin to Israel. The award will be presented annually
by the Israeli prime minister around Passover time. As if the world was short on Jewish Nobel Prize winners.
Neocon Zionists, aka Israeli Firsters, and most of the One Percent on Wall Street have owned Congress and the mainstream media
propaganda machine since the beginning of modern print, and then broadcast media. By this control of what people read, hear, and
see, they have been able to control what people believe and think. Game set match, until now.
Now, the internet has opened the Pandora's box of Truth, and as people have an instinct for the truth, they are beginning to
see what was concealed from them before. (And they're inevitably getting smarter, developing the skill needed to distinguish noisy
nonsense from correct information.) So Robert Kagan and other neocon Zionists like him whose first loyalty is to Israel, are rightly
worried that when the "tapestry of lies" is stripped away, and the American people see the extent of the Zionist subversion, there
will be consequences.
This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals,
then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This
is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.
This is sad enough, but as an American, I'm particularly dismayed, because the American Jews in my surrounding community have
-- too easily I must confess -- been hoodwinked into supporting the Zionist criminal enterprise.
Stealing someone else's country to start your own -- despite all the historical precedent -- is not a good strategy, particularly
when the folks whose country you stole have a billion and a half co-religionists out there unhappy about the theft.
Let's get some definitions right, ok. Zionism in this day and age means no more and no less than a strong supporter of the state
of Israel. It simply doesn't mean "Jew", but it does mean condoning increased settlements and outrageous attacks against Gaza,
etc. The entire movement is a bit more than 100 years old; it began at roughly the same time that TR and his lovely "White Fleet"
sailed the Pacific to do some of the same lovely stuff to the Philippines that we'd been doing to North America since the 1600's
and the rest of the Americas since the 1800s (the entire purpose of the Monroe Doctrine was to legitimize it).
Okay, a bit more history: our entry into WWI was, among other things, closely related to the Balfour Doctrine. We did it for
many mercantile reasons as well (DuPont vs. Krupp, etc.), but the point is, just like the Yalies in OSS whose families had been
bankrolling Hitler before (and during, see: Prescott Bush) WWII then snarfed up a bunch of leading Nazis afterwards, different
people w/different goals and beliefs, can work together when it suits their purposes. And "Israel returning to Zion" was and is
a MAJOR theme for the Puritans, both here and in England (look up Dispensationalism; it's a big deal) and various other groups
of Christians.
So yes, no CT here at all, but why waste time separating out blame: it's a many-headed monster that's easily judged simply
by its effects, summed up as harm to innocent people in the furtherance of... whatever.
fairleft, I left some stuff for you that you may not have read. I'm putting it here but will not engage you again until you've
digested at least one of the readings I suggested.
I have an honest question I wish you'd really think about. I'm assuming you're an American, like me. And we have no compunction
praising our fellow Americans when they do something in accord with our values, and criticizing them when they don't. I.e., we're
not blindly zenophobic, right? And I think that's pretty generally true for most of the people here, whatever their ethnicity:
they can criticize "their own" when they find it warranted, based on what the person, or group of people, did. So I'm wondering
about your blind spot: are all Jews blameless just by definition, or might some of them, sometimes, do something objectionable?
And if so, why is no one allowed to say so? In my family's background are lots of different peoples who at various times were
subjected to hideous repression, ethnic cleansing and yes, genocide, but I still see no reason not to criticize them when they're
doing something wrong -- why can't you? And please don't invoke the Holocaust: I can trump you in my own background by hundreds
of years and millions of people. Really: not all Jews are perfect or blameless, and we're not really talking Jews anyhow, we're
talking support for criminal acts by the state of Israel, supported here in America by a LOT more Christians than Jews. I.e.,
Zionism.
Sometimes this knee-jerk respose is just group-think by otherwise decent people who've been frightened and brainwashed their
entire lives and might possibly be reachable. Gilad Atzmon, Israel Adam Shamir and Philip Weiss, to name just three, all started
out like that too -- and then grew. I was trying to give fairleft an opportunity to open his mind a bit; he can take it not, as
he chooses.
You seem like a decent person: please read these. It won't be easy for you -- it's hard to challenge deeply-ingrained beliefs
-- but reading these books with a mind open to seeing things differently is more than worth it.
In all friendliness, it seems you just don't get it. Yes, fairleft is somewhat more professional than, say thomas, in not exclusively
relying on crude attacks and gross propaganda.
He is, however, nevertheless and evidently a fervent pro-zionist and trying his best to do their work here.
(But of course, this is but some friendly sentences. Feel free by all means to continue your endeavour)
Just giving him the benefit of the doubt this one last time.
But those two books and Allison Weir's piece imo are important for anyone who wants to be informed; there's a lot of data in
each of them that simply cannot be refuted. And Shahak's book is still available online, I think.
Imperialism benefits no one but a small slice of the ruling class. But it's always defended as if it's the only thing providing
food for the average person. It's been true since the Roman empire. The looting oriented British Raj stripped away so much and
somehow almost none of it ended up in the hands of the average Briton. Same for the Kingdoms of Spain and Portugal. It's just
no good. I don't know how long it will take for average people to understand it.
The interest in slavery is not just neo-connish etc. but in a way, underground, an interest of Big Corporations (1).
Not, imho, in first place because of the 'cheap labor' but because of issues of control.
Right now we are living in a world that is organized in part by nation-states (as a kind of ultimate authority) and for another
part, not well coordinated with the first, by Big Corporations, who increasingly control Banking and Finance, thus also say pol.
contributions in the US, territory (2) and its uses, supra-territorial matters such as communications and benchmarks (internet,
the control of space, rating agencies, for ex.), and other related matters like patent laws.
Slavery as an official doctrine is not in their interests, cheap labor is already available thru modern slavery. So they keep
a low profile, and let their 'elected' representatives take the flack.
Such clashing interests are well illustrated in the case of Ukraine, where the confusion of the Western 'nation-states' has
become pathetically ridiculous, as they cannot make public their lack of power and attendant subservience to Corporate interests.
They are kind of 'holding on' to keep some hand in the game, and mobilizing their 'electorate' with propaganda, as that is where
their livelihood come from.
1. Shell, BP, Total, plus many others in the energy field. Also the likes of Glencore Xstrata, Cargill, AXA, Monsanto, Nestlé,
JP Morgan, etc. etc. all entwined in a kind of global network.
2. Straight out buying and leasing land; owning thru investments and 'deals', exploration rights, mineral rights, agriculture,
transport hubs (pipelines, shipping, ports, the machines that implement the transport, etc.)
In the tiny minds of these neocons, it is possible that in some simplified way, the marxist theory of the falling rate of profit
penetrated, at least sufficiently for this one to infer that wage labour is inexorably doomed by its own internal contradictions.
However, applying the same marxian analysis, it is possible to prove that an economy based on slave labour generates no capitalist
profits at all.
Israel (in the form of its present Govmt, and past as well) is US State number 51, a splinter outpost on foreign lands.
Its continuing existence in the shape of its crazily belligerent and racist, apartheid stance, and all the dire cruelties we
know about, is maintained by the unwavering support and investment from the US, though EU poodles have followed along. (See e.g.
UN vetos, etc.) It is a sick, symbiotic relationship, with one party acting the thug, encouraged by the backer. It is economically
dependent on its masters so cannot stop, and leaders of course join for their own personal interests.
Not to minimize the influence of the "Jewish / Isr. lobby" e.g. Walt and Mearsheimer, etc. whatever - exists because it is
welcomed, and then provides strange grist to many lunatic mills.
NBC News: New U S. State Dept travel warning tells citizens to defer travel to east regions
of Kharkiv, Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine .......................so is west ukraine safe?>!!
Good points. The sorrow is, average people have rarely been in a position to do anything anyhow; they're generally too busy
just trying to survive. What we're seeing now in both the EU and US is the steep downward slope of economic and political disempowerment
while (hopefully) heading upwards is the shallower slope of public understanding. Will they intersect in time, i.e., while people
still have enough power to do something about it? Who knows. And what can people do? In the US the angry folks with guns have
been successfully brainwashed to ultimately support TPTB -- while believing they're rebelling against them. (Some really clever
work there, worth of Goebbels at his best.)
This is the pattern of five-thousand years of Jewish history: they go somewhere, do very well by themselves and the locals,
then they get powerful, and they overreach and become abusive, at which point the locals accost them, or holocaust them. This
is how Jewish talent becomes Jewish self-destruction.
Hi Cynthia! Are you part of Pragma's takedown of moonofalabama or are you just a stupid solo anti-Semite? If the latter, how
did you find your way here?
Nora @ 108: Your're on a roll today it seems. Your expression at 108 truly fits MOST folks here at MOA, at least I sincerely hope
so. Like society in general, there are people afoot in this world, who get PAYED to disrupt objectivity on the Internet and the
Media.
@126 - true. it would be nice if folks ignored those who they believe are full of shite too, lol.. i think b would benefit correcting
the kagan verses kaplan issue.. both of them are friggin nutso's but still..
In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in which
he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.
The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to
prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.
The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather
racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil"
while the other is "totally good"
If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically
inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.
Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".
Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them
with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.
Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and
souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul
and the souls of cattle." (Reuters Photo)
Remarks by the Israeli Minister of Interior Yaakov Neeman suggesting that the Jewish religious law (Halacha) should be adopted
as the "law of the land" in the Jewish state has drawn strong reactions from both Jews and non-Jews.
"Step by step, we will bestow upon the citizens of Israel the laws of the Torah and we will turn Halacha into the binding
law of the nation," Neeman told Rabbis at a Jewish law convention in occupied Jerusalem in December 2009.
"We must bring back the heritage of our fathers to the nation of Israel," he said. "The torah has the complete solution
to all of the questions we are dealing with."
Neeman's statements were met applauds from participants who included high-ranking Rabbis, as well as representatives of
religious parties.
However, for non-Jews, who now constitute nearly 50 percent of the total population in occupied Palestine, Neeman's remarks
are a serious cause for concern since Halacha, at least according to the Orthodox Jewish interpretation, does not recognize
the full humanity of non-Jews.
Hence, non-Jews living under Halacha must accept to live under a perpetual state of inferiority, if not persecution.
Lesser in Every Aspect
According to Orthodox Judaism, a non-Jew (goy) is inferior to a Jew in every conceivable aspect. This inferiority is absolute,
inherent, intrinsic, and not subject to any related or unrelated factors.
Rabbi Abraham Kook, the religious mentor of the settler movement, taught that "the difference between a Jewish soul and
souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul
and the souls of cattle."
The teachings of Kook are based on the Lurianic Cabala (Jewish mysticism), which teaches the absolute superiority of the
Jewish soul and body over the non-Jewish soul and body. This means, according to one Rabbi who is member of the Chabadi Lubovitcher
sect, that "every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity and is part of God."
In 2003, Rabbi Saadya Grama of the Beth Medrash Govoha, the renowned Talmudic school of Lakewood, NJ, published a book in
which he claimed that Gentiles were completely evil and that Jews constituted a separate, genetically superior species.
The book published under the Hebrew Title "Romemut Yisrael Ufarsahat Hagalut" quoted numerous classical Jewish sources to
prove Jewish superiority over the rest of humankind.
The difference between Jews and gentiles, he argued, is not religious, historical, cultural, or political. It is rather
racial, genetic, and scientifically unalterable. The one groups is at its very root and by natural constitution "totally evil"
while the other is "totally good"
"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face
total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."
"The Jews themselves brought about their own destruction during the Holocaust, since they arrogantly endeavored to overcome
their very essence, dictated by divine law."
While castigated by many Jewish figures, religious and secular, for its brazen racism, Grama's thesis is not really in conflict
with the Rabbis of Gush Emunim (the settler camp) and the rest of the National religious movement in Israel today.
He readily applies Torah passages against idolaters, other pagans to Christianity and Islam, and other monotheists who worship
the God of Abraham, the very God proclaimed by the Torah.
He also ignores extensive Rabbinic deliberations during the medieval period, which concluded that both Islam and Christianity
as "licit, monotheistic faiths."
Hence, Muslims and Christians could not be lumped in one category with the idol-worshipers of earlier times.
Sub-human Slaves
If gentiles (goyem) are inherently inferior to Jews, and if their very humanity is presumed to be denied, it is axiomatically
inferred from this that these gentiles have inherently lesser rights than Jews do.
Indeed, some Talmudic references do refer to gentiles as "animals walking on two feet instead of four".
Even today, some Rabbis, such as David Batsri, invoke the "bestiality" of non-Jews, claiming that the Creator created them
with two legs instead of four in deference to Jews, because it is not appropriate that Jews be served with four-legged animals.
It is true that this view is not shared by all Rabbis, especially the enlightened ones. However, it is also true that some
prominent sages holding both Halachic and historical weight are among the main advocates of this pure racism.
For example, according to the code of Maimonides (Rambam): "A Jew who killed a non-Jew is exempt from human judgment, and
has not violated the prohibition of murder."
This code is implicitly practiced by Jewish settler judges when dealing with Jews convicted of killing Palestinians, which
explains the extremely light punishments meted out to the perpetrators, especially in comparison to Arabs convicted of the
same felony.
And here's the perfect explanation for ummm...imperial supremacist hegemony:
"Jewish successes in the world are completely contingent upon the failure of all other peoples. Only when the gentiles face
total catastrophe, Jews do experience good fortune."
"Non-Jews were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world-only to serve the People of Israel."
In Israel, death has no dominion over them With gentiles, it will be like any person-They need to die, but God will give
them longevity. Why? Imagine that one's donkey would die, they'd lose their money.
"This is his servant That's why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew."
"why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap; and we will sit like an effendi and eat."
"That is why gentiles were created."
And settler Rabbi Abraham Kook (great last name!):
"The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews -- all of them in all different levels -- is greater and deeper
than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle."
Teach your children well; to load Kalashnikovs write on bombs that kill and main Palestinian children and kick and spit on
their poor grandmothers while you pull off their hijab.
This is what the new generation of Zionists are learning.
The actual kinship of zionism and US-imperialism is based on both israel and the US are settler-societies that never came
to be nations.
The expression "nation-state" inverses the factual notions of nation and state. Though a state can enforce submission
it can't establish sovereignty. Souvereignty has to be effected by mental and ideological submission of the subject itself to
his master and therefore its not fully established without the rule of law.
While the American secession war is duly called a civil war, because it established rule of law within the union states
it left the relation of union states to the federal state widely outside this rule. The rule of the federal state became and stayed
a military and mafia-like hegemony established on constant war and the amalgamation of military, political and economic clout
in corporative elite clans, families, alumnis and the union bureaucracy itself.
The force, that drove this rule of war and corporative hegemony in the American federation after the civil war was accomplishment
of the genocide of native cultures. It followed (selection): Spanish-American war, Philippine war, the enforcement of the Monroe
Doctrine in Cuba, Hawai, Samoa, Venezuela. But it had another component: The federal war on the working class and their partly
imported organizations. Then followed WWI and WWII, which were essentially wars against the French and British empire.
So the USA never became a nation. The settler-state of freedom of private property was directly converted to an empire-state
ruled by a corporative elite of oligarchs, military staff and a serfing legion of descendant bureaucratic personnel.
It is easy to see, that the never established and unestablishable "Jewish State", the corporative military rule of a zionist
Oligarchy in Israel follows roughly the same pattern.
This is a kind of basic line in a history full of contradictions. Mind the suez-war followed by the nuclear armament of Israel
by France against the will of the american hegemon. And mind that Israel nowadays has but one enemy it has to fear: The faction
of US-elite, which wants to establish a new and stable order in the middle east instead of "creative" chaos in favour of Israel
and SA. The faction that would welcome an iranian gas-pipeline from South Pars to the mediterranian, try to keep the integrity
of Syria and Lebanon and split the GCC.
...
I tried my best to bring forward my thougts in a tongue that never became mine although I read it every day, because there
was nobody deconstructing the "zionist evil"-talk without referring to quasi-religious attitudes and delusive facts and figures
that tell nearly nothing about their coherence. If it was too bad - just tell me and I won't follow up or try again.
Okay, thank you, then I want ro add an inference though it needed a bunch of constituents and chain-links to corroborate it:
The US Federal State is warring for it's very existance. If it ends being the executive power of imperialistic metropolises
it will probably fall apart, even in the most favorable circumstances you might think of, because of its lack of national substance.
Thats the interface to the fight of the zionist oligarchy for their status as "villa in the jungle", their rule as warlords
who can and "must" project power in all the near and middle east and even north africa to stay the ruling power in Palestine.
This strongly associates them to the before mentioned faction of the US-elite, especially the MIF(inancial)C.
There is no other evil as the evil of war and it's cause in freedom and accumulation of competing private property.
I've cut-and-pasted everything bc I just can't give it the time it deserves right this afternoon. I will though, I
promise: it just may take me a little while bc it's a very different way of looking at things and I really need to examine it
more carefully. And again, thank you, it's really good food for thought and I'll give it my best.
@137 /144 - tomgard. i 2nd nora's response to you in that i find your commentary highly educational in so far as you articulate
a similar viewpoint of mine, but from a very different angle. i am curious what you mean by MIF(inancial)C. - that sounds like
what i tend to think military/industrial/financial/complex.. they are definitely rolled into one, even though people look at these
entities as being separate and not connected..
The result of the neocon meddling in Ukraine has created, as usual, a terrible mess for the "west" and even more so for the
Ukrainians. Is there any way to prevent a repeat of such misdeeds?
Yeah, sticking the neocons under water for a week.
The American political Elite consists of both Zionists and Anglophiles. Just as Lindbergh said.
Now, as far as the Iraq War,
as Congressman Moran said, the Jews were not even nearly solely responsible for driving the United States in, based on WMD lies,
but as a group they could have politically vetoed the move, dominant and decisive. On other foreign/domestic matters, your fractional
mileage may vary.
Dan Gertler's grandfather, Moshe Schnitzer (d. November 2007), was known in Israel as "Mr. Diamond;" in youth he joined the
pre-state underground organization Etzel (Irgoun), an Israeli military cell self-defined as an "untra-nationationalist Jewish
militia," but one that committed acts of terrorism in service to the Israeli cause.8 Moshe Schnitzer assumed a major role in
the Africa-Israeli diamond trade in the 1950's in a partnership business called Schnitzer-Greenstein. Schnitzer later founded
the Israel Diamond Exchange in Tel Aviv in 1960, which today brings Israel $14 billion annually in blood business, and is the
country's second-largest industry, but Israel's top export. King Leopold III of Belgium decorated Schnitzer in recognition
of his activities favoring the close relationship of Belgium, Israel and the DeBeers diamond cartels, and Schnitzer was also
President of the Harry Oppenheimer Diamond Museum in Israel.80
The diamond jewelry trade in the United States is more than $30 billion annually, and 99% -- everything that is not synthetic
or artificial diamonds -- involves blood diamonds and the above organized crime syndicates. Israel buys more than 50% of the
world's rough diamonds, and the U.S. buys two-thirds of these. The diamond factories are located in Nethanya, Petach Tikvah,
Tel Aviv, Ramat Gan, Jerusalem, and other cities around the country, but most of the offices were in Tel Aviv in the financial
district on Ahad Ha'am Street.81 Dan Gertler's father, Asher Gertler, and his uncle, Shmuel Schnitzer, manage the original
family business, and Shmuel is Vice-Chairman of the Belgian-based World Diamond Council -- the entity that spends more money
promoting the false image of "conflict-free" diamonds than it does helping any of the people dispossessed or brutalized by
the diamond industry.48
On August 16, 2007, Rabbi Bentolila in Kinshasa received a communication asking: "What does the Torah say about men exploiting
other men for vast profits while other men are starving and dying all around them? Is there some hierarchy to the Torah that
suggests, for example, that black people or Africans are lesser beings, and therefore not to be a concern where profound profits
are being made?"
There was no reply from Rabbi Bentolila, he was apparently busy readying for another Bar Mitsvah in Belgium. Unfortunately
for Dan Gertler and his spiritual advisers, the Torah says that a Jew can keep a slave, but a Jew kept as a slave must be redeemed,
and that -- an empty, foolish justification for exploiting innocent people -- is how religion falsifies spirituality.
The confusion began when b did one of his usual deliberate substitutions to provoke a bit of thought by substituting slavery
for empire.
The normal confusion, generally engendered by the more pedantic of us whenever b does a semantic substitution, was hugely increased
when b himself confused two asshole neocons of similar name with each other.
Normally b's substitutions generate thought because the concept summoned by the original wording is considerably different
to the concepts generated by its replacement.
This is not the way it is with empire and slavery - two concepts I have always believed to be pretty much indistinguishable
from one another.
That is the heart of the issue here, but but adding the confusion from the juxtaposition of similar terms is the confusion
many people have about slavery.
For me slavery is enforced labour where a human, regarded as the property of another, is forced to live in a way that is beneficial
to his/her 'masters' wants, with no regard for his/her own needs.
Amerikan slavery just like the slavery instituted by the original english colonisers, also featured no payments or wages be
given the slaves.
That isn't always the case slaves who are paid are still slaves and may be worse off because of that. The Greek slaves who
worked as doctors, secretaries, and retail assistants in imperial Rome frequently were paid for their work, but they were still
slaves - their lives were not their own. They were humans who belonged to someone else.
Berkeley is correct at #118 where he points out that slavery without pay ultimately destroys capitalism.
This is why amerika had a civil war. The southern elites wanted to continue as always importing African slaves and paying them
nothing, while providing the bare minimum for survival as food & shelter. The factory and retail giant owning Northen elites couldn't give a flying fuck about 'the rights of man' they wanted to get
richer that is why they went to war.
The northern elites preferred the form of slavery that had been evolving in Europe since the industrial revolution, where slaves,
imported from Europe and more culturally acclimated to factory work than Africans, whose culture and sense of self had been deliberately
destroyed, leaving the recipients of that horror in a vacuum.
The 'new slaves' would be responsible for their own upkeep receiving minimum payment to keep themselves in food and shelter,
just enough to (a) keep them highly motivated at work and (b) for the elites to profit by taking it back.
Both forms are slavery - the vast majority of humans born into poverty in so-called 'developed' nations such as amerika, england,
or israel, have as little say in their own destiny as does a domestic slave in Saudi Arabia.
The biggest difference is that the rules are unwritten & unstated allowing the western elites great flexibility in fucking
everyone else over.
They don't need to be written because once the responsibility for feeding yourself and your family is put onto your shoulders
in the opprressive and domineering manner which neo-liberal unsocieties put on individuals, the majority follow the same well
worn path to personal impoverishment and elite enrichment.
Those who veer off the path - climb outta the rut - can be picked off one by one as needs must. Occasionally one may achieve
independence in the form of what seems to be economic self determination, but with few exceptions that is because their divergence
suits (& enriches), the slave owners.
This egregious exploitation of ordinary, normal, unsociopathic, humans by the sociopathic elites has been around a lot longer
that the organised political movement created to enable followers of Judaism to colonise the Jordan Valley.
If permitted to, ruthless domination of the decent by the greedy will continue long after the zionists have been driven out
of the area and the land returned to its original indigenous owners.
Palestinians are the descendants of the people who stayed on, minding their farms and orchards when the despotic monarchists
who had comprised Jerusalem's ruling elite fled from their Roman replacements.
It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming amerikan imperialism on the corrupt israeli regime, it
is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty crims (yes
they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of amerika, israeli leaders are petty crims), but most importantly because
blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites.
If the elites are to be beaten it will be when all the 'normal' humans have stuck together in common cause against those who
consciously butcher any/all of us for profit.
Once we have learned not to be distracted by deliberately nurtured divisive arguments about race, gender, nationality etc -
then we will rid ourselves of the leeches and then, that time, provided we have managed to do so without making any scapegoats,
maybe then we will be able to asshole-proof our communities ensuring no new sociopaths slink in again under cover of saving us
from oldies, 'those kids', morbidly obese, anorexics, gypsies, kaffirs, niggers or jews.
How many inhabitants does Israel have? How many the US? What percentage of US citizens are Jewish? You must have a theory of Jews being the superior race if you think they can dominate. Of course Israel is a puppet state. What people are trying with their "anti-zionist" theories of "zionist" rulership of the world is very transparent. They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about
history, about who got killed and why.
The recipe is so simple. Tell the stupid class xy people are responsible for their trouble, make them fight each other and
rule them.
Substituting exploitation of labor-power for slavery, then the rule of law in trade and exchange for rule of a "greedy", "indecent",
"sociopathic" (and, as many consequently say: mentally ill) elite introduces one tribe ("lunatics") for another ("Jews")
and therefore an alternative racist doctrine. Both are manifestations of still the same patriarch pattern of subjugation of one
gender to the other (slavery of women), "order" vs. "chaos", rule of command vs. rule of reason, rule of decalogue over collective
knowledge and judgement,"good" over "evil", and, following up this pattern, rule of a pristhood over patriarchs, of "God" over
"men", of intellectual workforce ("Kopfarbeit) over handcraft and, ultimately, the worship of psyche. It's religion combined with
the everyday racist interpretation of competition- results by a mix of functionally allocated benchmarks of (awe of) "success"
and (worship of) "virtue". The slightly "modern" manifestations, mythologies and patterns are toothless against the inquisitional
redoctrination of "good" and "evil" in times of war, that shows up in a renaissance and reconstruction of tribal thought.
Don't know if this rant was kind of understandable, so, simply:
There is no such THING as "common cause" . That's the simple source and agent of racism! But if it's so one has to infer:
There is a common source of the delusion of "common cause" that is transformed in tribal or racist thought. I name this
common source: Negation of class struggle. Wage-labor is a historical formation of slavery, thats right, and its based on sheer
military power like antique slavery, thats right as well. Its usefull and even necessary to remind those roots, but, since the
social fundament of wage-labor slavery is not only different, but antithetic to elder formations, its criticism and scandalization
has to be different and even antithetic. "Freedom" is not a cause, even less a "common" one, there is no such THING as freedom
except freedom of private property. Walking freely is a cause of lust, convenience and a resulting desire. If it becomes obligative
and necessary freedom is over and delusion comes in, solemnizing free movement against the bondage of slavery. Americans could
have learned this of native leaders they preferred to stab when they couldn't break them in cages.
the poor are many, the rich are few. Why do the rich control their lives as well as those of all the poor? What is the ratio
of guards to prisoners in a jail? by your logic the prisoners should be in control.
seriously, you can do better than that.
regardless, there is way too much time and effort spent on blaming the jews for this mess. there was plenty of inequality before
Moses led the slaves out of Egypt.
166) Of course, numbers translate into political influence.
But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. So let's compare the
sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we?
The "zionist conspiracy" theory is designed for the "stupid class".
[...] But in the last analysis power is in the end of a gun. Money gets you nothing if you cannot defend it. [...]
Sure, no guns no power, but at the same token, no money no guns. You see, one needs the money first, and thats where your friendly
neighborhood banker comes into the picture. But before it gets too conspiratorial for you, I better won't elaborate any further.
[...] So let's compare the sizes of the US army and the Israeli army, shall we? [...]
Why? Would only make sense to do so if we'd assume those two are enemies. But they are not. They are close allies, to the point
that if Israel would be attacked by any force strong enough to cause sweat in Tel Aviv the US would without blinking once have
its military might come to the rescue.
That's why I called NATO Israel's ultimate henchmen, troops it knows it can call on should things get hairy one day.
Since the start of the 20th century no country was allowed to attack the US Navy without getting its teeth kicked in, just
Israel. Nearly sinking in 1967 the USS Liberty, killing 34 US sailors and wounding more than a 100, but still best friends. Weird
relationship to say the least, better not think too much about it.
The reason the above argument is irresolvable is that neither side is willing to query the relatively PC term "Zionists" in favour
of the more inclusive "Jews". They say that to do this would be "divisive of the class struggle", which obviously is supposed
to be against "the bourgeoisie", whoever they are - technically, I should say, all those who live off profits or as they call
them 'dividends'. But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently
deliberate neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident.
So we have to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism,
and after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. There cannot be more
than a few tens of thousands of these specialised creatures, worldwide, and one would like to know whether, by the ruse of history,
many of them are Jewish. Then the artificial question of 'Zionists' versus 'Non-Jewish USAian Imperialists' would resolve itself,
because we would be able to see who was pulling the money strings, which ultimately decide all questions great and small.
Kagan, while he is of Jewish belief, has Zionist tendency, his and his kind ultimate aim, is the resurrection of the Khazar empire,
the control of the desert religions, the destruction of the Rus as a nation state.
Somebody, you keep referring to the stupid class. By doing so you're putting yourself right in it, subset "chardonnay sipping
intellectual up themselves bozos".
Well, then lets compare the US GDP to Israel's GDP. Sorry, there is no way Israel can dominate the US. [...]
You are stuck in this idea that one country dominates the other. What would help our discussion along is if you would open your
mind to the possibility a third party dominates both countries. Once you allow for this reality the weird and opaque relationship
the US and Israel have, or the EU for that matter, starts to make sense.
The fact that there is this seemingly never ending discussion going on about which country is the dog and which one the tail
should tell you that there are enough arguments to be found to make either theory appear plausible. The only way that is possible
is if there is a third "unifying" theory, one which explains those arguments without confusion.
And I am afraid to tell you man, the reason those two countries act in unison so often and have each others back in all important
international affairs is because the top echelons in both countries live at the whim of someone far more powerful than them. A
group of people who with their extended family have say 10 trillion dollars in assets, that's three times Germany's GDP, and control
a network of influence so wide and ingrained it knows no rival.
Rowan @170
[...] But anyway, this brings us back to the weakness in Marx himself which I mentioned before, namely the apparently deliberate
neglect of the power of bankers over industrial capitalists, which even in the 1860s must have been quite evident. So we have
to ask, who are the bankers, specifically, the 'merchant bankers' who financed the development of western colonialism, and
after them the 'international bankers' who orchestrate the global pecking order under neo-colonialism. [...]
Great summary. Their fingerprints are all over the history of wars.
I don't believe its tens of thousands, at the very tip of the pyramid, where there isn't much room left for competition as
wealth is so concentrated a clash would cause death to all, I expect a couple of hundred at the most.
They are either crazy and obsessed or they try to intentionally disrupt the discussion. They sure don't know anything about
history, about who got killed and why.
The only person trying to intentionally disrupt is YOU.
I haven't posted consistently on this blog since the Ukraine crisis, so I didn't much analyze the intentions of every poster.
But it didn't take me long to have you pegged. You are as transparent as Zionists come. You divert, you distract all discussion
away from the real guilty party. That's your main mission here. A hasbara spy in the house of free speech.
FYI, it's not the percentage, buddy, it's the power. Occupy was protesting against the 1% holding all the power and hoarding
all the wealth.
If I do a run-down of the heads of all the top banks, equity capital and venture capital firms; I'm talking those that have
hundreds of billions invested in the whole spectrum of American industry I come up with at least 80% run by supporters of Zionism.
That's a whole lot of power behind Zionism!
So don't give me the percentages bullshit, what level of intelligence quotient do you think we own around here??? Quit insulting
our intelligence!
boy, this "zionism" discussion is getting a but much, lately...
Uh, no. IMO, the subject of Zionism has been way too neglected everywhere, especially considering the gravity of our situation
and the increasing threat that Zionism presents to the integrity of justice and our own freedoms in the West, and security in
this day and age. Never mind the Palestinians; WE are at risk now. Our own rights are under fire here!
The start of Neoconism led by Kagan, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Feith and others (the majority, Zionists) was the start of the Zionization
of America and subsequently the Zionization of other Western nations, the U.S., Canada and U.K being the most affected with Australia
and others now catching up.
Of course it started quietly, sinuously working its way through the system trying not to attract too much attention. But ever
since the exposé on the Lobby, we're starting to discover just how rampant is Zionism's influence and hold and how much control
is exerted on the public's perception and how it's already started chiseling away at rights we used to take for granted.
We are so bombarded with propaganda now in the Zionist media that we've all turned to the internet because we no longer trust
the media. But now, they're after our rights and freedom here!
I read a saying the other day that went something like this: The Palestinians will never be free until America is freed. How
true! But this problem isn't only America's any more.
Today I posted somewhere else a modified version of MLKs quote on justice: An injustice to someone anywhere is an injustice
to us all everywhere. Because it's so true, that if we allow that injustice to fester indefinitely, in particular, the injustice
against Palestinians and ignore or smother the problem; eventually the rest of us will be subjected to a version of that injustice.
I'll tell you something, every airport in the world is starting to ressemble Ben Gurion. When I travel now; I feel like I'm
at an Israeli checkpoint; I can almost taste the abuse! I can only imagine the level of humiliation and pain Palestinians endure
daily.
Our freedom of speech is also on the line; the internet is no longer a free speech zone; we are monitored; we are censored;
we are bombarded with junk. When I research now, I feel like the results have been altered, like what may appear to be offensive
events or fact has been relegated to back pages or altogether removed to pink wash or whitewash what is happening. It almost feels
like the search engine is laundering information and spitting it out in the cleanest order. Is it my imagination? I don't think
so; I've been using the internet for quite some time and I'm noticing a change; something's off now.
Our privacy is threatened more than ever. Our intuitive intellect is being smothered or ridiculed. Our financial system is
dominated by individuals who not only are supporting a grave injustice, which I believe is supremacist imperialism emerging from
Zionism, but they're intent on creating a uniform system globally that is affecting the livelihoods of millions everywhere with
a selfish supremacist intention in mind based on monopolization. This is as well as I can express it given my limited economic
understanding; but I'm witnessing the results and I like everyone else is in the position to judge and criticize and stop this
outrage.
The Federal Reserve has been run by a succession of Zionists, as is the IMF and the top 1%, well just look it up; it's all
there; it's disheartening.
Honestly, wherever one looks, one sees a Zionist driving the system. What can I say, if they had honorable, decent, altruistic
intentions; personally I might not give a shit; but I really don't like where we're heading; I really don't like where they're
steering and I feel my rights and everyone's rights are being threatened and diminished and I don't want my country and the world
heading down this destructive path.
When they started accusing Occupy of anti-Semitism it appeared like Zionism was trying to control the 99%'s right to protest,
in order not to discover how really rampant Zionism is at the top 1%. I see it; everyone knows it, but we're being muzzled and
wrist tied with that pity card "anti-Semitism" that has turned into a whip against our rights instead of a means to protect people
from hate crimes.
Maybe, you and those who want to shield Zionism try to deny what our eyes plainly recognize as a threat to our freedom! Do
our eyes deceive us? You want us to stop seeing by telling us our lying eyes deceive us or we're anti-Semites? Bullshit!
Our eyes and our intuition don't deceive us! And we won't be robbed of our rights so that a supremacist ideology can exist, be
legitimized and carry on with impunity permanently!
There is the chaff and the wheat here. The wheat see without denying their inner voice and the chaff are here to ridicule that
voice and distract from the truth.
Well I see the hasbara reinforcements have arrived!
The "zionism" discussion is no discussion at all, but a constant, percussive irritant.
And expect it to get progressively more constant, progressively more irritating and percussive. This is but the beginning
of Ravel's bolero, my friend because we're still at the beginning, it's still a whisper, but it's gonna turn into a ROAR.
Zionism is going to be exposed for all it is, for the criminal supremacist, racist ideology that it is. It's really to bad
for your that it's so fatally flaw and that it's expiry date is already is view! You're on the wrong side of history and I
can't wait til you eat your words. It's coming!
kalithea, i tend to agree with copeland fwiw.. does every conversation have to turn into a discussion on zionism? as for mr.
pragma's creative use of the letter z, it is a bit inane on another level. i am willing to accept and agree with the fact it is
a large issue and of concern, but that to bring it into every conversation seems redundant. while it is true the thread title
makes for a natural fit here, but that is not the case with every thread. i think that is partly what copeland is getting at and
i agree with them on this.
So, some people have no qualms about zusa wanton mass murdering thousands and thousands ... but they are gravely irritated
by someone adding a letter too often?!
Whenever I think the zionists have finally hit the bottom of the pit they somehow manage to pierce through to an ever deeper
level.
But I'm a well minded man, so I make you an offer: As soon as zionists stop slaughtering innocent people I shall refrain from
adding the of so harmful and evil letter 'z' to words, OK.
No, seriously, I hope I never will have to deal with your "argument".
I got bad news for you and your fellow legion of hasbarists: expect my argument, ie the truth about Zionism, to grow exponentially,
and to get more constant and more persuasive and to go viral with millions more. You can't stop this cause anymore; you can't
stop the truth from busting loose and becoming the pain in your ass it'll be until it's acknowledged.
Before Obama was first elected in 08, I was being censored and labelled an anti-Semite for referring to The Zionist Lobby as
a den of spies and political browbeaters and hustlers for Zionism. And wo' and behold, turns out they've ruined careers, and were
being investigated by the FBI for espionage. Few dared type Aipac or Zionism in a negative context for fear of being banned. Now,
we can justifiably attack these from every angle because they're proving exactly what they are and many of us predicted they were.
We've come a long way, baby! And this is going all the way until Zionism goes down into the pages of historical INFAMY, and
nothing less will suffice!
You can ridicule all you want, but I won't rest and neither will the growing number, who believe as I do that Zionism is a
threat to us all and not just to Palestinians!
james @185:
The Zionist connection redundant? Not a chance! What it is, is pivotal in getting to the heart of these foreign interventions.
Lest you forget, we're usually discussing a consistent policy of foreign meddling: in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, possibly Russia
and Iran next, each one practically rebounding off the other because Syria was the road to Iran and Russia, and Ukraine
is to Russia what Syria is to Iran in this agenda; the proxies; it's all connected and if you don't get this; you're dumber
than I thought or pretending to be.
Russia doesn't only have a port at stake in Syria, Russian companies are involved in gas and oil exploration off Syria's coast,
an area that Zionists want to hoard for themselves, and Russia was heavily involved in Libya and Iraq until the mess created in
both which weakened Russian influence in both, although Russia's trying to recover it, another reason Russia's a thorn in Zionism's
side. And Ukraine is the strategy to get Russia mired in a problem on its own doorstep to take Russia's focus off Syria, deprive
it of Tartus, and again try to weaken its influence in the Middle East, and at the same time weaken Russia's economy so that it
will never be a competitive threat again in the Middle East! So you bet Zionism's fingerprints are all over this! And the connections
to Zionism go beyond what I've just stated which I've already outlined in other posts.
All these incursions even Ukraine are linked to ZIOCON foreign agenda; forget neocon forever; the term "Neocon" was always
a red herring; a Zionist euphemism used to disguise how many Zionists are actually involved in the hegemonic operation.
So don't give me that redundant crap. Neocons are ZIONISTS with an aggressive global initiative based on neutralization; and
they're driving this policy and you better believe I'm going to harp on that!
It's easy to see the mental disturbance occurring in the writings of a polemicist, in the mindless overuse of a particular
word in any given tract. It's obvious kalithea, that an abundance of couple of these words, is not a question of style in your
writing, but of obsession. First of all, this is a literate group, composed of a lot of longtime readers. Another thing is that
your irresponsible use of "hasbara" is nothing but a smear against those who have a record here of opposing the outrages of Israeli
governments, and their war crimes, about which you bark. This doesn't make you look so good.
What you remind me of most, is an enforcer of party discipline, whose job it is to crack the whip, and to hand out censures,
in other words, to excoriate and verbally abuse anyone who doesn't keep to your dogma.
The issue of the injustices handed out to Palestinians has been focused upon by most of us here for a long time; but it is
not courageous, or good of you, to fire polemic broadsides, or to dispense wantonly,
the charges of hasbara, upon anyone who hasn't tipped over into your particular fantasies.
I don't have time for those who seek to use the crimes committed against jews by europeans to excuse the crimes committed by israel
against the indigenous people of the Jordan Valley, but I don't believe that is what Tom G is doing. I supposed he was pointing
out that having half yer family knocked off by assholes tends to focus the mind (there is a lesson in there for israelis but if
they haven't learned by now its unlikely they ever will).
Pragma et al may have confused predecessors with ancestors. Predecessor is not another word for ancestor; it is someone who
precedes someone else in an office or title.
When I read Tom G's post which alluded to kalithea's predecessors I assumed that he was referring to the last mob of cheerleaders
for judeophobia - the nazis.
At no stage did I consider Tom G had some sorta special insight into the mindset of kalithea's primogenitors.
Those people who focus upon a persons race rather than the person's actions are always gonna be susceptible to believing that
others operate on the same basis.
I'm all for kicking alla the talk of antisemitism into touch as long as we can stick to considering people by what they say
and do rather than what we believe their genetics to be.
Occupy Wall Street was on the right track. People of the world need to rise up against the 1% banksters AND Zionism although they're
one and the same. These forces are driving the Ziocon imperial advance. If Occupy hadn't dissolved because of winter; Zionists
were ready to kill it because they were very worried that the Occupy Movement would eventually merge with the BDS movement against
Zionism and gain momentum on a larger scale and this is exactly what was starting to happen. People are starting to feel like
the Palestinians under Zionism; they're starting to feel like their leaders are collaborators with Zionism like Abbas and the
PA negotiating to screw their people. People are feeling like they no longer have a voice against the powerbrokers in Washington
and on Wall Street. They're feeling like they can't trust the media, because it's full of Ziocon propaganda. We are watched; we
are listened to; we are monitored. We are now the OCCUPIED of Wall Street and Zionism.
There are all kinds of articles on the web written by Zionists condemning Occupy as anti-Semitic. Google Zionism and Occupy
Wall Street. Why were Zionists so scared of Occupy? Because they know Wall Street is run by Zionists and everyone at Occupy knew
saw this; that's why they're next target was The Lobby; and they were planning to occupy Aipac. Zionists realized that the Occupy
movement getting closer and closer to the cause of Occupied Palestine. The Occupy Movement was starting to move against Zionism.
Zionism has no clothes and because we all see this FACT; they accuse us of anti-Semitism. Occupy Wall Street needs to mobilize
again, and occupy not only Wall Street, but the Zionist Lobby as well as it planned to and join with the BDS movement, because
if we don't mobilize soon against Ziocon expansion we will become the empire of Orwellian slavery that this Zionist Kaplan dreams
of. Maybe that's Zionism's PROMISED LAND.
"It isn't merely incorrect to put the cart before the horse by blaming American imperialism on the corrupt Israeli regime,
it is fucking dangerous and destructive - firstly because it causes too much time and energy be spent upon a mob of petty
crimes
(yes they are psychopaths, but in comparison to the crimes of America, Israeli leaders are petty criminals), but most importantly
because blaming 'the Jews' for the world's ills is so destructive to resistance against the asshole elites."
Thank god finally some one other than myself said this, and in a much more eloquent way than I could ever do; because I am
afraid what 'mearsheimer and walt' are doing is precisely that : "putting the cart before the horse" and the direct implication
of that is "blaming 'the jews' for the world's ills".
Sadly this is an inevitable consequence that very often is neglected by decent progressive people, in a way that I some times
feel being a part of a very small minority even on this site!
I find your argument naive*, but I won't argue it, except for the short paragraph below; and whether he meant predecessors
as in people he thinks held my beliefs, or he meant ancestors - it's still slanderous crap, because he doesn't know me and I am
not no Nazi-lover just as I'm no Zionist lover! What I am sick to death of is that bloody victim card and having it shoved in
my face like so much shit, and hung over me like the sword of Damocles! I am not German and even if I were I wouldn't be responsible
for the crap Nazis pulled. That was then and this is now. I know what I see, I see Zionist supremacy, and I always call things
as I see them and if he's offended. Tough, scroll or get lost.
I don't buy into exclusivity, exceptionalism or choseness bullshet of any kind and if that's some genetic bias than too bad
get off the f*cking chosen pedestal! I can't stand monarchies either. And I really can't stand people who don't get the concept
of universality.
Oh well, predecessor, ancestor, whatever. I think everyone could understand what I was meaning.
Anyway TomGard can hardly know
about kalitheas predecessors, ancestors, or whatever-cestors.
Debs is dead brought up an interesting point, which I'd like to extend.
Actually I remember quite well, what my first thought was when I for the first time didn't simply brush off as "oh well, palestinians
are terrorists anyway" (I should mention that I was a young man then, quite innocent or stupid, depending on ones pov) but actually
began to understand what israelis did there.
It was "Hell no! If anyone on earth is to know how evil it is to terrorize others for being of this or that race or for believing
in this that God, then it must certainly be the israelis!"
For while my anger grew and I began to despise jews. Until one day a patient elderly french jew explained it me. He showed
me the smearings on their synagogue and explained "whenever israel commits cruelties the smearings here in at our cemetery increase
in frequency and anger".
That was my lesson about the jews and the israelis and about them not always being one and the same.
And although I had all I needed to understand more I still somehow didn't arrive at the conclusion that there might be evil
planning behind it. It took me again several years and a coincidence to understand that the "jewish" in "jewish state" (israel)
might actually be a really evil disguise and a perfidious one at that.
Perfidious because israel willfully abused the negative image of "the jews" for which they were responsible in the first place.
But perfidious also because israel greatly profits from anti-semitism, both real and grossly attributed anti-semitism because
it perfectly fits israels "jews should come to israel to live there" credo.
kiev is just another case of that in a series of cases.
There is a lot more to tell but I will cut it at that point for the moment.
But although it took me long to pervade through that complex matter and often disguised by different layers and tricks, I made
it a habit to tell zionists who tried the "half of my family was killed by nazis" plot to mute someone that may dare to create
demands on history once they have proven to themselves have learned from the nazi time what is to be learned, namely that racial
or religious based terror is cruel, inhumane, and utterly despicable. Someone supporting a regime that acts not that much different
from what the nazis have been accused have simply no right to recur on that time, and even less to base demands on it, as long
as their very fucking own actions prove that, if at all, they only learned to be the criminals themselves in the very crime they
complain about.
As far as I'm concerned israel can burn and so can all its supporters.
What you guys don't understand, is that "Zionism" is the manifestation of the global Western imperialism in middle
east. It is nothing more. Is it ugly? Yes! Is it criminal? Yes! Is it responsible for all the crimes in the world? NO! Was
Zionism
responsible for the coup of 1953 in Iran? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup in Guatemala
in 1954? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism responsible for the coup against Sukarno? NO!
Was Zionism responsible for the Vietnam war? NO! Who was responsible it? The Western imperialism! Was Zionism behind the coup
against Allende? NO! Who was behind it? The Western imperialism!
IN FACT: Was Zionism behind Zionism? NO! It was the Western imperialism and its ambitions to hegemonize the world energy resources
which was behind Zionism to begin with (Balfour declaration)!
Israel's birth predates 1948! Its real birth was in 1939 when *BRITISH IMPERIALISM* massacred Palestinians and suppressed the
Arab revolt! Zionism is the manifestation of the Western imperialism *in middle east* and not the other way around!
What a load of crock! Guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky were behind Zionism so don't gimme that crap.
I already wrote in another post here that power in the U.S. started turning Zionist sometime during Kennedy's Presidency, not
that I blame him he was otherwise very occupied. So you could have saved yourself some time screaming all those historical references
at me. And why are you so freakin' defensive anyway?
The Ziocon Jews Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Leo Strauss were the earlier founders of the so-called neoconservatism
movement, and were vehemently opposed to relaxing foreign policy in regards to the Soviet Union and communism in general.
In the early nineties the Ziocon torch was passed on to the likes of William Kristol, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz and
Richard Perle. And we all know what followed next...years of endless war.
All these "neocons" were Zionists and Jews and were instrumental in influencing foreign policy.
So as you can see Zionists and Zionism was leading the charge. Maybe you should read Paul Wolfowitz's speech at West Point.
Wolfowitz Doctrine...Not intended for public release, it was leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992,[1] and sparked
a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the
document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from other nations
and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.
A real manifesto for authored by a Zionist for supremacy and imperialiam.
But this is not all the Zionist cabal authored as you well know: Zionist Pnac members also authored another document called:A
Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm
This subject has been talked about extensively, and I really don't have the desire to get into a useless and endless
debate recounting the history especially when people want to obstinately shut their eyes to the most obvious facts going on right
before their eyes; facts such as what's going on in Ukraine and the bloody war waged to disintegrate Yugoslavia which has/had
nothing to do with zionism.
I will just go over a couple of points in your argument which were quite nonsense (well your whole comment was nonsense but
I will just go over a couple of points).
First of all US imperialism in particular and the Western imperialism in general did not start with Kennedy, the coup against
Mosaddegh in 1953, the coup against Arbenz in 1954, the first indochina war (with absolute and active support of the French by
the USA), the Korean war and the attrocities commited by USA in Korean peninsula, the whole hearted support for Batista and brutal
suppression of the cubans, the coup against Patrice Lumumba, The colonization of India and brutal suppression of Indians by the
british, the coup after coup made against the constitutional revolution in Iran etc. etc. ALL PREDATE Kennedy. In fact in case
of USA its very inception was based on imperialism, land grab, ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery, all happening LONG before
Kennedy and having ZERO to do with zionism.
Secondly guys like Herzl and Jabotinsky are nothing but clowns. Ineffective idiots who without the active support and the absolute
control and management of the Western imperialism would not be able to make an autonomous village let alone making an independent
country based on ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Land grab through ethnic cleansing, mass murder of the native population and
wars against all local nations require CAPITAL and MILITARY. And No capitalist invests such huge sums of capital without any rate
of return. Capital is invested for RATE OF RETURN and a hegemony to make possible the continous flow of that rate of return, not
for some nationalistic, racial or religious motive!
And so Israel was not created by the likes of Herzl, it was created by the force (monetary and military) of British empire,
and such creations by the British was not peculiar to middle east and Israel, the British had many other such wonderous feats
of crime all over the globe, of which Israel constitutes but a single example! The British did not create Israel because they
were in love with the Jews or were obssessed with Jewish nationalism. They did it because it was PROFITABLE. Hegemony is always
profitable. And they did in the middle east, what they had done all over the globe to maintain their hegemony and increase their
profit. NOTHING MORE.
Had the geology followed a different trend and all that oil been formed some where other than middle east -say in the region
of Tibet- Herzl and Jabotinsky would not have been even remembered today!
Omg, where do I start? I won't; I don't even want to dignify most of that. First, if you want to be taken seriously, paragraphs
might help.
Second, I never said imperialism started with Kennedy; at least quote me for God's sakes; it's in front of you! I said that
power in the U.S. get it? i.e. those who wield power in the US , such power started changing hands from Anglo to Zionist
during Kennedy's presidency, and I'm talking about the top of the corporate food chain, the super-wealthy who influence power
in Washington, and the evolution of the Ziocon movement. But it started discreetly without becoming obvious. Only in the 1980s
did it start becoming obvious, because it had grown so much and it's influence was becoming more transparent. The flaw with Zionists
is that they're control freaks (rig every corner of the system as much as possible in Zionism's favor) maybe it has to do with
latent paranoia, but that's the reality; don't blame me.
As far as the other wars you mention; most were to fight communism; but guess why the Ziocons, Kristol sr., Podhoretz and Strauss
formed this Ziocon movement? To prevent Communism from spreading! They broke with the Democratic party because they saw these
liberals trying to relax relations with the Soviet Union and they wanted to go in another direction: neutralize; using force.
You can blame the British all you want but around the late 50s early 1960s, again, while Kennedy was a rising star and becoming
President, Zionists were in charge of their affairs, and the worst crimes of Zionism, the worst unilateral attacks on neighboring
countries happened under Zionist sovereignty. Zionist were so in charge of their fiefdom that they started developing nuclear
weapons behind Kennedy's back; that's how powerful they were becoming.
I stated over and over again that I'm not concerned with ancient history; I'm concerned with post-WWII after the Partition,
when Zionists started bombing Palestinian villages, ethnic cleansing and massacre upon massacre. Okay Zionists started their terrorism
before, but that was only to set the stage for frustrating the British to impose their rule over the Palestinians with brutal
force.
Let's agree to disagree; you and r'giap and TomGuard can't stand my attacking Zionism, and the power it wields to keep perpetuating
the longest-running most brutal occupation in modern history and committing crimes with total impunity. You don't get to subert
the rule of law without astounding power and influence.
Your not so cogent narrative only serves to protect Zionism, and thus perpetuate this horrific injustice.
Dont' bother replying; you will never change my mind; I know what I see; and I'm going to call it as I see it: based on the
obvious exponential growth of Zionist power in the U.S.; cause I repeat; you don't get away with such crimes with TOTAL impunity
without pretty significant power, and stiffling that truth is what perpetuates Zionist Injustice against Palestine. That power
sustains injustice!
Defense of slavery and the slave trade -- the most inhuman form of exploitation conceivable. Defense of United States imperialism. One and the same. Arnold Lockshin, political exile from the US living in Moscow
It's very convenient for you, Arnold, to blame simply "US imperialism", as if it fell out of the sky. It didn't. It was directed
by finance capital, which is not an impersonal force but a collection of individual investors, more than a few of whom are interested
particularly in Jewish welfare, as they conceive it: that is to say, they want to use Jewish issues, to which the general US public
is already well conditioned, to push through an entire program of global domination by force. One wonders who these individuals
are, and why they chose Jewish issues as their cover, if they're not Jews.
That was Neo-McCarthyim hysteria plain and simple; and it still is continuing as "FullOfSchiff" fqrse.
Notable quotes:
"... Can you think of a more vulgar and disgraceful manifestation of Trump-Russia media malfeasance than Rachel Maddow? Her deluded nightly conspiratorial rants may have been lucrative for MSNBC, but she fed viewers a complete fraud for three years. Now her show is undergoing a genuine existential crisis after Robert Mueller's exoneration of Trump . ..."
"... The harm Maddow inflicted is unforgivable and she should obviously resign, go into exile, and take up some other line of work: perhaps gardening. That said, she has also become something of a scapegoat. ..."
"... As contemptible as Rachel undoubtedly is, dwelling on her absolves the rest of the industry from acknowledging what really happened: a structural calamity of epic proportions, implicating almost all of them, which has utterly destroyed the reputation of the media writ large. And for good reason. ..."
"... (Brennan infamously declared Trump guilty of treason on Twitter following the Helsinki summit). ..."
"... Last week, Wheeler finally admitted her suspicion that the FBI may have just decided she is 'crazy.' Yes, sounds plausible. ..."
"... Sadly, all the media figures who might have been assigned to legitimate evidence-based inquiries were wrapped up in the never-ending Russia melodrama, based on the hunch that it would result in the revelation of treasonous collusion, followed by the arrest of Trump's family and his swift impeachment. None of this happened. So what was the point? ..."
"... Most disturbing of all is how otherwise-smart journalists and commentators lost their minds and integrity throughout the debacle. It was all a joke, a scam, and I've barely even scratched the surface here. It will take years to fully sift through the wreckage ..."
'Boom!': an autopsy of the
media after the Mueller bombshellDunking on Rachel Maddow may be fun, but she's far
from the sole perpetratorMichael
Tracey Rachel Maddow
Can you think of a more vulgar and disgraceful manifestation of Trump-Russia media
malfeasance than Rachel Maddow? Her deluded nightly conspiratorial rants may have been
lucrative for MSNBC, but she fed viewers a complete fraud for three years. Now her show is
undergoing a genuine existential crisis after Robert Mueller's exoneration of Trump .
The harm Maddow inflicted is unforgivable and she should obviously resign, go into exile,
and take up some other line of work: perhaps gardening. That said, she has also become
something of a scapegoat. It's convenient to disavow Maddow's excesses if you're a journalist
who wants to pretend that the media failures which gave rise to Trump-Russia weren't a
full-scale indictment of their entire profession. To act as though the misconduct was somehow
confined to one unhinged cable news personality would be a gross distortion.
As contemptible as Rachel undoubtedly is, dwelling on her absolves the rest of the industry
from acknowledging what really happened: a structural calamity of epic proportions, implicating
almost all of them, which has utterly destroyed the reputation of the media writ large. And for
good reason.
Easy as it might be to pooh-pooh Maddow as some zany outlier, the undeniable reality is that
the sick conspiratorial mindset she embodied was thoroughly mainstream: it infected virtually
every sector of elite American culture, from journalism, to entertainment, to the professional
political class. Rachel is just the tip of the rotten iceberg.
Take, for instance, Keith Olbermann. Keith was the most influential host on MSNBC during the
George W. Bush years, when audiences ate up his furious denunciations of the Iraq War, which
scratched a genuine itch because of the prevailing pro-war media conformity of the time.
Olbermann gave voice to frustrated liberals who felt that their well-founded grievances were
not being represented in the popular media, and his style came to be emulated across the
industry (including by the host he recruited for a top spot on the network, Rachel Maddow.)
Then came the Trump era, when Olbermann's brain appeared to explode. He began recording
short video rants for GQ magazine, which rank among the most mind-bendingly deranged
content produced throughout the entire Russiagate ordeal. Please, just watch this unbelievable
screed from December 2016:
'We are at war with Russia,' Olbermann gravely proclaims. The inauguration of Donald Trump,
he prophesies, will mark 'the end of the United States as an independent country.' Anyone who
rejects this analysis is a 'traitor' says Olbermann, and in league with 'Russian scum.' His
recommendation is to thwart Trump via some harebrained Electoral College scheme where electors
are intimidated into violating their duty to vote according to the election outcome in their
respective states and districts.
I covered this attempted coup at the time, which failed, but was
supported by leading Democrats ranging from Hillary Clinton campaign communications
director Jennifer Palmieri to Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe; as well as Michael Moore,
Lawrence Lessig, Peter Beinart, DeRay McKesson, Paul Krugman, and Neera Tanden. Prominent
liberals had been melodramatically whinging for months about how appalled they were by Trump's
alleged propensity to violate 'norms,' but the next minute they turned around and demanded that
all norms governing the centuries-old Electoral College process be thrown out the window. The
wild propaganda promoted by Olbermann had become the standard, mainstream view among American
liberals: fundamentally corrupting their capacity to view subsequent political events with any
semblance of rationality.
Despite their truly insane offerings, focusing solely on demented opinionators like
Olbermann and Maddow still lets ostensibly 'neutral' journalists off the hook. The amount of
journalistic resources squandered on the Trump-Russia boondoggle, for instance by the New
York Times and the Washington Post , will never be fully quantified. Both newspapers
were lavished with Pulitzer Prizes and every other pointless accolade for their supposedly
intrepid journalism. Their constant 'bombshell scoops' routinely ricocheted across Twitter
before they were injected into the rest of the turbocharged media ecosystem, each one
breathlessly touted on cable news for hours at a time. The harsh truth is that most all of
these 'scoops' were predicated on a fiction. There was supposed to be a core conspiracy, which
was meant to explain why Trump associates kept getting caught in lies – why their
communications were extrajudicially intercepted, why they were surveilled on dubious pretenses.
But no underlying conspiracy was ever revealed. The whole thing was based on a fairytale.
Shouldn't the Times and WaPo therefore apologize and give back their Pulitzers?
Or at very least toss them in the dumpster.
Benjamin Wittes, the LawFare website guru and arguably the most lauded Twitter authority on
the Trump-Russia scam, became well-known for his fun slogan, 'BOOM!,' which he would gleefully
tweet every time a supposed bombshell article burst on the scene. Here's a Washington
Post
story from October 21 last year headlined 'Special counsel examines conflicting accounts as
scrutiny of Roger Stone and WikiLeaks deepens,' which got the Wittes 'boom'
treatment. Wow, very dramatic! Sounds a lot like Mueller and his squad were closing in on Stone
as the evil mastermind behind some grand Trump-Russia conspiracy plot, given his suspicious
ties to WikiLeaks, right? The only problem is, when Stone was indicted three months later,
Mueller not only brought zero charges alleging Stone as party to any conspiracy, he
dispelled such notions.
All the correspondence cited in Mueller's indictment showed that
Stone had no
advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases or any privileged access to its operations. Roger
Stone was just doing what Roger Stone does best: bullshitting.
Stone was eventually charged by Mueller for making false statements, but again: none of
those statements pertained to a conspiracy cover-up. They pertained to the dirty trickster
being who he's been for decades: a fabulist who frequently misrepresents himself and gets in
stupid feuds with fellow political hucksters. The October 2018 story about which Wittes tweeted
'boom' ultimately had no real significance. Like so many other stories touted at the time as an
incredible BOMBSHELL, everyone got amped up over a total fantasy. The story had no serious
value, other than to temporarily scintillate now-discredited obsessives like Wittes.
Special scorn should be reserved for those in prominent media positions who ought to have
known better, but indulged day after day in conspiratorial nonsense anyway. Take Chris Hayes,
the popular 8pm MSNBC host, who unlike Maddow has a journalistic background (he was formerly
the Washington Editor of The Nation magazine). Theoretically, Hayes should have been imbued
with a greater sense of ingrained skepticism regarding CIA and FBI claims, which are what drove
the entire Trump-Russia investigation to begin with. He is also a genuinely intelligent person,
having (ironically) written the excellent Twilight of
the Elites (2012), a book which examined the propensity for upper-crust society to
engage in self-defeating groupthink.
But Hayes too ended up witlessly amplifying the most
obscene Russiagate antics – no doubt influenced by the pressure of having to turn in big
ratings every night. His shows were always brimming with security state spooks like John Brennan
, the former CIA Director and proven
fantasist . Brennan was eventually hired by NBC, becoming one of Hayes's colleagues
despite having played a central role in instigating the original Trump-Russia investigation in 2016 and inflaming its most
incendiary elements (Brennan infamously declared Trump guilty of treason on Twitter following
the Helsinki summit).
For further insight on the subject, Hayes generally turned to pseudo-journalistic figures
like Natasha Bertrand of The Atlantic , whose frenetically conspiratorial Russia
coverage has also proven to have been total bunk – as well as former prosecutors and
FBI
officials like Chuck Rosenberg, disreputable security state apparatchiks like former NSA
lawyer Susan Hennessey, and outright charlatans like purported 'intelligence expert' Malcolm
Nance. (Here's an example from 2016 of the esteemed Nance getting tricked by a Twitter
troll.)
Hayes even went so far as to promote the theory that Trump had been colluding with
Russia since 1987, a story somehow featured on the cover of New
York magazine despite drawing on source material that literally originated with the
recently deceased, notorious madman Lyndon LaRouche. Hayes's descent into fact-free mania
culminated with his
declaration to Stephen Colbert on March 8 last year that Trump and his associates were
'super guilty' of collusion. Whoops!
While many once-respectable media figures like Hayes have seen their reputations inserted
directly into the toilet, maybe the most bizarre case of all is Marcy Wheeler, the independent
journalist known as @emptywheel .
Wheeler appeared on Hayes's first show after Mueller decisively cleared Trump of collusion
– you know, the central tenet of the Special Counsel's mandate. The fact that Hayes would
have Wheeler on at that moment – after the entire Trump-Russia drama was definitively
exposed as a ludicrous fantasy – showed that Hayes was committed to perpetuating the
deceit even in the face of all countervailing evidence, whether unconsciously or consciously.
That's because Marcy Wheeler is almost certainly a deluded basket case.
The most obvious evidence for this is Wheeler's sensational admission in July 2018 that she
burned a source to the FBI, voluntarily and proactively, thereby committing one of
journalism's mortal sins. Wheeler justified her demented action on numerous fronts. First, she
claimed that she possessed bombshell, smoking gun info that proved a Trump-Russia conspiracy,
and felt a patriotic duty to hand this over to the FBI – in retribution for what she
called Russia's 'attack' on the United States. Let's remember, shall we, that said attack at
most amounted to some Twitter bots, goofy Facebook memes, and spear-phished Gmail accounts:
John Podesta famously clicked on a phony link, which led to his emails being swiped. Hardly
9/11 or Pearl Harbor, wouldn't you say? However, those comparisons have been seriously made by
various prominent elected officials, including Rep.
Jerrold Nadler of New York, who would have presided over impeachment proceedings had things
panned out differently.
When pressed – even after the Mueller clearly asserted that no such Trump-Russia
conspiracy ever existed – Wheeler still refuses to divulge any details about the
extraordinary dispositive evidence she mysteriously claims to possess. Second, Wheeler further
justified her insane conduct by insisting she could literally be killed by some unknown
sinister alliance of Russians and Trump-backed mafia figures, or something ( I'm not making this up .).
Shamefully, Wheeler's outlandish assertions were treated as gospel by members of the media who
failed to apply even a modicum of critical scrutiny; Margaret Sullivan of the Washington
Post
heralded Wheeler as following her conscience and wrote this about the supposed Russian hit
squad out to get her: 'Overly dramatic? Not really. The Russians do have a penchant for
disposing of people they find threatening.' Utter lunacy. Since the Mueller finding, Wheeler
has strangely not revealed any additional information about the nature of these would-be
assassins.
Think about it. For months, Wheeler dangled cryptic hints about the explosive info that she
alone supposedly knew about, enthralling blog readers and Twitter followers – and earning
her major platforms not just on MSNBC but even the New York Times , where she
contributed columns
that contained blatant falsehoods. In the pages of the world's most influential newspaper, she
claimed that Mueller had been 'hiding' evidence showing Trump's participation in a Russia
conspiracy, and it would all come out once Mueller issued his final verdict. No dice.
Last week, Wheeler finally admitted her suspicion that the FBI may have just decided
she is 'crazy.' Yes, sounds plausible.
So much journalistic energy was wasted chronicling the ins-and-outs of the Russiagate
non-story. Imagine if instead that time was devoted to reporting in the public interest: like,
say, I don't know – investigating the militaristic think tanks which attempted to
undermine Trump's key diplomatic initiatives (such as North Korea), or how Trump was co-opted
by the Republican donor class, or his various actual corruptions that didn't happen to involve
any international espionage conspiracy.
Sadly, all the media figures who might have been
assigned to legitimate evidence-based inquiries were wrapped up in the never-ending Russia
melodrama, based on the hunch that it would result in the revelation of treasonous collusion,
followed by the arrest of Trump's family and his swift impeachment. None of this happened. So
what was the point?
Most disturbing of all is how otherwise-smart journalists and commentators lost their minds
and integrity throughout the debacle. It was all a joke, a scam, and I've barely even scratched
the surface here. It will take years to fully sift through the wreckage.
@wayfarer Good share wayfarer. January 10, 2014 *500* Years of History Shows that Mass
Spying Is Always Aimed at Crushing Dissent *It's Never to Protect Us From Bad Guys*
No matter which government conducts mass surveillance, they also do it to crush dissent,
and then give a false rationale for why they're doing it.
-- The gang is also very stupid. From Halper-the-spy and his incompetent handler Brennan
to the obnoxious zionists of Ledeen kind they, the members of the "gang", show incompetence
and the self-endangering and stupid amorality.
By destroying whatever decent has been in the western civilization so far, and by
spreading the rot around, the gangsters have been destroying their children's &
grandchildren's future.
@UncommonGround Many years ago The Guardian was a left leaning newspaper and reported the news in a fairly unbiased manner.
It was always quite critical of the Zionists and Israel and supported good causes but then suddenly, a few years ago, it became
very defensive of Israel and started to censor readers comments about Israeli news stories, then it stopped publishing any story
criticizing Israel.
There must have a change of ownership or some kind of right wing or Zionist takeover.
Then it started really blocking comments to news articles which didn't agree with the opinion of the Guardian editors.
Then Wikileaks published its leaks through the Guardian, and others, who used the info to sell news.
Then it quite shockingly turned around and stabbed Wikileaks and Assange in the back.
I think now it is operated as a controlled media outlet in favour of the UK security services and the Israelis, it's a real
shame as it has the potential to be an excellent news source but it's reputation is now trashed in my opinion.
"Assange was reduced from one of the few towering figures of our time – a man who will
have a central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to write those
books "
-- The presstituting crowd of stenographers (MSM) and the zionized X-tian war profiteers
have made everything in their power (inadvertently) to ensure that Assange is and will be a
towering figure of our time.
Even in distress, Assange has been fighting for truth and dignity; the ongoing show of
lawlessness exposes the rot. The moral and creative midgets constituting the core of MSM and
the satanic deciders are upset. Good!
The idiotic Senior District "Judge" Emma Arbuthnot (a wife and beneficiary of a mega-war
profiteer Lord Arbuthnot -- Arbuthnot served as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee from
2005 to 2014) and the no less idiotic District "Judge" Michael Snow have entered the history
books as well. As scoundrels: http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1555064882.html
Snow does his best to bring the Judiciary into disrepute by playing to the gallery. He
comments on the extradition in the same vein in a totally unprofessional manner. He is of
course in a long line of disreputable members of the judiciary Snow's place in history is
now secured – he chose to abuse the defendant rather than perform his role which was
really quite straightforward. He is the narcissist and guilty of self interest not Julian
Assange.
April 2, 2019 The CIA Takeover of America in the 1960s Is the Story of Our Times. The Killing of the Kennedys and Today's
New Cold War
'We're all puppets,' the suspect [Sirhan Sirhan] replied, with more truth than he could have understood at that moment."
– Lisa Pease, quoting from the LAPD questioning of Sirhan
March 19, 2017 The CIA's 60-Year History of Fake News How the Deep State Corrupted Many American Writers
Whitney's new book, "Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers," explores how the CIA influenced acclaimed
writers and publications during the Cold War to produce subtly anti-communist material.
During the interview, Scheer and Whitney
discuss these manipulations and how the CIA controlled major news agencies and respected literary publications (such as the
Paris Review).
Caitlin nailed it This part
goes for all those who cheer what is happening to Assange. You all are short sighted fools. you
are cheering for your own demise. I have posted something similar in the past over at the other
place and have watched the idiots over there tie themselves into knots defending their blood
thristy anti-Assange positions. It is unconscionable.
8 -- The precedent set by imprisoning a foreign journalist under the
Espionage Act will enable the US government to arrest leak publishers anywhere in the world
who expose its crimes. This will cripple our ability to hold the most powerful institution on
the planet to account in any way. There is no excuse for any journalist anywhere not to
oppose this tooth and claw. If you see anyone calling themselves a journalist but
failing to oppose Assange's extradition, you should call them out for the frauds that they
are.
I would add to Caitlin's point above. There is no excuse for any free thinking human
being to oppose this tooth and claw. Without freedom of speech and freedom to share
information, we are no longer a free people.
People scream about protecting the second amendment, but for me without the first amendment,
there is nothing left to protect. up 11 users have voted. --
"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~Dr. Cornel West
"There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare." Sun Tzu
"... Michael Ledeen has been an influential activist of the US politics. Ledeen is known as a "key player" in the operation Gladio (the holy Graal of holo-biz). ..."
"... It is true that Putin is different from the silver-spooned Trump and the rabid war-mongers Pompeo and Bolton. ..."
Michael Ledeen has been an influential activist of the US politics. Ledeen is known as a
"key player" in the operation Gladio (the holy Graal of holo-biz).
Ledeen is "a former consultant to the United States National Security Council,
the United States Department of State, and the United States Department of Defense.
He held the Freedom Scholar chair at the American Enterprise Institute where he was a
scholar for twenty years and now holds the similarly named chair at the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies.
Ledeen is considered an "agent of influence" for a foreign government:
Israel.
"... It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank warmonger is the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice . Unlike Snowden -- who sacrificed his liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs -- the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself. ..."
"... All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it's of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone else a coward. ..."
"... It's not surprising that someone whose entire adult life is shaped by extreme cowardice would want to accuse others of lacking courage, as it distracts attention away from oneself and provides the comfort of company. Nor is it surprising that government-loyal journalists spew outright falsehoods to smear whistleblowers. But even neocon rags like Commentary shouldn't be able to get away with this level of blatant lying. ..."
"... Being a neocon coward means never having to admit error. ..."
In the neocon journal
Commentary , Max Boot today complains that the New York Times published
an op-ed by Edward Snowden . Boot's objection rests on his accusation that the NSA whistleblower is actually a "traitor." In
objecting, Boot made these claims:
Oddly enough nowhere in his article -- which is datelined Moscow -- does he mention the surveillance apparatus of his host,
Vladimir Putin , which far exceeds in scope anything created by any Western country. . . .That would be the same FSB that has
taken Snowden into its bosom as it has previously done (in its earlier incarnation as the KGB) with previous turncoats such as
Kim Philby. . . .
But of course Ed Snowden is not courageous enough, or stupid enough, to criticize the dictatorship that he has defected to.
It's much easier and safer to criticize the country he betrayed from behind the protection provided by the FSB's thugs. The only
mystery is why the Times is giving this traitor a platform.
It is literally the supreme act of projection for Max Boot to accuse anyone of lacking courage, as this particular think tank
warmonger is
the living, breathing personification of the unique strain of American neocon cowardice . Unlike Snowden -- who sacrificed his
liberty and unraveled his life in pursuit of his beliefs -- the 45-year-old Boot has spent most of his adult life advocating for
one war after the next, but always wanting to send his fellow citizens of his generation to die in them, while he hides in the comfort
of Washington think tanks, never fighting them himself.
All of that is just garden-variety neocon cowardice, and it's of course grotesque to watch someone like this call someone
else a coward. But it's so much worse if he lies when doing so. Did he do so here? You decide. From Snowden's NYT op-ed today:
Basic technical safeguards such as encryption -- once considered esoteric and unnecessary -- are now enabled by default in
the products of pioneering companies like Apple, ensuring that even if your phone is stolen, your private life remains private.
Such structural technological changes can ensure access to basic privacies beyond borders, insulating ordinary citizens from the
arbitrary passage of anti privacy laws, such as those now descending upon Russia.
The meaning of that passage -- criticisms of Russia's attack on privacy -- is so clear and glaring that it caused even
Time magazine to publish this today :
The first sentence of Time 's article: "Former CIA officer and NSA contractor Ed Snowden has taken a surprising swing at his new
home, accusing Russia of 'arbitrarily passing' new anti-privacy laws ." In other words, in the very op-ed to which Boot objects,
Snowden did exactly that which Boot accused him of lacking the courage to do: "criticize" the country that has given him asylum.
This is far from the first time Snowden has done exactly that which the Tough and Swaggering Think Tank Warrior proclaimed Snowden
would never do. In April, 2014, Snowden wrote
an
op-ed in The Guardian under this headline:
With Max Boot's above-printed accusations in mind, just re-read that. Did Boot lie? To pose the question is to answer it. Here's
part of what Snowden wrote in that op-ed:
On Thursday, I questioned Russia's involvement in mass surveillance on live television. . . . I went on to challenge whether,
even if such a mass surveillance program were effective and technically legal, it could ever be morally justified. . . . In his
response, Putin denied the first part of the question and dodged on the latter. There are serious inconsistencies in his denial.
In countless speeches, Snowden has said much the same thing: that Russian spying is a serious problem that needs investigation
and reform, and that Putin's denials are not credible. Boot simply lied about Snowden.
It's not surprising that someone whose entire adult life is shaped by extreme cowardice would want to accuse others of lacking
courage, as it distracts attention away from oneself and provides the comfort of company. Nor is it surprising that government-loyal
journalists spew outright falsehoods to smear
whistleblowers. But even neocon rags like Commentary shouldn't be able to get away with this level of blatant lying.
UPDATE : In typical neocon fashion, Boot first
replies by minimizing his own error to a mere innocent oversight, and implying that only hysteria could cause anyone to find
what he did to be problematic. Even then, the facts negate his self-justification. But
then he says he was actually right all along
and his "point stands":
Being a neocon coward means never having to admit error.
With Bolsanaro in charge in Brazil, Glenn Greenwald could be next. Something I am sure he is very aware. It's also curious that
no more of Snowden's documents have been published. I've wondered if they have threatened Greenwald and he is withholding the
information, to keep himself out of some dungeon somewhere.
"I've wondered if they have threatened Greenwald and he is withholding the information, to keep himself out of some dungeon
somewhere."
No one needs to threaten Greenwald to get him to withhold information. He withholds out of elitist conviction. In his way he's
just as much of an elite gatekeeper as anyone at any MSM outlet. (And really an outfit like the Intercept is just a thinly veiled
extension of the MSM.)
It's amazing how for many people, even going to work for a predatory billionaire as Greenwald has, or collaborating as part
of that billionaire's project as Snowden has, doesn't automatically peg one as a system stooge.
1. Information "piracy" may have to take to the high seas.
2. Maybe it would be best to release the rest of Snowden's documents now. Tit for tat.
Posted by: Cynica | Apr 11, 2019 8:38:05 AM | 35
This WILL NOT happen. Greenwald, his billionaire backer (who owns the docs technically as crazy as that sounds) and his website
are all an example of the "acceptable" counter narrative. Greenwald should deserve no respect, he chose money and fame over integrity.
That much has become clear. I think the same of Scahill and a few others, though I hear little from him now.
Sad days. Money will buy a LOT of people. Even those we believe it won't as they are "principled" or once carried conviction
. Hell, I imagine most of us are vulnerable to that as well.
1. Information "piracy" may have to take to the high seas.
2. Maybe it would be best to release the rest of Snowden's documents now. Tit for tat.
Posted by: Cynica | Apr 11, 2019 8:38:05 AM | 35
This WILL NOT happen. Greenwald, his billionaire backer (who owns the docs technically as crazy as that sounds) and his website
are all an example of the "acceptable" counter narrative. Greenwald should deserve no respect, he chose money and fame over integrity.
That much has become clear. I think the same of Scahill and a few others, though I hear little from him now.
Sad days. Money will buy a LOT of people. Even those we believe it won't as they are "principled" or once carried conviction
. Hell, I imagine most of us are vulnerable to that as well.
It's amazing how for many people, even going to work for a predatory billionaire as Greenwald has, or collaborating as part of
that billionaire's project as Snowden has, doesn't automatically peg one as a system stooge.
Posted by: Russ | Apr 11, 2019 8:37:22 AM | 34
I don't know. I still read Greenwald on twitter. You just have to pick through where he is dancing on a thin line and in some
places openly speaking truth.
Pretty hard to live on next to nothing and get heard and also enjoy a bit of life as well.
Obviously he is getting paid very well but I don't see him as a MSM stooge and propagandist.
I don't bother with the intercept.
I doubt that Trump will have to intervene. If we cast our minds back to David Hicks and Chelsea Manning, the Yanks wanted both
of them to rot in jail for Eternity but 'time served' for both was considerably less. There was also a swarthy, savvy, well-educated
bespectacled Brit picked up about the same time as Hicks. I've forgotten his name but he was released in response to strident
demands from UK.gov. Ozzies were very pissed off with the Liberal Govt for not following UK.gov's example re David Hicks.
Superficially, at least, it seems that the US is happy to 'prove' its relentless invincibility, to as wide an audience as possible,
when pursuing The AmeriKKKan Way regarding certain 'evildoers' and then going back to sleep.
If there's a short-term bright note to this story it's the fact that Scum Mo announced the start of Oz Federal Election campaign
yesterday and Assange will become an election issue. Scum Mo's Liberals are already in deep doodoo with the electorate for delaying
the Banking Royal Commission for almost 2 years. The RC found that all of the big banks and other financial institutions had been
engaged in widespread deception, theft and fraudulent behavior. The Royal Commission was given a limited time to produce a report
and did NOT set up a compensation body or procedure for the tens of thousands of victims of bank malfeasance.
So Scum Mo will be tempted to grow a pair and demand that Trump send Assange back to Oz because the Libs were going to be toast
anyway and Saving Julian might help some people to forget what greedy dishonest assholes the Libs are.
I'm not sure Assange will end up in solitary in a U.S. Supermax prison as many so-called progressive Clintonists are hoping and
gloating over. From memory the ECHR regards solitary as torture particularly over long periods and the United Kingdom judiciary
(who will make the decision) have an established policy of not extraditing prisoners who will be tortured. So, my assessment is,
he will be extradited once the US DoJ has given assurances he will not be held in solitary, but it will be a very sad day for
press freedom in the United Kingdom.
"Pretty hard to live on next to nothing and get heard and also enjoy a bit of life as well."
I've heard about the lavish "next to nothing" Greenwald lives on. Doesn't quite sound the same as my next-to-nothing. As for
getting heard, that's mathematical: There's an direct relationship between one's utility to the empire and how much one "gets
heard".
In this case, Greenwald collaborated with the NYT, WaPo and Guardian to curate Snowden's alleged trove (which stopped appearing
at all long before it was supposed to be exhausted), in order to release heavily censored portions in a form these MSM elitists
judged was suitable for the people to see.
The basic message, which Snowden himself also has spewed in many speeches, is that the Deep State is basically good, and certainly
necessary, it just has committed some abuses and needs "reform" and "oversight".
That's Greenwald's #1 service for the empire so far, to be the lead man in co-opting the whole Wikileaks-whistleblower movement,
since so many people are so interested in "leaks" (even though they never tell us anything we didn't already know from plain sight).
We do all hope that Assange's arrest will motivate all those with access to other incriminating data to release those, via Wikileaks
or other. The first comment here accurately describes it: (the UK and) the US - and let's add the whole silly 'five eyes' and
western front - has become the new Soviet Union. Roles have reversed; it's not about ideology but about power structure.
Here's for Assange to become the Sakharov of our time. However, that would mean we foster the hope or expect that our western
hemisphere could birth a Gorbachev-type idealist who can attain power long enough to destroy the power base.
Christian J Chuba , Apr 11, 2019 9:57:12 AM |
link
Reading the user comments on Assange's arrest in the 'Washington Post' story, all I can say is that we in the U.S.
are a bunch of jingoistic morons. We are exceptionally narcissistic and small minded.
Indeed. It's almost as if the Snowden--Greenwald affair were an intended or at least foreseen and allowed limited hangout operation
one aim of which was to discredit the "irresponsible" leaking of Assange while establishing Greenwald as paradigm for all correct
left-libertarian critiques of the US.
On the other hand, if the Snowden--Greenwald *were* simply a limited hangout thing, then it was far more successfully and realistically
contrived than most of our current very mediocre intelligence agency operations have been. The rush to apprehend Snowden en route
to Central America, the forced detainment of Greenwald's partner in the UK, the MI5-6 destruction of the Guardian servers and
subsequent takeover of the newspaper...all these events really happened and clearly were much more serious endeavors than the
obvious staged operations like Steele, Russiagate, Skripal which followed after.
So I think that the Snowden--gGreenwald---Poitras thing started as genuine and then was subsequently coopted and controlled
via Greenwald and Omidar's Intercept. What I don't know is whether Greenwald entered the Snowden affair already coopted or whether
he became so willingly sometime later. For lots of people like Greenwald--achievement oriented, desirous of public fame and respect,
interested in obtaining personal wealth and stability--a very "soft" touch is all that's needed by our intelligence ops to arrive
at an understanding between them.
If one were to change the calendar to 1938 or so, and the names to Goebbels et al, one would recognize the character of the criminals.
This is a typical nazi "action" against people who have failed to conceal evidence of major war crimes. Their "crime" is reporting
crime.
The German nazis were curated by CoL and Wall-Street bankers to ruin USSR and loot Russia. As we see this remains a basic,
essential, nazi goal of the Anglo-Saxon nazi heartland, er. "Heimat" - England and their servile willing US accomplices.
- Madeline Albright: "We think it's worth it" to kill 500,000 children.
- Bush Admin and neocons lied to start the war a war that cost trillions of dollars wasted; thousands of deaths
- Multiple grievous human rights abuses now engraved in memory: Abu Grave; Faluja; Rendition and Torture; Guantanamo, etc.
And the same lousy criminal asshats brought us the Afghanistan debacle, color revolutions, and the Syrian Jihadi proxy war.
As long as the real criminals walk free, they will continue to drive their criminal agenda.
In the indictment, the government alleges that Assange worked with Chelsea Manning to obtain classified documents. Prosecutors
say that Manning accessed classified government files, provided them to Assange, and later worked with Assange in an attempt
to crack the password of a classified government network.
The indictment outlines communications between Manning and Assange from the spring of 2010. WikiLeaks later released a major
cache of State Department cables, and
Prosecutors also argue that Assange actively encouraged Manning to access files, at one point saying, "curious eyes never
run dry in my experience."
Currently, the only charge Assange faces is one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion. The maximum penalty for
the violation is five years in prison, but the government could bring additional charges against Assange at a later date.
A friend of mine is a retired intelligence asset. What he has to say may upset lots of you. So be it. Everyone wants heroes but
others say no more heroes anymore.
WikiLeaks is accused of releasing the DNC mails via a Russian hack but the Wikileaks organization denies Russia was the source
yet declines to offer proof, allowing the false perception to persevere. Why does Wikileaks persevere in concealing the otherwise
well known fact it was the assassinated Seth Rich leaked the DNC mails? Is it because Assange's currency as an intelligence agency
asset isn't yet entirely exhausted?
Possibility 1) As stated at this website previously, the point of charging Assange with an older crime could be to bury the
prime witness (Assange) in maximum security where any testimony threatening John Brennan's CIA invented DNC 'hack' narrative will
never come to light.
Possibility 2) This is part of a staged event by the USA's neocon/Christian Zionist alliance in the CIA, working with MOSSAD
(recalling Assange's MOSSAD connections attested to by former CIA clandestine services officer Robert Steele) to sink the neoliberal
element of the USA's intelligence establishment; where Trump will pardon Assange for Assange's cooperation with the Justice Department
in sinking the Obama/Clinton/John Brennan clique behind 'Russiagate' (finally resolving the DNC mails.)
Consider this: certain alternative media stars either fail to realize or selectively black out the fact Julian Assange was
a critical gear in the intelligence agency (primarily CIA & MOSSAD) information operations responsible for the so-called 'Arab
Spring' leading to not only revolution and counter-revolution in Egypt but also the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Syrian 'civil
war.' How do alternative media stars Glen Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Caitlin Johnstone, Vanessa Beeley and Raul Ilargi Meijer (among
others), when defending their perception of Assange as a hero, drive that square peg into the round hole of Wikileaks supported
the intelligence agency geopolitical engineering called the Arab Spring?
Many readers here will be hearing from Glenn Greenwald about the arrest of Assange as if He(Greenwald)just loves Julian so much
and is just so upset by his arrest. DO NOT BELIEVE HIM. Take the time to look back at what Greenwald has said - such as claiming
that Assange is not a journalist because he does ont "curate" the material he receives for anything other than authenticity.
According to Snowden and Greenwald if a journalist does not contact the government in advance and agreed to censor the material
for "sources and methods" then they are not journalists.
Glenn Greenwald has made a fortune off Snowden - including $250 million from Pierre Omidyar an oligarch for The Intercept which
clearly supports the oligarchy and its interests. Greenwald has stated clearly in the past that he does not consider Wikileaks
a journalistic operation. Greenwald still has perhaps thousands of Snowden documents which he refuses to release - then he gets
$250 million from the oligarchy. Sure there is "journalism" as long as the CIA can review what you publish first. One of the founders
of the Intercept is Laura Pordris who produced a psyco-hit piece on Assange.
In this environment if you Trust these people without question you are risking being mislead. Like a good propagandist Greenwald
is out now singing the tune which will gain him trust so he can slip in the propaganda effectively when the time comes.
@AnonJ ust for a
more important record -- no surprise here -- my quick scan of the index of file names of that
"massive data dump at Wikileaks" found quite a few files about Scientology, one about tuition
increase at "uofa," another concerning Hawaii's announcement about Obama's birth certificate,
and a "yes-we-can mp4," but nothing at all about the World Trade Center or 9/11 that I could
find.
The arrest probably means that WikiLeaks was thoroughly infiltrated and the US authorities
are sure that there are no "unexploded bombs" in their arsenal.
Indeed. It's almost as if the Snowden--Greenwald affair were an intended or at least
foreseen and allowed limited hangout operation one aim of which was to discredit the
"irresponsible" leaking of Assange while establishing Greenwald as paradigm for all correct
left-libertarian critiques of the US.
On the other hand, if the Snowden--Greenwald *were* simply a limited hangout thing, then
it was far more successfully and realistically contrived than most of our current very
mediocre intelligence agency operations have been. The rush to apprehend Snowden en route to
Central America, the forced detainment of Greenwald's partner in the UK, the MI5-6
destruction of the Guardian servers and subsequent takeover of the newspaper...all these
events really happened and clearly were much more serious endeavors than the obvious staged
operations like Steele, Russiagate, Skripal which followed after.
So I think that the Snowden--gGreenwald---Poitras thing started as genuine and then was
subsequently coopted and controlled via Greenwald and Omidar's Intercept. What I don't know
is whether Greenwald entered the Snowden affair already coopted or whether he became so
willingly sometime later. For lots of people like Greenwald--achievement oriented, desirous
of public fame and respect, interested in obtaining personal wealth and stability--a very
"soft" touch is all that's needed by our intelligence ops to arrive at an understanding
between them.
"I've wondered if they have threatened Greenwald and he is withholding the information,
to keep himself out of some dungeon somewhere."
No one needs to threaten Greenwald to get him to withhold information. He withholds out
of elitist conviction. In his way he's just as much of an elite gatekeeper as anyone at any
MSM outlet. (And really an outfit like the Intercept is just a thinly veiled extension of
the MSM.)
It's amazing how for many people, even going to work for a predatory billionaire as
Greenwald has, or collaborating as part of that billionaire's project as Snowden has,
doesn't automatically peg one as a system stooge.
1. Information "piracy" may have to take to the high seas.
2. Maybe it would be best to release the rest of Snowden's documents now. Tit for tat.
Posted by: Cynica | Apr 11, 2019 8:38:05 AM | 35
This WILL NOT happen. Greenwald, his billionaire backer (who owns the docs technically as
crazy as that sounds) and his website are all an example of the "acceptable" counter
narrative. Greenwald should deserve no respect, he chose money and fame over integrity.
That much has become clear. I think the same of Scahill and a few others, though I hear
little from him now.
Sad days. Money will buy a LOT of people. Even those we believe it won't as they are
"principled" or once carried conviction . Hell, I imagine most of us are vulnerable to that
as well.
We do all hope that Assange's arrest will motivate all those with access to other
incriminating data to release those, via Wikileaks or other. The first comment here
accurately describes it: (the UK and) the US - and let's add the whole silly 'five eyes'
and western front - has become the new Soviet Union. Roles have reversed; it's not about
ideology but about power structure.
Here's for Assange to become the Sakharov of our time. However, that would mean we foster
the hope or expect that our western hemisphere could birth a Gorbachev-type idealist who
can attain power long enough to destroy the power base.
- Madeline Albright: "We think it's worth it" to kill 500,000 children.
- Bush Admin and neocons lied to start the war a war that cost trillions of dollars wasted;
thousands of deaths
- Multiple grievous human rights abuses now engraved in memory: Abu Grave; Faluja;
Rendition and Torture; Guantanamo, etc.
And the same lousy criminal asshats brought us the Afghanistan debacle, color
revolutions, and the Syrian Jihadi proxy war.
As long as the real criminals walk free, they will continue to drive their
criminal agenda.
Many readers here will be hearing from Glenn Greenwald about the arrest of Assange as if
He(Greenwald)just loves Julian so much and is just so upset by his arrest. DO NOT BELIEVE
HIM. Take the time to look back at what Greenwald has said - such as claiming that Assange
is not a journalist because he does ont "curate" the material he receives for anything
other than authenticity.
According to Snowden and Greenwald if a journalist does not contact the government in
advance and agreed to censor the material for "sources and methods" then they are not
journalists.
Glenn Greenwald has made a fortune off Snowden - including $250 million from Pierre
Omidyar an oligarch for The Intercept which clearly supports the oligarchy and its
interests. Greenwald has stated clearly in the past that he does not consider Wikileaks a
journalistic operation. Greenwald still has perhaps thousands of Snowden documents which he
refuses to release - then he gets $250 million from the oligarchy. Sure there is
"journalism" as long as the CIA can review what you publish first. One of the founders of
the Intercept is Laura Pordris who produced a psyco-hit piece on Assange.
In this environment if you Trust these people without question you are risking being
mislead. Like a good propagandist Greenwald is out now singing the tune which will gain him
trust so he can slip in the propaganda effectively when the time comes.
But the case against Assange is not about justice. His publication of state secrets was
obviously an act of journalism and free speech. But the deep state was embarrassed and
demands revenge
Assange gave us graphic video of the US Army shredding a couple of unarmed Iraqi
journalists (and others) with 30mm canon fire. memory that can't be deleted.
As a US citizen I loath the mendacity and actions of the elites that have left us with
nothing to hope for or believe in for some decent future with the US striding across the
world sowing fear, hatred, and war. The reality of the depraved elites is such that I am
usually right to first assume they are lying whatever they say. This all applies to the UK
as well.
"This is a real test for the American media. Can they separate their personals feelings
toward Assange from the question of whether it is okay to prosecute a publisher for
publishing? Matt is right, this is extremely dangerous."
The above was made in reply to Matthew Yglesias who clearly hates Assange:
"Assange sucks but prosecuting publishers seems extremely dangerous and troubling to
me." And he calls himself a journalist. He has as much honor as Moreno. The resulting
threads are educational and revelatory. Lots of very confused, screwed up minds showing few
morals mixed in with a few good eggs.
"Today, I stand with Julian Assange and Wikileaks."
Please see tweet for entire statement. As with other threads on this topic, the comments
are educational and revelatory. It's rather amazing how many utterly weak minds are in
positions of responsibility. Some have lapped up so much propaganda Koolaid that they're
now delusional.
To those posting about Glenn Greenwald; I don't know what Greenwald really stands for any
more and no longer read his stuff, but you might be interested in this pathetic and
predictable end to the Greenwald/Omidyar conservatorship of the Snowden documents. A month
ago, Greenwald announced via twitter that The Intercept/First Look was now officially
shutting down access to the Snowden archives and has laid off the group of employees that
secured and curated the cache. (It cost First Look $400,000/year to maintain the files,
which is 1.5% of its 2019 budget.)
Greenwald did not even consult Snowden on this decision. So, without much fanfare, the
cache is simply disappeared, without ever being fully opened to the public, although
Greenwald claims in his tweet that he's looking for the "right partner – an academic
institution or research facility – that has the funds to robustly publish." (Which,
one might have supposed, would be the sort of funds that a news site such as The Intercept
might enjoy given that they have the resources of their own billionaire founder behind
them.)
They did not allow Poitras to attend the company meeting held on the subject after they
made this announcement, and kept her in the dark until the announcement was rolled out.
Poitras, recall, also has a copy of the archives and was one of the founding editors of
Intercept. She is objecting to the move. Although given that the Intercept has merely sat
on the cache for so long, it hardly matters now.
I thought from the beginning of the Intercept/First Look/Omidyar site that the eventual
disappearance of the files was the very purpose behind Omidyar buying off Greenwald (and
his valuable Snowden material along with him) in the first place.
Anyway, poof go the Snowden files, without most of the material ever being released to the
public.
There will be no indignation at the BBC, or the Guardian, or CNN. Just curious, impassive
reporting of Assange's fate.
And that is because these journalists, politicians and experts never really believed
anything they said. They knew all along that the US wanted to silence Assange and to
crush Wikileaks. They knew that all along and they didn't care. In fact, they happily
conspired in paving the way for today's kidnapping of Assange.
They did so because they are not there to represent the truth, or to stand up for
ordinary people, or to protect a free press, or even to enforce the rule of law. They
don't care about any of that. They are there to protect their careers, and the system
that rewards them with money and influence. They don't want an upstart like Assange
kicking over their applecart.
In fact it seems to me the reason he is being changed with conspiracy is so that they
can avoid defence claims that his publishing information is covered by the 1st Amendment of
the US Constitution. Any worthwhile lawyer would paste it on thick for the jury that
convicting Assange for publication would be a deep betrayal of their much beloved
Constitution. It also means that the information on war crimes in the famous video would be
once more broadcast to the world, and more importantly to the jury. Imagine what a fiasco
and embarrassment US Govt would face if after all the fuss, Assange was acquitted by a US
Jury?
Furthermore,in common law countries, such as the UK, a typical court condition of
agreement to extradite is that the accused will only be charged with crimes exhibited in
the extradition warrant. That being the case, the maximum sentence he would face is 5 and a
half years I believe.
Some posters here criticise Asssange/Wikileaks for not being critical of Israel or
supporting Catalonia independence but the Wikileaks website isn't really like that.
Wikileaks is a non-redacted searchable database of documents that have been leaked. Most
of these documents are dry and it really depends on what you a looking for and what you
find. It is rare to find a single document that by itself clearly reveals a scandal or a
plot of some sort. Also, there is no editorial from Wikileaks. It is up to the user to
search, find and interpret.
For instance, I just did a search and found a US cable dated 30th Jan 2008
which describes Erdogan's concerns about an armed deep state extra-legal grouping which has
a suspected overlap with a cold war Gladio group and which is protected by the Turkish
judiciary. So, obviously, subversion was an issue long before the attempted coup in 2016,
but it's up to me to make a story out of it.
There is plenty of stuff about Israel, for instance there seems to be quite a number of
incidents concerning Obama and/or Clinton trying to get Netanyahu to apologise for
something that matters very little and Netanyahu invariable refusing.
The easiest way for a body, such as the CIA, to manipulate Wikileaks is just be
selective about what information is leaked.
If you're looking for dirt on Israel, Clinton, Trump, Erdogan, Putin, Catalonia, etc.
just go and look for it.
"Today's arrest and indictment of Julian Assange undermines freedom of the press, and
seeks to silence whistleblowers and the journalists who publish their information. This
sets a dangerous precedent of criminal prosecution of journalists or news organizations who
publish information the government doesn't like, while also opening the door for other
countries to extradite US journalists who publish their country's secrets," said Rep. Tulsi
Gabbard. "We must protect whistleblowers and freedom of the press, and exercise oversight
over our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to ensure our Constitutional rights are
upheld."
"why do you think Assange supported the invasion and destruction of Syria"
This is very simple. Back at the time of Arab Spring, most of the Western opinion, be it
left or right, supported overthrowing a dictator. Assange, for better or worse, was in the
lopsided majority, hardly strange.
"how do you explain Assange´s strong support for the Independence of
Catalonia...."
This was not a majority opinion, but not rare. More importantly, tracing it to the needs
of "deep state" is very speculative. On the other hand, the rage of established political
circles against the very idea of Wikileaks was palpable, and what Wikileaks did was
perceived as "very damaging". Even if independence of Catalonia were in some mysterious
ways a priority of the sinister and hardly known deep state that you postulate, Assange had
scant influence on that happening. So the putative plan of using leaks to Wikileaks to
build up its stature and to use that to further the causes of fragmenting Syria and Spain
would be weird indeed: huge losses for speculative gains.
One has to understand the nature of the rage against Wikileaks. Any conceivable deep
stater depends on secrecy. To them, secrecy is like air for birds and water for fish -- a
necessary element that makes their ecological niche habitable. An organization that
facilitates dissemination of secret is, to them, a blasphemous existence.
One has to understand that what we call "deep state" is hardly secret in the outline.
Its member go back and forth from private sector (corporations, think tanks, media,
academic gig etc.) and the government leaving a large visible trail that is in the public
view. That said, they need many secrets because the wide public in democratic countries
needs to have pure, trusting, uncomplicated minds. Like making children, implementation of
most of policies requires some f...ng activity
Remember George Orwell's "1984" describes a dismal future when most of the world population
have become victims of perpetual war, omnipresent government surveillance and media
propaganda. Interesting that Orwell's arch protagonist (Emmanuel Goldstein) and his "Theory
and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism" sees the three "opposing" ideologies as
functionally identical and each superstate being powerful enough that even shifting
alliances (of two against one) only results in a continuing stalemate dynamic.
Are we there yet? I think Julian Assange might be feeling it so and this latest saga
looks like an ominous tipping point indicator for those who think they live in a western
democracy with press freedom to hold government (by the people) accountable.
Correspondence with Edward Snowden, and
the key to freedom for Julian Assange
A member of our Belgian Jewish community is in touch with Edward Snowden in Russia, both
sharing the role of being significant global dissidents who used to live in the USA.
We are publishing here a copy of some of that correspondence between those two figures,
as it discusses the likelihood of how both Edward Snowden and Julian Assange are being betrayed
and actively harmed by the American lawyers and US-UK media companies claiming to 'represent'
them, including America's ACLU (America's Civil Liberties Union), the UK Guardian and New York
Times newspapers, and Glenn Greenwald.
All these groups and journalists, are apparently hiding thousands of pages of legal files,
about the corruption and bribery of US federal (national) judges who are the same judges who
would put Julian Assange or Edward Snowden on trial ... even though these lawyers and
journalists all know that exposing the crimes of the bribed US judges, is the quick key to
releasing Julian Assange from threats that confine him to his refuge in the Ecuadorean Embassy
in London, and key to more safety and freedom for Snowden as well.
US Attorney General Eric Holder is accused of sponsoring criminal acts of deception against
the UK, Sweden, Russia and other countries, hiding 'smoking gun' evidence of US judge bribery,
in order to harm and destroy both Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Google Inc has agreed to
censor and hoax the internet and hide dozens of web pages about this.
This bribery is said to be funded by Britain's Pearson plc, with the Guardian and New York
Times accused of accepting Pearson-funded bribes to print fake 'news' to obstruct and pervert
justice so that the UK will not prosecute Pearson's bribery of US high judges and
government.
Mr Snowden is also facing the terrifying possibility that his name is being abused by
these parties, New York Times, Guardian and Greenwald, for the sake of entrapping other
dissidents and whistleblowers into 'trusting' these journalists, who might then convey
dissident names to the US regime in order to silence and murder them. It seems possible the
Guardian and New York Times have already given Snowden files back to the US regime.
The correspondence with Edward Snowden makes reference to the police file with several EU
countries, who are beginning investigations and prosecutions, starting in Finland, of the
CIA-tied Wikipedia website, for fundraising fraud ... that police file significantly discusses
the evidence of bribery of US federal judges who are the same judges who would put Edward
Snowden and Julian Assange on trial in America, and how Wikipedia, actually an American
CIA-controlled 'Trojan horse' for inserting lies on targeted topics, has been used to plant
lies about that judicial bribery - the police dossier text is here:
Here is a screenshot of a Google Inc 'search results' page, with tiny text at the bottom
admitting that Google is censoring a large number of search results, about Edward Snowden's
correspondent, a major witness to the crimes involving the same US judges who would put Edward
Snowden or Julian Assange on trial:
"... All of us in the West pay the Scumbag Tax: crime, terrorism, corruption, addiction, excessive immigration (in part from smashed countries) , pollution, propaganda, managed/faux democracy, wealth/income inequality, moral turpitude (supporting dictators, war, genocide, human rights abuses, apartheid, torture, etc.) , and more. ..."
All of us in the West pay the Scumbag Tax: crime, terrorism, corruption, addiction,
excessive immigration (in part from smashed countries) , pollution, propaganda,
managed/faux democracy, wealth/income inequality, moral turpitude (supporting dictators,
war, genocide, human rights abuses, apartheid, torture, etc.) , and more.
All in the name
of freedom and democracy. How's that working out for ya?
that might hold you until you manage to acquire the book itself.
The review by itself is filled with names, dates, events, places, and ties together
dozens of nasty historical threads, making sense out of so many seemingly senseless
horrors over the past 70 years.
"... Nice group shot of the three stooges. The most dishonest, disloyal, dipshitted psychopaths a country should never have to endure. ..."
"... The likelihood of anyone being convicted let alone indicted is rather slim. Why? These people know where too many dead bodies are buried. ..."
"... There is an understanding in their circles that certain individuals on both sides of the spectrum are bulletproof. You can't run such a large criminal enterprise without it being this way. Why else would Mueller not talk to Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Steele, the heads of Fusion GPS, the Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr., the promoter who set that up, etc., etc. ..."
"... This whole ordeal was meant to die an uneventful death. It's unlikely Barr will act on any recommendations from Nunes becuase it would start a partisan war that would snare GOP never Trumpers too. It's how Washington works. Like Carlin says - it's a great big club and you ain't in it. They are, and they don't do time. ..."
As the Russia collusion hoax hurtles toward its demise, it's important to consider how this destructive information operation
rampaged through vital American institutions for more than two years , and what can be done to stop such a damaging episode from
recurring.
While the hoax was fueled by a wide array of false accusations, misleading leaks of ostensibly classified information, and bad-faith
investigative actions by government officials, one vital element was indispensable to the overall operation: the Steele dossier.
<
Funded by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee, which hid their payments from disclosure by funneling
them through the law firm Perkins Coie, the dossier was a collection of false and often absurd accusations of collusion between Trump
associates and Russian officials. These allegations, which relied heavily on Russian sources cultivated by Christopher Steele, were
spoon-fed to Trump opponents in the U.S. government, including officials in law enforcement and intelligence.
The efforts to feed the dossier's allegations into top levels of the U.S. government, particularly intelligence agencies, were
championed by Steele, Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson, and various intermediaries. These allegations were given directly to the
FBI and Justice Department, while similar allegations were fed into the State Department by long-time Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal.
Their efforts were remarkably effective. Officials within the FBI and DOJ, whether knowingly or unintentionally, provided essential
support to the hoax conspirators, bypassing normal procedures and steering the information away from those who would view it critically.
The dossier soon metastasized within the government, was cloaked in secrecy, and evaded serious scrutiny.
High-ranking officials such as then-FBI general counsel James Baker and then-Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr were
among those whose actions advanced the hoax. Ohr, one of the most senior officials within the DOJ, took the unprecedented step of
providing to Steele a back door into the FBI investigation. This enabled the former British spy to continue to feed information to
investigators, even though he had been terminated by the FBI for leaking to the press and was no longer a valid source. Even worse,
Ohr directly briefed Andrew Weissmann and Zainab Ahmad, two DOJ officials who were later assigned to special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation. In short, the investigation was marked by glaring irregularities that would normally be deemed intolerable.
According to Ohr's congressional testimony, he told top-level FBI officials as early as August or September 2016 that Steele was
biased against Trump, that Steele's work was connected to the Clinton campaign, and that Steele's material was of questionable reliability.
Steele himself confirmed that last point in a British court case in which he acknowledged his allegations included unverified information.
Yet even after this revelation, intelligence leaders continued to cite the Steele dossier in applications to renew the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
It is astonishing that intelligence leaders did not immediately recognize they were being manipulated in an information operation
or understand the danger that the dossier could contain deliberate disinformation from Steele's Russian sources . In fact, it is
impossible to believe in light of everything we now know about the FBI's conduct of this investigation, including the astounding
level of anti-Trump animus shown by high-level FBI figures like Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, as well as the inspector general's discovery
of a shocking number of leaks by FBI officials.
It's now clear that top intelligence officials were perfectly well aware of the dubiousness of the dossier, but they embraced
it anyway because it justified actions they wanted to take - turning the full force of our intelligence agencies first against a
political candidate and then against a sitting president.
The hoax itself was a gift to our nation's adversaries, most notably Russia. The abuse of intelligence for political purposes
is insidious in any democracy. It undermines trust in democratic institutions, and it damages the reputation of the brave men and
women who are working to keep us safe. This unethical conduct has had major repercussions on America's body politic, creating a yearslong
political crisis whose full effects remain to be seen.
Having extensively investigated this abuse, House Intelligence Committee Republicans will soon be submitting criminal referrals
on numerous individuals involved in these matters.
These people must be held to account to prevent similar abuses from occurring in the future. The men and women of our intelligence
community perform an essential service defending American national security, and their ability to carry out their mission cannot
be compromised by biased actors who seek to transform the intelligence agencies into weapons of political warfare.
All 3 of them have been confirmed to by lying through their teeth by their own people. They are all going down. We just need
the Mueller report to come out to get the ball rolling. Can't do it before the report comes out as they would call it obstruction.
So we wait another 9 days, or less, according to AG Barr.
Could be, PapaGeorge. Maybe this time it's different because it could be argued that the TPTB don't want Trump pulling the
same thing on the DNC--and get away with it like the Usual Suspects just did. In legal terms, a bar has been set. BARR? Get it?
Buwhahahahahahahahahha!!!
The likelihood of anyone being convicted let alone indicted is rather slim. Why? These people know where too many dead bodies
are buried. There is an understanding in their circles that certain individuals on both sides of the spectrum are bulletproof.
You can't run such a large criminal enterprise without it being this way. Why else would Mueller not talk to Comey, Clapper, Brennan,
Steele, the heads of Fusion GPS, the Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr., the promoter who set that up, etc., etc.
This whole ordeal was meant to die an uneventful death. It's unlikely Barr will act on any recommendations from Nunes becuase
it would start a partisan war that would snare GOP never Trumpers too. It's how Washington works. Like Carlin says - it's a great
big club and you ain't in it. They are, and they don't do time
The likelihood of anyone being convicted let alone indicted is rather slim. Why? These people know where too many dead
bodies are buried.
There is an understanding in their circles that certain individuals on both sides of the spectrum are bulletproof. You
can't run such a large criminal enterprise without it being this way. Why else would Mueller not talk to Comey, Clapper, Brennan,
Steele, the heads of Fusion GPS, the Russian lawyer who met with Trump Jr., the promoter who set that up, etc., etc.
This whole ordeal was meant to die an uneventful death. It's unlikely Barr will act on any recommendations from Nunes becuase
it would start a partisan war that would snare GOP never Trumpers too. It's how Washington works. Like Carlin says - it's a great
big club and you ain't in it. They are, and they don't do time.
<<<House Intelligence Committee Republicans will soon be submitting criminal referrals on numerous individuals involved in
these matters<<< We shall see now, won't we? I won't believe this, till I see It!
"... The full nature of this secret parallel state would only come to light a decade later when the Italian premier, Giulio Andreotti, under questioning from a special commission of inquiry, revealed the existence of arms caches stashed all around the country and which were at the disposal of an organization which later came to be identified as 'Gladio'. ..."
"... Before embarking on our grim, if yet fascinating, journey it is worth first noting that whilst 'Gladio' was officially acknowledged and condemned by the European Parliament ..."
"... The primal author of the 'stay-behind-armies', Williams informs us, was General Reinhard Gehlen, the head of German military intelligence during the Second World War. Having foreseen early on that the Reich was doomed to defeat, Gehlen had "concocted the idea of forming clandestine guerilla squads composed of Hitler youth and die-hard fascist fanatics" ostensibly to fend off the inevitable Soviet invasion. These guerilla units he referred to as 'werewolves'. ..."
"... Not ones to miss a fascist opportunity when they saw it, the US Office of Strategic Services (the OSS, and the forerunner of the CIA), under the leadership of William 'Wild Bill' Donovan, quickly enlisted both Gehlen and SS General Karl Wolff (in 1945) in forming the Gehlen Organization (later to transform into the present-day German BND) and which received its initial funding from US Army G-2 intelligence resources. ..."
"... The American point-man on this was Allen Dulles ..."
"... These forces were now unleashed on the Italian electorate, and through 1948 an average of five people a week were murdered by the CIA-backed terrorist units. The results were grimly predictable. Hallelujah, the PCI were defeated and the Christian Democrats returned to power. ..."
"... the initial $200 million in funding for Gladio (which had come from the Rockefeller and Mellon foundations) was quickly exhausted. And though the National Security Act of 1947 had provided the loophole that allowed for the CIA's covert operations, it had not allowed for their overt Congressional funding. There lay the rub. Thankfully, Paul Helliwell knew how to salve the itch. ..."
"... It was he, who having cut his teeth in the drugs-for-arms trade by shepherding opium deals with the Kuomintang (KMT, the Chinese National Army fighting against Mao Zedung), conjured the brilliant inspiration to do the very same thing – in the United States itself. ..."
"... All very well and good. But, to begin with, there was yet a fly in the whole drugs-for-arms-for-terror ointment. To wit: how to pay off the mafioso without anyone noticing; indeed, how to stash, launder and hide all of this financial derring-do from the prying eyes of the authorities; you know, the real-enough authorities, the Treasury cops and so forth. How do you do that? ..."
"... Established by Pope Pius XII and Bernardino Nogara in 1942, the Bank would quickly come to serve as the principal repository post-war both for the Sicilian Mafia and for the OSS/CIA wherein all of the monies and documents relating to drug trafficking and to Gladio would be stored and laundered. ..."
"... To this end the pope authorized his own terror squads (under Monsignor Bicchierai) to assist the gladiators and the 'made men' in intimidating the Italian electorate. Task accomplished. ..."
"... Under 'Mockingbird' the Agency recruited hundreds of American journalists to spread false stories and propaganda about the Company's 'benign' activities. Eventually, this depraved fabric of anti-journalism enlisted entire news networks including ABC, NBC, Newsweek, Associated Press, and The Saturday Evening Post. Now the guys and gals at Langley could relax. Henceforth, American (and global) eyes were dutifully prismed through the rose-coloured lens of 'Mockingbird'. ..."
"... The BPF then became, by way of a Chicago-based intermediary bank, Continental Illinois, a principal conduit for transferring drug money from the IOR for the purposes of Gladio. In fact, it was this banking pipeline in particular which provided the filthy lucre that fueled the 1967 coup d'etat in Greece. But more on this heady stuff in a bit. ..."
"... Working with William Colby, the OSS agent in France, and Allen Dulles, the OSS director, Gelli soon gained entry to the Vatican where he helped set up the Nazi escape routes to Argentina. His ties with Argentina would later prove critical in facilitating Operation Condor (the US-backed mass assassination program in 1970s and '80s South America). ..."
"... One of the first substantive actions of Gladio was the Turkish coup of 1960. Here the incumbent Prime Minister, Adnan Menderes, made the fatal mistake of believing he was really in charge and thereafter initiating a visit to Moscow to secure economic aid. ..."
"... The production ended all somewhat anticlimactically when the Pope (on May 13, 1981) was only seriously wounded. In a fascinating denouement, however, on Christmas Day 1983, the Pope opted to publicly forgive Agca. Italian state television was allowed to record the moment when John Paul asked his assassin from whom he had received his orders. Leaning forward to hear Agca's response the Pope appeared momentarily frozen, then clasped his hands to his face. Though the Pontiff kept it secret, there was little need to guess at the answer. ..."
On the hot summer morning of Aug. 2, 1980 a massive explosion
ripped apart the main waiting room of the Bologna railway station.
Eighty-five people were
killed and hundreds more injured. Though at first blamed on Italy's legendary urban guerrillas, The
Red Brigades, it soon emerged that
the attack had, in fact, originated from within the 'deep
state' of the Italian government itself.
The full nature of this secret parallel state would only come to light a decade later
when the Italian premier, Giulio Andreotti, under questioning from a special commission of inquiry,
revealed the existence of arms caches stashed all around the country and which were at the disposal of
an organization which
later came to be identified as 'Gladio'.
The members of this group turned out to include not only hundreds of far-right figures in the
intelligence, military, government, media, Church and corporate sectors, but a motley assortment of
unreconstructed WW2 fascists, psychopaths and criminal underworld types to boot. And despite
Andreotti's attempts to airbrush the group as 'patriots' it appeared evident to much of the rest of
the Italian polity that these seemed rather more like pretty bad folk indeed. Little did they know.
Follow-up research by the likes of Daniele Ganser, Claudio Celani, Jurgen Roth and Henrik Kruger
traced connections to similar groups spread throughout Europe of which all were found to be deep state
terrorist organizations, and all of which were found, ultimately, to be subservient unto the highest
levels of the CIA and NATO command structures.
The moniker 'Gladio' (after the two-edged sword used in classical Rome) was eventually
broadened to include a bewildering host of related deep state terrorist structures including
:
'P2' In Italy, 'P26' in Switzerland, 'Sveaborg' in Sweden, 'Counter-Guerrilla' in Turkey and
'Sheepskin' in Greece.
This (hardly definitive) European list was then found to have connections
not only to virtually every US sponsored secret state terrorist organization the world over (including
the likes of Operation Condor in Latin America), but also to many of the global drug cartels that
provided the secretive wealth needed to fund and otherwise lubricate the whole rotting, corrupt
shebang.
If all this sounds sinister enough, it pales in light of the detailed structure of the
dazzlingly diabolical Gladio edifice.
And it is to those details we now repair vis a vis
an overview of the
remarkable,
if otherwise unheralded, 2015 work by journalist Paul L. Williams entitled, 'Operation Gladio: The
Unholy Alliance Between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia'.
Though there are other books on the
subject worthy of honourable mention (including Daniele Ganser's seminal tome, 'NATO's Secret Armies',
and Richard Cottrell's recent and stylishly written, 'Gladio: NATO's Dagger at the Heart of Europe'),
it is to Williams that I believe we owe a particular debt of gratitude in having provided a more or
less fully integrated portrait of the global machinations of Operation Gladio.
Before embarking on our grim, if yet fascinating, journey it is worth first noting that whilst
'Gladio' was officially acknowledged and condemned by the European Parliament (in Nov., 1990;
Washington and NATO having ever after refused 'comment' on the matter), and its multifarious organs
and factions ordered dismantled, it is hardly likely that the latter was ever fully enacted.
The historical context of 'Gladio', then, is really the quintessential backdrop to
understanding the trademark false flag events of the modern era.
OF SPOOKS AND MADE MEN
The general origins of this labyrinthine network of deep state actors lay in the so-called
'stay-behind-armies' set up at the end of WW2 by the Allied powers (principally the US) ostensibly to
act as resistance forces should the Soviets ever decide to invade Europe.
Quickly, however,
the raison d'etre of the 'armies' transmogrified into a mission to counteract, not external invasion,
but 'internal subversion'.
Such would eventually result in the undermining not just of
post-war European socialism, but of Italian, Greek – and later global – democracy itself.
But we get ahead of ourselves.
The primal author of the 'stay-behind-armies', Williams informs us, was General Reinhard Gehlen,
the head of German military intelligence during the Second World War.
Having foreseen early on
that the Reich was doomed to defeat, Gehlen had "concocted the idea of forming clandestine guerilla
squads composed of Hitler youth and die-hard fascist fanatics" ostensibly to fend off the inevitable
Soviet invasion. These guerilla units he referred to as 'werewolves'.
Not ones to miss a fascist opportunity when they saw it, the US Office of Strategic Services (the
OSS, and the forerunner of the CIA), under the leadership of William 'Wild Bill' Donovan, quickly
enlisted both Gehlen and SS General Karl Wolff (in 1945) in forming the Gehlen Organization (later to
transform into the present-day German BND) and which received its initial funding from US Army G-2
intelligence resources.
The American point-man on this was Allen Dulles, the first president (in 1927) of the
Council on Foreign Relations,
and later the first head of the CIA. Duly incorporated into the
American fold, the 'werewolves' were, given that their initial meddling took place in Italy, rebranded
as 'gladiators'. Operation Gladio was born.
In 1947 the CIA (having, that year, superseded the OSS) was faced with its first daunting task,
i.e. how to prevent the Italian Communist Party (PCI) from forming the next government. Elections were
scheduled for 1948 and the PCI was a virtual shoe-in not just in Italy proper, but in Sicily as well.
Fortunately, 'Gladio' was ready and waiting. The gladiators had been training in a special camp set up
in Sardinia under the local command of the former WW2 Italian fascist leader, Prince Junio Valerio
Borghese.
In addition, hundreds of American mafioso began to arrive on the shores of Italy to lend a hand
with the communist 'problem'. The arrival of the 'made men' was the result of Donovan's efforts from
1943 onward in working with American mobsters Charles 'Lucky' Luciano and Vito Genovese to conger new
(drug) funding for the OSS's off-books' operations, and to reinstall the Sicilian mafia on the island
in the leadup to Operation Husky (the Allied invasion of Sicily). These forces were now unleashed on
the Italian electorate, and through 1948 an average of five people a week were murdered by the
CIA-backed terrorist units. The results were grimly predictable. Hallelujah, the PCI were defeated and
the Christian Democrats returned to power.
Still, the threat remained.
Fully half the Italian electorate were communist sympathizers
and, moreover, leftist politics pervaded much of the rest of the diseased European body.
More
would have to be done. The problem, however, was money. There simply wasn't enough of it. Thus, the
initial $200 million in funding for Gladio (which had come from the Rockefeller and Mellon
foundations) was quickly exhausted. And though the National Security Act of 1947 had provided the
loophole that allowed for the CIA's covert operations, it had not allowed for their overt
Congressional funding.
There lay the rub. Thankfully, Paul Helliwell knew how to salve the
itch.
Paul Helliwell was an inner member of the original OSS (along with key scions of the Morgan,
Mellon, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, DuPont and Ryan families) and, according to Williams, likely the
greatest unsung hero of the nicknamed 'Oh-So-Social' club. It was he, who having cut his teeth in the
drugs-for-arms trade by shepherding opium deals with the Kuomintang (KMT, the Chinese National Army
fighting against Mao Zedung), conjured the brilliant inspiration to do the very same thing – in the
United States itself.
Thus,
it was at his suggestion that Donovan elected to forge the deep bond (and that exists
to this day) between the nation's intelligence services and organized crime.
Enter stage left
such notables as 'Lucky' Luciano, Vito Genovese, Meyer Lansky and the Trafficante and Gambino crime
clans. Quickly the streets of, first, New York, and later many an American metropolis, were flooded
with heroin. These early, halcyon days would soon lead to the infamous 'French Connection', thence to
the 'Golden Triangle' (where the CIA's very own 'Air America' transported drugs out of South East Asia
during the Vietnam War) and, later, to the Balkan, Mexican, and Colombian drug cartels.
All very well and good. But, to begin with, there was yet a fly in the whole
drugs-for-arms-for-terror ointment. To wit:
how to pay off the mafioso without anyone
noticing; indeed, how to stash, launder and hide all of this financial derring-do from the prying eyes
of the authorities; you know, the real-enough authorities, the Treasury cops and so forth. How do you
do that?
THE VATICAN CONNECTION
Article 2 of the Lateran Treaty of 1929 was clear and unequivocal. The Article, which served to
regulate matters between the Holy See and the Italian state, expressly forbade any interference of the
latter in the affairs of the former. It is hardly conceivable, of course, that the framers of the
Treaty ever foresaw what such immunity could actually mean in practice. But then they probably hadn't
reckoned on the fiendish formation of the Institute for Works of Religion (IOR), or more colloquially,
the Vatican Bank.
Established by Pope Pius XII and Bernardino Nogara in 1942, the Bank would quickly come to serve as
the principal repository post-war both for the Sicilian Mafia and for the OSS/CIA wherein all of the
monies and documents relating to drug trafficking and to Gladio would be stored and laundered.
Already
in 1945 the pope had held private audiences with Donovan to discuss the implementation of Gladio and
where, as Williams reports, Donovan was knighted as an anti-Communist crusader with the Grand Cross of
the Order of Sylvester. Prior to this time Pius XII had proven himself a loyal ally in working with
Dulles and the OSS to establish the ratlines used to help prominent Nazis escape Europe. Now, new
horizons beckoned. The first duty at hand, of course, was to destroy the communist menace in respect
of the 1948 elections. To this end the pope authorized his own terror squads (under Monsignor Bicchierai) to assist the gladiators and the 'made men' in intimidating the Italian electorate. Task
accomplished.
The second duty at hand, however, was longer term. Communism, socialism and, indeed, any Godless
form of progressive government, anywhere, had to be stamped out at source. For this money would be
needed. Lots of money. Untraceable money. Drug money. Now in the months before the 1948 election the
CIA deposited some $65 million into the Vatican Bank. The source of these monies came from heroin
produced by the Italian pharmaceutical giant, Schiaparelli, and which was then transported by the
Sicilian mob into Cuba where it was cut and then distributed to New Orleans, Miami and New York by the
Santo Trafficante family. Lucrative though this trade was, it was not nearly enough to suit the needs
of the CIA and 'Gladio'. More would be required. More drug networks and more banks. Gladio was about
to global.
To start with a new alliance was forged with the Corsican mafia.
Unlike the
Sicilian mob, the Corsicans had extensive experience in processing heroin, a skill they had picked up
through years of working with Laotian, Cambodian and Vietnamese technicians in French Indochina. A
supply route then emerged running from Burma through Turkey to Beirut and thence to Marseille. Alas,
there was a slight hitch when the leftist dockworkers in Marseille, being sympathetic to the rebel
army under Ho Chi Minh, refused to load and unload the boats from Indochina. No worries. A deft bit of
terror administered by the Corsican boys (and funded by the CIA), and problem solved. By 1951, then,
Marseille had become the center of the Western heroin industry. Voila, the 'French Connection'.
Meanwhile, Wild Bill Donovan had 'resigned' from the CIA to form the World Commerce Corporation
(WCC) whose primary function was to facilitate the arms-for-drugs deals with the KMT.
Paul
Helliwell lent a needed hand at the helm by heading up Sea Supply, Inc., a CIA front company gainfully
employed in shipping heroin from Bangkok.
By 1958 the whole operation was so successful that
a second supply route was established running through Saigon. Here, the help of Ngo Dinh Diem, the US
installed despot of South Vietnam, proved invaluable.
Still, there was a potential cloud on the horizon, i.e. word of all these shenanigans was bound to
leak out. What to do?
The first reflex, naturally, was to pin the blame for the West's growing
heroin problem on the Communist Chinese under Mao Zedung.
Check. The second, more considered
response, was to organize an ongoing campaign to deflect attention away from, and burnish the image
of, the CIA. And to this end, in 1953, did the CIA establish 'Operation Mockingbird'. Under
'Mockingbird' the Agency recruited hundreds of American journalists to spread false stories and
propaganda about the Company's 'benign' activities. Eventually, this depraved fabric of
anti-journalism enlisted entire news networks including ABC, NBC, Newsweek, Associated Press, and The
Saturday Evening Post. Now the guys and gals at Langley could relax. Henceforth, American (and global)
eyes were dutifully prismed through the rose-coloured lens of 'Mockingbird'.
But back to the Vatican.
The IOR, solid banking pillar of the Gladio community
that it was, could hardly be expected to do all the heavy lifting itself. After all, the global heroin
industry would, by 1980, be pulling in a cool $400 billion annually. En route an extensive and
orchestrated financial network would be required to supplement God's Bank. As with any fine orchestra
it helps to have a maestro of exquisite genius to run the show. A nice round of applause, then, for
one Michele Sindona. The biography of Sindona begins, humbly enough, with his degree in tax law from
the University of Messina in 1942 after which, in quick succession, he rockets to stardom as a leading
financial adviser to the Sicilian mafia, an agent for the CIA, and, thereafter, a financial intimate
of the Holy See. By the late 1950s Sindona had become the lynchpin in a nexus between the mob, the CIA
and the Vatican that would eventually, as Williams chillingly puts it, "result in the toppling of
governments, wholesale slaughter and financial devastation."
Though a full elaboration of this bewilderingly complex financial system is best left to
the author, it is worth briefly savouring a few highlights.
To begin with Sindona purchased
Fasco AG, a Liechtenstein holding company and through which he purchased his first bank – the Banca
Privata Finanziaria (BPF). The BPF then became, by way of a Chicago-based intermediary bank,
Continental Illinois, a principal conduit for transferring drug money from the IOR for the purposes of
Gladio. In fact, it was this banking pipeline in particular which provided the filthy lucre that
fueled the 1967 coup d'etat in Greece. But more on this heady stuff in a bit.
It was through his Chicago contacts that Sindona first met Monsignor Paul Marcinkus, popularly
known as 'the Gorilla'. The Gorilla was six foot four, "a gifted street fighter and a lover of
bourbon, fine cigars and young women". Under Sindona's patronage Marcinkus would soon rise to become
both Pope Paul VI's personal body guard and the head of the IOR. A third musketeer in the person of
Roberto Calvi (the assistant – and later full – director of the famous, Milan-based Banco Ambrosiano)
came to complete the three Vatican amigos. Together they would cut a dramatic, collective figure in
the global banking underworld all through the 'anni di Piombo' (the Gladio 'years of lead' in Italy
from 1969 to 1987). Exactly how dramatic is illustrated, par excellence, by Calvi's eventual dark
demise. Who among us, old enough to remember, can forget the macabre spectacle (June, 1982) of Calvi's
body hanging from Blackfriars Bridge, his feet dangling in the Thames and pockets stuffed with five
masonry bricks. Sindona would also later be murdered (1986) by means of a cyanide-laced cup of coffee
whilst in jail and under 'maximum protective custody'.
Calvi was a key figure in establishing a series of eight shell companies (six in Panama, two in
Europe) through which drug lords like Pablo Escobar in South America were encouraged to deposit their
ill-gotten loot. (The CIA put shoulder to wheel by helping ferry the Escobar cocaine in a fleet of
planes operating out of Scranton airport in Pennsylvania). The monies were then transferred via Banco
Ambrosiano to the IOR which took a 15 to 20 percent processing fee. From there funds were distributed
to a host of European banks set up by Sindona for use by Gladio units spread throughout the continent.
In addition to the flow of cash from the cartels, funds were bled from Banco Ambrosiano into the eight
shell companies – again for use by the CIA in funding its covert operations.
This points up a general operating procedure of the entire Gladio 'banking' system, i.e. the
system, far from being designed to turn a profit, was expressly designed to 'lose' money; that is, to
have it siphoned off into covert ops. Such explains the regular and spectacular failure of a host of
CIA-related banks including: Franklin National Bank (purchased by Sindona), Castle Bank & Trust,
Mercantile Bank & Trust (both set up by the ubiquitous Paul Helliwell), Nugan Hand Bank (in Australia,
and from which funds were diverted to undermine Prime Minister Gough Whitlam during the Vietnam War),
and the infamous Bank of Credit and Commerce International (based in Karachi in aid, primarily, of the
Southeast Asian heroin trade). Indeed, it was precisely the collapse of Banco Ambrosiano itself that
brought both Calvi and Sindona to their untimely ends.
Finally, it is worth noting here that these august institutions were linked in a tight criminal
embrace with many of the most prestigious financial firms in America including Citibank, the Bank of
New York, and the Bank of Boston. The base of the iceberg, in short, extended far and wide.
But then, what was all this money really doing?
THE TERROR
Following the thwarting of Italian democracy in 1948
the Gladio 'secret armies' entered
into a period of what one might characterize as pregnant incubation.
Thus, it was during the
1950s that the various drug supply routes and financial networks were being created, as were some of
the principal political organizations. Probably the most important of the latter was 'Propaganda Due'
otherwise known as 'P2'.
Created in 1877 as a Freemasonry lodge for the Piedmont nobility, it was banned by Mussolini in
1924 only to be resurrected post-war with the approval of Allen Dulles, himself a thirty-third degree
Mason. The lodge, though at first dominated mainly by spooks, spies, military and mafia figures, would
soon encompass a who's who of Italian political, corporate, banking and media supremos to boot.
Indeed, the organization would eventually spread shoots throughout Europe as well as North and South
America, and its members would come to include such luminaries as Henry Kissinger and General
Alexander Haig.
A 'P2' denizen of especial significance was Licio Gelli. The latter's pedigree was impressive: a
former volunteer in the 735th Black Shirts Battalion, a former member of the elite SS Division under
Field Marshall Goering and, thereafter, a chummy employee of the US Counter Intelligence Corps of the
Fifth Army. Working with William Colby, the OSS agent in France, and Allen Dulles, the OSS director, Gelli soon gained entry to the Vatican where he helped set up the Nazi escape routes to Argentina. His
ties with Argentina would later prove critical in facilitating Operation Condor (the US-backed mass
assassination program in 1970s and '80s South America). Moreover, in 1972, Gelli would emerge as P2's
supreme 'Worshipful Master' under whose leadership the lodge would reach its full, horrific flowering.
Finally, it is worth mentioning at this juncture that it was as a result of a police raid on Gelli's
villa in 1981 that the full, tentacled structure of Gladio would come to light. But we digress.
One of the first substantive actions of Gladio was the Turkish coup of 1960.
Here
the incumbent Prime Minister, Adnan Menderes, made the fatal mistake of believing he was really in
charge and thereafter initiating a visit to Moscow to secure economic aid. The 'stay-behind-army' in
Turkey known as Counter-Guerilla, in alliance with the Turkish military, quickly disabused him of any
such delusions by arresting and executing him. Throughout the 1970s both Counter-Guerilla and its
youth wing, the Grey Wolves, would stage "ongoing terror attacks that resulted in the deaths of over
five thousand students, teachers, trade union leaders, booksellers and politicians".
Counter-Guerilla would also figure in the Turkish coup of 1980 when its commander, General
Kenan Evren, toppled the moderate government of Bulent Ecevit
. According to Williams, US
President Jimmy Carter phoned in his approval to the CIA station-chief in Ankara, Paul Henze, with a
jubilant, 'Your boys have done it!' What they had done, of course, was set up a tyranny in which
thousands more would be tortured while incarcerated. The Turkish Gladio boys would also be unleashed
in the 1980s upon the PKK – the Kurdistan Workers Party. All of this was in keeping with Zbigniew
Brzezinski's (Carter's national security advisor) core vision of the importance of controlling Central
Asia to which Turkey was both a vital portal and, thus, a key NATO ally.
Alas, Gladio would prove something of a disappointment in France,
where, after
having backed a series of assassination attempts against the regrettably too independent President
Charles de Gaulle, it found itself on the receiving end of de Gaulle's boot. Actually, it was NATO
itself – at the time, headquartered in Paris – that was unceremoniously kicked out of France (in 1966,
whence it took up its present cozy and famously corrupt abode in Brussels). But, of course, de Gaulle
was ahead of the curve and understood all too well who was really behind the mayhem and murder.
Greece, unfortunately, did not fare as well.
In 1967 the 'Hellenic Raiding Force',
a franchise of Gladio and playing to a NATO authored script entitled Operation Prometheus, overthrew
the left-leaning government of George Papandreou. The ensuing military dictatorship would last until
1974 though this would hardly signal the end of Greece's tribulations. From 1980 until near the turn
of the millennium, the nation would suffer under a reign of terror and political assassinations
nominally attributed to 'November 17', an alleged Marxist revolutionary group, but which in fact (and
here I briefly tag-team with authors Cottrell and Ganser) was yet another faction of Greek-Gladio
known as 'Sheepskin'.
This illustrates a point originally brought home by Ganser's research to the effect that
virtually every alleged 'leftist revolutionary' group said to have been operating in Europe throughout
the post-war years was, in truth, either a Gladio 'secret army' unit or else had been completely
infiltrated by state intelligence services, and was subsequently being steered by them for
Gladio-style state-terrorist ends.
Such is well documented for
the 'Red Brigades' in Italy and the 'Baader-Meinhof Gang' in
Germany
(the 'gang' being conveniently and cold-bloodedly exterminated on the 'night of the
long knives', Oct.18, 1977, whilst under custody in Stammheim prison). It also, just by the by, speaks
to the universally attested prior association of many a modern-day 'terrorist' and their police and
intelligence handlers.
In Spain, during the early '70s, Stefano delle Chiaie and fellow Gladio agents from Italy
provided their consulting expertise to General Francisco Franco's secret police who conducted over a
thousand violent acts and some fifty murders.
Following Franco's death in 1975, delle Chiaie
moved to Chile to lend a fatherly hand in helping the CIA-backed Augusto Pinochet set up his death
squads. In later years the Spanish Gladio unit would find gainful employment hunting down and
assassinating the leaders of the Basque separatist movement.
Of Italy we have already mentioned the 'years of lead', but just to capture a few
highlights.
The 'strategy of tension' unleashed in 1969 in Italy – the same year 'Condor' was
unleashed in Latin America – was in response to the renewed popularity of Communism throughout the
country and which, itself, was partly in response to the uptick in revolutionary sentiment globally as
a result of antipathy towards the US war on Vietnam. The antidote, naturally, to this woeful state of
progressive affairs was a healthy dose of terror. According to Williams, "Henry Kissinger, Nixon's
National Security Advisor, issued orders to Licio Gelli through his deputy, General Alexander Haig,
for the implementation of terror attacks and coup attempts." The terror attacks began on December 12,
1969 when a bomb exploded in the crowded lobby of a bank in Milan's Piazza Fontana in which seventeen
people were killed and eighty-eight injured. Over the ensuing years (from 1969 to 1987) there followed
more than '14,000 acts of violence with a political motivation'. The most infamous of these was, of
course, the Bologna bombing in August of 1980 and which led to the initial exposure of Gladio in
Italy.
Of the many attempted coups and related high-level political machinations engineered by
Gladio forces in Italy (1963, 1970, 1976) and Sicily (more or less continually on tap throughout the
decade), the kidnapping on March 16, 1978 – and murder a month or so later – of Prime Minister Aldo
Moro was likely the most sensational.
Moro had dared to include communists in his new
coalition government. At first blamed on the usual suspects, i.e. the Red Brigades, further
investigation (to begin with by journalist Carmine 'Mino' Pecorelli who paid with his life) led to the
real usual suspects including CIA operative Mario Moretti (eventually convicted of the killing) and
thence up the line to Gelli, then to Italy's interior minister Francesco Cossiga and onwards to
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The high-level intrigue did not stop at the murder of a prime minister however.
At least
two Popes felt the sharp end of the Gladio sword as well.
In August of 1978, Pope Paul VI
died. His successor, the preternaturally timid John Paul I, soon gave his handlers a very real shock
when, after looking at the IOR accounts, he issued a 'call for reform'. The very next day the
otherwise fastidiously health-conscious pontiff – in office barely a month – was dead. Not just dead
but expired with the telltale bulging eyes and horrific grimace of acute poisoning. His autopsy was
definitively thwarted by an illegal and hastily contrived embalming, and his personal papers
disappeared without a trace. Archbishop Marcinkus, having been temporarily removed prior, was returned
to office whilst Calvi and Sindona, also under scrutiny at the time, breathed a (temporary) sigh of
relief.
Having been (almost) burned once the overseers of Gladio made sure to engineer the follow-up Papal
succession. Thus did Cardinal Karol Wojtyla shuffle onto the historical proscenium as Pope John Paul
II. Now, at first, John Paul worked seamlessly with the CIA and Gladio. Together they oversaw the
destruction of Liberation Theology in Latin America, the continued undermining of Italian democracy,
and the dispensing of black funds for Solidarity in Poland. Ah, but how the best laid plans do oft go
astray. By the spring of 1981 not only were events spinning out of control for Gladio itself, but so
too were they for Banco Ambrosiano, and by extension, the IOR. The Pope, inexplicably, refused to act.
Compounding this lapse was an unaccountable trifecta of moral turpitude that witnessed the Holy Father
suddenly breaking into treasonous song singing the benefits of rapprochement with the Soviets;
recognition of the Palestine Liberation Organization; and, egads, nuclear disarmament. The order from
on high was given: 'Kill the Pope'.
But best blame it on the Soviets.
So issued the 'Bulgarian Thesis' wherein
a lowly Bulgarian airline employee (Sergei Antonov) was set up as the patsy. In truth, the key actors
in the Papal plot came straight from Gladio central casting. The starring role in the drama fell to
General Giuseppe Santovito, the head of Italy's military intelligence (SISMI) and the commander of the
Italian Gladio units. His co-star, Theodore Shackley, was the infamous CIA mastermind who had already
served as executive producer on such epics as Operation Phoenix (involving the murder of some 40,000
non-combatants in Vietnam), Operation Condor, the setting up of Nugan Hand Bank, and, along with delle
Chiaie, the murder of Salvador Allende. West Germany's BND (the national security services) garnered a
significant credit by harbouring and financing the two actual assassins, Mehmet Agca and Abdullah Cath
(both from Turkish Gladio). And, of course, the Mighty Wurlitzer, i.e. Operation Mockingbird, figured
prominently in the aftermath grinding out endless tunes on the 'Bulgarian Thesis' – despite the fact
of Agca's eventual (lone) conviction in the shooting.
The production ended all somewhat anticlimactically when the Pope (on May 13, 1981) was only
seriously wounded. In a fascinating denouement, however, on Christmas Day 1983, the Pope opted to
publicly forgive Agca. Italian state television was allowed to record the moment when John Paul asked
his assassin from whom he had received his orders. Leaning forward to hear Agca's response the Pope
appeared momentarily frozen, then clasped his hands to his face.
Though the Pontiff kept it
secret, there was little need to guess at the answer.
The adventures of both Agca and Cath are the stuff of legend. Indeed, Cath figures in events well
beyond the time line of Gladio proper,
enough to suggest that Gladio never really shut down
at all.
But that, as they say, is a whole other story – and one I leave to the author to
take up.
* * *
Paul
Williams has made a fine contribution here.
Certainly, if the day ever comes when, seated across
from some smug establishment interlocutor, you are taken to task for being a 'conspiracy monger' –
well, you need only lean back, smile gently, and utter but two words .'Operation Gladio'.
Mockingbird has the annoyance of freedom on the internet to occupy
themselves with. And a new false flag in a different country every 6
weeks. Hard to sell enough heroin to finance it all.
Great read. I think I will buy the book. You can bet Gladio is still
alive wsiting to get back into action. Frightening to see how that
evolved from a stay behind army in case of a Soviet invasion into a
fascist overtaking on a continent. Oh yeah, they are biding their
time alright. They
Didn't the Vatican help NAZIs escape Europe after the war falsifying
papers so that they could get new identities to travel? Always
remember that the richest economic and most influential
entity/business on the planet is the Vatican. You cannot be the
richest and most influential without corruption; it's against human
nature.
The best defense, the saying goes, is a good offense.
The key orchestrators of the Big Trump-Russia Collusion Lie seem to have hewed tightly to that tactical advice.
Over the past two years, one of their biggest "tells" has been their hyper-aggressive and gratuitous attacks on the president.
Given that special counsel Robert Mueller 's
investigation found no collusion or obstruction of justice, their constant broadsides now look, in retrospect, like calculated pre-emptive
strikes to deflect attention and culpability away from themselves.
By accusing Mr. Trump of what they themselves
were guilty of, they created a masterful distraction through projection.
We now know that former FBI
Director James Comey and his deputy, Andrew
McCabe, are hip-deep in the conspiracy. Both wrote supposed "tell-all" books and carpet-bombed the media with interviews in which
they regularly flung criminal accusations against the president. Whenever asked about their own roles, they reverted to denouncing
Mr. Trump .
With Mr. Mueller 's findings,
Mr. Comey 's and Mr. McCabe's media benders look
increasingly suspicious.
As do those of their comrades in the Obama national security apparatus, including former Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper and his partner in possible crime, former
CIA Director
John Brennan , who, apart from former President
Barack Obama himself, may be the biggest player
of them all.
Any investigation into the origins and execution of the Big Lie must focus on Mr.
Brennan , whose job as the nation's chief spook
would have prohibited him, by law, from engaging in any domestic political spy games.
Of course, the law didn't stop him from illegally spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee by hacking into its computers and
lying repeatedly about it, prompting Democratic senators to call for his resignation.
Once out of Langley, Mr. Brennan tore into
Mr. Trump, accusing him of "treason" (among other crimes) in countless television appearances and bitter tweets. It got so vicious
that Mr. Trump pulled his security clearance.
Consider a few critical data points.
The Obama Department of Justice and
FBI targeting of two low-level
Trump aides, George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, was carried out in the spring of 2016 because they wanted to spy on the Trump campaign
but needed a way in. They enlisted an American academic and shadowy
FBI informant named Stefan
Halper to repeatedly sidle up to both Mr. Papadopoulos and Mr. Page. But complementing his work for the
FBI , Mr. Halper had a side
gig as an intelligence operative with longstanding ties to the
CIA and British intelligence
MI6.
Another foreign professor, Joseph Mifsud, who played an important early part in targeting Papadopoulos, also had abiding ties
to the CIA , MI6
and the British foreign secretary.
A third operative, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, targeted Mr. Papadopoulos in a London bar. It was Mr. Downer's "tip"
to the FBI that provided the
justification for the start of Russia counterintelligence investigation, complete with fraudulently-obtained FISA warrants to spy
on the Trump campaign.
All of these interactions reek of entrapment. Mr. Papadopoulos now says, "I believe Australian and UK intelligence were involved
in an active operation to target Trump and his associates." Like Mr. Halper and Mr. Mifsud, Mr. Downer had ties to the
CIA , MI6 and (surprise!)
the Clintons.
Given the deep intelligence backgrounds of these folks, it's difficult to believe that former DOJ/
FBI officials such as Peter
Strzok or even James Comey and Andrew McCabe
on their own devised the plan to deploy them.
So: who did? How did the relationships with Messrs. Halper, Mifsud and Downer come about? Who suggested them for these tasks?
To whom did they report? How were they compensated?
Any investigation must follow the money -- and the personnel. There were plenty of DOJ/
FBI officials involved, but
what about intelligence officials? Was Mr. Brennan
a central player in the hoax, which would help explain the participation of Mr. Halper, Mr. Mifsud and Mr. Downer? Intel officials
are likely to draw on other intelligence operatives.
There is also a glimpse of a paper trail.
Fox News' Catherine Herridge reported last week that "in a Dec. 12, 2016 text, [
FBI lawyer Lisa] Page wrote
to McCabe: "Btw, Clapper told Pete that he was meeting with
Brennan and Cohen for dinner tonight. Just
FYSA [for your situational awareness ]."
"Within a minute, McCabe replied, "OK."
Ms. Herridge notes that those named are likely Peter Strzok and
Mr. Brennan 's then-deputy, David Cohen. Ms. Herridge
also notes that while we don't yet know what was discussed during the dinner, government sources thought it "irregular" for Mr. Clapper
to be in contact with the more junior-level Mr. Strzok. She also points out that the text came "during a critical time for the Russia
probe."
Indeed. It was right before the publication of the ICA, the official Intelligence Community Assessment of Russian 2016 election
interference.
As Paul Sperry has reported, "A source close to the House investigation said
Brennan himself selected the
CIA and
FBI analysts who worked on
the ICA, and that they included former
FBI counterespionage chief
Peter Strzok.
"Strzok was the intermediary between Brennan
and Comey , and he was one of the authors
of the ICA," according to the source." Recall that the dossier-based ICA was briefed to
Obama , Trump and Congress ahead of Trump's
inauguration.
Post- Mueller report,
Mr. Brennan is spinning wildly that perhaps his
early condemnations of Mr. Trump were based on
"bad information."
These are just some of the threads suggesting Mr.
Brennan may be one of the Masters of the Big Lie, requiring full investigation.
If the devil is in the details, Mr. Brennan
is all over the details.
No wonder he -- and his fellow caballers -- have been so loud. They doth protest too much.
By accusing Mr. Trump of what they themselves
were guilty of, they created a masterful distraction through projection.
Hillary setup a unsecured server and had confidential government information on it, including 20 emails with Obama suspiciously
using an alias. If you're in law enforcement, and get a tip that Papadopolous may get some of those emails from Russians, what
crime has been committed by Papadopolous? Isn't Papadopolous doing the US a favor by obtaining those emails from those who hacked
her server?
If you believe Hillary that her server wasn't hacked (and you don't have any evidence because Obama's people allowed practically
all the evidence to be destroyed) then there's no reason to investigate Papadopolous. If you think Hillary's server was hacked,
shouldn't you be investigating her and examining her server to see who hacked her and what damage was done, such as blackmailing
her and Obama into appeasement and flexibility, like selling 20% of the US's uranium reserves to Russians just before an election?
John Brennan, James Clapper, Strozk, Ohr, Page were only some of Obama's political pythons operating in the jungle of Washington.
Obama orchestrated a symphony of harmful actions that will take the US a generation to recover from. That is if Obama's criminal
actions can be undone and then we get to recover.
The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December
2012.
Prism Photograph: Guardian
The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the
targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people
outside the US.
It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants.
Disclosure of the Prism program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider
Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers.
The participation of the internet companies in Prism will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale
of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content
of communications and not just the metadata.
Some of the world's largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in
2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising
campaign with the slogan "Your privacy is our priority" – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007.
It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009;
YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally
Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online.
Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks.
Schiff is a typical witch hunter (or Cheka goon, if you wish ;-) , much like Mueller staff was. What is unclear why
theywant to unseat Trump with his complete falding to neocons and strong pro-Israel stance?
Notable quotes:
"... It was the DNC and Ukraine. They wanted HRC to win. No collusion was on President Trump's side. All the top players in the FBI and DOJ played games and lost. President Trump won and plays the game better than those on the DNC. Their game book has been showed to be stupid. ..."
"... Brennan thinks he's the smartest guy in the room. He spins lies like a hungry spider. Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Swalwell, and some others need to go. ..."
Trump HATER Brennan - says: "U.S. PERSONS" - meaning Schiff, Comey, Obama, Strozk, His
Lover, The OBAMAS, - are all THOSE "U.S. PERSONS" who gave him the so-called "INTELLIGENCE" -
at WHAT POINT does "UN-VERIFIED INFO" become a TREASONOUS WEAPONIZED INSTRUMENT of an
ATTEMPTED COUP D'eta against the President Of The United States of America.
Seditious liar Schifty Adam Schiff was involved in criminal leaking of classified
information to Democrat propaganda machines CNN and MSNBC -- Should not just resign but held
accountable for his crimes and major role he played in the Coup attempt against the duly
elected US president
If Brennan didn't know, he admits to being incompetent. If he did know, he is complicit.
He accused someone of treason without evidence. Losing his security clearance is not justice.
He needs to pay a bigger price.
Gowdy is correct. Had there been something there, yes perhaps then people should see it.
When there results yield "not even probable cause", it probably shouldn't be released in it's
entirety.
It was the DNC and Ukraine. They wanted HRC to win. No collusion was on President Trump's
side. All the top players in the FBI and DOJ played games and lost. President Trump won and
plays the game better than those on the DNC. Their game book has been showed to be
stupid.
Adam Schiff claims there is clear evidence, yet never states what this evidence is. Yet it
is so clear that Muller, the FBI, the Senate investigation and the House spent two years and
never found it. Must be extremely transparent to the point of not existing period. I think
Schiff needs to not only step down, but he needs to see a psychitatrist.
Since the dawn of civilization, powerful individuals have controlled the stories people tell
themselves about who they are, who's in charge, how a good citizen behaves, what groups should
be loved, what groups should be hated, and what's really going on in the world.
When you
study what we call history, you're mostly just reading the ancient proto-propaganda of whatever
kingdom happened to win the last war during that period of time.
When you study what we
call religion, you're mostly reading stories that were advanced by ancient governments
explaining why the people should be meek, forgiving taxpayers instead of rising up and killing
their wealthy exploiters.
This continues to this day.
We fill our children's heads
with lies about how the world works, how the government works, how the media works, and, on a
deeper level,
how their
own consciousness works
, and the entire process is shaped to funnel power toward the people
who control our stories.
The modern schooling system was
largely
formed by John D Rockefeller
, widely considered
the
wealthiest person in modern history
, in order to create generations of docile gear-turners
for the industrial plutocratic machine.
Modern schooling is essentially mainstream
media in a building; it promotes authorized narratives day in and day out to ensure that
children will have a reaction of cognitive dissonance and rejection when confronted with
information which contradicts those narratives.
This funnels the populace seamlessly into the narrative control matrix of adulthood,
where childhood indoctrination into mainstream narratives lubricates the way for continual
programming of credulous minds with mass media propaganda.
All the print, TV and online
media they are presented with supports the status quo-supporting agendas of the same plutocratic
class that John D Rockefeller dominated all those years ago.
This ensures that no matter
how bad things get, no matter how severely our spirits are crushed by end-stage metastatic
neoliberalism, no matter how many stupid, pointless wars we're duped into, no matter how much
further we are drawn along
the
path toward extinction
via climate chaos or nuclear war, we will never revolt to overthrow
our rulers.
That's three paragraphs. Our predicament is simple to describe and easy to understand.
But that doesn't mean it's easy to solve.
Everyone has at some point known someone in some kind of an abusive relationship, whether it be
with a partner, a family member, or a job, and we all know that helpless feeling of being unable to
help someone who refuses to walk away from the source of their abuse.
"Just leave him!" we say in exasperation. "The door's right there! It's not locked!"
But it's never that simple. It's never that simple because, although the abusee is
indeed physically capable of walking out the door, the thoughts that are in their head keep them
from choosing that option.
This is because no abuser is simply violent or cruel: they are also necessarily
manipulative.
If they weren't manipulative, there wouldn't be any "abusive relationship";
there'd just be someone doing something horrible one time, followed by a hasty exit out the door.
There can't be an ongoing relationship that is abusive unless there's some glue holding the abusee
in place, and that glue always consists primarily of believed narrative.
"I didn't mean it. I love you. I just get frustrated sometimes because of your
stupidity."
"You can't leave; you'll never make it out there on your own. You need me."
"I'm the only one who'll ever be there for you. Nobody else will ever love you because
you're so disgusting."
"Your children need their father. You have to stay."
"I need you! I'll die without you!"
"I'm not doing that. You're paranoid and crazy."
"Your inability to forgive me means something is wrong with you."
They seldom say it so overtly, because if they did its malignancy would be easy to spot, but
those are the ideas which get subtly implanted into the abusee's head day after day after day by
way of skillful manipulation.
"It's her own fault for staying,"
someone will inevitably say.
No it isn't. Not really. The abuser is at fault for the overt abuse, and the abuser is also at
fault for the psychological manipulations which keep the abusee in place in spite of terrible
cruelty. It's all one thing, and it's entirely the abuser's fault.
Humanity's predicament is the same. I often hear revolutionary-minded thinkers voicing
frustration at the mainstream public for choosing to stay within this transparently abusive dynamic
instead of rising up and forcing change, and yes, it is self-evident that the citizenry could
easily use its vastly superior numbers to do that if it collectively chose to. The door is right
there. It's not even locked.
But the people aren't failing to choose the door because they love being abused, they're
failing to choose the door because they've been manipulated into not choosing it.
From
cradle to grave they're pummeled with stories telling them that this is the only way things can be,
in exactly the same way a battered wife or a cult member are pummeled with stories about how
leaving is impossible.
The difficulty of our times is not that we are locked up; we aren't. The
difficulty is that far too many of us are manipulated into choosing a prison cell over freedom.
The fact of the matter is that a populace will never rise up against its oppressors as long as
it is being successfully propagandized not to. It will never, ever happen. The majority will choose
the prison cell every time.
You'd expect that more dissident thinking would be pouring into solving this dilemma, but not
much is. People talk about elections and political strategies, they talk about who has the most
correct ideology, they talk about rising up and seizing the means of production due to unacceptable
material conditions, they wax philosophical about the tyranny of the state and the immorality of
coercion, but they rarely address the elephant in the room that you can't get a populace to oust
the status quo when they do not want to.
Nothing will ever be done about our predicament as long as powerful people are controlling the
stories that the majority of the public believe. This is as true today as it was in John D
Rockefeller's time, which was as true as when Rome chose to spread the "render unto Caesar what is
Caesar's" submissiveness of Christianity throughout the Empire. The only difference is that now the
powerful have
a
century of post-Bernays propaganda science
under their belt, and a
whole
lot of research and development
can happen in a hundred years.
So what's the solution? How do you awaken a populace that is not just manipulated
into choosing its prison cell every time, but is also manipulated into believing that any
suggestion that they're in a prison cell is a crazy conspiracy theory?
Well, what do you do when a loved one is in an abusive relationship? It never works to shake
them and scream "You're being abused!"; that just causes them to tighten up and dig in deeper with
their abuser's narratives about how this is the only way things can be and anyone who says
otherwise is crazy. What works is to lovingly help that sovereign spark within them gather evidence
that the narratives they're being fed by their abuser are lies. Point out every time where reality
contradicts the stories they've been told. Weaken their trust in the old stories while
strengthening their confidence in their own perception and their sense of entitlement and
worthiness. Help them to see that they're being lied to, and that they deserve better.
This breaking of trust needs to happen within the respective partisan echo chambers of
those who are being propagandized.
It's useless to increase the distrust of CNN and MSNBC
among Trump's base, for example, but it's very useful to increase their distrust in right-wing
narratives. It's useless to increase Democrats' distrust in Trump and Fox News, but it's very
useful to get them skeptical of the narrative control machine they've been plugged into. Each head
of the two-headed one-party system needs to be attacked in a way that makes sense inside each of
its respective echo chambers.
Mostly, though, what we need is we need is for more thinkers to be more focused on the real
problem. I know some influential minds read this blog; if they can help seed the idea out among the
movers and shakers of dissident thought that propaganda is our first and foremost problem, we just
might get somewhere. We need a major shift of focus onto the narrative control matrix and the
obstacle that it poses to revolution, and everyone can help shift us there in their own way.
The propaganda machine won't be adequately disrupted without intensive effort, and
until it is we're going to keep selecting the prison cell every time.
That is why Q is in play... it makes people complacent so they
don't rebel because they think an insider already has it in
hand... here is a list of some of the Q posts that were wrong:
Drop #1
"claimed that "HRC extradition [was] already in
motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross
border run" with
Drop #2
alleging "HRC detained, not
arrested (yet)" and that there would be "massive riots organized
in defiance and others fleeing the US."
After a stretch of posts full of rhetorical questions and vague
claims, Q used
Drop #15
to predict that John Podesta would
be indicted on Nov. 3, and Clinton aide Huma Abedin indicted on
Nov. 6.
Drop #16,
posted the same day, claimed that "Friday &
Saturday will deliver on the MAGA promise" with a thorough
house-cleaning of the government. That Friday, Nov. 3, saw
the president leave
for a tour of Asia, and no firings,
but the predictions continued.
After a series of vague insinuations about the National Guard
being activated in various major cities (which was not true), Q
again claimed in
Drop #25
that proof of his predictions
would "begin 11.3." Again, the only significant event of this day
was the president leaving for Asia.
In
Drop #32,
Q claimed that the "initial wave [of
arrests] will be fast and meaningful," with many members of the
media "jailed as deep cover agents."
Finally,
Drop #34
unveiled a host of predictions for
what Q claimed would happen imminently. He claimed that "over the
course of the next several days you will undoubtedly realize that
we are taking back our great country." He claimed that everything
he'd been talking about in secret "will then be revealed and will
not be openly accepted," resulting in "public riots."
Q claimed that because of the imminent unrest of Nov. 3 and the
announcement of John Podesta's arrest the next day, "a state of
temporary military control will be actioned," and that "we will be
initiating the Emergency Broadcast System (EMS) during this time
in an effort to provide a direct message (avoiding the fake news)
to all citizens."
Drop #38
continued with the conspiracy fantasizing,
predicting "other state actors attempting to harm us during this
transition," along with "increased military movement," "[National
Guard] deployments starting tomorrow, and "false flags."
As part of the "imminent event" of the 3, Q claimed in
Drop
#44
that "before POTUS departs on Friday he will be sending an
important message via Twitter," used
Drop #47
to warn his
readers to "be vigilant today and expect a major false flag," and
claimed in
Drop #55
that President Trump would unleash the
massive military purge (now nicknamed "The Storm") with a tweet
reading "My fellow Americans, the Storm is upon us ."
continued to ratchet up the tension, predicting in
Drop #61:
that there would be "Twitter and other social media blackouts"
that would accompany the massive deep state purge.
Finally, in
Drop #65
, Q claimed "it has begun," with
Drop #67
predicting that news of John Podesta's military plane
being "forced down" "will be leaked" with a prominent "fake news
anchor" being pulled off the air.
Needless to say, none of what Q predicted in his first 60+
posts took place. The National Guard was never called up, mass
arrests never took place, Hillary Clinton and John Podesta weren't
detained, Donald Trump never sent a tweet mentioning "The Storm,"
and the Emergency Alert System wasn't activated.
But that didn't stop the movement.
However, Q seemed to learn from his mistakes and mostly stopped
making specific predictions about events to come, shifting to
vague statements about world events, terror attacks, and political
intrigue.
On Dec. 10, Q predicted in
Drop #326
that "false
flag(s)" would occur, with "POTUS 100% insulated" and to "expect
fireworks." Q believers seized on a partially detonated pipe bomb
at New York's Port Authority Bus Terminal, and Q took credit the
next day for "thwarting" the attack.
In
Drop #647,
Q seemed to predict a major event
involving the Department of Defense for Feb. 1, calling it the
"[D]ay [Of] [D]ays." Nothing of note happened either to that
agency or the federal government in general that day.
A few days after that fizzled, Q insinuated in
Drop #700
that the weekend of Feb. 10 and 1 would be a "suicide weekend" for
individuals targeted by the president. There were no high-profile
suicides by public figures that weekend.
Drop #796
was a post full of quasi-military chatter that
seemed to predict a possible car bombing in London around Feb. 16.
No terrorist attack of any type happened in London at all that
month.
As talk of President Trump's military parade ramped up, Q
predicted in
Drop #856
that "a parade that will never be
forgotten" would take place on 11/11/18. That parade has now been
postponed until next year
due to costs, and likely won't take
place at all.
Then, in
Drop #912,
Q claimed that the intelligence
sharing alliance known as "Five Eyes" "won't be around much
longer." As of August, it is still in effect.
Drop #997
predicted on April 3 that the Pope would "have
a terrible May." The closest to this that happened was the
resignation of several Chilean bishops
in June after Pope
Francis criticized them over their handling of a sex abuse
scandal.
On April 7, Q made a cryptic post in
Drop #1067
that
read simply "China. Chongqing. Tuesday." The next Tuesday was
April 10, and no newsworthy event took place on that day in that
city.
Finally, in
Drop #1302
on April 27, Q claimed a "Mother
of All Bombs" related to negotiations with North Korea would be
"dropped" in the next week.
Some Q believers took this to be the North Korea/United States
summit announcement on the 28, but the negotiations had already
been reported, and only the location and exact date remained to be
set -- neither of which Q provided.
Even as he was seeming to reveal world events that never took
place, Q kept up his hammering of favored foes Hillary Clinton,
Barack Obama, and John McCain.
Even though she wasn't indicted or arrested, Q predicted on
March 5
in Drop #854
that "HRC +++ + +++++(raw vid 5:5)"
[sic] would soon emerge, and that it would be the "nail in many
coffins."
Using Barack Obama's
middle name
, Q predicted in
Drop #1043
that "pics will
surface of Hussein holding AK47 in tribal attire," and insinuated
in two April drops that photos of Obama with a young girl named
"Wendy" would appear and open him up to charges of pedophilia. No
such pictures have ever appeared.
Finally, again using a nickname, Q predicted John McCain's
resignation from the Senate as "imminent" several times, including
Drop #1319
and
Drop #1850
, as well as predicting the
"end near" in
Drop #1555.
Only this week did McCain
announce he would stop seeking treatment for cancer.
Politicians aren't the only suspected deep state members that Q
has made failed predictions about.
On April 4, Q claimed in
Drop #1014
that Mark Zuckerberg
was going to step down as chair of Facebook and flee the United
States. The same day Q predicted this,
Zuckerberg reiterated
that he was NOT going to step down -- and
he still hasn't.
Q has also made some fizzled predictions about Twitter CEO Jack
Dorsey, saying "goodbye" to him in
Drops #525
and
#598
,
insinuating that Dorsey would be removed from Twitter in
Drop
#799
, predicting in
Drop
#1102
that Dorsey was
"next"
It's not surprising that as Q's predictions fizzled, he became
less specific and more generalized with what he claimed would
happen. It's here that QAnon truly began taking on the language of
prosperity scams, substituting vague claims of "next week" or
"soon" in place of anything more specific.
Q's use of the phrase "next week" to denote the occurrence of
something important started with
Drop #243
when Q told his
followers "just wait until next week" without making any kind of
claim as to what was going to happen. It would be the first of
over a dozen times Q would kick the can down the road to "next
week."
In Drop #464:
Q vaguely predicted a "BIG NEXT WEEK" on
Jan. 5, doubling down in
Drop #527,
predicting "Next Week –
BIGGER," repeating the claim three drops later.
If you still belive in Q in the face of all of these failed
predictions you should sterialize yourself... And no... not a
libtard... I put libtards and qtards in the same basket of
stupid../
This crazy bitch is hit or miss for me. She completely misses
on "climate chaos" which is part of the mind control narrative.
Most obvious and discredited government and corporate funded hoax
of our era. Post religious eschatology to tax and control the
serfs to the satisfaction of the powerful.
This lady is an enemy agent. Why do you continue posting her
articles?
Yeah. I don't think nuclear war and fukishima are
good ideas also.
What needs sorely addressing, and why Trump was elected, is the
complete deviousness and near stranglehold, outright, that America
hating marxists wield.
We are possibly a hair's breath away from something so
sobering. That a vicious civil war may sound quite refreshing in
contrast.
But, bring it on crazy. Just don't think I at least, can't see
who you represent. And it isn't tree hugging, American ultra pot
smoking nice boys and girl hippies. Who also sideline as cia
operators and super stealth super agents. Kidding. Interesting
movie. And somewhat funny. Unlike most of this. Sitch.
God is in charge. Jesus is the way. If there be fighting or
calamity. If there be peace and prosperity. Rest, when possible
in the Lord. And fight like lions when, and if called to do so.
It only takes 5% of the population to become sufficiently agitated
in order to affect social and political change. The requisite
force is already in place. All they are waiting for is an
impetus.
What was Trump if not the biggest "**** you" in history. It's
true these haven't gone anywhere, or accomplished anything, but
this is far different thing than "not rebelling". Half the
population is rebelling within the system as much as they can. The
other half the population also feel they are rebelling to, but in
the opposite direction. Cancel 1st and 2nd amendments, ban
conservative voices, impeach Trump. If/when civil war breaks out
you will long for these halcyon days of peaceful rebellion.
I see how they fooled so many with Trump. In no way whatsoever
are elections left up to the citizens. They all have to be
portrayed as being close to hide the fact that those at the top
choose the president and the president has no real power
anyway.
There's a pseudo-everything phenomena occurring, lots of phoney
stuff going on out there.. All you can do really is not believe
everything you read, hear and/or see and be careful what you take
as truth/fact. We have been lied to about our money, our history
and even much of the food we eat is suspect and possibly the
creation(or part) of some laboratory experiment.
If people were
to find out that they were all subjects of the oligarchs and being
preyed on, ripped off, experimented on or were products of their
creations in a world built on lies things might not turn out so
great for the oligarchs.
So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from hell
Blue skies from pain
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?
Did they get you to trade
Your heroes for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
Did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
90% of humanity is basically livestock, 2% are sociopaths enjoying
to control the human livestock, and the remaining few are left to
wonder wtf is wrong with those 2 groups. It has been like this
since the dawn of time. Note that the actual revolutions happen
very rarely, and they only happen when the elites screw up badly.
Most of the time things change simply because the elites have
finally realized they could not continue the status quo.
Not enough suffering going on for there to be enough people
demanding real change. Self policing prisoners will keep the rest
in line. It is what it is. Point of no return has come and gone.
Now we just have to play the hand we've been dealt.
I believe a less violent and more highly effective way of making
change is to stop being a consummate consumer.
Forget Amazon,
cease consumer loans and pay for what you need in cash. Stop
frivolous spending. The effect from deflation would be far more
painful to the 1% than anyone else and core prices would drop like
a rock.
Say we overthrew our respective governments - I give it a year,
nay... A week, and a new batch of psychopaths will be vying for
top job - and we're back to square one again. Two options;
1.
Shoot/hang psychos (the fun/gratifying option)
2. Place four of these assoles in charge instead of one
What does a psycho hate moar than us peasants - competition.
They will fight and kill each other, never agreeing on any new
laws (see where i'm going with this) Basically reversing the
situation we're in now.
Medium is a website that tries to funnel you into google or
facebook. Do we need to say more? I haven't yet done a blog about
the fear factor. All those cell tower pump fear into the masses.
The side effect
s
of wireless technology will never be
officially admitted to.
In fact, this is surprisingly simple to counter - don't tell lies.
The difficulties experienced with this choice, this exercise of
will, lend a contempt in the assessment of the mouthings of the
liars - system wide (i.e. at the societal level) it is a
self-reinforcing behaviour because not many people are prepared to
embrace the social status associated with open displays of
contempt for their person. Of course, if you are not conditioned
to exercising your will you have no reason to be upset with the
outcome, you are in some sense as worthy as my coffee cup and have
as much influence on the world as any other unconsciousness - why
worry?
And yet, when the Obama Administration "legalized" Domestic Use of
Propaganda,it went by the MSM without so much as a ******* sound
(but that was to be expected, as we knew who would be delivering
it).
There is a new series on Netflix called Dirty Money, the First
Episode is on the VW scandal. In it VW decided to counter with a
scientific study where they use MONKEYS TRAINED TO WATCH TV while
they breath car exhaust. And I thought...OMG I've allowed myself
to become a trained monkey, presented with information to believe.
You need to take out the media and Internet, if there's no social
media or brain-numbing "entertainment", people get bored and
restless, an excellent precursor to revolution.
Like many who claim to be totally awake and resistant to the
propaganda dear Caitlin is a true believer in man made climate
change. Also a socialist although lately she is has been trying
distance herself from it. These people spend their career exposing
the lies from government and the compliant press but are all on
board with the we're all gonna die from climate change bunk as if
the government and it's shills are suddenly telling the truth.
Lesson here is even those you trust can fall victim to the
propaganda so it's best to not take everything they say as gospel.
It only takes 5% of the population to become sufficiently agitated
in order to affect social and political change. The requisite
force is already in place. All they are waiting for is an
impetus.
What was Trump if not the biggest "**** you" in history. It's
true these haven't gone anywhere, or accomplished anything, but
this is far different thing than "not rebelling". Half the
population is rebelling within the system as much as they can. The
other half the population also feel they are rebelling to, but in
the opposite direction. Cancel 1st and 2nd amendments, ban
conservative voices, impeach Trump. If/when civil war breaks out
you will long for these halcyon days of peaceful rebellion.
There's a pseudo-everything phenomena occurring, lots of phoney
stuff going on out there.. All you can do really is not believe
everything you read, hear and/or see and be careful what you take
as truth/fact. We have been lied to about our money, our history
and even much of the food we eat is suspect and possibly the
creation(or part) of some laboratory experiment.
If people were
to find out that they were all subjects of the oligarchs and being
preyed on, ripped off, experimented on or were products of their
creations in a world built on lies things might not turn out so
great for the oligarchs.
90% of humanity is basically livestock, 2% are sociopaths enjoying
to control the human livestock, and the remaining few are left to
wonder wtf is wrong with those 2 groups. It has been like this
since the dawn of time. Note that the actual revolutions happen
very rarely, and they only happen when the elites screw up badly.
Most of the time things change simply because the elites have
finally realized they could not continue the status quo.
"... Brennan, whose security clearance has been revoked and who this week admitted he may have "received bad information" while opining about the Russia investigation in his role as an MSNBC analyst, discussed a wide range of national security issues with Democrats, an official familiar with the meeting told Fox News. ..."
"... Brennan's meeting with Democrats comes amid a reexamination of his role in the launching and furthering of the narrative that President Trump's campaign colluded with Russia. ..."
"... Paul added: "Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP." The next day, Brennan was just steps from the Senate -- but as part of the Hoyer meeting. ..."
"... Brennan on Monday issued one of the few mea culpas offered by members of the media in the aftermath of Barr's letter, in which he quoted Mueller as having found no evidence of any collusion or coordination between the Trump team and Russia. Prior to that finding, Brennan, the CIA Director from 2013-2017, had adamantly insinuated in tweets and on TV that Mueller would put Trump's "political & financial future in jeopardy." ..."
"... "I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," Brennan said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." ..."
"... Trump has frequently hit back at Brennan's broadsides. "I think Brennan is a very bad guy and, if you look at it, a lot of things happened under his watch," Trump once told Fox News' Tucker Carlson. "I think he's a very bad person." ..."
Former CIA Director John Brennan –
who's come under fire in recent days for his alleged role in pushing the unverified
anti-Trump dossier
– met with House Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer and other House Democrats on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Fox News has learned.
Brennan, whose security clearance has been revoked and who this week admitted he may have "received bad information" while opining
about the Russia investigation in his role as an MSNBC analyst, discussed a wide range of national security issues with Democrats,
an official familiar with the meeting told Fox News.
Brennan was invited "long before" the Mueller investigation was reportedly concluded last Friday, the official told Fox News,
but it was not clear if the Mueller report or the four-page summary letter of it released by Attorney General Bill Barr on Sunday
were discussed during the "Leader's Council" meeting.
The council is composed of a "diverse group of members of the caucus" and meet on a regular basis with a wide range of guests,
the official said.
Brennan's meeting with Democrats comes amid a reexamination of his role in the launching and furthering of the narrative that
President Trump's campaign colluded with Russia.
The day before his Capitol Hill meeting, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., tweeted he'd been told by a "high-level source" that Brennan "insisted
that the unverified and fake Steele dossier be included in the Intelligence Report "
Paul added: "Brennan should be asked to testify under oath in Congress ASAP." The next day, Brennan was just steps from the Senate -- but as part of the Hoyer meeting.
Brennan on Monday issued one of the few mea culpas offered by members of the media in the aftermath of Barr's letter, in which
he quoted Mueller as having found no evidence of any collusion or coordination between the Trump team and Russia. Prior to that finding,
Brennan, the CIA Director from 2013-2017, had adamantly insinuated in tweets and on TV that Mueller would put Trump's "political
& financial future in jeopardy."
Going even beyond that, Brennan said Trump's July 2018 Helsinki press conference alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin "rises
to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous." Brennan later doubled-down on the
"treasonous" line during a television appearance.
But he struck a different tone Monday in the wake of the Mueller news.
"I don't know if I received bad information, but I think I suspected there was more than there actually was," Brennan said on
MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Trump has frequently hit back at Brennan's broadsides. "I think Brennan is a very bad guy and, if you look at it, a lot of things happened under his watch," Trump once told Fox News'
Tucker Carlson. "I think he's a very bad person."
To that end, in 2018, the Trump administration revoked Brennan's security clearance, saying the former Obama official had been
"leveraging" his clearance to make "wild outbursts" about the president.
TheOutlawJoseyWales518 1h
Old Johnny is in a bunch of trouble....hopefully he will take all the Obama/Clinton Cabal down with him. F him.
Lugnuts30Leader
John Brennan is as crooked as Adam Schiff. Actually he is worse. He is guilty of everything that he adamantly accused
President Trump of doing. The Democrats are about to find out what happens when you are caught lying and committing treasons'
crimes. They are running around like the rats they are.
nationalist70Leader
Brennan is everything he accusesTrump of being!! That goes for the rest of the democrats too!!!
Conservatives tend to have two bad habits.
First, they're prone to viewing the
past through a nostalgic lens. Second, they tend to instinctively give law enforcement the benefit
of the doubt.
These tendencies help explain why conservatives for decades have been able to overlook the many
abuses -- constitutional, legal, and moral -- of US intelligence agencies.
These revelations are unique in that they have become highly public and involve a
sitting president.
However, an examination of the history of US intelligence agencies
reveals government bureaucrats were out of control long before the 2016 presidential election.
1. That Time the CIA Considered Bombing Miami and Blaming It on Castro
It's no secret that the US government sought
to
assassinate Fidel Castro
for years. Less well known, however, was that part of their
regime-change plot
included
a
plan to blow up Miami and sinking a boat-full of innocent Cubans.
The plan, which was revealed in 2017 when the National Archives declassified 2,800 documents
from the JFK era, was a
collaborative
effort
that included the CIA, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and other federal agencies
that sought to brainstorm strategies to topple Castro and sow unrest within Cuba. One of those
plans included Operation Northwoods, submitted to the CIA by General Lyman Lemnitzer on behalf of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It summarized nine "pretexts" the CIA and US government could employ to
justify military intervention in Cuba. One of the official CIA documents shows officials musing
about staging a terror campaign ("real or simulated") and blaming it on Cuban refugees.
"We could develop a Cuban Communist terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities
and even in Washington," the Operation Mongoose document says.
"The terror campaign could be pointed at Cubans refugees seeking haven in the United States.
We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated.) We could foster
attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States Exploding a few plastic bombs in
carefully chosen spots."
Ultimately, the broader Mongoose effort
failed
to
remove Castro from power or effectively establish an infiltration within Cuba, though the CIA did
engage in several sabotage operations. Mongoose was suspended and ultimately discontinued amid the
Cuban Missile Crisis.
2. In 2014 the CIA Was Caught Red-Handed Spying on the Senate
Intelligence Committee
In the summer of 2014, the CIA's inspector general concluded that the CIA had "improperly" spied
on US Senate staffers who were researching the agency's black history of torture. As the
New
York Times
reported
:
An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer
network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the
C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program.
And that's not the worst part.
The Times
goes on to note that CIA officers didn't just
read the emails of the Senate investigators. They also sent "a criminal referral to the Justice
Department based on false information."
John Brennan, CIA director from 2013-2017, insisted during Senate hearings these were "very
limited inappropriate actions" and that "the actions of the CIA were reasonable."
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) disagreed.
"That's not what the Inspector General [concluded]," Wyden said. "When you're talking about
spying on a committee responsible for overseeing your agency, in my view that undermines the
very checks and balances that protect our democracy, and it's unacceptable in a free society.
And your compatriots in all your sister agencies agree with that."
Brennan, who
publicly
lied
about the episode, was not punished and even retained his security clearance until Aug.
15, 2018.
Before he had a day named in his honor and a monument on the National Mall, the government
viewed Martin Luther King Jr. very much as a threat. In fact, his message of peace, love, equality,
and civil disobedience had the FBI so scared that agents actually sent King and his wife a package
containing a strange letter and tape recording. It contained details of the civil rights activist's
sexual indiscretions and encouraged him to kill himself.
In 1961, the FBI learned that Stanley Levison, a known "Red," had become a close advisor to
King. The following year, Bobby Kennedy approved wiretaps on Levison's home and office,
surveillance that would eventually expand. It turns out that J. Edgar Hoover stumbled on to MLK's
busy sex life while investigating King.
"Hoover found out very little about any Communist subterfuge,"
wrote
Yale
historian Beverly Gage in the
New York Times
in 2014, "but he did begin to learn about
King's extramarital sex life ."
The FBI apparently had no scruples about using the information to try to bring King down. James
Comey, Gage writes, used to keep a copy of the King wiretap request on his desk "as a reminder of
the bureau's capacity to do wrong."
4. The CIA Forced Prisoners to Participate in Mind Control Experiments
in the 1950s
If you've never heard of Project MKUltra, you might find it hard to believe. Also known as "the
CIA Mind Control Program," the effort was launched by the agency in 1953. The program used drug
experiments on humans, oftentimes on prisoners who were tested against their will or in exchange
for early release. The experiments were undertaken so CIA agents could better understand how to
extract information from enemies during interrogations. Here is a description from the History
Channel:
MK-Ultra's "mind control" experiments generally centered around behavior modification via
electro-shock therapy, hypnosis, polygraphs, radiation, and a variety of drugs, toxins, and
chemicals. These experiments relied on a range of test subjects: some who freely volunteered,
some who volunteered under coercion, and some who had absolutely no idea they were involved in a
sweeping defense research program. From mentally-impaired boys at a state school, to American
soldiers, to "sexual psychopaths" at a state hospital, MK-Ultra's programs often preyed on the
most vulnerable members of society. The CIA considered prisoners especially good subjects, as
they were willing to give consent in exchange for extra recreation time or commuted sentences.
Whitey Bulger, a former organized crime boss, wrote of his experience as an inmate test
subject in MK-Ultra. "Eight convicts in a panic and paranoid state," Bulger said of the 1957
tests at the Atlanta penitentiary where he was serving time. "Total loss of appetite.
Hallucinating. The room would change shape. Hours of paranoia and feeling violent. We
experienced horrible periods of living nightmares and even blood coming out of the walls. Guys
turning to skeletons in front of me. I saw a camera change into the head of a dog. I felt like I
was going insane."
How was any of this legal? Well, it wasn't, which is why the CIA understood it had to be
concealed from the American public at all costs.
"Precautions must be taken not only to protect operations from exposure to enemy forces but
also to conceal these activities from the American public in general,"
wrote
a
CIA auditor.
"The knowledge that the agency is engaging in unethical and illicit activities would have
serious repercussions in political and diplomatic circles."
5. The FBI's Systemic Forensic Fraud in Crime Labs
In the early 1990s,
Dr. Frederic
Whitehurst
, an attorney and chemist who worked at the FBI as a Supervisory Special Agent,
noticed troubling practices in the in the bureau's Investigation Laboratory.
There were "alterations of reports, alterations of evidence, folks testifying outside their
areas of expertise in courts of law,"
said
Whitehurst.
"[Really] what was going on was human rights violations. We have a right to fair trials in this
country And that's not what was going on at the FBI lab."
In 1994, he blew the whistle on the "systemic forensic fraud" he witnessed. Nothing happened. So
he took his case to the Department of Justice. The FBI didn't like that. Whitehurst was eventually
chased out of the Bureau, but not before
winning
a
$1.16 million settlement.
Unfortunately, however, the wheels of justice turn slowly at the Bureau.
"It wasn't until ten years later that Whitehurst was finally vindicated," notes the National
Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund note, "when a scathing 500+ page study of the lab by
the Justice Department Inspector General, Michael Bromwich, concluded major reforms were required
in the lab."
But by then, an untold number of people had been convicted with the help of tainted
evidence -- evidence the DOJ
knew
was
tainted.
In 2012 the
Washington Post
published
an
extensive review of the FBI and DOJ failures to properly review the cases impacted by the FBI
lab scandal, based on Whitehurst's research.
As a result, the DOJ agreed to conduct yet another review of hair cases in collaboration with
the Innocence Project and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL).
3,000 cases were identified by the government that had used microscopic hair analysis
from FBI examiners.
500 have been reviewed as of March 2015.
268 included pro-prosecution testimony from FBI examiners.
257 (96 percent) contained erroneous statements from "FBI experts".
At least 35 of these cases involved convicted criminals who received the death penalty,
according to the National Whistleblower Legal Defense and Education Fund.
6. Operation Midnight Climax: Drugging Unsuspecting Johns and Filming
their Interactions with Prostitutes
In the 1950s and early 1960s, the CIA admitted to operating a "bawdy house" in a San Francisco
apartment where "unsuspecting citizens were lured for the CIA's drug experiments," according to a
local news story report
documented
by
the agency.
"Private citizens were taken to the bordello by $100 prostitutes and drugged without
their knowledge, usually with LSD,
" the
San Francisco Examiner
reported in
1977 after the CIA admitted to the operation. Agents sat behind a two-way mirror and filmed the
interactions between the drugged men and prostitutes.
Then-CIA director Stansfield Turner suggested the operation was intended to understand how drugs
could potentially be used against the American people, though he called the experiments "abhorrent"
and acknowledged it was "inexplicable" that the CIA would do this without the subjects' consent. He
insisted the agency had ceased the experiments 12 years prior. In a 1977 Senate testimony, CIA
agents said the purpose of the experiments was to "learn about thought control and sexual
behavior," the
Examiner
noted.
7. The FBI Has Routinely Staged Acts of Terrorism
In the wake of 9/11, the FBI has, on numerous occasions, targeted unstable and mentally ill
individuals, sending informants to bait them into committing terror attacks. Before these
individuals can actually carry out the attack, however, the Bureau intervenes, presenting the
foiled plot to the public as a successfully thwarted attack.
In 2011, journalist Glenn Greenwald
summarized
several
examples of this deceitful tactic:
[T]he FBI subjected 19-year-old Somali-American Mohamed Osman Mohamud to
months
of encouragement, support and money
and convinced him to detonate a bomb at a crowded
Christmas event in Portland, Oregon, only to arrest him at the last moment and then issue a
Press Release boasting of its success.
In
late 2009
, the FBI persuaded and enabled Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, a 19-year old Jordanian
citizen, to place a fake bomb at a Dallas skyscraper and separately convinced Farooque Ahmed, a
34-year-old naturalized American citizen born in Pakistan,
to
bomb the Washington Metro
.
8. The CIA's Media Manipulation Campaigns
From the agency's earliest days, it has attempted to control the flow of information to the
public. In his book
Legacy of Ashes: A History of the CIA
,
former
New York Times
journalist Tim Weiner
documented
how
much influence the agency's first civilian director, Allen Dulles, had among major media companies:
Dulles kept in close touch with the men who ran
The New York Times, The Washington Post
,
and the nation's leading weekly magazines. He could pick up the phone and edit a breaking story,
make sure an irritating foreign correspondent was yanked from the field, or hire the services of
men such as
Time'
s Berlin bureau chief and
Newsweek
's man in Tokyo.
Weiner noted, "It was second nature for Dulles to plant stories in the press. American newsrooms
were dominated by veterans of the government's wartime propaganda branch, the Office of War
Information." During his time at the agency, Dulles "built a public-relations and propaganda
machine that came to include more than fifty news organizations, a dozen publishing houses, and
personal pledges of support from men such as Axel Springer, West Germany's most powerful press
baron."
In 1977, Carl Bernstein further exposed the CIA's efforts to influence news organization in an
article
for
Rolling
Stone
in which he revealed that "more than 400 American journalists in the past twenty‑five
years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to
documents on file at CIA headquarters."
The Lesson
Amid the media and political establishment's ongoing, frenzied coverage of Russia-gate,
Americans are eager to pin guilt on the president have shown a willingness to trust the CIA and FBI
without question despite numerous past and present reasons to be skeptical of their conclusions.
Considering the CIA's long history of intervening in other countries' elections and
governments, it is particularly ironic that their claims of Russia's meddling in the US' democracy
are taken at face value.
Nor is the corruption and deceit limited to the FBI and CIA. Former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper
lied
to
lawmakers and the public in 2013 when he claimed NSA did not collect any type of data on "millions
or hundreds of millions of Americans." He was caught red-handed months later when whistleblower
Edward Snowden revealed the extent of the agency's mass surveillance operations.
The survival of liberty depends on skepticism of government power -- and make no mistake,
that includes President Trump.
But in light of these federal agencies' chronic tendency to
engage in behavior wholly inconsistent with American values,
the same distrust must be
applied to the institutions that claim to shed light on abuses by unpopular leaders.
It is a rare occasion when power is not wielded with chronic
corruption and deceit. In the ***** world, if you're not lying
and cheating you're not trying. Damn if I can figure a way to
reign this all in. Maybe try a big reset by firing anyone who is
a registered DemoRat and from then on publicly hanging any creeps
who authorize or participate in partisan politically motivated
fraudulent schemes or immoral acts. The Senate and House
Intelligence Committees need to ride herd on this, but how in the
world can they do that with their DemoRats and a corrupt serial
liar chairman like A. Schiff ?
And, the two political parties, instead of trying to reform these
agencies, prefer to use them for their own nefarious political
purposes by installing party hacks in their senior management
positions....
Sociopaths appointed to carry out sociopathic
missions....
the two political parties, instead of trying to reform
these agencies,
The Democrats and Republican parties may be very stupid but
thanks for reminding us that neither party is/was stupid enough
to think they could reform the FBI or the CIA.
At this point, Brennan has been totally discredited. Either out
of stupidity or ideology. Even he is back tracking saying he
received bad information. What a complete jackass if not
worse...
Allen Dulles (2nd CIA Director) and his brother John Foster Dulles
(Secretary of State) and a small group of others including George
HW Bush wanted to make sure that the CIA didn't have to go before
Congress or the Senate and ask for funding for clandestine
operations, so they hit upon a plan to sell drugs; heroin and
cocaine - it was called Operation Hammer. It amassed enormous
slush funds (all around the world) that exist to this day.
The
1988 Pan Am Flight 103 from Frankfurt to Detroit commonly known as
the Lockerbie Bombing, was in fact the CIA taking down a fully
loaded commercial jet to cover up the fact that a major heroin
shipment had been intercepted by the FBI. Those Agents were on
board Flight 103 returning to the US (with the evidence) to expose
the CIA.
I suppose the money the English got when they forced the
Chinese to buy the opium they stole from India paid for
maintaining English absolute power halfway round the world.
Operation Hammer was just a knockoff of something they had
done in Asia an hundred years ago.
Does anybody know if any
empires previous to the English (French, Spanish, Turkish)
forced people, either their own or their victims, to buy and
use drugs?
Or is this just another evil idea foisted on mankind by the
loverly Brits?
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have
been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
Ask anyone who's ever been opposed to the Wars of Empire. The
police/spy complex has always used sabotage, agents provocateurs,
forged evidence, blackmail, harassment, unwarranted searches and
black bag jobs; all of it. America has always had secret
political police. Apparently until very recently the Right was
just fine with it.
I told SWMBO the other day that Jimmy Clapper would quickly cave under pressure and seek to
throw someone under the bus to save himself from the possibility of being expelled from USAF if
eventually sentenced to confinement. Flynn faces the same possibility. Clapper would be a big
prize for prosecutors from Barr's DoJ. He was Director of National Intelligence, Obama's third
or fourth choice, but, nevertheless... Such a big prize would require a large substitute as a
distraction "under the bus."
Soo ... Jimmy the Clap has now stated on world TeeVee that Obama ordered him, Brennan and
all the other Midgets on Horseback who headed the IC back then to make a study of Russian
attempts at intervention in the election, and that this "study" led to a resolve to investigate
Candidate Trump as a potential traitor and a Russian agent of influence. pl https://nypost.com/2019/03/25/mueller-madness-the-media-pundits-who-got-it-most-wrong/
Is AG Barr up to the task of prosecuting Jimmy, The Clapper and John Treason Brennan. And of
course Comey, Lynch, Susan Rice, Evelyn Farkas and the lovebirds - Strzok & Page, and the
rest of the characters in the DOJ & FBI Fake Russia Collusion play? In any case it would
be such theatrics to witness these good people testify to a grand jury throwing the other
person under the bus.
My impression is that AG Barr is the epitome of a Swamp Rat.
Well it looks like the ship of state is still afloat in the Swamp rather than being sunk by
swamp rats it so he (Barr) can become King Rat by serving up some fresh, how do you say,
touille a rat? I think it is a dish best served cold. A true 'Pièce de
résistance'.
Jimmy the Clap has now stated on world TeeVee that Obama ordered him, Brennan and all the
other Midgets on Horseback who headed the IC back then to
make a study of Russian attempts at intervention in the election, and
that this "study" led to a resolve to investigate Candidate Trump as a
potential traitor and a Russian agent of influence
I guess it all now boils down to "Obama made me do it" and a great degrading of free will
faculties of participants (and planners) of this coup attempt. Interesting how Clapper will
interpret his comments on defective Russian genetics now.
It looks to me like someone at the New York Post once read Ames and Taibbi's Moscow based
English language newspaper The eXile - and they are ripping off their annual 'Worst Foreign
Correspondent in Moscow' contest:
http://exiledonline.com/old...
"Investigate the Russians for Interfering..."
Investigate means investigate. Interfering covers a broad range of activities and engages the
interpretive faculties. Interfering could mean spending unlimited amounts of clandestine
money to install one's preferred government such as took place with the State blessing of
Assistant SecSta Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland
to the alleged money grubbing social media trolling of a troll farm operating in Russia with
tenuous connections to the Russian government, if there were any at all.
Muellers lengthy investigation so far appears to have turned up not a lot. We have certainly
seen nothing yet put into the public domain that justifies Obama's precipitous wholesale
expulsion of Russian diplomats and seizure of Russian establishments that forced the "Russia,
very, very bad" meme into the electorate which had the intended or unintended consequence of
undermining Trump in his campaign promises to improve relations with Russia. With what we
have seen so far, I lean towards the intended.
Also, I read and hear asserted as a given, even from among Trump supporters, that the sources
cited in the Steele Dossier that was used to obtain the FISC warrant were Russian, the
implication being that it was some kind of Russian disinformation initiative that we should
be holding against the Russians for, well because they're Russians and they do stuff like
that.
For those that remember all the statements that former Director of the Central Intelligence
Agency, John Brennan made on Trump-Russia investigation, his latest appearance on MSNBC this
morning might come as a huge surprise:
Brennan on MSNBC: Well, I don't know if I received bad information but I think I suspected
there was more than there actually was. I am relieved that it's been determined there was not a
criminal conspiracy with the Russian government over our election.
"... Namely, that America is suffering Regime Failure. Thus, wrong-headed Washington policies have brought prosperity to Wall Street but not main street, which is what actually explains why Trump won the left-behind precincts of Flyover America. ..."
"... Regime Failure has also fostered confrontation with Russia when it is no threat to homeland security at all, but so doing has vilified Putin and Russia to the point that random dots of RussiaGate got woven into a preposterous theory of collusion. ..."
"... The foundation document which turned these random developments into the Russia Collusion story, of course, was the January 6, 2017 report entitled, "Assessing Russian Activities And Intentions in Recent US Elections". The report was nothing of the kind, of course, and is now well-understood to have been written by outgoing CIA director John Brennan and a hand-picked posse of politicized analysts from the CIA, FBI and NSA. It was essentially a political screed thinly disguised as the product of the professional intelligence community and was designed to discredit and sabotage the Trump presidency. ..."
"... William Binney, who is the father of modern NSA internet spying technologies, says that the DNC emails were leaked on a thumb-drive and couldn't have been hacked as a technical matter; and equally competent analysts have shown that Guccifer 2.0 is almost surely a NSA contrived fiction based on the oldest trick in the police precinct station house – planting evidence, in this case telltale Cyrillic letters and the name of a notorious head of the Soviet secret police. ..."
"... So what we are left with is the fact that Binney, a NSA veteran and actually the father of much of today's NSA internet spying capability, says that the recorded download speed of the DNC emails could only have been done by plugging a thumb-drive into the machines on site. That is, nothing downloads across 5,000 miles of digital expanse at the recorded 22.7 megabytes per second. ..."
"... The pure grandstanding nature of this blow against the purported election meddling of the nefarious Russians is more than evident in the 3,000 ads IRA bought on Facebook for about $100,000 – more than half of which were posted after the election. ..."
"... Yet here's a typical example of how the Russians stormed into America's sacred election space – even if according to Facebook this particular ad got less than 10,000 "impressions" and the mighty sum of 160 "shares" . For crying out loud, it didn't take any nefarious Russian intelligence agent to post this kind of cartoonish Islamophobia. There are millions of American xenophobes more than happy to do it with their own dime, time and bile. ..."
Now that the giant Mueller Nothingburger (with a side of
crow-flavored fries, per Jim Kunstler) has been officially delivered unto the mainstream
media's wailing and gnashing of teeth, the essence of the matter should be obvious: To wit,
the RussiaGate Collusion story was always way above the pay grade of the legal sleuths and
gunslingers who wasted $25 million on it – and notwithstanding 2,800 subpoenas, 500
witnesses, 40 FBI agents and 21 lawyers.
This prosecutorial blitzkrieg had no chance of discovering the nefarious facts of
conspiracy, however, because there never were any worthy of adult consideration. To the
contrary, from day #1 the whole cock-and-bull story was based on a syllogism which held that
Trump's very election victory and support for rapprochement with Russia were in themselves
proof of a conspiracy with the Kremlin to steal the election.
That is to say, by the lights of the Dems, official Washington and their mainstream media
echo chamber, Hillary Clinton could not have lost the 2016 election to the worst GOP
candidate in history including Barry Goldwater and Alf Landon (true) without the sinister
intervention of a foreign power hostile to Hillary.
Therefore, Putin and the Russians elected Trump. Q.E.D.
Likewise, Russia is perforce the enemy that Washington needs in order to stay in the
business of Empire. So advocacy of rapprochement with Moscow was per se evidence that the
Kremlin had blackmail (kompromat for the RussiaGate cognoscenti) on Trump and his
campaign.
Once these predicates were established, of course, any old dog-eared "facts" could be hung
on the frame in order to establishment an air of verisimilitude.
But now we know. Strip away the false predicates and the flotsam and jetsam of the case
fall flat on their face. Even 22 months of Mueller Time couldn't stich together a
Humpty-Dumpty that never was.
As it happens, however, there has been all along a perfectly plausible alternative
explanation for why Trump won and why repairing relations with Russia made eminent good
sense.
Namely, that America is suffering Regime Failure. Thus, wrong-headed Washington
policies have brought prosperity to Wall Street but not main street, which is what actually
explains why Trump won the left-behind precincts of Flyover America.
Regime Failure has also fostered confrontation with Russia when it is no threat to
homeland security at all, but so doing has vilified Putin and Russia to the point that random
dots of RussiaGate got woven into a preposterous theory of collusion.
What is left without the syllogistic predicates, of course, are the ludicrous threadbare
facts of the case.
After all, can there be anything more pitiful after 22 months of prosecutorial scorched
earth on the Russian collusion file than Mueller's list of indictments. These include:
13 Russian college kids for essentially practicing English as a third language at a St.
Petersburg troll farm for $4 per hour;
12 Russian intelligence operatives who might as well have been picked from the GRU
phonebook;
Baby George Papadopoulos for mis-recalling an irrelevant date by two weeks;
Paul Manafort for standard Washington lobbyist crimes committed long before he met
Trump;
Michael Cohen for shirking taxes and running Trump's bimbo silencing operation;
Michael Flynn for doing his job talking to the Russian Ambassador and confusing the
confusable Mike Pence on what he said and didn't say about Obama's idiotic 11th hour
Russian sanctions;
Rick Gates for helping Manafort shakedown the Ukrainian government and other oily
Washington supplicants.;
Sam Patten, another Manafort operative who forgot to register correctly as a foreign
agent;
Richard Pinedo, a grifter who never met Trump and got caught selling forged bank
accounts on-line to Russians for a couple bucks each;
Alex van der Zwaan, a Dutch lawyers who wrote a report for Manafort in 2012 and
misreported to the FBI what he told Gates about it.
That's all she wrote and it's about as pathetic as it gets. Mueller should have been
guffawed out of town on account of this tommyrot long before belatedly delivering a report
that proved exactly that.
So it is perhaps a measure of the degree to which the Imperial City has fallen prey to the
Trump Derangement Syndrome that the five core events of the case survived as long as they
did. In fact, it has long been evident from public information that there was nothing
nefarious about any of these ragged building blocks of the case:
Baby George Papadopoulos's drunken conversation with a London professor who has long
since disappeared and was likely a CIA asset;
Carter Page's self-promotion into a bogus FISA warrant;
the completely innocent June 2016 Trump Tower meeting;
the disputed case regarding whether the DNC was the victim of a hack or a leak;
and
the ludicrous efforts of the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg.
The foundation document which turned these random developments into the Russia Collusion
story, of course, was the January 6, 2017 report entitled, "Assessing Russian Activities And
Intentions in Recent US Elections". The report was nothing of the kind, of course, and is now well-understood to have been
written by outgoing CIA director John Brennan and a hand-picked posse of politicized analysts
from the CIA, FBI and NSA. It was essentially a political screed thinly disguised as the
product of the professional intelligence community and was designed to discredit and sabotage
the Trump presidency.
And it was lied about over and over by the MSM who called it an assessment of the 17 US
intelligence agencies when it was nothing of the kind, and said so right on the cover
page.
In fact, when we first read this ballyhooed report our thought was that someone at the
Onion had pilfered the CIA logo and published a sidesplitting satire.
The 9-pager on RT America, which is presented as evidence of "Kremlin messaging", is so
sophomoric and hackneyed that it could have been written by a summer intern at the CIA. It
consists entirely of a sloppy catalogue of leftist and libertarian based dissent from
mainstream policy that has been aired on RT America on such subversive topics as Occupy Wall
Street, anti-fracking, police brutality, foreign interventionism and civil liberties.
Actually, your editor has appeared dozens of times on RT America and advocated nearly
every position cited by the CIA as evidence of nefarious Russian propaganda.
And we thought it up all by ourselves!
So, yes, we do think US intervention in Syria was wrong; that Georgia was the aggressor
when it invaded South Ossetia; that the American people have been disenfranchised and need to
"take this government back"; that Washington runs a "surveillance state" where civil
liberties are being ridden roughshod upon; that Wall Street is riven with "greed" and the "US
national debt" is out of control; that the two-party system is a "sham "and that it doesn't
represent the views of "one-third of the population" (at least!); and that most especially
after killing millions in unnecessary wars Washington has "no moral right to teach the rest
of the world".
So there you have it: Policy views on various topics that are embraced in some instances
by both your libertarian editor and the left-wing Nation magazine were held to be examples of
Russian messaging, and alarming evidence of nefarious meddling in our electoral process at
that.
In fact, the single proposition in the entire ten-pages of political opinionating that
relates to an actual Russian intrusion (other than the hideous St. Petersburg troll farm
which we debunk below) in the American electoral process is the completely discredited notion
that the Russian GRU hacked the DNC emails and handed them off to WikiLeaks
No, not at all.
William Binney, who is the father of modern NSA internet spying technologies, says that
the DNC emails were leaked on a thumb-drive and couldn't have been
hacked as a technical matter; and equally competent analysts have shown that
Guccifer 2.0 is almost surely a NSA contrived fiction based on the oldest trick in the police
precinct station house – planting evidence, in this case telltale Cyrillic letters and
the name of a notorious head of the Soviet secret police.
Indeed, if the Russians did it – from a troll farm in St. Petersburg or the Kremlin
itself – the fingerprints from any remote hacking operation would be all over the
computers involved. Moreover, the National Security Agency (NSA) would have a record of the
breach stored at one of its server farms because it does capture and store everything that
comes into the US over the internet.
Said record, of course, would amount to the Smoking Intercept. So the only thing Mueller
really needed to do was to call the head of NSA and request the NSA intercept –
something he obviously didn't do or it would have leaked long ago.
In the alternative, if NSA has no such record, he could have confiscated the DNC computers
– which had never even been inspected by the FBI, let alone taken into custody –
to determine whether William Binney is right.
That didn't happen, either, or it too would have leaked in a heartbeat.
So what we are left with is the fact that Binney, a NSA veteran and actually the father of
much of today's NSA internet spying capability, says that the recorded download speed of the
DNC emails could only have been done by plugging a thumb-drive into the machines on site.
That is, nothing downloads across 5,000 miles of digital expanse at the recorded 22.7
megabytes per second.
In short, if the Russians hacked them, the evidence is all there in the hard drives; and
if they didn't, the entire RussiaGate hoax should have been shutdown long ago.
That's because the only thing that remotely smacks of untoward meddling by the Kremlin is
the DNC emails – and even then, they only concerned intra-party squabbles between the
Clinton and the Sandernista factions of the Dem party that were already well advertised and
known to the American electorate.
Cyber Garbage From the St. Petersburg Troll Farm
By contrast, another prime exhibit in the meddling narrative is the pitiful efforts of the
Russian troll farm called the Internet Research Agency (IRA). This is was cited over and over
by the RussiaGaters as evidence of Putin's nefarious hand at work, but did they ever
investigate the matter?
The fact is, the IRA was such a belly-splitting joke that they only thing it proved is
that prosecutor Mueller did actually indict 13 Russian-speaking ham sandwiches.
Indeed, the joker in the whole deck is that the nefarious"troll farm" in St. Petersburg
was not even a Russian intelligence agency operation at all.
It was just "Russian" even by the careful terminology of Barr's summary. As it happened,
the RussiaGate hysteria had reached such a point that any contact with any of Russia's 144
million citizens became inherently suspect, as if that beleaguered nation had become a race
of evildoers.
Actually, the IRA was the relatively harmless Hobby Farm of a fanatical Russian oligarch
and ultra-nationalist, Yevgeny Prigozhin, who has a great big beef against Imperial
Washington's demonization of Russia and Vlad Putin. Apparently, the farm was
(it's apparently being disbanded) the vehicle through which he gave Washington the middle
finger and buttered up his patron.
Prigozhin is otherwise known as "Putin's Cook" because he made his fortune in St.
Petersburg restaurants that Putin favored and via state funded food service operations at
Russian schools and military installations.
Like most Russian oligarchs not in jail, he apparently tithes in gratitude to the Kremlin:
In this case, by bankrolling the rinky-dink operation at 55 Savushkina Street in St.
Petersburg that was the object of Mueller's pretentious foray into the flotsam and jetsam of
social media low life.
Prigozhin's trolling farm was grandly called the Internet Research Agency (IRA), but what
it actually did was hire (apparently) unemployed 20-somethings at $4-8 per hour to pound out
ham-handed political messaging on social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter,
YouTube, etc. They banged away twelve hours at a shift on a quota-driven
paint-by-the-internet-numbers basis where their output was rated for engagements, likes,
retweets etc.
Whatever these keyboard drones might have been, they were not professional Russian intel
operators. And the collection of broken English postings strewn throughout Mueller's
indictment were not one bit scary.
The pure grandstanding nature of this blow against the purported election meddling of the
nefarious Russians is more than evident in the 3,000 ads IRA bought on Facebook for about
$100,000 – more than half of which were posted after the election.
Yet here's a typical example of how the Russians stormed into America's sacred election
space – even if according to Facebook this particular ad got less than 10,000
"impressions" and the mighty sum of 160 "shares" . For crying out loud, it didn't take any nefarious Russian intelligence agent to post this
kind of cartoonish Islamophobia. There are millions of American xenophobes more than happy to
do it with their own dime, time and bile.
This is probably the most comprehensive outline of the color revolution against Trump. Bravo, simply bravo !!!
Reads like Agatha Christi Murder on the Orient
Express ;-) Rosenstein role is completely revised from a popular narrative. Brennan role clarifies and detailed. Obama
personal role hinted. Victoria Nuland role and the role of the State Department in Russiagate is documented for the first
time, I think.
Notable quotes:
"... The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation, led by McCabe, could continue unhindered. ..."
"... Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known since at least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr, an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working for Fusion GPS sometime in late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier. ..."
"... The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided by Section 2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's data-sharing order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission. ..."
"... Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken. ..."
"... The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and charged with one count of lying to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time. ..."
"... The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the former British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute, to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017, statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey. ..."
"... Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations -- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia. ..."
"... Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents? ..."
Spygate: The True Story of Collusion [Infographic] How America's most powerful agencies were weaponized against President
Donald Trump
Although the details remain complex, the structure underlying Spygate -- the creation of the false narrative that candidate Donald
Trump colluded with Russia, and the spying on his presidential campaign -- remains surprisingly simple:
CIA Director John Brennan, with some assistance from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, gathered foreign intelligence
and fed it throughout our domestic Intelligence Community.
The FBI became the handler of Brennan's intelligence and engaged in the more practical elements of surveillance.
The Department of Justice facilitated investigations by the FBI and legal maneuverings, while providing a crucial shield of
nondisclosure.
The Department of State became a mechanism of information dissemination and leaks.
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee provided funding, support, and media collusion.
Obama administration officials were complicit, and engaged in unmasking and intelligence gathering and dissemination.
The media was the most corrosive element in many respects. None of these events could have transpired without their willing
participation. Stories were pushed, facts were ignored, and narratives were promoted.
Let's start with a simple premise: The candidacy of Trump presented both an opportunity and a threat.
Initially not viewed with any real seriousness, Trump's campaign was seen as an opportunistic wedge in the election process. At
the same time, and particularly as the viability of his candidacy increased, Trump was seen as an existential threat to the established
political system.
The sudden legitimacy of Trump's candidacy was not welcomed by the U.S. political establishment. Here was a true political outsider
who held no traditional allegiances. He was brash and boastful, he ignored political correctness, he couldn't be bought, and he didn't
care what others thought of him -- he trusted himself.
Governing bodies in Britain and the European Union were also worried. Candidate Trump was openly challenging monetary policy,
regulations, and the power of special interests. He challenged Congress. He challenged the United Nations and the European Union.
He questioned everything.
Brennan played a crucial role in the creation of the Russia-collusion narrative and the spying on the Trump campaign. (Don Emmert/AFP/Getty
Images)
Brennan became the point man in the operation to stop a potential Trump presidency. It remains unclear whether his role was self-appointed
or came from above. To embark on such a mission without direct presidential authority seems both a stretch of the imagination and
particularly foolhardy.
Brennan took unofficial foreign intelligence compiled by contacts, colleagues, and associates --
primarily from the UK , but also from other Five Eyes members, such as Australia.
Individuals in official positions in UK intelligence, such as Robert Hannigan -- head of the UK Government Communications Headquarters
(GCHQ, Britain's equivalent of the National Security Agency) -- partnered with former UK foreign intelligence members. Former MI6
head Sir Richard Dearlove
, former Ambassador Sir Andrew Wood, and private UK intelligence firm
Hakluyt all played a role.
In the summer of 2016, Hannigan traveled to Washington to
meet with Brennan
regarding alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. On Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration
-- Hannigan abruptly announced
his retirement. The Guardian openly
speculated that Hannigan's
resignation was directly related to the sharing of UK intelligence.
One method used to help establish evidence of collusion was the employment of "spy traps." Prominent among these were ones set
for Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page. The intent was to provide or establish connections between the Trump
campaign and Russia. The content and context mattered little as long as a connection could be established that could then be publicized.
The June 2016 Trump Tower meeting was another such attempt.
Western intelligence assets were used to initiate and establish these connections, particularly in the cases of Papadopoulos and
Page.
Ultimately, Brennan formed an inter-agency task
force comprising an estimated six agencies and/or government departments. The FBI, Treasury, and DOJ handled the domestic inquiry
into Trump and possible Russia connections. The CIA, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency
(NSA) handled foreign and intelligence aspects.
Brennan's inter-agency task force is not to be confused with the July 2016 FBI counterintelligence investigation, which was formed
later at Brennan's urging.
During this time, Brennan also employed the use of
reverse targeting , which relates to the targeting of a foreign individual with the intent of capturing data on a U.S. citizen.
This effort was uncovered and
made public by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) in a March 2017
press conference :
"I have seen intelligence reports that clearly show the president-elect and his team were monitored and disseminated out in
intelligence-reporting channels. Details about persons associated with the incoming administration, details with little apparent
foreign-intelligence value were widely disseminated in intelligence community reporting.
"From what I know right now, it looks like incidental collection. We don't know exactly how that was picked up but we're trying
to get to the bottom of it."
As this foreign intelligence -- unofficial in nature and outside of any traditional channels -- was gathered, Brennan began a
process of feeding his gathered intelligence to the FBI. Repeated transfers of foreign intelligence from the CIA director pushed
the FBI toward the establishment of a formal counterintelligence investigation. Brennan repeatedly noted this during
a May 23, 2017, congressional testimony :
"I made sure that anything that was involving U.S. persons, including anything involving the individuals involved in the Trump
campaign, was shared with the [FBI]."
Brennan also admitted that his intelligence helped establish
the FBI investigation:
"I was aware of intelligence and information about contacts between Russian officials and U.S. persons that raised concerns in
my mind about whether or not those individuals were cooperating with the Russians, either in a witting or unwitting fashion, and
it served as the basis for the FBI investigation to determine whether such collusion [or] cooperation occurred."
Once the FBI began its counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016, Brennan shifted his focus. Through a series of meetings
in August and September 2016, Brennan informed the congressional Gang of Eight regarding intelligence and information he had gathered.
Notably, each Gang of Eight member was briefed separately, calling into question whether each of the members received the same information.
Efforts to
block the release of the transcripts from each meeting remain ongoing.
This final report was used to continue pushing the Russia-collusion narrative following the election of President Donald Trump.
Notably, Admiral Mike Rogers of the NSA publicly dissented from the findings of the ICA, assigning only a moderate confidence level.
Although the FBI is technically part of the DOJ, it is best for the purposes of this article that the FBI and DOJ be viewed as
separate entities, each with its own related ties.
The FBI itself was comprised of various factions, with a particularly active element that has come to be known as the "insurance
policy group." It appears that this faction was led by FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and comprised other notable names such as
FBI agent Peter Strzok, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, and FBI general counsel James Baker.
The FBI established the counterintelligence investigation into alleged Russia collusion with the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Comey initially refused to say whether the FBI was investigating possible connections between members of the Trump campaign and Russia.
He would continue to refuse to provide answers until March 20, 2017, when he disclosed the existence of the FBI investigation
during congressional testimony.
Comey also testified that he did not provide notification to the Gang of Eight until early March 2017 -- less than one month earlier.
This admission was in stark contrast to actions taken by Brennan, who had notified members of the Gang of Eight individually during
August and September 2016. It's likely that Brennan never informed Comey that he had briefed the Gang of Eight in 2016. Comey did
note that the DOJ "had been aware" of the investigation all along.
Comey opened the counterintelligence investigation into Trump on the urging of CIA Director John Brennan.
Following Comey's firing on May 9, 2017, the FBI's investigation was transferred to special counsel Robert Mueller. The
Mueller investigation remains ongoing.
The FBI's formal involvement with the
Steele dossier began on July 5, 2016,
when Mike Gaeta, an FBI agent and assistant legal attaché at the US Embassy in Rome, was dispatched to visit former MI6 spy Christopher
Steele in London. Gaeta would return from this meeting with a copy of Steele's first memo. This memo was given to Victoria Nuland
at the State Department, who passed it along to the FBI.
Gaeta, who also headed the FBI's Eurasian Organized Crime unit, had known Steele since at least 2010, when Steele had provided
assistance to the FBI's investigation into the
FIFA corruption
scandal .
Prior to the London meeting, Gaeta may also have met on a less formal basis with Steele
several weeks earlier.
"In June, Steele flew to Rome to brief the FBI contact with whom he had cooperated over FIFA," The Guardian reported. "His information
started to reach the bureau in Washington."
It's worth noting that there was no "dossier" until it was fully compiled in December 2016. There was only a sequence of documents
from Steele -- documents that were passed on individually -- as they were created. Therefore, from the FBI's legal perspective, they
didn't use the dossier. They used individual documents.
For the next month and a half, there appeared to be little contact between Steele and the FBI. However, the FBI's interest in
the dossier suddenly accelerated in late August 2016, when the bureau
asked Steele "for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify
his sources."
In September 2016, Steele traveled back to Rome to meet with the FBI's Eurasian squad once again. It's likely that the meeting
included several other FBI officials as well. According to a
House Intelligence Committee
minority memo , Steele's reporting reached the FBI counterintelligence team in mid-September 2016 -- the same time as Steele's
September trip to Rome.
The reason for the FBI's renewed interest had to do with an adviser to the Trump campaign -- Carter Page -- who had been in
contact with Stefan Halper, a CIA
and FBI source, since July 2016. Halper
arranged to meet with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page took a trip
to Moscow. Speakers at the symposium included Madeleine Albright, Vin Webber, and Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6.
Page was now the FBI's chosen target for a FISA warrant that would be obtained on Oct. 21, 2016. The Steele dossier would be the
primary evidence used in obtaining the FISA warrant, which would be renewed three separate times, including after Trump took office,
finally expiring in September 2017.
Former volunteer Trump campaign adviser Carter Page on Nov. 2, 2017. The FBI obtained a retroactive FISA spy warrant
on Page.
After being in contact with Page for 14 months, Halper stopped contact exactly as the final FISA warrant on Page expired. Page,
who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, was never charged with any crime by the FBI. Efforts for the declassification of the
Page FISA application are currently ongoing through the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were two prominent members of the FBI's "insurance policy" group. Strzok, a senior FBI agent, was the
deputy assistant director of FBI's Counterintelligence Division. Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, served as special counsel to FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe.
Strzok was in charge of the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server for government business. He helped
FBI Director James Comey draft the statement exonerating Clinton and was personally responsible for changing specific wording within
that statement that reduced Clinton's legal liability. Specifically, Strzok changed the words "grossly negligent," which could be
a criminal offense, to "extremely careless."
Strzok also personally led the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into the alleged Trump–Russia collusion and signed the
documents that opened the investigation on July 31, 2016. He was one of the FBI agents who interviewed Trump's national security
adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn. Strzok met multiple times with DOJ official Bruce Ohr and received information from Steele at those
meetings.
Following the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Strzok would join the team of special counsel Robert Mueller. Two months later,
he was removed from that team after the DOJ inspector general discovered a lengthy series of texts between Strzok and Page that contained
politically charged messages. Strzok would be fired from the FBI in August 2018.
Both Strzok and Page engaged in strategic
leaking to the press. Page did so at the direction of McCabe, who directly
authorized Page to share information with Wall Street
Journal reporter Devlin Barrett. That information was used in an Oct. 30, 2016, article headlined
"FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe ." Page leaked to Barrett thinking she had been granted legal and official authorization
to do so.
McCabe would later initially deny providing such
authorization to the Office of Inspector General. Page, when confronted with McCabe's denials, produced texts refuting his statement.
It was these texts that led to the inspector general uncovering the texts between Strzok and Page.
The two exchanged thousands of texts, some of them indicating surveillance activities, over a two-year period. Texts sent between
Aug. 21, 2015, and June 25, 2017, have been made
public . The series comes
to an end with a final text by Page telling Strzok, "Don't ever text me again."
On Aug. 8, 2016, Stzrok wrote that they would prevent candidate Trump from becoming president:
Page: "[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!"
Strzok: "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
On Aug. 15, 2016, Strzok sent a text referring to an "insurance policy":
"I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way [Trump] gets elected --
but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40."
The "insurance policy" appears to have been the effort to legitimize the Trump–Russia collusion narrative so that an FBI investigation,
led by McCabe, could continue unhindered.
Department of Justice
The Department of Justice, which comprises 60 agencies , was transformed
during the Obama years. The department is forbidden by federal law from hiring employees based on political affiliation.
However, a
series
of investigative articles by PJ Media published during Eric Holder's tenure as attorney general revealed an unsettling pattern
of ideological conformity among new hires at the DOJ: Only lawyers from the progressive left were hired. Not one single moderate
or conservative lawyer made the cut. This is significant as the DOJ enjoys significant latitude in determining who will be subject
to prosecution.
The DOJ's job in Spygate was to facilitate the legal side of surveillance while providing a protective layer of cover for all
those involved. The department became a repository of information and provided a protective wall between the investigative efforts
of the FBI and the legislative branch. Importantly, it also served as the firewall within the executive branch, serving as the insulating
barrier between the FBI and Obama officials. The department had become legendary for its stonewalling tactics with Congress.
DOJ Official Bruce Ohr on Aug. 28, 2018. Ohr passed on information from Christopher Steele to the FBI.
The DOJ, which was fully aware of the actions being taken by James Comey and the FBI, also became an active element acting against
members of the Trump campaign. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, along with Mary McCord, the head of the DOJ's National Security
Division, was actively
involved in efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn from his position as national security adviser to President Trump.
To this day, it remains unknown which individual was responsible for making public Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador. Flynn
ultimately pleaded guilty to a process crime: lying to the FBI. There have been
questions raised in Congress regarding the possible alteration of FD-302s, the written notes of Flynn's FBI interviews. Special
counsel Robert Mueller has repeatedly deferred Flynn's sentencing hearing.
David Laufman, deputy assistant attorney general in charge of counterintelligence at the DOJ's National Security Division, played
a key role in both the Clinton email server and Russia hacking investigations. Laufman is currently the attorney for Monica McLean,
the long-time friend of Christine Blasey Ford, who recently accused Judge Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her while in high
school. McLean was also
employed
by the FBI for 24 years.
Bruce Ohr was a significant DOJ official who played a
key role in Spygate. Ohr held
two important positions at the DOJ: associate deputy attorney general, and director of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task
Force. As associate deputy attorney general, Ohr was just four offices away from then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, and he
reported directly to her. As director of the task force, he was in charge of a program described as "the centerpiece of the attorney
general's drug strategy."
Ohr, one of the highest-ranking officials in the DOJ, was communicating on an ongoing basis with Steele, whom he had known
since at
least 2006 , well into mid-2017. He is also married to Nellie Ohr,
an expert on Russia and Eurasia who began working
for Fusion GPS sometime in
late 2015 . Nellie Ohr likely played a significant role in the construction of the dossier.
According to testimony from FBI agent Peter Strzok, he and Ohr met at least five times during 2016 and 2017. Strzok was working
directly with then-Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe.
Additionally, Ohr met with the FBI at least
12 times between late November 2016 and May 2017 for a series of interviews. These meetings could have been used to
transmit information from Steele to the FBI. This came after the FBI had formally severed contact with Steele in late October
or early November 2016.
John Carlin is another notable figure with the DOJ. Carlin was an assistant attorney general and the head of the DOJ's National
Security Division until October 2016. His role will be discussed below in the section on FISA abuse.
The Battle Between Rosenstein and McCabe
Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe held a pivotal role in what has become known as "Spygate." He directed the activities of Peter
Strzok and Lisa Page and was involved in all aspects of the Russia investigation. He was also mentioned in the infamous "insurance
policy" text message.
McCabe was a major component of the insurance policy.
On April 26, 2017, Rosenstein found himself appointed as the new deputy attorney general. He was placed into a somewhat chaotic
situation, as Attorney General Jeff Sessions had recused himself from the ongoing Russia investigation a little less than two months
earlier, on March 2, 2017. This effectively meant that no one in the Trump administration had any oversight of the ongoing investigation
being conducted by the FBI and the DOJ.
Additionally, the leadership of then-FBI Director James Comey was coming under increased scrutiny as the result of actions taken
leading up to and following the election, particularly Comey's handling of the Clinton email investigation.
On May 9, 2017, Rosenstein wrote a memorandum recommending that Comey be fired. The subject of the memo was "Restoring Public
Confidence in the FBI." Comey was fired that day. McCabe was now the acting director of the FBI and was immediately under consideration
for the permanent position.
On the same day Comey was fired, McCabe would lie during an interview with agents from the FBI's Inspection Division (INSD) regarding
apparent leaks that were used in an Oct. 30, 2016, Wall Street Journal article, "FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe"
by Devlin Barrett. This would later be disclosed in the inspector general report, "A Report of Investigation of Certain Allegations
Relating to Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe."
At the time, nobody, including the INSD agents, knew that McCabe had lied, nor were the darker aspects of McCabe's role in Spygate
fully known.
In late April or early May 2016, McCabe opened a federal criminal investigation on Sessions, regarding potential lack of candor
before Congress in relation to Sessions's contacts with Russians. Sessions was unaware of the investigation.
Sessions would later be cleared of any wrongdoing by special counsel Robert Mueller.
On the morning of May 16, 2017, Rosenstein reportedly suggested to McCabe that he secretly record President Trump. This remark
was reported in a New York Times article that was sourced from memos from the now-fired McCabe, along with testimony taken from former
FBI general counsel James Baker, who relayed a conversation he had with McCabe about the occurrence. Rosenstein issued a statement
denying the accusations.
The alleged comments by Rosenstein occurred at a meeting where McCabe was "pushing for the Justice Department to open an investigation
into the president." An unnamed participant at the meeting, in comments to The Washington Post, framed the conversation somewhat
differently, noting Rosenstein responded sarcastically to McCabe, saying, "What do you want to do, Andy, wire the president?"
Later, on the same day that Rosenstein had his meetings with McCabe, President Trump met with Mueller, reportedly as an interview
for the FBI director job. On May 17, 2017, the day after President Trump's meeting with Mueller -- and the day after Rosenstein's
encounters with McCabe -- Rosenstein appointed Mueller as special counsel.
The May 17 appointment of Mueller in effect shifted control of the Russia investigation from the FBI and McCabe to Mueller. Rosenstein
would retain ultimate authority for the probe and any expansion of Mueller's investigation required authorization from Rosenstein.
Interestingly, without Comey's memo leaks, a special counsel might not have been appointed -- the FBI, and possibly McCabe, would
have remained in charge of the Russia investigation. McCabe was probably not going to become the permanent FBI director, but he was
reportedly under consideration. Regardless, without Comey's leak, McCabe would have retained direct involvement and the FBI would
have retained control.
On July 28, 2017, McCabe lied to Inspector General Michael Horowitz while under oath regarding authorization of the leaking to
The Wall Street Journal. At this point, Horowitz knew McCabe was lying, but did not yet know of the May 9 INSD interview with McCabe.
On Aug. 2, 2017, Rosenstein secretly issued Mueller a revised memo on "the scope of investigation and definition of authority"
that remains heavily redacted. The full purpose of this memo remains unknown. On this same day, Christopher Wray was named as the
new FBI director.
Two days later, on Aug. 4, 2017, Sessions announced that the FBI had created a new leaks investigation unit. Rosenstein and Wray
were tasked with overseeing all leak investigations.
That Aug. 2 memo from Rosenstein to Mueller may have been specifically designed to remove any residual FBI influence -- specifically
that of McCabe -- from the Russia investigation. The appointment of Wray as FBI director helped cement this. McCabe was finally completely
neutralized.
On March 16, 2018, McCabe was fired for lying under oath at least three different times and is currently the subject of a grand
jury investigation.
State Department
The State Department, with its many contacts within foreign governments, became a conduit for the flow of information. The transfer
of Christopher Steele's first dossier memo was personally
facilitated by Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. Nuland gave approval for
FBI agent Michael Gaeta to travel to London to obtain the memo from Steele. The memo may have passed directly from her to FBI leadership.
Secretary of State John Kerry was also given a copy.
Steele was already well-known within the State Department. Following Steele's involvement in the FIFA scandal investigation, he
began to provide reports
informally to the State Department. The reports were written for a "private client" but were "shared widely within the U.S. State
Department, and sent up to Secretary of State John Kerry and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, who was in charge of
the U.S.
response to Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert invasion of eastern Ukraine," the Guardian reported.
Nuland passed on parts of the Steele dossier to the FBI. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
In July 2016, when the FBI wanted to send Gaeta to visit Steele in London, the bureau
sought permission from the office of Nuland, who provided this version of events during a Feb. 4, 2018,
appearance on CBS's "Face the Nation":
"In the middle of July, when [Steele] was doing this other work and became concerned, he passed two to four pages of short
points of what he was finding and our immediate reaction to that was, this is not in our purview. This needs to go to the FBI
if there is any concern here that one candidate or the election as a whole might be influenced by the Russian Federation. That's
something for the FBI to investigate."
Steele also
met with Jonathan Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for international law enforcement and former special envoy
for Libya. Steele and Winer had known each other since at least 2010. In an opinion article in The Washington Post, Winer wrote the
following:
"In September 2016, Steele and I met in Washington and discussed the information now known as the 'dossier.' Steele's sources
suggested that the Kremlin not only had been behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign
but also had compromised Trump and developed ties with his associates and campaign."
In a strange turn of events, Winer also received a
separate dossier , very similar to Steele's, from long-time Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal. This "second dossier" had been
compiled by another longtime Clinton operative, former journalist Cody Shearer, and echoed claims made in the Steele dossier. Winer
then met with Steele in late September 2016 and gave Steele a copy of the "second dossier." Steele went on to
share this second dossier with the FBI, which may have used it to corroborate his dossier.
Winer passed on memos from Christopher Steele to Victoria Nuland. (State Department)
Other foreign officials also used conduits into the State Department. Alexander Downer, Australia's high commissioner to the UK,
reportedly funneled his conversation
with Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos -- later used as a reason to open the FBI's counterintelligence investigation --
directly to the U.S. Embassy in London.
"The Downer details landed with the embassy's then-chargé d'affaires, Elizabeth Dibble, who previously served as a principal deputy
assistant secretary in Mrs. Clinton's State Department," The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel wrote in a May 31, 2018,
article .
If true, this would mean that neither Australian intelligence nor the Australian government alerted the FBI to the Papadopoulos
information. What happened with the Downer details, and to whom they were ultimately relayed, remains unknown.
Curiously, details surprisingly similar to the Papadopoulos–Downer conversation show up in the
first memo written
by Steele on June 20, 2016:
"A dossier of compromising information on Hillary Clinton has been collated by the Russian Intelligence Services over many
years and mainly comprises bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls. It has not yet
been distributed abroad, including to Trump."
Clinton Campaign and the DNC
The Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee both occupied a unique position. They had the most to gain but they
also had the most to lose. And they stood willing and ready to do whatever was necessary to win. Hillary Clinton's campaign manager,
Robby Mook, is credited with being the first to raise the specter of candidate Donald Trump's alleged collusion with Russia.
The entire Clinton campaign willfully promoted the narrative of Russia–Trump collusion despite the uncomfortable fact that they
were the ones who had engaged the services of Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele through their law firm Perkins Coie. Information
flowed from the campaign -- sometimes through Perkins Coie, other times through affiliates -- ultimately making its way into the
media and sometimes to the FBI. Information from the Clinton campaign may also have ended up in the Steele dossier.
Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Clinton campaign, in tandem with Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser
to the campaign,
took the lead in briefing the press on the Trump–Russia collusion story.
Another example of this behavior can be seen from an instance when Perkins Coie lawyer Michael Sussmann
leaked information from Steele and Fusion GPS to Franklin Foer of Slate magazine. This event is described in the House Intelligence
Committee's final report on
Russian active measures
, in footnote 43 on page 57. Foer then published the article
"Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia? " on Oct. 31, 2016. The article concerns allegations regarding a server in the
Trump Tower.
The Slate article managed to attract the immediate attention of Clinton, who posted a
tweet on the same day the article was
published:
"Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank."
Attached to her tweet was a
statement from Sullivan:
"This could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow. Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank.
"This secret hotline may be the key to unlocking the mystery of Trump's ties to Russia. It certainly seems the Trump Organization
felt it had something to hide, given that it apparently took steps to conceal the link when it was discovered by journalists."
These statements, which were later proven to be incorrect, are all the more disturbing with the hindsight knowledge that it was
a senior Clinton/DNC lawyer who helped plant the story. And given the prepared statement by Sullivan, the Clinton campaign knew this.
This type of behavior would be engaged in repeatedly -- damning leaks leading to media stories, followed by ready attacks from
the Clinton campaign.
Alexandra Chalupa is a Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee. Chalupa
met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.
Chalupa began investigating
Manafort in 2014. In late 2015, Chalupa expanded her opposition research on Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. In January
2016, Chalupa shared her information with a senior DNC official.
Chalupa's meetings with DNC and Ukrainian officials would continue. On April 26, 2016, investigative reporter Michael Isikoff
published a story
on Yahoo News about Manafort's business dealings with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. It was later learned from a DNC email leaked
by Wikileaks that Chalupa had been working with Isikoff
-- the same journalist Christopher Steele
leaked to
in September 2016. Manafort would later be indicted for Foreign Agents Registration Act violations that occurred during the Obama
administration.
Perkins Coie
International law firm Perkins Coie served as the legal arm for both the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Ties to Perkins Coie extended
beyond the DNC into the Obama White House.
Bob Bauer, a partner at the law firm and founder of its political law practice, served as
White House counsel to President Barack Obama throughout 2010 and 2011. Bauer was also
general counsel to Obama's campaign organization, Obama for America, in 2008 and 2012.
Perkins Coie partners Marc Elias and Michael Sussmann each played critical roles and were the ones who hired Fusion GPS and Steele.
Sussmann
personally handled the alleged hack of the DNC server. He also transmitted information, likely from Steele and Fusion GPS, to
James Baker, then-chief counsel at the FBI, and to several members of the press.
Perkins Coie partner Michael Sussmann. Sussmann transmitted information to FBI chief counsel James Baker and several
journalists. (Courtesy Perkins Coie)
According to a
letter
dated Oct. 24, 2017, written by Matthew Gehringer, general counsel at Perkins Coie, the firm was approached by Fusion GPS founder
Glenn Simpson in early March 2016 regarding the possibility of hiring Fusion GPS to continue opposition research into the Trump campaign.
Simpson's overtures were successful, and in April 2016, Perkins Coie
hired
Fusion GPS on behalf of the DNC.
Sometime in April or May 2016, Fusion GPS
hired Christopher Steele. During
this same period, Fusion also reportedly
hired Nellie Ohr, the wife of Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr. Steele would complete his first memo on June 20, 2016,
and send it to Fusion via enciphered mail.
Perkins Coie appears to have also been acting as a conduit between the DNC and the FBI.
Documents suggest that Sussmann was feeding information to FBI general counsel James Baker and at least one journalist ahead
of the FBI's application for a FISA warrant on the Trump campaign.
The information provided by Sussmann may have been used by the FBI as "corroborating information."
Obama Administration
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is
provided by
Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia Evelyn Farkas on May 6, 2014. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
Clapper leaked information to CNN, after which he publicly condemned the leaks. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Media
In some respects, the media has played the most disingenuous of roles. Areas of investigation that historically would have proven
irresistible to reporters of the past have been steadfastly ignored. False narratives have been all-too-willingly promoted and facts
ignored. Fusion GPS personally made a
series of payments to several as-of-yet-
unnamed reporters .
The majority of the mainstream media has represented positions of the DNC and the Clinton campaign.
Steele met with members of certain media with relative frequency. In
September 2016 ,
he met with a number of U.S. journalists for "The New York Times, the Washington Post, Yahoo! News, the New Yorker and CNN," according
to The Guardian. It was during this period that Steele met with Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News.
In mid-October
2016, Steele returned to New York and met with reporters again. Toward the end of October, Steele spoke via Skype with Mother
Jones reporter David Corn.
Leaking, including felony leaking of classified information, has been widespread. The Carter Page FISA warrant -- likely the
unredacted version -- has been in the possession of The Washington Post and The New York Times since March 2017. Traditionally, the
intelligence community leaked to The Washington Post while the DOJ leaked to sources within The New York Times. This was a historical
pattern that stood until this election. The leaking became so widespread, even this tradition was broken.
On April 3, 2017, BuzzFeed reporter Ali Watkins wrote the article "
A Former Trump Adviser Met With a Russian Spy ." In the article, she identified "Male-1," referred to in
court documents
relating to the case of Russian spy Evgeny Buryakov, as Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who had provided the FBI with assistance
in the case. Just over a week later, on April 11, 2017, a Washington Post article, "
FBI Obtained FISA Warrant to Monitor Former Trump Adviser Carter Page ," confirmed the existence of the October 2016 Page FISA
warrant.
The information contained within both articles likely came via felony leaks from James Wolfe, former director of security
for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who was arrested on June 7, 2018, and
charged with one count of lying
to the FBI. Wolfe's indictment
alleges that he was leaking classified information to multiple reporters over an extended period of time.
Reporter Ali Watkins likely received the undredacted FISA application on Carter Page from James Wolfe.
It appears probable that Wolfe leaked unredacted copies of the Page FISA application. According to the
indictment , Wolfe
exchanged 82 text messages with
Watkins on March 17, 2017. That same evening they engaged in a 28-minute phone call. The original Page FISA application is 83 pages
long, including one final signatory page.
In the public version of the application, there are 37 fully redacted pages. In addition to that, several other pages have redactions
for all but the header. There are only two pages in the entire document that contain no redactions.
Why would Wolfe bother to send 37 pages of complete redactions? It seems more than plausible that Wolfe took pictures of the original
unredacted FISA application and sent them by text to Watkins.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes has repeatedly
stated that evidence within the FISA application
shows the counterintelligence agencies were abused by the Obama administration. Most of the mainstream media has known this.
Despite this, most major news organizations for over two years have promoted the Russia-collusion narrative. Despite ample evidence
having come out to the contrary, they have not admitted they were wrong, likely because doing so would mean they would have to admit
their complicity.
Foreign Intelligence
UK and Australian intelligence agencies also played meaningful roles during the 2016 presidential election.
Britain's GCHQ was involved in
collecting information regarding then-candidate Trump and transmitting it to the United States. In the summer of 2016, Robert
Hannigan, the head of GCHQ, flew from London to
meet personally
with then-CIA Director John Brennan, The Guardian reported.
Former GCHQ head Robert Hannigan in this file photo. Hannigan transmitted information regarding Donald Trump to John
Brennan in the summer of 2016. (Romeo Gacad/AFP/Getty Images)
Hannigan's meeting was noteworthy because Brennan wasn't Hannigan's counterpart. That position belonged to NSA Director Mike Rogers.
In the following year, Hannigan
abruptly announced
his retirement on Jan. 23, 2017 -- three days after Trump's inauguration.
As GCHQ was gathering intelligence, low-level Trump campaign foreign-policy adviser George Papadopoulos appears to have been targeted
after a series of highly coincidental meetings. Maltese professor Josef Mifsud, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, FBI informant
Stefan Halper, and officials from the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) all crossed paths with Papadopoulos -- some repeatedly
so.
Christopher Steele, who authored the dossier on Trump, was an MI6 agent while the agency was headed by Sir Richard Dearlove. Steele
retains close ties with Dearlove.
Dearlove has ties to most of the parties mentioned. It was he who advised Steele and his business partner, Chris Burrows, to
work with a top British government official to pass along information to the FBI in the fall of 2016. He also was a speaker at
the July 2016 Cambridge symposium that Halper invited Carter
Page to attend.
Dearlove knows Halper through their
mutual association at the Cambridge Intelligence Seminar. Dearlove also knows Sir Iain Lobban, a former head of GCHQ, who is
an advisory board member at British strategic intelligence
and advisory firm Hakluyt , which was founded by former MI6 members and
retains close ties to UK intelligence services.
Halper has historical connections to Hakluyt through Jonathan Clarke, with whom he has
co-authored two books.
Downer, who
met Papadopoulos in a May 2016 meeting
established through a chain
of two intermediaries, served on the advisory board of Hakluyt
from 2008 to 2014. He reportedly still
maintains contact with Hakluyt officials. Information from his meeting with Papadopoulos was later used by the FBI to establish
the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. Downer has changed his version of events multiple times.
The Steele dossier was fed into U.S. channels through several different sources. One such source was Sir Andrew Wood, the
former
British ambassador to Russia, who had been briefed about the dossier by Steele. Wood later
relayed information regarding the dossier to Sen. John McCain, who dispatched David Kramer, a fellow at the McCain Institute,
to London to meet with Steele in November 2016. McCain would later admit in a Jan. 11, 2017,
statement that he had personally passed on the dossier to then-FBI Director James Comey.
Trump, after issuing an order for the declassification of documents and text messages related to the Russia-collusion investigations
-- including parts of the Carter Page FISA warrant application -- received phone calls from two U.S. allies saying, "Please, can
we talk." Those "allies" were almost certainly the UK and Australia.
In a Twitter post , Trump wrote that
the "key Allies called to ask not to release" the documents.
Questions to be asked are why is it that two of our allies would find themselves so opposed to the release of these classified
documents that a coordinated plea would be made directly to the president? And why would these same allies have even the slightest
idea of what was contained in these classified U.S. documents?
Britain and Australia appear to know full well what those documents contain, and their attempt to prevent their public release
appears to be because they don't want their role in events surrounding the 2016 presidential election to be made public.
Fusion GPS/Orbis/Christopher Steele
Glenn Simpson, a former Wall Street Journal reporter, is co-founder of Fusion GPS, along with Peter Fritsch and Tom Catan. Fusion
was hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign through law firm Perkins Coie to produce and disseminate the Steele dossier used against
Trump. The dossier would later be the primary evidence used to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page on Oct. 21, 2016.
The company was hired by the Clinton campaign and the DNC–through law firm Perkins Coie–to produce the dossier on Trump.
Christopher Steele, who retains close ties to UK intelligence, worked for MI6 from 1987 until his retirement in 2009, when he
and his partner, Chris Burrows, founded Orbis Intelligence. Steele
maintains contact with British intelligence,
Sir Richard Dearlove
, and UK intelligence firm Hakluyt.
Steele appears to have been
represented
by lawyer Adam Waldman, who also represented Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. We know this from
texts sent by Waldman. On April 10, 2017, Waldman sent this to Sen. Mark Warner:
"Hi. Steele: would like to get a bi partisan letter from the committee; Assange: I convinced him to make serious and important
concessions and am discussing those w DOJ; Deripaska: willing to testify to congress but interested in state of play w Manafort.
I will be with him next tuesday for a week."
Steele also appears to have
lobbied on behalf of Deripaska, who was discussed in
emails between Bruce Ohr and Steele that were recently
disclosed by the Washington Examiner:
"Steele said he was 'circulating some recent sensitive Orbis reporting' on Deripaska that suggested Deripaska was not a 'tool'
of the Kremlin. Steele said he would send the reporting to a name that is redacted in the email."
Fusion GPS was also employed by Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya in a previous case. Veselnitskaya was involved in litigation
pitting Russian firm Prevezon Holdings against British-American financier William Browder. Veselnitskaya hired U.S. law firm BakerHostetler,
who, in turn, hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on Browder. Veselnitskaya was one of the participants at the June 2016 Trump Tower
meeting, at which she discussed the
Magnitsky Act .
Fox News reported on Nov. 9, 2017, that Simpson
met with Veselnitskaya immediately before and after the Trump Tower meeting.
A declassified top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court report released on April 26, 2017, revealed that government
agencies, including the FBI, CIA, and NSA, had improperly accessed Americans' communications. The FBI specifically provided outside
contractors with access to raw surveillance data on American citizens without proper oversight.
Communications and other data of members of the Trump campaign may have been accessed in this way.
Nellie Ohr, the wife of high-ranking DOJ official Bruce Ohr, was hired by Fusion GPS to work on the dossier on Trump.
Bruce and Nellie Ohr have
known Simpson since at least 2010 and have known Steele since at least 2006. The Ohrs and Simpson worked together on a
DOJ report in 2010 . In that report, Nellie Ohr's biography
lists her as working for Open Source Works, which is part of the CIA. Simpson met with Bruce Ohr
before and after the 2016 election.
Bruce Ohr had been in
contact repeatedly with Steele during the 2016 presidential campaign -- while Steele was constructing his dossier. Ohr later
actively shared information he received from Steele with the FBI, after the agency had terminated Steele as a source. Interactions
between Ohr and Steele stretched for months into the first year of Trump's presidency and were documented in a number of FD-302s
-- memos that summarize interviews with him by the FBI.
Spy Traps
In an effort to put forth evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, it appears that several different spy traps
were set, with varying degrees of success. Many of these efforts appear to center around Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
and involve London-based professor Joseph Mifsud, who has
ties to Western intelligence, particularly in the UK.
Papadopoulos and Mifsud
both worked
at the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP). Mifsud appears to have joined LCILP around
November
2015 . Papadopoulos reportedly
joined
LCILP sometime in late February 2016 after leaving Ben Carson's presidential campaign. However, some
reports indicate Papadopoulos joined LCILP in November
or December of 2015. Mifsud and Papadopoulos reportedly never crossed paths
until March 14, 2016, in Italy.
Mifsud introduced Papadopoulos to several Russians, including Olga Polonskaya, whom Mifsud introduced as "Putin's niece," and
Ivan Timofeev, an official at a state-sponsored think tank called the Russian International Affairs Council. Both Papadopoulos and
Mifsud were interviewed by the FBI. Papadopoulos was ultimately charged with a process crime and was recently sentenced to 14 days
in prison for lying to the FBI. Mifsud was never charged by the FBI.
Throughout this period, Papadopoulos continuously pushed for meetings between Trump campaign officials and Russian contacts but
was ultimately unsuccessful in establishing any meetings.
Papadopoulos met with Australian diplomat Alexander Downer on May 10, 2016. The Papadopoulos–Downer meeting has been portrayed
as a
chance encounter in a bar. That does not appear to be the case.
Papadopoulos was introduced
to Downer through a chain of two intermediaries who said Downer wanted to meet with Papadopoulos. Another individual happened
to
be in London at exactly the same time: the FBI's head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap. The purpose of Priestap's visit
remains unknown.
The Papadopoulos–Downer
meeting was later used to establish the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump–Russia collusion. It was repeatedly
reported that Papadopoulos told Downer that Russia had Hillary Clinton's emails. This is incorrect.
Foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign was approached by several individuals with ties to UK and U.S. intelligence
agencies. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
According to Downer, Papadopoulos at some point
mentioned the Russians had damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
"During that conversation, he [Papadopoulos] mentioned the Russians might use material that they have on Hillary Clinton in the
lead-up to the election, which may be damaging,'' Downer told
The Australian about the Papadopoulos meeting in an April 2018 article. "He didn't say dirt, he said material that could be damaging
to her. No, he said it would be damaging. He didn't say what it was."
Downer, while serving as Australia's foreign minister, was
responsible for one of the largest foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation: $25 million from the Australian government.
Unconfirmed media reports, including a Jan. 12, 2017,
BBC article , have suggested that the FBI attempted
to obtain two FISA warrants in June and July 2016 that were denied by the FISA court. It's likely that Papadopoulos was an intended
target of these failed FISAs.
Interestingly, there is no mention of Papadopoulos in the Steele dossier. Paul Manafort, Carter Page, former Trump lawyer Michael
Cohen, Gen. Michael Flynn, and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski are all listed in the Steele dossier.
Papadopoulos may have started out assisting the FBI or CIA and later discovered that he was being set up for surveillance himself.
After failing to obtain a spy warrant on the Trump campaign using Papadopoulos, the FBI set its sights on campaign volunteer Carter
Page. By this time, the counterintelligence investigation was in the process of being established, and we know now that it was formalized
with no official intelligence. The FBI needed some sort of legal cover. They needed a retroactive warrant. And they got one on Oct.
21, 2016. The Page FISA warrant would be renewed three times and remain in force until September 2017.
Stefan Halper met with Page for the first time on July 11, 2016, at a
Cambridge symposium , just three days after Page's July 2016
Moscow trip. As noted previously, former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove was a speaker at the symposium. Halper and Dearlove have known
each other for years and maintain several mutual associations.
Page was already known to the FBI. The Page FISA warrant application references the Buryakov spy case and an FBI interview with
Page. Current information suggests there was only
one meeting between Page and the FBI in 2016. It happened on March 2, 2016. It was in relation to Victor Podobnyy, who was named
in the Buryakov case.
Page, who
cooperated with the FBI on the case, almost certainly was providing testimony or details against Podobnyy. Page had been contacted
by Podobnyy in 2013 and had previously provided information to the FBI. Buryakov
pleaded guilty on March 11, 2016 -- nine days after Page met with the FBI on the case -- and was
sentenced to 30 months in prison on May 25, 2016. On April 5, 2017, Buryakov was granted early release and was
deported to Russia.
FBI informant Stefan Halper approached Trump campaign advisers George Papadopoulos and Carter Page.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes
said in August that exculpatory evidence
on Page exists that wasn't included by the DOJ and the FBI in the FISA application and subsequent renewals. The exculpatory evidence
likely relates specifically to Page's role in the Buryakov case.
If the FBI failed to disclose Page's cooperation with the bureau or materially misrepresented his involvement in its application
to the FISA Court, it means that the FBI's Woods procedures, which govern FISA applications, were violated.
Page has not been arrested or charged with any crime related to the investigation.
FISA Abuse
Admiral Mike Rogers, while director of the NSA, was personally responsible for
uncovering an unprecedented level of FISA abuse that would later be documented in a 99-page
unsealed FISA
court ruling . As the FISA court noted in the April 26, 2017, ruling, the abuses had been occurring since at least November 2015:
"The FBI had disclosed raw FISA information, including but not limited to Section 702-acquired information, to private contractors.
"Private contractors had access to raw FISA information on FBI storage systems.
"Contractors had access to raw FISA information that went well beyond what was necessary to respond to the FBI's requests."
The FISA Court report is particularly focused on the FBI:
"The Court is concerned about the FBI's apparent disregard of minimization rules and whether the FBI may be engaging in similar
disclosures of raw Section 702 information that have not been reported."
The FISA Court
disclosed that illegal NSA database searches were endemic. Private contractors, employed by the FBI, were given full access to
the NSA database. Once in the contractors' possession, the data couldn't be traced.
In April 2016, after Rogers became aware of
improper
contractor access to raw FISA data on March 9, 2016, he
directed the NSA's Office
of Compliance to conduct a "fundamental baseline review of compliance associated with 702."
On April 18, 2016, Rogers shut down all outside contractor access to raw FISA information -- specifically outside contractors
working for the FBI.
Then-NSA Director Adm. Mike Rogers on May 23, 2017. Rogers uncovered widespread abuse of FISA data by the FBI. (Saul
Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
DOJ National Security Division (NSD) head John Carlin filed the government's proposed
2016 Section 702 certifications on Sept. 26, 2016. Carlin knew the general status of compliance review by Rogers. The NSD was
part of the review. Carlin failed to disclose a critical Jan. 7, 2016,
report by the Office
of the Inspector General and associated FISA abuse to the FISA Court in his 2016 certification. Carlin also failed to disclose
Rogers's ongoing Section 702 compliance review.
The following day, on Sept. 27, 2016, Carlin
announced his resignation, effective Oct. 15, 2016.
After receiving a briefing by the NSA compliance officer on Oct. 20, 2016, detailing
numerous "about query"
violations from the 702 NSA compliance audit, Rogers shut down all "about query" activity the next day and
reported his findings
to the DOJ. "About queries" are searches based on communications containing a reference "about" a surveillance target but that are
not "to" or "from" the target.
On Oct. 21, 2016, the DOJ and the FBI sought and received a Title I FISA probable-cause order authorizing electronic surveillance
on Carter Page from the FISA Court.
At this point, the FISA Court was still unaware of the Section 702 violations.
On Oct. 24, 2016, Rogers verbally
informed
the FISA Court of his findings. On Oct. 26, 2016, Rogers appeared formally before the FISA Court and presented the written findings
of his audit.
The FISA Court had been unaware of the query violations until they were presented to the court by Rogers.
Carlin didn't disclose his knowledge of FISA abuse in the annual Section 702 certifications in order to avoid raising suspicions
at the FISA Court ahead of receiving the Page FISA warrant.
The FBI and the NSD were literally racing against Rogers's investigation in order to obtain a FISA warrant on Carter Page.
While all this was transpiring, DNI James Clapper and Defense Secretary Ash Carter submitted a
recommendation that Rogers be removed from his post as NSA director.
The move to fire Rogers, which ultimately failed, originated sometime in mid-October 2016 -- exactly when Rogers was preparing
to present his findings to the FISA Court.
The Insurance Policy
Ever since the release of FBI text messages revealing the existence of an "insurance policy," the term has been the subject of
wide speculation.
Some observers have suggested that the insurance policy was the FISA spy warrant used to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter
Page and, by extension, other members of the Trump campaign. This interpretation is too narrow and fails to capture the underlying
meaning of the text.
The insurance policy was the actual process of establishing the Trump–Russia collusion narrative.
It encompassed actions undertaken in late 2016 and early 2017, including the leaking of the Steele dossier and James Clapper's
leaks of James Comey's briefing to President Trump. The intent behind these actions was simple. The legitimization of the investigation
into the Trump campaign.
The strategy involved the recusal of Trump officials with the intent that Andrew McCabe would end up running the investigation.
The Steele dossier, which was paid for by the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, served as the
foundation for the Russia narrative.
The intelligence community, led by CIA Director John Brennan and DNI James Clapper, used the dossier as a launching pad for creating
their Intelligence Community assessment.
This report, which was presented to Obama in December 2016, despite NSA Director Mike Rogers having only moderate confidence in
its assessment, became one of the core pieces of the narrative that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
Through intelligence community leaks, and in collusion with willing media outlets, the narrative that Russia helped Trump win
the elections was aggressively pushed throughout 2017.
Spygate
Spygate represents the biggest political scandal in our nation's history. A sitting administration actively colluded with a political
campaign to affect the outcome of a U.S. presidential election. Government agencies were weaponized and a complicit media spread
intelligence community leaks as facts.
But a larger question remains: How long has the United States been subject to interference from the intelligence community and
our political agencies? Was the 2016 presidential election a one-time aberration, or is this episode symptomatic of a larger pattern
extending back decades?
The intensity, scale, and coordination suggest something greater than overzealous actions taken during a single election. They
represent a unified reaction of the establishment to a threat posed by a true outsider -- a reaction that has come to be known as
Spygate.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
In Ber 2018 Kusher security clearance wasdongraded.
Notable quotes:
"... Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the current and former officials said. ..."
"... Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost ..."
" Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law
and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience,
according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter.
Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico,
the current and former officials said.
It is unclear if any of those countries acted on the discussions, but Kushner's contacts with certain foreign government officials
have raised concerns inside the White House and are a reason he has been unable to obtain a permanent security clearance, the officials
said.
Kushner's interim security clearance was downgraded last week from the top-secret to the secret level, which should restrict the
regular access he has had to highly classified information, according to administration officials. Washpost
------------------
Most people will probably be struck by the fall from grace of Kushner and other WH staff dilettantes. I am not terribly interested
in that. What strikes me is that this is the third major compromise of US SIGINT products in the last year. The first was the felonious
disclosure to the press of US intelligence penetration of Russian diplomatic communications. the second was the disclosure to the
press of penetration of GRU communications. In this one the oral or written discussions among the officials of several foreign countries
are revealed. These conversations were probably encrypted.
Is Jeff Sessions still alive? Why are there no prosecutions for these felonies? pl
"... "After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The results of this work corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment. ..."
"... Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian. ..."
"... Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no interest in either, that should tell you something. ..."
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for
now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to
interfere with the Mueller investigation. Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive
condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians
communicating in English include: definite and indefinite articles, the use of
presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I constructed a corpus of Guccifer
2.0's communications and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate
Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use
inconsistently broken English at times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his
primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken, did not follow the
typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or
criticism."
DNC emails were downloaded at 22.3Mbs, a speed which is not possible to achieve remotely, or even local. It is the exact
download speed of a thumb drive.
All russian "fingerprints" were embedded in error codes, which had to be affirmatively copied. They were not an accident.
And please remind me, who exactly was it that examined the DNC servers and pointed at Russia?
Access and motive . . .here are two who had both: Seth Rich and Imran Awan. That our fake news organizations have no
interest in either, that should tell you something.
"... The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to overturn the results of elections. ..."
"... At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this. ..."
"... I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee – Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this conspiracy. ..."
"... It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' – notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further. ..."
"... They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. ..."
"... Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal. ..."
"... The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue; ..."
"... Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law. ..."
"... It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection" operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.) ..."
There were no major disagreements between Mueller and his managers at the U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ).
The Russians who tried to interfere in the 2016 election were exposed and charged -- but no
American was charged with any effort to conspire with Moscow and hijack the election.
the "Steele dossier" that was the main FISA evidence was paid for with funds
from Hillary Clinton
's campaign and the Democratic Party;
Christopher Steele, the dossier's author, had told a senior DOJ official he was desperate to
defeat Trump;
most of the dossier was not verified before it was used as evidence of alleged Trump-Russia
collusion; and
agents collected statements from key defendants such as Papadopoulos and Carter Page during
interactions with an FBI informant that strongly suggested their innocence.
Such omissions are so glaring as to constitute defrauding a federal court. And each and
every participant to those omissions needs to be brought to justice.
An upcoming DOJ inspector general's report should trigger the beginning of that
accountability in a court of law, and President Trump can assist the effort by declassifying
all evidence of wrongdoing by FBI, CIA and DOJ officials. " The Hill
------------
Pilgrims, the seditious conspiracy to depose the elected president of the United States for
conspiracy to commit treason with the Government of the Russian Federation has been
defeated.
The bent cops at the FBI and the madmen like Brennan, Clapper and Comey, who treacherously
used the government's forces against the Constitution, must be punished so severely as to make
an example that will dissuade other midgets on horseback from making similar attempts to
overturn the results of elections.
At the bottom of the cauldron overflowing with political misdeeds shines the face of Hillary
Clinton and the army of clever people who ran her 2016 campaign. They devised the clever,
clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with Washington co-conspirators and the
even more clever idea of marketing it back into the US political bloodstream through British
intelligence channels by feeding it to the erratic and spiteful senator from Arizona whose
staff peddled it all over Washington and New York. There must be retribution for this.
The leftist press is already discounting the results of Mueller's investigation while
gloating over how long the Democratic held House of Representatives can continue to search
through Trump's life trying to find criminality.
AG Barr should stand Mueller up next to him at a press conference to make clear the results
of his report and to answer questions about it. After that the prosecutions should begin.
pl
I would be most interested if one of the legally competent members of this Committee –
Robert Willman perhaps? – could give us us an idea of what charges could be leveled
against Christopher Steele under U.S. law in relation to his clearly central role in this
conspiracy.
It also seems reasonably clear that he was not acting in isolation, and that there is a
strong 'prima facie' case that senior figures in the British 'intelligence community' –
notably Robert Hannigan and probably Sir Richard Dearlove – were involved, in which
case the complicity is likely to have gone very much further.
The argument that declassification of relevant documentation would harm the intelligence
relationship between the U.S. and U.K. has clearly been made with great emphasis from this
side.
In fact, it is pure bollocks. A serious investigation on your side, which could lead to
the kind of clean-out which should have happened when the scale of the corruption of
intelligence in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq became clear, might pave the way for us
to reconstruct reasonably functional intelligence services.
Doing this on both sides of the Atlantic might pave the way for a reconstruction of an
intelligence relationship which was actually beneficial to both countries, as in recent years
it patently has not been.
Whether there is a realistic prospect of people on your side opening the cans of worms on
ours, as well as your own, of course remains a moot point.
I'm glad the Steele affair has been examined at the American end -
"They devised the clever, clever idea of creating the Steele Dossier in cahoots with
Washington co-conspirators and the even more clever of marketing it back into the US
political bloodstream through British intelligence channels, by feeding it to the erratic and
spiteful senator from Arizona whose staff peddled it all over Washington and New York.
"
What about the UK end? We're fussing over some little local difficulties in the UK at the
moment and at our end the questions still remain - Who in the UK authorised it and how high did it go?
The problem with criminal prosecution is one must cite a Brit or US law which was violated.
The only ones in US law that I am aware of stipulate that the plotting must be by means of
violence, "by force". All this appears to me to be only the propagation of rumors.
I think it might be more the investigation of the propagation of rumours. Think back to that election campaign, and to the period before the inauguration.
Both sides were furiously engaged in throwing mud at each other. Situation normal. Then an
odd thing happens. A particularly foolish piece of mud comes along. All that Golden Showers
nonsense. Regard that as normal if we please. I expect worse comes along sometimes. Then it
turns out that that piece of mud comes from an Intelligence source. Situation no longer normal.
With respect it is not propagating rumours to ask how that happened. As for my own
interest in the affair, it is not propagating rumours to ask how a senior UK ex-Intelligence
Officer comes to be mixed up in it all. I suppose I started to look on it as rather more than a prank or a few cogs slipping when
that senior UK ex-Intelligence Officer got whisked away to a safe house. We're a penny
pinching lot over here and we don't run to that sort of thing for nothing.
An investigation could certainly be predicated on the reasonable suspicion that Steele, et
al, conspired to defraud the United States, in this case a purposeful and knowing smear of a
candidate for office; also, another potential violation could be lying to the FBI, T 18 USC
1001.
The problem, as I see it, is sorting out the malignant from the merely incompetent. As I've
argued many times, the dossier should have been dismissed from the outset as a pile of
garbage, empty of actionable content, because the ultimate sources could not be vetted: the
information could not be said to be either credible or reliable. The information was acted on
by screening it behind the reliabilty and credibility, so called, of Steele. So it would be
necessary to show that Steele knew that the information, point by point, was false. This
could be difficult. Steele's first line of defense would be that he threw everything that he
heard from anyone at all into the mix in the expectation that the "professionals" would
figure it out.
Yes, they were all partisan, Steele, his sources, his bosses, the so called
professionals, and their partisanship would be easy to prove; and yes, almost assuredly their
partisanship contributed, perhaps even explained, their defective judgement as to how to
handle the scurrilous information, especially on the part of the so called professionals, but
proving they actually knew the materials to be false would be difficult.
They couldn't know
that it was false because they had no ability to run down the sources. The professionals
would defend themselves by saying they had no ability to vet the sources but the information
represented such a serious security threat that they had no alternative but to try to vet the
information by launching the investigation against the targets. This puts the cart before the
horse, represents an astonishing lack of judgement, especially considering the "exalted"
positions in the Intel Community the people exercising the bad judgement occupied, but there
it is - "we thought we were doing the right thing."
Perhaps this defense could be overcome by
demonstrating that people at such high and important heights of government could not possible
be so stupid... maybe.
And of course we have the orchestrated leaks to various media, the orchestrated unmaskings,
all of which kept the media frenzy fired up. All in all, it was the greatest political dirty
trick ever attempted in American Politics, and did devastating damage to both domestic
tranquility and national security. Trump survived, but the damage done is incalculable.
So It pains me greatly to think that the reckoning will likely have to be political rather
than criminal because the malice that can be demonstrated is so admixed and even overshadowed
by incompetence and judgement flaws; and even a political reckoning given the state of the
country is so uncertain.
I hope that I am wrong and that some kind of prosecution can be fashioned because of the
sheer enormity of violence that was done to our electoral system, surpassing by far the
chickenshit case Mueller brought against the Russian troll farm; but I fear that I am right.
It hurts to think that so much damage can be caused by scheming little political weasels and
that they all may well walk away scot free; and even be lionized by their political confreres
as having tried to do the right thing. This is the state of American politics today!!!
I see that some of the midgets on horseback are saying that they will bring Mueller before
congress to explain himself. Their knight in shining armor has failed to return with the holy
grail. A couple even suggested that perhaps Mueller has been influenced by the Russians or
somehow intimated by Trump.
The coup may be over, but the witch hunt will continue;
and that
+ all the crazy Marxism (social and economic), bad immigration policy and Green New Deal is
going to doom the Democrats in 2020. They look like they are jumping off a final sake fueled
banzai charge. Maybe they think the best defense is a good offense re; the prosecutions that
should happen. What is the chance that Mueller will pass *all* he has learned to help get the
criminal cases under way?
On 13 July 2018, when announcing the indictment of 12 Russian military officers by the
Mueller group for "conspiring to interfere" in the 2016 presidential election, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein admitted that no "interference" actually happened. In this
video of his announcement, starting at 5 minutes, 52 seconds into it and ending at the 6
minute, 5 second mark, he says--
"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American citizen committed a crime.
There is no allegation that the conspiracy changed the vote count or affected any election
result."
Col. Lang is absolutely correct that those involved in attempting to reverse the results
of the 2016 election, de-legitimize an elected president, and remove him should be thoroughly
pursued through all avenues and procedures of the civil and criminal law.
However, I am concerned that the new attorney general, William Barr, will not do so based
on his past associations and work. I hope I am wrong about that, but I am not optimistic.
It's a dirty business. If half this stuff is true, and not just layers of increasingly
unbelievable cover stories (I mean, a tangential example, is the whole Skripal thing a
weirdly, too obviously fake cover show for what was in reality a "witness protection"
operation? A witness who could and would reveal much? On this matter even, perhaps. Such
obvious deceptions are harmful to respect for authority and the law.)
I'm wrestling with the idea that 'twas ever thus and now with the internet its workings
are revealed to a "lay" audience with no connection to the dark arts of the spy business. But
I am curious, with the good Colonel's indulgence, if the new tools of the trade have made
things which should be secret not possible to be kept secret?
Amen to the prosecutions. If there is seen to be no accountability for this fraud then we are
seriously damaging what's left of democracy. Who, in their right mind, is going to publicly
support and assist a political candidate who is not "Swamp approved" if they face the threat
of thereby triggering their own, and their family's destruction by the judicial system?
I suggest that even a pardon is not enough for those entrapped in this mess. There needs
to be restitution.
To put that another way, in my opinion, "birther" allegations could be passed off as
political tactics. Nobody got hurt. It is just good luck that Russiagate hasn't resulted in
suicide or worse - so far.
I certainly agree that consequences must be brought to bear: lying politicians without a
shred of evidence, nor did they offer any for their lies; press for their utter and complete
malfeasance and corruption without a shred of evidence, the doj/fbi corrupted and coup
plotting officials,and finally the shame to all who shrieked about "evil" putin, russia the
aggressor, etc. It has set our discourse back decades, forced any critics of this insanity
into the shadows, and completely killed any attempt at normal diplomacy between nations.
I noted one astute writer as equating this russiagate insanity to the lies surrounding wmd
and the destruction of iraq. Close. The damage from this criminality is incalculable!
Will the shrillest of all in the press lose their jobs? Nah, not a chance. Prob get raise
or promotion.Will the brennans, clintons, clappers, et al do the perp walk. Nah, not a
chance. High paid lawyers will tie the courts up for years if not decades.
And america has the institutional memory of a gnat. And of course, the question is as to
high up did this criminality go? I personally do not believe it is a question-it is obvious
to me. The major question for me is how high up the prosecution, if any, will go.
Problem is...who's going to do the prosecuting?
The DOJ - protector of the swamp - has become thoroughly corrupted as an arm of the
Democrat-media party.
Should (can) Trump appoint a special prosecutor as far as possible from the DOJ?
The president might use this and any Republican-led prosecutions as leverage to work out
deals that will allow him to achieve his agenda. I think he'll need to given how the
Democrats intend to use their house majority to launch investigations and hearings to find
something, anything to howl about and impede his agenda.
Still need to see the full report. I hope it is releasable. Otherwise the conspiracy theories
or leaks will never let up. The article cited is a partisan opinion piece, not a news report.
It accepts the fallback stance that yes, crimes were committed but collusion by Trump was not
among them. This actually seems possible if only in light of the chaotic condition of the
campaign.
That said, I would not be surprised to find collusion discounted. Not that the Russians
didn't interfere. That would be entirely in character. But I don't know any reason for
supposing that they would have a better understanding of American political dynamics than the
Americans who make good livings being the best in that arena. The Russians seem to have been
doing the same things as numerous other players. They shouldn't have been in that game, but
there is no strong reason for according them Superman status. Their strongest feature seems
to have been sheer quantity. Outrage over their actions often seems to flow from a poor grasp
of the real nature of normal political process.
"The Russians seem to have been doing the same things..."
Multiple members of the FBI and DOJ seem to have been interfering in the 2016 Presidential
election. How many other federal and state elections did they interfere with?
Can you cite a single piece of hard evidence, not simply allegation, that proves the Russians
interfered in the 2016 election? If so, please cite it, since I know of none. Thank you.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
"... RussiaGate was never a sustainable narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there. ..."
"... And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now worthless. ..."
"... They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. ..."
"... The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time. Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion." ..."
"... It's clear that RussiaGate is a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. ..."
"... If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb. ..."
"... If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate. ..."
"... And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us. ..."
"... Hillary is the epitome of evil. ..."
"... I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch, Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice, Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. ..."
"... Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for becoming elected. ..."
"... Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because it was her turn to get elected". ..."
"... HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH ..."
"... It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be nobody to hold them responsible ..."
"... When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself. ..."
During most of the RussiaGate investigation against Donald Trump I kept saying that all
roads lead to Hillary Clinton.
Anyone with three working brain cells knew this, including
'Miss' Maddow, whose tears of disappointment are particularly delicious.
Robert Mueller's investigation was designed from the beginning to create something out of
nothing. It did this admirably.
It was so effective it paralyzed the country for more than two years, just like Europe has
been held hostage by Brexit. And all of this because, in the end, the elites I call The Davos
Crowd refused to accept that the people no longer believed their lies about the benefits of
their neoliberal, globalist agenda.
Hillary Clinton's ascension to the Presidency was to be their apotheosis along with the
Brexit vote. These were meant to lay to rest, once and for all time, the vaguely libertarian
notion that people should rule themselves and not be ruled by philosopher kings in some distant
land.
Hillary's failure was enormous. And the RussiaGate gambit to destroy Trump served a laundry
list of purposes to cover it:
Undermine his legitimacy before he even takes office.
Accuse him of what Hillary actually did: collude with Russians and Ukrainians to effect
the outcome of the election
Paralyze Trump on his foreign policy desires to scale back the Empire
Give aid and comfort to hurting progressives and radicalize them further undermining our
political system
Polarize the electorate over the false choice of Trump's guilt.
Paralyze the Dept. of Justice and Congress so that they would not uncover the massive
corruption in the intelligence agencies in the U.S. and the U.K.
Isolate Trump and take away every ally or potential ally he could have by turning them
against him through prosecutor overreach.
Hillary should have been thrown to the wolves after she failed. When you fail the people she
failed and cost them the money she cost them, you lose more than just your funding. What this
tells you is that Hillary has so much dirt on everyone involved, once this thing started
everyone went along with it lest she burn them down as well.
Burnin' Down da House
Hillary is the epitome of envy. Envy is the destructive sin of coveting someone else's life
so much they are obsessed with destroying it. It's the sin of Cain. She envies what Trump has,
the Presidency. And she was willing to tear it down to keep him from having it no matter how
much damage it would do. She's worse than the Joker from The Dark Knight.
Because while the Joker is unfathomable to someone with a conscience there's little stopping
us from excising him from the community completely., even though Batman refuses.
Hillary hates us for who we are and what we won't give her. And that animus drove her to
blackmail the world while putting on the face of its savior.
And that's what makes what comes next so obvious to me. RussiaGate was never a sustainable
narrative. It was ludicrous from the beginning. And now that it has ended with a whimper there
are a lot of angry, confused and scared people out there.
Mueller thought all he had to do was lean on corrupt people and threaten them with
everything. They would turn on Trump. He would resign in disgrace from the public outcry. It
didn't work. In the end Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen and Roger Stone all held their ground or
perjured themselves into the whole thing falling apart.
Andrew Weissman's resignation last month was your tell there was nothing. Mueller would
pursue this to the limit of his personal reputation and no further. Just like so many other
politicians.
Vote Your Pocketbook
With respect to Brexit I've been convinced that it would come down to reputations. Would the
British MP's vote against their own personal best interests to do the bidding of the EU? Would
Theresa May eventually realize her historical reputation would be destroyed if she caves to
Brussels and betrays Brexit in the end? Always bet on the fecklessness of politicians. They
will always act selfishly when put to the test. While leading RussiaGate, Mueller was always
headed here if he couldn't get someone to betray Trump.
And now his report is in. There are no new indictments. And by doing so he is saving his
reputation for the future. And that is your biggest tell that Hillary's blackmail is now
worthless.
They don't fear her anymore because RussiaGate outed her as the architect. Anything else she
has is irrelevant in the face of trying to oust a sitting president from power. The
progressives that were convinced of Trump's treason are bereft; their false hope stripped away
like standing in front of a sandblaster. They will be raw, angry and looking for blood after
they get over their denial.
Everyone else who was blackmailed into going along with this lunacy will begin cutting deals
to save their skins. The outrage over this will not end. Trump will be President when he stands
for re-election.
The Wolves Beckon
The Democrats do not have a chance against him as of right now. When he was caving on
everything back in December it looked like he was done. That there was enough meat on the
RussiaGate bones to make Nancy Pelosi brave. Then she backed off on impeachment talk.
Oops....
... ... ...
The Deep State and The Davos Crowd stand revealed and reviled. If they don't do something
dramatic then the anger from the rest of the country will also be palpable come election time.
Justice is not done simply by saying, "No evidence of collusion."
It's clear that RussiaGate is
a failure of monumental proportions. Heads will have to roll. But who will be willing to fall
on their sword at this point? Comey? No. McCabe? No. There is only one answer. And Obama's
people are still in place to protect him. I said last fall that " Hillary would
indict herself. " And I meant it. Eventually her blackmail and drive to burn it all down
led to this moment.
The circumstances are different than I expected back then, Trump didn't win the mid-terms.
But the end result was always the same. If there is no collusion, if RussiaGate is a scam, then
all roads lead back to Hillary as the sacrificial lamb.
Because the bigger project, the erection of a transnational superstate, is bigger than any
one person. Hillary is expendable. Lies are expensive to maintain. The truth is cheap to
defend. Think of the billions in opportunity costs associated with this. Once the costs rise
above the benefits, change happens fast. If there is any hope of salvaging the center of this
country for the Democrats, the ones that voted against Hillary in 2016, then there is no reason
anymore not to indict Hillary as the architect of RussiaGate.
We all know it's the truth. So, the cheapest way out of this mess for them is to give the
MAGApedes what they want, Hillary.
And hope that is enough bread and circuses to distract from the real storm ahead of us.
I don't think Hillary is enough. I want McCabe, Comey, Mueller, Rosenstein, Loretta Lynch,
Obama, Lois Lerner, Blasey Ford, Brennan, Clapper, Abedin, Weiner, Cheryl Mills, Susan Rice,
Strzok, Page, Sally Yates, all of the phony FISA cohort brought to justice. Think of the
taxpayer money wasted on this ridiculous Mueller investigation! The Roger Stone arrest was an
outrage. Who tipped off CNN? Who ordered it? What was with the attack dogs and machine guns?
And now we have Nadler trying to destroy anyone and everyone who ever did business with
Trump. All those 80 people who got letters from him asking for documents will now be
bankrupted by legal fees.
According to Scott Adams, one recipient is refusing to
cooperate -- he's saying "I can't afford for me and family to be destroyed." He put the request
for documents in a drawer. He has no money for lawyers.
This insanity and abuse of power has
got to stop. Meanwhile, nothing gets done in Congress. We're all looking at censorship,
tilted search engines, de-monetization, being beat up on campus for trying to express an
opinion, being accosted in a restaurant (or, VP Pence, from the stage ("Hamilton"), getting
sucker-punched for wearing a MAGA hat, having elections stolen through myriad Dem cheating
methods, and NOTHING is being done.
Her DNC cabal cooked in less than 24 hours from the election defeat a conspiracy of Russian
meddling and now, when more information became available, HCR is involved in two separate
cases of foreign collusion, The Steele dossier, with Russo-Anglo meddling and another a
Ukrainian one, which is now under investigation and the purpose was getting their help for
becoming elected.
Without a doubt the Russian collusion is the most serious one, because it deliberately
sabotaged diplomatic relations with Russia and lead into to a new cold war era. This also
raised substantially risks for a direct confrontation with catastrophic consequences. The
damage from these treacherous acts is huge and the felony bears pretty much all hallmarks of
treason. Se deliberately undermined her own nation´s interests and rather risked even a
war simply, because she is a psychopath, who refused to concede the defeat in due elections
and instead wanted to hide real reasons for her loss to any cost for everybody else, "because
it was her turn to get elected".
It is clear that from the beginning, fraudulent FISA warrants, that it was a case of
Obama's administration digging dirt on Trump believing that when Hillary wins there will be
nobody to hold them responsible.
When Hillary lost there was only one way out for them to
justify that kind of abuse, to find something, anything on Trump so they can say that they
were right. Worse than Watergate by orders of magnitude, involving FBI, DOJ and WH itself.
"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone
associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016
U.S. presidential election. As the report states: `[T]he investigation did not establish that
members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its
election interference activities.' |"
From page one of the Barr letter to the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and
Senate Judiciary Committees.
https://www.scribd.com/document/402973432/AG-March-24-2019-Letter-to-House-and-Senate-Judiciary-Committees#from_embed
Some call this merely the "end of the beginning." Further revelations will be emerging,
including from Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz. " J ustice Department
Inspector General Michael Horowitz confirmed Thursday his office is still investigating
possible abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by the DOJ and FBI in their
investigation into President Trump and associates of his 2016 campaign," reported the
Washington Examiner this week.
However, AG Barr's letter retells the tale of Russian Interference in our elections,
according to Mr. Mueller and his team's investigation and indictments. So, the anti-Trump
camp will undoubtedly continue to question the 2016 election results, and blame the defeat of
HRC on the "Reds." One could wish that DOJ IG Horowitz could investigate and sanction British
Intelligence for its use of official and non-official officials in starting this debacle.
This is the most grandiose False flag propaganda operation known to the mankind. McCarthyism while more vicious was just a blip
of the screen in comparison this this tide of disinformation and insinuations. Iraq WDM resulted in more casualties but was much
more short term. Damage for the USA from this false flag operation might even exceed the damage for Iraq WDM fiasco.
British government and intelligence serves were active participants and in this sense "Skripals poisoning" looks
like a perverted form of "witness protection:" program. A false flag operation on the top of a false flag operation
("Russiagate").
What is amazing is how unapt were the major players.
Notable quotes:
"... Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media. ..."
"... A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in his reports. In a written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished to the world at large." ..."
"... That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States, apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times. ..."
"... The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start. ..."
"... "Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there, and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case." ..."
"... Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check. ..."
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it...
Note to readers: in light of news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation is complete, I'm releasing this chapter
of Hate Inc. early, with a few new details added up top. Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.
As has long been rumored
, the former FBI chief's independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no "
presidency-wrecking
" conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman's definition of "collusion" with Russia.
With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of
the Mueller investigation was best expressed
by the New York Times :
A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.
The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn
of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.
The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with
votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members
singing "
All I Want for Christmas is You " to him featuring the rhymey line: "Mueller please come through, because the only option is
a coup."
The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller's reputation, noting Trump's Attorney General William Barr's reaction was
an "endorsement" of the fineness of Mueller's work:
In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a "witch hunt," Mr. Barr said Justice
Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.
Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?
For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia "contacts," inviting readers
to keep making connections. But in a
separate piece by Peter
Baker , the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:
It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress,
for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole
This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing,
emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting "
We don't need to read the Mueller
report " because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: "Have
journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?"
The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like themselves made a galactic
error by betting heavily on a
new, politicized approach , trying to be true to "history's judgment" on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse,
in a brutal irony everyone should have
seen coming , the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.
Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps
thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in
a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a "witch hunt."
Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller's final report might leave audiences "
disappointed
," as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.
Openly using such language
has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you'd have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not
match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without
pants.
There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn't prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The
Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters ! There's an ongoing grand jury investigation,
and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and
Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.
For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped
every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something "so
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.
The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That's a hell of a long way from what
this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn't so.
The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who'd helped
him win the election.
The betrayal narrative was not reported at first as metaphor. It was not "Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be
a spy for them." It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told
reporters, Trump "
will die in jail ."
In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump's campaign had "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence;
the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies
were withholding intelligence
from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel
not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have "leverages of pressure" on Trump.
CNN told us Trump officials had been in "constant contact" with "Russians known to U.S. intelligence," and the former director
of the CIA, who'd helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller's probe, said the President was guilty of "high crimes
and misdemeanors," committing acts "
nothing short of treasonous ."
Hillary Clinton insisted Russians "could not have known how to weaponize" political ads unless they'd been "guided" by Americans.
Asked if she meant Trump, she said, "
It's pretty hard not to ." Harry Reid similarly said he had "no doubt" that the Trump campaign was "
in on the
deal " to help Russians with the leak.
None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if
he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the "overwhelming and bipartisan" standard, and Nancy
Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't. If he isn't, news outlets once
again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent
past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC's Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a "
reckoning for the media ."
Of course, there won't be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in
pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can't confirm.
#Russiagate debuted as a media phenomenon in mid-summer, 2016. The roots of the actual story, i.e. when the multi-national investigation
began, go back much further, to the previous year at least. Oddly, that origin tale has not been nailed down yet, and blue-state
audiences don't seem terribly interested in it, either.
By June and July of 2016, bits of the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which
had been funded by the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie (which in turn hired the opposition research
firm Fusion GPS), were already in the ether.
The Steele report occupies the same role in #Russiagate the tales spun by Ahmed Chalabi occupied in the WMD screwup. Once again,
a narrative became turbo-charged when Officials With Motives pulled the press corps by its nose to a swamp of unconfirmable private
assertions.
Some early stories, like a July 4, 2016 piece by Franklin Foer in Slate called "
Putin's Puppet ," outlined future Steele themes in "circumstantial" form. But the actual dossier, while it influenced a number
of pre-election Trump-Russia news stories (notably
one by Michael Isiskoff of Yahoo! that would be
used in a FISA warrant application ), didn't make it into print for a while.
Though it was shopped to
at least nine news organizations during the summer and fall of 2016, no one bit, for the good reason that news organizations
couldn't verify its "revelations."
The Steele claims were explosive if true. The ex-spy reported Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice
of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted. He also said Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague
for "secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers."
Most famously, he wrote the Kremlin had kompromat of Trump "deriling" [sic] a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by "employing
a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show."
The piece didn't have pee, Prague, or Page in it, but it did say Russian intelligence had material that could "blackmail" Trump.
It was technically kosher to print because Corn wasn't publishing the allegations themselves, merely that the FBI had taken possession
of them.
A bigger pretext was needed to get the other details out. This took place just after the election, when four intelligence officials
presented copies of the dossier to both President-Elect Trump and outgoing President Obama.
From his own
memos , we know FBI Director James Comey, ostensibly evincing concern for Trump's welfare, told the new President he was just
warning him about what was out there, as possible blackmail material:
I wasn't saying [the Steele report] was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports
were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give
them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold [sic].
Comey's generous warning to Trump about not providing a "news hook," along with a promise to keep it all "close-held," took place
on January 6, 2017. Within four days, basically the entire Washington news media somehow knew all about this top-secret meeting and
had the very hook they needed to go public. Nobody in the mainstream press thought this was weird or warranted comment.
Even Donald Trump was probably smart enough to catch the hint when, of all outlets, it was CNN that first broke the story of "Classified
documents presented last week to Trump"
on January 10 .
At the same time, Buzzfeed
made
the historic decision to publish the entire Steele dossier, bringing years of pee into our lives. This move birthed the Russiagate
phenomenon as a never-ending, minute-to-minute factor in American news coverage.
Comey was right. We couldn't have reported this story without a "hook." Therefore the reports surrounding Steele technically weren't
about the allegations themselves, but rather the journey of those allegations, from one set of official hands to another. Handing
the report to Trump created a perfect pretext.
This trick has been used before, both in Washington and on Wall Street, to publicize unconfirmed private research. A short seller
might hire a consulting firm to prepare a report on a company he or she has bet against. When the report is completed, the investor
then tries to get the SEC or the FBI to take possession. If they do, news leaks the company is "under investigation," the stock dives,
and everyone wins.
This same trick is found in politics. A similar trajectory
drove negative headlines in the scandal surrounding New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who was said to be under investigation
by the FBI for underage sex crimes (although some
were skeptical
). The initial story didn't hold up, but led to other investigations.
Same with the so-called "
Arkansas project ," in which millions of Republican-friendly private research dollars produced enough noise about the Whitewater
scandal to create years of headlines about the Clintons. Swiftboating was another example. Private oppo isn't inherently bad. In
fact it has led to some incredible scoops, including Enron. But reporters usually know to be skeptical of private info, and figure
the motives of its patrons into the story.
The sequence of events in that second week of January, 2017 will now need to be heavily re-examined. We now know,
from his own testimony , that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had some kind of role in helping CNN do
its report, presumably by confirming part of the story, perhaps through an intermediary or two (there is some controversy over whom
exactly was contacted, and when).
Why would real security officials help litigate this grave matter through the media? Why were the world's most powerful investigative
agencies acting like they were trying to move a stock, pushing an private, unverified report that even Buzzfeed could see had factual
issues? It
made no sense at the time , and makes less now.
In January of 2017, Steele's pile of allegations became public, read by millions. "It is not just unconfirmed," Buzzfeed
admitted
. "It includes some clear errors."
Buzzfeed's decision exploded traditional journalistic standards against knowingly publishing material whose veracity you doubt.
Although a few media ethicists wondered
at it , this seemed not to bother the rank-and-file in the business. Buzzfeed chief Ben Smith is still
proud of
his decision today. I think this was because many reporters believed the report was true.
When I read the report, I was in shock. I thought it read like fourth-rate suspense fiction (I should know: I write fourth-rate
suspense fiction). Moreover it seemed edited both for public consumption and to please Steele's DNC patrons.
Steele wrote of Russians having a file of "compromising information" on Hillary Clinton, only this file supposedly lacked "details/evidence
of unorthodox or embarrassing behavior" or "embarrassing conduct."
We were meant to believe the Russians, across decades of dirt-digging, had an empty kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, to say
nothing of human tabloid headline Bill Clinton? This point was made more than once in the reports, as if being emphasized for the
reading public.
There were other curious lines, including the bit about Russians having "moles" in the DNC, plus some linguistic details that
made me wonder at the nationality of the report author.
Still, who knew? It could be true. But even the most cursory review showed the report had issues and would need a lot of confirming.
This made it more amazing that the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, held hearings on March 20,
2017 that blithely read out Steele report details as if they were fact. From Schiff's opening statement:
According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. Intelligence,
Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin (SEH-CHIN), CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft
Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.
I was stunned watching this. It's generally understood that members of congress, like reporters, make an effort to vet at least
their prepared remarks before making them public.
But here was Schiff, telling the world Trump aide Carter Page had been offered huge fees on a 19% stake in Rosneft – a company
with a $63 billion market capitalization – in a secret meeting
with a Russian oligarch who was also said to be "a KGB agent and close friend of Putin's."
(Schiff meant "FSB agent." The inability of #Russiagaters to remember Russia is not the Soviet Union became increasingly maddening
over time. Donna Brazile still hasn't deleted her tweet about how "
The Communists are now dictating the
terms of the debate ." )
Schiff's speech raised questions. Do we no longer have to worry about getting accusations right if the subject is tied to Russiagate?
What if Page hadn't done any of these things? To date, he hasn't been charged with anything. Shouldn't a member of Congress worry
about this?
A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in
his reports. In a
written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He
also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished
to the world at large."
That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this
was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States,
apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times.
I contacted Schiff's office to ask if the congressman if he knew about Steele's admission that his report needed verifying, and
if that changed his view of it at all. The response (emphasis mine):
The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and which was leaked publicly several months
ago contains information that may be pertinent to our investigation. This is true regardless of whether it was ever intended for
public dissemination. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to speak with Mr. Steele in order to help substantiate or refute each of
the allegations contained in the dossier.
Schiff had not spoken to Steele before the hearing, and read out the allegations knowing they were unsubstantiated.
The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet
no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from
Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the
lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start.
For years, every hint the dossier might be true became a banner headline, while every time doubt was cast on Steele's revelations,
the press was quiet. Washington Post reporter Greg Miller went to Prague and led a team looking for evidence Cohen had been there.
Post reporters, Miller said, "literally spent weeks and months trying to run down" the Cohen story.
"We sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there,"
he said, "and came away empty."
This was heads-I-win, tails-you-lose reporting. One assumes if Miller found Cohen's name in a hotel ledger, it would have been
on page 1 of the Post. The converse didn't get a mention in Miller's own paper. He only told the story during a discussion
aired by C-SPAN about a new book he'd published. Only The Daily Caller and a few conservative blogs picked it up.
It was the same when Bob Woodward said, "I did not find [espionage or collusion] Of course I looked for it, looked for it hard."
The celebrated Watergate muckraker – who once said he'd
succumbed to "groupthink"
in the WMD episode and added, "I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder" – didn't push very hard here, either. News that
he'd tried and failed to find collusion didn't get into his own paper. It only came out when Woodward was promoting his book Fear
in a discussion with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.
When Michael Cohen testified before congress and denied under oath ever being in Prague, it was the same. Few commercial news
outlets bothered to take note of the implications this had for their previous reports. Would a man clinging to a plea deal lie to
congress on national television about this issue?
Perhaps worst of all was the episode involving Yahoo! reporter Michael Isikoff. He had already been part of one strange tale:
the FBI double-dipping when it sought a FISA warrant to conduct secret surveillance of Carter Page, the would-be mastermind who was
supposed to have brokered a deal with oligarch Sechin.
In its FISA application, the FBI included both the unconfirmed Steele report and Isikoff's September 23, 2016 Yahoo! story, "
U.S. Intel Officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin ." The Isikoff story, which claimed Page had met with "high
ranking sanctioned officials" in Russia, had relied upon Steele as an unnamed source.
This was similar to a laundering technique used in the WMD episode called "stove-piping," i.e. officials using the press to "confirm"
information the officials themselves fed the reporter.
But there was virtually no non-conservative press about this problem apart from a Washington Post story pooh-poohing the issue.
(Every news story that casts any doubt on the collusion issue seems to meet with an instantaneous "fact check" in the Post .) The
Post insisted the FISA issue wasn't serious among other things because Steele was not the "foundation" of Isikoff's piece.
Isikoff was perhaps the reporter most familiar with Steele. He and Corn of Mother Jones , who also dealt with the ex-spy, wrote
a bestselling book that relied upon theories from Steele, Russian Roulette , including a rumination on the "pee" episode. Yet Isikoff
in late 2018 suddenly said he believed the Steele report would turn out to be "
mostly
false ."
Once again, this only came out via a podcast, John Ziegler's "Free Speech Broadcasting" show. Here's a transcript of the relevant
section:
Isikoff: When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, you know, we have not seen
the evidence to support them. And in fact there is good grounds to think some of the more sensational allegations will never be
proven, and are likely false.
Ziegler: That's...
Isikoff: I think it's a mixed record at best at this point, things could change, Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes
this calculation. But based on the public record at this point I have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been
borne out.
Ziegler: That's interesting to hear you say that, Michael because as I'm sure you know, your book was kind of used to validate
the pee tape, for lack of a better term.
Isikoff: Yeah. I think we had some evidence in there of an event that may have inspired the pee tape and that was the visit
that Trump made with a number of characters who later showed up in Moscow, specifically Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to this
raunchy Las Vegas nightclub where one of the regular acts was a skit called "Hot For Teacher" in which dancers posing as college
Co-Ed's urinated – or simulated urinating on their professor. Which struck me as an odd coincidence at best. I think, you know,
it is not implausible that event may have inspired...
Ziegler: An urban legend?
Isikoff: ...allegations that appeared in the Steele dossier.
Isikoff delivered this story with a laughing tone. He seamlessly transitioned to what he then called the "real" point, i.e. "the
irony is Steele may be right, but it wasn't the Kremlin that had sexual kompromat on Donald Trump, it was the National Enquirer.
"
Recapping: the reporter who introduced Steele to the world (his September 23, 2016 story was the first to reference him as a source),
who wrote a book that even he concedes was seen as "validating" the pee tape story, suddenly backtracks and says the whole thing
may have been based on a Las Vegas strip act, but it doesn't matter because Stormy Daniels, etc.
Another story of this type involved a court case in which Webzilla and parent company XBT sued Steele and Buzzfeed over the mention
their firm in one of the memos. It came out in court testimony that Steele had culled information about XBT/Webzilla from a
2009 post on CNN's "iReports"
page .
Asked if he understood these posts came from random users and not CNN journalists who'd been fact-checked, Steele replied, "
I do not ."
This comical detail was similar to news that the second British Mi6 dossier released just before the Iraq invasion had been
plagiarized in part from a thirteen year-old student thesis from California State University, not even by intelligence people,
but by mid-level functionaries in Tony Blair's press office.
There were so many profiles of Steele as an "
astoundingly
diligent " spymaster straight
out of LeCarre : he was routinely
described like a LeCarre-ian grinder like the legendary George Smiley, a man in the shadows whose bookish intensity was belied
by his "average," "neutral," "quiet," demeanor, being "more low-key than Smiley." One would think it might have rated a mention that
our "Smiley" was cutting and pasting text like a community college freshman. But the story barely made news.
This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges
the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the
same publication.
That's been rare. More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development,
leaving the "retraction" process to conservative outlets that don't reach the original audiences.
This is a major structural flaw of the
new fully-divided media
landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither
"side" feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.
This has been the main difference between Russiagate and the WMD affair. Despite David Remnick's post-invasion protestations that
"nobody got [WMD] completely right," the Iraq war was launched against the objections of the 6 million or more people who did get
it right, and protested on the streets
. There was open skepticism of Bush claims dotting the press landscape from the start, with people like
Jack Shafer tearing apart every Judith Miller story
in print. Most reporters are Democrats and the people hawking the WMD story were mostly Republicans, so there was political space
for protest.
Russiagate happened in an opposite context. If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made
a number of reporters queasy about coming forward. #Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a
complicated proposition.
Early in the scandal, I appeared on To The Point, a California-based public radio show hosted by Warren Olney, with Corn of Mother
Jones. I knew David a little and had been friendly with him. He once hosted a book event for me in Washington. In the program, however,
the subject of getting facts right came up and Corn said this was not a time for reporters to be picking nits:
So Democrats getting overeager, overenthusiastic, stating things that may not be [unintelligible] true ? Well, tell me a political
issue where that doesn't happen. I think that's looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
I wrote him later and suggested that since we're in the press, and not really about anything except avoiding "things that may
not be true," maybe we had different responsibilities than "Democrats"? He wrote back:
Feel free to police the Trump opposition. But on the list of shit that needs to be covered these days, that's just not high
on my personal list.
Other reporters spoke of an internal struggle. When the Mueller indictment of the Internet Research Agency was met with exultation
in the media, New Yorker writer Adrian Chen, who broke the original IRA story, was
hesitant to come forward with some mild qualms about the way the story was being reported:
"Either I could stay silent and allow the conversation to be dominated by those pumping up the Russian threat," he said, "or I
could risk giving fodder to Trump and his allies."
"What I meant to write is, I wasn't skeptical," he said.
Years ago, in the midst of the WMD affair, Times public editor Daniel Okrent noted the paper's standard had moved from "Don't
get it first, get it right" to "Get it first and get it right." From there,
Okrent wrote , "the next devolution was an obvious one."
We're at that next devolution: first and wrong. The Russiagate era has so degraded journalism that even once "reputable" outlets
are now only about as right as politicians, which is to say barely ever, and then only by accident.
Early on, I was so amazed by the sheer quantity of Russia "bombshells" being walked back, I started to keep a list. It's well
above 50 stories now. As has been noted by Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept and others, if the mistakes were random, you'd
expect them in both directions , but Russiagate errors uniformly go the same way.
In some cases the stories are only partly wrong, as in the case of the famed "
17 intelligence agencies said Russia was behind the hacking " story (it was actually four: the Director of National Intelligence
"hand-picking" a team from the FBI, CIA, and NSA).
In other cases the stories were blunt false starts, resulting in ugly sets of matching headlines:
" Trump
Campaign Aides had repeated contacts with Russian Intelligence ," published by the Times on Valentine's Day, 2017, was an important,
narrative-driving "bombshell" that looked dicey from the start. The piece didn't say whether the contact was witting or unwitting,
whether the discussions were about business or politics, or what the contacts supposedly were at all.
Normally a reporter would want to know what the deal is before he or she runs a story accusing people of having dealings with
foreign spies. "Witting" or "Unwitting" ought to be a huge distinction, for instance. It soon after came out that people like former
CIA chief John Brennan don't think this is the case. "Frequently, people who are on a treasonous path do not know they're on a treasonous
path,"
he said, speaking of Trump's circle.
This seemed a dangerous argument, the kind of thing that led to trouble in the McCarthy years. But let's say the contacts were
serious. From a reporting point of view, you'd still need to know exactly what the nature of such contacts were before you run that
story, because the headline implication is grave. Moreover you'd need to know it well enough to report it, i.e. it's not enough to
be told a convincing story off-the-record, you need to be able to share with readers enough so that they can characterize the news
themselves.
Not to the Times, which ran the article without the specifics. Months later, Comey blew up this "contacts" story in public, saying,
" in the
main, it was not true ."
As was the case with the "17 agencies" error, which only got fixed when Clapper testified in congress and was forced to make the
correction under oath, the "repeated contacts" story was only disputed when Comey testified in congress, this time
before the
Senate Intelligence Committee . How many other errors of this type are waiting to be disclosed?
Even the mistakes caught were astounding. On December 1, 2017, ABC reporter Brian Ross claimed Trump "as a candidate" instructed
Michael Flynn to contact Russia. The news caused the Dow to plummet 350 points. The story was retracted almost immediately and
Ross was suspended .
Bloomberg reported Mueller subpoenaed Trump's Deutsche Bank accounts; the subpoenas turned out to be of
other
individuals' records. Fortune said C-SPAN
was hacked after Russia Today programming briefly interrupted coverage of a Maxine Waters floor address. The New York Times
also ran the story, and it's
still up, despite C-SPAN insisting its own "internal routing error" likely caused the feed to appear in place of its own broadcast.
CNN has its own separate sub-list of wrecks. Three of the network's journalists
resigned after a story purporting to tie Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted. Four more
CNN reporters (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) were bylined in a story that claimed Comey was expected
to refute Trump's claims he was told he wasn't the target of an investigation. Comey blew that one up, too.
In another CNN scoop gone awry, "
Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents ," the network's reporters were off by ten days in a "bombshell" that supposedly
proved the Trump campaign had foreknowledge of Wikileaks dumps. "It's, uh, perhaps not as significant as what we know now," offered
CNN's Manu Raju in a painful on-air retraction .
The worst stories were the ones never corrected. A particularly bad example is "
After Florida School Shooting,
Russian 'Bot' Army Pounced ," from the New York Times on Feb 18, 2018. The piece claimed Russians were trying to divide Americans
on social media after a mass shooting using Twitter hashtags like #guncontrolnow, #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting.
The Times ran this quote high up:
"This is pretty typical for them, to hop on breaking news like this," said Jonathon Morgan, chief executive of New Knowledge,
a company that tracks online disinformation campaigns. "The bots focus on anything that is divisive for Americans. Almost systematically."
About a year after this story came out, Times reporters Scott Shane and Ann Blinder
reported that the same outfit,
New Knowledge , and in particular that same Jonathon Morgan, had participated in a cockamamie scheme to fake Russian troll activity
in an Alabama Senate race. The idea was to try to convince voters Russia preferred the Republican.
The Times quoted a New Knowledge internal report about the idiotic Alabama scheme:
We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media
by a Russian botnet
The Parkland story was iffy enough when it came out, as Twitter
disputed
it, and another of the main sources for the initial report, former intelligence official Clint Watts, subsequently
said he was "not convinced" on the whole "bot thing."
But when one of your top sources turns out to have faked exactly the kind of activity described in your article, you should at
least take the quote out, or put an update online. No luck: the story remains up on the Times site, without disclaimers.
Russiagate institutionalized one of the worst ethical loopholes in journalism, which used to be limited mainly to local crime
reporting. It's always been a problem that we publish mugshots and names of people merely arrested but not yet found guilty. Those
stories live forever online and even the acquitted end up permanently unable to get jobs, smeared as thieves, wife-beaters, drunk
drivers, etc.
With Russiagate the national press abandoned any pretense that there's a difference between indictment and conviction. The most
disturbing story involved Maria Butina. Here authorities and the press shared responsibility. Thanks to an indictment that initially
said the Russian traded
sex for favors, the Times and other outlets flooded the news cycle with breathless stories about a redheaded slut-temptress come
to undermine democracy, a "real-life Red Sparrow," as ABC put it.
But a judge threw out the sex charge after "five minutes" when it turned out to be based on a
single joke text to a friend who had taken Butina's car for inspection.
It's pretty hard to undo public perception you're a prostitute once it's been in a headline, and, worse, the headlines are still
out there. You can still find stories like "
Maria Butina, Suspected
Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan " online in the New York Times.
Here a reporter might protest: how would I know? Prosecutors said she traded sex for money. Why shouldn't I believe them?
How about because, authorities have been lying their faces off to reporters since before electricity! It doesn't take much investigation
to realize the main institutional sources in the Russiagate mess – the security services, mainly – have extensive records of deceiving
the media.
As noted before, from World War I-era tales of striking union workers being German agents to the "missile gap" that wasn't (the
"gap" was leaked to the press before the Soviets had even one operational ICBM) to the Gulf of Tonkin mess to all the smears of people
like Martin Luther King, it's a wonder newspapers listen to whispers from government sources at all.
In the Reagan years National Security Adviser John Poindexter spread false stories about Libyan terrorist plots to The Wall Street
Journal and other papers. In the Bush years, Dick Cheney et al were selling manure by the truckload about various connections between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, infamously including a story that bomber Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague.
The New York Times
ran a story that Atta was in Prague in late October of 2001, even giving a date of the meeting with Iraqis, April 8, or "just
five months before the terrorist attacks." The Prague story was another example of a tale that seemed shaky because American officials
were putting the sourcing first on foreign intelligence, then on reporters themselves. Cheney cited the Prague report in subsequent
TV appearances, one of many instances of feeding reporters tidbits and then selling reports as independent confirmation.
It wasn't until three years later, in 2004, that Times reporter James Risen definitively killed the Atta-in-Prague canard (why
is it always Prague?) in a story entitled "
No evidence of meeting with Iraqi ." By then, of course, it was too late. The Times also
held a major dissenting piece by Risen about the WMD case, "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," until days
after war started. This is what happens when you start thumbing the scale.
This failure to demand specifics has been epidemic in Russiagate, even when good reporters have been involved. One of the biggest
"revelations" of this era involved a story that was broken first by a terrible reporter (the Guardian's Luke Harding) and followed
up by a good one (Jane Mayer of the New Yorker ). The key detail involved the elusive origin story of Russiagate.
Mayer's piece, the March 12, 2018 "
Christopher
Steele, the Man Behind The Trump Dossier " in the New Yorker , impacted the public mainly by seeming to bolster the credentials
of the dossier author. But it contained an explosive nugget far down. Mayer reported Robert Hannigan, then-head of the GCHQ (the
British analog to the NSA) intercepted a "stream of illicit communications" between "Trump's team and Moscow" at some point prior
to August 2016. Hannigan flew to the U.S. and briefed CIA director John Brennan about these communications. Brennan later testified
this inspired the original FBI investigation.
When I read that, a million questions came to mind, but first: what did "illicit" mean?
If something "illicit" had been captured by GCHQ, and this led to the FBI investigation (one of several conflicting public explanations
for the start of the FBI probe, incidentally), this would go a long way toward clearing up the nature of the collusion charge. If
they had something, why couldn't they tell us what it was? Why didn't we deserve to know?
I asked the Guardian: "Was any attempt made to find out what those communications were? How was the existence of these communications
confirmed? Did anyone from the Guardian see or hear these intercepts, or transcripts?"
Their one-sentence reply:
The Guardian has strict and rigorous procedures when dealing with source material.
That's the kind of answer you'd expect from a transnational bank, or the army, not a newspaper.
I asked Mayer the same questions. She was more forthright, noting that, of course, the story had originally been broken
by Harding , whose
own report said "the precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public."
She added that "afterwards I independently confirmed aspects of [Harding's piece] with several well-informed sources," and "spent
months on the Steele story [and] traveled to the UK twice for it." But, she wrote, "the Russiagate story, like all reporting on sensitive
national security issues, is difficult."
I can only infer she couldn't find out what "illicit" meant despite proper effort. The detail was published anyway. It may not
have seemed like a big deal, but I think it was.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disbelieve the idea that there were "illicit" contacts between Trump and Russians in early 2015
or before. But if there were such contacts, I can't think of any legitimate reason why their nature should be withheld from the public.
If authorities can share reasons for concern with foreign countries like Israel, why should American voters not be so entitled?
Moreover the idea that we need to keep things secret to protect sources and methods and "tradecraft" (half the press corps became
expert in goofy spy language over the last few years, using terms like "SIGINT" like they've known them their whole lives), why are
we
leaking news of our ability to hear Russian officials cheerin g Trump's win?
Failure to ask follow-up questions happened constantly with this story. One of the first reports that went sideways involved a
similar dynamic: the contention that some leaked DNC emails were forgeries.
MSNBC's "Intelligence commentator" Malcolm Nance, perhaps the most enthusiastic source of questionable #Russiagate news this side
of Twitter conspiracist Louise Mensch,
tweeted on October 11, 2016: " #PodestaEmails
are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries &
#blackpropaganda not even professionally done."
As noted in The Intercept and elsewhere, this was re-reported by the likes of
David Frum (a key member of the club that has now contributed to both the WMD and Russiagate panics) and MSNBC host
Joy Reid . The reports didn't stop until roughly October of 2016, among other things because the Clinton campaign kept suggesting
to reporters the emails were fake. This could have been stopped sooner if examples of a forgery had been demanded from the Clinton
campaign earlier.
Another painful practice that became common was failing to confront your own sources when news dispositive to what they've told
you pops up. The omnipresent Clapper told Chuck Todd on March 5, 2017, without equivocation, that there had been no FISA application
involving Trump or his campaign. " I can deny it ," he
said.
It soon after came out this wasn't true. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This was not a small misstatement by Clapper,
because his appearance came a day after Trump claimed in a tweet he'd had his "
wires tapped ." Trump was widely ridiculed for this claim, perhaps appropriately so, but in addition to the Page news, it later
came out there had been a FISA warrant of Paul Manafort as well, during which time Trump may have been the subject of "
incidental " surveillance.
Whether or not this was meaningful, or whether these warrants were justified, are separate questions. The important thing is,
Clapper either lied to Todd, or else he somehow didn't know the FBI had obtained these warrants. The latter seems absurd and unlikely.
Either way, Todd ought to been peeved and demanded an explanation. Instead, he had
Clapper back on again within months and gave him the usual softball routine, never confronting him about the issue.
Reporters repeatedly got burned and didn't squawk about it. Where are the outraged stories about all the scads of anonymous "people
familiar with the matter" who put reporters in awkward spots in the last years? Why isn't McClatchy demanding the heads of whatever
"four people with knowledge" convinced them to
double down on the Cohen-in-Prague story ?
Why isn't every reporter who used "New Knowledge" as a source about salacious
Russian troll stories
out for their heads (or the heads of the congressional sources who passed this stuff on), after reports they faked Russian trolling?
How is it possible NBC and other outlets continued to use
New Knowledge as a source in stories identifying antiwar Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian-backed candidate?
How do the Guardian's editors not already have Harding's head in a vice for hanging them out to dry on the most
dubious un-retracted story in modern history – the tale that the most watched human on earth, Julian Assange, had somehow been
visited in the Ecuadorian embassy by Paul Manafort without leaving any record? I'd be dragging Harding's "well placed source" into
the office and beating him with a hose until he handed them something that would pass for corroborating evidence.
The lack of blowback over episodes in which reporters were put in public compromised situations speaks to the overly cozy relationships
outlets had with official sources. Too often, it felt like a team effort, where reporters seemed to think it was their duty to take
the weight if sources pushed them to overreach. They had absolutely no sense of institutional self-esteem about this.
Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump. Why bother
having a press corps at all if you're going to go that route?
This posture all been couched as anti-Trump solidarity, but really, did former CIA chief John Brennan – the same Brennan who should
himself have faced charges for
lying to congress about hacking the computers of Senate staff – need the press to
whine on his behalf when Trump yanked his security clearance? Did we need the press to hum Aretha Franklin tunes, as ABC did,
and chide Trump for lacking
R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the CIA? We don't have better things to do than that "work"?
This catalogue of factual errors and slavish stenography will stand out when future analysts look back at why the "MSM" became
a joke during this period, but they were only a symptom of a larger problem. The bigger issue was a radical change in approach.
A lot of #Russiagate coverage became straight-up conspiracy theory, what Baker politely called "connecting the dots ." This was
allowed because the press committed to a collusion narrative from the start, giving everyone cover to indulge in behaviors that would
never be permitted in normal times.
Such was the case with Jonathan
Chait's #Russiagate opus , "PRUMP TUTIN: Will Trump be Meeting With his Counterpart – or his Handler?" The story was also pitched
as "What if Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987," which recalls the joke from The Wire: "
Yo, Herc, what if your mother and father never met ?" What
if isn't a good place to be in this business.
This cover story (!) in New York magazine was released in advance of a planned "face-to-face" summit between Trump and Putin,
and posited Trump had been under Russian control for decades. Chait noted Trump visited the Soviet Union in 1987 and came back "fired
up with political ambition." He offered the possibility that this was a coincidence, but added:
Indeed, it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back
this far. But it can't be dismissed completely.
I searched the Chait article up and down for reporting that would justify the suggestion Trump had been a Russian agent dating
back to the late eighties, when, not that it matters, Russia was a different country called the Soviet Union.
Only two facts in the piece could conceivably have been used to support the thesis: Trump met with a visiting Soviet official
in 1986, and visited the Soviet Union in 1987. That's it. That's your cover story.
Worse, Chait's theory was first espoused in Lyndon Larouche's "
Elephants and Donkeys " newsletter
in 1987, under a headline, "Do Russians have a Trump card?" This is barrel-scraping writ large.
It's a mania. Putin is literally in our underpants. Maybe, if we're lucky, New York might someday admit
its report claiming Russians set up an anti-masturbation hotline to trap and blackmail random Americans is suspicious, not just
because it seems absurd on its face, but because its source is the same "New Knowledge" group that admitted to faking Russian influence
operations in Alabama.
This ultimately will be the endgame of the Russia charade. They will almost certainly never find anything like the wild charges
and Manchurian Candidate theories elucidated in the Steele report. But the years of panic over the events of 2016 will lead to radical
changes in everything from press regulation to foreign policy, just as the WMD canard led to torture, warrantless surveillance, rendition,
drone assassination, secret budgets and open-ended, undeclared wars from Somalia to Niger to Syria. The screw-ups will be forgotten,
but accelerated vigilance will remain.
It's hard to know what policy changes are appropriate because the reporting on everything involving the Russian threat in the
last two to three years has been so unreliable.
I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece
of the story seemed "solid," but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an "
assessment " by the intelligence services that
always had issues, including the use of things like RT's "anti-American" coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government
didn't even examine the DNC's server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous.
We won't know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at
this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors. That means being open to asking
what went wrong with this story, in addition to focusing so much energy on Trump and Russia.
The WMD mess had massive real-world negative impact, leading to over a hundred thousand deaths and trillions in lost taxpayer
dollars. Unless Russiagate leads to a nuclear conflict, we're unlikely to ever see that level of consequence.
Still, Russiagate has led to unprecedented cooperation between the government and Internet platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and
Google, all of which are censoring pages on the left, right, and in between in the name of preventing the "sowing of discord." The
story also had a profound impact on the situation in places like Syria, where Russian and American troops have sat across the Euphrates
River from one another, two amped-up nuclear powers at a crossroads.
As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations
this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it's led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We've become sides-choosers,
obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.
We had the sense to eventually look inward a little in the WMD affair, which is the only reason we escaped that episode with any
audience left. Is the press even capable of that kind of self-awareness now? WMD damaged our reputation. If we don't turn things
around, this story will destroy it
Taibbi is spot on, and in depth with this writing. The main stream media sold Americans on the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Almost 2 decades later, we have spent 6 trillion dollars, 8 millions lives have been lost, and millions of refugees have flooded
out of those countries, causing instability in Europe and beyond. For the past 2 years, 24/7, we have not been able to escape
the claims of Russiagate. He does not mention how the very same media gave Trump 24/7 coverage long before he was elected, and
in fact this free publicity, is probably why Trump is in the White House today. Without the constant press coverage of his campaign,
coverage that was not provided to other candidates, he would most likely not have found his way to the White House. Taibbi does
not go on to tell us what the motivation of the press is, or what he thinks can be done. News shows in the US have become little
more than entertainment. Many of us no longer rely on main stream press for any real news. The mass media has become irrelevant
at it's best, and dangerous, at it's worst. The driving force behind the so called news today, is the advertising dollars, and
the politics of the owners of the networks. How can we have a "free press" when just a few individuals own all the major news
outlets? We are not going to get the real news on tv of from the big newspapers, as long as the power is in the hands of a few
rich and powerful individuals, who decide what is news.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - Alexander Pope
The rash or inexperienced will attempt things that wiser people are more cautious of.
Finally the libs will agree that guns do have their place in society. These crazy zealots may just blow their own brains out
or just find the nearest cliff. Ace Hardware is loading up on rope.
hmmm....just imagine if - sleyers money contribution fo impeach trump was turned into a movie where a "sponsor" drew up a hit
list of batshit crazy MSM "personalities" to include late night "comfuckedupedians"
Even if you were stupid enough to believe Trump was getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians, what is wrong with that? Is
there a law against that? Why is it OK for Obama and the FBI to get away with wiretapping Trump during the election? Why is it
OK for NSA to wiretap All Americans and store all their conversations and internet traffic on hard drives?
Steele, Orbis, Pablo Miller, Salisbury, Porton Down, golden-shower dossier supposedly written by a native Russian speaker with
an intelligence background....it all makes me wonder what happened to Skripal.
"Skripalgate" is suppressed by UK law. All russians are evil in the UK. The fact that (as with tony Bliar and yellowcake Iraq)
any sitting government can prosecute another country without a trial, witnesses or evidence - as in the Skripals and within the
FUKUS cabal that bombed syria because of - "chlorine barrel bomb attacks on civilians" who later showed up unscathed in Den Haag.
UK governments cannot be held to account for their actions domestically or overseas.
Both parties have been playing up the threat from Russia for decades. The Military Industrial Complex was built on creating
fear about the possibility of war with Russian. The military industrial complex owns Congress, so of course Congress is going
to play up this threat. " The reason why media is working so hard to create the impression that Russia is actively conspiring
against is because conflict with the former Soviet Union is good for business." We can expect this to continue in one form or
another. If Americans were not afraid of Russia, we would not support a defense budget that is equal to all other countries in
the world combined.
Right. The depth of your analysis is impressive. You seem to have an unlimited knowledge of world and national affairs too.
Other than some stalking tendencies, why do you post on ZH? You don't really seem to have any interest in the content, or the
discussion.
I dont want to type up everything that led me to believe this. But the racism, his empathy towards certain muslims groups and
how he treated the war, the prisoner release, the sailors broadcasted on tv about drifting into territorial waters, I mean it
was so obvious how he felt about America.
Pile on his efforts to interfere in the election and eavesdrop, unmasking with Hillary getting and receiving emails from her
home brew server not to mention her foundation pulling in 145 million from Russia.
The CIA is sickening to what has developed over the last 20 years
Blind: If so, it just means it will not be reported on in the MainStream Media(MSM) and soon forgotten.
The same people who own the private central bank and currency, also own the MSM, and they control the narrative on ALL TOPICS.
And control of narrative mean control of what people think.
Control of money and mind means TOTAL control of a country.
Nothing will change until control of minds is returned to the people, then issuance of currency can be returned to the government.
Alex Jones' of Infowars got it right when he said "There's a war on for your mind!" ... even though he became a turncoat himself,
soon after.
Hillary lost a freaking election. After almost 3 freaking years of coup d'état the left deserves mocking humiliation. Mock
them ruthlessly. Never, ever let them forget the horrible thing that they did.
Never stop making fun of them and reminding them how stupid and crazy they acted during this humiliating period of US history.
Never let them forget what they did to the nation or what they cost us all. Never let Democrats forget how much time and energy
they wasted, how very, very wrong they were.
Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of Russia! Russia!
Russia! has utterly discredited themselves for life. They executed and failed to accomplish a coup d'état. These are the very
last people anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world or an ice cream truck.
Refuse them, laugh at them, ignore them. They earned it and deserve nothing but the greatest disdain.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't.
Of course there isn't. But this doesn't mean that a prosecutor like Mueller can prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. In
fact it is quite likely that he cannot. The only charge that should be fairly easy to establish is obstruction of justice.
Without knowing what is in the report, Taibbi really jumps the gun here. Especially given the comparison to WMDs.
I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion because I followed, and chose to believe, a credible diplomat like Hans
Blix over the dog and pony show that Colin Powell put on. But WMDs are very tangible you either find the hardware or you do not.
Yet, what Putin and Trump discuss without a single other American in the room nobody knows but the Kremlin and Trump.
"It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came
together and supported those ideals who have made the difference.
They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We
can do this again ."
Hardly the call for violent civil war at which it has been portrayed.
The most coiffed, manicured, made up sacks of **** ever to glorify the airwaves tell US what THEY think and get paid handsome
salaries for their effort to overthrow the American system. Freedom of Speech? That'll be gone in a heartbeat if THEY get power.
We have an obligation to not just protect it but a greater one to preserve it.
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to interfere with the Mueller investigation.
Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite
and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I
constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications
and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at
times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken,
did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or criticism."
Here's the goddam thing IMO. There is this thing called freedom of the press, it's constitutionally protected, no different
than the right to bear arms.
But just because I have the right to carry an M+A 9mm around, that doesn't mean I can point it at the guy who cut me off in
traffic. In that case, I go to jail.
For almost three years now, I've been hearing "bombshell" after unsourced "bombshell" from CNN/MSNBC/WaPo/NPR/NYT et. al. Here's
how it usually goes:
"NPR has been unable to independently confirm, but other major news organizations are reporting that . . ."
"CNN is working to confirm a bombshell report from the Washington Post . . ."
"The New York Times, echoing other major news outlets, is reporting that . . ."
And now let's turn to our panel of experts to "unpack" this latest revelation . . .
These people have criminally abused their rights, and those rights need to be taken away.
Otschelnik,
If Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, Judy Woodruff, Chuck Todd, Anderson Cooper, Brian Stelter, Chris Hayes, Mika Brzezinski,
Don Lemon, Alysin Camerota, Lawrence O'Donnell had the slightest inkling of professional integrity, and human conscience -
they'd commit seppuku on national live TeeVee to restore their honor.
A rope leash, 3 hours ago
In his effort to cleanse himself of the slimy residue of his profession, Tiabbi has written a fine piece here, a nice
little documentation of press collusion with government spooks and political operatives.
If a little honest reporting will offer some redemption to damned journalists, his name was Seth Rich.
hooligan2009, 3 hours ago
don't forget that Obama was PERSONALLY and DIRECTLY involved in all aspects of Russiagate.
read between these lines
On Oct. 14, 2016, Page again wrote to McCabe, this time concerning a meeting with the White House.
"Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there,
and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with
her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case."
newworldorder, 3 hours ago
The simple truth here is that most Americans no longer have any critical thinking skills, - all media realized this a long
time ago, and catered to their audience.
The Benjamin Franklin famous quote in answer to the question of "what kind of government have you given us?" rings very hollow
after 240+ years. The "Republic" exists in name only, because its people have not protected it, after the passing of the WW2
generation.
Unrestricted, open borders invasion disguised as alleged migration, and the legalization of an eventual 100+ million new
"migrant" voters will be the final nail on the coffin of the US Republic by 2030.
Mob rule will finally destroy the greatest Republic ever conceived by the mind of men.
Mike Rotsch, 3 hours ago (Edited)
If "open borders" is your measuring stick on Americans' critical-thinking skills, then where does that place Europeans?
They actually have them officially.
Paracelsus, 3 hours ago
Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and
the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check.
Ghaddafi actually warned the west that after him would come a deluge of illegals (okay refugees: young males, black, often
Islamic, with little respect for women or experience with western society).
While I have reservations about Trump and his policies, the MSM owe him a huge mea culpa.
So Brennan conspired with MI6 and Clinton wing of Dems to bring down Trump. Trump was falsely
accused of colliding with Russia while he openly collided with Israel. Of course colliding with
Israel is not a crime in the USA as political establishment assumes that the interests of both
countries are identical. This is pretty far from being true. Israel plays its own and sometime
harmful for the USA game in the Middle East. And Israel agents of influence like Kushner, Pompeo,
Haley and Bolton really infiltrated the Trump administration, unlike mythical Russian.
Now the question is: was Brennan acted in the interests of MI6 only, or only of Mossad?
Brennan's pipe dream was all but obliterated on Friday when Mueller submitted his
report to the Justice Department. Officials at the agency said that no more
indictments will be submitted in the 22-month old investigation. There are also no
indictments that have been issued under seal. The last indictment in the investigation was
handed down on Jan. 24 against Trump confidant Roger
Stone .
Of the three dozen indictments or guilty pleas obtained in the investigation, none have
involved charges of conspiracy between Trump associates and Russian government officials.
It does remain unclear whether Mueller recommended Trump for impeachment proceedings, or
whether he found non-criminal evidence of links between Trumpworld and the Kremlin. Attorney
General William Barr said in a letter Friday afternoon that he will likely provide a summary of
the investigation to the Houe and Senate Judiciary Committees as soon as this weekend.
Brennan was actually right about Kushner and Ivanka. But after that he continued to beat dead Russia horse. Trump
collition is with KSA and Isreal is much more plausable then with Russia. And even in case of Russia it was probably with Russian
mafia, which is actually ethnically is a Jewish and Georgian mafia,
Notable quotes:
"... "If anybody from the Trump family is going to be indicted, it would be in the final act of Mueller's investigation because Bob Mueller and I think his team knows that if he were to do something, indicting a Trump family member, or if he were to go forward with an indictment on a criminal conspiracy involving U.S. persons that would basically be the death knell of the special counsel's office," ..."
Former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan predicted just two short weeks ago
that President Trump's family members or associates would be indicted in the special counsel's
probe.
During an appearance on MSNBC on March 5, Brennan predicted that Mueller would issue
indictments related to a "criminal conspiracy" involving Trump or his associates' activities
during the 2016 election. The forecast proved far off the mark on Friday after Robert Mueller
ended his investigation without issuing new indictments.
"If anybody from the Trump family is going to be indicted, it would be in the final act of
Mueller's investigation because Bob Mueller and I think his team knows that if he were to do
something, indicting a Trump family member, or if he were to go forward with an indictment on a
criminal conspiracy involving U.S. persons that would basically be the death knell of the
special counsel's office,"
During an appearance on MSNBC on March 5, Brennan predicted that Mueller would issue
indictments related to a "criminal conspiracy" involving Trump or his associates'
activities during the 2016 election.
That last hope of the Russiagate dead-enders is now
gone :
Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III submitted a long-awaited report to Attorney General
William P. Barr on Friday, marking the end of his investigation into Russian interference
in the 2016 election and possible obstruction of justice by President Trump.
...
A senior Justice Department official said the special counsel has not recommended any
further indictments -- a revelation that buoyed Trump's supporters, even as other
Trump-related investigations continue in other parts of the Justice Department.
...
None of the Americans charged by Mueller are accused of conspiring with Russia to
interfere in the election -- the central question of Mueller's work. Instead, they
pleaded guilty to various crimes, including lying to the FBI.
The investigation ended without charges for a number of key figures who had long been
under Mueller's scrutiny ...
Conclusions from the Mueller report will be released by the Justice Department over the
next days.
That the Russiagaters were wrong for falling for the bullshit peddled in the Steele
dossier and the "Russian hacking" lies of the snakeoil salesmen Clapper and Brennan was
obvious long ago. In June 2017 we pointed to a long Washington Post piece on
alleged Russian election hacking and remarked :
Reading that piece it becomes clear (but is never said) that the sole source for that
August 2016 Brennan claim of "Russian hacking" is the
absurd Steele dossier some ex-MI6 dude created for too much money as opposition
research against Trump. The only other "evidence" for "Russian hacking" is the
Crowdstrike report on the DNC "hack". Crowdstrike has a Ukrainian nationalist agenda, was
hired by the DNC, had to retract other "Russian hacking" claims and no one else was
allowed to take a look at the DNC servers. Said differently: The whole "Russian hacking"
claims are solely based on "evidence" of two fake reports.
The Steele dossier was fake opposition research peddled by the Clinton campaign, John
McCain and a bunch of anti-Trump national security types. The still unproven claim of
"Russian hacking" was designed to divert from the fact that Clinton and the DNC colluded to
cheat Bernie Sanders out of the nomination. The stupid claim that commercial click-bait
from a company in Leningrad was a "Russian influence campaign" was designed to explain
Clinton's election loss to the other worst-candidate-ever. The "Russiagate" investigation
was designed to prevent Trump from finding better relations with Russia as he had promised
during his campaign.
All were somewhat successful because some media and some bloggers were happy to sell
such nonsense without putting it into the big picture.
It is high time to start a deep investigation into Brennan, Clapper, Comey and the
Clinton campaign and to uncover the conspiracy that led to the Steele dossier, the FBI
investigation following from it and all the other bullshit that evolved from that
investigation.
As for Marcy Wheeler, Rachel Maddow and other dimwits who peddled the Russiagate
nonsense I agree with the advice Catlin Johnstone
gives :
Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed
this moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life.
...
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our
world.
Posted by b at 01:12 PM |
Comments
(61) Among my friends who hate Trump their is a deep desire to grasp anything that
would destroy him. The media played the phony collusion story relentlessly and the goyim
ate it up. People who had some intellect parked it to get Trump, others who did not
understand how the system works believed the story.
Clearly this was operation crossfire hurricane. Trump was the hurricane blowing in and
the phony collusion story was the crossfire with the top DOJ officials pushing the story to
the hilt. By going on the attack they sucked out all of the oxygen out of the room.
I believe they feared any investigation against their coverup of the real collusion
between Russian oligarchs and the Clinton foundation. The "lock her up" chant frightened
them. Basically the best defense is a good offense.
The empire cannot police itself, it can only protect itself and its primary backers.
I wish I could agree with your assessment of how these Russiagate fools have discredited
themselves for life, but as we've seen with the Iraq war the political/media elite are
never punished for their crimes and failures. Only those that oppose the crimes are ever
punished, Phil Donahue never got his show back after he was fired for opposing the Media's
drive for the Iraq war, Assange is still imprisoned without trial, Manning is back in jail
for contempt of court which will probably be a reoccurring weapon to be used against her
for the rest of her life.
Conversely, those individuals that committed the supreme crime against the world are
stronger than ever; John Bolton is back in power as if the Iraq war disaster never
happened, Elliott Abrams has been forgiven by the Congress he lied to and is back in power
planning another dirty war against Venezuela, relations with Russia are now wrecked for at
LEAST another 10 years (maybe 20 years or more). Brennan, Clapper, Comey and the Clinton
gang will never be punished and will instead be lionized for the rest of their lives since
all of the media elite is complicit in their crimes. Rachel Madcow, Chris Matthews, Brian
Williams and the rest of the MSNBC/CNN crowed will continue to be "Guided by the beauty of
our weapons" for the glory of their sponsors. The Alternative media that brought many of
these crimes to light is now being strangled by a censorship imposed by the very criminals
they exposed. All of the vested Political/Economic interests in the current status quo will
quash the needed reforms and the world community will suffer - things will get worst,
things can only get worse from here.
and yet they will keep going and "fail upward" as is the usual progression of beltway and
manhattan types. it certainly worked for abrams and bolton over their long careers as
incompetent serial killers. even bush II has been slowly rehabilitated by the very
"resistance" who loathed him after the 9/11 honeymoon was over.
i had on the bbc's US nightly news thing last night...they were coming on air just as
this was "breaking news". they stated outright that they had no idea what was in it (at
that point even trump didn't) yet filled the next 30 minutes with "we don't know what's in
it but it's in and we assume BOOM". that's literally all they had and they said it over and
over in 40 different ways. because there's nothing else going on in the world right now i
suppose.
one of the bits was prepared by a field "reporter" who within 5 or 6 sentences of his
stock footage fluff said "derpa derp when the russians hacked the DNC and handed it over
to wikileaks diddly derp". they stated this as fact and once again exemplified the
worst part of arguing with stupid assholes: even when you've proven them 100% objectively,
empirically wrong ...they just don't care. for them reality is a matter of consensus
and as long as enough other idiots exist to keep the story going it's "true".
Now that Robert Mueller has closed his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016
election without bringing any new indictments, some Twitter users have lashed out at former at
political analyst and former CIA director for his recent prediction that Mueller would be
bringing additional charges before finishing his probe.
Brennan
appeared on MSNBC earlier this month, where he predicted that the special counsel's office
would soon be bringing indictments to add to the list of 34
individuals already charged by Mueller's team.
In that interview, Brennan also opined that he expected that any indictment of anyone close
to President Trump, including his family or extended family, would be named at the conclusion
of the investigation.
"Bob Mueller and his team knows if he were to do something -- indicting a Trump family
member or if he were to go forward with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving U.S.
persons -- that would basically be the death of the special counsel's office, because I don't
believe Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of
actions," Brennan explained at the time.
Yet Mueller closed his investigation without bringing any further indictments and without
any charges being brought against anyone within Trump's closest circle. The president's
supporters and others took this opportunity to pounce on Brennan via Twitter.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been openly critical of the Russia investigation, was
among the first to call out Brennan's indictment prediction.
"You can't blame MSNBC viewers for being confused," tweeted Greenwald in the wake of news
that Mueller had submitted his report. "They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia
spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly
suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act"
He later added, "The worst part of this video is how Brennan said Mueller would indict Trump
Family members for conspiring with Russia before March 15 or after, because he was too noble to
do it on the Ides of March. Will MSNBC or Brennan apologize? Will there be consequences for any
of this? LOL"
Conservative political pundit Charlie Kirk listed Brenna on a list of other frequent targets
-- Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others
-- of people who should be investigated, though it was not clear which laws Kirk believes any
of these individuals might have broken.
Actor Dean Cain likened Brennan's indictment prediction to Vermont Governor Howard Dean's
infamous "Dean Scream" that helped to tank Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.
Conservative political consultant Frank Luntz used the incorrect Brennan prediction to
criticize media outlets for what he saw as a failure to acknowledge errors on their part.
"... Former CIA Chief-turned-Twitter-troll John Brennan warned the President on Wednesday that Special Counsel Mueller will soon put Trump's political and financial future in jeopardy. ..."
Former CIA Chief-turned-Twitter-troll John Brennan warned the President on Wednesday that Special Counsel Mueller will
soon put Trump's political and financial future in jeopardy.
The President fired off an incendiary tweet directed towards Kellyanne Conway's cruel,
Trump-hating "husband from hell," George Conway on Wednesday.
"George Conway, often referred to as Mr. Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is VERY
jealous of his wife's success & angry that I, with her help, didn't give him the job he so
desperately wanted. I barely know him but just take a look, a stone cold LOSER & husband
from hell!"
In response to Trump's tweets to George Conway, John Brennan, one of the architects of Russiagate, accused President Trump of
throwing temper tantrums because he is panicking over Mueller's impending report.
What does John Brennan know about Mueller's report? Brennan is admitting Mueller's report will complicate Trump's life and
cripple him financially and politically in the future.
BRENNAN:
Hmmm your bizarre tweets and recent temper tantrums reveal your panic over the likelihood the Special Counsel will soon
further complicate your life, putting your political & financial future in jeopardy. Fortunately, Lady Justice does not do
NDAs.
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services?
Notable quotes:
"... Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? ..."
"... "Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5." ..."
"... Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll. ..."
"... The heart of the secret state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants. ..."
"... As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood at the end of their career". ..."
"... Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance. ..."
Can you trust the BBC news? How many journalists are working for the security services? The following extracts are from
an article at the excellent Medialens
And so to Nottingham University (on Sunday 26 February) for a well-attended conference...
I focus in my talk on the links between journalists and the intelligence services: While it might be difficult to identify precisely
the impact of the spooks (variously represented in the press as "intelligence", "security", "Whitehall" or "Home Office" sources)
on mainstream politics and media, from the limited evidence it looks to be enormous.
As Roy Greenslade, media specialist at the Telegraph (formerly the Guardian), commented:
"Most tabloid newspapers - or even newspapers in general - are playthings of MI5."
Bloch and Fitzgerald, in their examination of covert UK warfare, report the editor of "one of Britain's most distinguished
journals" as believing that more than half its foreign correspondents were on the MI6 payroll.
And in 1991, Richard Norton-Taylor revealed in the Guardian that 500 prominent Britons paid by the CIA and the now defunct
Bank of Commerce and Credit International, included 90 journalists.
In their analysis of the contemporary secret state, Dorril and Ramsay gave the media a crucial role. The heart of the secret
state they identified as the security services, the cabinet office and upper echelons of the Home and Commonwealth Offices, the armed
forces and Ministry of Defence, the nuclear power industry and its satellite ministries together a network of senior civil servants.
As "satellites" of the secret state, their list included "agents of influence in the media, ranging from actual agents of
the security services, conduits of official leaks, to senior journalists merely lusting after official praise and, perhaps, a knighthood
at the end of their career".
Phillip Knightley, author of a seminal history of the intelligence services, has even claimed that at least one intelligence agent
is working on every Fleet Street newspaper.
A brief history
Going as far back as 1945, George Orwell no less became a war correspondent for the Observer - probably as a
cover for intelligence work. Significantly most of the men he met in Paris on his assignment, Freddie Ayer, Malcolm Muggeridge, Ernest
Hemingway were either working for the intelligence services or had close links to them.
Stephen Dorril, in his seminal history of MI6, reports that Orwell attended a meeting in Paris of resistance fighters on behalf
of David Astor, his editor at the Observer and leader of the intelligence service's unit liasing with the French resistance.
The release of Public Record Office documents in 1995 about some of the operations of the MI6-financed propaganda unit, the
Information Research Department of the Foreign Office, threw light on this secret body - which even Orwell aided
by sending them a list of "crypto-communists". Set up by the Labour government in 1948, it "ran" dozens of Fleet Street journalists
and a vast array of news agencies across the globe until it was closed down by Foreign Secretary David Owen in 1977.
According to John Pilger in the anti-colonial struggles in Kenya, Malaya and Cyprus, IRD was so successful that the journalism
served up as a record of those episodes was a cocktail of the distorted and false in which the real aims and often atrocious behaviour
of the British intelligence agencies was hidden.
And spy novelist John le Carré, who worked for MI6 between 1960 and 1964, has made the amazing statement that the British secret
service then controlled large parts of the press – just as they may do today.
In 1975, following Senate hearings on the CIA, the reports of the Senate's Church Committee and the House of Representatives'
Pike Committee highlighted the extent of agency recruitment of both British and US journalists.
And sources revealed that half the foreign staff of a British daily were on the MI6 payroll.
David Leigh, in The Wilson Plot, his seminal study of the way in which the secret service smeared through the mainstream media
and destabilised the Government of Harold Wilson before his sudden resignation in 1976, quotes an MI5 officer: "We have somebody
in every office in Fleet Street"
Leaker King
And the most famous whistleblower of all, Peter (Spycatcher) Wright, revealed that MI5 had agents in newspapers and publishing
companies whose main role was to warn them of any forthcoming "embarrassing publications".
Wright also disclosed that the Daily Mirror tycoon, Cecil King, "was a longstanding agent of ours" who "made it clear
he would publish anything MI5 might care to leak in his direction".
Selective details about Wilson and his secretary, Marcia Falkender, were leaked by the intelligence services to sympathetic Fleet
Street journalists. Wright comments: "No wonder Wilson was later to claim that he was the victim of a plot". King was also closely
involved in a scheme in 1968 to oust Prime Minister Harold Wilson and replace him with a coalition headed by Lord Mountbatten.
Hugh Cudlipp, editorial director of the Mirror from 1952 to 1974, was also closely linked to intelligence, according
to Chris Horrie, in his recently published history of the newspaper.
David Walker, the Mirror's foreign correspondent in the 1950s, was named as an MI6 agent following a security
scandal while another Mirror journalist, Stanley Bonnet, admitted working for MI5 in the 1980s investigating the Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament.
Maxwell and Mossad
According to Stephen Dorril, intelligence gathering during the miners' strike of 1984-85 was helped by the fact that during the
1970s MI5's F Branch had made a special effort to recruit industrial correspondents – with great success.
In 1991, just before his mysterious death, Mirror proprietor Robert Maxwell was accused by the US investigative
journalist Seymour Hersh of acting for Mossad, the Israeli secret service, though Dorril suggests his links with MI6
were equally as strong.
Following the resignation from the Guardian of Richard Gott, its literary editor in December 1994 in the wake of allegations that
he was a paid agent of the KGB, the role of journalists as spies suddenly came under the media spotlight – and many of the leaks
were fascinating.
For instance, according to The Times editorial of 16 December 1994: "Many British journalists benefited from CIA or MI6 largesse
during the Cold War."
The intimate links between journalists and the secret services were highlighted in the autobiography of the eminent newscaster
Sandy Gall. He reports without any qualms how, after returning from one of his reporting assignments to Afghanistan, he was asked
to lunch by the head of MI6. "It was very informal, the cook was off so we had cold meat and salad with plenty of wine. He wanted
to hear what I had to say about the war in Afghanistan. I was flattered, of course, and anxious to pass on what I could in terms
of first-hand knowledge."
And in January 2001, the renegade MI6 officer, Richard Tomlinson, claimed Dominic Lawson, the editor of the Sunday Telegraph
and son of the former Tory chancellor, Nigel Lawson, provided journalistic cover for an MI6 officer on a mission to the Baltic to
handle and debrief a young Russian diplomat who was spying for Britain.
Lawson strongly denied the allegations.
Similarly in the reporting of Northern Ireland, there have been longstanding concerns over security service disinformation. Susan
McKay, Northern editor of the Dublin-based Sunday Tribune, has criticised the reckless reporting of material from "dodgy security
services". She told a conference in Belfast in January 2003 organised by the National Union of Journalists and the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission: "We need to be suspicious when people are so ready to provide information and that we are, in fact, not
being used." (www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=635)
Growing power of secret state
Thus from this evidence alone it is clear there has been a long history of links between hacks and spooks in both the UK and US.
But as the secret state grows in power, through massive resourcing, through a whole raft of legislation – such as the Official
Secrets Act, the anti-terrorism legislation, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and so on – and as intelligence moves into
the heart of Blair's ruling clique so these links are even more significant.
Since September 11 all of Fleet Street has been awash in warnings by anonymous intelligence sources of terrorist threats.
According to former Labour minister Michael Meacher, much of this disinformation was spread via sympathetic journalists by
the Rockingham cell within the MoD.
A parallel exercise, through the office of Special Plans, was set up by Donald Rumsfeld in the US. Thus there have been constant
attempts to scare people – and justify still greater powers for the national security apparatus.
Similarly the disinformation about Iraq's WMD was spread by dodgy intelligence sources via gullible journalists.
Thus, to take just one example, Michael Evans, The Times defence correspondent, reported on 29 November 2002: "Saddam Hussein
has ordered hundred of his officials to conceal weapons of mass destruction components in their homes to evade the prying eyes of
the United Nations inspectors." The source of these "revelations" was said to be "intelligence picked up from within Iraq". Early
in 2004, as the battle for control of Iraq continued with mounting casualties on both sides, it was revealed that many of the lies
about Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD had been fed to sympathetic journalists in the US, Britain and Australia by the exile group,
the Iraqi National Congress.
Sexed up – and missed out
During the controversy that erupted following the end of the "war" and the death of the arms inspector Dr David Kelly (and the
ensuing Hutton inquiry) the spotlight fell on BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan and the claim by one of his sources that the government
(in collusion with the intelligence services) had "sexed up" a dossier justifying an attack on Iraq.
The Hutton inquiry, its every twist and turn massively covered in the mainstream media, was the archetypal media spectacle that
drew attention from the real issue: why did the Bush and Blair governments invade Iraq in the face of massive global opposition?
But those facts will be forever secret.
Significantly, too, the broader and more significant issue of mainstream journalists' links with the intelligence services was
ignored by the inquiry.
Significantly, on 26 May 2004, the New York Times carried a 1,200-word editorial admitting it had been duped in its coverage of
WMD in the lead-up to the invasion by dubious Iraqi defectors, informants and exiles (though it failed to lay any blame on the US
President: see Greenslade 2004). Chief among The Times' dodgy informants was Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress
and Pentagon favourite before his Baghdad house was raided by US forces on 20 May.
Then, in the Observer of 30 May 2004, David Rose admitted he had been the victim of a "calculated set-up" devised to foster the
propaganda case for war. "In the 18 months before the invasion of March 2003, I dealt regularly with Chalabi and the INC and published
stories based on interviews with men they said were defectors from Saddam's regime." And he concluded: "The information fog is thicker
than in any previous war, as I know now from bitter personal experience. To any journalist being offered apparently sensational disclosures,
especially from an anonymous intelligence source, I offer two words of advice: caveat emptor."
Let's not forget no British newspaper has followed the example of the NYT and apologised for being so easily duped by the intelligence
services in the run up to the illegal invasion of Iraq.
~
Richard Keeble's publications include Secret State, Silent Press: New Militarism, the Gulf and the Modern Image of Warfare (John
Libbey 1997) and The Newspapers Handbook (Routledge, fourth edition, 2005). He is also the editor of Ethical Space: The International
Journal of Communication Ethics. Richard is also a member of the War and Media Network.
"... General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC. MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market. Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women and Children. ..."
"... Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War". ..."
"... The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war. ..."
"... the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark forces. ..."
"... The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening ..."
"... In media universe there is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing. ..."
"... The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. ..."
"... Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department to your favorite media outlet. ..."
"... But all that research from MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and distorts and misrepresents the news every day. ..."
The American Public has gotten exactly what it deserved. They have been dumbed-down in our poor-by-intention school systems. The
moronic nonsense that passes for news in this country gets more sensational with each passing day. Over on Fox, they are making
the claim that ISIS fighters are bringing Ebola over the Mexican Border, which prompted a reply by the Mexican Embassy that won't
be reported on Fox.
We continue to hear and it was even reported in this very fine article by Ms. Benjamin that the American
People now support this new war. Really? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen that support anywhere but on the news and I just don't
believe it any more.
There is also the little problem of infiltration into key media slots by paid CIA Assets (Scarborough and brainless Mika are
two of these double dippers). Others are intermarried. Right-wing Neocon War Criminal Dan Senor is married to "respected" newsperson
Campbell Brown who is now involved in privatizing our school system. Victoria Nuland, the slimey State Department Official who
was overheard appointing the members of the future Ukrainian Government prior to the Maidan Coup is married to another Neo-Con--Larry
Kagan. Even sweet little Andrea Mitchell is actually Mrs. Alan Greenspan.
General Electric, the world's largest military contractor, still controls the message over at the so-called "liberal" MSNBC.
MSNBC's other owner is Comcast, the right wing media conglomerate that controls the radio waves in every major American Market.
Over at CNN, Mossad Asset Wolf Blitzer, who rose from being an obscure little correspondent for an Israeli Newspaper to being
CNN's Chief "Pentagon Correspondent" and then was elevated to supreme anchorman nearly as quickly, ensures that the pro-Israeli
Message is always in the forefront, even as the Israeli's commit one murderous act after another upon helpless Palestinian Women
and Children.
Every single "terrorism expert", General or former Government Official that is brought out to discuss the next great war is
connected to a military contractor that stands to benefit from that war. Not surprisingly, the military option is the only option
discussed and we are assured that, if only we do this or bomb that, then it will all be over and we can bring our kids home to
a big victory parade. I'm 63 and it has never happened in my lifetime--with the exception of the phony parade that Bush Senior
put on after his murderous little "First Gulf War".
Yesterday there was a coordinated action by all of the networks, which was clearly designed to support the idea that the generals
want Obama to act and he just won't. The not-so-subtle message was that the generals were right and that the President's "inaction"
was somehow out of line-since, after all, the generals have recommended more war. It was as if these people don't remember that
the President, sleazy War Criminal that he is, is still the Commander in Chief.
The Generals in the Pentagon always want war. It is how they make rank. All of those young kids that just graduated from our
various academies know that war experience is the only thing that will get them the advancement that they seek in the career that
they have chosen. They are champing at the bit for more war.
Finally, this Sunday every NFL Game will begin with some Patriotic "Honor America" Display, which will include a missing man
flyover, flags and fireworks, plenty of uniforms, wounded Vets and soon-to-be-wounded Vets. A giant American Flag will, once again,
cover the fields and hundreds of stupid young kids will rush down to their "Military Career Center" right after the game. These
are the ones that I pity most.
Let's be frank: powerful interests want war and subsequent puppet regimes in the half dozen nations that the neo-cons have been
eyeing (Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan). These interests surely include industries like banking, arms and oil-all of
whom make a killing on any war, and would stand to do well with friendly governments who could finance more arms purchases and
will never nationalize the oil.
So, the same PR campaign that started with Bush and Cheney continues-the exact same campaign. Obviously, they have to come
back at the apple with variations, but any notion that the "media will get it someday" is willfully ignorant of the obvious fact
that there is an agenda, and that agenda just won't stop until it's achieved-or revolution supplants the influence of these dark
forces.
IanB52, 10 October 2014 6:57pm
The US media are indeed working overtime to get this war happening. When I'm down at the gym they always have CNN on (I can
only imagine what FOX is like) which is a pretty much dyed in the wool yellow jingoist station at this point. With all the segments
they dedicate to ISIS, a new war, the "imminent" terrorist threat, they seem to favor talking heads who support a full ground
war and I have never, not once, heard anyone even speak about the mere possibility of peace. Not ever.
In media universe there
is no alternative to endless war and an endless stream of hyped reasons for new killing.
I'd imagine that these media companies have a lot stock in and a cozy relationship with the defense contractors.
Damiano Iocovozzi, 10 October 2014 7:04pm
The media machine is a wholly owned subsidiary of the United States of Corporations. The media doesn't report on anything but
relies on repeating manufactured crises, creating manufactured consent & discussing manufactured solutions. Follow the oil, the
pipelines & the money. Both R's & D's are left & right cheeks of the same buttock. Thanks to Citizens United & even Hobby Lobby,
a compliant Supreme Court, also owned by United States of Corporations, it's a done deal.
Oh, the greatest propaganda arm the US government has right now, bar none, is the American media. It's disgraceful. we no longer
have journalists speaking truth to power in my country, we have people practicing stenography, straight from the State Department
to your favorite media outlet.
Let me give you one clear example. A year ago Barack Obama came very close to bombing Syria to
kingdom come, the justification used was "Assad gassed his own people", referring to a sarin gas attack near Damascus. Well, it
turns out that Assad did not initiate that attack, discovered by research from many sources including the prestigious MIT, it
was a false flag attack planned by Turkey and carried out by some of Obama's own "moderate rebels".
But all that research from
MIT, from the UN, and others, has been buried by the American media, and every single story on Syria and Assad that is written
still refers to "Assad gassing his own people". It's true, it's despicable, and it's just one example of how our media lies and
distorts and misrepresents the news every day.
In yet another stunning blow to the so-called "Steele Dossier" assembled by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, the former chief
of the (MI6) said the hastily cobbled-together report by his former employee is "overrated" and its salacious claims against Donald
Trump unlikely to be verified, as the
Daily Wire
's Ashe Schow reports.
Following an appearance at the Jamestown Foundation's
12th annual terrorism conference in Washington
D.C., Sir John Scarlett - who headed the British Secret Intelligence Service from 2004 to 2009, fielded a question from journalist
Nicholas Ballasy, who asked Scarlett what he thought of the dossier and if he believed what was written in it.
"Well, no," said Scarlett, adding "I looked at it and I thought these are commercial intelligence reports; I don't know about
the sources -- they might be right, they might be wrong and they'll probably be overrated and they've been overrated. "
When asked if the dossier could ever be verified, Steele's former boss said "No."
Ballasy then asked Scarlett if he was surprised that Steele would produce the dossier using unverified information, to which the
former MI6 head replied:
"Well, they were commercial intelligence reports and they were visibly that so there's a question of why they were there and where
they came from and who commissioned them and so on," adding" So, I've tended to see them in that context and never quite of political
significance for obvious reasons and actually if you think about it, people have talked about them in a really big way a year or
so ago and they haven't really made that much of a difference. "
"As I said, I suspect, all I can say, is they are overrated. "
When asked about what Steele was like to work with, Scarlett replied: " I'm not going to comment ," before walking away. We're
guessing he's probably tired of MI6 having been mentioned in the same breath as Steele for the last several years.
"... In these shorts, Hitler is depicted as waging a mind-control campaign over the German people based on the manipulation of emotions such as anger, love, fear, sympathy, pride, and hate, while also occasionally employing force, regimentation, depravation, and false rewards. ..."
"... Demonizing the enemy, according to Disney historian Leonard Maltin, "relieves aggression." ..."
Aug 23, 2011 | Truthout
At the onset of World War II, Walt Disney was not alone in his belief that film should play a dominant role in the teaching process
or, as he claimed, in "molding opinion."7
He was, however, at the forefront of a movement to recognize a "new aspect of the use of films in war": training industrial workers
and soldiers.8
Some historians try to account for Disney's participation in generating military propaganda by claiming that the studios were "taken
over by the military as part of the war effort"9
on December 8, 1941. But Richard Shale has meticulously documented Disney's much earlier attempts to court contracts with the aircraft
industry, the U.S. Council of National Defense, and Canadian military supporters.10
Indeed, despite a "popular (and frequently quoted) misconception" that the relationship between Disney Studios and the U.S. military
was "unexpected or unsolicited," Shale observes an explicit shift in Disney's focus from "entertainment values to teaching values"
that occurred before Disney acquired his first U.S. military contracts in December 1941.11
For instance, in 1940 Disney approached the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation with the idea of generating a training film on flush
riveting. And in the spring of 1941, with Canada already engaged in war, Disney convinced the commissioner of the National Film Board
of Canada, John Grierson, that animated films were better positioned as teaching tools than documentary films because of their "capacity
for simplifying the presentation of pedagogical problems."12
Grierson then bought the Canadian rights to Four Methods of Flush Riveting and commissioned Disney to produce an instructional
film that taught soldiers how to use an antitank rifle and four short films that encouraged Canadians to purchase war savings certificates.
Then, in the fall of 1941, Walt Disney toured South America at the bequest of the U.S. Office of Inter-American affairs, which
was attempting to establish good relations and "hemispheric unity as explicated in Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy."13
With material collected on the trip, Disney proceeded to generate two feature films, Saludos Amigos (1943) and The Three
Caballeros (1945), both intended to celebrate Latin American culture while accentuating its similarities with North American
culture (and downplaying or ignoring issues like national politics and poverty).14
Born out of U.S. fear of a Nazi alliance with countries like Argentina, the films aimed to "enhance the Latin American image in the
United States," while also "enhanc[ing] America's appreciation of Latin American Everymen."15
Yet, in making The Three Caballeros palatable to white Middle America and American imperialism less threatening to southerners,
Disney more often than not caricatures Latin American culture as a voluptuous, exotic female who is fleeing the attentions of a libidinous,
but comically ineffectual Donald Duck.16
There is little doubt that a relationship between Disney Studios and the U.S. government had been fully cemented by 1943, when 94
percent of the footage produced by Disney was under government contract.17
From 1941 to 1945, the Disney Studios produced dozens of short educational films, with their subjects ranging from aircraft and
warship identification to dental hygiene to the household conservation of cooking oil for the making of military weapons. The studio
also produced a number of anti-Nazi short films, including Der Fuehrer's Face (1943), Education for Death: The Making
of the Nazi (1943), and Reason and Emotion (1943), two of which were nominated for Academy Awards. In these shorts,
Hitler is depicted as waging a mind-control campaign over the German people based on the manipulation of emotions such as anger,
love, fear, sympathy, pride, and hate, while also occasionally employing force, regimentation, depravation, and false rewards.
Of course, the success of the films' efforts to expose Nazi propaganda overwhelmingly relies on the use of comic devices, caricatures,
and stereotypes to make Hitler, Mussolini, and Hirohito seem irrational and absurd.
Demonizing the enemy, according to Disney historian Leonard Maltin, "relieves aggression."18
This claim, suggesting that the films function to disperse rather than focus emotional energy, clearly sidesteps the multiple ways
in which the films, much like the propaganda they critique, attempt to shape their audience's emotional responses, such as when Donald
Duck, clad in starred-and-striped pajamas, croons to the Statue of Liberty, "Oh, boy, am I glad to be a citizen of the United States
of America!" Most significant about the techniques used by these Disney shorts is how they embody animation's capacity to draw clear,
simple lines and present a selective representation of an otherwise complex reality. Through the use of comedy and comedic violence,
in particular, Disney films are often released from the expectation that they might be attempting to do more than entertain.
Viewers wooed by animation's unique capacity to create novel images through exaggeration, distortion, and aesthetic style are
easily absorbed into an imaginary world that quite deliberately focuses their eyes on a constructed reality to the exclusion of other
possibilities. The value of the anti-Nazi short films for today's audiences lies in their obvious attempt to win the hearts and minds
of American viewers through clever visual and ideological manipulation, while ironically issuing repeated warnings to viewers not
to allow emotion to short-circuit their critical faculties. A historical perspective on the subject matter sets in relief how Disney's
critique of propaganda using the medium of animation inevitably ventures into the realm of propaganda itself.
During the war, a significant number of the studio's resources were devoted to making another feature-length propaganda film,
Victory through Air Power (1943). The film, based in part on a book written by Major Alexander P. De Seversky, advocates
the development of airplane and weapons technology as the means to win the war against the Axis powers. We are told the airplane
will not only "revolutionize warfare" but is "the only weapon of war to develop such usefulness during peacetime." Dramatic music
punctuates scenes that explore new models of airplanes with increased bombing potential. The United States as the "arsenal of democracy"
is represented as a giant heart comprising factories that pump "war supplies" through "the arteries of our transport lines over distances
that actually girdle the globe." This organic, humanizing image of "the great industrial heart of America" contrasts with the mechanical
image of a spoked wheel used to represent the Nazi war industries, which are also vividly portrayed in dark reds and blacks suggestive
of a hellish inferno. Japan is represented as a deadly, black octopus extending its "greedy tentacles" over its "stolen empire."
We are told of the necessity for U.S. long-range bombers to strike at "the heart and vitals of the beast." With the lethal combination
of the "superior" American "science of aviation" and "science of demolition," the "enemy lies hopelessly exposed to systematic destruction."
At the same time, the film announces that "scientific bombing" will enable a "minimum investment in human lives," an oddly ambiguous
use of language suggestive of two possible meanings in the context in which it appears: the assertion that aerial bombing of enemy
territories requires a "minimum investment" of American soldiers and, what is both more sinister and perhaps in need of such coded
language, the claim that bombing the enemy entails such "total destruction" that no human lives requiring "investment" will be left
in its wake. Indeed, the film's climax consists of a montage of exploding bombs among Japanese cities and factories, which begin
curiously unpopulated and end utterly annihilated. At the pinnacle of the climactic violence, the screen resolves into an image of
a bald eagle descending upon and crushing the land-ridden octopus, which then dissolves into a dark cloud of smoke rising above Japan
as "America the Beautiful" plays in the background.
Walt Disney believed that Victory through Air Power convinced President Franklin D. Roosevelt to support to long-range
bombing.19
For a contemporary viewer who has the benefit of hindsight, the unquestioned propaganda offered by Victory through Air Power
leaves one with the eerie feeling that the perspective being shaped by the film would not only fail to question the use of technology
such as the atomic bomb but even wholeheartedly celebrate it as the quickest and most effective way to win the war. Indeed, it is
precisely the film's unflinching support of the development of bigger and better bombing technology, from small hand-dropped bombs
to ten-ton delayed-action bombs and armor-piercing bomb rockets, that might seem most disturbing given the devastating effects of
the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the postwar escalation of arms development during the Cold War and the ongoing
expansion of the military-industrial complex in the United States.20
But Walt Disney did not just support the development of larger weapons; he was a firm supporter of what might be called the atomic
age and made the classic 1956 propaganda film Our Friend the Atom, which was also produced as a book and appeared as an
atomic submarine ride in the Tomorrowland section of Disney's Magic Kingdom. In this instance, as Mark Langer points out, Our
Friend the Atom was designed to "counter opposition to the military use of atomic weaponry."21
The Magic Kingdom became an outpost for leading young people and adults to believe that an "Atomic reactor . . . is like a big furnace.
An atomic chain reaction is likened to what happens when a stray ping-pong ball is thrown at a mass of mousetraps with ping-pong
balls set on each one."22
Disney played a formidable role in convincing every school child that atomic energy was central not merely to winning the Cold War
but also to preparing them for a future that would be dominated by the United States and its use of new energy sources, which incidentally
could be instrumental in elevating the United States to the position of the world's preeminent military power. Mouse power easily
and readily made the shift to celebrating atomic power and militarism while enlarging Disney's role as a major purveyor of propaganda.
The Disney films discussed above alert us to the fact that Disney animators honed their skills and gained widespread popular appeal
in the 1940s by first producing propaganda films for the U.S. government. This often neglected reality underlying Disney's origins
as a cultural entertainment icon should make us all the more careful to heed Janet Wasko's warning that Disney encodes preferred
readings of both its animated films and its own brand image to such an extent that "one of the most amazing aspects of the Disney
phenomenon is the consistently uniform understanding of the essence of 'Disney.'"23
Attuned to Disney's willingness to assume an overt pedagogical role during World War II, several critics of a more recent Disney
film, Aladdin (1992), noted that the timing of the film's production and release coincided with U.S. military efforts in
the Persian Gulf war. According to Christiane Staninger, Aladdin is "a propaganda movie for Western imperialism" that "shows
the supposed unworkability of Middle Eastern traditions and the need for American intervention."24
Dianne Sachko Macleod takes this critique a step further, suggesting a link between Disney's "revival of British and French colonial
stereotypes of Arab traders, fanatics, and beauties" and the "storehouse of racial and cultural images" used by the Pentagon to justify
the war.25
Macleod notes that regardless of the filmmakers' intentions, the film had the general effect of "privileging the American myths of
freedom and innocence at a time of nationalist fervor."26
Other connections between the film and the first Iraq war are not especially subtle: in addition to locating Aladdin in the fictional
city of "Agrabah," it makes the villainous Grand Vizier Jafar look like a combination of Saddam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini,
while the two young heroes, Aladdin and Jasmine, not only look American-Disney animators made it publicly known that Aladdin
was modeled after Tom Cruise27-but also, as Brenda Ayres suggests, display their heroism by "contesting (and changing) Arabian law
and Islamic religious tradition."28
While it is impossible to discern the actual motives of the Disney animators, it is equally impossible to ignore the cultural context
in which the American public viewed Aladdin. At the time of the film's release, the dominant media were aggressively promoting similar
images of liberation from barbaric traditions in order to justify the United States' "right to intervene in Middle Eastern politics."29
Disney's Conservative Path
Despite the well-documented history of collaboration between the Walt Disney Company and U.S. military and state institutions,
Disney has more recently claimed to have no interest in politics. How Disney's decision in May 2004 to block its Miramax division
from distributing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 might qualify as a nonpolitical gesture is uncertain. At the time, a senior
executive stated that "it's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle."30
Not only were a number of Disney's top executives known to be campaign contributors to the George W. Bush administration,31
but then CEO Michael Eisner was reported to have said that any criticism of the Bush administration might "endanger tax breaks Disney
receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor."32
Miramax arranged privately to buy Moore's film and distribute it independently, and in 2005, the founders of Miramax, Harvey and
Bob Weinstein, did not renew their contracts with Disney.33
As suggested above, the company's alleged desire to remain outside politics contradicts the reality of Disney's historical pattern
of intervening in political matters. It is hardly surprising, then, that in the wake of the unprecedented success of Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary, Disney/ABC decided to produce its own account of the events leading up to the terrorist attacks
on September 11, 2001. A $40 million miniseries titled The Path to 9/11, originally touted as a docudrama "based on the
9/11 Commission Report" and later as the "official true story," constituted a blatant political move on the part of Disney/ABC.34
In addition, Scholastic, Inc., the educational distribution partner for Disney/ABC, sent one hundred thousand letters to high school
teachers across the United States encouraging them to use The Path to 9/11 in the classroom curriculum and directing them
to online study guides.35
The miniseries was billed by its self-labeled conservative writer Cyrus Nowrasteh as an "objective telling of the events of 9/11"36
but faced severe criticism for its partisan depiction of events and actors. The Path to 9/11, directed by evangelical Christian
filmmaker David Cunningham,37
depicted members of the Bill Clinton administration as totally incompetent, having repeatedly ignored opportunities to capture Osama
bin Laden and overlooked warnings of an incipient attack before September 11, 2001. When prescreened to a select number of film reviewers
before it aired on television, the miniseries was received with skepticism and outrage, not merely from Democrats and Clinton supporters.
Robert Cressey, a top counterterrorism official to both the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, argued that a scene depicting
the Clinton administration's refusal to pursue bin Laden was "something straight out of Disney and fantasyland. It's factually wrong.
And that's shameful."38
Nearly one hundred thousand readers of the online journal Think Progress sent protest letters to Robert Iger, president
and CEO of the Walt Disney Company, stating that the film inaccurately "places primary responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 on
the Clinton administration while whitewashing the failures of the Bush administration."39
According to Tom Shales, writing for the Washington Post, the miniseries qualified as an "assault on truth."40
Shales added, "Blunderingly, ABC executives cast doubt on their own film's veracity when they made advance copies available to such
political conservatives as Rush Limbaugh but not to Democrats who reportedly requested the same treatment. . . . Democrats have a
right to be suspicious of any product of the conservative-minded Walt Disney Co."41
A group of academic historians led by Arthur M. Schlesinger sent a letter to ABC calling for the network to "halt the show's broadcast
and prevent misinforming Americans about their history."42
The film presents a number of clichéd stereotypes of "big government" and bureaucratic incompetence, depicting paper-pushing officials
as woefully indecisive at crucial moments, primarily because they are too self-interested to put their necks on the line. Clinton,
for example, is represented as not wanting to issue orders for military action against al-Qaeda because he's too worried about the
effect such decisions might have on the polls, that is, when he is not caught up in dealing with the fallout from the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. In one scene, General Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Afghan Northern Alliance, which waits for U.S. approval to go after
bin Laden, asks in a scornful tone, "Are there any men left in Washington?" Individuals working on the ground who buck procedure
and orders from their superiors are, by contrast, willing to "take the heat." So, apparently, is George W. Bush, whose decisiveness
in giving a strike-down order to the military after the 9/11 attacks really functions as the climax of the whole miniseries. One
could imagine Bush political supporters cheering as this scene unfolded: finally, they could rest assured that there was a real man
in Washington. Meanwhile, several FBI and U.S. customs agents recognize the nature of the "new kind of war" being waged against America,
and their appeals to racial profiling and domestic spying appear justified in the film. For example, in a brief dialogue, one FBI
agent states, "Americans have the right to be protected from domestic spying," and the central protagonist of the film, FBI counterterrorism
agent John O'Neil (portrayed by Harvey Keitel), replies, "Do they have the right to be killed by terrorists?" Heroic individuals
such as O'Neil are willing to bypass "red tape" and stand in stark contrast to (1) politicians who are too worried about public opinion
not to bow to the pressures of "political correctness," (2) uncooperative CIA officials who jealously guard intelligence when they
are not mindlessly adhering to obsolete federal legislation that protects individuals' rights, and (3) various utterly casual security
officials and workers who would rather appease suspicious-looking members of the public than be confronted with a situation that
might embroil them in conflict. And that is not all. The film contrasts the coolness of John O'Neil's astute judgments with the irrationality
of emotionally overwrought women, such as the ambassador to Yemen, Barbara Bodine (Patricia Heaton), and the fanatic zeal of the
terrorists. In fact, many of the characters who represent terrorists such as Mohamed Atta (Martin Brody) and Ramzi Yousef (Nabil
Elouahabi) share the same intense stare, bristly mustache, and swarthy skin exhibited by Hitler in Disney's World War II propaganda
films. While it might be possible for a viewer to overlook insipid dialogue, fallacious logic, melodrama, and weak narrative structure,
it is virtually impossible to ignore the film's use of racist and sexist stereotypes to lend legitimacy to all the standard bogeys
of extreme right-wing ideology. And, most importantly, there remains the film's utterly deceptive self-presentation as a historically
accurate depiction of events. Even lead actor Harvey Keitel told a CNN interviewer prior to the airing of the miniseries,
I had questions about certain events-material I was given in The Path to 9/11 that I did raise questions about. .
. . Not all the facts were correct. . . . You cannot cross the line from a conflation of events to a distortion of the event.
No. Where we have distorted something, we made a mistake, and that should be corrected. It can be corrected, by the people getting
involved in the story that they are going to see.43
In response to the controversy surrounding The Path to 9/11, Scholastic, Inc., announced that its online study guide
did not meet the company's "high standards for dealing with controversial issues" and would be replaced with new materials that would
focus more on media literacy and critical thinking.44
ABC also responded to protests by broadcasting disclaimers about the miniseries's "fictionalized" representation while airing a minimally
reedited version on September 10 and 11, 2006. But ABC's rather inexplicable decision to air the broadcast without commercials-entailing
a loss of $40 million45-fostered
an illusion of the film's closer proximity to real life, if not also conveying the impression that it was a public service announcement.
Most significantly, the broadcast that aired on the second night was framed by a strategic interruption-George W. Bush's Address
to the Nation-prompting one journalist to note the "thematic synchronicity," as the president's speech called for ongoing support
for the war on terror.46
It is difficult to deny the political synergy suggested by the combination of the rightwing The Path to 9/11 and
Bush's speech-synergy being a profitdriven marketing strategy by no means unfamiliar to a megacorporation like Disney47-as
Bush appealed to Americans to recognize the ongoing threat of terrorism and the necessity of preemptive action as the only way to
safeguard "advancing freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism."48
When placed in the context of the film, Bush's success could be measured in terms of how the post9/11 decisions made by his government
succeeded where Clinton's administration apparently had failed. Furthermore, the timely juxtaposition allowed the film to gain a
greater veneer of authenticity from the speech's presentation of topical and really existing political concerns, while the film in
turn provided credible images and points of reference for listeners trying to engage the highly rhetorical, often self-referential
use of language characteristic of Bush's speech. Additionally, the blurring of fact and fiction embodied by the film lent to the
speech the mythic or symbolic power generated by extended narrative, and the grandeur of the presidential address added authority
to the film.
As a context for Bush's speech, The Path to 9/11 made an effort to point out some of the problems in law enforcement
and governance that preceded the terrorist attacks of 9/11, but the nature of the critique-although presented as objective and all
encompassing-never rises above criticizing particular individuals for their character failings. The film was cleverer, however, in
the way it indicated the supposed gaps in the system and advocated taking a hard line, but offered no concrete alternatives. In doing
so, the film left it to Bush to emerge as the ultimate hero, opening up a space for a timely description of the measures instituted
since 9/11:
We've created the Department of Homeland Security. We have torn down the wall that kept law enforcement and intelligence from
sharing information. We've tightened security at our airports and seaports and borders, and we've created new programs to monitor
enemy bank records and phone calls. Thanks to the hard work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, we have broken
up terrorist cells in our midst and saved American lives.49
If The Path to 9/11 presented a single narrative perspective (the "path" taken) as the infallible "truth," then Bush's
speech, with a similar kind of religious confidence, also took for granted that only one predetermined course could secure the nation
from the terrorist threat. At no point did the film or Bush's speech suggest that the situation was complex enough to necessitate
the consideration of several possible paths; indeed, both narratives closed off the possibility of questioning the effectiveness
of the security measures endorsed and instituted. Difficult questions-such as the extent to which freedom should be limited in order
to be secured or the kinds of sacrifices entailed by "national security"-were simply ignored in favor of the message that Americans
must do whatever it takes to defeat the "enemy." It is hard to believe that the gross trivializations of the complex issues surrounding
terrorism and the war in Iraq in The Path to 9/11 and Bush's address could almost escape public protest only five years
after the horrifying events of September 11, 2001.
One notable exception to the general complaisance with which the public received The Path to 9/11 involved a group of
students at Ithaca College who protested the college's acceptance of a private donation from Robert Iger on the grounds that The Path to 9/11, touted as a docudrama, was actually an egregious display of media bias. Students argued that "accepting Disney
money would send the wrong message about the importance of objectivity to the school's journalism and communications students."50
Although a Disney spokesperson responded to the student protesters by calling them "people who can't distinguish between fact and
fiction," Ithaca College president Peggy R. Williams lent credence to the students' concerns by reassuring them that Iger's donation
"does not buy Disney any influence on campus. . . . Our curriculum decisions are our own."51
Although certainly admitting no wrongdoing, Disney has uncharacteristically and tellingly opted not to sell The Path to 9/11 on DVD-defying
the expectations of both those who assumed the company would try to recover the costs of making the miniseries and vociferous right-wing
groups who continue to support the film's representation of the events leading to 9/11.52
The National Security-Family: Meet The Incredibles
As films like Aladdin and The Path to 9/11 suggest, the Walt Disney Company has an impressive ability to revise more
or less familiar stories, updating the issues to make them resonate in people's lives at the current moment. It is how Disney offers
audiences not simply escape but also a mode of relating to the real conditions of their existence that makes Disney films such a
long-lived and potent force in U.S. and global popular culture. As Louis Marin suggests regarding the powerful cultural role of Disney
theme parks, Disney represents both "what is estranged and what is familiar: comfort, welfare, consumption, scientific and technological
progress, superpower, and morality." Importantly, Marin adds, "These are values obtained by violence and exploitation; [in Disney
culture] they are projected under the auspices of law and order."53
Marin's framework is especially useful for understanding a film such as The Incredibles as mediating the "imaginary relationship
that the dominant groups of American society maintain with their real conditions of existence, with the real history of the United
States, and with the space outside of its border."54
In a post-9/11 world, Academy Award winner The Incredibles brings home the need not only to reclaim "superpower" identity
as a quintessential American quality but also to recognize that American soil is not immune to the threat of violent attacks. In
response to the forces threatening America-internally, the weakening of superhero resolve in the face of excessive bureaucracy, public
cynicism, and unthinking adherence to the law; externally, enemies whose infantile resentment at being "not super" results in a genocidal
campaign against everything "super," even to the extent of terrorizing an innocent public-the PG-rated film sanctions violence as
a means to establish a new brand of "law and order." Although hearkening back to the nuclear family as the source of America's security
and strength, the film diverges from past narratives in its emphasis on a natural order in which authority and power belong in the
hands of the few strong leaders left in America, while the rest of us must duly recognize our inevitable "mediocrity." This overall
message is especially disturbing in light of the events following 9/11, when the United States witnessed a growing authoritarianism
throughout the larger culture.55
Some consequences of the American response to the tragic terrorist attacks have been a general tolerance for the use of preemptive
violence and coercion, control of the media, the rise of repressive state power, an expanding militarization, and a thriving surveillance
and security industry that is now even welcomed in public schools. And these are only some of the known consequences: many of the
effects of the Bush administration's policies are still coming to light. In 2009, President Barack Obama ordered the release of top-secret
Bush administration memos that sanctioned the CIA's use of torture on terror suspects. A year previous, New York Times reporter
David Barstow wrote an exposé of "independent" military analysts who appeared on television networks to inform the public with their
expert and objective impressions of the war in Iraq (many were retired army generals and had direct ties to corporations that were
courting government military contracts). It turned out the Pentagon was coaching the military analysts behind the scenes to put a
favorable spin on the Bush administration's "wartime performance," with the apparent collusion of U.S. media networks, including
ABC, which failed to check for, or simply ignored, evident conflicts of interest.56
In addition to calling into question the journalistic integrity of the media, the scandal made it seem as if the Bush administration's
public relations machine was taking its cues from corporations such as Disney by not only launching a marketing campaign carefully
tailored to uphold its public image but also secretly controlling access to information and limiting public discourse, all in order
to sell a sense of security to the American people.
An emphasis on controlling public speech and public spaces-not to mention autocratic rule, secrecy, and the appeal to security-is
nothing new to Disney, whose theme parks, according to Steven Watts, "blur the line between fantasy and reality by immersing visitors
in a totally controlled environment."57
Disneyland is a useful space, apparently, to undertake surveillance, and Walt Disney offered the FBI "complete access" to Disneyland
facilities in the 1950s for "use in connection with official matters and for recreational purposes."58
Indeed, the development of a cordial relationship between Walt Disney and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover is now better understood not
only in relation to Walt Disney's fervent anticommunism but also in light of revelations that he may have served as "a secret informer
for the Los Angeles office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation."59
Certainly, as Watts indicates, it is known that Disney was appointed a special FBI agent in part because of his desire to root out
so-called communist agitators from the film industry.60
More recently, Eric Smoodin notes that the Disney corporation remains "interested in constructing surveillance as entertainment,"
as suggested by the marketing of products such as a Mickey Mouse doll with glow-in-the-dark eyes that illuminate sleeping children
for the benefit of parental scrutiny.61
The Incredibles, with its complex appeal to several levels of audience, received overwhelming praise from film critics,
who admired not only its retromodern aesthetic and detailed animation but also its "stinging wit."62
However, most reviewers who observed an "edge of intellectual indignation"63
focused on the first thirty minutes of the film in which the main character, Mr. Incredible (voiced by Craig T. Nelson), is forced
to conceal his superhero identity as a consequence of public disaffection and a string of lawsuits (he is sued after rescuing a suicidal
man named Sansweet who claimed Mr. Incredible had "ruined [his] death"). With "average citizens" now proclaiming they want "average
heroes," Mr. Incredible; his superhero wife, Elastigirl/Helen (Holly Hunter); and their children become the middle-of-the-road Parr
family, trying to maintain a normal suburban lifestyle by suppressing their superpowers in what one reviewer suggests is a "suspicious
society that's decidedly below-Parr."64
As suggested by a Boston Globe film review, Bob Parr's cubicle office job as a claims adjuster at Insuricare is designed
to evoke identification with the "middle-age blues felt by audience members."65
But many reviewers, in choosing to highlight the film's critique of suburban conformity and corporate greed, misread or overlook
the film's central message, which does not elicit identification on the part of a mere newspaper journalist or academician: in fact,
normal people who wrongly identify with superheroes and devalue their worth are society's worst threat. The film's villain, Buddy
aka Syndrome (Jason Lee), begins as Mr. Incredible's "number one fan" but then transgresses the boundary between admiration and emulation.
Conflict arises when Buddy asserts that his rocket boot technology enables him "to be super" without being born with superpowers.
When rejected by Mr. Incredible, who prefers to "work alone," Buddy turns the pathological injury into villainy with an ideological
goal: to provide the technology "so that everyone can be superheroes. . . . And when everyone's super, no one will be." The connections
between Buddy and the dominant media's portrayal of international terrorists are multiple: his fixation on demolishing a superpower,
his development of hightech weaponry, his narcissistic rage, his ideological purpose, and, what resonates most clearly, his plan
to gain power over a fearful public by launching a plane at Manhattan. At one point, Buddy even tells Mr. Incredible, "Now you respect
me, because I'm a threat. . . . It turns out there's a lot of people, whole countries, who want respect. And they will pay through
the nose to get it." Given the film's resounding judgment of Buddy/Syndrome-he is shredded by a jet turbine while attempting to kidnap
the Parr baby-it is difficult to understand how the film's message could be interpreted, as one reviewer suggests, as empowering
viewers to recognize the "secret identities we all keep tucked away in our hearts."66
Even if one were to extend an allegorical reading of The Incredibles to argue that all Americans are super, it would not
be possible to elide the film's clear validation of a social hierarchy along primordial lines.
Throughout the film, the plight of the super family is closely linked to their superiority. The Incredibles' son Dash
(Spencer Fox), frustrated by not being able to demonstrate his speed in school sports competi-tions, acts out in his fourth-grade
class by playing pranks on his teacher. Dash wins his father's admiration, but the thought of a graduation ceremony for fourth-graders
leads Mr. Incredible to burst out, "It's psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity, but if someone is genuinely
exceptional . . . " Later in the film, Elastigirl reassures daughter Violet (Sarah Vowell), "Your identity is your most valuable
possession. . . . Doubt is a luxury we can't afford anymore. You have more power than you realize. Don't think. Don't worry. If the
time comes, you'll know what to do. It's in your blood." As A. O. Scott astutely recognizes in a New York Times review,
the movie argues, "Some people have powers that others do not, and to deny them the right to exercise those powers, or the privileges
that accompany them, is misguided, cruel and socially destructive."67
Being "super" in such a framework does not mean being smart or being virtuous; it simply means possessing innate power. The highly
advanced modern society produces mediocrity because its ethics (a belief in social justice and equality) counter the effects of natural
selection by nullifying Darwinian fitness as the condition for survival.
If the film indeed offers up "the philosophy of Ayn Rand"-who opposed collectivism, altruism, and the welfare state in favor of
egoistic individualism-then it turns to violence as the means to achieve supremacy.68
At no point during The Incredibles' "eardrum-bashing, metal-crunching action sludge" and its self-referential mockery of
"monologuing" does the film suggest that reasoning, discussion, or any other form of peaceful resolution might be pursued instead
of violence. More in keeping, however, with Disney conventions than Rand's philosophy is the film's conflation of the pursuit of
individualism with the protection of the nuclear family. One reviewer cleverly summarizes the film's main theme as "the family that
slays together stays together."69
In this way, the white, nuclear, middle-class family becomes the ethical referent for a bombproof collectivity: only a muscular protection
of one's own will ensure stability, identity, and agency, not to mention consumerism, heterosexuality, clearly defined gender roles,
parenthood, and class chivalry. The result is that the film brings "individuals and their families to the centers of national life,
offering the audience an image of itself and of the nation as a knowable community, a wider public world beyond the routines of a
narrow existence."70
But the American nation drawn by the film is imaged as one that neither shies away from use of force nor requires any justification
for its display of blatant chauvinism when confronted by others.
The Incredibles further contrasts the banality of suburban life with the glamour and excitement of "hero work." The elaborate
security compounds of Syndrome's island and the home of fashion designer Edna Mode (Brad Bird) are suped up with the latest high-tech
gadgetry, the exhilarating navigation of which bears a close resemblance to video game playing, particularly in the medium of computer-generated
animation. And even if the filmmakers' intended to parody gated homes ŕ la Hollywood Hills in their representation of Edna Mode's
mansion, the cumulative message makes security and surveillance systems seem not only unthreatening but also quite normal-at least
as familiar as, say, the presence of gates and cameras at Walt Disney World. In fact, Syndrome's island has a developed monorail
system, which implies a double reference both to the James Bond movie Dr. No (1962) and to Disney World itself. Referentiality seems
to come full circle as The Incredibles' island imitates Bond films that likely drew on the model of Disney theme parks in
portraying the villain's lair. For instance, Bond's antagonist in The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) "inhabits a politically
autonomous island that features an amusement park funhouse,"71
an allusion that betrays cultural anxiety about a rigidly controlled theme park environment governed by an autocrat who deliberately
toys with defenseless people's perceptions and plays upon their fears. The Bond films were tapping into a darker side of the Disney-designed
spaces, also noted by M. Keith Booker, who writes, "The fictional utopias portrayed in the [Disney] parks have a definite dystopian
side, as anyone who has ever been bothered by the efficiency with which the parks are able to control and manipulate the vast populations
who visit them has noticed."72
Yet, the lush tropical island in The Incredibles works less to expose the dark side of a totally regulated world than to
associate it with exotic thrills and gamelike suspense as the superheroes infiltrate Syndrome's compound-a brilliant advertisement
for a family adventure at Walt Disney World, if there ever was one. More disturbing is the recognition that as dominant culture in
the United States accepts the expansion of a security-military-surveillance-intelligence complex, negotiating such altered environments
can be reduced to slapstick comedy (when, for instance, Elastigirl finds herself stretched between two security doors and must fight
against a number of armed guards). Not rendered entirely harmless, the island environment also represents the ideal locale for the
Incredible children to rise to the challenge of a real danger-their mother tells them that unlike "the bad guys" on "Saturday morning
cartoons . . . these guys will kill you"-and to engage the enemy in a display of family loyalty and heroic exceptionalism.
Because "calls to action litter the film," critics such as David Hastings Dunn have suggested that The Incredibles is
"an allegorical tale justifying U.S. foreign policy under George W. Bush."73
Indeed, the only imaginable way the "slightly fascist" Incredibles could be labeled a "family-friendly film,"74
as one critic claims, is if one assumes the "super" refrain throughout the film is an oblique reference to American superiority and
supremacy, such that viewers are included as part of one big national family, a family that has recently demonstrated its mettle
on the world stage by waging wars against Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, Mr. Incredible repeatedly argues for an ethic of intervention
and pushes aside anyone who poses an obstacle to action. Those individuals who wish to prevent superheroes from acting are fundamentally
weak: people who claim their right to noninterference, politicians who cravenly seek public approval, lawyers who succumb to financial
pressures, teachers who suppress any challenges to their authority, and employers who expect blind obedience to corporate policy.
Interventionism is legitimated when Bob/Mr. Incredible helps an elderly woman with her insurance claim, only to face his irate boss,
who indicates that Bob's loyalties must be redirected to one specific purpose: "Help our people! Starting with our stockholders."
While the diminutive Mr. Huph (Wallace Shawn) launches into a speech about the necessity for the "little cogs" in the company machine
to "mesh together," Mr. Incredible is prevented from saving a man in the street who is being mugged. The film deserves credit for
extending a clichéd critique of office work as crushing of individual creativity to a representation of greed and corruption plaguing
private corporations charged with providing public services. Unfortunately, the only solution to the social ills of exploitation
and dehumanization proffered by the film is to put one's faith in the individuals who have the power to subjugate a clear and unambiguous
enemy, in other words, a militaristic version of the old adage "Father knows best." Before we join the throngs of enthusiastic reviewers
who laud the film for its exposure of corporate abuses of power, it should be understood that the film is as much invested in showing
how postindustrial capitalism-and liberal democracy even more so-elevates the weak manipulators above the authentic strongmen. Instead
of presenting a viable solution to the ravages of neoliberal economics on social democracy, The Incredibles offers only
one reactionary alternative devised in the realm of fantasy: superheroes will save us as long as we recognize our natural inferiority
and give them our unqualified vote of confidence. The huge, hard-bodied Mr. Incredible is ready to rescue America from the city slicker,
ladies' man softness of the postwar era. (Admittedly, this superhero for a "postfeminist" generation has an exceedingly competent
female sidekick/wife, but one who tellingly possesses the complementary superhero power of extreme malleability).
When considered alongside the blockbuster success of The Incredibles and its overarching message in 2004, it probably
should not surprise us that George W. Bush was reelected the same year-in part because his public relations team managed to convince
voters that, in an insecure world rife with terrorist threats, they should depend on his uncompromising judgments of good and evil,
his impervious cowboylike manner, and his "strong, stable personality." What makes The Incredibles appear to be superheroes
is the same quality that apparently made George W. Bush seem presidential: the ability to act free from the paralyzing effects of
thoughtful consideration. This orientation toward decisive action in the film becomes an end in itself since, as Jeremy Heilman points
out, "There are no scenes in which characters learn to use their power responsibly (except for those that extol conformity), and
no moments in which loss of life is felt."75
According to George Soros, the events of 9/11 renewed a "distorted view" of American supremacy that "postulates that because we
are stronger than others, we must know better and we must have right on our side."76
If American patriotism reached a fever pitch in the aftermath of 9/11, then The Incredibles clearly tapped into a desire
to assert U.S. preeminence on the world stage. Indeed, all the superheroes are American, and the only non-American with any power
is a villainous French mime named Bomb Voyage. The overall message of the film, as Hastings Dunn points out, is a perennial neoconservative
theme: "America's failure to spread its values can lead to 'blowback' from former clients and protégés."77
The only response offered by the film to a society supposedly weakened by a misguided egalitarianism and the post–Cold War softening
of American resolve is to minimize in-stitutional and legal controls while letting unrestrained power achieve its deserved place
of domination. For "supers" to dictate the common good once again, The Incredibles concludes, "it's up to the politicians."
It is difficult to imagine a more resounding dismissal of democratic processes than this final assertion, suggesting less the need
for political accountability and public participation than the need for emboldened leaders whose decisive action should be divorced
from the values and constraints imposed by the mediocre masses.
Disney and the Rhetoric of Innocence
The bizarre way in which The Incredibles marries two dangerous social ideals-a Darwinist notion of survival of the fittest
and a retrograde identity politics based on biological superiority-can verge on acceptability when it is packaged as a Disney animated
film that carries the overarching association with childhood innocence. Audiences are meant to appreciate the fact that if in a fit
of rage Mr. Incredible destroys a car, or another human being for that matter, then it is simply a natural expression of his innate
"super" identity and not something that requires moral assessment. Or, worse yet, it is something that can only be considered as
intrinsically good. By appealing to the view that "might is right," the film fails to open up the possibility that values and ethics
are constituted by various social mechanisms and material relations of power. Instead, the tautological rationale suggests that being
"right" is simply entailed by being "super," such that the imperative to conquer the enemy who threatens one's way of life remains
not only above question but also without any negative consequences (after all, the enemy is not "super" like us). The presumption
of innate American benevolence is implied by a reading of The Incredibles as a national allegory. At stake in this concept
of America as a superpower is the belief that its leaders and the entire populace are incorruptible and therefore exemplify absolute
goodness.78
As we have seen in previous chapters, this notion of a benign, incorruptible nature is nothing new to Disney, whose cultural productions
rely on innocence as a rhetorical tool to legitimate dominant relations of power. The Incredibles slightly modifies the
concept of childhood innocence by linking it to a citizenry in need of a blameless and absolute paternalistic authority to safeguard
its interests. The appeal to innocence often enables animated Disney films to fly below a critical radar. The Incredibles
probably does so, despite its authoritarian overtones, because of the historical and cultural context in which it was received. After
the tragic events of 9/11, Americans sought an opportunity to envision themselves as proactive agents of history rather than its
passive victims and as part of a community with strong leadership that could instill hope for security and redemption in a world
that seemed hostile to such desires.
However, when politics is cloaked in the guise of innocence, more is at stake than a simple affirmation of desire. At stake is
the way in which Disney films garner the cultural power to influence how people think not simply through their particular mode of
representation but also through shaping the knowledge and subjectivities of their viewers in order to valorize some identities while
disabling others. Film watching involves more than entertainment; it is an experience that reproduces the basic conditions of learning.
To understand Disney films, we need to understand how Disney culture influences public understandings of history, national coherence,
and popular values in ways that often conceal injustice, dissent, and the possibility of democratic renewal. While the retro style
and clever allusiveness of The Incredibles appeal to what is aesthetically pleasing about America's past, there is no acknowledgment
of an underlying totalitarian ethos driving, for instance, U.S. military and imperial expansion during the Cold War. Although weakling
institutions and individuals hinder all things "super," Mr. Incredible, as an exemplary cultural icon, enables the reconstruction
of American history purged of its seamy side, not least of all through an appeal to nostalgia, stylized consumption, and a reinvigorated
patriotism. Moreover, The Incredibles' comic representation of 1950s suburban mediocrity does little to challenge the prevailing
discourses of patriarchy, class, and sexism. In fact, the film pays tribute to the consumerism, patriarchy, and family values associated
with 1950s sitcoms by suggesting that the failing of such a family orientation lies not in its oppressive control but in how settling
into a mundane reality and accepting the onset of complacency sap its inherent magisterial vitality. Taking what it considers best
from that era, the film revitalizes conservative ideology for a new generation of video-gaming kids, sexing up the suburban doldrums
with designer superhero garb and high-tech stunts that substitute spectacle for critical engagement.
The Incredibles and The Path to 9/11 are films produced at a particular historical moment that share the theme
of defending U.S. hegemony and values against the insidious forces of a weak-willed political correctness at home and envious terrorists
determined to destroy the American way of life abroad. One interesting outcome of the comparison can be seen in the way the different
film genres elicited much different responses from the public despite their thematic similarities. The Path to 9/11's claim
to portray historical events objectively in the form of a documentary-style ABC miniseries drew some public resistance, whereas the
animated Disney film whose very representation defies objectivity drew virtually none. But the messages of The Incredibles
are no less persuasive for being more fantastic.
Clearly, The Incredibles' inscription of biological supremacy represents not only an assertion of dominant family values
but an ideological justification for genderand race-based conceptions of U.S. global imperialism and national identity. The Path
to 9/11 is less clever in concealing its affirmation of racist and sexist attitudes and its legitimation of violence, but The Incredibles is far more dangerous in that it has been viewed in a generally unfiltered manner by millions of children
and adults worldwide. Recognizing the conservative influence of Disney films-a conservatism that manifests with unprecedented boldness
in The Incredibles-should not entail avoiding them, suppressing them, or complacently accepting their cultural ascendancy.
It should involve making explicit how and what we learn from the very political messages being taught by Disney films, rather than
accepting them at face value or dismissing their existence altogether.
Consuming culture even as a form of entertainment is fundamentally a pedagogical experience, and the more educators, parents,
students, and other cultural workers become active in their attempts to decode the complex representations being offered by Disney,
the more rich and rewarding our experiences with popular culture will become. For this reason, a nuanced criticism of Disney films
would not assume that they inherently disempower the audience but would instead view such cultural encounters as opportunities that
can empower children and adults by creating the conditions that give people control over the production and types of knowledge and
values arising from their experiences as cultural consumers. Being resisted here is the attitude that turns Disney's native utopianism
into an excuse to adopt a stance that willfully overlooks the risks incurred by allowing a multinational corporation to escape any
critical scrutiny as it reproduces dominant forms of identity, authorizes particular forms of history, and validates "hierarchies
of value as universally valid, ecumenical, and effectively consensual."79
Nothing could be more dystopian in its consequences than the abdication of our responsibility to be critical and thoughtful of the
ways the U.S. media represents America to itself and others. Disney should not be allowed to dictate, limit, and monopolize the only
current and future possibilities imaginable for an increasingly global culture that must be able to imagine a better life-a life
built upon the precepts of compassion and justice rather than American-centered images of power, nostalgia, insularity, and world
domination.
"... It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians and Democrats posing as Russians. ..."
"... Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand down and close the murder case without further investigation. ..."
"... What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump impeached & removed from the Whitehouse? ..."
"... Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another reason to stop the investigation. ..."
"... Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue. ..."
"... We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C. park for transport to Wikileaks. ..."
"... This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press" failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call the tune. ..."
"... Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump. So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020. ..."
"... Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ & FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c ..."
"... Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless, short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. ..."
"... Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is that stupid. ..."
"... Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm ..."
"... It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray! ..."
"... Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war continues. Mission Accomplished. ..."
I could not suffer through reading the whole article. This is mainly because I have
watched the news daily about Mueller's Investigation and I sincerely believe that Mueller is
Champion of the Democrats who are trying to depose President Donald Trump at any cost.
For what Mueller found any decent lawyer with a Degree and a few years of experience could
have found what Mueller found for far far less money. Mueller only found common crimes AND NO
COLLUSION BETWEEN PRESIDENT TRUMP AND PUTIN!
The Mueller Investigation should be given to an honest broker to review, and Mueller
should be paid only what it would cost to produce the commonplace crimes Mueller, The
Democrats, and CNN has tried to convince the people that indeed Trump COLLUDED with RUSSIA.
Mueller is, a BIG NOTHING BURGER and THE DEMOCRATS AND CNN ARE MUELLER'S SINGING CANARYS!
Mueller should be jailed.
Bogdan Miller , March 15, 2019 at 11:04 am
This article explains why the Mueller Report is already highly suspect. For another thing,
we know that since before 2016, Democrats have been studying Russian Internet and hacking
tactics, and posing as Russian Bots/Trolls on Facebook and other media outlets, all in an
effort to harm President Trump.
It appears the FBI, CIA, and NSA have great difficulty in differentiating between Russians
and Democrats posing as Russians.
B.J.M. Former Intelligence Analyst and Humint Collector
vinnieoh , March 15, 2019 at 8:17 am
Moving on: the US House yesterday voted UNANIMOUSLY (remember that word, so foreign these
days to US governance?) to "urge" the new AG to release the complete Mueller report.
A
non-binding resolution, but you would think that the Democrats can't see the diesel
locomotive bearing down on their clown car, about to smash it to pieces. The new AG in turn
says he will summarize the report and that is what we will see, not the entire report. And
taxation without representation takes a new twist.
... ... ...
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:38 pm
What else would you expect from two Political Parties who are really branches of the ONE
Party which Represents DEEP STATE".
DWS , March 15, 2019 at 5:58 am
Maybe the VIPS should look into the murder of Seth Rich, the DNC staffer who had the
security clearance required to access the DNC servers, and who was murdered in the same week
as the emails were taken. In particular, they should ask why the police were told to stand
down and close the murder case without further investigation.
Raymond Comeau , March 15, 2019 at 12:47 pm
EXACTLY! But, Deep State will not allow that. And, it would ruin the USA' plan to continue
to invade more sovereign countries and steal their resources such as oil and Minerals. The
people of the USA must be Ostriches or are so terrified that they accept anything their
Criminal Governments tell them.
Eventually, the chickens will come home to roost and perhaps the USA voters will ROAST
when the crimes of the USA sink the whole country. It is time for a few Brave Men and Women
to find their backbones and throw out the warmongers and their leading Oligarchs!
KiwiAntz , March 14, 2019 at 6:44 pm
What a brilliant article, so logical, methodical & a forensic, scientific breakdown of
the phony Russiagate project? And there's no doubt, this was a co-ordinated, determined
Intelligence project to reverse the results of the 2016 Election by initiating a soft coup or
Regime change op on a elected Leader, a very American Coup, something the American
Intelligence Agencies specialise in, everywhere else, on a Global scale, too get Trump
impeached & removed from the Whitehouse?
If you can't get him out via a Election, try
& try again, like Maduro in Venezuela, to forcibly remove the targeted person by setting
him up with fake, false accusations & fabricated evidence? How very predictable & how
very American of Mueller & the Democratic Party. Absolute American Corruption, corrupts
absolutely?
Brian Murphy , March 15, 2019 at 10:33 am
Right. Since its purpose is to destroy Trump politically, the investigation should go on
as long as Trump is in office. Alternatively, if at this point Trump has completely sold out, that would be another
reason to stop the investigation.
If the investigation wraps up and finds nothing, that means Trump has already completely
sold out. If the investigation continues, it means someone important still thinks Trump retains some
vestige of his balls.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:19 pm
By last June or July the Mueller investigation has resulted in roughly 150 indictments
for perjury/financial crimes, and there was a handful of convictions to date. The report did
not support the Clinton wing's anti-Russian allegations about the 2016 election, and was
largely brushed aside by media. Mueller was then reportedly sent back in to "find something."
presumably to support the anti-Russian claims.
mike k , March 14, 2019 at 12:57 pm
From the beginning of the Russia did it story, right after Trump's electoral victory, it
was apparent that this was a fraud. The democratic party however has locked onto this
preposterous story, and they will go to their graves denying this was a scam to deny their
presidential defeat, and somehow reverse the result of Trump's election. My sincere hope is
that this blatant lie will be an albatross around the party's neck, that will carry them down
into oblivion. They have betrayed those of us who supported them for so many years. They are
in many ways now worse than the republican scum they seek to replace.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:26 pm
Trump is almost certain to be re-elected in 2020, and we'll go through this all over
again.
The very fact that the FBI never had access to the servers and took the word of a private
company that had a history of being anti-Russian is enough to throw the entire ruse out.
LJ , March 14, 2019 at 2:39 pm
Agreed!!!! and don't forget the FBI/Comey gave Hillary and her Campaign a head's up before
they moved to seize the evidence. . So too, Comey said he stopped the Investigation , thereby
rendering judgement of innocence, even though by his own words 'gross negligence' had a
occurred (which is normally considered grounds for prosecution). In doing so he exceeded the
FBI's investigative mandate. He rationalized that decision was appropriate because of the
appearance of impropriety that resulted from Attorney General Lynch having a private meeting
on a plane on a runway with Bill and Hillary . Where was the logic in that. Who called the
meeting? All were Lawyers who had served as President, Senator, Attorney General and knew
that the meeting was absolutely inappropriate. . Comey should be prosecuted if they want to
prosecute anyone else because of this CRAP. PS Trump is an idiot. Uhinfortunately he is just
a symptom of the disease at this point. Look at the cover of Rolling Stone magazine , carry a
barf bag.
Jane Christ , March 14, 2019 at 6:51 pm
Exactly. This throws doubt on the ability of the FBI to work independently. They are
working for those who want to cover -up the Hillary mess . She evidently has sufficient funds
to pay them off. I am disgusted with the level of corruption.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 10:50 am
Nancy Pelosi's announcement two days ago that the Democrats will not seek impeachment for
Trump suggests the emptiness of the Mueller investigation on the specific "collusion" issue.
If there were something hot and lingering and about to emerge, this decision is highly
unlikely, especially with the reasoning she gave at "so as not to divide the American
people." Dividing the people hasn't been of much concern throughout this bogus witch hunt on
Trump, which has added to his incompetence in leavening a growing hysteria and confusion in
this country. If there is something, anything at all, in the Mueller report to support the
collusion theory, Pelosi would I'm sure gleefully trot it out to get a lesser candidate like
Pence as opposition for 2020.
We know and Assange has confirmed Seth Rich, assassinated in D.C. for his deed, downloaded
the emails and most likely passed them on to former British ambassador Craig Murray in a D.C.
park for transport to Wikileaks.
We must also honor Shawn Lucas assassinated for serving DNC with a litigation notice
exposing the DNC conspiracy against Sanders.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:18 pm
Where has Assange confirmed this? Assange's long-standing position is NOT to reveal his
sources. I believe he has continued to honor this position.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:15 am
It has merely been insinuated by the offering of a reward for info on Seth's murder. In
one breath he says wikileaks will never divulge a source, and in the next he offers a $20k
reward saying that sources take tremendous risk. Doesn't take much of a logical leap to
connect A to B.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:30 pm
Are you aware that Democrats split apart their 0wn voting base in the 1990s, middle class
vs. poor? The Obama years merely confirmed that this split is permanent. This is particularly
relevant for Democrats, as their voting base had long consisted of the poor and middle class,
for the common good. Ignoring this deep split hasn't made it go away.
hetro , March 14, 2019 at 3:24 pm
Even more important is how the Democrats have sold out to an Establishment view favoring
neocon theory, since at least Bill Clinton. Pelosi's recent behavior with Ilhan Omar confirms
this and the split you're talking about. My point is it is distinctly odd that Pelosi is
discouraging impeachment on "dividing the Party" (already divided, of course, as you say),
whereas the Russia-gate fantasy was so hot not that long ago. Again it points to a cynical
opportunism and manipulation of the electorate. Both parties are a sad excuse to represent
ordinary people's interests.
Skip Scott , March 15, 2019 at 7:21 am
She said "dividing the country", not the party. I think she may have concerns over Trump's
heavily armed base. That said, the statement may have been a ruse. There are plenty of
Republicans that would cross the line in favor of impeachment with the right "conclusions" by
Mueller. Pelosi may be setting up for a "bombshell" conclusion by Mueller. One must never
forget that we are watching theater, and that Trump was a "mistake" to be controlled or
eliminated.
Mueller should be ashamed that he has made President Trump his main concern!! If all this
investigation would stop he could save America millions!!! He needs to quit this witch-hunt
and worry about things that really need to be handled!!! If the democrats and Trump haters
would stop pushing senseless lies hopefully this would stop ? It's so disgusting that his
democrat friend was never really investigated ? stop the witch-hunt and move forward!!!!
torture this , March 14, 2019 at 7:29 am
According to this letter, mistakes might have been made on Rachel Maddow's show. I can't
wait to read how she responds. I'd watch her show, myself except that it has the same effect
on me as ipecac.
Zhu , March 14, 2019 at 3:37 am
People will cling to "Putin made Trump President!!!" much as many cling "Obama's a Kenyan
Muslim! Not a real American!!!". Both nut theories are emotionally satisfying, no matter what
the historical facts are. Many Americans just can't admit their mistakes and blaming a
scapegoat is a way out.
O Society , March 14, 2019 at 2:03 am
Thank you VIPS for organizing this legit dissent consisting of experts in the field of
intelligence and computer forensics.
This so-called "Russiagate" narrative is an illustration of our "freedom of the press"
failure in the US due to groupthink and self censorship. He who pays the piper is apt to call
the tune.
It is astounding how little skepticism and scientifically-informed reasoning goes on in
our media. These folks show themselves to be native advertising rather than authentic
journalists at every turn.
DH Fabian , March 14, 2019 at 1:33 pm
But it has been Democrats and the media that market to middle class Dems, who persist in
trying to sell the Russian Tale. They excel at ignoring the evidence that utterly contradicts
their claims.
Oh, we're well beyond your "Blame the middle class Dems" stage.
The WINNING!!! team sports bullshit drowns the entire country now the latrine's sprung a
leak. People pretend to live in bubbles made of blue or red quite like the Three Little Pigs,
isn't it? Except instead of a house made of bricks saving the day for the littlepiggies, what
we've got here is a purple puddle of piss.
Everyone's more than glad to project all our problems on "THEM" though, aren't we?
Meanwhile, the White House smells like a urinal not washed since the 1950s and simpletons
still get their rocks off arguing about whether Mickey Mouse can beat up Ronald McDonald.
T'would be comic except what's so tragic is the desperate need Americans have to believe,
oh just believe! in something. Never mind the sound of the jackhammer on your skull dear,
there's an app for that or is it a pill?
I don't know, don't ask me, I'm busy watching TV. Have a cheeto.
Very good analysis clearly stated, especially adding the FAT timestamps to the
transmission speeds.
Minor corrections: "The emails were copied from the network" should be "from the much
faster local network" because this is to Contradict the notion that they were copied over the
internet network, which most readers will equate with "network." Also "reportedin" should be
"reported in."
Michael , March 13, 2019 at 6:25 pm
It is likely that New Knowledge was actually "the Russians", possibly working in concert
with Crowdstrike. Once an intelligence agency gets away with something like pretending to be
Russian hackers and bots, they tend to re-use their model; it is too tempting to discard an
effective model after a one-off accomplishment. New Knowledge was caught interfering/
determining the outcome in the Alabama Senate race on the side of Democrat Doug Jones, and
claimed they were merely trying to mimic Russian methods to see if they worked (they did; not
sure of their punishment?). Occam's razor would suggest that New Knowledge would be competent
to mimic/ pretend to be "Russians" after the fact of wikileaks' publication of emails. New
Knowledge has employees from the NSA and State department sympathetic to/ working with(?)
Hillary, and were the "outside" agency hired to evaluate and report on the "Russian" hacking
of the DNC emails/ servers.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:48 pm
Mueller released report last summer, which resulted in (the last I checked) roughly 150
indictments, a handful of convictions to date, all for perjury/financial (not political)
crimes. This wasn't kept secret. It simply wasn't what Democrats wanted to hear, so although
it was mentioned in some lib media (which overwhelmingly supported neoliberal Hillary
Clinton), it was essentially swept under the carpet.
Billy , March 13, 2019 at 11:11 pm
Barr, Sessions, every congressmen all the corporate MSM war profiteer mouth pieces. They
all know that "Russia hacked the DNC" and "Russia meddled" is fabricated garbage. They don't
care, because their chosen war beast corporate candidate couldn't beat Donald goofball Trump.
So it has to be shown that the war beast only lost because of nefarious reasons. Because
they're gonna run another war beast cut from the same cloth as Hillary in 2020.
Realist , March 14, 2019 at 3:22 am
You betcha. Moreover, who but the Russians do these idiots have left to blame? Everybody
else is now off limits due to political correctness. Sigh Those Catholics, Jews, "ethnics"
and sundry "deviants" used to be such reliable scapegoats, to say nothing of the
"undeveloped" world. As Clapper "authoritatively" says, only this vile lineage still carries
the genes for the most extremes of human perfidy. Squirrels in your attic? It must be the
damned Russkies! The bastards impudently tried to copy our democracy, economic system and
free press and only besmirched those institutions, ruining all of Hillary's glorious plans
for a worldwide benevolent dictatorship. All this might be humorous if it weren't so
funny.
And those Chinese better not get to thinking they are somehow our equals just because all
their trillions invested in U.S. Treasury bonds have paid for all our wars of choice and MIC
boondoggles since before the turn of the century. Unless they start delivering Trump some
"free stuff" the big man is gonna cut off their water. No more affordable manufactured goods
for the American public! So there!
As to the article: impeccable research and analysis by the VIPS crew yet again. They've
proven to me that, to a near certainty, the Easter Bunny is not likely to exist. Mueller
won't read it. Clapper will still prance around a free man, as will Brennan. The Democrats
won't care, that is until November of 2020. And Hillary will continue to skate, unhindered in
larding up the Clinton Foundation to purposes one can only imagine.
Joe Tedesky , March 14, 2019 at 10:02 pm
Realist,
I have posted this article 'the Russia they Lost' before and from time to time but
once again it seems appropriate to add this link to expound upon for what you've been saying.
It's an article written by a Russian who in they're youth growing up in the USSR dreamed of
living the American lifestyle if Russia were to ever ditch communism. But . Starting with
Kosovo this Russian's youthful dream turned nightmarishly ugly and, as time went by with more
and yet even more USA aggression this Russian author loss his admiration and desire for all
things American to be proudly envied. This is a story where USA hard power destroyed any hope
of American soft power for world unity. But hey that unity business was never part of the
plan anyway.
right you are, joe. if america was smart rather than arrogant, it would have cooperated
with china and russia to see the belt and road initiative succeed by perhaps building a
bridge or tunnel from siberia to alaska, and by building its own fleet of icebreakers to open
up its part of the northwest passage. but no, it only wants to sabotage what others propose.
that's not being a leader, it's being a dick.
i'm gonna have to go on the disabled list here until the sudden neurological problem with
my right hand clears up–it's like paralysed. too difficult to do this one-handed using
hunt and peck. at least the problem was not in the old bean, according to the scans. carry
on, sir.
Brian James , March 13, 2019 at 5:04 pm
Mar 4, 2019 Tom Fitton: President Trump a 'Crime Victim' by Illegal Deep State DOJ &
FBI Abuses: https://youtu.be/ixWMorWAC7c
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 5:55 pm
Trump is a willing player in this game. The anti-Russian Crusade was, quite simply, a stunningly reckless,
short-sighted effort to overturn the 2016 election, removing Trump to install Hillary Clinton in office. Trump and the
Republicans continue to win by default, as Democrats only drive more voters away.
Thank you Ray McGovern and the Other 17 VIPS C0-Signers of your National Security Essay
for Truth. Along with Craig Murray and Seymour Hirsch, former Sam Adams Award winners for
"shining light into dark places", you are national resources for objectivity in critical
survival information matters for our country. It is more than a pity that our mainstream
media are so beholden to their corporate task masters that they cannot depart from the
company line for fear of losing their livelihoods, and in the process we risk losing life on
the planet because of unconstrained nuclear war on the part of the two main adversaries
facing off in an atmosphere of fear and mistrust. Let me speak plainly. THEY SHOULD BE
TALKING TO YOU AND NOT THE VESTED INTERESTS' MOUTHPIECES. Thank you for your continued
leadership!
Roger Ailes founder of FOX news died, "falling down stairs" within a week of FOX news
exposing to the world that the assassinated Seth Rich downloaded the DNC emails.
DH Fabian , March 13, 2019 at 6:03 pm
Google the Mueller investigation report from last June or July. When it was released, the
public response was like a deflated balloon. It did not support the "Russian collusion"
allegations -- the only thing Democrats still had left to sell. The report resulted in
roughly 150 indictments for perjury/financial crimes (not political), and a handful of
convictions to date -- none of which had anything to do with the election results.
Hank , March 13, 2019 at 6:19 pm
Much ado about nothing. All the talk and chatter and media airplay about "Russian
meddling" in the 2016 election only tells me that these liars think the American public is
that stupid. They are probably right, but the REAL reason that Hillary lost is because there
ARE enough informed people now in this nation who are quite aware of the Clinton's sordid
history where scandals seem to follow every where they go, but indictments and/or
investigations don't. There IS an internet nowadays with lots of FACTUAL DOCUMENTED
information. That's a lot more than I can say about the mainstream corporate-controlled
media!
I know this won't ever happen, but an HONEST investigation into the Democratic Party and
their actions during the 2016 election would make ANY collusion with ANY nation look like a
mole hill next to a mountain! One of the problems with living in this nation is if you are
truly informed and make an effort 24/7 to be that way by doing your own research, you
more-than-likely can be considered an "island in a sea of ignorance".
We know that the FBI never had access to the servers and a private company was allowed to
handle the evidence. Wasnt it a crime scene? The evidence was tampered with And we will never
know what was on the servers.
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:10 pm
As a complement to this excellent analysis, I would like to make 2 further points:
The Mueller indictment of Russian Intelligence for hacking the DNC and transferring their
booty to Wikileaks is absurd on its face for this reason: Assange announced on June 12th the
impending release of Hillary-related emails. Yet the indictment claims that Guccifer 2.0 did
not succeed in transferring the DNC emails to Wikileaks until the time period of July 14-18th
– after which they were released online on July 22nd. Are we to suppose that Assange, a
publisher of impeccable integrity, publicly announced the publication of emails he had not
yet seen, and which he was obtaining from a source of murky provenance? And are we further to
suppose that Wikileaks could have processed 20K emails and 20K attachments to insure their
genuineness in a period of only several days? As you will recall, Wikileaks subsequently took
a number of weeks to process the Podesta emails they released in October.
And another peculiarity merits attention. Assange did not state on June 12th that he was
releasing DNC emails – and yet Crowdstrike and the Guccifer 2.0 personna evidently knew
that this was in store. A likely resolution of this conundrum is that US intelligence had
been monitoring all communications to Wikileaks, and had informed the DNC that their hacked
emails had been offered to Wikileaks. A further reasonable prospect is that US intelligence
subsequently unmasked the leaker to the DNC; as Assange has strongly hinted, this likely was
Seth Rich. This could explain Rich's subsequent murder, as Rich would have been in a position
to unmask the Guccifer 2.0 hoax and the entire Russian hacking narrative.
Curious that Assange has Not explicitly stated that the leaker was Seth Rich, if it was,
as this would take pressure from himself and incriminate the DNC in the murder of Rich.
Perhaps he doesn't know, and has the honor not to take the opportunity, or perhaps he knows
that it was not Rich.
View the Dutch TV interview with Asssange and there is another interview available on
youtube in which Assange DOES subtly confirmed it was Seth Rich.
Assange posted a $10,000 reward for Seth Rich's murders capture.
Abby , March 13, 2019 at 10:11 pm
Another mistaken issue with the "Russia hacked the DNC computers on Trump's command" is
that he never asked Russia to do that. His words were, "Russia if you 'find' Hillary's
missing emails let us know." He said that after she advised congress that she wouldn't be
turning in all of the emails they asked for because she deleted 30,000 of them and said that
they were personal.
But if Mueller or the FBI wants to look at all of them they can find them at the NYC FBI
office because they are on Weiner's laptop. Why? Because Hillary's aid Huma Abedin, Weiner's
wife sent them to it. Just another security risk that Hillary had because of her private
email server. This is why Comey had to tell congress that more of them had been found 11 days
before the election. If Comey hadn't done that then the FBI would have.
But did Comey or McCabe look at her emails there to see if any of them were classified? No
they did not do that. And today we find out that Lisa Page told congress that it was Obama's
decision not to charge Hillary for being grossly negligent on using her private email server.
This has been known by congress for many months and now we know that the fix was always in
for her to get off.
robert e williamson jr , March 13, 2019 at 3:26 pm
I want to thank you folks at VIPS. Like I have been saying for years now the relationship
between CIA, NSA and DOJ is an incestuous one at best. A perverse corrupted bond to control
the masses. A large group of religious fanatics who want things "ONE WAY". They are the
facilitators for the rogue government known as the "DEEP STATE"!
Just ask billy barr.
More truth is a very good thing. I believe DOJ is supporting the intelligence community
because of blackmail. They can't come clean because they all risk doing lots of time if a new
judicial mechanism replaces them. We are in big trouble here.
Apparently the rule of law is not!
You folks that keep claiming we live in the post truth era! Get off me. Demand the truth
and nothing else. Best be getting ready for the fight of your lives. The truth is you have to
look yourself in the mirror every morning, deny that truth. The claim you are living in the
post truth era is an admission your life is a lie. Now grab a hold of yourself pick a
dogdamned side and stand for something,.
Thank You VIPS!
Joe Tedesky , March 13, 2019 at 2:58 pm
Hats off to the VIP's who have investigated this Russian hacking that wasn't a hacking for
without them what would we news junkies have otherwise to lift open the hood of Mueller's
never ending Russia-gate investigation. Although the one thing this Russia-gate nonsense has
accomplished is it has destroyed with our freedom of speech when it comes to how we citizens
gather our news. Much like everything else that has been done during these post 9/11 years of
continual wars our civil rights have been marginalized down to zero or, a bit above if that's
even still an argument to be made for the sake of numbers.
Watching the Manafort sentencing is quite interesting for the fact that Manafort didn't
conclude in as much as he played fast and loose with his income. In fact maybe Manafort's
case should have been prosecuted by the State Department or, how about the IRS? Also wouldn't
it be worth investigating other Geopolitical Rain Makers like Manafort for similar crimes of
financial wrongdoing? I mean is it possible Manafort is or was the only one of his type to do
such dishonest things? In any case Manafort wasn't charged with concluding with any Russians
in regard to the 2016 presidential election and, with that we all fall down.
I guess the best thing (not) that came out of this Russia-gate silliness is Rachel
Maddow's tv ratings zoomed upwards. But I hate to tell you that the only ones buying what Ms
Maddow is selling are the died in the wool Hillary supporters along with the chicken-hawks
who rally to the MIC lobby for more war. It's all a game and yet there are many of us who
just don't wish to play it but still we must because no one will listen to the sanity that
gets ignored keep up the good work VIP's some of us are listening.
Andrew Thomas , March 13, 2019 at 12:42 pm
The article did not mention something called to my attention for the first time by one of
the outstanding members of your commentariat just a couple of days ago- that Ambassador
Murray stayed publicly, over two years ago, that he had been given the thumb drive by a
go-between in D.C. and had somehow gotten it to Wikileaks. And, that he has NEVER BEEN
INTERVIEWED by Mueller &Company. I was blown away by this, and found the original
articles just by googling Murray. The excuse given is that Murray "lacks credibility ", or
some such, because of his prior relationship with Assange and/or Wikileaks. This is so
ludicrous I can't even get my head around it. And now, you have given me a new detail-the
meeting with Pompeo, and the complete lack of follow-up thereafter. Here all this time I
thought I was the most cynical SOB who existed, and now I feel as naive as when I was 13 and
believed what Dean Rusk was saying like it was holy writ. I am in your debt.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 2:33 pm
Andrew Thomas I'm afraid that huge amounts of our History post 1947 is organized and
propagandized disinformation. There is an incredible page that John Simpkin has organized
over the years that specifically addresses individuals, click on a name and read about
them. https://spartacus-educational.com/USAdisinformation.htm
Mark McCarty , March 13, 2019 at 4:18 pm
A small correction: the Daily Mail article regarding Murray claimed that Murray was given
a thumbdrive which he subsequently carried back to Wikileaks. On his blog, Murray
subsequently disputed this part of the story, indicating that, while he had met with a leaker
or confederate of a leaker in Washington DC, the Podesta emails were already in possession of
Wikileaks at the time. Murray refused to clarify the reason for his meeting with this source,
but he is adamant in maintaining that the DNC and Podesta emails were leaked, not hacked.
And it is indeed ludicrous that Mueller, given the mandate to investigate the alleged
Russian hacking of the DNC and Podesta, has never attempted to question either Assange or
Murray. That in itself is enough for us to conclude that the Mueller investigation is a
complete sham.
Ian Brown , March 13, 2019 at 4:43 pm
It's pretty astonishing that Mueller was more interested in Roger Stone and Jerome Corsi
as credible sources about Wikileaks and the DNC release than Craig Murray!
LJ , March 13, 2019 at 12:29 pm
A guy comes in with a pedigree like that, """ former FBI head """ to examine and validate
if possible an FBI sting manufactured off a phony FISA indictment based on the Steele Report,
It immediately reminded me of the 9-11 Commission with Thomas Kean, former Board member of
the National Endowment for Democracy, being appointed by GW Bush the Simple to head an
investigation that he had previously said he did not want to authorize( and of course bi
partisan yes man Lee Hamilton as #2, lest we forget) . Really this should be seen as another
low point in our Democracy. Uncle Sam is the Limbo Man, How low can you go?
After Bill and
Hillary and Monica and Paula Jones and Blue Dresses well, Golden Showers in a Moscow luxury
hotel, I guess that make it just salacious enough.
Mueller looks just like what he is. He
has that same phony self important air as Comey . In 2 years this will be forgotten.. I do
not think this hurts Trumps chances at re-election as much as the Democrats are hurting
themselves. This has already gone on way too long.
Mueller has nothing and he well knows it. He was willingly roped into this whole pathetic
charade and he's left grasping for anything remotely tied to Trump campaign officials and
Russians.
Even the most tenuous connections and weak relationships are splashed across the mass
media in breathless headlines. Meanwhile, NONE of the supposed skulduggery unearthed by
Mueller has anything to do with the Kremlin "hacking" the election to favor Trump, which was
the entire raison d'etre behind Rosenstein, Brennan, Podesta and Mueller's crusade on behalf
of the deplorable DNC and Washington militarist-imperialists. It will be fascinating to
witness how Mueller and his crew ultimately extricate themselves from this giant fraudulent
edifice of deceit. Will they even be able to save the most rudimentary amount of face?
So sickening to see the manner in which many DNC sycophants obsequiously genuflect to
their godlike Mueller. A damn prosecutor who was likely in bed with the Winter Hill Gang.
Jack , March 13, 2019 at 12:21 pm
You have failed. An investigation is just that, a finding of the facts. What would Mueller
have to extricate himself from? If nothing is found, he has still done his job. You are a
divisive idiot.
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:13 pm
Yes, he has done his job. And his job was to bring his royal Orangeness to heel, and to
make sure that detente and co-operation with Russia remained impossible. The forever war
continues. Mission Accomplished.
@Jack,
Keep running cover for an out of control prosecutor, who, if he had any integrity, would have
hit the bully pulpit mos ago declaring there's nothing of substance to one of the most
potentially dangerous accusations in world history: the Kremlin hacking the election. Last I
checked it puts two nuclear nation-states on the brink of potential war. And you call me
divisive? Mueller's now a willing accomplice to this entire McCarthyite smear and
disinformation campaign. It's all so pathetic that folks such as yourself try and mislead and
feed half-truths to the people.
Drew, you might enjoy this discussion Robert Scheer has with Stephen Cohen and Katrina
vanden Heuvel.
Realist , March 15, 2019 at 3:38 am
Moreover, as the Saker pointed out in his most recent column in the Unz Review, the entire
Deep State conspiracy, in an ad hoc alliance with the embarrassed and embarrassing Democrats,
have made an absolute sham of due process in their blatant witch hunt to bag the president.
This reached an apex when his personal lawyer, Mr. Cohen, was trotted out before congress to
violate Trump's confidentiality in every mortifying way he could even vaguely reconstruct.
The man was expected to say anything to mitigate the anticipated tortures to come in the
course of this modern day inquisition by our latter day Torquemada. To his credit though,
even with his ass in a sling, he could simply not confabulate the smoking gun evidence for
the alleged Russian collusion that this whole farce was built around.
Mueller stood with Bush as he lied the world into war based on lies and illegally spied on
America and tortured some folks.
George Collins , March 13, 2019 at 2:02 pm
QED: as to the nexus with the Winter Hill gang wasn't there litigation involving the
Boston FBI, condonation of murder by the FBI and damages awarded to or on behalf of convicted
parties that the FBI had reason to know were innocent? The malfeasance reportedly occurred
during Mueller time. Further on the sanctified diligence of Mr. Mueller can be gleaned from
the reports of Coleen Rowley, former FBI attorney stationed in Milwaukee??? when the DC FBI
office was ignoring warnings sent about 9/11. See also Sibel Edmonds who knew to much and was
court order muzzled about FBI mis/malfeasance in the aftermath of 9/11.
I'd say it's game, set, match VIPS and a pox on Clapper and the
complicit intelligence folk complicit in the nuclear loaded Russia-gate fibs.
Kiers , March 13, 2019 at 11:47 am
How can we expect the DNC to "hand it " to Trumpf, when, behind the scenes, THEY ARE ONE
PARTY. They are throwing faux-scary pillow bombs at each other because they are both
complicit in a long chain of corruptions. Business as usual for the "principled" two party
system! Democracy! Through the gauze of corporate media! You must be joking!
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 11:28 am
"We believe that there are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to
prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly if they become
aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very
different conclusions."
I wish I shared this belief. However, as with Nancy Pelosi's recent statement regarding
pursuing impeachment, I smell a rat. I believe with the help of what the late Robert Parry
called "the Mighty Wurlitzer", Mueller is going to use coerced false testimony and fabricated
forensics to drop a bombshell the size of 911. I think Nancy's statement was just a feint
before throwing the knockout punch.
If reason ruled the day, we should have nothing to worry about. But considering all the
perfidy that the so-called "Intelligence" Agencies and their MSM lackeys get away with daily,
I think we are in for more theater; and I think VIPS will receive a cold shoulder outside of
venues like CN.
I pray to God I'm wrong.
Sam F , March 13, 2019 at 7:32 pm
My extensive experience with DOJ and the federal judiciary establishes that at least 98%
of them are dedicated career liars, engaged in organized crime to serve political gangs, and
make only a fanatical pretense of patriotism or legality. They are loyal to money alone,
deeply cynical and opposed to the US Constitution and laws, with no credibility at all beyond
any real evidence.
Eric32 , March 14, 2019 at 4:24 pm
As near I can see, Federal Govt. careers at the higher levels depend on having dirt on
other players, and helping, not hurting, the money/power schemes of the players above
you.
The Clintons (through their foundation) apparently have a lot of corruption dirt on CIA,
FBI etc. top players, some of whom somehow became multi-millionaires during their civil
service careers.
Trump, who was only running for President as a name brand marketing ploy with little
desire to actually win, apparently came into the Presidency with no dirt arsenal and little
idea of where to go from there.
Bob Van Noy , March 13, 2019 at 11:09 am
I remember reading with dismay how Russians were propagandized by the Soviet Press
Management only to find out later the depth of disbelief within the Russian population
itself. We now know what that feels like. The good part of this disastrous scenario for
America is that for careful readers, disinformation becomes revelatory. For instance, if one
reads an editorial that refers to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or continually refers to
Russian interference in the last Presidential election, then one can immediately dismiss the
article and question the motivation for the presentation. Of course the problem is how to
establish truth in reporting
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 10:41 am
Thank you, VIPs. Hopefully, you don't expect this to make a difference. The US has moved
into a post truth, post reality existence best characterized by Karl Rove's declaration:
"we're an empire now, when we act, we create our own reality." What Mr. Rove in his arrogance
fails to appreciate is that it is his reality but not anyone else's. Thus Pompous can claim
that Guaido is the democratic leader in Venezuela even though he's never been elected .
Thank you. The next time one of my friends or family give me that glazed over stare and
utters anymore of the "but, RUSSIA" nonsense I will refer them directly to this article. Your
collective work and ethical stand on this matter is deeply appreciated by anyone who values
the truth.
Russiagate stands with past government propaganda operations that were simply made up out
of thin air: i.e. Kuwaiti incubator babies, WMD's, Gaddafi's viagra fueled rape camps, Assad
can't sleep at night unless he's gassing his own people, to the latest, "Maduro can't sleep
at night unless he's starving his own people."
The complete and utter amorality of the deep state remains on display for all to see with
"Russiagate," which is as fact-free a propaganda campaign as any of those just mentioned.
Marc , March 13, 2019 at 10:13 am
I am a computer naif, so I am prepared to accept the VIPS analysis about FAT and transfer
rates. However, the presentation here leaves me with several questions. First, do I
understand correctly that the FAT rounding to even numbers is introduced by the thumb drive?
And if so, does the FAT analysis show only that the DNC data passed through a thumb drive?
That is, does the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred to a
thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg, to
give a copy to Wikileaks? Second, although the transatlantic transfer rate is too slow to fit
some time stamps, is it possible that the data were hacked onto a local computer that was
under the control of some faraway agent?
Jeff Harrison , March 13, 2019 at 11:12 am
Not quite. FAT is the crappy storage system developed by Microsoft (and not used by UNIX).
The metadata associated with any file gets rewritten when it gets moved. If that movement is
to a storage device that uses FAT, the timestamp on the file will end in an even number. If
it were moved to a unix server (and most of the major servers run Unix) it would be in the
UFS (unix file system) and it would be the actual time from the system clock. Every storage
device has a utility that tells it where to write the data and what to write. Since it's
writing to a storage device using FAT, it'll round the numbers. To get to your real question,
yes, you could hack and then transfer the data to a thumb drive but if you did that the dates
wouldn't line up.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 8:05 am
Jeff-
Which dates wouldn't line up? Is there a history of metadata available, or just metadata
for the most recent move?
David G , March 13, 2019 at 12:22 pm
Marc asks: "[D]oes the analysis distinguish whether the DNC data were directly transferred
to a thumb drive, or whether the data were hacked and then transferred to a thumb drive, eg,
to give a copy to Wikileaks?"
I asked that question in comments under a previous CN piece; other people have asked that
question elsewhere.
To my knowledge, it hasn't been addressed directly by the VIPS, and I think they should do
so. (If they already have, someone please enlighten me.)
Skip Scott , March 13, 2019 at 1:07 pm
I am no computer wiz, but Binney has repeatedly made the point that the NSA scoops up
everything. If there had been a hack, they'd know it, and they wouldn't only have had
"moderate" confidence in the Jan. assessment. I believe that although farfetched, an argument
could be made that a Russian spy got into the DNC, loaded a thumb drive, and gave it to Craig
Murray.
David G , March 13, 2019 at 3:31 pm
Respectfully, that's a separate point, which may or may not raise issues of its own.
But I think the question Marc posed stands.
Skip Scott , March 14, 2019 at 7:59 am
Hi David-
I don't see how it's separate. If the NSA scoops up everything, they'd have solid evidence
of the hack, and wouldn't have only had "moderate" confidence, which Bill Binney says is
equivalent to them saying "we don't have squat". They wouldn't even have needed Mueller at
all, except to possibly build a "parallel case" due to classification issues. Also, the FBI
not demanding direct access to the DNC server tells you something is fishy. They could easily
have gotten a warrant to examine the server, but chose not to. They also purposely refuse to
get testimony from Craig Murray and Julian Assange, which rings alarm bells on its own.
As for the technical aspect of Marc's question, I agree that I'd like to see Bill Binney
directly answer it.
The final Mueller report should be graded "incomplete," says VIPS, whose forensic work proves the speciousness of the story that
DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The Attorney General
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Mueller's Forensics-Free Findings
Executive Summary
Media reports are predicting that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is about to give you the findings of his probe into any
links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump.
If Mueller gives you his "completed" report anytime soon, it should be graded "incomplete."
Major deficiencies include depending on a DNC-hired cybersecurity company for forensics and failure to consult with those who
have done original forensic work, including us and the independent forensic investigators with whom we have examined the data. We
stand ready to help.
We veteran intelligence professionals (VIPS) have done enough detailed forensic work to prove the speciousness of the prevailing
story that the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks came from Russian hacking. Given the paucity of evidence to support that story,
we believe Mueller may choose to finesse this key issue and leave everyone hanging. That would help sustain the widespread belief
that Trump owes his victory to President Vladimir Putin, and strengthen the hand of those who pay little heed to the unpredictable
consequences of an increase in tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
There is an overabundance of "assessments" but a lack of hard evidence to support that prevailing narrative. We believe that there
are enough people of integrity in the Department of Justice to prevent the outright manufacture or distortion of "evidence," particularly
if they become aware that experienced scientists have completed independent forensic study that yield very different conclusions.
We know only too well -- and did our best to expose -- how our former colleagues in the intelligence community manufactured fraudulent
"evidence" of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We have scrutinized publicly available physical data -- the "trail" that every cyber operation leaves behind. And we have had
support from highly experienced independent forensic investigators who, like us, have no axes to grind. We can prove that the conventional-wisdom
story about Russian-hacking-DNC-emails-for-WikiLeaks is false. Drawing largely on the unique expertise of two VIPS scientists who
worked for a combined total of 70 years at the National Security Agency and became Technical Directors there, we have regularly published
our findings. But we have been deprived of a hearing in mainstream media -- an experience painfully reminiscent of what we had to
endure when we exposed the corruption of intelligence before the attack on Iraq 16 years ago.
This time, with the principles of physics and forensic science to rely on, we are able to adduce solid evidence exposing mistakes
and distortions in the dominant story. We offer you below -- as a kind of aide-memoire -- a discussion of some of the key
factors related to what has become known as "Russia-gate." And we include our most recent findings drawn from forensic work on data
associated with WikiLeaks' publication of the DNC emails.
We do not claim our conclusions are "irrefutable and undeniable," a la Colin Powell at the UN before the Iraq war. Our judgments,
however, are based on the scientific method -- not "assessments." We decided to put this memorandum together in hopes of ensuring
that you hear that directly from us.
If the Mueller team remains reluctant to review our work -- or even to interview willing witnesses with direct knowledge, like
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and former UK Ambassador Craig Murray, we fear that many of those yearning earnestly for the truth on Russia-gate
will come to the corrosive conclusion that the Mueller investigation was a sham.
In sum, we are concerned that, at this point, an incomplete Mueller report will fall far short of the commitment made by then
Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "to ensure a full and thorough investigation," when he appointed Mueller in May 2017. Again,
we are at your disposal.
Discussion
The centerpiece accusation of Kremlin "interference" in the 2016 presidential election was the charge that Russia hacked Democratic
National Committee emails and gave them to WikiLeaks to embarrass Secretary Hillary Clinton and help Mr. Trump win. The weeks following
the election witnessed multiple leak-based media allegations to that effect. These culminated on January 6, 2017 in an evidence-light,
rump report misleadingly labeled "Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)." Prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only three of
the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies (CIA, FBI, and NSA), the assessment expressed "high confidence" in the Russia-hacking-to-WikiLeaks
story, but lacked so much as a hint that the authors had sought access to independent forensics to support their "assessment."
The media immediately awarded the ICA the status of Holy Writ, choosing to overlook an assortment of banal, full-disclosure-type
caveats included in the assessment itself -- such as:
" When Intelligence Community analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' they are conveying an analytic assessment
or judgment. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment
is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
To their credit, however, the authors of the ICA did make a highly germane point in introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution."
They noted: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber
operation -- malicious or not -- leaves a trail." [Emphasis added.]
Forensics
The imperative is to get on that "trail" -- and quickly, before red herrings can be swept across it. The best way to establish
attribution is to apply the methodology and processes of forensic science. Intrusions into computers leave behind discernible physical
data that can be examined scientifically by forensic experts. Risk to "sources and methods" is normally not a problem.
Direct access to the actual computers is the first requirement -- the more so when an intrusion is termed "an act of war" and
blamed on a nuclear-armed foreign government (the words used by the late Sen. John McCain and other senior officials). In testimony
to the House Intelligence Committee in March 2017, former FBI Director James Comey admitted that he did not insist on physical access
to the DNC computers even though, as he conceded, "best practices" dictate direct access.
In June 2017, Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Richard Burr asked Comey whether he ever had "access to the actual hardware
that was hacked." Comey answered, "In the case of the DNC we did not have access to the devices themselves. We got relevant forensic
information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done the work. " Sen. Burr followed up: "But no content? Isn't content
an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence standpoint?" Comey: "It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks
is that they had gotten the information from the private party that they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016."
The "private party/high-class entity" to which Comey refers is CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm of checkered reputation and multiple
conflicts of interest, including very close ties to a number of key anti-Russian organizations. Comey indicated that the DNC hired
CrowdStrike in the spring of 2016.
Given the stakes involved in the Russia-gate investigation – including a possible impeachment battle and greatly increased tension
between Russia and the U.S. -- it is difficult to understand why Comey did not move quickly to seize the computer hardware so the
FBI could perform an independent examination of what quickly became the major predicate for investigating election interference by
Russia. Fortunately, enough data remain on the forensic "trail" to arrive at evidence-anchored conclusions. The work we have done
shows the prevailing narrative to be false. We have been suggesting this for over two years. Recent forensic work significantly strengthens
that conclusion.
We Do Forensics
Recent forensic examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23, 25 and 26 May 2016. (On June 12, Julian
Assange announced he had them; WikiLeaks published them on July 22.) We recently discovered that the files reveal a FAT (File Allocation
Table) system property. This shows that the data had been transferred to an external storage device, such as a thumb drive,
before WikiLeaks posted them.
FAT is a simple file system named for its method of organization, the File Allocation Table. It is used for storage only and is
not related to internet transfers like hacking. Were WikiLeaks to have received the DNC files via a hack, the last modified times
on the files would be a random mixture of odd-and even-ending numbers.
Why is that important? The evidence lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the Wikileaks files. When a file is stored under
the FAT file system the software rounds the time to the nearest even-numbered second. Every single one of the time stamps in the
DNC files on WikiLeaks' site ends in an even number.
We have examined 500 DNC email files stored on the Wikileaks site. All 500 files end in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If
those files had been hacked over the Internet, there would be an equal probability of the time stamp ending in an odd number. The
random probability that FAT was not used is 1 chance in 2 to the 500th power. Thus, these data show that the DNC emails posted by
WikiLeaks went through a storage device, like a thumb drive, and were physically moved before Wikileaks posted the emails on the
World Wide Web.
This finding alone is enough to raise reasonable doubts, for example, about Mueller's indictment of 12 Russian intelligence officers
for hacking the DNC emails given to WikiLeaks. A defense attorney could easily use the forensics to argue that someone copied the
DNC files to a storage device like a USB thumb drive and got them physically to WikiLeaks -- not electronically via a hack.
Role of NSA
For more than two years, we strongly suspected that the DNC emails were copied/leaked in that way, not hacked. And we said so.
We remain intrigued by the apparent failure of NSA's dragnet, collect-it-all approach -- including "cast-iron" coverage of WikiLeaks
-- to provide forensic evidence (as opposed to "assessments") as to how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks and who sent them. Well before
the telling evidence drawn from the use of FAT, other technical evidence led us to conclude that the DNC emails were not hacked over
the network, but rather physically moved over, say, the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it possible that NSA has not yet been asked to produce the collected packets of DNC email data claimed to have been hacked
by Russia? Surely, this should be done before Mueller competes his investigation. NSA has taps on all the transoceanic cables leaving
the U.S. and would almost certainly have such packets if they exist. (The detailed slides released by Edward Snowden actually show
the routes that trace the packets.)
The forensics we examined shed no direct light on who may have been behind the leak. The only thing we know for sure is that the
person had to have direct access to the DNC computers or servers in order to copy the emails. The apparent lack of evidence from
the most likely source, NSA, regarding a hack may help explain the FBI's curious preference for forensic data from CrowdStrike. No
less puzzling is why Comey would choose to call CrowdStrike a "high-class entity."
Comey was one of the intelligence chiefs briefing President Obama on January 5, 2017 on the "Intelligence Community Assessment,"
which was then briefed to President-elect Trump and published the following day. That Obama found a key part of the ICA narrative
less than persuasive became clear at his last press conference (January 18), when he told the media, "The conclusions of the intelligence
community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to how 'the DNC emails that were leaked' got to WikiLeaks.
Is Guccifer 2.0 a Fraud?
There is further compelling technical evidence that undermines the claim that the DNC emails were downloaded over the internet
as a result of a spearphishing attack. William Binney, one of VIPS' two former Technical Directors at NSA, along with other former
intelligence community experts, examined files posted by Guccifer 2.0 and discovered that those files could not have been downloaded
over the internet. It is a simple matter of mathematics and physics.
There was a flurry of activity after Julian Assange announced on June 12, 2016: "We have emails relating to Hillary Clinton which
are pending publication." On June 14, DNC contractor CrowdStrike announced that malware was found on the DNC server and claimed there
was evidence it was injected by Russians. On June 15, the Guccifer 2.0 persona emerged on the public stage, affirmed the DNC statement,
claimed to be responsible for hacking the DNC, claimed to be a WikiLeaks source, and posted a document that forensics show
was synthetically tainted with "Russian fingerprints."
Our suspicions about the Guccifer 2.0 persona grew when G-2 claimed responsibility for a "hack" of the DNC on July 5, 2016, which
released DNC data that was rather bland compared to what WikiLeaks published 17 days later (showing how the DNC had tipped the primary
scales against Sen. Bernie Sanders). As VIPS
reported in a wrap-up
Memorandum for the President on July 24, 2017 (titled "Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence)," forensic examination of the
July 5, 2016 cyber intrusion into the DNC showed it NOT to be a hack by the Russians or by anyone else, but rather a copy onto an
external storage device. It seemed a good guess that the July 5 intrusion was a contrivance to preemptively taint anything WikiLeaks
might later publish from the DNC, by "showing" it came from a "Russian hack." WikiLeaks published the DNC emails on July 22, three
days before the Democratic convention.
As we prepared our July 24 memo for the President, we chose to begin by taking Guccifer 2.0 at face value; i. e., that the documents
he posted on July 5, 2016 were obtained via a hack over the Internet. Binney conducted a forensic examination of the metadata contained
in the posted documents and compared that metadata with the known capacity of Internet connection speeds at the time in the U.S.
This analysis showed a transfer rate as high as 49.1 megabytes per second, which is much faster than was possible from a remote online
Internet connection. The 49.1 megabytes speed coincided, though, with the rate that copying onto a thumb drive could accommodate.
Binney, assisted by colleagues with relevant technical expertise, then extended the examination and ran various forensic tests
from the U.S. to the Netherlands, Albania, Belgrade and the UK. The fastest Internet rate obtained -- from a data center in New Jersey
to a data center in the UK -- was 12 megabytes per second, which is less than a fourth of the capacity typical of a copy onto a thumb
drive.
The findings from the examination of the Guccifer 2.0 data and the WikiLeaks data does not indicate who copied the information
to an external storage device (probably a thumb drive). But our examination does disprove that G.2 hacked into the DNC on July 5,
2016. Forensic evidence for the Guccifer 2.0 data adds to other evidence that the DNC emails were not taken by an internet spearphishing
attack. The data breach was local. The emails were copied from the network.
Presidential Interest
After VIPS' July 24, 2017 Memorandum for the President, Binney, one of its principal authors, was invited to share his insights
with Mike Pompeo, CIA Director at the time. When Binney arrived in Pompeo's office at CIA Headquarters on October 24, 2017 for an
hour-long discussion, the director made no secret of the reason for the invitation: "You are here because the President told me that
if I really wanted to know about Russian hacking I needed to talk with you."
Binney warned Pompeo -- to stares of incredulity -- that his people should stop lying about the Russian hacking. Binney then started
to explain the VIPS findings that had caught President Trump's attention. Pompeo asked Binney if he would talk to the FBI and NSA.
Binney agreed, but has not been contacted by those agencies. With that, Pompeo had done what the President asked. There was no follow-up.
Confronting James Clapper on Forensics
We, the hoi polloi, do not often get a chance to talk to people like Pompeo -- and still less to the former intelligence
chiefs who are the leading purveyors of the prevailing Russia-gate narrative. An exception came on November 13, when former National
Intelligence Director James Clapper came to the Carnegie Endowment in Washington to hawk his memoir. Answering a question during
the Q&A about Russian "hacking" and NSA, Clapper said:
" Well, I have talked with NSA a lot And in my mind, I spent a lot of time in the SIGINT business, the forensic evidence
was overwhelming about what the Russians had done. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind whatsoever." [Emphasis added]
Clapper added: " as a private citizen, understanding the magnitude of what the Russians did and the number of citizens in our
country they reached and the different mechanisms that, by which they reached them, to me it stretches credulity to think they didn't
have a profound impact on election on the outcome of the election."
(A transcript of the interesting Q&A can be found
here and a commentary
on Clapper's performance at Carnegie, as well as on his longstanding lack of credibility, is
here .)
Normally soft-spoken Ron Wyden, Democratic senator from Oregon, lost his patience with Clapper last week when he learned that
Clapper is still denying that he lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee about the extent of NSA surveillance of U.S. citizens.
In an unusual outburst, Wyden said: "James Clapper needs to stop making excuses for lying to the American people about mass surveillance.
To be clear: I sent him the question in advance. I asked him to correct the record afterward. He chose to let the lie stand."
The materials brought out by Edward Snowden in June 2013 showed Clapper to have lied under oath to the committee on March 12,
2013; he was, nevertheless, allowed to stay on as Director of National Intelligence for three and half more years. Clapper fancies
himself an expert on Russia, telling Meet the Press on May 28, 2017 that Russia's history shows that Russians are "typically,
almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever."
Clapper ought to be asked about the "forensics" he said were "overwhelming about what the Russians had done." And that, too, before
Mueller completes his investigation.
For the steering group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney , former NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical & Military Analysis; Co-founder of NSA's Signals
Intelligence Automation Research Center (ret.)
Richard H. Black , Senator of Virginia, 13th District; Colonel US Army (ret.); Former Chief, Criminal Law Division,
Office of the Judge Advocate General, the Pentagon (associate VIPS)
Bogdan Dzakovic , former Team Leader of Federal Air Marshals and Red Team, FAA Security (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Philip Girald i, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel , former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the
Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
James George Jatras , former U.S. diplomat and former foreign policy adviser to Senate leadership (Associate VIPS)
Larry C. Johnson , former CIA and State Department Counter Terrorism officer
John Kiriakou , former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski , former Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture
of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis , Cryptologic Computer Scientist, former Technical Director at NSA (ret.)
David MacMichael , Ph.D., former senior estimates officer, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern , former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst; CIA Presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray , former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council & CIA
political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce , MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Peter Van Buren , US Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Sarah G. Wilton , CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Kirk Wiebe , former Senior Analyst, SIGINT Automation Research Center, NSA
Ann Wright , retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq
War
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) is made up of former intelligence officers, diplomats, military officers
and congressional staffers. The organization, founded in 2002, was among the first critics of Washington's justifications for launching
a war against Iraq. VIPS advocates a US foreign and national security policy based on genuine national interests rather than contrived
threats promoted for largely political reasons. An archive of
VIPS memoranda is available at Consortiumnews.com.
"... Bill Preistap was the supervisor for Strzok and Lisa Page who also worked for John Carlin in the Department of Justice National Security Division under Sally Yates. Then Strozk and Page continued their CIA operation as they were appointed to Mueller's Special Council Investigation. ..."
"... Gina Haspel worked directly for the instigator of the Crossfire Hurricane operation – John Brennan. It would have been impossible for Haspel not to have known about the British spying from London since it was reported in UK newspaper on a weekly basis. She certainly was controlling Stefan Halper , Josef Mifsud , Stephan Roh , Alexander Downer, Andrew Wood, John McCain, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and the other conspirators. ..."
"... Keep in mind Haspel was Michael Gaeta's handler. Gaeta handled the frame-up of George Papadopoulos. ..."
When we saw these tweets from George Papadopoulos, we thought we could help him out with some
answers. If you can get them to George, please do.
Has congress figured out why Peter Strzok's former boss, Bill Priestap, was in London (of
all places) the days before Alexander Downer was sent to spy on me and lie about our meeting?
If not, time to get a move on it.
Britain is in a political crisis. To push Brexit hard, declassifying the spy role of the
David Cameron government on Trump and his team is paramount. Congress can not overlook the
vital importance of London as the center of the coup attempt.
Bill Priestap was the Director of the FBI national security division and would have gone to
the London CIA "office" for a meeting. There he would have met with Stefan Halper and Gina
Haspel who was, at the time, head of the London CIA office and would have been in charge of the
connections with Robert Hannigan (British GCHQ) and John Brennan who planned and executed the
wiretapping of Trump Team at Trump Towers. Haspel's communications, when released, will reveal
the full scope of the CIA led international attack on the 2016 presidential
election.
Gina Haspel would have known about the coup. If she has not reported all of
this to the President Trump, she is complicit in the coup attempt and is guilty of HIGH
TREASON.
Keep in mind, Peter Strzok was a CIA Regional Director who John Brennan appointed as the
head of Crossfire Hurricane, the CIA counter-intelligence operation to "take out" candidate
Trump – later it became the Mueller Witch Hunt after 13 different iterations
spanning:
the CIA (John Brennan),
FBI (James Comey, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, etc.),
DoJ (Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, Andrew Weisseman),
State Department (Victoria Nuland, Jonathon Winer, Hilary Clinton, John Kerry),
ODNS (James Clapper),
NSA (Admiral Mike Rogers)
and the White House senior staff (directly to Obama, Biden, Jarret, Rice, Powers, etc.).
Bill Preistap was the supervisor for Strzok and Lisa Page who also worked for
John Carlin in the Department of Justice National Security Division under Sally Yates. Then
Strozk and Page continued their CIA operation as they were appointed to Mueller's Special
Council Investigation.
Gina Haspel worked directly for the instigator of the Crossfire Hurricane operation –
John Brennan. It would have been impossible for Haspel not to have known about the British
spying from London since it was reported in UK newspaper on a weekly basis. She certainly was
controlling Stefan Halper
, Josef
Mifsud ,
Stephan Roh , Alexander Downer, Andrew Wood, John McCain, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and the
other conspirators.
All of these facts are well known and reported in open source documents. As the 53
testimonies of the House Intelligence Committee are released, we will see the house of cards
all fall down and Gina Haspel will go with it.
Looks like Orr was one of the central figures of the conspiracy against Trump in Justice Department. And it was Orr wife
who probably had written parts of the dossier at the request of CIA Brennan and other conspirators in CIA (who were acting via
controlled by them counterintelligence division at FBI)
Notable quotes:
"... Christopher Steele, a "former" MI-6 officer, had been a paid FBI informant for several years. ..."
"... Bruce Ohr met with Glenn Simpson in August 2016, which totally contradicts Simpson's previous sworn testimony that he did not meet with Ohr until after the 2016 election. ..."
"... Ohr informed FBI and senior DOJ officials, who signed off on the FISA application in October 2016 to spy on Carter Page, that the "dossier" had a tainted political history. ..."
"... What is truly remarkable about Ohr's testimony is that his explanation for repeated meetings and contacts with Christopher Steele do not make sense. I am referring specifically to Ohr's claim that Steele wanted him, Ohr, to pass info to the FBI. ..."
"... This guy is a senior DOJ official. He is a former prosecutor. He knows that the minute he accepts anything from Steele and then passes it on to the FBI that he, Ohr, became a fact witness. He is part of the chain of custody. More importantly, Ohr, knowing that Steele is on the FBI payroll, should have refused to accept any information and direct Steele to talk to his Agent/handler. Period. ..."
"... One other important sidetone--there has been a longstanding agreement among the 5 Eyes (i.e., US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) to NOT recruit as assets each other's spies. ..."
"... In light of all of this one can only conclude that Bruce Ohr is lying about the real reason for meeting with Steele or that he is a complete moron. There is no other possible explanation or excuse. I do not think that Ohr is a moron. He does not strike me as a man of limited intelligence. I think he is lying. I believe that the reason Steele approached Ohr was to provide some insulation to the FBI, which was engaged in an act of sedition. The FBI was interfering in the 2016 election and working to destroy Donald Trump. ..."
"... As more transcripts and documents come into the sunlight, we will get a clearer picture of the corruption at both the FBI and the DOJ. The FISA applications to spy on a US citizen, Carter Page, are without foundation. I am sure that William Barr appreciates this point and will press for action against those who willingly engaged in such despicable actions. ..."
Sorry to have been out of pocket (I've fled the wintry north for a new home in Florida). I
am back, so to speak, and ready to write a bit. Last week's release by Congressman Collins of
the interview transcript of Bruce Ohr, who appeared before the House Judiciary Committee last
year is quite damning of the FBI and the DOJ. If our system of justice is truly blind and
committed to fairness, there is little doubt that former FBI and DOJ officials--Comey, McCabe,
Yates and Rosenstein--will be facing serious legal jeopardy. They have lied.
The biggest "revelations" from Ohr are as follows:
Christopher Steele, a "former" MI-6 officer, had been a paid FBI informant for several years.
Bruce Ohr met with Glenn Simpson in August 2016, which totally contradicts Simpson's previous
sworn testimony that he did not meet with Ohr until after the 2016 election.
Ohr informed FBI
and senior DOJ officials, who signed off on the FISA application in October 2016 to spy on
Carter Page, that the "dossier" had a tainted political history.
I put "revelations" in quotations because we already knew most of this--specifically
Steele's status as a paid informant and the failure of the FBI and DOJ to verify the accuracy
of the so-called dossier. The new meat on the bone is Ohr's claim that he met with Simpson in
August 2016. Simpson swore under oath that no such meeting took place. That's a substantive lie
and, if the Flynn case is a guide, Mr. Simpson will be looking at prison.
What is truly remarkable about Ohr's testimony is that his explanation for repeated meetings
and contacts with Christopher Steele do not make sense. I am referring specifically to Ohr's
claim that Steele wanted him, Ohr, to pass info to the FBI. Think about this for a moment--Ohr
knows that Steele is a paid FBI informant. That means Steele has an FBI agent who is his
conduit into the FBI. That Agent handles interviews and writes up reports. Why in the hell
would Steele approach Ohr and not his FBI handler? Because Steele did not want to create a
record, i.e., a 302, that would have been generated if he had followed protocol and gone thru
normal channels.
And Ohr? This guy is a senior DOJ official. He is a former prosecutor. He knows that the
minute he accepts anything from Steele and then passes it on to the FBI that he, Ohr, became a
fact witness. He is part of the chain of custody. More importantly, Ohr, knowing that Steele is
on the FBI payroll, should have refused to accept any information and direct Steele to talk to
his Agent/handler. Period.
One other important sidetone--there has been a longstanding agreement among the 5 Eyes
(i.e., US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) to NOT recruit as assets each other's spies.
Christopher Steele's employ with the FBI violates this policy.
In light of all of this one can only conclude that Bruce Ohr is lying about the real reason
for meeting with Steele or that he is a complete moron. There is no other possible explanation
or excuse. I do not think that Ohr is a moron. He does not strike me as a man of limited
intelligence. I think he is lying. I believe that the reason Steele approached Ohr was to
provide some insulation to the FBI, which was engaged in an act of sedition. The FBI was
interfering in the 2016 election and working to destroy Donald Trump.
As more transcripts and documents come into the sunlight, we will get a clearer picture of
the corruption at both the FBI and the DOJ. The FISA applications to spy on a US citizen,
Carter Page, are without foundation. I am sure that William Barr appreciates this point and
will press for action against those who willingly engaged in such despicable actions.
"... Bruce Ohr testified that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS provided to federal officials information we know to be false regarding Cleta Mitchell, a Republican campaign finance attorney, and the NRA. Giving false statements to federal officials is a crime under 18 U.S.C. 1001. pic.twitter.com/vm0tc4ft5R ..."
"... "Rod Rosenstein won't tell us when he first learned that Nellie Ohr was working for Fusion GPS," said Gaetz, in August, 2018. "So I want to know from Bruce Ohr, when did he tell his colleagues at the Department of Justice that in violation of law that required him to disclose his wife's occupation his sources of income. He did not do that. So when did all of the other people at the Department of Justice find this out because Rod Rosenstein, I've asked him twice in open hearing and he will not give an answer. I think there's a real smoking gun there." ..."
"... in Ohr's testimony he says he told the FBI about his wife's role at Fusion GPS but only divulged his role to one person at the DOJ: Rosenstein. ..."
"... It also appears he failed to tell lawmakers about the information he delivered to the FBI. ..."
"... Ohr added: "My wife had separately done research on certain Russian people and companies or whatever that she had provided to Fusion GPS But I don't believe her information is reflected in the Chris Steele reports. They were two different chunks of information heading into Fusion GPS." ..."
"... In the testimony Ohr also revealed that Steele had told him details about his work with Deripaska saying Deripaska's attorney Paul Hauser "had information about Paul Manafort, that Paul Manafort had entered into some kind of business deal with" Deripaska. Ohr said Manafort "had stolen a large amount of money from" the Russian Oligarch and that Hauser was "trying to gather information that would show that." ..."
Department of Justice senior official
Bruce Ohr's
testimony contradicts testimony given by other senior government officials and key witnesses who testified before Congress regarding
the FBI's investigation into President Trump's 2016 campaign and alleged collusion with the Russian government, according to the
full transcripts released Friday.
Ohr's 268-page testimony, released by Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, reveals inconsistency
and contradiction in testimony given by Glenn Simpson, founder of embattled research firm
Fusion
GPS and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who is set to leave his post sometime this month.
It also reveals that many questions are still left unanswered.
The Contradictions and The Revelations
Glenn Simpson suggests in his testimony to the Senate that he never spoke to anyone at the FBI about Christopher Steele,
the former British spy he hired to investigate the Trump campaign during the election. However, Ohr suggest otherwise telling
former Rep.Trey Gowdy under questioning "As I recall, and this is after checking with my notes, Mr. Simpson and I spoke in
August of 2016. I met with him, and he provided some information on possible intermediaries between the Russian government
and the Trump campaign."
In another instance, Simpson's testimony also contradicts notes taken by Ohr after a meeting they had in December, 2016.
Unverified allegations were decimated among the media that the Trump campaign had a
computer server that was linked to a Russian bank in Moscow: Alpha Bank. Simpson suggested to the Senate that he knew very
little about the Trump -Alpha Bank server story and couldn't provide information. But Bruce Ohr's own handwritten notes state
that when he met with Simpson in December 2016, Simpson was concerned over the Alpha Bank story in the New York Times. "The
New York Times story on Oct. 31 downplaying the connection between
Alfa servers and the Trump campaign was incorrect.
There was communication and it wasn't spam," stated Ohr's notes. This suggests that Simpson was well aware of the story, which
was believed by congressional investigators to have started from his research firm.
Ohr testified to lawmakers that Simpson provided information to federal officials that was false regarding Cleta Mitchell,
a well-known Republican campaign finance lawyer, and information regarding the National Rifle Association. Sean Davis, with
the Federalist pointed this out in a tweet today. Read one of those
stories here.
Bruce Ohr testified that Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS provided to federal officials information we know to be false regarding
Cleta Mitchell, a Republican campaign finance attorney, and the NRA. Giving false statements to federal officials is a crime
under 18 U.S.C. 1001. pic.twitter.com/vm0tc4ft5R
4. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would not answer questions to lawmakers during testimony about when he learned that
Ohr's wife, Nellie Ohr, was working for Fusion GPS. Just check this out from Rep. Matt Gaetz's
interview with Judge Jeanine on Fox News .
"Rod Rosenstein won't tell us when he first learned that Nellie Ohr was working for Fusion GPS," said Gaetz, in August,
2018. "So I want to know from Bruce Ohr, when did he tell his colleagues at the Department of Justice that in violation of
law that required him to disclose his wife's occupation his sources of income. He did not do that. So when did all of the other
people at the Department of Justice find this out because Rod Rosenstein, I've asked him twice in open hearing and he will
not give an answer. I think there's a real smoking gun there."
However, in Ohr's testimony he says he told the FBI about his wife's role at Fusion GPS but only divulged his role to one
person at the DOJ: Rosenstein.At the time, Rosenstein was overseeing the Trump-Russia probe, and had taken the information from Ohr and gave it to the
FBI. Just read The Hill's John Solomon
full story here for the full background on Ohr's testimony. I highlighted an important date below: remember Rosenstein wouldn't
answer lawmakers questions as to when he knew about Nellie Ohr. It also appears he failed to tell lawmakers about the information
he delivered to the FBI.
Ohr stated in his testimony: "What I had said, I think, to Mr. Rosenstein in October of 2017 was that my wife was working for
Fusion GPS The dossier, as I understand it, is the collection of reports that Chris Steele has prepared for Fusion GPS."
Ohr added: "My wife had separately done research on certain Russian people and companies or whatever that she had provided
to Fusion GPS But I don't believe her information is reflected in the Chris Steele reports. They were two different chunks of
information heading into Fusion GPS."
5. Ohr also told lawmakers in his testimony that the former British spy, Christopher Steele was being paid by the FBI at the
same time he was getting paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC. However, there was another player paying Steele and
it was a Russian oligarch named Oleg Deripaska. Deripaska, a tycoon connected to Russian President Vladimir Putin, had well known
animus toward his former friend Paul Manafort.
Rep. Mark Meadows asked Ohr during testimony "Did Chris Steele get paid by the Department of Justice?
Ohr's response: "My understanding is that for a time he was a source for the FBI, a paid source.
In the testimony Ohr also revealed that Steele had told him details about his work with Deripaska saying Deripaska's attorney
Paul Hauser "had information about Paul Manafort, that Paul Manafort had entered into some kind of business deal with" Deripaska.
Ohr said Manafort "had stolen a large amount of money from" the Russian Oligarch and that Hauser was "trying to gather information
that would show that."
"... That 93% of all personnel that are employed by the CIA are paper pushers in Langley and just 7% are in the field, of which I read sometime ago, has a ring of truth to me. ..."
Anyone remember Mullah Omar, the deceased leader of the Taliban? The U.S. military and intelligence services claimed over and
over again that he was hiding in Pakistan. Bette Dam
finds (pdf) that he wasn't:
After 2001, Mullah Omar never stepped foot in Pakistan, instead opting to hide in his native land -- and for eight years,
lived just a few miles from a major U.S. Forward Operating Base that housed thousands of soldiers.
In late 2001, after the U.S. invasion, Mullah Omar resigned as leader of the Taliban and the movement officially surrendered
to Hamid Karzai who promised them reconciliation. The U.S. did not like that and launched a vengeful campaign against all former
Taliban member. Eighteen years later the U.S. is suing for peace.
Mullah Omar lived quietly, meditated and studied religious text. Allah remarked on his death:
On April 23, 2013, Mullah Omar passed away. That day, Jabbar Omari told me, the hot, dry lands of southern Afghanistan experienced
something he'd never seen before: a hail storm. I assumed it was hagiographic bluster, but later I found a U.S. army publication
referring to that day: "More than 80 Task Force Falcon helicopters were damaged when a sudden unprecedented hailstorm hit
Kandahar Airfield April 23, where nearly half of the brigade's helicopters were parked."
The fact that Mullah Omar's death was suppressed for two years even from high-level official sources, indicates to me that the
theory bin Laden died in 2001 is very plausible. We even have a similar progression of statements regarding their respective health,
doubts of whether they were alive at the respective time, etc.
Of course, both terror leaders were kept "alive" for geopolitical reasons. Once ISIS (and later Russia/China) took over as
a serious threat in the corporate media narrative, they no longer had to cling to those old phantoms.
The story on Omar is astonishing, but to me not surprising. If the US spends billions on finding one guy, and at the end of the
day, he is literally just down the road, it shows how incompetent and useless our intelligence gathering has become.
That 93% of all personnel that are employed by the CIA are paper pushers in Langley and just 7% are in the field, of which
I read sometime ago, has a ring of truth to me.
Stupidity has a firm grip on our rulers, and they are getting, not only us but many others, killed for absolutely no reason.
And the dunces called the American voter, keep re-electing them. It leaves me breathless.
It's the second, but no less ludicrous, attempt in one week to sway the opinion of the public and
President Donald Trump against the concept of denuclearization and peaceful dialogue with North Korea.
A March 8, 2019 report from
National Public Radio
(NPR)
follows another by
NBC News
with sensational and misleading claims that satellite imagery released by private
corporations with contractual ties to government defense and intelligence agencies show imminent
preparations by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) to engage in missile testing or the
launch of a satellite from their facilities in Sanumdong, North Korea. An examination of the photos
provided shows absolutely no indication of such activity.
I. Satellite Footage Of Sanumdong Facility Shows No Sign Of Imminent Launch
Images provided to NPR by private contractor DigitalGlobe consist of two low resolution images, one
of a building in the Sanumdong complex and the other of a train sitting along a rail line. In neither
photo is there any discernible amount of unusual activity.
The first image of a "production hall" bears a striking resemblance to a similar photo run by the
Washington Post
in
July 2018 where unnamed intelligence officials claimed that North Korea was building one or possibly
two liquid fueled ICBMs which appear to have never materialized or been used in any launch. The claims
came one month after President Trump met with Chairman Kim Jong Un in Singapore for a historic summit
between the United States and the DPRK.
NPR's claims that the imagery shows "vehicle activity" occurring around the facility. Yet close
inspection shows that the "activity" consists of a few inert vehicles, which appear to be a white
pickup and white dump truck or flatbed parked in a permanent position next to piles of metal. The
scene does not appear to be different from any number of sleepy yards of businesses that can be
examined by members of the public on Google Maps.
The second image, according to NPR, shows rail cars sitting "in a nearby rail yard, where two
cranes are also erected." The photo simply shows a train car sitting inert with empty flatbed cars and
hopper cars that are either filled with coal or empty. A second rail line similarly holds a number of
hoppers and flatbed cars. Hopper cars in particular are totally unsuitable for the transportation of
military technology such as missiles.
The tracks in the lower left corner are covered in snow, meaning that the train sat for many months
through the winter or was backed into its position. Considering that
US and international
sanctions
have caused an extreme scarcity of fuel in the DPRK it is likely that the trains have
not moved for quite some time, unless their diesel engines were converted to burn coal or wood.
In short, there is absolutely no indication that several low resolution photos of a facility in
North Korea have any activity in them outside of a few rusting vehicles that have sat without moving
for some time.
II. NPR's Sources Of Satellite Imagery Are Contractors For The CIA And Pentagon
The report by NPR lists two sources of satellite imagery - DigitalGlobe, Inc. and Planet Labs, Inc.
As
Disobedient Media
has previously reported, DigitalGlobe is an American vendor of satellite imagery
founded by a scientist who worked on the US military's
Star
Wars
ICBM defense program under President Ronald Reagan. DigitalGlobe began its existence in
Oakland, CA and was seeded with money from Silicon Valley sources and corporations in North America,
Europe and Japan.
Headquartered
in
Westminster CO, DigitalGlobe works extensively with
defense
and intelligence programs
. In 2016, it was
revealed
that DigitalGlobe was working with CIA chipmaker NVIDIA and
Amazon
Web Services
to create an AI-run satellite surveillance network known as
Spacenet
.
Planet Labs is a
private satellite imaging corporation
based in San Francisco, CA that allows customers with the
money to pay an opportunity to gain access to next generation surveillance capabilities. In February
2016, Federal technology news source
Nextgov
noted a
statement from former CIA Information Operations Center director and senior cyber adviser Sue
Gordon that Planet Labs, DigitalGlobe and Google subsidiary Skybox Imaging were all working with the
Pentagon's National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to provide location intelligence. Planet
Labs' own
website
also
lists press releases detailing past contracts for subscription access to high resolution imagery with
the NGA.
The pervasive involvement of intelligence agencies and defense contractors in attempts to
undermine negotiations with North Korea
does not create confidence in the already shaky claims
made by NPR regarding alleged preparations by the DPRK to participate in a missile launch. These
contentions are not supported in substance by any tangible facts. As claims and pressure continue to
build on President Donald Trump to
abandon the peace process
, there are multiple factions of the United States government who are
running a real risk of behaving in manners which could be interpreted as open sedition or refusal to
carry out the stated goals and policies of the President.
full disclosure: in 1990 i was in my sixteenth year as a
project manager for an oil field equipment manufacturer. we built
oilfield production equipment, and replacement equipment vessels for
major refineries around the US.
almost thirty years ago, at the end of gulf war I, there was a
video shown during a press briefing of a missile destroying a
loading platform in the gulf that was being used as warning base by
the iraqis. they explained during the briefing that it had been left
alone before the invasion as a diversion because the actual invasion
was land based from KSA.
the interesting part of this video was from a camera mounted in
the nose of the missile. it showed the "birds eye view" of the
flight of the missile. then as it closed on the target, the frame
changed. instantly. and the image that was shown on screen was
nothing like a loading facility or anything like an offshore
production platform that i had ever seen.
in my opinion, it was not even up to the quality of stanley
kubrick moon walk videos, and they were shot almost thirty years
before this video.
my point is, that was the first time i questioned the validity of
what the government was holding up and saying, "see what we did". in
the interim, i have done the same with numerous photographs presented
by the government saying "see what we see". in reality it was more
like "see what we tell you to see". now it has morphed to in your
face "we will tell you what to see and don't give a damn what you
think or do not see".
each time i see an article like this, i see the video of something
i was told was a loading platform, however, was anything butt.
I think that the draining of the swamp is ending up to be nothing
more than a lot of ******** from a professional con man. He'll move
onto developing TNN.
Hey, remember when Colin Powell showed pictures of Iraqi WMD
rail cars and truck trailers to the U.N. in the run-up to the big
war. This all looks equally legit.
Like every thing Chicken Hawk, it made for a headline, and crumbled
at the first investigation. America has fought many wars on the
basis of such flimsy evidence.
American foreign policy no longer makes sense, and that's deliberate.
Since The Donald went full Tricky **** on Syria, cruise missiles in
Damascus waving the poison gas narrative, it's been getting
deliberately more chaotic.
Trump and the other neocons can no
longer keep up a coherent narrative about the world wide organized
threat. So they've gone to chaotic contradictory statements,
gestures, and actions to keep the sense of crisis alive. The chaos is
the problem, and USA World Police is the solution.
So they've gone to chaotic contradictory statements ...
In the face of Chaos, MSM Conflicting or One Sided
Narratives... voters/people likely have to rely on the US Federal
Govt for "Truth, Problem Definition, Possible Solutions (which
increasingly are limited to just two), and for Powerful Federal
Funding of Response, Powerful MSM assertion of the Success, and
Powerful Narrative of How US Federal Govt was the Solution, The
Diplomat, The Disinterested Third Party, The Judge, The
Prosecutor, The Jailer,... and etc
I'll never forget how dementia man Bolton added in a demand for N
Korea to take away their chemical weapons too. Obviously meant to
sabotage the talks. Trump looking pretty foolish to have such bat
**** crazy by his side.
His greatest accomplishment may well be that he has caused Washington's Swamp Dwellers to rise from the ooze and expose themselves
for all the world to see. That's weakened them immeasurably, perhaps fatally. To be sure, that's no small thing, and the next
Trump to come along is now on full alert as to who & what to bring with him.
You nailed it. Even if they do eventually succeed in foiling Trump, things will never be the same again. The whole world is watching
the circus in Washington, and so Washington's brand ('democracy') is now shot. 2016 was indeed an annus mirabilis! " things will
never be the same again. The whole world is watching the circus in Washington.."
It looks and sounds like dementia – as if a sick person behaving inappropriately, showing unprovoked aggression (like some
Alzheimer patients), using silly or senseless phrasing, and having the unreasonable demands and uncontrolled fits of rage like
a spoiled child. The marasmic McCain, marasmic Pelosi, and hysterical Max Boot, the openly lying Clapper and the hate-filled profiteer
Brennan.
As I have written here and elsewhere, President Swamp Drainer needs to get control of the DoJ. He got rid of Comey, which was
good, but got Rosenstein and Mueller in response. Meanwhile Jeff Sessions is twiddling his thumbs re the Russia witch hunt. Perhaps
his recusal was appropriate, but he's not doing anything whatsoever regarding Swamp Draining. So it feels like he's a disingenuous
old guard GOPer, who wants to obstruct any real progress, while dragging his feet with do-nothingness obscured behind a facade
of law enforcement community boosterism. By this tactic the GOP attempts to stall until 2020, when it can then point at Trump's
failures (failures they have enabled by their stalling, wink wink) and then campaign to take "their" party back. In short, Sessions
may just be an anti-Trump "mole" planted in the single most important position with regard to swamp draining, in order to ***prevent***
any swamp draining.
Let me be clear: in the last 24 years the DC political class has gone almost entirely criminal, with the last 13 years dedicated
to serial war crimes. In this sort of situation the DoJ, AG, and FBI head, becomes corrupted, and turns away from the rule of
law to become a shield for the DC criminal despotism.
So watch closely what happens next. Just today rumors have come out -- though I've been speaking of this for several weeks
now -- that there is talk in the White House about ***recess appointments*** . We have reached the crucial moment, and I for one
am surprised that, as important as this is, it has not been prominent in public discussion until now. The "August" was scheduled
to begin at the end of business tomorrow, July 28th. Because of the health care business, McConnell has postponed it for two weeks,
so let's call it for close of business Friday, August 11th. That's fifteen days from now.
When Congress goes home fifteen days from now, this country and the world may very well change forever. Go to Wikipedia and
look up "recess appointment". Here's what you will find:
" a recess appointment is an appointment by the President of a federal official while the U.S. Senate is in recess.
Recess appointments are authorized by Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session .
If Trump is the fighter I think he is, then this is what he has been waiting for, ever so patiently these last six months.
Notice that the Congress cannot countermand recess appointments. Recess appointments end by expiration, and then only at the end
of the following Congressional session. Other than impeachment, Congress cannot stop Trump from doing this .
So Trump dumps Sessions, purges the anti-Trump prosecutors from previous administrations, and appoints a new FBI head and dozens
of fire-breathing swamp-draining prosecutors who immediately start doling out orange jumpsuits. He could -- not saying that he
would execute this "nuclear option" -- but he could lock up virtually the entire Congress on war crimes charges; Neocons for conspiracy
to commit war crimes; Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and Bybee to the Hague for torture; Hillary and Obama for Libya.
Control of the DoJ is the key.
The next two weeks will show whether Trump is the real deal, or just another schlub.
Trump actually proved to be very convenient President to CIA., Probably as convenient as Obama... Both completely outsourced
foreign policy to neocons and CIA )in this sense the appointment of Pompeo is worst joke Trump could play with the remnants of
US democracy_ .
Notable quotes:
"... "The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies: the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street." ..."
"... "It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads." ..."
"... Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria. In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups. ..."
"... "So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him." ..."
"... But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity. ..."
"... He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable. ..."
And on the heels of
Dennis Kucinich's warnings , The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with
the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of undermining Trump is dangerous.
As TheAntiMedia's Carey Wedler notes ,
Greenwald asserted in
an interview with Democracy Now, published on Thursday, that this boils down to a fight between the Deep State and the Trump administration.
Though Greenwald has argued the leaks were "wholly justified" in spite of the fact they violated criminal law, he also questioned
the motives behind them.
"It's very possible - I'd say likely - that the motive here was vindictive rather than noble," he wrote. "Whatever else is true,
this is a case where the intelligence community, through strategic (and illegal) leaks, destroyed one of its primary adversaries
in the Trump White House."
"The Deep State does not consist of the entire government. It is a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies:
the Department of Defense, the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and the
Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction over financial flows, its enforcement
of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with Wall Street."
As Greenwald explained during his interview:
"It's agencies like the CIA, the NSA and the other intelligence agencies, that are essentially designed to disseminate
disinformation and deceit and propaganda, and have a long history of doing not only that, but also have a long history of the
world's worst war crimes, atrocities and death squads."
Greenwald believes this division is a result of the Deep State's disapproval of Trump's foreign policy and the fact that the intelligence
community overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton over Trump because of her hawkish views. Greenwald
noted that Mike Morell,
acting CIA chief under Obama, and Michael Hayden, who ran both the CIA and NSA under George W. Bush, openly spoke out against Trump
during the presidential campaign.
Greenwald asserts the the CIA preferred Clinton because, like the clandestine agency, she supported regime change in Syria.
In contrast, Trump dismissed America's practice of nation-building and declined to tow the line on ousting foreign leaders, instead
advocating working with Russia to defeat ISIS and other extremist groups.
"So, Trump's agenda that he ran on was completely antithetical to what the CIA wanted," Greenwald argued. "Clinton's was
exactly what the CIA wanted, and so they were behind her. And so, they've been trying to undermine Trump for many months throughout
the election. And now that he won, they are not just undermining him with leaks, but actively subverting him."
"[In] the closing months of the Obama administration, they put together a deal with Russia to create peace in Syria. A few
days later, a military strike in Syria killed a hundred Syrian soldiers and that ended the agreement. What happened is inside
the intelligence and the Pentagon there was a deliberate effort to sabotage an agreement the White House made."
Greenwald, who opposes Trump for a variety of reasons, warns that siding with the evidently powerful Deep State in the hopes of
undermining Trump is dangerous. "Trump was democratically elected and is subject to democratic controls, as these courts just demonstrated
and as the media is showing, as citizens are proving," he said, likely alluding to a recent court ruling that nullified Trump's travel
ban.
He continued:
"But on the other hand, the CIA was elected by nobody. They're barely subject to democratic controls at all. And so, to
urge that the CIA and the intelligence community empower itself to undermine the elected branches of government is insanity."
He argues that mentality is "a prescription for destroying democracy overnight in the name of saving it," highlighting that members
of both prevailing political parties are praising the Deep State's audacity in leaking details of Flynn's conversations.
As he wrote in his article, " it's hard to put into words how strange it is to watch the very same people - from both parties,
across the ideological spectrum - who called for the heads of Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Tom Drake, and so many other Obama-era
leakers today heap praise on those who leaked the highly sensitive, classified SIGINT information that brought down Gen. Flynn."
He also points out the left's hypocrisy in condemning Flynn for lying when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence
during the Obama administration, perpetuated lies without ever being held accountable.
Now they do not even pretend that Justice exists in the USA: only kangaroo courts
Why they are sill waving a dead chicken ? Because they are crooks and can't prosecute Trump for his real misdeeds. Or investigate
influence of MI6 and Israeli lobby on the USA elections. Crooks. all of them.
Notable quotes:
"... This is not a standard beltway tit for tat investigation. Even before Trump took office, the tools of government were used against him. What is more interesting is that the inquisitors have unchecked authority. There is no limit imposed on the inquisitors either in scope or frankly legality. ..."
"... The Republican Party has consistently undermined him. It is the American electorate that will not turn on him. Do you blame them!.? They are slowly realizing that a war has been waging against them. Their way of life, the American way of life, is being dismantled. Years and years of compromise and lofty adherence to reasonable principles by the American electorate have done not a damn thing to abate the onslaught against them. ..."
"... Your timing as well as details are off. Iran-Contra was in the 80s. Laundering money from arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras in violation of the Boland amendement is far different than the Affaire de coeur Russia, which is now turning into an investigation of every financial deal Trump ever did. ..."
"... "The tradition" is using investigative powers to politicaly attack ones opponents when you are in power. ..."
"House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, who would eventually lead any impeachment proceedings, on Sunday
signaled a significant escalation into congressional inquiries into the President.
The New York Democrat plans on Monday to request documents from 60 people and entities close to Trump, including from the Department
of Justice, the White House and the Trump Organization. The document trawl will be used "to present the case to the American people
about obstruction of justice, about corruption and abuse of power, " Nadler said on ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday.
Nadler stuck to the House Democratic position that impeachment "is a long way down the road," apparently in order to avoid
Republican arguments that the decision has already been made to try to oust Trump. The document requests are not taking place
under the auspices of an official impeachment investigation."
Nadler could not be more clear. He and the other kangaroos in the Democrat herd (flock?) will search through every aspect of Trump's
life for the purpose of finding something that will cause a revulsion against Trump among the American people. If they can find that,
their allies among the press and TeeVee agitprop apparatchiks will make judgments evident as to whether or not a bill of impeachment
would result in a conviction in the senate. This method is reminiscent of the attempt to impeach President Andrew Johnson. Remember
him? The Radical Republicans hated this Southern War Democrat simply because he was Southern without regard for his well demonstrated
hatred for the planter class in the greater South as opposed to his east Tennessee anti-slavery home. So, pilgrims, American tradition
is to be reversed. The Democrats will seek for confirmation bias of Trump's "crimes" because of their "progressive" hatred of his
perhaps cynical leadership of a popular revolution against them and the idiot college kids. pl
IMO, Trump could blow the kangaroos off the range by declassifying it all and allowing the American people to see the details
of the attempted coup. And the collusion among the kangaroos. But he chooses to not do that. Very puzzling.
Clearly it can't be because of Mueller and the potential charge of obstruction of justice, as the kangaroos are running hard
towards getting him and his family in any case. So what's behind his strategy of just tweeting witch hunt, which he's been doing
for 2 years, and not doing what could blow this all up which is his prerogative as POTUS?
This is the politics necessary to continue to govern a largely unified country as if it were deeply divided:
https://www.nytimes.com/201...
The minorities that both of our parties represent have had their way for forty years, the majority is fed up by not being represented
and increasingly absurd distractions are required to maintain this status quo.
This has been standard beltway politics since at least the Iran-Contra and Whitewater investigations. It hit hot and heavy once
the Republicans regained control of the Congress in 2014 and hit Obama/Clinton with the Benghazi hearings. I think the political
purpose behind all these investigations, including the current crop of investigations into Trump can best be summed up in this
quote concerning the Benghazi hearings. "In September 2015, Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy famously said Clinton's
"numbers are dropping" because "we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee." I doubt Nadler will ever pursue
an impeachment. His goal is to tear at Trump until the 2020 elections. Anyways, I can't think of anything Trump could have done
or will do that would persuade the Republican party to turn on him. Nothing. You're right. Whoever wins that election will be
subject to the same scrutiny.
This is not a standard beltway tit for tat investigation. Even before Trump took office, the tools of government were used
against him. What is more interesting is that the inquisitors have unchecked authority. There is no limit imposed on the inquisitors
either in scope or frankly legality.
The Republican Party has consistently undermined him. It is the American electorate that will not turn on him. Do you blame
them!.? They are slowly realizing that a war has been waging against them. Their way of life, the American way of life, is being
dismantled. Years and years of compromise and lofty adherence to reasonable principles by the American electorate have done not
a damn thing to abate the onslaught against them.
2020 elections will be won by a Democrat. Trump won by razor thin margins, and those margins will be erased as a malignant
crop of woke young voters will come of age. Frankly I am curious if his health can hold up for another campaign.
Your timing as well as details are off. Iran-Contra was in the 80s. Laundering money from arms sales to Iran to fund the Contras
in violation of the Boland amendement is far different than the Affaire de coeur Russia, which is now turning into an investigation
of every financial deal Trump ever did.
The Republicans didn't control the House until the mid-90s and lost it in 2007. The invasion and occupation of Iraq played
a big part in losing the House then.
The Congressional investigation of Iran-Contra was also referred to as a witch hunt by Republicans. So that usage of the term
was around since the 80s. Reagan's Tower Commission was a different animal altogether. We'll probably never see something as introspective
as that again.
I mentioned both Iran-Contra and Whitewater to point out the longstanding tradition of politically tinged Congressional investigations.
The Whitewater Congressional investigations went into overdrive up after the Republicans won the House in 1994. The Republican
controlled both the House and Senate in 2014. That's when the Benghazi hearings really ramped up. The ramp up of Congressional
investigations with the Democratic winning of the House last year is just following in that tradition.
Selling weapons to Iran was a crime. "The tradition" is using investigative powers to politicaly attack ones opponents when
you are in power. Kind of like using the executive branch of government to hinder opponents activities, such as preventing
IRS non-profit status, or spying on them like the NSA has been doing. All done by the Obama administration. Then there is the
conduct of the FBI. I haven't seen Trump do any of those things with executive branch powers.
TTG hit the nail on the head. Since Clinton and Whitewater, investigations have been the method to hit back at the Presidency
you don't support. The only thing I would add is the Iran-Contra investigation was much more relevant than Whitewater, the Clinton's
Christmas card list, or Benghazi; officials were actually convicted from the Iran-Contra investigation. The sad fact is that some
investigations that are BS successfully work to rile up the investigator's supporters, example Benghazi. I would only add that
Trump's past history provides a lot of fuel for the investigatory fire.
Flynn could have said something "inappropriate" by a Clintonista definition of "inappropriate", and he "could" be prosecuted under
a law designed to muzzle US citizens, that has never been tried bc a Bill of rights argument would win!
How do you like the NKVD libruls afraid of Trump bringing fascism who were running a gestapo (the FBI wiring tapping other
country's Ministers) on US citizens of the opposing party?
If the fascists are coming they would keep Obama's FBI!
I'm watching CGTN ... Huawei are telling the Yanks that they can live without the USA
market and will NOT allow back doors in their phones; adding that banning Huawei in the US
will hurt US Huawei dealers more than it will hurt Huawei. The report also included an
Advertorial for the new Huawei folding smart phone. It looks like a 7" tablet when open and
folds down the centre with the screen on the OUTSIDE of the closed phone. It can download a 1
Gb movie in 3 (three) seconds and will cost $2600-00, making it the most expensive smartphone
on the market.
Sounds like a great big FU AmeriKKKa to me.
The world slipped closer to nuclear war. Big false flags -- actual, suspected, and
anticipated -- were a key factor. But hardly anybody noticed. Everyone was riveted by the story
of actor Jussie Smollet, who supposedly paid a couple of Nigerian-American bodybuilders for a
staged racist-homophobic near-lynching. The ostensible motive: Add a zero to Smollet's pathetic
little million-a-year salary.
When CIA does not want that FBI does not prosecute somebody they usually have their way.
Robert Mueller is not only about Trump, he is also about scrubbing all the crimes committed by Clintons and Obama. That's
a lot of crimes.
Notable quotes:
"... I think ultimately, the coverup of Clinton's emails was not to protect Clinton but to protect Obama, as he had communicated with her on the server ..."
The FBI's top lawyer, General Counsel James Baker, initially thought that Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for transmitting
classified information over her insecure, private email server, according to transcripts from a 2018 closed-door Congressional testimony
reviewed by
The Hill 's John Solomon.
While being questioned by Rep. John Radcliffe (R-TX), Baker was clear that he thought Clinton should face criminal charges.
"I have reason to believe that you originally believed it was appropriate to charge Hillary Clinton with regard to violations
of law - various laws, with regard to mishandling of classified information. Is that accurate?" asked Ratcliffe, a former federal
prosecutor.
After a brief pause to consult with his attorney, Baker responded: "Yes."
Baker later explained how he arrived at his conclusion, and how he was "persuaded" to change his mind.
"So, I had that belief initially after reviewing, you know, a large binder of her emails that had classified information in them,"
said Baker. "And I discussed it internally with a number of different folks, and eventually became persuaded that charging her was
not appropriate because we could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that - we, the government, could not establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that - she had the intent necessary to violate (the law). "
Baker says he was persuaded to change his mind "pretty late in the process, because we were arguing about it, I think, up until
the end. "
Recall that in December, 2017 we learned that James Comey's original exoneration letter was drafted in a way that would have required
criminal charges - changing Clinton's conduct from the legally significant "gross negligence" to "extremely careless" - which is
not a legal term of art. This language - along with
several other incriminating components was altered by former FBI counterintelligence agent and attorney, Peter Strzok.
Baker made clear that he did not like the activity Clinton had engaged in: "My original belief after - well, after having conducted
the investigation and towards the end of it, then sitting down and reading a binder of her materials - I thought that it was alarming,
appalling, whatever words I said, and argued with others about why they thought she shouldn't be charged. "
His boss, Comey, announced on July 5, 2016, that he would not recommend criminal charges. He did so without consulting the
Department of Justice, a decision the department's inspector general (IG)
later concluded was misguided
and likely usurped the power of the attorney general to make prosecutorial decisions. Comey has said, in retrospect, he accepts
that finding but took the actions he did because he thought "they were in the country's best interest." -
The Hill
Baker noted that had he been more convinced that there was evidence that Clinton intended to violate the law, "I would have argued
that vociferously with him [Comey] and maybe changed his view."
Comey made this announcement before election day 2016. We knew this excuse was obstruction of justice.
They wanted to see if the public would stand for it, which they did. Most democrats are fine with a seditious, treasonous felon
being president.
A lot of Republicans are cool with it too, so long as they get their brand in there for Federal Pork.
Navy62802 28 minutes ago
I think ultimately, the coverup of Clinton's emails was not to protect Clinton but to protect Obama, as he had
communicated with her on the server (even using an alias email, himself) even though he claimed to have learned of the
server when everyone else did ... an obvious lie. So in order to avoid being a co-conspirator with someone violating the
Espionage Act, Baker was "persuaded" not to charge Clinton.
"... The turning point may well have been John F Kennedy's assassination in November 1963. After that event - which some say was organized by various individuals and groups, of which Mossad and the Israeli government may have been two co-conspirators -- a great deal changed. ..."
<
>if we say fly mentally back to early nineteen sixties, the admiration>
> for America was still very strong, even in the USSR.
> Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Feb 16, 2019 1:34:44 PM | 38
My uncle was in the US Navy in the early sixties. He made many ports of call in the
Mediterranean basin, where he and his mates were warmly greeted. Not so much now, I'm
sure.
Some here might recall that Ike was extremely pissed off at the British, French, and
Israelis for attacking Egypt and creating the 1956 Suez crisis. He threatened to dump UK
bonds and crash their financial system. That's pretty serious stuff!
So how did the Israelis manage to shift US policy 180 degrees, like a parasite taking over
the host's brain? Perhaps the answer to that could yield clues as to how to remove said
parasite without killing the host. Although the host is already brain-dead, so maybe it
wouldn't matter...
The turning point may well have been John F Kennedy's assassination in November 1963.
After that event - which some say was organized by various individuals and groups, of which
Mossad and the Israeli government may have been two co-conspirators -- a great deal changed.
The US began to escalate its war in Vietnam and the cost of pursuing that war eventually led
to the US government in 1971 taking the US dollar off the gold standard and allowing it to
create fiat money.
Something must have happened well before 1967 when the USS Liberty was strafed by Israeli
fighter jets in the intent to destroy it and all its crew and the incident blamed on the
Egyptians in an effort to draw the US into the Six Day War.
"... Baker said McCabe was cool, calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time." ..."
"... According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity and about his intent at that point in time." ..."
Two Trump Cabinet officials were "ready to support" a DOJ scheme to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump , according
to
Bloomberg and
Fox News , citing closed-door testimony from the FBI's former top lawyer, James Baker - who said that the claim came from Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
The testimony was delivered last fall to the House Oversight and Judiciary Committees. Fox News has confirmed portions of the
transcript. It provides additional insight into discussions that have returned to the spotlight in Washington as fired FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe revisits the matter during interviews promoting his forthcoming book. -
Fox News
While Baker did not identify the two Cabinet officials, he says that McCabe and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page approached him to
relay their conversations with Rosenstein, including their discussions of the 25th Amendment scheme. "I was being told by some combination
of Andy McCabe and Lisa Page, that, in a conversation with the Deputy Attorney General, he had stated that he -- this was what was
related to me -- that he had at least two members of the president's Cabinet who were ready to support, I guess you would call it,
an action under the 25th Amendment," Baker told the Congressional committees.
The 25th Amendment allows for the removal of a sitting president from office through various mechanisms - including the majority
of a president's Cabinet agreeing that the commander-in-chief is incapable of performing his duties.
Rosenstein - who is slated to leave the Justice Department in the near future, has denied the claims. Baker said McCabe was cool,
calm and collected throughout the discussions, telling lawmakers: "At this point in time, Andy was unbelievably focused and unbelievably
confident and squared away. I don't know how to describe it other than I was extremely proud to be around him at that point in time
because I thought he was doing an excellent job at maintaining focus and dealing with a very uncertain and difficult situation. So
I think he was in a good state of mind at this point in time."
McCabe, meanwhile
told "60 Minutes" in an interview set to air Sunday night that Rosenstein was concerned about Trump's "capacity."
According to McCabe, Rosenstein "raised the issue and discussed it with me in the context of thinking about how many other cabinet
officials might support such an effort," adding that Rosenstein was "definitely very concerned about the president, about his capacity
and about his intent at that point in time."
"Rosenstein was actually openly talking about whether there was a majority of the cabinet who would vote to remove the president?"
asks CBS News anchor Scott Pelly, to which McCabe replied: " That's correct. Counting votes or possible votes. "
The New York Times
first reported
last year that McCabe alleged in memos that Rosenstein had talked about using the 25th Amendment to oust Trump -- or wearing a
wire to surreptitiously monitor the president -- in the hectic days in May 2017 after Trump fired James B. Comey as FBI director.
At the time, Rosenstein disputed the reporting. -
WaPo
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called the 25th Amendment scheme a "
bureaucratic coup " led by enemies of President Trump. On Sunday morning, Graham said he would subpoena McCabe and Rosenstein
"if that's what it takes" to get to the bottom of the 25th Amendment claim.
On Thursday, the DOJ issued a statement claiming that Rosenstein rejects McCabe's version of events "as inaccurate and factually
incorrect," and also denied that Rosenstein ever approved wearing a "wire" to record Trump.
"The deputy attorney general never authorized any recording that Mr. McCabe references," reads the DOJ statement. "As the deputy
attorney general previously has stated, based on his personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment,
nor was the DAG in a position to consider invoking the 25th Amendment."
McCabe, meanwhile, walked back some of his "60 Minutes" statements . On Friday a spokeswoman for the former Deputy Director said:
"Certain statements made by Mr. McCabe, in interviews associated with the release of his book, have been taken out of context and
misrepresented," adding "To clarify, at no time did Mr. McCabe participate in any extended discussions about the use of the 25th
Amendment, nor is he aware of any such discussions."
Baker acknowledged during his testimony that he was not directly involved in the May 2017 discussions, rather, McCabe and Page
approached him contemporaneously following a meeting with Rosenstein in the days following former FBI Director James Comey's firing.
"I had the impression that the deputy attorney general had already discussed this with two members in the president's Cabinet
and that they were onboard with this concept already," said Baker.
Question: "Do you know what direction that went? Was it Mr. Rosenstein seeking out members of the Cabinet looking to pursue
this 25th Amendment approach or was it the other way around?"
Baker: "What I recall being said was that the Deputy Attorney General had two members of the Cabinet. So he – how they came
to be had, I don't know, but "
Question: "So he had two members, almost like he was taking the initiative and getting the members?"
Baker: "That would be speculation on my part." -
Via Fox News
Baker also suggested that "Lisa and Andy" did not know the names of the Cabinet officials who were on board with the 25th Amendment
scheme.
Baker testified in October that the alleged discussions took place during an uncertain and anxious time at the FBI and DOJ
after Comey's termination, and that the mood was "pretty dark":
Question: "Did people tell you that the DAG (Deputy Attorney General) was upset?"
Baker: "Yes."
Question: "Did they tell you that he was making jokes?"
Baker: "No."
Question: "Did they tell you that..."
Baker: " This was not a joking sort of time. This was pretty dark. " -
Via Fox News
"Our choice now seems to be between a "new war" and a new world. As always, the forces of reaction and wealth are telling us
we have no choice but war, and no right or power to decide. They are calling for a secret investigation, a secret conviction,
a secret method of execution, and a totally secret war abroad.
"The American people as a whole are the only ones in the world who have the right to decide on a national response to this
tragedy, and it must be one that takes into account the rights of all the other peoples and nations of the world."
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if Kristol and Boot work for the CIA and MI6. They tend to lead
with placed stories, either before or after events, helping to persuade those who have yet to
make up their minds or those looking to have someone else do their thinking for them.
With the ongoing internet reformation we are experiencing, its a lot easier for the masses
to see the bigger picture, the parties involved and the corrupt characters playing the puppet
strings for the media.
Glad to see these shysters exposed for what they are propagandists.
"... In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well. ..."
In interviews to boost his forthcoming book, fired former FBI
Acting Director Andrew McCabe confirms that Obama holdovers repeatedly discussed removing
President Donald Trump under the pretext of the 25th Amendment, and that Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein more than once seriously offered to "wear a wire" in meetings with the
President. After Trump fired James Comey as FBI Director in May 2017, McCabe, Comey's deputy
director, launched a phony "obstruction of justice" investigation, and said that he began to
accumulate files of memos on that and the "Russia Collusion" investigation, to try to ensure
that the investigations would continue if he were fired as well.
Now, after its own two years of investigation and 200 interviews, Chairman of the Senate
Intelligence Committee Richard Burr (R-NC) has said, "There is no factual evidence of collusion
between the Trump campaign and Russia." Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA) said he disagrees
with the way Burr characterized the evidence, but declined to give his own assessment.
Veteran criminal attorney John Dowd, a member of Trump's legal team from June 2017 to March
2018, said,
"I know exactly what he [Mueller] has. I know exactly what every witness said, what every
document said. I know exactly what he asked. And I know what the conclusion or the result
is."
What will be the result of the probe?
"It's been a terrible waste of time.... This is one of the greatest frauds the country has
ever seen. I'm just shocked that Bob Mueller didn't call it that way and say, 'I'm being
used.' I would've done that.
"I'd have gone to [then Attorney General] Sessions and Rosenstein and said, 'Look. This is
nonsense. We are being used by a cabal in the FBI to get even.' "
Asked about Mueller's final report, he responded, "I will be shocked if anything regarding
the President is made public, other than, 'We're done.' "
At the same time, former NSA Technical Director William Binney has published new evidence
which shows that the DNC documents posted by WikiLeaks in July 2016, were probably not hacked
over the internet, by Russians or anyone else -- rather, the only available forensic evidence
indicates that they were downloaded from within the DNC's network. His evidence is summarized
in an article he co-authored with former CIA analyst Larry Johnson on Col. Pat Lang's "Sic
Semper Tyrannis" blog yesterday.
Looks like all of them were Brennan men. CIA used FBI counterintelligence and counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal.
Notable quotes:
"... We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, to place the final nail in the coffin of the Trump-Russia collusion charade. Blackburn's insights are incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on the role of British intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they also implicate members of Mueller's investigation. ..."
"... If you factor in the dreadful reporting to discredit Joseph Mifsud and leaks, it is pretty clear something rather strange happened to George Papadopoulos during the campaign while he was shuttling around Europe and the Middle East. He was working with people who have intelligence links at the London Centre of International Law Practice ..."
"... A recent article in The Telegraph also alludes to MI5, MI6, and CIA using counter-terrorism assets which would tie into the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP), and its sister organizations, doing counter-terrorism work for the Australian, UK and US governments. They quote anonymous officials who believe that their intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal." ..."
"... Continuing, Blackburn pinpointed the significance of defining counter-terrorism as the starting point of the investigation, saying: "It shows that there is a high probability that intelligence was deliberately abused to make Papadopoulos' activities look like they were something else. ..."
"... It's more likely that the CIA played the FBI with the help of close allies who were suspicious and frightened of a Trump presidency." ..."
"... Zainab Ahmad , a member of Mueller's legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed out by Blackburn , Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event in 2017 ..."
"... "Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia ..."
"... I don't think it's a coincidence that Global Center on Cooperative Security is connected to various elements that popped up in the Papadopoulos case. The fact that a prosecutor on Mueller's team was at Global Center before Mueller was appointed as special counsel is also troubling ..."
"... Days ago, The Hill reported on Congressional testimony by Bruce Ohr, revealing that when served as a DOJ official, he warned FBI and DOJ figures that the Steele dossier was problematic and linked to the Clintons ..."
"... Last year, Blackburn noted the connection between Mifsud and Arvinder Sambei , writing: "LCILP director and FBI counsel, works with Mike Smith at the Global Center. They ran joint counter-terrorism conferences and training with Mifsud's London Academy. Sambei then brought Mifsud over to the [London Centre of International Law Practice]. [Global Center works with Aussies, UK and US State too." ..."
"... Disobedient Media previously reported that Robert Hannigan, then head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share 'director-to-director' level intelligence with then-CIA Chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. This writer noted that " The Guardian reported Hannigan's announcement that he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23 January 2017. ..."
"... Jane Mayer, in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the New Yorker, also noted that Hannigan had flown to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing "deemed so sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner." ..."
"... There are more and more articles saying that the FBI, CIA, M14 15,16 yada yada, were overly concerned about Trump. Their sin...caring too much for the USA. They attempted a coup de'etat for "our" own good...we... being "we the people". To quote Abe Lincoln "You will find that all the arguments in favour of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, -- not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." Lincoln did not mince words ..."
In April last year, Disobedient Media broke coverage of the British involvement in the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, asking
why
All Russiagate Roads Lead To London , via the quasi-scholar Joseph Mifsud and others.
The issue was also raised by WikiLeaks's Julian Assange , just days before
the Ecuadorian government silenced him last March. Assange's Twitter thread cited research by
Chris Blackburn , who spoke with
Disobedient Media on multiple occasions covering Joseph Mifsud's ties to British intelligence figures and organizations, as well
as his links to
Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, the FBI, CIA and the private cyber-security firm Crowdstrike.
We return, now, to this issue and specifically the research of Chris Blackburn, to place the final nail in the coffin of the
Trump-Russia collusion charade. Blackburn's insights are incredible not only because they return us to the earliest reporting on
the role of British intelligence figures in manufacturing the Trump-Russia collusion narrative, but because they also implicate members
of Mueller's investigation. What we are left with is an indication of collusion between factions of the US and UK intelligence
community in fabricating evidence of Trump-Russia collusion: a scandal that would have rocked the legacy press to its core, if Western
establishment-backed media had a spine.
In
Disobedient Media's previous coverage of Blackburn's work, he described his experience in intelligence:
"I've been involved in numerous investigations that involve counter-intelligence techniques in the past. I used to work for
the
9/11 Families United to Bankrupt Terrorism , one of the biggest tort actions in American history. I helped build a profile
of Osama bin Laden's financial and political network, which was slightly different to the one that had been built by the
CIA's Alec Station , a dedicated task force which was focused on Osama bin
Laden and Al-Qaeda. Alec Station designed its profile to hunt Osama bin Laden and disrupt his network. I thought it was flawed.
It had failed to take into account Osama's historical links to Pakistan's main political parties or that he was the figurehead
for a couple of organizations, not just Al-Qaeda."
"I also ran a few conferences for US intelligence leaders during the Bush administration. After the 9/11 Commission published
its report into the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon it created a public outreach program. The US National Intelligence
Conference and Exposition (
Intelcon ) was one of the avenues it used. I was responsible for creating the 'View from Abroad' track. We had guidance from
former Senator Slade Gorton and Jamie Gorelick, who both sat on the 9/11 Commission. We got leaders such as Sir John Chilcot and
Baroness Pauline Neville Jones to come and help share their experiences on how the US would be able to heal the rifts after 9/11."
"The US intelligence community was suffering from severe turf wars and firewalls, which were hampering counter-terrorism efforts.
They were concentrating on undermining each other rather than tackling terrorism. I had mainly concentrated on the Middle East,
but in 2003 I switched my focus to terrorism in South Asia."
Counter Terrorism, Not Counter Intelligence, Sparked Probe
In an article published by The Telegraph last November, the paper acknowledged
the following:
"It forces the spotlight on whether the UK played a role in the FBI's investigation launched before the 2016 presidential election
into Trump campaign ties to the Kremlin... Mr. Trump's allies and former advisers are raising questions about the UK's role in
the start of the probe, given many of the key figures and meetings were located in Britain... One former top White House adviser
to Mr. Trump made similar insinuations, telling this newspaper: "You know the Brits are up to their neck." The source added on
the Page wiretap application: "I think that stuff is going to implicate MI5 and MI6 in a bunch of activities they don't want to
be implicated in, along with FBI, counter-terrorism and the CIA. " [Emphasis Added]
The article cites George Papadopoulos, who asked why the "British intelligence
apparatus was weaponized against Trump and his advisers." Papadopoulos has also addressed the issue at length via Twitter. In response
to the Telegraph's coverage of the issue, Chris Blackburn wrote via Twitter
:
"The Telegraph story on Trump Russia acknowledges that activities involving counter-terrorism are at the heart of the scandal...not
counter-intelligence. If the [London Centre for International Law Practice] was British state, not private, some Commonwealth
countries are going to be seriously pissed off."
Blackburn spoke with Disobedient Media, saying:
" If you factor in the dreadful reporting to discredit Joseph Mifsud and leaks, it is pretty clear something rather strange
happened to George Papadopoulos during the campaign while he was shuttling around Europe and the Middle East. He was working with
people who have intelligence links at the London Centre of International Law Practice.
A recent article in The Telegraph also alludes to MI5, MI6, and CIA
using counter-terrorism assets which would tie into the London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP), and its sister organizations,
doing counter-terrorism work for the Australian, UK and US governments. They quote anonymous officials who believe that their
intelligence agencies used counter-terrorism personnel to kick start the investigation/scandal." [Emphasis Added]
Blackburn discussed this differentiation with Disobedient Media:
"Counter-terrorism is obviously involved in more kinetic, violent political actions-concerning mass casualty events, bombings,
assassinations, poisonings, and hacking. But, the lines are blurring between them. Counter-intelligence cases have been known
to stretch for decades- often relying on nothing more than paranoia and suspicion to fuel investigations. Counter-terrorism is
also a broader discipline as it involves tactical elements like hostage rescue, crime scene investigations, and explosive specialists.
Counter-Terrorism is a collaborative effort with counter-terrorism officers working closely with local and regional police forces
and civic organizations. There is also a wider academic field around countering violent, and radical ideology which promotes terrorism
and insurgencies. Cybersecurity has become the third major discipline in intelligence. The London Center of International Law
Practice, the mysterious intelligence company that
employed
both Papadopoulos and Mifsud , had also been working in that area."
Continuing, Blackburn pinpointed the significance of defining counter-terrorism as the starting point of the investigation,
saying: "It shows that there is a high probability that intelligence was deliberately abused to make Papadopoulos' activities look
like they were something else.
As counter-terrorism and counterintelligence are close in tactics and methods, it would seem that they were used because they
share the same skill sets - covert evidence gathering and deception. It's basically sleight of hand. A piece of theatre would be
more precise. However, we don't know if the FBI knew it was real or make-believe. It's more likely that the CIA played the FBI
with the help of close allies who were suspicious and frightened of a Trump presidency."
Mueller's Team And Joseph Mifsud
Zainab Ahmad , a
member of Mueller's legal team, is the former Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York. As pointed
out by Blackburn , Ahmad attended a Global Center on Cooperative Security event
in 2017. In recent days, Blackburn wrote via Twitter :
"Zainab Ahmad is a major player in the Russiagate scandal at the DOJ. Does she work for SC Mueller? She was at a GCCS event
in May 2017. Arvinder Sambei, a co-director of the [London Centre of International Law Practice], worked with Joseph Mifsud, [George
Papadopoulos] and [Simona Mangiante]. She's a GCCS consultant."
Blackburn told this author:
"Zainab Ahmad was one of the first DOJ prosecutors to have seen the Steele dossier. In May 2017, she attended a counter-terrorism
conference in New York with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), an organization which Joseph Mifsud, the alleged
Russian spy, had been working within London and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia."
Zainab Ahmad (AHMAD). Image via the Combatting Terrorism Center, West Point
"Richard Barrett, the Former Chief of Counter-Terrorism at MI6, Britain's foreign intelligence department traveled with Mifsud
to Saudi Arabia to give a talk on terrorism in 2017. Ex-CIA officers, US Defense, and US Treasury officials were also there. The
London Centre of International Law Practice's relationship to the Global Center had been established in 2014. The Global Center
on Cooperative Security made Martin Polaine and Arvinder Sambei consultants, they then became directors at the London Centre of
International Law Practice."
"The Global Center on Cooperative Security's first major UK conference was at Joseph Mifsud's London Academy of Diplomacy (LAD).
Mifsud then followed Arvinder Sambei and Nagi Idris over to the London Centre of International Law Practice. Sources have told
me that Mifsud was moonlighting as a specialist on counter-terrorism and Islamism while working at LAD which explains why he went
to work in counter-terrorism after LAD folded."
"I don't think it's a coincidence that Global Center on Cooperative Security is connected to various elements that popped
up in the Papadopoulos case. The fact that a prosecutor on Mueller's team was at Global Center before Mueller was appointed as
special counsel is also troubling."
Days ago, The Hill reported on Congressional
testimony by Bruce Ohr, revealing that when served as a DOJ official, he warned FBI and DOJ figures that the Steele dossier was problematic
and linked to the Clintons. Critically, The Hill
writes:
"Those he briefed included Andrew Weissmann, then the head of DOJ's fraud section; Bruce Swartz, longtime head of DOJ's international
operations, and Zainab Ahmad , an accomplished terrorism prosecutor who, at the time, was assigned to work with Lynch as a senior
counselor. Ahmad and Weissmann would go on to work for Mueller, the special prosecutor overseeing the Russia probe." [Emphasis
Added]
This point is essential, as it not only describes Ahmad's role in Mueller's team but places her at a crucial pre-investigation
meeting.
Last year, Blackburn noted the connection
between Mifsud and Arvinder Sambei , writing: "LCILP director and FBI counsel,
works with Mike Smith at the Global Center. They ran joint counter-terrorism conferences and training with Mifsud's London Academy.
Sambei then brought Mifsud over to the [London Centre of International Law Practice]. [Global Center works with Aussies, UK and US
State too."
Sambei has been described elsewhere as a "Former
practising barrister, Senior Crown Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service of England & Wales, and Legal Adviser at the Permanent
Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), Ministry of Defence." [British spelling has been retained]
Arvinder Sambei. Image via the Public International Law Advisory Group
That Sambei has been so thoroughly linked to organizations where Mifsud was a central figure is yet another cause of suspicion
regarding allegations that Joseph Mifsud was a shadowy, unknown Russian agent until the summer of 2016 . She is also a direct link
between Robert Mueller and Mifsud.
Blackburn wrote via Twitter : "Arvinder Sambei helped to organize LCILP's
counter-terrorism and corruption events. She used her contacts in the US to bring in Middle Eastern government officials that were
seen to be vulnerable to graft. Lisa Osofsky, former FBI Deputy General Counsel, was working with her." Below, Arvinder is pictured
at a London Centre of International Law Practice (LCILP) event.
Arvinder Sambei, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
As Chris Blackburn told this author:
" Mifsud and Papadopoulos's co-director Arvinder Sambei was also the former FBI British counsel working 9/11 cases for Robert
Mueller. She also runs a consultancy which deals with Special Investigative Measure (SIMs) which is just a posh description for
covert espionage and evidence gathering. She has worked for major intelligence and national law agencies in the past. She wore
two hats as a director of London Centre and a consultant for the Global Center on Cooperative Security (GCCS), a counter-terrorism
think tank which is sponsored by the Australia, Canada, UK and US governments. Alexander Downer's former Chief of Staff while
at the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade now works for the Global Center. Mifsud was also due to meet with Australian
private intelligence figures in Adelaide in March 2016. So. Australia is certainly a major focus for the investigation." [Emphasis
Added]
Lisa Osofsky, pictured at an LCILP event. Image via Chris Blackburn, Twitter
An Embarrassment For John Brennan?
Disobedient Media previously reported that Robert Hannigan, then head of British spy agency GCHQ, flew to Washington DC to share
'director-to-director' level intelligence with then-CIA Chief John Brennan in the summer of 2016. This writer noted that "
The Guardian reported Hannigan's announcement that
he would step down from his leadership position with the agency just three days after the inauguration of President Trump, on 23
January 2017.
Jane Mayer, in her profile of Christopher Steele published in the
New Yorker, also noted that Hannigan had flown
to Washington D.C. to personally brief the then-CIA Director John Brennan on alleged communications between the Trump campaign and
Moscow. What is so curious about this briefing "deemed
so sensitive it was handled at director-level" is why Hannigan was talking director-to-director to the CIA and not Mike Rogers
at the NSA, GCHQ's Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partner."
Blackburn told Disobedient Media:
"Former Congressman Trey Gowdy, who has seen most of the information gathered by Congress from the intelligence community concerning
the Russia investigation, said that if President Trump were to declassify files and present the truth to the American public,
it would " embarrass John Brennan ." I think that
is pretty concrete for me, but it's not definitive. I know the polarization and spin in Washington has become perverse, but that
statement is pretty specific for me. If Brennan is involved, it is most probably through Papadopoulos who sparked off the 'official'
investigation at the FBI. He also made sure the Steele dossier was spread through the US government."
Blackburn added: "Chris Steele was also working on FIFA projects, and a source has told me that he was working to investigate
the Russian and Qatari World Cup bids. The London Centre of International Law Practice has been working with Majed Garoub, the former
Saudi legal representative of FIFA, the world governing body for soccer. He's also been working against the Qatari bid. Steele likes
to get paid twice for his investigations."
"Mifsud has also been associated with Prince Turki the former Saudi intelligence chief, Mifsud and the London Academy of Diplomacy
used to train Saudi diplomats and intelligence figures while Turki was the Saudi Ambassador to London. Turki is a close friend
of Bill Clinton and John Brennan. Nawaf Obaid was also courting Mifsud and tried to get him a cushy job working with CNN's Freedom
Project at Link Campus in Rome. He also knows John Brennan. Intelligence agencies like to give out professional gifts like this
plum academic position for completing missions. In the US, it is widely known that intelligence agencies gift the children of
assets to get them into prestigious Ivy League schools."
At minimum, we can surmise that Mifsud was not a Russian agent, but was an asset of Western intelligence agencies. We are left
with the impression that the Mifsud saga served as a ploy, whether he participated knowingly or not. It seems reasonable to conclude
that the gambit was initially developed with participation of John Brennan and UK intelligence. Following this, Mueller inherited
and developed the Mifsud narrative thread into the collusion soap opera we know today.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal to subvert
a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power.
What ********. Britain was part of the group pulling of 911 along with the American and Jewish establishment. Blackburn was
the inside guy, posing as an outsider, to deflect attention from the real perpetrators. These people always have agents on both
sides of every issue in the same way they fund two "opposing" political parties and fund two "opposing" sides in the media.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal
to subvert a US Presidency , and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power .
It's called TREASON .
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies , giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere , is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than
five years
SteeleGate---his mate Skripal, boss Pablo Miller----novichok---Porton Down---anything to blame Russia in the end. After 30
dys of shutdown personnel of CIA, FBI and DOJ can be changed legally: draining of the swamp and DECLAS can begin with proper Military
Tribunals in place. This according to Q who shared all of this, so it was not a conspiracy theory that the Q team exposed, but
just MSM and Deep State in their last panic mode. Justice will now be able to follow: maybe rel end of endless wars too!
There are more and more articles saying that the FBI, CIA, M14 15,16 yada yada, were overly concerned about Trump. Their sin...caring
too much for the USA. They attempted a coup de'etat for "our" own good...we... being "we the people". To quote Abe Lincoln "You will find that all the arguments in favour of kingcraft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, -- not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden." Lincoln did not mince words
So now we have an international conspiracy of care. Not one power grubber in the group. A syndicate of misunderstood do gooders.
But not having the consent of the people, but rather trying to undo, and foil the consent of the people.
This part of the Declaration applies
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
-- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Ultimately, we are faced with the reality that British and US interests worked together to fabricate a collusion scandal
to subvert a US Presidency, and in doing so, intentionally raised tensions between the West and a nuclear-armed power..."
Why do you not call it a coup d'etat? That is what it is, nothing less. If it were about something Trump did you would use
the harshest possible language. Why not tell the truth here. Let the American people know what happened.
@ariadna
"What other organization/group is capable of such as perfect job of covering their tracks."
It is the organization that controls the government and the media that is capable of doing
this. In other words, the same organization that was responsible for 9/11 and other major
deceptions. It compartmentalizes knowledge of operational details using the need-to-know
rule, but it can still be regarded as the same overall entity carrying out all of these
deceptions, with the same general goals always applying.
There is a tendency, especially among dissenters and conspiracy theorists, to equate the
Kennedy family with the Gracchi brothers of the great late Roman republic, a model of a good
opportunity for the Republic to evolve for the best and that was missed thanks to timely
assassinations. Unfortunately that's not the case : JFK was rather a behavioural model of
utter political servility, to the point of psychic codependence, towards the media sphere. He
was actually the first American president to have been entirely made by the media, and
especially by the most intensively Jewish ones as well as by the Hollywood actors' milieu :
people even worse than the power elite proper. Anyway the American presidential institution
was designed right from the start as a hidden imperial monarchy by adoption where none is
admitted except from families having being initiated into the inner occult circles of the
oligarchy and consecrated their whole progeny to come for one century and more : there never
was the slightest risk that a US President disobey. The fact that the father had slight
pro-Nazi inclinations should fool no one : Israel's Likud party has always collaborated with
such figures among the non-Jews and anyway JFK's family is nearly Jewish on his mother's
side. The American republic, though draping in Roman architecture and symbols, is clearly far
more Carthaginian in outlook.
If JFK is to be compared with a Roman character it would be more with a kind of Nero,
judging by his general private conduct, his lavish use of public money for private luxuries,
and his abundant use of secret services to dispose of no longer useful women. He was all
shape and no substance, and also known for a preference for false flags as the royal way to
disentangle all diplomatic quandaries, and some of those false flags were so ridiculous that
they fell flat, like the Bay of Pigs operation where he had given the orders to simulate the
return of Christ. JFK had been put into power to accomplish a very specific mission :
highjacking the Catholic Church into a religion 100% compliant with American interests and
values (not an easy task) and also with Zionist theology : a most preposterous (and pervert)
task but which he carried out in a brillant way. Up to then that religion had been the most
opposite to the American enterprise, even more so than the communist enterprise, after the
VII Council which that president was made to supervise as a nominal Catholic, the religion
was made into some kind of neo-episcopalian thing. JFK did it mostly through the
assassinations of countless prelates who would oppose such a turn. JFK also launched the
Moonlanding mission in perfect knowledge, through Van Allen and Von Braun, that it was not
feasible due to the impossibility to send any living being into space beyond a quite low
orbit : he just counted on Hollywood. What he didn't realize is that it would be simpler for
the American secret services to ensure the perfect secrecy of his own scheme to eliminate him
once all orders to make it work were given. Had he escaped or survived the assassination in
Dallas he would have been rapidly known as the very disappointing false liberal and real
decadent machiavellian prince he was, one year of tabloid media coverage would have revealed
him as an embarrassment to America, even though he was most probably due to die from his
chronic illness before campaining for reelection. Thanks to his assassination he was
transfigurated from the Nero he was into a kind of perfect tragic hero he was to become in
the American dreamworld. In brief he was killed for obeying just to well, to the point of
being more useful after death as a model, not for dissent of any kind (even though like all
corrupt politicians who feel death to be impending he started making timid regrets and
confessions about the power structure around him just a few days before, but in doing so he
did no better than for instance FBI's Hoover or France's Mitterrand or Israel's Sharon just
before entering mysterious coma).
Let us not be fooled by some allegations as to him having envisioned to do away with the
FED by giving back the American state the right to print money : all he did in reality was
allowing the American state to emit BONDS (not currency units) payable in metallic silver
rather than in USD proper, a way different thing, actually a first move (by avowing the USD
was subject to inflation in metallic terms as a judicial precedent to impose other decisions
later on) to stealthily undo the convertibility of the dollar into precious metal as was to
be finalized under Nixon. Let us not be deluded he envisioned doing away with the CIA : if
anything JFK was an overuser of its assassination services, he just wished for the agency,
which was then quite decentralized, to be eventually conflated with the FBI. And let us not
imagine he was anti-Israel : when he refused Israel the authorization to go nuclear that was
under the American Nuclear Industry Lobby's pressure which was then a more Jewish thing than
its Israeli counterpart : Israel was seen as too young, too lefty, too hippie-like to be
entrusted with everything at once, the real Jewish capital of the world was Manhattan, not
Tel Aviv. Israel as an offshore power centre was still in construction and JFK's only
concern, shared by his close Jewish appointees as well as by most conservative American Jews,
was that it might fall under Soviet pressure for lack of maturity in operating secret
services. In those kinds of affairs JFK heeded and obeyed the voice of best-established
moneyed interests without delving too much deeply. Thanks to the JFK perfect model of
media-tailored politicians the way was paved for Clinton and Obama to come thereafter as
natural heirs.
Let's move on to the next question: how dedicated was John to getting to the bottom of his
father's assassination?
According to testimonies from his friends, John Junior was haunted by the death of his
father and quite knowledgeable about independent investigations contradicting the Warren
Report. In 1999, he was not a newcomer to JFK conspiracy theories; his quest for truth had
started as early as the late 1970s. His old high school girlfriend Meg Azzoni, in her
self-published book, 11 Letters and a Poem: John F. Kennedy, Jr., and Meg Azzoni (2007),
writes that as a teenager, JFK, Jr. was questioning the official version of his father's death:
"His heartfelt quest was to expose and bring to trial who killed his father, and covered it
up." [28] Quoted
in John Koerner, Exploding the Truth: The JFK Jr., Assassination, Chronos Books, 2018,
kindle k. 540-45. Don Jeffries, author of Hidden History, claimed that "another
friend of JFK, Jr.'s adult inner circle, who very adamantly requested to remain anonymous,
verified that he was indeed quite knowledgeable about the assassination and often spoke of it
in private." [29] Quoted
in Koerner, Exploding the Truth, op. cit., k. 540-5. JFK Jr., said Jeffries in a
radio interview, was on "a Shakespearian quest," "to avenge his father's death," like young
Hamlet. [30]
https://midnightwriternews.com/mwn-episode-093-donal...fk-jr/
John is the only Kennedy to have shown a serious determination to pursue this truth, besides
his uncle Bobby. And he took the risk of making his interest public in October 1998, when he
released a special "Conspiracy Issue" of George magazine , which included an
article by Oliver Stone titled "Our Counterfeit History," introduced on the cover as "Paranoid
and Proud of It!"
If Joe Kennedy Jr had not died in WW2, they would have killed him, because he was the
smartest and toughest of the four brothers.
The WASPs and their Jewish allies assumed they could control JFK because of his war injury
and resulting lifetime of medication, as well as from his having chosen to be a playboy when
he assumed Joe Jr would be President. But in the White House, JFK began to understand that US
was going to have major troubles if it did not pull out of Vietnam sooner rather than later
and it if did not rein in Israel. He likely would have dumped LBJ in '64, and that was enough
to guarantee his death.
Bobby Kennedy had to go because he was indispensable to John's movements in understanding
how the Brits and their Jewish allies had cost the America that was neither WASP Elite nor
Jewish a great deal. Plus, from his time working on organized crime, Bobby Kennedy knew that
all big time organized crime was significantly funded by Jews and that at some point,
virtually all major Jewish American big business and prominent law firms had direct ties to
Jewish organized crime. And as President, Bobby Kennedy would have applied such knowledge to
Israel. And so Bobby Kennedy had to be killed.
I have long assumed that some alliance of CIA and Mossad, meaning WASP and Jewish, was
behind Chappaquiddick. No need to kill Teddy, because he was the least intelligent Kennedy
brother, as well as the only coward.
Why risk JFK Jr? Get rid of him before he holds any office. Do not risk any movement
growing up around him, because he might turn out to be some combo of his dad and dead
uncles.
I have long assumed that some alliance of CIA and Mossad, meaning WASP and Jewish, was
behind Chappaquiddick. No need to kill Teddy, because he was the least intelligent Kennedy
brother, as well as the only coward.
What makes you think that he was not supposed to die in that crash? He got out by the skin
of his teeth, could not save his companion. What would be a better smear on the Kennedys that
Teddy died with some woman in his lap?
As it turned out, he survived but forever smeared anyway
Interesting article. I believe JFK Jr.'s death was the result of a conspiracy, but the
author's assertion that Mossad was responsible leaves me with doubt. Hillary Clinton was the
person who had the most to gain from JFK Jr.'s demise; they were both on the same trajectory:
the open New York senate seat, followed by a run to the White House. The Clintons have been
shadow government players since at least the 1980s when, while governor, Bill helped
facilitate the CIA's trafficking of guns and drugs in Arkansas, which is a state with a
significant Rockefeller presence. The demoness Hillary is where investigators of JFK Jr.'s
death should start. Whether that leads to the Mossad, I don't know. My guess would be a
domestic CIA network.
I very much like the writing by Laurent Guyénot and I have read all of the articles by
him that I have come across including purchasing his book, "From Yaweh to Zion".
And I have no doubt that some insidious form of foul play was what killed JFK Jr. and his
wife.
As one who flew aircraft many years ago I can attest to the fact that on a fog-ridden
night it is very easy to succumb to vertigo and crash your plane into the ground. You can do
this very easily as well with the current bevy of highly sophisticated aircraft simulations
that are available.
However, JFK Jr. was, to my knowledge, a consummate pilot and would have never attempted
such a flight unless he was intsrument rated. As a result, he would have not succumbed to to
the effects of vertigo since he would have been concentrating on his instruments.
Also, I understand that this was basically a night flight, which by law required an
instrument rating.
From these generalizations alone one can see that JFK Jr. would have known how to fly his
plane.
If the eyewitnesses to the explosion are credible along with other supporting evidence
than there is no way any legitimate investigation could have concluded with verdict of "pilot
error", unless of course JFK Jr. knowingly took a bomb on board his plane with the intent of
blowing himself and his passengers up. A highly unlikely scenario.
If one were to look at the "only available picture" of JFK Jr.'s aircraft in this piece,
even a layperson could see that there is no scarring anywhere to be seen on the debris, which
would have been used then to support the stupidity of "pilot error".
You can see the same nonsense with the 911 pictures of the Pentagon after it was struck.
There is literally no debris in any of those pictures from an aircraft freshly blown to
pieces by its strike on the E-wing of the Pentagon.
Considering the insidiousness of the Clintons, especially Hillary herself, the author
paints an excellent portrait of a likely pathway for the support and implementation of an
assassination of JFK Jr through her. Given Hillary's background (and rabid incompetence) in
nefarious operations such as the destruction of Libya, I wouldn't put it past this women to
work with other planners to prevent JFK Jr. from obstructing her planned ascent into the US
Senate from New York.
Despite her popularity in New York State, which was somewhat overrated in the media, many
never considered her a welcome representative of our state. And JFK Jr. would have wiped the
floor with her in a political contest.
As a former flyer myself, it is aviation law that you cannot fly any aircraft at night or
non-VFR conditions without being instrument rated. If this was a night flight as stated then
the moon could have been out lighting up every aspect of earth and still only
instrument-rated pilots could fly.
And the airport he flew out of would have never allowed such a flight-plan for a
non-instrument rated pilot unless they wanted to lose their license to operate an
airport.
If JFK Jr. could send a message from the other world – it should probably be: "Don't
cry for me Argentina".
Just because his father was a president (of dubious quality and of dubious control over
the deep state – it probably was, as usual – vice versa, the deep state
controlled him), doesn't mean that they had presidential DNA in their genes.
Sons of presidents are usually worse than their fathers in the same role. I have only 2
examples but they are adequate enough to prove the point. GW Bush was 10 times the disaster
of a president his father was. And also Justin Trudeau is not even 1% the prime minister his
father was. In fact, if JFK jr, lived long enough to be elected a president – he
probably would have been the American Justin Trudeau.
Our media ignored breaking news a few years ago that Kennedy's TWA "conspiracy theory" was
proven true. TWA Flight 800 did not explode in mid-air because of an electrical short. It was
accidentally hit by a US Navy anti-aircraft missile during a training exercise.
An outstanding 2013 documentary: "TWA Flight 800" appeared on Netflix, but was removed
after just a few weeks. It featured two senior federal NTSB investigators of TWA 800 who
declared the investigation was a cover-up by the Clinton administration, and waited until
they retired to speak out. Several books have appeared that provide undeniable evidence, such
as:
@SunBakedSuburb
Agree, the book Compromised, Clinton, Bush and the CIA by Terry Reed shows the connection
between the Bushes and Clintons and the CIA and FBI and their CIA hit teams, or just read the
customer comments on the book at Amazon.com.
@Diversity
Heretic As a 30 year instrument rated pilot myself I would agree except for .."and the
overstressed airframe comes apart."
In light civilian air craft that is very rare and usually caused by some defect already
existing.
Unless the NTSB itself is lying and the radar records and the recovery divers are lying I go
with their determination.
First, the debris field was only 120 feet, if the plane had exploded or broken up in the air
it would have been scattered over a larger area.
Second, records show the plane entered a banking turn in excess of 45 degrees, which is not
recommended and dangerous .It can cause a accelerated stall and if you don't have the
altitude to recover from it before you hit the ground or you panic you go 'spiraling' down
and smash into whatever is below, you like the ocean.
So I really am not into the plane being blown up theory.
'A performance study of the radar data revealed that the target began a descent from 5,500
feet about 34 miles west of MVY. The speed during the descent was calculated to be about 160
knots indicated airspeed (KIAS), and the rate of descent was calculated to have varied
between 400 and 800 feet per minute (fpm). About 2138, the target began a right turn in a
southerly direction. About 30 seconds later, the target stopped its descent at 2,200 feet and
began a climb that lasted another 30 seconds. During this period of time, the target stopped
the turn, and the airspeed decreased to about 153 KIAS. About 2139, the target leveled off at
2,500 feet and flew in a southeasterly direction. About 50 seconds later, the target entered
a left turn and climbed to 2,600 feet. As the target continued in the left turn, it began a
descent that reached a rate of about 900 fpm. When the target reached an easterly direction,
it stopped turning; its rate of descent remained about 900 fpm. At 2140:15, while still in
the descent, the target entered a right turn. As the target's turn rate increased, its
descent rate and airspeed also increased. The target's descent rate eventually exceeded 4,700
fpm. The target's last radar position was recorded at 2140:34 at an altitude of 1,100 feet.
(For a more detailed description of the target's [accident airplane's] performance, see
Section, "Tests and Research," Subsection, "Aircraft Performance Study.")
WRECKAGE INFORMATION
On July 20, 1999, the airplane wreckage was located by U.S. Navy divers from the recovery
ship, USS Grasp, at a depth of about 120 feet below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean.
According to the divers, the recovered wreckage had been distributed in a debris field
about 120 feet long and was oriented along a magnetic bearing of about 010/190 degrees.
The main cabin area was found in the middle of the debris field.
At 2139:50, the airplane entered a left turn, while slightly increasing altitude to 2,600
feet. The airplane reached a maximum bank angle of 28 degrees left-wing-down (LWD) and a
maximum vertical acceleration of 1.2 Gs in this turn. When the maximum LWD bank angle was
obtained, the altitude started to decrease at a descent rate close to 900 fpm. The LWD
attitude was maintained for approximately 15 seconds until the airplane was heading towards
the east. At 2140:07, the airplane bank angle returned to wings level. At 2140:15, with the
airplane continuing towards the east, it reestablished a descent close to 900 fpm and then
started to increase its bank angle in a RWD direction at nearly a constant rate. As the
airplane bank angle increased, the rate of descent increased, and the airspeed started to
increase. By 2140:25, the bank angle exceeded 45 degrees , the vertical acceleration
was 1.2 Gs, the airspeed increased through 180 knots, and the flightpath angle was close to 5
degrees airplane nose down. After 2140:25, the airplane's airspeed, vertical acceleration,
bank, and dive angle continued to increase, and the right turn tightened until water
impact
Creating conspiracy theories is lots of fun, and sometimes can even be productive, but for
this one you really do have to go overboard ignoring Occam's Razor:
In reality, everyone who has ever acquired any kind of pilot's licence has been told
repeatedly in training something like: "Understand, that without getting sufficient
instruction to qualify for an instrument rating, if you lose visual reference to the ground,
during the day or at night, you will be toast. Experiments have consistently shown that, even
the world's most brilliant and experienced pilots, if they lose visual reference to the
ground and cannot see the instruments to assess carefully what they are saying, in every case
lose control of the aircraft in less than 45 seconds. And, having lost control, do not
realize it, and are unable to figure out that they need to regain it, let alone what they
need to do."
Most people find this surprising, which is why in the later stages of basic training a
demonstration is usually done in which the pilot wears a hood that prevents him from seeing
outside the aircraft, and is instructed to maintain straight and level flight. The instructor
removes the student's hood when the aircraft is in a rapidly accelerating, 45 degree bank,
descending turn, when the pilot had imagined he was still flying straight and level. I can
vouch that this is a persuasive demonstration!
This isn't mere speculation. Loss of control is the inevitable consequence of a
non-instrument rated pilot losing sight of the ground. It is enormously probable that this
was JFK Jr's issue.
I remember a little after JFK was assassinated a report of a statement by an government
official, I think someone in the FBI, saying there is evidence of a conspiracy to kill JFK
and other Kennedy family members. What happens is that after an attack or bombing the media
filters are not coordinated for hours or days but then controls and directives kick in the
narratives get stabilized. I always watch the news reports right after the event to catch
leaks. The above reported statement was never again reported by anyone.
It is certainly looking like Israel had a hand in many operations inside the US to control
its foreign policy and make sure major narratives are pro-Israel like the UK has a long
history (at least from WW2 on) of using dirty tricks to control the US. Since US foreign
policy is substantially controlled by the UK, Saudis, and Israel, we must suspect any of them
of trying to keep control of the US with all sorts of dirty tricks. Israel in a prime
candidate for assassinations and false flag operations in the US as they certainly knew by
the 1960's that the survival of Israel depended on US support. There are just too many dual
passport holders in these events to ignore this any longer.
Implicitly, this article takes the position that Jackie Kennedy was not involved in the JFK
assassination conspiracy, but there is an intriguing connection between the Bouvier family
and the assassination via a person named George de Mohrenschildt, who was a close friend of
both the Bouviers and Oswald.
@Steve
Naidamast That isnt correct.
There are 3 types of licenses a person can get:
Sport Flyer license restricted to local area and only certain types of small aircraft.
Recreational License restricted to local area and daylight hours only.
Private Pilot License ..not restricted, can fly at night . at their own risk
I did a lot of night time flying before I got my instrument rating. But wasn't stupid
enough to fly in bad weather day or night.
@Sean
I have no idea if JFK Jr. was bombed out of the sky by our friends in the Mossad, CIA, or
other wonderful entities. But years ago an ex CIA guy told me bluntly that the reason the CIA
and intelligence agencies get away with stuff is because much of it no one would be believe
they would even try thus the invention of the Conspiracy Theory.
The Kennedys were family of egomaniacs and were often careless and their itinerary through
life was filled with many people they destroyed and cast by the side of the road. They
believed they were really the chosen ones and their opinion and their way of doing things
were right and everyone else was wrong. So they mirrored the Jews except they were Irish.
@Peredur
Mohrenschildt seems to have been Oswald's CIA handler for a while, but months before the JFK
assassination he went off to Haiti. There's nothing to connect him with the JFK
assassination, especially if -- as seems likely -- Oswald was not the shooter who killed JFK.
@Carlton
Meyer TWA Flight 800 Investigators Claim the Official Crash Story Is a Lie
A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an
elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being
leveled by the very investigators who put the report together.
A new film claims the official government report on the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 is an
elaborate fabrication, but the most shocking part of the story is that charges are being
leveled by some of the very investigators who put the report together. Six experts who appear
in the film were members of the National Transportation Safety Board investigation team that
concluded the crash was an accident, but they now claim they were silenced by their
superiors. The movies, "TWA Flight 800" will debut on EPIX TV next month, on the 17-year
anniversary of the crash. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/twa-flight-800-film-coverup/314092/
@Che
Guava JFK junior was really just not that bright. He failed the bar exam at least once.
As Larry Elders once said, the best thing you could say about JFK junior was that he was a
down-to-earth guy who never pretended to be more than an average person who happened to be
rich.
Supposedly he loved alcohol and was obsessed with porn-he was friends with Irish-America's
one porn mogul in a gallery of Jews, Larry Flint.
He was handsome-some say that his father was Onassis and not Kennedy, believable
considering his Mediterranean looks which were nothing like Kennedy's fair Irish looks
(Though JFK junior was eternally proud of his Irish roots).
His magazine was alright, supposedly advised under-the-table by Larry Flynt again.
@Che
Guava The magazine was in big trouble financially. It never did break even although the
Kennedy PR machine and the Kennedy worshiping media pushed it for years
George was financed by the big French International publisher Hachette. Hachette was getting
ready to stop financing a losing publication. The combination of People and New Republic just
never worked.
I don't remember any announcements that JFKjr planned to run for any office. It was just
speculation and part of the endless media coverage of JFKjr which increased a thousand times
after he got married
There's a book Nemesis that claims that Jackie visited Onassis on his yacht in September?
October? 1963 and they arranged that Jackie would divorce jack and marry Onassis ic Hack lost
the 64 election
What "pretzelattack" does not understand is for whom Luke Harding actually works. Intelligence agencies
control The Guardian and shape forums in the direction they consider beneficial.
Notable quotes:
"... As far as upholding our Community Standards is concerned, The Guardian has decided to stand by the article and thus The Guardian views comments such as yours as misrepresentation. ..."
When you take issue with Editorial decisions of the Guardian, the Moderation team is the
wrong place to address it. You would have better luck following the procedures outlined on
https://www.theguardian.com/info/complaints-and-corrections.
As far as upholding our Community Standards is concerned, The Guardian has decided
to stand by the article and thus The Guardian views comments such as yours as
misrepresentation.
There is also the matter that most of your removed comments are Off Topic for the
discussions on which you post them, which breaches point 8 of our Community Standards.
8. Keep it relevant. We know that some conversations can be wide-ranging, but if you
post something which is unrelated to the original topic ("off-topic") then it may be
removed, in order to keep the thread on track. This also applies to queries or comments
about moderation, which should not be posted as comments.
Premoderation is usually only a temporary measure. Post consistently in line with the
community standards you agreed to abide by when creating your account and the sanction will
be lifted and full commenting privileges restored to your account. Post consistently
against the spirit of the community standards and you risk a permanent ban.
Best wishes
Meg,
Community Moderator
Links: The Guardian's Community Standards & FAQs
This was about the blatant bullshit, by Luke Harding, about Assange and manning meeting at
the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
"The guardian stands by the story" by censoring critical comments, while never bothering
to try to defend the actual reporting.
Of course, that would be difficult since there is no evidence that Manafort somehow
whisked himself (maybe a dr. who tardis) in and out of one of the most heavily surveilled
sites in the world.
Despite the Snowden revelations of the extent of official data gathering and storage on
individuals, the overwhelming majority of citizens have not only resigned themselves to
electronic surveillance but are putting themselves in a position to have their habits examined
microscopically by bringing eavesdropping digital assistants into their home and buying "smart"
home appliances.
Go to a large library and cross-reference James Jesus Angleton, Kim Philby, Miles Copeland and Nicholas Elliott in the "spy" books.
Soon you will begin to see that MI6 was there at the OSS and later CIA inceptions.
At the hidden deep levels, both these agencies serve the GLOBALIST' enterprise, and have since the start.
Then you will understand Steele and the "five eyes" involvement in the Russia hoax.
@Sean
According to this comment, "The government does not take orders from the CIA or the FBI. The
President controls both." Well, only if the President is a member of the Council on Foreign
Relations and a Rockefeller's puppet. For a well-documented, quite different analysis of the
Kennedy assassination see "Partners in Crime: The Rockefeller, CFR, CIA and Castro Connection
to the Kennedy Assassination."
Edward Curtain writes for the CIA about the CIA. Amazing that a bunch of academics would
"criticize" the CIA and leave out all the real facts about the CIA.
ISIS, Al Qaeda, Pornhub, Facebook, Google – or whatever the CIA calls themselves and
their weapons isn't in the business of informing you about anything at all.
Read 1984, it will explain it to you, another psychological warfare treatise written by a
Government agent.
March 19, 2017 The CIA's 60-Year History of Fake News How the Deep State Corrupted Many
American Writers
Whitney's new book, "Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers," explores how
the CIA influenced acclaimed writers and publications during the Cold War to produce subtly
anti-communist material. During the interview, Scheer and Whitney discuss these manipulations
and how the CIA controlled major news agencies and respected literary publications (such as
the Paris Review).
JANUARY 18, 2017 CIA Publishes About 13 Million Pages of Declassified Files Online
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) published nearly 13 million pages of declassified
files on its official website for the first time in its history. The declassified files were
previously publicly available only at the National Archives in Maryland.
Intelligence agencies like CIA is a threat to "normal" societies as they tend to acquire
power with time and tail start wagging the dog. Mechanism of control are usually subverted and
considerable part of their activities is dome without informing "supervisory" structures.
In the USA sometimes CIA monitor Congress communications and tries to coerce them like was the case when the torture program was revealed. In other words intelligence agencies are the core
neofascist structures in modern society and as such represent a distinct danger.
Notable quotes:
"... Organizations like the CIA are obviously fallible and have made many mistakes and failed to anticipate world events. But they are also very powerful, having great financial backing, and do the bidding of their masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc. They are the action arm of these financial elites, and are, as Douglass Valentine has written, organized criminals. ..."
"... The corporate mass media take their orders, orders that need not be direct, but sometimes are, because these media are structured to do the bidding of the same elites that formed the CIA and own the media. And while their ostensible raison d'ȇtre is to provide intelligence to the nation's civilian leaders, this is essentially a cover story for their real work that is propaganda, killing, and conducting coups d'états at home and abroad. ..."
"... Because they have deep pockets, they can afford to buy all sorts of people, people who pimp for the elites. Some of these people do work that is usually done by honest academics and independent intellectuals, a dying breed, once called free-floating intellectuals. These pimps analyze political, economic, technological, and cultural trends. They come from different fields: history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, cultural studies, linguistics, etc. They populate the think tanks and universities. They are often intelligent but live in bad faith, knowing they are working for those who are doing the devil's work. But they collect their pay and go their way straight to the bank, the devil's bank. They often belong to the Council of Foreign Relations or the Heritage Foundation. They are esteemed and esteem themselves. But they are pimps. ..."
"... Infecting minds with such symbols and stories must be done directly and indirectly, as well as short-term and long-term. Long term propaganda is like a slowly leaking water pipe that you are vaguely aware of but that rots the metal from within until the pipe can no longer resist the pressure. Drip drop, drip drop, drip drop -- and the inattentive recipients of the propaganda gradually lose their mettle to resist and don't know it, and then when an event bursts into the news -- e.g. the attacks of September 11, 2001 or Russia-gate -- they have been so softened that their assent is automatically given. They know without hesitation who the devil is and that he must be fought. ..."
"... The purpose of the long-term propaganda is to create certain predispositions and weaknesses that can be exploited when needed. Certain events can be the triggers to induce the victims to react to suggestions. When the time is ripe, all that is needed is a slight suggestion, like a touch on the shoulder, and the hypnotized one acts in a trance. ..."
"... Very entertaining. Now tell us how all this works. And what the CIA gets out of it. I mean they surely don't do it for nothing do they? Does the CIA Director get rich for working for 'masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc'? Or is everyone under a giant Satanic Cult in the sky and the CIA is their headquarters on earth? ..."
...The Nazis had a name for their propaganda and mind-control operations:
weltanschauungskrieg -- "world view warfare." As good students, they had learned many
tricks of the trade from their American teachers, including Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward
Bernays, who had honed his propagandistic skills for the United States during World War I and
had subsequently started the public relations industry in New York City, an industry whose
raison d'etre from the start was to serve the interests of the elites in manipulating the
public mind.
In 1941, U.S. Intelligence translated weltanschauungskrieg as "psychological
warfare," a phrase that fails to grasp the full dimensions of the growing power and penetration
of U.S. propaganda, then and now. Of course, the American propaganda apparatus was just then
getting started on an enterprise that has become the epitome of successful world view warfare
programs, a colossal beast whose tentacles have spread to every corner of the globe and whose
fabrications have nestled deep within the psyches of many hundreds of millions of Americans and
people around the world. And true to form in this circle game of friends helping friends, this
propaganda program was ably assisted after WW II by all the Nazis secreted into the U.S.
("Operation Paperclip") by Allen Dulles and his henchmen in the OSS and then the CIA to make
sure the U.S. had operatives to carry on the Nazi legacy (see David Talbot's The Devil's
Chessboard: Allen Dulles, The CIA, and The Rise of America's Secret Government , an
extraordinary book that will make your skin crawl with disgust).
This went along quite smoothly until some people started to question the Warren Commission's
JFK assassination story. The CIA then went on the offensive in 1967 and put out the word to all
its people in the agency and throughout the media and academia to use the phrase "conspiracy
theory" to ridicule these skeptics, which they have done up until the present day. This secret
document -- CIA Dispatch
1035-960 -- was a propaganda success for many decades, marginalizing those researchers and
writers who were uncovering the truth about not just President Kennedy's murder by the national
security state, but those of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy. Today, the tide
is turning on this score, as recently more and more Americans are fed up with the lies and are
demanding that the truth be told. Even the
Washington Post is noting this, and it is a wave of opposition that will only grow.
The CIA Exposed -- Partially
But back in the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, some covert propaganda programs run by the CIA
were "exposed." First, the Agency's sponsorship of the Congress of Cultural Freedom, through
which it used magazines, prominent writers, academics, et al. to spread propaganda during the
Cold War, was uncovered. This was an era when Americans read serious literary books, writers
and intellectuals had a certain cachet, and popular culture had not yet stupefied Americans.
The CIA therefore secretly worked to influence American and world opinion through the literary
and intellectual elites. Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively covers this in her 1999 book,
The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters , and Joel Whitney
followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World's Best Writers, with
particular emphasis on the complicity of the CIA and the famous literary journal The Paris
Review.
Then in 1975 the Church Committee hearings resulted in the exposure of abuses by the CIA,
NSA, FBI, etc. In 1977 Carl Bernstein wrote a long piece for Esquire -- "The CIA and the
Media" -- naming names of journalists and publications ( TheNew York Times, CBS
, etc.) that worked with and for the CIA in propagandizing the American people and the rest of
the world. (Conveniently, this article can be read on the CIA's website since presumably the
agency has come clean, or, if you are the suspicious type, or maybe a conspiracy theorist, it
is covering its deeper tracks with a "limited hangout," defined by former CIA agent Victor
Marchetti, who went rogue, as "spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the
clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely
on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting -- sometimes even
volunteering -- some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts
in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never
thinks to pursue the matter further.")
Confess and Move On
By the late 1970s, it seemed as if the CIA had been caught in flagrante delicto and
disgraced, had confessed its sins, done penance, and resolved to go and sin no more. Seeming,
however, is the nature of the CIA's game. Organized criminals learn to adapt to the changing
times, and that is exactly what the intelligence operatives did. Since the major revelations of
the late sixties and seventies -- MKUltra, engineered coups all around the world,
assassinations of foreign leaders, spying on Americans, etc. -- no major program of propaganda
has been exposed in the mainstream media. Revealing books about certain CIA programs have been
written -- e.g. Douglas Valentine's important The Phoenix Program being one -- and
dissenting writers, journalists, researchers, and whistleblowers (Robert Parry, Gary Webb,
Julian Assange, James W. Douglass, David Ray Griffin, Edward Snowden, et al.) have connected
the U.S. intelligence services to dirty deeds and specific actions, such as the American
engineered coup d'état in Ukraine in 2013-14, electronic spying, and the attacks of
September 11, 2001.
But the propaganda has for the most part continued unabated at a powerful and esoteric
cultural level, while illegal and criminal actions are carried out throughout the world in the
most blatant manner imaginable, as if to say fuck you openly while insidiously infecting the
general population through the mass electronic screen culture that has relegated intellectual
and literary culture to a tiny minority.
Planning Ahead
Let me explain what I think has been happening.
Organizations like the CIA are obviously fallible and have made many mistakes and failed
to anticipate world events. But they are also very powerful, having great financial backing,
and do the bidding of their masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc. They are the action arm
of these financial elites, and are, as Douglass Valentine has written, organized
criminals. They have their own military, are joined to all the armed forces, and are
deeply involved in the drug trade. They control the politicians. They operate their own
propaganda network in conjunction with the private mercenaries they hire for their operations.
The corporate mass media take their orders, orders that need not be direct, but sometimes
are, because these media are structured to do the bidding of the same elites that formed the
CIA and own the media. And while their ostensible raison d'ȇtre is to provide intelligence
to the nation's civilian leaders, this is essentially a cover story for their real work that is
propaganda, killing, and conducting coups d'états at home and abroad.
Because they have deep pockets, they can afford to buy all sorts of people, people who
pimp for the elites. Some of these people do work that is usually done by honest academics and
independent intellectuals, a dying breed, once called free-floating intellectuals. These pimps
analyze political, economic, technological, and cultural trends. They come from different
fields: history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, political science, cultural studies,
linguistics, etc. They populate the think tanks and universities. They are often intelligent
but live in bad faith, knowing they are working for those who are doing the devil's work. But
they collect their pay and go their way straight to the bank, the devil's bank. They often
belong to the Council of Foreign Relations or the Heritage Foundation. They are esteemed and
esteem themselves. But they are pimps.
... ... ...
Methods of Propaganda
Infecting minds with such symbols and stories must be done directly and indirectly, as
well as short-term and long-term. Long term propaganda is like a slowly leaking water pipe that
you are vaguely aware of but that rots the metal from within until the pipe can no longer
resist the pressure. Drip drop, drip drop, drip drop -- and the inattentive recipients of the
propaganda gradually lose their mettle to resist and don't know it, and then when an event
bursts into the news -- e.g. the attacks of September 11, 2001 or Russia-gate -- they have been
so softened that their assent is automatically given. They know without hesitation who the
devil is and that he must be fought.
The purpose of the long-term propaganda is to create certain predispositions and
weaknesses that can be exploited when needed. Certain events can be the triggers to induce the
victims to react to suggestions. When the time is ripe, all that is needed is a slight
suggestion, like a touch on the shoulder, and the hypnotized one acts in a trance. The gun
goes off, and the entranced one can't remember why (see: Sirhan Sirhan). This is the goal of
mass hypnotization through long-term propaganda: confusion, memory loss, and automatic reaction
to suggestion.
Intelligence Pimps and Liquid Screen Culture
When the CIA's dirty tricks were made public in the 1970s, it is not hard to imagine that
the intellectual pimps who do their long-range thinking were asked to go back to the drawing
board and paint a picture of the coming decades and how business as usual could be conducted
without further embarrassment. By that time it had become clear that intellectual or high
culture was being swallowed by mass culture and the future belonged to electronic screen
culture and images, not words. What has come to be called "postmodernity" ensued, or what the
sociologist Zygmunt Bauman calls "liquid modernity" and Guy Debord "the society of the
spectacle." Such developments, rooted in what Frederic Jameson has termed "the cultural logic
of late capitalism," have resulted in the fragmentation of social and personal life into
pointillistic moving pictures whose dots form incoherent images that sow mass confusion and do
not cohere.
... ... ...
Edward Curtin is a writer whose work has appeared widely. He teaches sociology at
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. His website is http://edwardcurtin.com/
But they are also very powerful, having great financial backing, and do the bidding of
their masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc. They are the action arm of these
financial elites, and are, as Douglass Valentine has written, organized criminals. They
have their own military, are joined to all the armed forces, and are deeply involved in the
drug trade. They control the politicians. They operate their own propaganda network in
conjunction with the private mercenaries they hire for their operations. The corporate mass
media take their orders, orders that need not be direct, but sometimes are, because these
media are structured to do the bidding of the same elites that formed the CIA and own the
media. And while their ostensible raison d'ȇtre is to provide intelligence to the
nation's civilian leaders, this is essentially a cover story for their real work that is
propaganda, killing, and conducting coups d'états at home and abroad.
Very entertaining. Now tell us how all this works. And what the CIA gets out of it. I
mean they surely don't do it for nothing do they? Does the CIA Director get rich for working
for 'masters in banking, Wall St., finance, etc'? Or is everyone under a giant Satanic Cult
in the sky and the CIA is their headquarters on earth?
Under "The CIA Exposed" could have mentioned Philip Agee's "Inside the Company" as he was the
Edward Snowden of his day.
Interestingly, CIA agent Miles Copeland, Jr., the father of the drummer of the British
band "The Police", said the book was "as complete an account of spy work as is likely to be
published anywhere" and that it is "an authentic account of how an ordinary American or
British 'case officer' operates
" Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward Bernays, who had honed his propagandistic skills for
the United States during World War I and had subsequently started the public relations
industry in New York City, an industry whose raison d'etre from the start was to serve the
interests of the elites in manipulating the public mind.
In 1941, U.S. Intelligence translated weltanschauungskrieg as "psychological warfare," a
phrase that fails to grasp the full dimensions of the growing power and penetration of U.S.
propaganda, then and now."
The Yank propaganda machine always was an alliance between WASP Elites and Jews. Always.
The Yank WASPs knew that Brit and British Commonwealth WASPs had done the same thing: make
alliance to rule the world, which featured – not a bug but a feature – new ways
to use psy ops to pervert the vast majority of white Christians they ruled.
Until that is understood, which means accepting that WASP culture itself is a problem as
big as Jews and Jewish culture, all that is done in opposition to all that is horrendously
wrong today is wasted time and energy.
@DESERT
FOX The CIA is a British creation, just like Israel's Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General
Intelligence Presidency.
The CIA is a pure WASP Elite creation. It always has served the interests of the WASP
Elite, in the UK and the rest of the Anglosphere as well the US. And the CIA always has
served the interests of Jews and Israel, because that makes perfect sense for WASP culture,
which was formed fully, completed, by the Judaizing heresy Anglo-Saxon Puritanism.
Judaizing heresy guarantees pro-Jewish politics and culture.
Sean, Who else, is here first with the CIA line, "CIA works for the president!" CIA
shoehorned that into the Pike Committee report right after Don Gregg visited the committees
and gave them an ultimatum: back off or it's martial law.
Then Sean mouths a bit of bureaucratic bafflegab about feasibility.
The feasibility of CIA crime is a product of CIA impunity. So next Sean feeds you more CIA
boilerplate by trying to pathologize anyone who's aware of CIA impunity through formal legal
pretexts in municipal law. John Bolton, Trump's CIA ventriloquist, had one prime directive as
unauthorized UN ambassador: remove any reference to impunity from the Summit Outcome
Document. To that end he submitted 600+ NeoSoviet amendments to paralyze the drafting
process.
That's how touchy CIA is about its impunity. CIA is the state, with illegal absolute
sovereignty because they can kill you or torture you and get away with it.
If you're John Kennedy, if you're Robert Kennedy, if you're Dag Hammarskjöld, if
you're Judge Robert Vance. No matter who you are.
Huge external debt plus high unemployment represents two vital preconditions of rise far right nationalism and fascism in all
its multiple incarnations. In this sence Ulrain, Argentina and Brasil are different links of the common chain of
events.
In a way fascism is a way of reaction of nation deeply in crisis. In essence this is introduction of war time
restrictions on political speech and freedoms of the population. The Catch 22 is that often this is done not so much to
fight external threat, but top preserve the power of existing financial oligarchy. Which fascist after coming to power quickly
include in government and and desire of which are disproportionally obeyed by fascist state.
What in new in XXI century is the huge growth of power on intelligence agencies which is way represent crippling fascism or
neofascism. In a way, then intelligence agencies became political kingmakers (as was the case with the assassination of JFK,
impeachment of Nixon, elections of Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, as well as establishing Mueller commission after Trump
victory), we can speak about sliding the county of the county toward fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that followed. ..."
"... The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015 ..."
"... Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it forward. ..."
"... The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise. Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power. ..."
"... Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a program called Operation Paperclip . Many were dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist. ..."
"... A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason. Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism. ..."
"... The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism ..."
Missing from explanations of the rise of Mr. Bolsonaro is that for the last decade Brazil
has experienced the worst economic
recession in the country's history (graph below). Fourteen million formerly employed,
working age Brazilians are now unemployed. As was true in the U.S. and peripheral Europe from
2008 forward, the liberal response has been austerity as the Brazilian ruling class was made
richer and more politically powerful.
Since 2014, Brazil's public debt/GDP ratio has climbed from 20% to 75%
proclaims a worried IMF. That some fair portion of that climb came from falling GDP due to
economic austerity mandated by the IMF and Wall Street is left unmentioned. A decade of
austerity got liberal President Dilma Rousseff removed from office in 2016 in what can only be
called a Wall Street putsch. Perhaps Bolsonaro will tell Wall Street where to stick its loans
(not).
Back in the U.S., everyone knows that the liberalization of finance and trade in the 1990s
was the result of political calculations. That this liberalization was/is bipartisan suggests
that maybe the political calculations served certain economic interests. Never mind that these
interests were given what they asked for and crashed the economy with it. If economic problems
result from political calculations, the solution is political -- elect better leaders. If they
are driven by economic interests, the solution is to change the way that economic relationships
are organized.
Between 1928 and 1932 German industrial production fell by 58%. By 1933, six million
formerly employed German workers were begging in the streets and digging through garbage
looking for items to sell. The liberal (Socialist Party) response was half-measures and
austerity. Within the liberal frame, the Depression was a political problem to be addressed in
the realm of the political. Centrist accommodation defined the existing realm. Adolf Hitler was
appointed Chancellor of Germany in 1933, the pit of the Great Depression.
In Brazil in the early-mid 2000s, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as Lula,
implemented a Left program that pulled twenty million Brazilians out of poverty. The Brazilian
economy briefly recovered after Wall Street crashed it in 2008 before Brazilian public debt was
used to force the implementation of austerity. Dilma Rousseff capitulated and Brazil re-entered
recession. Rousseff was removed from power in 2016. Hemmed in by Wall Street and
IMF mandated austerity , any liberal government that might be elected would meet the same
fate as Rousseff.
In Italy in the 1920s, repayment of war debts from WWI led to austerity and recession that
preceded the rise of fascist leader Benito Mussolini. In Germany, payment of war reparations
and repayment of industrial loans limited the ability of the Weimar government to respond to
the Great Depression. Liberal governments that facilitated the financialization of industrial
economies in the 1920s were left to serve as debt collectors in the capitalist crisis that
followed.
Since 2008, the fiscal structure of the EU (European Union) combined with wildly unbalanced
trade relationships led to a decade of austerity, recession and depression for the European
periphery. In the U.S., by 2009 Wall Street was pushing austerity and cuts to Social Security
and Medicare as necessary to fiscal stability. The consequences of four decades of
financialized neoliberal trade policies were by no means equally shared. Internal and external
class relations were made evident through narrowly distributed booms followed by widely
distributed busts.
With the presumed shared goal of ending the threat of fascism:
The ideological premises behind the logic that claims fascists as the explanation of fascism
emerge from liberalism. The term here is meant as description. Liberalism proceeds from
specific ontological assumptions. Within this temporal frame, a bit of social logic: If
fascists already existed, why didn't fascism? The question of whether to fight fascists or
fascism depends on the answer. The essentialist view is that characteristics intrinsic to
fascists make them fascists. This is the basis of scientific racism. And it underlies fascist
race theory.
The theory of a strongman who exploits people who have a predisposition towards fascism is
essentialist as well if receptivity is intrinsic, e.g. due to psychology, genetics, etc.
Liberal-Left commentary in recent years has tended toward the essentialist view -- that
fascists are born or otherwise predisposed toward fascism. Unconsidered is that non-fascists
are equally determined in this frame. If 'deplorables' were born that way, four decades of
neoliberalism is absolved.
The problem of analogy, the question of what fascism is and how European fascism of the
twentieth century bears relation to the present, can't be answered in the liberal frame. The
rise and fall of a global radical right have been episodic. It has tied in history to the
development of global capitalism in a center-and-periphery model of asymmetrical economic
power. Finance from the center facilitates economic expansion until financial crisis interrupts
the process. Peripheral governments are left to manage debt repayment with collapsed
economies.
Globally, debt has forced policy convergence between political parties of differing
ideologies. European center-left parties have pushed austerity even when ideology would suggest
the opposite. In 2015, self-identified Marxists in Greece's SYRIZA party capitulated to the
austerity and privatization demands from EU creditors led by Germany. Even Lenin negotiated
with Wall Street creditors (on behalf of Russia) in the months after the October Revolution. In
a political frame, the solution from below is to elect leaders and parties who will act on
their rhetoric.
The practical problem with doing this is the power of creditors. Debtors that repudiate
their debts are closed out of capital markets. The power to create money that is accepted in
payment is a privilege of the center countries that also happen to be creditors. Capitalist
expansion creates interdependencies that produce immediate, deep shortages if debts aren't
serviced. Debt is a weapon whose proceeds can be delivered to one group and the obligation to
repay it to another. The U.S. position was expressed when the IMF knowingly made unpayable
loans to Ukraine to support a U.S. sponsored coup there in 2015.
Fascist racialization has analog in existing capitalist class relations. Immigration status,
race and gender define a social taxonomy of economic exploitation. Race was invented decades into the
Anglo-American manifestation of slavery to naturalize exploitation of Blacks. Gender difference
represents the evolution of unpaid to paid labor for women in the capitalist West. Claiming
these as causing exploitation gets the temporal sequence wrong. These were / are exploitable
classes before explanations of their special status were created.
This isn't to suggest that capitalist class relations form a complete explanation of fascist
racialization. But the ontological premise that 'freezes,' and thereby reifies racialization,
is fundamental to capitalism. This relates to the point argued below that the educated German
bourgeois, in the form of the Nazi scientists and engineers brought to the U.S. following WWII,
found Nazi racialization plausible through what has long been put forward as an antithetical
mode of understanding. Put differently, it wasn't just the rabble that found grotesque racial
caricatures plausible. The question is why?
Propaganda was developed and refined by Edward Bernays in the 1910s to help the Wilson
administration sell WWI to a skeptical public. It has been used by the American government and
in capitalist advertising since that time. The idea was to integrate psychology with words and
images to get people to act according to the desires and wishes of those putting it
forward.
The operational frame of propaganda is instrumental: to use people to achieve ends they had
no part in conceiving. The political perspective is dictatorial, benevolent or otherwise.
Propaganda has been used by the American government ever since. Similar methods were used by
the Italian and German fascists in their to rise to power.
Since WWI, commercial propaganda has become ubiquitous in the U.S. Advertising firms hire
psychologists to craft advertising campaigns with no regard for the concern that psychological
coercion removes free choice from capitalism. The distinction between political and commercial
propaganda is based on intent, not method. Its use by Woodrow Wilson (above) is instructive: a
large and vocal anti-war movement had legitimate reasons for opposing the U.S. entry into WWI.
The goal of Bernays and Wilson was to stifle political opposition.
Following WWII, the U.S. brought 1,600 Nazi scientists and engineers (and their
families) to the U.S. to work for the Department of Defense and American industry through a
program called Operation Paperclip . Many were
dedicated and enthusiastic Nazis. Some were reported to have been bona fide war criminals. In
contrast to liberal / neoliberal assertions that Nazism was irrational politics, the Nazi
scientists fit seamlessly into American military production. There was no apparent
contradiction between being a Nazi and being a scientist.
The problem isn't just that many committed Nazis were scientists. Science and technology
created the Nazi war machine. Science and technology were fully integrated into the creation
and running of the Nazi concentration camps. American race 'science,' eugenics, formed the
basis of Nazi race theory. Science and technology formed the functional core of Nazism. And the
Nazi scientists and engineers of Operation Paperclip were major contributors to American
post-war military dominance.
A dimensional tension of Nazism lay between romantic myths of an ancient and glorious
past and the bourgeois task of moving industrialization and modernity forward. The focus of
liberal and neoliberal analysis has been on this mythology as an irrational mode of reason.
Missing is that Nazism wouldn't have moved past the German borders if it hadn't had bourgeois
basis in the science and technology needed for industrial might. This keeps the broad project
within the ontological and administrative premises of liberalism.
This is no doubt disconcerting to theorists of great difference. If Bolsonaro can impose
austerity while maintaining an unjust peace, Wall Street and the IMF will smile and ask for
more. American business interests are already
circling Brazil, knowing that captive consumers combined with enforceable property rights
and a pliable workforce means profits. Where were liberals when the Wall Street that Barack
Obama saved was squeezing the people of Brazil, Spain, Greece and Portugal to repay debts
incurred by the oligarchs? Liberalism is the link between capitalism and fascism, not its
antithesis.
Having long ago abandoned Marx, the American Left is lost in the temporal logic of
liberalism. The way to fight fascists is to end the threat of fascism. This means taking on
Wall Street and the major institutions of Western capitalism
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book Zen Economics is
published by CounterPunch Books.
Just one week ago,
we warned that the government -- helped by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing
police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the
Rapid DNA Act into
law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who
are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping
at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget) -- was embarking on a diabolical campaign
to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.
As it turns out we were right, but we forgot one key spoke of the government's campaign to collect genetic information from
as many individuals as possible: "innocent", commercial companies, who not only collect DNA from willing clients, but are also
paid for it.
FamilyTreeDNA, one of the pioneers of the growing market for "at home", consumer genetic testing, confirmed a report from
BuzzFeed that it has quietly granted the Federal Bureau of Investigation access to its vast trove of nearly 2 million genetic
profiles.
... ... ...
Worse, it did so secretly, without obtaining prior permission from its users.
The move is of significant concern to much more than just privacy-minded FamilyTreeDNA customers. As Bloomberg notes, one
person sharing genetic information also exposes those to whom they are closely related. That's how police caught the alleged
Golden State Killer. And here is a stunning statistics - according to a 2018 study, only 2% of the population needs to have done
a DNA test for virtually everyone's genetic information to be represented in that data.
Former FBI agents played a role in the JFK assassination.
H.L. Hunt hired former FBI agents for his own personal police force.
Hunt's main office overlooked Dealey Plaza.
Hunt had massive land holdings in numerous states.
H.L. had his own radio shows to disseminate his conservative views.
A couple of days after JFK was assassinated Hunt took his whole family to Mexico, "under
the advice of the FBI" as he "was receiving death threats".
His hired hands FBI offered the pretext for going to Mexico.
He had a tough guy, Texas conservative, persona to protect but he fled the country. Looks
whimpy, no? His own police force (and ex-FBI) with huge ranches he could hold up in, but he
flees to Mexico. His family was there for a month.
Why? 12-man play.
Notre Dame once won a football game by putting an extra man in the play - a 12th man.
After the touchdown succeeded Notre Dame then immediately emptied their bench onto the
playing field so the refs could not count the players (this was well before instant replay
was used).
Lamar Hunt had fled to Mexico and was a sore thumb, odd man stands out, being there by
himself. Thus H.L. Hunt sent his entire family to Mexico to cover for his son Lamar. 12-man
play.
The fact that Lamar had fled to Mexico by himself would stick out like a soar thumb. But
thanks to the 12-man play he was just another member of the family that had gone to
Mexico.
Lamar had been escorting a mafia hitman, James Braden, plus a friend of Braden's, around
Dealey Plaza. A few minutes after the assassination the friend had packed up and left town.
Lamar Hunt also left a few minutes after the assassination - for Mexico. James Braden was
arrested coming out of an elevator in one of the buildings lining Dealey Plaza. He was
fingered as a suspicious person that had no known business on one of the upper floors. He
said he was "looking for a pay phone to call his mother".
Former FBI agents joined the Hunt family in Mexico.
Last week the New England Patriots won the Lamar Hunt Trophy and the right to be in this
weekend's Super Bowl.
"... The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they come across a particularly adorable baby. ..."
"... I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's books and media appearances. ..."
"... George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one). ..."
"... That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems these people don't have a conscience. ..."
"... Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking, oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's. ..."
"... The Deep State Guardian. Why don't they just change their name to 'The Daily Thatcherite' and have done with it. ..."
"... They should just show it's full title: The Guardian Of The Establishment ..."
"... well, yeah. but for us mad people it goes deeper even than that: https://geopolitics.co/2018/12/02/in-memoriam-george-h-scherff-jr-aka-george-hw-bush-sr/ ..."
British and most western media are either in the direct or indirect pay of their governments. What journalist can expose this
for us? Any of you willing to make the biggest scoop of the 21st century? Tom Bradbury at ITN must be on the spook payroll, for
starters? MI6 had foreign correspondents for years, but domestic mouthpieces must now be on the take too? All paid to demonise
Russia and Putin.
The Guardian has lost all sense of proportion – mention Tommy Robinson and the entire staff through themselves to floor and
roll round like dying flies – yet for when it comes to US neocons they go all misty eyed, redolent of a broody couple when they
come across a particularly adorable baby.
Simon 'white helmets' Tisdall is especially egregious – one can imagine him throwing darts at a picture of Putin while
producing his latest homily to the murderous actions of gangsters like Bush and his crime family.
Its hard not to despair now this has become the official face of Britains so-called liberal media.
I would wager a medium sum that Tisdall is on a payroll other than the Grauniad's, or he's an actual asset per Ulfkötte's
books and media appearances. As with Michael White, with whom I had a very illuminating argument via email a few years back.
He *is* an asset, not a journalist (and a massive dick, to boot)
I thought the attitude of the Bush family to their fellow Americans was best illustrated by Barbara's response to the plight of
the homeless victims of Katrina who had been transported to the Houston domed stadium. They spent their nights there sleeping
on hard benches and when good ole Babs heard of it, she opined that they probably had never had it so good so why were they complaining.
Could Mother Theresa have had greater generosity of spirit?
Not just one article, the awful Guardian is full of contents eulogising [yet another] mongrel of a president.
But look at conservative media. The crazy Infowars.com described this Bush as an Anti-American Globalist and Traitor!! .. and
zerohedge.com is celebrating: "The Evil Has Died" and "In 2016 he voted for Hillary Clinton, because the Deep State Swamp sticks
together". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-12-02/exploring-dark-side-bush-41
Just tell me, who is the rabid neo-con right-wing rag that is glorifying wars and mass murderers?
The late Robert Parry, sad to say. Maybe that now both the 'MacBeths' are stains on the tarmac – Parry's notes of the bloodstained
legacy of that dynasty can finally be displayed? That Barbara was one cold blooded mother! Would have happily pulled a trigger
on JFK, MLK herself (some think).
Just about the whole century from the setup of the Fed, the two world wars, the depression,
Hitler, Korea, Cuba all of it, had a a Bush hand in it. He was the self crowned Caesar having publicly executed the whole of Camelot
and left us with a poison toad, reminds us how low the Bush's took the USA.
George Bush spent his adult life organizing operations and wars that killed a few million people. Anyone who has spiritual
beliefs must wonder how it is to die with so much killing on your record or conscience (if you have one).
That's something I've wondered about many times. If you review John McCain's actions and comments before he died, it seems
these people don't have a conscience. If you surround yourself with people of similar mindset and in a climate where war
is considered obligatory for US Presidents, you go into self denial. Wars are probably like an addiction for these people and
once you get to that stage you no longer have a conscience.
During John McCain's funeral where all living ex-presidents were in attendance, someone remarked on Twitter, 'Quick, lock the
church doors and hold the war crimes trial in the church!'. This was a far more realistic observation than the sickening McCain
apologist BBC coverage we were subjected to.
At the weekend I went to the place where Oliver Cromwell lived. There was an American tourist who told us she was shocked about
Oliver Cromwell being dug up from his grave and his head stuck on a pike. She said it was gruesome. I was tempted to say that
at least that was 350 years ago, and similar things are happening today in Iraq, Syria and Libya – all places where the US has
instigated the chaos and supports the perpretators. I resisted the temptation.
I note that Cromwell thought he was chosen by God to do what he did. But again that was in different times and there were some
redeeming factors in what he did, Probably on par with Obama – who wreaked havoc on the Middle East but reached agreements on
Iran and Cuba. Plus Obama looked cool while killing and droning.
But what goes around comes around. I sense the pure evil involved in the current regime change wars, government, media etc
will pay a heavy price – whether in this life or the next.
The state controlled BBC has just done another puff piece on McCain saying what a splendid chap and great statesman and all round
good egg he was.
The MSM likes to slag off Vlad The Bad by droning on about how he was in the KGB. But Bush wasn't just IN the CIA, he was the
BOSS of the CIA, at a time when hundreds of thousands of Central American peasant farmers and Indians were being killed by CIA
trained and orchestrated death squads.
Mark: jayzus Mark, don't you just want to projectile vomit when you see all this absolute bullshit, just straight out revising
of history, just the lies, on and on . I was involved in a Central American solidarity group in the 1980s – early 90s here in
Aussie, found out then all about U.S style 'democracatic values' and 'human rights concerns' and death squads and various fascists
fully supported by the United States, and places like Guatemala and Nicaragua. Its all an illusion for 'polite society' and the
gullible to believe in. Sigh
I can't remember the exact figures but I think it was over 200,000 murdered in Guatemala out of a population of 4 million. It
was the same story in El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia. And of course the CIA satrap Noriega was hauled off in chains
when that country was invaded. But Uncle Sam is finally paying a price for his antics south of the border. Those societies were
wrecked and brutalised beyond repair. There is now an unbelievably high murder rate of women in Guatemala. Millions of those people
have sought some kind of refuge in the belly of the beast, causing an immigration crisis, with an illegal immigrant population
that may be as high as 30 million. Hence all the uproar over Trump's wall. The immigration crisis was a factor in Trump's election,
just as the tidal wave of migrants from the destroyed countries of the Middle East was a factor in Brexit. Cameron, Sarko and
Clinton thought it was a spiffing idea and quite a wizard wheeze to bomb Libya back to the Stone Age. So we now have a Mad Max
failed state complete with warlords and slave markets just across the Med. What goes around, comes around. You can't expect to
export violence and mayhem abroad and remain immune to it at home.
Mark: after Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a coup in Guatemala in 1982, US Ambassador Frederick Chapin declared that thanks
to the coup of Rios Montt "the Guatemalan Govt has come out of the darkness into the light". That sums it up in one sentence,
and you're probably aware of the mass killing and disappearances under his genocidal tyranny. Reagan kindly submitted that Rios
Montt was 'getting a bum rap on human rights, the same Reagan who declared the Contra's were 'The moral equal of our founding
fathers'. In El Salvador, the same mass slaughter, the same mass upheaval, and even murdering Archbishop Romero. You only need
to look at what happened in Central & South America to understand what the United States really represents.
That's entirely right. People understandably despise and revile people like Brady and Hindley, Sutcliffe, Dahmer, Bundy and the
like. But they killed a handful of people and were often very damaged individuals to begin with. And at least they did their own
dirty work. Subhuman scum sucking filth like Bush, Bush 2, Obama, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Blair, Straw and Campbell
are a thousand times worse. They kill millions without getting their hands dirty, and preen and posture as great statesmen and
public servants, expecting deference and state funerals and puff piece obituaries from nauseating, loathsome, lickspittle media
hacks like Tisdall.
Nailed it Kit. The attempt at revionism and rewriting history by these craven creatures, these sycophantic slimebag shills for
Imperialism and War and the Anglo Zionist Empire. They don't speak truth to power, they protect and grovel to the powerful. The
eulogising and fawning of Bush was stomach churning, as it was for the arch Imperialist McCain when he croaked. Thank God for
alternative news sites, and yeah Caitlin Johnston @ medium nailed it as well, as Fair Dinkum mentioned. Where's John Pilger when
you need him?
What no one seems to realize is that the VP often takes charge of the US National Security Council when POTUS is not able to attend
meetings, which are held weekly. Under Eisenhower it was Richard Nixon who often took charge of the meetings -- Tim Weiner's book
"Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA" gives some details on this. Reagan was primarily a mantle piece for the banking,
oil and defense sectors to run wild. Is it really so hard to believe GHW Bush was running the National Security Council? It was
a CIA wet dream come true (especially after the alligator-armed "investigations" of the 70's.
I don't know but as a fairly apolitical individual, I never much bothered with the Kennedy Assasination. All that changed when
during the fiftieth anniversary, BBC Radio Four ran a program which included an interview with the Dallas police officer who was
handcuffed to Lee Harvey Oswald when he was shot by Jack Ruby. The consensus of that program was that the case was open shut and
Oswald did it. Around that time, several newspapers in the UK featured articles claiming that Oswald acted alone.
Whether or not anyone actively involved still lives, their descendants still do and the probable organising body too. There
still appears to be determination in some quarters to spread disinformation about the case. Given that as long ago as the late
seventies the House of Representatives Assassination Committee concluded that JFK's death was probably the consequence of a conspiracy,
determination amongst the mainstream media to lay Kennedy's death at the hands of Oswald alone suggests that there is still determination
that the truth never becomes public.
I'm sickened by the Guardian's and BBC's obedience to the US neocon project to seek, or create, and destroy "enemies" and whilst
ignoring all the disgusting atrocities that arise as a consequence.
The Guardian is not even worth the paper it's printed on. It's become The Guardian Of The Establishment rather than of the
Truth which it used to proclaim.
It is in danger of losing its budgie-cage-liner status. If budgies can talk they may refuse to evacuate on it. What kind of person
maintains ties to such a a poor excuse for cage toiletry. The moral crunch time for their journalists (actually their opinionists)
came and went a long time ago.
What a great piece. My parents knew them in New York and they came over once and left behind an embossed packet of White House
cigs. I asked my father (before he died) what he thought of them and all he ever said was he thought that Barbara was the intellect
in the family.
Bloody annoying, thanks Pater.
"The induction of DU weapons in 1991 in Iraq broke a 46-year taboo. This Trojan Horse of nuclear war continues to be used more
and more. DU remains radioactive longer than the age of the earth (estimated at 4.5 billion years). The long-term effects from
over a decade of DU exposures are devastating. The increased quantities of radioactive material used in Afghanistan are 3 to 5
times greater than Iraq, 1991. In Iraq, 2003, they are already estimated to be 6 to 10 times 1991, and will travel through a larger
area and affect many more people, babies and unborn. Countries within a 1000-mile radius of Baghdad and Kabul are being affected
by radiation poisoning
"DU remains radioactive longer than [ ] 4.5 billion years." It's worse than that. It loses half of its radioactivity in that time.
The good news is that that slow release means "D"U doesn't zap you much. The bad news is it's chemically toxic, like a heavy metal
(which it is).
Also no mention of the body of circumstantial evidence linking Bush to JFK's murder, though Bush repeatedly insisted that he couldn't
recall his whereabouts that day (I can precisely recall where I was, and I was 9 years old in 1963), in spite of the fact that
solid documentary evidence exists that puts him in Dallas on Nov 22, 1963.
The very first Google Search I did was this, (George H.W. Bush+November 22, 1963) and it yielded a page like the following link,
which began my research into the JFK Assassination.
Re: "The possibility that MAGA was, in fact, a sly misdirection to co-opt the fervour of re-ignited passions in a disenfranchised
segment of the America people - to re-capture the kind of patriotic commitment and ardor that drove the war effort in two world
wars - into a renewed Imperial adventure was obviated, in my view, by Trump's loud and overt criticism of past Imperial adventures
such as the Iraq war and Obama's inaction regarding ISIS (the accusation that Obama "created" ISIS was a bombshell, in my opinion).
Trump engaged in a bare, pointed, often crass and bordering on contemptuous criticism of his predecessors' foreign policy.
The irreverent tone was unprecedented in recent campaign history and was so plain and completely at odds with Hilary's stated
positions that it essentially committed him (in my eyes anyway) to following through, or to make all efforts to follow through.
If not, he would set one of the worst examples of a duplicitous politician, perhaps ever. The same applies to other bold campaign
positions, such as the border wall, for example.
But when viewed in the context of a deep state "policy change," such a clear and utter denunciation and discrediting of the
former policy would be necessary to shift the National mindset and would not necessarily preclude Trump from engaging in further
Imperial adventures, as long as they were different from the discredited policy."
Retired Lt. General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency who came up through intelligence positions
in Iraq and Afghanistan, says that the George W. Bush administration's Iraq war was a tremendous blunder that helped to create
the self-proclaimed Islamic State, or ISIS.
"It was a huge error," Flynn said about the Iraq war in a detailed interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel published Sunday.
"As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him," Flynn went on to say. "The same is true for Moammar
Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History
will not be and should not be kind with that decision."
When told by Der Spiegel reporters Matthias Gebauer and Holger Stark that the Islamic State would not "be where it is now without
the fall of Baghdad," Flynn, without reservations, said: "Yes, absolutely."
Flynn, who served in the U.S. Army for more than 30 years, also said that the American military response following 9/11 was
not well thought-out at all and based on significant misunderstandings.
Interesting, very interesting. As noted in the Flynn sentencing memo last night there were some curiously framed explanations
of events surrounding his FBI inquisition.
Now Judge Emmet Sullivan wants expanded information, and wishes to see the actual notes (FD-302) that were mentioned by Flynn;
and Judge Sullivan is directing the special counsel to provide all documents created by the FBI surrounding the Flynn interview:
from the comments:
Curt says:
December 12, 2018 at 9:56 pm
This could be big news! Judge Emmet Sullivan was the same judge that had prosecutors investigated for criminal actions they took
in the Sen. Ted Stevens FALSE prosecution. Some on Mueller's team, including Weinstein, were held in contempt. One prosecutor
committed suicide. Others threatened with disbarment and some were suspended. "A federal judge dismissed the ethics conviction
of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska on Tuesday after taking the extraordinary step of naming a special prosecutor to investigate
whether the government lawyers who ran the Stevens case (2008) should themselves be prosecuted for criminal wrongdoing. Mueller
was also involved in that horrible attempt by prosecutors to frame Sen. Ted Stevens. Judge Sullivan has absolutely no use for
this group of prosecutors. He smells a rat here and is asking for all investigative materials, including 302s. This judge will
not hesitate to take action against these crooked prosecutors if he finds evidence of ANY wrong doing.
On April 7, 2009, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia unleashed his fury
before a packed courtroom. For 14 minutes, he scolded. He chastised. He fumed. "In nearly 25 years on the bench," he said, "I've
never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case.
. . .
For months Judge Sullivan had warned U.S. prosecutors about their repeated failure to turn over evidence. Then, after the jury
convicted Stevens, the Justice Department discovered previously unrevealed evidence. Meanwhile, a prosecution witness and an agent
from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) came forward alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Finally, newly appointed U.S. Attorney
General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that he had had enough and recommended that the seven-count conviction against the former
Alaska senator be dismissed.
On April 7, Judge Sullivan did just that. But he was far from done.
In an extraordinarily rare move, he ordered an inquiry into the prosecutors' handling of the case. Judge Sullivan insisted
that the misconduct allegations were "too serious and too numerous" to be left to an internal Justice Department investigation.
He appointed Washington lawyer Henry F. Schuelke III of Janis, Schuelke & Wechsler to investigate whether members of the trial
team should be prosecuted for criminal contempt.
12-13-18 Following the allegations, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan yesterday ordered that both the Mueller investigation and
the Flynn team turn over all documents [the "302s"] relating to the fateful interview, including all contemporaneous notes, before
3pm Friday.
From comments: "Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document
breaks down once you focus on individual claims. " What?!?
Notable quotes:
"... FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the "Steele Dossier ..."
"... The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross. ..."
"... Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down once you focus on individual claims. ..."
"... Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison with the TRUMP team." ..."
FBI and CIA sources told a Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post reporter that they didn't believe a key claim contained in the
"Steele Dossier," the document the Obama FBI relied on to obtain a surveillance warrant on a member of the Trump campaign.
The Post 's Greg Miller told an audience at an October event that the FBI and CIA did not believe that former longtime Trump
attorney Michael Cohen visited Prague during the 2016 election to pay off Russia-linked hackers who stole emails from key Democrats,
reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
"We've talked to sources at the FBI and the CIA and elsewhere -- they don't believe that ever happened," said Miller during the
October event which aired Saturday on C-SPAN.
We literally spent weeks and months trying to run down... there's an assertion in there that Michael Cohen went to Prague to
settle payments that were needed at the end of the campaign. We sent reporters to every hotel in Prague, to all over the place
trying to - just to try to figure out if he was ever there, and came away empty . -Greg Miller
Ross notes that WaPo somehow failed to report this information, nor did Miller include this tidbit of narrative-killing information
in his recent book, "The Apprentice: Trump, Russia, and the Subversion of American Democracy."
Miller also admits that the dossier's broad claims are more closely aligned with reality, but that the document breaks down
once you focus on individual claims.
Steele, using Kremlin sources, claimed in his dossier that Cohen and three associates went to Prague in August 2016 to meet
with Kremlin officials for the purpose of discussing "deniable cash payments" made in secret so as to cover up "Moscow's secret liaison
with the TRUMP team."
Cohen's alleged Prague visit captured attention largely because the former Trump fixer has vehemently denied it, and also
because it would seem to be one of the easier claims in Steele's 35-page report to validate or invalidate.
Debate over the salacious document was reignited when
McClatchy reported April 15 that
special counsel Robert Mueller had evidence Cohen visited Prague. No other news outlets have verified the reporting, and Cohen
denied it at the time.
Cohen last denied the dossier's allegations in late June, a period of time when he was gearing up to cooperate with prosecutors
against President Donald Trump . Cohen served as a cooperating witness for prosecutors in both New York and the special counsel's
office. - Daily Caller
Cohen's attorney and longtime Clinton pal Lanny Davis vehemently denied on August 22, one day after Cohen pleaded guilty in his
New York case - that Cohen had never been to Prague, telling Bloomberg " Thirteen references to Mr. Cohen are false in the dossier,
but he has never been to Prague in his life ."
Trump never ceases to crack me up. While his (terrible) current lawyer, declares on TV that there was collusion but it just
didn't last long, Trump calls his former lawyer/fixer at "Rat".
This is just too funny, I mean this is the President of the United States calling his former personal lawyer a "Rat" which
of course is a common mob term for a witness testifying against you.
monkeyshine
Of course it never happened, just like Manafort didn't make 3 trips to London to meet Julian Assange. These fictions were just
used as a pretext for diving into the backgrounds of Trump's political supporters and find crimes to charge them with.
The Cohen raid was particularly egregious, a likely violation of attorney-client privilege. Not suprisingly the American Bar Association
is silent.
brewing_it
So here is a WaPo reporter saying they sent reporters to every hotel in Prague to find out if Cohen had been there, they spent
weeks and weeks researching, interviewing, and nothing. What they are not saying is that they also spent shitloads of Bezo's money
exploring all the other fake dossier claims.
And nothing.....all you hillarytards have been completely scammed by, your pulses sent aflutter with clickbait and page views
and thats it. So sorry you losers.
Demologos
Yeah, like rubles are worth anything outside of Russia. Gold on the other hand ...
But seriously, you two should get a room. If you can't see the conspiracy in the Strzok/Page texts, the setup of Papadapoulous
by the Brits, the phony FISA warrant using the FBI informant, the setup of General Flynn, and the seedy cast of characters in
the DOJ breaking laws right and left, you should be checked for brain wave activity. You probably think the Russians paid for
all of the above too. Go suck a bag of Russian dicks.
Can the elite be afflicted by some mass disease. Is Neoconservatism a deadly infection ?
Theoretically Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based on
that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information ever gets
broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and irresponsibility. In
other words they spearheaded a dangerous disease to stay in power. And eventually got infected themselves.
Notable quotes:
"... "But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their folly and change course?" ..."
"... That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune to challenge. ..."
"... The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere citizens having influencing decisions like that. ..."
"... An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated. ..."
"... As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and evil - begin to have real effect. ..."
"But what if the elites get things wrong? What if the policies they promulgate produce
grotesque inequality or lead to permanent war? Who then has the authority to disregard the
guardians, if not the people themselves? How else will the elites come to recognize their
folly and change course?"
What if, on election day, you only have a choice between 2 candidates. Both favoring all
the wrong choices, but one tends to talk up Christianity and family and the other talks up
diversity.
And both get their funding from the very wealthy and corporations. And any 3rd choices
would be "throwing your vote away". How would you ever get to vote for someone who might
change course?
Democracy has little to actually do with choice or power.
mlopez, January 18, 2019 at 6:22 pm
GB may not have been any utopia in 1914, but it was certainly geo-politically dominant. It's common people's social,
economic and cultural living standards most assuredly was vastly improved over Russian, or European peasants. There can be no
serious comparison with third world countries and regions.
As for the US, there can be absolutely no debate about its own dominance, or material standard of living after 1945 as
compared to any where else in the world. More importantly, even uneducated and very contemporary observers were capable of
recognizing how our elites had sold out their interests in favor of the furtherance of their own.
If we are on about democratic government, then it's been generations since either country and their peoples have had any
real democracy. Democracy depends on information freely available and responsibility of the citizenry to make decisions based
on that information. The political elites have made certain precious little of reliable, unclouded and relevant information
ever gets broadcast even while popularizing, promoting and rewarding every form of misrepresentation, ignorance and
irresponsibility.
That is how they maintain control and manipulate government to facilitate their own interests to the detriment of the
rest of society. Bretix and President Trump have upset their apple cart, which they felt certain was invulnerable and immune
to challenge.
Hello / Goodbye, January 19, 2019 at 11:40 am
The elites aren't interested in polls showing Americans want out of Syria and Afghanistan, are they? Can't have mere
citizens having influencing decisions like that.
Patzinak, January 19, 2019 at 5:07 pm
What ineffable flummadiddle!
Prominent Brexiteers include Boris Johnson (dual UK/US citizenship, educated in Brussels and at Eton and Oxford, of mixed
ancestry, including a link - by illegitimate descent - to the royal houses of Prussia and the UK); Jacob Rees-Mogg (son of a
baron, educated at Eton and Oxford, amassed a solid fortune via hedge fund management); Arron Banks (millionaire, bankroller
of UKIP, made to the Brexit campaign the largest ever political donation in UK politics).
So much for "the elite" being against Brexit!
But the main problem with Brexit is this. Having voted by a slim margin in favour of Brexit, the Great British Public
then, in the general election, denied a majority to the government that had undertaken to implement it, and elected a
Parliament of whom, by a rough estimate, two thirds oppose Brexit.
It ain't that "the elite" got "things wrong". It's that bloody Joe Public can't make his mind what to do - and go through
with it.
Rossbach, January 20, 2019 at 2:14 pm
"Whether the imagined utopia of a dominant Great Britain prior to 1914 or a dominant America after 1945 ever actually
existed is beside the point."
It wasn't to restore any defunct utopia that led people to vote for Brexit or Donald Trump; it was to check the descent of
the Anglosphere into the totalitarian dystopia of forced multi-cultural globalism that caused voters to reject the EU in
Britain and Hillary Clinton in the US. It is because they believed that only with the preservation of their national
independence was there any chance or hope for a restoration of individual liberty that our people voted as they did.
Ratings System, January 17, 2019 at 1:27 pm
It's why they won't enjoy their privileges much longer. That stale charade can't and won't last.
We don't have a meritocracy. We have a pseudo-meritocracy with an unduly large contingent of aliens, liars, cheats,
frauds, and incompetents. They give each other top marks, speak each other's PC language, and hire each other's kids. And
they don't understand why things are falling apart, and why they are increasingly hated by real Americans.
A very nasty decade or two is coming our way, but after we've swept out the filth there will be a good chance that
Americans will be Americans again.
Paul Reidinger, January 17, 2019 at 2:03 pm
An excellent piece. I would add only that the so-called elites mentioned by Mr Bacevich are largely the products of
the uppermost stratum of colleges and universities, at least in the USA, and that for a generation or more now, those
institutions have indoctrinated rather than educated.
As their more recent alumni move into government, media and cultural production, the primitiveness of their views and
their inability to think - to say nothing of their fundamental ignorance about our civilization other than that it is bad and
evil - begin to have real effect. The new dark age is no longer imminent. It is here, and it is them. I see no way to
rectify the damage. When minds are ruined young, they remain ruined.
A FRIEND OF mine, who runs a large television production company in the car-mad city of Los
Angeles, recently noticed that his intern, an aspiring filmmaker from the People's Republic of
China, was walking to work.
WHEN HE OFFERED to arrange a swifter mode of transportation, she declined. When he asked
why, she explained that she "needed the steps" on her Fitbit to sign in to her social media
accounts. If she fell below the right number of steps, it would lower her health and fitness
rating, which is part of her social rating , which is monitored by
the government. A low social rating could prevent her from working or traveling abroad.
China's social rating system, which was announced by the ruling Communist Party in 2014,
will
soon be a fact of life for many more Chinese.
By 2020, if the Party's plan holds, every footstep, keystroke, like, dislike, social media
contact, and posting
tracked by the state will affect one's social rating.
Personal "creditworthiness" or "trustworthiness" points will be used to reward and punish individuals
and companies by granting or denying them access to public services like health care, travel,
and employment, according to a plan released last year by the municipal government of Beijing.
High-scoring individuals will find themselves in a "green channel," where they can more easily
access social opportunities, while those who take actions that are disapproved of by the state
will be "unable to move a step."
Big Brother is an emerging reality in China. Yet in the West, at least, the threat of
government surveillance systems being integrated with the existing corporate surveillance
capacities of big-data companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon into one gigantic
all-seeing eye appears to trouble very few people -- even as countries like
Venezuela have been quick to copy the Chinese model.
Still, it can't happen here, right? We are iPhone owners and Amazon Prime members, not
vassals of a one-party state. We are canny consumers who know that Facebook is tracking our
interactions and Google is selling us stuff.
Yet it seems to me there is little reason to imagine that the people who run large
technology companies have any vested interest in allowing pre-digital folkways to interfere
with their 21st-century engineering and business models , any more than
19th-century robber barons showed any particular regard for laws or people that got in the way
of their railroads and steel trusts.
Nor is there much reason to imagine that the technologists who run our giant consumer-data
monopolies have any better idea of the future they're building than the rest of us do.
Facebook, Google, and other big-data monopolists already hoover up behavioral markers and
cues on a scale and with a frequency that few
of us understand . They then analyze, package, and sell that data to their partners.
A glimpse into the inner workings of the global trade in personal data was provided in early
December in a 250-page report released by a British parliamentary committee that included
hundreds of emails between high-level Facebook executives. Among other things, it showed how
the company engineered sneaky ways to obtain
continually updated SMS and call data from Android phones . In response, Facebook
claimed that users must
"opt-in" for the company to gain access to their texts and calls.
The machines and systems that the techno-monopolists have built are changing us faster than
they or we understand. The scale of this change is so vast and systemic that we simple humans
can't do the math -- perhaps in part because of the way that incessant smartphone use has
affected our ability to pay attention to anything longer than 140 or 280 characters.
As the idea of a "right to privacy," for example, starts to seem hopelessly old-fashioned
and impractical in the face of ever-more-invasive data systems -- whose eyes and ears, i.e.,
our smartphones, follow us everywhere -- so has our belief that other individual rights, like
freedom of speech , are somehow sacred.
Being wired together with billions of other humans in vast networks mediated by thinking
machines is not an experience that humans have enjoyed before. The best guides we have to this
emerging reality may be failed 20th-century totalitarian experiments and science fiction. More
on that a little later.
The speed at which individual-rights-and-privacy-based social arrangements collapse is
likely to depend on how fast Big Tech and the American national security apparatus consummate a
relationship that has been growing ever closer for the past decade. While US surveillance
agencies do not have regular real-time access to the gigantic amounts of data collected by the
likes of Google, Facebook, and Amazon -- as far as we know, anyway -- there is both anecdotal
and hard evidence to suggest that the once-distant planets of consumer Big Tech and American
surveillance agencies are fast merging into a single corporate-bureaucratic life-world, whose
potential for tracking, sorting, gas-lighting, manipulating, and censoring citizens may result
in a softer version of China's Big Brother.
These troubling trends are accelerating in part because Big Tech is increasingly beholden to
Washington, which has little incentive to kill the golden goose that is filling its tax and
political coffers. One of the leading corporate spenders on lobbying services in Washington,
DC, in 2017 was Google's parent company, Alphabet, which, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, spent more than $18
million . Lobbying Congress and government helps tech companies like Google win large
government contracts. Perhaps more importantly, it serves as a shield against attempts to
regulate their wildly lucrative businesses.
If anything, measuring the flood of tech dollars pouring into Washington, DC, law firms,
lobbying outfits, and think tanks radically understates Big Tech's influence inside the
Beltway. By buying The Washington Post , Amazon's Jeff Bezos took direct control of
Washington's hometown newspaper. In locating one of Amazon's two new headquarters in nearby
Northern Virginia, Bezos made the company a major employer in the area -- with 25,000 jobs to
offer.
Who will get those jobs? Last year, Amazon Web Services announced the opening of the new AWS
Secret Region, the result of a 10-year, $600 million contract the company won from the CIA in
2014. This made Amazon the sole provider of cloud services across "the full range of data
classifications, including Unclassified, Sensitive, Secret, and Top Secret," according to an
Amazon corporate press release.
Once the CIA's Amazon-administered self-contained servers were up and running, the NSA was
quick to follow suit, announcing its own integrated big-data project. Last year the agency
moved most of its data into a
new classified computing environment known as the Intelligence Community GovCloud, an
integrated "big data fusion environment," as the news site NextGov described it, that allows
government analysts to "connect the dots" across all available data sources, whether classified
or not.
The creation of IC GovCloud should send a chill up the spine of anyone who understands how
powerful these systems can be and how inherently resistant they are to traditional forms of
oversight, whose own track record
can be charitably described as
poor .
Amazon's IC GovCloud was quickly countered by Microsoft's secure version of its Azure
Government cloud service, tailored for the use of 17 US intelligence agencies. Amazon and
Microsoft are both expected to be major bidders for the Pentagon's secure cloud system, the
Joint Enterprise Defense Initiative -- JEDI -- a winner-take-all contract that will likely be
worth at least $10 billion.
With so many pots of gold waiting at the end of the Washington, DC, rainbow, it seems like a
small matter for tech companies to turn over our personal data -- which legally speaking, is
actually their data -- to the spy agencies that guarantee their profits. This is the threat
that is now emerging in plain sight. It is something we should reckon with now, before it's too
late.
IN FACT, BIG tech and the surveillance agencies are already partners...
...
THE FLIP SIDE of that paranoid vision of an evolving American surveillance state is the
dream that the new systems of analyzing and distributing information may be forces for good,
not evil. What if Google helped the CIA develop a system that helped filter out fake news, say,
or a new Facebook algorithm helped the FBI identify
potential school shooters before they massacred their classmates? If human beings are
rational calculating engines, won't filtering the information we receive lead to better
decisions and make us better people?
Such fond hopes have a long history. Progressive techno-optimism goes back to the origins of
the computer itself, in the correspondence between Charles Babbage, the 19th-century English
inventor who imagined the "difference engine" -- the first theoretical model for modern
computers -- and Ada Lovelace, the brilliant futurist and daughter of the English Romantic poet
Lord Byron.
"The Analytical Engine," Lovelace wrote, in one of her notes on Babbage's work, "might act
upon other things besides number, where objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could
be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also
susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine.
Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of
harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the
engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or
extent."
This is a pretty good description of the principles of digitizing sound; it also eerily
prefigures and predicts the extent to which so much of our personal information, even stuff we
perceive of as having distinct natural properties, could be converted to zeros and ones.
The Victorian techno-optimists who first envisioned the digital landscape we now inhabit
imagined that thinking machines would be a force for harmony, rather than evil, capable of
creating beautiful music and finding expressions for "fundamental relations" of any kind
according to a strictly mathematical calculus.
The idea that social engineering could help produce a more efficient and equitable society
was echoed by early 20th-century American progressives. Unlike 19th- and early 20th-century
European socialists, who championed the organic strength of local communities, early
20th-century American progressives like Herbert Croly and John Dewey put their faith in the
rise of a new class of educated scientist-priests who would re-engineer society from the top
down according to a strict utilitarian calculus.
The lineage of these progressives -- who are not identical with the "progressive" faction of
today's Democratic Party -- runs from Woodrow Wilson to champions of New Deal bureaucracy like
Franklin D. Roosevelt's secretary of the interior, Harold Ickes. The 2008 election of Barack
Obama, a well-credentialed technocrat who identified
very strongly with the character of Spock from Star Trek , gave the old-time
scientistic-progressive religion new currency on the left and ushered in a cozy relationship
between the Democratic Party and billionaire techno-monopolists who had formerly fashioned
themselves as government-skeptical libertarians.
"Amazon does great things for huge amounts of people," Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer
told Kara Swisher of Recode in a
recent interview , in which he also made approving pronouncements about Facebook and
Google. "I go to my small tech companies and say, 'How does Google treat you in New York?' A
lot of them say, 'Much more fairly than we would have thought.'"
But the cozy relationship between mainstream Democrats and Silicon Valley hit a large-sized
bump in November 2016, when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton -- in part through his
mastery of social media platforms like Twitter. Blaming the election result on Russian bots or
secret deals with Putin betrayed a shock that what the left had regarded as their cultural
property had been turned against them by a right-wing populist whose authoritarian leanings
inspired fear and loathing among both the technocratic elite and the Democratic party base.
Yet in the right hands, progressives continued to muse, information monopolies might be
powerful tools for re-wiring societies malformed by racism, sexism, and transphobia. Thinking
machines can be taught to filter out bad information and socially negative thoughts. Good
algorithms, as opposed to whatever Google and Facebook are currently using, could censor
neo-Nazis, purveyors of hate speech, Russian bots, and transphobes while discouraging voters
from electing more
Trumps .
The crowdsourced wisdom of platforms like Twitter, powered by circles of
mutually credentialing blue-checked "experts," might mobilize a collective will to justice,
which could then be enforced on retrograde institutions and individuals
. The result might be a better social order, or as data scientist Emily Gorcenski put it ,
"revolution."
The dream of centralized control over monopolistic information providers can be put to more
prosaic political uses, too -- or so politicians confronted by a fractured and tumultuous
digital media landscape must hope. In advance of next year's elections for the European
Parliament, which will take place in May, French President Emmanuel Macron signed a deal with
Facebook in which officials of his government will meet regularly with Facebook executives to
police
"hate speech."
The program, which will continue through the May elections, apparently did little to
discourage fuel riots by the " gilets jaunes ," which have set Paris and other French cities
ablaze, even as a claim that a
change in Facebook's local news algorithm was responsible for the rioting was quickly
picked up by French media figures close to Macron.
At root, the utopian vision of AI-powered information monopolies programmed to advance the
cause of social justice makes sense only when you imagine that humans and machines "think" in
similar ways. Whether machines can "think," or -- to put it another way, whether people think
like machines -- is a question that has been hotly debated for the past five centuries. Those
debates gave birth to modern liberal societies, whose foundational assumptions and guarantees
are now being challenged by the rise of digital culture.
...
THE ORIGIN OF the utilitarian social calculus and its foundational account of thinking as a
form of computation is social contract theory. Not coincidentally, these accounts evolved
during the last time western societies were massively impacted by a revolution in
communications technology, namely the introduction of the printing press , which brought both
the text of the Bible and the writings of small circles of Italian and German humanists to all
of Europe. The spread of printing technologies was accompanied by the
proliferation of the simple hand mirror , which allowed even ordinary individuals to gaze
at a "true reflection" of their own faces, in much the same way that we use iPhones to take
selfies.
Nearly every area of human imagination and endeavor -- from science to literature to
painting and sculpture to architecture -- was radically transformed by
the double-meteor-like impact of the printing press and the hand mirror , which together
helped give rise to scientific discoveries, great works of art, and new political ideas that
continue to shape the way we think, live, and work.
The printing press fractured the monopoly on worldly and spiritual knowledge long held by
the Roman Catholic Church, bringing the discoveries of Erasmus and the polemics of Martin
Luther to a broad audience and fueling the Protestant Reformation, which held that ordinary
believers -- individuals, who could read their own Bibles and see their own faces in their own
mirrors -- might have unmediated contact with God. What was once the province of the few became
available to the many, and the old social order that had governed the lives of Europe for the
better part of a millennium was largely demolished.
In England, the broad diffusion of printing presses and mirrors led to the bloody and
ultimately failed anti-monarchical revolution led by Oliver Cromwell. The Thirty Years' War,
fought between Catholic and Protestant believers and hired armies in Central and Eastern
Europe, remains the single most destructive conflict, on a per capita basis, in European
history, including the First and Second World Wars.
The information revolution spurred by the advent of digital technologies may turn out to be
even more powerful than the Gutenberg revolution; it is also likely to be bloody. Our inability
to wrap our minds around a sweeping revolution in the way that information is gathered,
analyzed, used, and controlled should scare us. It is in this context that both right- and
left-leaning factions of the American elite appear to accept the merger of the US military and
intelligence complex with Big Tech as a good thing, even as centralized control over
information creates new vulnerabilities for rivals to exploit .
The attempt to subject the American information space to some form of top-down,
public-private control was in turn made possible -- and perhaps, in the minds of many on both
the right and the left, necessary -- by the collapse of the 20th-century American institutional
press. Only two decades ago, the social and political power of the institutional press was
still so great that it was often called "the Fourth Estate" -- a meaningful check on the power
of government. The term is rarely used anymore, because the monopoly over the printed and
spoken word that gave the press its power is now gone.
Why? Because in an age in which every smartphone user has a printing press in their pocket,
there is little premium in owning
an actual, physical printing press . As a result, the value of "legacy" print brands has
plummeted. Where the printed word was once a rare commodity, relative to the sum total of all
the words that were written in manuscript form by someone, today nearly all the words that are
being written anywhere are available somewhere online. What's rare, and therefore worth money,
are not printed words but fractions of
our attention .
The operative, functional difference between today's media and the American media of two
decades ago is not the difference between old-school New York Times reporters and new-media
bloggers who churn out opinionated "takes" from their desks. It is the difference between all
of those media people, old and new, and programmers and executives at companies like Google and
Facebook. A set of key social functions -- communicating ideas and information -- has been
transferred from one set of companies, operating under one set of laws and values, to another,
much more powerful set of companies, which operate under different laws and understand
themselves in a different way .
According to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, information service providers
are protected
from expensive libel lawsuits and other forms of risk that publishers face. Those protections
allowed Google and Facebook to build their businesses at the expense of "old media" publishers,
which in turn now find it increasingly difficult to pay for original reporting and writing.
The media once actively promoted and amplified stories that a plurality or majority of
Americans could regard as "true." That has now been replaced by the creation and
amplification of extremes . The overwhelming ugliness of our public discourse is not
accidental; it is a feature of the game, which is structured and run for the profit of
billionaire monopolists, and which
encourages addictive use .
The result has been the creation of a socially toxic vacuum at the heart of American
democracy, from which information monopolists like Google and Facebook have sucked out all the
profit, leaving their users ripe for top-down surveillance, manipulation, and control.
TODAY, THE PRINTING press and the mirror have combined in the iPhone and other personal
devices, which are networked together. Ten years from now, thanks to AI, those networks, and
the entities that control them -- government agencies, private corporations, or a union of both
-- may take on a life of their own.
Perhaps the best way to foresee how this future may play out is to look back at how some of
our most far-sighted science fiction writers have wrestled with the future that is now in front
of us.
...
Yet even classic 20th-century dystopias like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World or George
Orwell's 1984 tell us little about the dangers posed to free societies by the fusion of big
data, social networks, consumer surveillance, and AI.
Perhaps we are reading the wrong books.
Instead of going back to Orwell for a sense of what a coming dystopia might look like, we
might be better off reading We , which was written nearly a century ago by the Russian novelist
Yevgeny Zamyatin. We is the diary of state mathematician D-503, whose experience of the highly
disruptive emotion of love for I-330, a woman whose combination of black eyes, white skin, and
black hair strike him as beautiful. This perception, which is also a feeling, draws him into a
conspiracy against the centralized surveillance state.
The Only State, where We takes places, is ruled by a highly advanced mathematics of
happiness, administered by a combination of programmers and machines. While love has been
eliminated from the Only State as inherently discriminatory and unjust, sex has not. According
to the Lex Sexualis, the government sex code, "Each number has a right towards every other
number as a sex object." Citizens, or numbers, are issued ration books of pink sex tickets.
Once both numbers sign the ticket, they are permitted to spend a "sex hour" together and lower
the shades in their glass apartments.
Zamyatin was prescient in imagining the operation and also the underlying moral and
intellectual foundations of an advanced modern surveillance state run by engineers. And if 1984
explored the opposition between happiness and freedom, Zamyatin introduced a third term into
the equation, which he believed to be more revolutionary and also more inherently human:
beauty. The subjective human perception of beauty, Zamyatin argued, along lines that Liebniz
and Searle might approve of, is innately human, and therefore not ultimately reconcilable with
the logic of machines or with any utilitarian calculus of justice.
...
Against a centralized surveillance state that imposes a motionless and false order and an
illusory happiness in the name of a utilitarian calculus of "justice," Basile concludes,
Zamyatin envisages a different utopia: "In fact, only within the 'here and now' of beauty may
the equation of happiness be considered fully verified." Human beings will never stop seeking
beauty, Zamyatin insists, because they are human. They will reject and destroy any attempt to
reorder their desires according to the logic of machines.
A national or global surveillance network that uses beneficent algorithms to reshape human
thoughts and actions in ways that elites believe to be just or beneficial to all mankind is
hardly the road to a new Eden. It's the road to a prison camp. The question now -- as in
previous such moments -- is how long it will take before we admit that the riddle of human
existence is not the answer to an equation. It is something that we must each make for
ourselves, continually, out of our own materials, in moments whose permanence is only a
dream.
"... As Binney had no documents to give to the media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused blame on Snowden as a "traitor" and not on NSA for its violations. ..."
"... Whistleblowers are protected by federal law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him. ..."
"... Binney blames the NSA's law-breaking on Dick "Darth" Cheney. He says NSA's violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to have been cleared at the top of the government. ..."
Years before Edward Snowden provided documented proof that the National
Security Agency was really a national insecurity agency as it was violating law and the US Constitution and
spying indiscriminately on American citizens, William Binney, who designed and developed the NSA spy program
revealed the illegal and unconstitutional spying.
Binney turned whistleblower, because NSA was using the
program to spy on Americans. As Binney was well known to the US Congress, he did not think he needed any NSA
document to make his case. But what he found out was
"Congress would never hear me because then they'd lose
plausible deniability. That was really their key. They needed to have plausible deniability so they can
continue this massive spying program because it gave them power over everybody in the world.
Even the
members of Congress had power against others [in Congress]; they had power on judges on the Supreme Court,
the federal judges, all of them. That's why they're so afraid. Everybody's afraid because all this data
that's about them, the central agencies -- the intelligence agencies -- they have it. And that's why Senator
Schumer warned President Trump earlier, a few months ago, that he shouldn't attack the intelligence
community because they've got six ways to Sunday to come at you. That's because it's like J. Edgar Hoover on
super steroids. . . . it's leverage against every member of parliament and every government in the world."
To prevent whistle-blowing, NSA has "a
program now called 'see something, say something' about your fellow workers. That's what the Stasi did.
That's why I call [NSA] the new New Stasi Agency. They're picking up all the techniques from the Stasi and
the KGB and the Gestapo and the SS. They just aren't getting violent yet that we know of -- internally in the
US, outside is another story."
As Binney had no documents to give to the
media, blowing the whistle had no consequence for NSA. This is the reason that Snowden released the
documents that proved NSA to be violating both law and the Constitution, but the corrupt US media focused
blame on Snowden as a "traitor" and not on NSA for its violations.
Whistleblowers are protected by federal
law. Regardless, the corrupt US government tried to prosecute Binney for speaking out, but as he had taken
no classified document, a case could not be fabricated against him.
Binney blames the NSA's law-breaking on
Dick "Darth" Cheney. He says NSA's violations of law and Constitution are so extreme that they would have to
have been cleared at the top of the government.
Binney describes the spy network,
explains that it was supposed to operate only against foreign enemies, and that using it for universal
spying so overloads the system with data that the system fails to discover many terrorist activities.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50932.htm
Apparently, the National Security Agency
values being able to blackmail citizens and members of government at home and abroad more than preventing
terrorist attacks.
Unfortunately for Americans, there are
many Americans who blindly trust the government and provide the means, the misuse of which is used to
enslave us. A large percentage of the work in science and technology serves not to free people but to
enslave them. By now there is no excuse for scientists and engineers not to know this. Yet they persist in
their construction of the means to destroy liberty.
January
08, 2018Joel Whitney is a co-founder of the magazine Guernica, a magazine of global
arts and politics, and has written for many publications, including the New York Times and Wall
Street Journal. His book Finks: How the C.I.A.
Tricked the World's Best Writers describes how the CIA contributed funds to numerous
respected magazines during the Cold War, including the Paris Review, to subtly promote
anti-communist views. In their conversation, Whitney tells Robert Scheer about the ties the
CIA's Congress for Cultural Freedom had with literary magazines. He talks about the CIA's
attempt during the Cold War to have at least one agent in every major news organization in
order to get stories killed if they were too critical or get them to run if they were favorable
to the agency. And they discuss the overstatement of the immediate risks and dangers of
communist regimes during the Cold War, which, initially, led many people to support the Vietnam
War.
James Jesus
Angleton was part of this post-OSS group that understood how important spying and
covert ops had been in World War II. And from there, he makes all kinds of terrible mistakes.
He and his group believed essentially that they needed to do better propaganda than the Soviets
did, and one of the ways that they thought they could do it better was to do it subtly and, you
could say, secretly.
So, when this
program is threatened with exposure in '64, '65, '66 and '67 through various sources like
Ramparts and The New York Times, this privilege of secrecy that they enjoyed was not something
that they were willing to give up. So you have something that is described as relatively
benign, this funding of culture through the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a funding of student
movements through the National Student Association, the funding of labor unions that would be
less communist-influenced than the communist-dominated ones that they presumed were out there.
These were seen as benign answers. They were reactions to Soviet penetration. So, secrecy is a
key to making them work.
So, even if you want to make the argument that, for instance, the Congress for Cultural Freedom
never censored its magazines–which I think has been severely disproved; they did censor.
Even if you wanted to say that they published all sorts of great writers–which clearly
they did; that was part of the subtlety of it and part of the brilliance of it, and part of the
soft-power charm of it. Even if you wanted to say all that, when the secrecy is exposed by
honest accounting in the media, the fourth estate, the adversarial media of American bragging
around the world, they are so attached to their secrecy, and so upset, the CIA group led by
people like Angleton, that they commit something that is about as anti-American as anything in
our system. Which is: more secrecy, more media penetration to the point of penetrating, first,
the anti-Vietnam War press; second, the student, the college student newspapers and press; the
alternative, so-called, press. Which essentially is a license to do what they did later. So,
where Ramparts was penetrated, leads to Operation Chaos, presumably; that leads to Operation
Mockingbird in the seventies.
By the time we have Carl Bernstein reporting on Operation Mockingbird, and John Crewdson
reporting on its international equivalent in the New York Times–Bernstein in Rolling
Stone–you essentially see the CIA trying to have at least one agent at every major news
and media organization it can do in the world.
And Crewdson reporting in the Times at the end of 1977 essentially says that they had one agent
or contract agent at a newspaper in every world capital on Earth. They could get stories killed
or get stories to run that portrayed the CIA's views in a favorable way, or kill them if they
did not.
I challenge anyone to name a modern war prosecuted by the US government and its allies that
did not involve at its root the direct fabrication of blatant lies on enormous levels, both
as a casus belli and also to manipulate public opinion in favor of hostilities.
The clandestine activity represented by these *provocations* isn't even good spycraft. The
Skripal case and the latest use of chlorine gas in Syria are risible, clumsy, amateur
attempts to wangle the empire into war that the callowest rube could see through. And yet,
it's working its magic on the media. The politicians, suborned by the war machine, give
unanimous bipartisan assent.
@Giuseppe
Saddam's WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, etc., etc. And now a ridiculous false flag attack in Syria. Did
it take place at all? But the narrative is all. The press in the USA is more effectively
controlled and conformist than in Germany in the late 1930s and nobody goes around beating up
journalists or sending them to a KZ. The Syrian Gov't is winning the civil war, things are
going well but what Assad really needs is to have the crap bombed out of his military by
Uncle Sam. What transparent bullshit.
The press in the USA is more effectively controlled and conformist than in Germany in
the late 1930s
Who controlled the press there and then?
What can be said about the control and conformity of the Soviet, British and American
press of the time?
and nobody goes around beating up journalists or sending them to a KZ.
That's probably because the usual thugs don't need to do that any longer since they
control virtually everything.
A couple of anecdotes to illustrate my point.:
2 of the reasons we don't hear much about mobsters these days are that the press and
judiciary are owned by them and if you do get something published, you run the risk of
getting snuffed. They probably don't stop at mere blinding anymore.
Victor Riesel was an American newspaper journalist and columnist who specialized in
news related to labor unions. In 1956 a mobster threw sulfuric acid in his face on a
public street in Chicago causing his permanent blindness.
"Treason is a strong word, but not too strong to characterize the situation in which the
Senate is the eager, resourceful, and indefatigable agent of interests as hostile to
the American people as any invading army could be." This indictment launched a
nine-part series of articles entitled "Treason of the Senate."
-David Graham Phillips, Cosmopolitan magazine, February 1906
In 1911 Phillips was shot multiple t imes by Fitzhugh Coyle Goldsborough, a
Harvard-educated scion of a prominent Maryland family ,at Gramercy Park in New York
City.
Still, you authors need to start digging deeper. Trump and his Allies are putting on an
amazing show / act to distract their ( and Humanities going back generations) hidden
enemies.
The Bad Guys have for millennia weoponized information, convincing the public, reporters,
and journalists that the rabbit hole ends here, that they don't need to dig any deeper, to
just accept this slightly deeper layer of the onion. That warm and fuzzy feeling from
scratching just a little deeper into to information matrix, isn't enough anymore. You guys
have the intelligence, experience, and ability just do it please!
A new piece by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books gives some insight into
secret U.S. operations during the Reagan administration.
The Vice President's Men includes a quite sensational claim of who revealed the
Iran-Contra affair.
According to the conventional wisdom, as reflected
in Wikipedia, an Iranian operator revealed to a Lebanese paper that the U.S. was selling
weapons to Iran in the hope to get hostages in Lebanon released:
After a leak by Mehdi Hashemi, a senior official in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps, the Lebanese magazine Ash-Shiraa exposed the arrangement on 3 November 1986. This
was the first public report of the weapons-for-hostages deal.
People is the National Security Council used profits from these weapon sales to
illegally arm and finance CIA run anti-government gangs in Nicaragua. Both, the weapon
sales to Iran and the weapon delivery to guerilla in Nicaragua, were illegal under U.S.
law. The leak to Lebanese paper blew up both operations.
That Mehdi Hashemi, the Iranian operative, leaked the affair is only supported
by second hand hearsay from a dubious source. Seymour Hersh reports of a very different
culprit.
According to his sources former CIA director George H.W. Bush, who was then Reagan's
vice president, ran his own secret operations through a special office in the Pentagon. It
was led by Vice-Admiral Arthur Moreau. The office and its operations were kept outside of
congressional oversight. Neither the CIA nor the Joint Chief's of Staff were aware of its
doing. During some 30 different operations the Bush team used small groups of U.S. marines
to effect Soviet operations in foreign countries and to get rid of unwanted foreign
politicians. Bush essentially ran the prequel of the 'war on/of terror' which today is run
by the CIA and the Joint Special Forces Command.
Bush disliked William Casey, who Reagan had named as new CIA director. Casey was a
business man who got the job after he managed Ronald Reagan's election campaign. Bush
thought that he was too incompetent to run the clandestine service.
One of the operations run under Bush also involved Nicaragua, but had nothing to do with
the later Iran-Contra scandal. At the same time the CIA director William Casey was drumming
up support for the Contras in Nicaragua. The two operations collided when Lieutenant
Colonel Oliver (Ollie) North at the National Security Council used the proceeds from the
weapon sales to Iran to illegally finance the CIA's Contras in Nicaragua. While North was
also a confident of the Bush/Moreau's operations, he allegedly freelanced and eventually
deserted to the CIA side.
According to a former officer involved in Bush's operations office, Bush and Moreau
feared that the CIA's widely expanding Iran-Contra operation run by Oliver North would
become a threat to their own operations. They decided to blow it up:
'Ollie brings in Dick Secord and Iranian dissidents and money people in Texas to the
scheme, and it's gotten totally out of control,' the officer said. 'We're going nuts. If
we don't manage this carefully, our whole structure will unravel. And so we' –
former members of Moreau's team who were still working for Bush – 'leaked the story
to the magazine in Lebanon.' He was referring to an article, published on 3 November 1986
by Ash-Shiraa magazine in Beirut, that described the arms for hostages agreement. He
would not say how word was passed to the magazine, ...
According to Hersh's source the effect of the leak to the Lebanese paper was foreseen
and intended:
The officer explained that it was understood by all that the scandal would unravel in
public very quickly, and Congress would get involved. ' Our goals were to protect the
Moreau operation, to limit the vice president's possible exposure, and to convince the
Reagan administration to limit Bill Casey's management of covert operations. It only took
a match to light the fire. It was: "Oh my god. We were paying ransom for the hostages
– to Iran."'
If Hersh's anonymous source is correct, which I have no reason to doubt, the Iranian
Mehdi Hashemi did not leak the issue. It was bureaucratic infighting between a former CIA
director, who continued to run secret operations, and a sitting one, who was deemed
incompetent by the former, that led to the disclosure of the Iran-Contra affair.
Seymour Hersh is known to have lots of contacts with former officials and officers.
According to his on telling he is actively seeking them out as soon as they retire. Old men
like to tell war stories, but dislike to damage their still living friends. George H.W.
Bush died last November. Hersh likely knew the story long ago but is only now allowed to
tell it.
The new Hersh/LRB
piece is quite long and the details seems to have little relevance for current affairs.
But his sources tell an interesting story about the backstage fights that went on between
the various branches of the national security bureaucracy during the Reagan presidency.
There is no doubt that similar fights, including intentional leaks to damage competing
officials, continue today.
Posted by b at
02:11 PM |
Comments (36) Interesting too that Hersh cannot finds a publisher in the United States.
The fact that this is in the LRB-where I just read it- tells you all you need to know
about, for example, the New Yorker, The Atlantic and Harpers. As to the newspapers, they
are a lost cause.
Now let us see if there is any follow up in the MSM..anywhere. My guess is that RT will
cover it.
Congratulations, again to b, for spotting the stories that matter and making sure that the
imperialist media cannot suppress them.
"That Mehdi Hashemi, the Iranian operative, leaked the affair is only supported by second
hand hearsay from a dubious source."
That dubious source is George Cave aka Ibrahim Razin aka Oswald LeWinter, poet,
Shakespeare expert, and involved since the Sixties in disinformation of the highest order.
He had a role -- mainly as disinformant, I believe -- in at least the following cases:
Charlie Manson, Propaganda Due, Iran-Contra, Olof Palme, Princess Diana, Lockerbie.
LeWinter turns up in Francovich's Gladio as well as his Lockerbie movie.
I think the take home is how agency structure at different levels is used to circumvent
relevant laws and public awareness. An auditor applying normal audit technique under
contract to one agency would be hard pressed to find this kind of activity because it exist
in another agency at a different level. My question is how could this have been
discovered at the time it happened? What formula, question or technique could produce a
discovery that would lead to the existence of this kind of activity? Even more important
did the auditors discover the activity and fail to report it or did they have the data to
discover it and just missed it. The audit firm involved might owe the government some
money.
Reconciling the actually delivery of assets deployed to the funds that were used to
acquire and transport them might have produced a discovery result.?
If you search the most nefarious and deadly covert operations, you will usually find Naval
Intelligence deeply involved.
Bush-CIA was always a cover for Bush-Naval Intel.
The Kennedy Assassination plot overlord was Naval Intelligence.
The most pervasive war-mongering by the Hegemon is led by US Naval Intelligence.
See Bob Woodward's background, even Steve Bannon's CV.
The US Navy projects US hegemonic power and is decisive for Logistical transport of war
efforts.
The most elite of SOF is Navy SEALS. SEALS are always sent on the most sensitive
missions.
The Rumsfeld-Cebrowski doctrine followed this century to destroy the sovereignty of
third world states is the masterplan of Cebrowski, an Admiral. Thierry Meyssan always
refers to it as the strategic basis for the chaos in MENA and coming to Africa and Latin
America.
From the USS Maine in Havana harbor, to Pearl Harbor, to Iran-Contra, to Iraq,Libya,
Syria, the handprint is there.
If you search the most nefarious and deadly covert operations, you will usually find Naval
Intelligence deeply involved.
Bush-CIA was always a cover for Bush-Naval Intel.
The Kennedy Assassination plot overlord was Naval Intelligence.
The most pervasive war-mongering by the Hegemon is led by US Naval Intelligence.
See Bob Woodward's background, even Steve Bannon's CV.
The US Navy projects US hegemonic power and is decisive for Logistical transport of war
efforts.
The most elite of SOF is Navy SEALS. SEALS are always sent on the most sensitive
missions.
The Rumsfeld-Cebrowski doctrine followed this century to destroy the sovereignty of third
world states is the masterplan of Cebrowski, an Admiral. Thierry Meyssan always refers to it
as the strategic basis for the chaos in MENA and coming to Africa and Latin America.
From the USS Maine in Havana harbor, to Pearl Harbor, to Iran-Contra, to Iraq,Libya,
Syria, the handprint is there.
What makes folks think that the Bush secret cabal has gone away?
I see a splintering or bankruptcy of many elite coming as part of the new order.....cull
the herd...... If only the elite would take each other down in this event I would be
pleased.....grin
Leave the rest of us to pick up the pieces and move on with life after our global
private finance/God of Mammon world collapses.
I agree with comment #2 Richard Steven Hack that Hersh is playing his role of keeping
focus off more recent crimes against humanity by exposing the deeds of the dead but staying
tight lipped about deeds of the living.
If Hersh is now revealing secrets he couldn't while Bush was still alive, I wish he would
tell us what connection there was between Bush and the JFK assassination. Unfortunately,
Hersh's disgraceful book "The Dark Side of Camelot," suggests he will not. That book
reflects thinking by Hersh's CIA and Secret Service sources that Kennedy was such a bad
person and president that it's a good thing he was killed. The book never explicitly says
this, but it's the underlying thought.
Hersh seems to be engaged in a bit of revisionism to whitewash Bush's role on
Iran-Contra. Probably he has been strong armed, like so many others today
President Bush decapitated the Iran-Contra investigation by pardoning 6 figures including
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, whose trial was about to begin, with Bush himself
likely called to testify. ." Bush first consulted his attorney general at the time, William
Barr. Barr has just been named by Trump as attorney general.
Interesting article on Barr here (i broke the link with space). The swamp just keeps
getting nastier
Bush was basically the acting President during the Reagan years like Cheney was during his
sons regime. Cheney and Bush go way back. Bush like Cheney knew everything going on.
"On May 14, 1982, Vice President Bush's position as chief of all U.S. covert action was
formalized in a secret memorandum (signed "for the President" by Ronald Reagan's National
Security Adviser William P. Clark and declassified during the congressional Iran-Contra
hearings)."
All links are going to Brennan and CIA. Rosenstein was just a tool, necessary to appoint the Special Prosecutor. And launching
the prove was the meaning of "insurance" that Strock mentioned to his mistress. Both Strzok and McCabe have their liasons
(read bosses) at CIA, so in essence they were "CIA infiltration group" within the FBI. And it is also important to understand that Obama was just a CIA snowperson.
There is Stalin's NKVD chief Beria shadow over CIA and FBI now. He famously said "Show me the man and I'll find you the
crime."
Notable quotes:
"... The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross has made a brilliant observation, noting Peter Strzok - then the FBI's deputy chief of counterintelligence, admitted to his FBI lawyer mistress, Lisa Page, that there was no merit to the investigation. ..."
"... Interestingly, another series of Strzok-Page texts refers to "coordinating investigation" after Strzok apparently met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both recommended Comey's firing, then authorized the special counsel probe ..."
"... As Ross notes in The Daily Caller , there were other text messages that between Strzok and Page which raise suspicion over whether the FBI was working on a "gotcha" against Trump. ..."
As FBI Ramped Up "Witch Hunt" When Trump Fired Comey, Strzok Admitted Collusion
Investigation A Joke
A Friday report in the New York Times revealing that the FBI supercharged its Trump-Russia
collusion investigation after President Trump fired FBI director James Comey appears to have
backfired - especially when one reviews internal FBI communications from the time period in
question.
The Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross has made a brilliant observation, noting Peter Strzok - then
the FBI's deputy chief of counterintelligence, admitted to his FBI lawyer mistress, Lisa Page,
that there was no merit to the investigation.
Nine days after Comey was fired and the DOJ "sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was
knowingly working for Russia," Strzok texted Page on May 18, 2017: "You and I both know the
odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely I'd be there no question. I hesitate in part
because of my gut sense and concern there's no big there there. "
It is unclear from The Times report what information was used as a predicate to open the
investigation. The article suggests that the FBI had long considered the move and that
Comey's firing and Trump's subsequent comments marked a tipping point.
...
A source close to Strzok told The Daily Caller News Foundation on Jan. 26, 2018, shortly
after the text was released, that the message reflected Strzok's concern that the FBI would
not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia . - Daily Caller
The Times' explanation for the FBI's rationale that Trump may have been a Russian asset
consists of Trump's call for Moscow to release Hillary Clinton's emails an election debate, and
allegations contained within the unverified Steele Dossier. The Times was also quick to note
that Trump may have "unwittingly fallen under Moscow's influence," to temper the accusation
that he was an agent of a foreign power. In short, weak sauce.
It's no wonder Strzok was hesitant to join Mueller's team.
Interestingly, another series of Strzok-Page texts refers to "coordinating investigation"
after Strzok apparently met with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who both recommended
Comey's firing, then authorized the special counsel probe.
As Ross notes in The Daily Caller , there were other text messages that between Strzok and
Page which raise suspicion over whether the FBI was working on a "gotcha" against Trump.
" And we need to open the case we've been waiting on now while Andy is acting ," Strzok
texted Page the day Comey was fired, referring to then-deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe.
Meanwhile, Page - who served as McCabe's deputy, provided some additional color on the text
messages during her July 2018 congressional testimony, suggesting that the "case we've been
waiting on" text referred to an investigation separate of the obstruction probe we already knew
about.
"Well, other than obstruction, what could it have been?" one lawmaker asked Page in her
interview, details of which were published by The Epoch Times on Friday.
" I can't answer that, sir. I'm sorry ," she replied.
"If I was able to explain in more depth why the Director firing precipitated this text, I
would," she continued while declining to say if the text message referred to an obstruction
of justice investigation or something more. - Daily Caller
That said, Page admitted that Comey's firing prompted the text exchange.
"So the firing of Jim Comey was the precipitating event as opposed to the occupant of the
Director's office?" asked one lawmaker.
"Yes, that's correct," replied Page.
Meanwhile, The Times went to great lengths to imply that the FBI was justified in their
ratcheted-up collusion investigation - failing to mention who started the probe, who led it,
and more importantly - waiting until the 9th paragraph to mention the fact that it turned up
nothing .
"No evidence has emerged publicly that Mr. Trump was secretly in contact with or took
direction from Russian government officials. An F.B.I. spokeswoman and a spokesman for the
special counsel's office both declined to comment."
VideoEng_NC
"It is unclear from The Times report what information was used as a predicate to open the investigation."
Should be pretty simple with one question. "Was it Hillary who was the responsible party to open an investigation on Trump?".
About as direct as it gets & we already know the answer.
adampeart
TDS sufferers hate Trump so bad that they have become (at 70%) pro-warmonger. Pathetic. I guess that I shouldn't be
surprised. They were fine with Black Jesus starting wars, overthrowing governments and bombing brown people for 8 years.
Teeter
McCabe initiated the investigation. Nobody likes McCabe, so he is likely to be the one guy that gets thrown under the bus.
Of course what he knows may protect him to some extent... they won't want a trial.
Duc888
Sedition? Treason?
Yippie21
7 Days in May.... except for current version we use the DOJ and FBI! Interesting times.
@Cagey
Beast Yup. Furthermore, CIA is organized crime and organized crime is CIA. CIA recruits
and runs agents in favored criminal syndicates in every illicit trade: drugs, child sexual
trafficking, arms, fraud, bustouts, extortion, money laundering. Their purpose is not to
interdict the trade but to control it.
CIA manages transnational organized crime to top up their budget for unauthorized
clandestine operations, like killing JFK.
CIA protects its criminal proteges with their chartered impunity. They call off law
enforcement with the magic words national security or 'sources and methods.' If the plan gets
exposed, CIA's criminal cutouts insulate the agency from exposure.
RFK knew how it works. RFK junior explained the reason for RFK's focus on organized-crime
until CIA whacked him. That's why his book was made to sink without a ripple.
Evenfurthermore, CIA is the government and the government is CIA. Decades ago Fletcher
Prouty showed that CIA's deepest-cover illegal moles are embedded in our own government.
Every agency with repressive capacity is infiltrated with focal points, who report to CIA
handlers without the other agency's knowledge.
Of course Israel is trying to infiltrate it -- they understand the levers of power.
Assange has got some mighty stinkers in his insurance file. All we can do is hope they're
enough to destabilize the CIA Reich that has ruled America since 1949.
"... CIA is boosting the volume of its anti-Russian vilification because more and more CIA assets are getting flushed out. Stephan Halper is an obvious spook. Page is the corniest traitor since Lee Harvey Oswald ..."
"... Strzok has clearly got a dotted-line report to his real boss in CIA ..."
"... Publius Tacitus is incorrect, though, in making a distinction between the Obama administration and the intelligence community. Obama is a third-generation CIA spook he's a CIA spokesmodel, not a head of state (see Andrew Krieg's Presidential Puppetry.) ..."
"... To add to the list of things that the Russians had on Hillary . IIRC, she was Sec of State at the time the US election-meddling-and-color-revolution brigade tried to rig the Russian elections against Putin. ..."
"... Putin does not seem to be the sort to let emotion be more important than policy, but I've always wondered that to the small extent the Russians did take a pop at Hillary's campaign, if it didn't bring a bit of a smile to Putin's face to know he was just giving back the hits he'd already taken from her. ..."
CIA is boosting the volume of its anti-Russian vilification because more and more CIA
assets are getting flushed out. Stephan Halper is an obvious spook. Page is the corniest
traitor since Lee Harvey Oswald .
Publius Tacitus is incorrect, though, in making a distinction between the Obama
administration and the intelligence community. Obama is a third-generation CIA spook he's a
CIA spokesmodel, not a head of state (see Andrew Krieg's Presidential Puppetry.)
Excerpt : "A Pew Research analysis on Monday found that more than a third of the
US' largest newspapers and more than a fifth of its largest digital outlets experienced
layoffs between January 2017 and April 2018."
To add to the list of things that the Russians had on Hillary . IIRC, she was Sec of
State at the time the US election-meddling-and-color-revolution brigade tried to rig the
Russian elections against Putin.
Putin does not seem to be the sort to let emotion be more important than policy, but
I've always wondered that to the small extent the Russians did take a pop at Hillary's
campaign, if it didn't bring a bit of a smile to Putin's face to know he was just giving back
the hits he'd already taken from her.
Hillary of course was incompetent in having America interfere in Russian elections. That
campaign never had a chance as Putin is a lot more popular in Russia than Hillary is in
America. So, she took a pot shot at a rival world leader knowing (or at least some smart
people did) that it would have no effect and that Putin would win that election anyways. And
of course Hillary the Arrrogant could never imagine that another player in the game would get
to take a turn, and that others might interfere in her election, and she knew she'd run and
she knew she'd rig the Dem party to get the nod, in the same way the NED and the Soros NGO's
tried to interfere in Russia.
I share your sentiments [in a slightly different vernacular]; of course they, the usurping
'rulers' are neither a class nor in any way 'elite,' but who/what ever they are [jews,
oligarchs, 'simply' psychopaths or 'true' spawn of Satan], they do seem to be 'in control.'
Proof of that is the coordinated criminal actions of 'the West.'
Find "CIA is the government and the government is CIA" above; it's the obvious place to
expect a ccc = covert criminal cabal to establish itself. Add to that the truly weird concept
of having spies a) out of all control and b) with apparently unlimited power. We 'shall know
them by their deeds' which is almost unrelievedly a 'bad look.' Odd is that the 1st mention
of any conspiracy that I heard of was that of 'jewish banksters ruling the world.' We since
know that such was pilloried by the CIA, but it seems to me to be a case of the tar-baby: The
more they [CIA, jews] howl/deny, the guiltier they prove themselves to be. rgds
I would say that what is affecting the western establishment elites at this juncture is not
mere dementia but the madness which arises from acts of pure, hellish evil. These people are
the Gadarine swine of the contemporary era; a good portion of them appear to be Satanic
perverts and pedophiles, if we are to judge from recent revelations. I am not being
hyperbolic when I write that Antichrist's reign has been postponed. They had imagined it
would be installed by November of 2016 and this is driving them to despair. They hate Trump
because his election blocked their lord and master's ascent and they hate Putin because he
represents the great restraining power.
@yurivkuHe's of course is a bone in DC's throat, but his level of intelligence and real power seem
to be extremely low.
Yes, he's a golden chandelier stuck in the belly of the Beast. I think he's quite smart,
in his own way, but can only do so much on his own. He also has some bad ideas and makes
enemies when it isn't necessary but he's still the only hope for change at the centre of the
American empire.
@skrik
Be that as it may, Romper Stomper took place 30 years after the Vietnam War began. The
reverberations of the war were felt in Australia long afterwards.
@peterAUS
That's an armchair rugby referee for you, encouraging a Civil War in a country he's probably
never set foot. What do you believe would change its policy towards Oz.
If you remember when Reagan broke the air-traffic control union strikes and 30,000 of them
immigrated to Oz in 1981, what would happen would be that many qualified Americans would come
to Australia and take Australian jobs.
That's how such unrest would affect you.
At any rate, the US would still have the same grip on popular culture (If not financial
markets) and Vegemite would not suddenly replace McDonald's everywhere.
Also, though the Asians seem to slowly taking over your economy anyhow, if the US military
was busy suppressing a civil war and Asian countries might get aggressive towards you
militarily.
@peterAUS
The Asians might get more aggressive if the US military suddenly found itself preoccupied
with a Civil War.
Asia is taking over your country economically anyhow but they might get a bit anti-social
if suddenly the US were to lose all capacity to maintain its presence in your hemisphere.
Aw, don't go all wussy -- you're acting like a wounded suitor. I suppose it was my
rejection of your
I'd need to trust you and then we'd have a long chat somewhere in open public place
Similr to which you you offered Backstay
Have a quiet chat somewhere in a park, for example. Just two of us. Two
Try this google ; that the sort
of place you had in mind? It's also reputedly a secret entrance to an ASIO bunker but I
suppose you know that; I call attempted entrapment.
"As a matter of fact, the composition of the governments is predetermined, and their
actions are controlled by great financial consortiums."
J. V. Stalin, Questions & Answers to American Trade Unionists: Stalin's Interview
With the First American Trade Union Delegation to Soviet Russia
Pravda September 15, 1927 ___________(h/t, J.S.)
think he's quite smart, in his own way, but can only do so much on his own
But I think he's stupid, ignorant, spineless (as well as most of POTUSes), the only
difference is -- he's not completely belongs to DC. Probably it's better than if Clinton was
on his place, but who knows, Trump can make any stupid thing
G'day, q.possibly and glad you responded. Yeah sure, Stalin is 'close;' it's why some
suggest oligarchs, but it demonstrably falls a bit short. My ccc = covert criminal cabal,
each word of the highest significance; let's examine each one:
[COED:] covert = not openly acknowledged or displayed -- this is 100% true, since
they operate from 'behind a curtain' of deliberate secrecy. Not declaring who they are is a
lie of omission, then see after cabal below. Before moving on, let's consult Cicero:
mendaci neque quum vera dicit, creditor
= A liar is not to be believed, even when speaking the truth. That's never a 'good look,'
and leads to the next:
criminal -- self-evident, then:
[COED:] cabal = a secret political clique or faction. Øarchaic a secret
intrigue .
ORIGIN
C16 (denoting the Kabbalah): from French cabale, from medieval Latin cabala (see
Kabbalah).
Finally [COED:] Kabbalah (also Kabbala, Cabbala, Cabala, or Qabalah = the ancient
Jewish tradition of mystical interpretation of the Bible .
I allow myself to propose an exactly apposite example of the latter: 'Xxx promised it to
us!' -- Where Xxx comes directly from some "mystical interpretation of the Bible." 'Nuff
said?
More? IF it were only "great financial consortiums" THEN one would need to explain the
criminality, since I'm pretty sure oligarchs *could* work legally. Then, the 'normal'
consortiums' business is to 'make money' [and cheating and/or theft may be sort of 'normal'],
but the ccc goes *far* past that into [mass-]murdering for spoil, quite/most often for oil
and/or *soil* . The latter is within Nuremberg class = supreme international criminality.
That may complete the loop and explain why covert in the 1st place.
I wrote above that I would 'revisit' lies; here's a partial quote:
But it remained for the yyy, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood,
Feel free to 'guess' at the yyy, then I assert QED rgds
Or who are the guys, in Ukrainian Armed Forces, presently engaged against Donbass?
Besides those in "volunteer battalions", which tend to be nationalistic with distinct Nazi
overtones, people in the regular Armed Forces are there for the money. There are very few
paying jobs in today's Ukraine, so men enlist and hope for the best.
the ratio hate/don't care shall shift, hard and fast. Not in Russian favor, I
suspect.
That could've been the case in 2014. Today I very much doubt it. Even the Right Sector
people are fed up with the current power in Kiev, and even the dumbest nationalists are
beginning to realize what a deep hole the country is in. Normal people all over the
South-East are hoping and praying for the Russians to come. The problem is the Russians
aren't coming.
The moniker "journalist" should immediately by banished by replacement of "reporter", as in
report the facts and observations, not interpretations or personal opinions.
@Eagle
Eye " In your view what else was Hubbard brilliant about?"
Well for example his bizarre sounding concepts regarding the sources of mankind, and the
history of this insane planet, which are repeatedly ridiculed and labeled as absurd by the
PTB, who of course have their own turf to defend, and their own concepts which they do not
want to be brought into question.
@EugeneGur
Well can't say I disagree with the comment.
Or, better, can't provide any concrete evidence to the contrary, especially re the second
paragraph.
The thing is, nationalism is a peculiar feeling.
So, while this
Normal people all over the South-East are hoping and praying for the Russians to
come.
could be true, the rest of Ukraine could get into quite the opposite.
But, as you say
The problem is the Russians aren't coming.
so it's all academic.
Now, speaking of
people are fed up with the current power .
one could feel, probably, the same in Donbass.
Things aren't great there either.
In any case the conflict is there, frozen for the moment (not for the people along the
front line) and can erupt, again, when the US Deep State wants it.
@Michael
Kenny If one wants a clear example of the Russophobic or Putinophobic hysteria infecting
the West, one need go no further than this demented fellow. And to that he adds a conspiracy
theory about the gangsters ruling over it all.
@seeing-thru
You got it 100% Right my friend. That's the best reality-connected assessment of the Donald's
performance that I've read. I'm going to swipe it for reuse elsewhere. Thank you, and may the
force be with you.
@Jeff
Davis Glad you liked it. Yeah, go ahead use it any which way. BTW, my fear is that the
Donald may not be able to succeed because of the massive line-up of forces against him. The
whole lunatic asylum is out of their cages, snarling and clawing and planning all sorts of
stuff to bring him down. Let us wish him success.
So standing up for American citizens is considered a "mentally insane" thing?
You are utterly and completely out of your mind, virtually from another planet, another
reality. A textbook example of insanity. The fact that you don't recognize it, simply
confirms the fact.
The Deep state is not, repeat not , the American people.
Regarding the Intel community: There are the guys in the trenches. these are honorable
guys. Then there is the leadership. The current leadership is on notice to behave itself, on
account of the new "Sheriff" in town. The corrupt politicized leadership from the
Clinton/Bush/Obama regimes however, now out of power, are attempting to overthrow the
legitimately elected president of the United States. In so doing, they are pursuing
treason-lite.
Clapper, Brennan, and Hayden are already full-on war criminals: Iraq & torture. Now,
in their attempt to destroy the Trump presidency, they are adding betrayal of democracy and
betrayal of the Constitution of the United States to their criminal resume. These are evil
men who think it is their job to run the United States from behind a malleable (gutless?)
figurehead who does what they tell him to do.
As I said in my original post, it is fascinating to observe people like you, utterly
dominated -- brain-raped really -- by a neocon/neoliberal narrative that has reduced them to
robotic -- even willing -- slaves of the 1%. Good for you. Enjoy. The others, who prefer
self-mastery to self-enslavement, will benefit from your choice of enslavement.
That is what all of this boils down to; Trump treating Americans like s*hit in front of
the whole world, while praising Russia and Russians.
The IC war criminals/traitors should not be equated with or allowed to hide anonymous
behind the majority population of decent Americans. Which is what simpletons like you enable
and then fall for.
I fully understood all the concerns for what the Left is doing to people and to the
society.
Trump praises Israel and says that, "Securing Israel's safety is our most important
task" not a peep comes from the Trump-supporters?!
Some Trump supporters do object. Others however grasp the political reality of Jewish
political influence in the US. Politically incompetent simpletons like yourself think Trump
should commit political suicide by taking on the Jews.
The Jews/Israel will be dealt with -- or not -- later, when Trump has secured his
presidency. And then, the rebalancing of the US-Israeli relationship will not be grounded in
hostility to the Jews, but will be more along the lines of America First.
Never ever did I expect, that it would be the Trump-supporters surfacing as the fifth
column, giving the "finishing touch" to the destruction of American citizens.
The above is pure paranoid, "the sky is falling", TDS whackadoodle.
The Liberals seem to have woken up,
The country is in the throes of a cultural war between the bubble-wrapped snowflakes and
"real" people. Thankfully, the "real" people will win, precisely because they have the
advantage of being reality-connected. The snowflakes will benefit as well -- you will benefit
-- by the resulting opportunity to reconnect with reality.
Good luck, best wishes, Trump is rapidly changing the world for the better.
And let me add: The Soviet Union is a quarter century gone, and with it Soviet Communism.
Putin is the preeminent statesman of our times. Go to YouTube and listen to what he says. He
and Trump, aligned, are a force for good in the world. Peace with Russia is coming, and with
it a new era of peace and prosperity in the world.
Which leaves me to echo your closing comment:
Are you ever going to be able to comprehend this?
(Answer: Probably not for another six years, if ever.)
@peterAUS
Australia's problem is going to be an Asian economic overclass you Australians always obsess
about country's located halfway around the world first the UK now the US.
you're worried about blacks in the US in the ghetto's wealth inequality while Chinese
business elite reduce you to paupers IN Australia and eventually you go the way of the black
aborigines.
But you cannot see that because you're focused on US cultural colonization or things you
have seen in Hollywood films.
Point is that in the sixties you were still obsessed with the British Empire though you
are a bit of a lost colony now you are obsessed with the United States, another waning
Empire.
Pretty soon the Chinese will have you sleeping in your cars and you will still be focused
on the state of blacks in the US ghetto and inequality in America.
But see, the US won't be the problem in Australia. China will.
You compare yourself to the United States because it is a similar former British colony
and white settler nation but it is Asia that will stomp you.
She is most likely onto something important. My solution is that most people are
double-minded because it suits us to lazily allow our leaders to control us while we
(somewhat) hypocritically condemn them for faults and errors which profit us.
St Paul, Shakespeare and Montaigne all complained of their own double-mindedness.
I hope that a column of mine on this topic will appear soon in The U.R.
most people are double-minded because it suits us to lazily allow our leaders to control
us while we (somewhat) hypocritically condemn them for faults and errors which profit us
..
I guess you are onto something here.
It could go a bit deeper, though, as:
. most people are double-minded because it suits us to allow our betters to lead us
while we (somewhat) hypocritically condemn them for their and our faults and errors which
profit us.
But you cannot see that because you're focused on US cultural colonization or things you
have seen in Hollywood films You compare yourself to the United States because it is a
similar former British colony and white settler nation
If I may intercede, no, and that twice.
1. peterAUS, if my interpretation is correct, sees the world through 'military blinkers,'
is assumed not to notice China et al. except as one 'enemy' among many, and probably thinks
that ~100 F35s, xxx new warships, yyy new submarines and zzz new 'armoured cars,' costing the
Aus-taxpayer nose-bleeding squillions will 'save his/their bacon.' As such, peterAUS cannot
be addressed as any valid representative of 'the great Aus-unwashed.'
2. That great Aus-unwashed, hoovering up the trash err, sorry for the US-speak; hoovering
up the horrendous rubbish 'presented' to them via their '1984-style telescreens' err,
one-finger flat-screen distraction devices [when not actual television sets], is largely
unconscious of any 'real world.'
Since the CIA-sponsored coup of 1975, the country has been 'going to the dogs' at an
increasing rate. The sheople glory under their 'Lucky Country' delusion, not even knowing its
full import: Lucky not to be even partly aware. Yeah sure, the corrupt&venal MSM+PFBCs [=
publicly financed broadcasters] try to revive 'the yellow peril' scare, but that's just
standard 'Bernays haze' scare mongering, to keep the proles from thinking: Der, they [as
peterAUS] didn't think. rgds
PS The great Aus-unwashed, as any 'Western' citizen, has zero choice; so-called 'Western
democracy' allows for as good as zero 'citizen input.' The 'choice' of Trump should be put
down to an aberration -- some 'clever-clogs' manipulators -- *not* Russians -- pulled off a
coup. But as they used to say: "Better red than dead;" better Trump than HRC.
Do we have a democracy? Or even representative government? So what happened to our jobs
off-shored. Who approved that? Who approved 100 million legal immigrants in the last 50
years?
Why does anyone accept our stilted self-image, especially Diana?
On the point about the "world's greatest prison population" note that some one-third of
the federal prison population consists of illegal alien criminals and the large U.S. black
criminal underclass commits crimes at a higher rate than everyone else, so there are more
blacks in our prisons. Oh, the horror.
If other nations enjoyed large illegal immigrant populations and a large black criminal
underclass we would see similar inflated prison populations.
Spare us the silliness on this score as well as the "regular massacres of school children"
garbage. No doubt you'll enlighten us with your anti-gun views on American gun nuts at a
later time. I wait with bated breath.
Still, you almost got a lock on insightful commentary these days.
This is a very good blog, column, whatever, because it illuminates with the light of
reason the mass madness of the Washington crowd, and probably much of the American
population. See the New Yorker article in the current issue about the utility of caregivers
lying to and/or deceiving demented patients to keep them content. That is what is happening
now in the USA and your failure to understand my explanation for it, in my essay on
double-mindedness, which I sent you last summer, I mind very much. You could lead the way out
of the mess if you would re-read that essay and try to understand it.
I am a very ordinary guy and I understand it. Please try again. The world needs this.
"... Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in complete control. ..."
@Cagey
Beast Aspen Institute does make attempts at outreach, but they invariably cock it up by
eliciting, recruiting, or suborning every single person they bring in. The shitheads even
tried to do it to me. You would think they'd have a dossier saying I hate those cobags.
Their fundamental problem is, Aspen Institute is CIA. Their first and only instinct is
to use people like toilet paper. They don't want popular support. They want agents in
complete control.
Yes, the Aspen Institute is the CIA and the CIA is the Aspen Institute. Or, to be more
precise, the CIA is the armed wing of Washington's permanently governing technocratic party,
in the same way the KGB was the armed wing of the Soviet Communist Party.
Poor Julian Assange is likely going to be in their hands not too long from now. The
citizen of one Five Eyes country will be arrested by another and then sent off to the
imperial metropole, to be kicked around like a political football. The rest of us
Anglosphericals are expected to cheer or remain silent. Either is acceptable.
there is nothing at all mindless or demented about them
Me: Oh yes there is; by *them* I don't mean "Zuckerberg, others" but the actual
rulers of 'the West,' then see this:
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of
thistles?
Consider also:
Aspen Institute is CIA
and [perhaps most critically] this:
may depend on support for Trump from Israel and the Pentagon!
Now, I term the actual rulers of 'the West' the ccc = covert criminal cabal. Of course
they are in hiding -- acting from 'behind the curtain,' as some have it -- it has to be that
*dishonest* way -- for them. Among their most notable 'fruits' are the JFK murder, USS
Liberty outrage, inside-job 9/11 psyop and the utterly wicked destruction of Libya/Gaddafi,
just 4 of many. The extended list is looong, and note that the 1st 3 in my list demonstrate
the ccc 'murdering their own' -- except that to the ccc, anybody not actually in the ccc
itself is not 'their own' but only exploitable/disposable objects. Of course the ccc causes
lies to be promulgated, hence the Lügenpresse . Neoliberalism/austerity must also
come from the ccc, causing misery wherever it's forced upon us, we the people. One of the
spivs in suits who 'sold' neoliberalism to the Aus people called it 'economic rationalism'
and jeered: 'What would you rather -- irrational economics?' Another ccc modus
operandi item is coercion as demonstrated by the downstream effects of Downer's "Get a
briefing!" -- which shows us that the CIA et al. is a 'command conduit' if not a command
originator. What I'm trying to illustrate here is that the ccc does not merely operate like a
mafia, it *is* a mafia, and one of the author's "may depend on" items suggests a name for
this mafia, namely: Khazar. That's our miserable world, deliberately made that way by that
mafia; if that's not 'mindless and demented' what is? rgds
@MK-DELTABURKE
The Aspen Institute is CIA, but the CIA is an organization created and controlled by the
globalist conspirators at the Council on Foreign Relations, mostly the Rockefellers and other
banksters.
For many readers especially on this comes as no surprise, as you are well aware of the
octopus that wraps its tentacles around the globe. But it may surprise you how active In-Q-Tel
is and how chummy they are with the rest of the VC community. It's as if they are just another
VC, but with another purpose. Let's look at some of the stats, from Crunchbase:
Here's a list of recent investments
If you dig back you won't see Google or Facebook on there – which is company policy
for retail consumer investments that can impact the public (it's kept secret behind an NDA).
Here's how it works – In-Q-Tel may invest in your startup but there's a big catch. First,
you have to sign an NDA which is enforced strongly – that you are not to disclose your
partner. Second, you must agree to 'cooperation' when it comes to information sharing now or
down the road, such as location data on people using Facebook, Google, or other systems –
perhaps only to feed it into a big data brain at Palantir. Or perhaps for more street level
surveillance. The surveillance is known by fact, not conspiracy theory – but by fact
– due to the disclosure of classified documents by Edward Snowden. If it were not for
Snowden, we could only guess about this. The name of the main program is
PRISM but there are many others.
But for others, it may come as a surprise that not only the CIA has its own VC fund, but
that it sits on many corporate boards alongside many Wall St. firms and other VCs.
And of course, they always do well.
Let's consider the doors they opened for Google, or in the case of Google it was more like
the doors that were closed. Google was not the best search engine, it was not superior
technology – it wasn't even really very good. It just became a monopoly and crushed the
competition. Many wonder how they were able to do it, and that this is part of the Entrepreneur
"Magic" that few have. Well we can say in the case of Google there was no Magic they had a
helping hand from a friend in the deep shadows. Google wanted to become huge – the CIA
wants information (they always do, so we don't use the past tense 'wanted'). So it was a cozy
and rational partnership – in exchange for making the right handshakes at the right time,
allowing Google to become a global behemoth, all they needed to do was share a little
information about users. Actually, a lot of information. No harm in that, right?
But in doing so Google violated itself as well as prostituted its model and its users.
Google still does this and is not nearly as flagrant as its brother Facebook, however Google
shares more detailed 'meta data' which is actually more useful to Echelon systems like Palantir
that rely on big data, not necessarily photos of what you ate for breakfast (but that can be
helpful too, they say).
The metaphor is making a deal with the devil; you get what you want but it comes at a price.
And that's the price users pay to Google – they get service 'free' but at a huge cost,
their privacy. Of course – this is all based on the concept of Freedom which really does
exist in USA. You don't have to use Google – there are many alternatives like the rising
star Duck Duck Go :
But who cares about privacy; only criminals, hackers, programmers, super wealthy (UHNWI) and
a few philosophers.
Google remains the dominant search platform and much more. Google exploits niche by niche
even competing with Amazon's Alexa service.
Two decades ago, the US intelligence community worked closely with Silicon Valley in an
effort to track citizens in cyberspace. And Google is at the heart of that origin story. Some
of the research that led to Google's ambitious creation was funded and coordinated by a
research group established by the intelligence community to find ways to track individuals
and groups online. The intelligence community hoped that the nation's leading computer
scientists could take non-classified information and user data, combine it with what would
become known as the internet, and begin to create for-profit, commercial enterprises to suit
the needs of both the intelligence community and the public. They hoped to direct the
supercomputing revolution from the start in order to make sense of what millions of human
beings did inside this digital information network. That collaboration has made a
comprehensive public-private mass surveillance state possible today.
There you have it – Google is the child of the digital revolution of the surveillance
state. Why spy, when you can collect data electronically and analyze with machine learning?
The new spy is the web bot.
And the investors in Google did well – so that's the investing story that matters
here. It pays well to have friends in high places, and in dark places. Of all the investments
In-Q-Tel made, almost all of them have done very well. That doesn't mean that Palantir is going
to grow to the size of Google, but it does provide natural support should a company backed by
In-Q-Tel run into problems.
By the time Facebook came out, digital surveillance was already in the n-th generation of
evolution, and they really stepped up their game. In the creepiest examples, Facebook doesn't
necessarily (and primarily) collect data on Facebook users – it does this too. But that's
just a given – you don't need to perform surveillance on someone who gives all their data
to the system willingly – you always know where they are and what they are doing at any
given moment. The trick is to get information about those who may try to hide their activities,
whether they are real terrorists or just paranoid geniuses.
How does Facebook do this? There are literally hundreds of programs running – but in
one creepy example, Facebook collects photos that users take to analyze the environment
surrounding. Incidentally, the location data is MUCH MORE accurate than you see on the retail
front end. So you get the newspaper and see a gift in your mailbox for your birthday –
you take a photo because the ribbons are hanging out. What shows up in the background? All
kinds of information. What the neighbor is doing. License plate of the car driving by. Trash
waiting to be picked up by the street. A child's toy left by the sidewalk. You get the picture.
Facebook users have been turned into sneaky little digital spies! While they are walking around
with their 'smartphones' (should be called 'dumbphones') scrolling their walls and snapping
photos away – they are taking photos of you too. That means, Facebook collects data for
the CIA about users who don't have Facebook accounts. This is the huge secret that the
mainstream media doesn't want to tell you. Deleting your Facebook account will do nothing
– every time you go out in public you are being photographed, video recorded, and more
– all going into big data artificial intelligence for analysis.
But here's the best part. You own it! The CIA may have a bad reputation but it is part of
the US Government, and thus – profits go back to the Treasury (those which are declared)
or at least they are supposed to. Considering this, why is there a stigma about even talking
about In-Q-Tel when in fact we should be more involved in any US Government operation when it
is technically owned by the people and funded by taxpayers? Meaning, do taxpayers have rights
to know what goes in in taxpayer funded entities, like In-Q-Tel? The big difference between
In-Q-Tel and the CIA is that In-Q-Tel functions just like any other VC – they disclose
most of their investments, they attend conferences, they accept business plans. You can
literally submit your idea to In-Q-Tel and get funding. Of course, like any VC there's a very
small chance of being funded.
So what's an investor's take on this story? In-Q-Tel is not Freddie Mac there is nor a
quasi-government entity; it's not an NGO and there is no implicit guarantee that In-Q-Tel's
deals will do any better than Andreessen
Horowitz .
However, their deals do very well. Companies they fund not only have the backing of the CIA
explicitly, it's not only about business – it's about national security! Under that
guise, it's no wonder that companies like Google and Facebook rocket to the top.
We are not suggesting that investors double down on In-Q-Tel bets. We are only suggesting
that at a minimum, we follow what they do. It's a data point – a good source of
information. And the best part is that it's public.
Their most recent investment is in a virtual reality company in Boca Raton, FL called
Immersive Wisdom:
Immersive Wisdom® is an enterprise software platform that allows users to
collaborate in real-time upon diverse data sets and applications within a temporal and
geospatially-aware Virtual, Mixed, and Augmented Reality space. Immersive Wisdom is
hardware-agnostic and runs on VR, AR, as well as 2D displays. Regardless of geographic
location , multiple users can be together in a shared virtual workspace, standing on maps,
with instant access to relevant information from any available source. Users can
simultaneously, and in real time, visualize, fuse, and act upon sensor inputs, cyber/network
data, IoT feeds, enterprise applications, telemetry, tagged assets, 3D Models, LiDAR, imagery
and UAV footage/streaming video, providing an omniscient, collaborative view of complex
environments. Immersive Wisdom also acts as a natural human interface to multi-dimensional
data sets generated by AI and machine learning systems. The platform includes a powerful SDK
(Software Developer Kit) that enables the creation of customer-specific workflows as well as
rapid integration with existing data sources/applications.
Cool stuff for sure – but it's in early stages. Pre IPO Swap suggests real Pre IPO
'unicorns' not because of size, but because of the right mix of risk and reward. https://preiposwap.com/pitch "
style="color:#0d2e46; text-decoration:underline">See why we think so in our pitch.
In any analysis, it's worth watching In-Q-Tel, which is a top source of funding and
investment data we watch on www.preiposwap.com/ ">https://
www.preiposwap.com/ "
style="color:#0d2e46; text-decoration:underline">Pre IPO Swap.
"... Neoliberal media has always embraced boundary transgression, always embraced invasiveness, always embraced adventurism, always embraced war. ..."
"... Fox is a racist bully. MSNBC is poison, & CNN is a joke. If nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The American media is the enemy of the people. ..."
"... That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly right-wing Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-pat riotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a reckless use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and foreign policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing. ..."
"... Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's infancy, my mom would listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate, and many times I heard her gasp and say, referring to the "reporters" jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!" The dopes are ascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid. ..."
"... We, The People, Are Fed Up With Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs! ..."
"... Democratic Party leadership has basically always been neoconservative supporters of the national security state, but there has been some resistance within the rank and file. ..."
"... But the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health care premiums and copays, expensive housing,.... ..."
"... We've known for a long time that NBC & MSNBC "have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies." ..."
"... The US military presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with national security (i.e protecting American citizens from military attack by foreign nations, or even with disrupting the activities and funding of terrorist groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda, groups we financed and armed as part of the overthrow Assad strategy). ..."
"... It has everything to do with controlling the region's oil flow and propping up regimes like Saudi Arabia who agree to invest the majority of their oil money in Wall Street banks. This is called petrodollar recycling, a strategy devised in the 1970s. Here is a foundational document discussing the plan, from 1974: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974LONDON16506_b.html ..."
"... Real News vs "fake news" is almost impossible to find and dissect. Even looking for real reporting beyond echoing is hard to find. The real problems are ignored or misstated to the extent real solutions are impossible. Not just security and endless wars but every aspect of civil existence, education, healthcare, you name it. We exist in an echo-chamber where real knowledge and understanding have been all but banished. ..."
"... Gotta hand it to the neocons, soon after the Vietnam debacle (I served 3 tours there), and Watergate, they quickly licked their wounds and devised a new playbook that, over time, would become a 'Project for the New American Century'. First things first, get rid of the draft. Go professional, and then only a very minuscule percentage of Americans have skin in the game, meaning their own sons and daughters at risk, while the rest of America can focus on the more important things, like watching the Housewives of New Jersey, New York, Beverly Hills, etc. etc., or sports, or the newest fashions, or the current fad diets, or the newest Trump tweet, bla bla bla. ..."
"... Next, and this is genius because it incorporates that great American pastime, greed, spread all of that endless supply of taxpayer money around to each and every State, County, and municipality in the form of jobs tied to the military industrial complex. ..."
"... And finally, silence and denigrate any meaningful opposition. As Kierkegaard stated, "Once you label me you negate me." Hence the long, ongoing labeling of opposition with terms like traitor, anti-American, unpatriotic, (insert name or country here) sympathizer. The sad part of all of this, too many Americans are gullible enough to swallow this crap, hook, line and sinker, as long as they get their daily ration of manna. ..."
"... What's the central reason MSNBC is so pro-war? Because the shareholders in its parent corporation, Comcas, have a deep vested interest in militarism, arms sales, and the capture of natural resources around the word ..."
"... Maddow long ago described herself as a "national security liberal." ..."
"... Still, that a network insider has blown the whistle on how all this works, and how MSNBC and NBC have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies, while not surprising, is nonetheless momentous given how detailed and emphatic he is in his condemnations. ..."
"... . . if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right. ..."
"... This essay is critical for every American to read. No exaggeration. NBC/MSNBC has become the proverbial spear tip in the march toward nuclear war with Russia. ..."
"... Perhaps, but I would suggest that Iran has become the most desired target for a war, and due in no small part to the aggressive advocacy for such a war by Israel and Saudi Arabia, and their subservient boot-licking, ass kissing American politicians. ..."
"... Project Mockingbird was publicly revealed years ago, but pretty much totally ignored by the audiences who lap contentedly from the MSM koolaid bowl. ..."
"... It's ironic that these politicians who have gorged themselves on literally millions of dollars in campaign funding from Big Pharma, Defense Contractors, Energy, Big Banking, and even insider stock trading now feel compelled to warn us of graft and corruption they all fostered. These politicians get elected as nobodies, sell their votes, retire as millionaires, then have the nerve to tell us how corrupted our government has become as they check out to become Lobbyist' ..."
"... I am so glad to see this man speak out. For the longest time, war and the military budget has been a third rail in politics ..."
"... State Department has become another branch of the MIC, not a diplomatic corps. And I am not saying this is all because of Trump. Probably started when we "won" the Cold War. ..."
Veteran NBC/MSNBC Journalist Blasts the Network for Being Captive to the National Security State and Reflexively Pro-War to Stop
Trump
A VETERAN national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in
a Monday
email for becoming captive and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President
Donald Trump, and now the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine's promotion of militarism and imperialism.
As a result of NBC/MSNBC's all-consuming militarism, he said, "the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat
but indeed has gained dangerous strength" and "is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism."
The NBC/MSNBC reporter, William Arkin, is a longtime prominent war and military reporter, perhaps best known for his
groundbreaking,
three-part Washington Post series in 2010, co-reported with two-time Pulitzer winner Dana Priest, on how sprawling, unaccountable,
and omnipotent the national security state has become in the post-9/11 era. When that three-part investigative series, titled "Top
Secret America," was published, I hailed it as one of the most
important pieces of reporting of the war on terror, because while "we chirp endlessly about the Congress, the White House, the
Supreme Court, the Democrats and Republicans, this is the Real U.S. Government: functioning in total darkness, beyond elections and
parties, so secret, vast and powerful that it evades the control or knowledge of any one person or even any organization."
Arkin has worked with NBC and MSNBC over the years and continuously since 2016. But yesterday, he announced that he was leaving
the network in a long, emphatic email denouncing the networks for their superficial and reactionary coverage of national security,
for becoming fixated on trivial Trump outbursts of the day to chase profit and ratings, and -- most incriminating of all -- for becoming
the central propaganda arm of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI in the name of #Resistance, thus inculcating an entire new generation
of liberals, paying attention to politics for the first time in the Trump era, to "lionize" those agencies and their policies of
imperialism and militarism.
That MSNBC and NBC have become Security State Central has been obvious for quite some time. The network
consists of little more than former CIA, NSA, and Pentagon officials as news "analysts"; ex-Bush-Cheney national security and
communications officials as hosts and commentators; and the most extremists pro-war neocons constantly bashing Trump (and critics
of Democrats generally) from the right, using the Cheney-Rove playbook on which they built their careers to accuse Democratic Party
critics and enemies of being insufficiently patriotic,
traitors for America's official enemies , and abandoning America's hegemonic role in the world.
Some of the most beloved and frequently featured MSNBC commentators are the most bloodthirsty pro-war militarists from the war
on terror: David Frum, Jennifer Rubin, Ralph Peters, and Bill Kristol (who was just giddily and affectionately celebrated with a
playful nickname bestowed on him: "Lil Bill"). In early 2018,
NBC hired former
CIA chief John Brennan to serve as a "senior national security and intelligence analyst," where
the rendition and torture advocate joined -- as
Politico's Jack Shafer noted -- a long litany of former security state officials at the network, including "Chuck Rosenberg,
former acting DEA administrator, chief of staff for FBI Director James B. Comey, and counselor to former FBI Director Robert S. Mueller
III; Frank Figliuzzi, former chief of FBI counterintelligence; Juan Zarate, deputy national security adviser under Bush."
As Shafer noted, filling your news and analyst slots with former security state officials as MSNBC and NBC have done is tantamount
to becoming state TV, since "their first loyalty -- and this is no slam -- is to the agency from which they hail." As he put it:
"Imagine a TV network covering the auto industry through the eyes of dozens of paid former auto executives and you begin to appreciate
the current peculiarities."
All of this led Arkin to publish a remarkable denunciation of NBC and MSNBC in the form of an email he sent to various outlets,
including The Intercept. Its key passages are scathing and unflinching in their depiction of those networks as pro-war propaganda
outlets that exist to do little more than amplify and serve the security state agencies most devoted to opposing Trump, including
their mindless opposition to Trump's attempts (with whatever motives) to roll back some of the excesses of imperialism, aggression,
and U.S. involvement in endless war, as well as to sacrifice all journalistic standards and skepticism about generals and the U.S
war machine if doing so advances their monomaniacal mission of denouncing Trump. As Arkin wrote (emphasis added):
My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued
at the moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested
in the Trump circus.
To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that resembles actual safety and security, the national security
leaders and generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested . Despite being at "war," no great wartime leaders or visionaries
are emerging. There is not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any conflict. And though there might
be the beloved perfumed princes in the form of the Petraeus' and Wes Clarks', or the so-called warrior monks like Mattis and McMaster,
we've had more than a generation of national security leaders who sadly and fraudulently have done little of consequence. And
yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts". We do so ignoring the empirical
truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18 years ago. Indeed
the world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous.
Windrem again convinced me to return to NBC to join the new investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign.
I thought that the mission was to break through the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary
Clinton's hawkishness. It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other
upstarts creeping up on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly
lost in a directionless adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow
storm. And I would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy and profitable.
No wars won but the ball is kept in play.
I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous
strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I'd also argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has
become somewhat lost in its own verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional wisdom, defender of the government against
Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering, in love with procedure and protocol over all else (including results).
I accept that there's a lot to report here, but I'm more worried about how much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step
back and think why so little changes with regard to America's wars.
In our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss
so much. People who don't understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that it's corporate control or even worse, that
it's partisan. Sometimes I quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) that if they mean by the word
partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right.
For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations
with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his
attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really?
We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the
Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly right-wing
Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-patriotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a
reckless use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and
foreign policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing. These toxins will endure far beyond Trump, particularly given
the
now full-scale unity between the Democratic establishment and neocons .
photosymbiosis1 hour ago
Just remembered something about Arkin. This book: Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the
9/11 World January 25, 2005 by William M. Arkin
https://books.google.com/books/about/Code_Names.html?id=KXLfAAAAMAAJ
In particular there was this one exercise called Vigilant Guardian, run by NORAD, simulating terrorist attacks by hijackers which,
curiously enough, happened to be in operation on the very day the Saudi hijackers were actually conducting such attacks:
NORAD's next Vigilant Guardian exercise, in 2001, will actually be several days underway on 9/11 (see (6:30 a.m.) September
11, 2001). It will include a number of scenarios based around plane hijackings, with the fictitious hijackers targeting New
York in at least one of those scenarios (see September 6, 2001, September 9, 2001, September 10, 2001, and (9:40 a.m.) September
11, 2001). [9/11 COMMISSION, 2004; VANITY FAIR, 8/1/2006]
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian
However, what's interesting from Arkin's book, as I recall, is that this operation name was then reused in Afghanistan (a very
rare practice, apparently, to reuse an operation name, but perhaps if you wanted to hide the original program, etc...), in 2003
or so - here's a NYT article about Vigilant Guardian in Afghanistan:
https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/20/magazine/where-the-enemy-is-everywhere-and-nowhere.html
It's just one of many stories that makes one wonder exactly how much pre-warning the Bush Administration had about the 9/11 attacks,
and whether there was a deliberate decision to allow the hijackers to seize control of the planes without any interference. It
did save the Bush presidency, it did open the door to the Iraq invasion, and the Saudi intelligence services were involved with
helping the hijackers. All very suspicious, really. Point being, Arkin's book is one of the few sources that lay out all those
covert/overt program names, and is a real treasure for anyone interested in the history of that era.
bobhope1: 2 hours ago
This has been clearly obvious for several years. Goebbels would be proud.
Dysnomia 3 hours ago
If there were some kind of political realignment (similar to the realignment that took place in the 60s and 70s where racist
white Democrats became racist white Republicans) where neoconservatives and warmongers become Democrats, and the Republican Party
becomes the party of, surely not peace, but at least moderation in foreign military intervention, that might not be too bad, or
at least not too much worse than the earlier post-9/11 status quo.
But I'm afraid this shift in discourse heralds something worse than that. So-called "liberal" media's embrace of neoconservatism
and imperialism is likely to have the effect of narrowing the Overton window on issues of war and peace, making genuine anti-war
positions even more unthinkable and beyond the pale. There will increasingly be no place for public anti-war discourse.
The single greatest threat to human freedom in the world today is the U.S. national security state. Inculcating public reverence
for the state is perhaps the most dangerous thing that a media organization could do.
open_hearted_jade 2 hours ago
Neoliberal media has always embraced boundary transgression, always embraced invasiveness, always embraced adventurism,
always embraced war.
Fox is a racist bully. MSNBC is poison, & CNN is a joke. If nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The American
media is the enemy of the people.
Lawrence_Hill 4 hours ago ( Edited )
Do we remember way back in the 80's/Reagan admin war involvement in the El Salvador civil war when NBC anchor Tom Brokaw openly
questioned the US's support for death squad leader D' Auboissan's terror regime on the air? Shocking! A Walter Cronkite-Vietnam
War moment Brokaw supposed, maybe?
I remember that in all the hullabaloo that followed one of our ruling class commented that Brokaw was being $5 million a year
not to say such subversive things. Lesson learned, Brokaw nor any other gainfully employed MSM tool has made the same mistake
again, and now Brokaw has emeritus status in the NBC "News" hierarchy.
That comment opened my eyes for the first time to the reality of American MSM...
Michael_Wilk 4 hours ago
That an entire generation of Democrats paying attention to politics for the first time is being instilled with formerly
right-wing Cold Warrior values of jingoism, über-pat riotism, reverence for security state agencies and prosecutors, a reckless
use of the "traitor" accusation to smear one's enemies, and a belief that neoconservatives embody moral rectitude and foreign
policy expertise has long been obvious and deeply disturbing.
I have to take issue with your use of the word 'formerly' in describing Cold War values. They are still very much right-wing.
They never stopped being right-wing, nor did the current and former government and security state apparatchiks polluting the airwaves
with their lies.
TimN 5 hours ago
The neo-con and neo-lib argument against this unfortunate reveal of things present, and things to come: "But Trump! Trump!"
I didn't think I'd see things unravel so quickly, but Goddamn. Years ago, whilst this reactionary putsch was still in it's
infancy, my mom would listen to the "news" on the local CBS affiliate, and many times I heard her gasp and say, referring to the
"reporters" jabbering, "My God, they're a bunch of dopes!" The dopes are ascendant; stupid, scared, violent-minded, and very well-paid.
haugeneder 6 hours ago
Great piece. America is on the precipice and there are few who care -- very few. Time for an great economic depression -- not
recession -- to shift the ground or open it to swallow us whole.
Tlaloc 7 hours ago
Interesting that we might be seeing a shift on both parties, the republicans finally embracing their libertarian side (long
being a part of the republican party) and the neocons trying to find a new home on the democratic party. I wonder where the progressive
side of the DNC will go, they might be the ones pushed out of any national party :(
Art 6 hours ago
[...] the progressive side of the DNC [...] might be the ones pushed out of any national party
Fuck that! They're headed for permanent electoral failure on every occasion they put forward neocons on any ballot.
We, The People, Are Fed Up With Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs!
Dysnomia 3 hours ago
Unfortunately, I think it's more likely that we'll see a shift only on the Democratic side. Democratic Party leadership
has basically always been neoconservative supporters of the national security state, but there has been some resistance within
the rank and file. The narrowing of the Overton window we're seeing will make such resistance increasingly beyond the pale.
But I don't think the Republican Party, in terms of leadership or rank and file, will become more "libertarian" (in the American
sense of that word) or less pro-war. I think there's likely to be greater consensus among the political class in favor of U.S.
imperialism generally, and Trump, to the extent he occasionally makes moves in the opposite direction, is a convenient foil to
bring that about.
johnanderson 7 hours ago ( Edited )
There is no "means test" for the empire military spending supports energy supplies supports international banking supports
global corporatism but the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health
care premiums and copays, expensive housing, and social security cutbacks because they are playing the same elite economic game
against the majority true the democratic leadership has a better stance on abortion and a generally more rainbow-flavored social
agenda. Because they want this stuff for their own social class however economic policy will be at our expense ... just watch
Pelosi and Company
open_hearted_jade 2 hours ago
But the democrats will help republicans squeeze the peons with excessive education costs, unaffordable health care premiums
and copays, expensive housing,....
Those costs rise for one reason...
Mona 7 hours ago
...And here's Joe Biden: ""Paul Ryan was correct when he did the tax code, what was the first thing we have to go after, Social
Security and Medicare. Now we need to do something about Social Security and Medicare. It's the only way to find room to pay for
it." Biden is after means testing and other "adjustments" slashing SS, as endorsed by his pal. Paul Ryan. (This is called Republican
Lite.)
Thanks for publishing this story, Glenn, and putting your perspective on it. We've known for a long time that NBC & MSNBC
"have become ground zero for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies." Before
Comcast purchased them, General Electric owned these networks for many years. The public's interests are the last thing on their
minds when they do "news reporting."
Have you watched when MSNBC's "prime time" talk shows are doing live sports-like camera angles, moves, and shots in their studio,
trying to make it look all-the-more sensational on your TV screen? I mean, they're doing these intricate camera shots, rapid switching
between cameras, zooming, panning, trying to make it look like a high-production-value shoot, and it looks like they've hired
some live sports producers and technical directors to make this pathetic illusion on the air. All this shit for talking heads.
Rotf-lmao.
What's next? Slow-motion HDTV instant replays of Rachel Maddow, utilizing zoomed-in camera shots of her mouth, when she's spraying
spittle into her guests' faces? That's what happens when she launches into her infamous hissy fits.
The round table MSNBC uses in their cheap studio is only 4 feet in diameter. In other words, they're shooting these live action
shots of people talking around an itty-bitty little table, and they're doing all this intricate camera work with approximately
8 cameras to make it look 'sensational', action-packed, and thrilling. Instead, it's extremely ugly, stupid, idiotic, disgusting,
and ridiculous. It's not sensational. It's a disgusting cocktail of vomit, puss, and diarrhea.
I need reliable sources of news and weather so I can live my life sustainably with dignity while I maintain my values. My pride
and dignity are invaluable to me. All these a-holes are doing for me is raising my blood pressure and pissing me off. That's why
I read The Intercept. I'd like to have the option to just sit back and watch TI's reporting on a news channel someday SOON, if
possible.
Again, what's our msm network news alternatives, besides Fox news, and why are they so pathetic? CBS news: Les Moonves in particular
has cheered the Trump phenomenon, telling investors in 2016 that the Trump campaign "may not be good for America, but it's damn
good for CBS." -- https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/cbs-fcc-trump/
-- Moonves got fired and lost his pension -- The longtime chairman-CEO was forced out Sept. 9, 2018 amid a cascade of sexual assault
and misconduct allegations. "The CBS board of directors has denied former chairman-CEO Leslie Moonves any of the $120 million
severance he was due under his employment contract after conducting a five-month internal probe of his conduct and the corporate
culture at CBS Corp." --
https://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/tv/ct-ent-les-moonves-denied-severance-20181217-story.html ABC news: Who owns
ABC? Walt Disney bought ABC 22 years ago. Exactly, we're in Disneyland.
photosymbiosis 8 hours ago ( Edited )
Some basic facts:
The US military presence in the Middle East has nothing to do with national security (i.e protecting American citizens
from military attack by foreign nations, or even with disrupting the activities and funding of terrorist groups like ISIS or Al
Qaeda, groups we financed and armed as part of the overthrow Assad strategy).
It has everything to do with controlling the region's oil flow and propping up regimes like Saudi Arabia who agree to invest
the majority of their oil money in Wall Street banks. This is called petrodollar recycling, a strategy devised in the 1970s. Here
is a foundational document discussing the plan, from 1974:
https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/1974LONDON16506_b.html
"CENTRAL THESIS, BASED ON BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO EARLY PROSPECT OF BREAKING OIL CARTEL, IS THAT WE SHOULD SEEK EARLY DIALOGUE
WITH PRODUCERS TO WORK OUT ARRANGEMENTS WITH ALL OR SOME OF THEM TO (A) INDEX PRICE OF OIL AND (B) BRING THEM INTO RECYCLING MECHANISM
IN ORDER TO SHARE THE RISK. SECOND PAPER LARGELY DUPLICATES FIRST, THOUGH IT DOES ADD SOME STRESS ON LONGER RANGE PROBLEM OF MASSIVE
SURPLUS OF OPEC COUNTRIES, ESTIMATED AT $400 BILLION BY 1980, FOR WHICH NO SOLUTION IS PROPOSED OTHER THAN NEW INTERNATIONAL RECYCLING
AGENCY PROPOSED IN BOTH PAPERS."
One key point is that the proponents of this scheme in the United States, be they Democrats or Republicans, have zero interest
in replacing fossil fuels with wind and solar and battery storage. That would sour the whole deal; nobody would buy Saudi oil.
Of course the Russkies, the stated enemy, don't want to see Europe go 100% renewable either, any more than the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump
Administrations did. The Russia-US conflict is mostly over who gets to sell gas to Europe, and neither dealer wants the addict
to kick the habit, right?
This is a very consistent policy, year-to-year.
Now, why can't the corporate media honestly discuss this? Because they are the corporate establishment's propaganda monkeys,
little more, regardless of whether they work at MSNBC or at FOX.
Oh, and this is why #Resist Trump is so nonsensical, when those supporting that them want to install a Joe Biden or Kamela
Harris, who would continue right on with this status quo, i.e. blocking the development of renewable energy and continuing the
idiotic military entanglements in the Middle East.
Fred_Cowan 8 hours ago
Real News vs "fake news" is almost impossible to find and dissect. Even looking for real reporting beyond echoing is hard
to find. The real problems are ignored or misstated to the extent real solutions are impossible. Not just security and endless
wars but every aspect of civil existence, education, healthcare, you name it. We exist in an echo-chamber where real knowledge
and understanding have been all but banished.
Mona 8 hours ago
@Tom Collins & Art
"Yeah one wonders if [Snowden's] cover would have been blown so decisively had he done it anonymously through Wikileaks"
No need to wonder! Snowden made clear -- explicitly stated-- he wanted Greenwald and Poitras, and not Wikileaks. He deeply
desired journalists to exercise judgment over what should be released to the public and did not want a data dump.
Further, he insisted on outing himself , and did so several days after the first document was published. At his behest,
Poitras videotaped a 20-minute video of him taking responsibility, which was then posted at The Guardian. He did this, among other
reasons, to spare his co-workers from suspicion and investigation.
Mona 1 hour ago
Citizen 4 won the Oscar for best documentary in 2013 or '14. It's all Snowden, Greenwald, Poitras, and other real players.
DC_Reade 8 hours ago
If the only way someone can manage to frame any of these issues is as "Fox vs. MSNBC" or "Trump Corruption vs. Washington Establishment
Defenders of Democracy", they've assented to a two-valued action-reaction Pavlovian conditioned response loop.
No way should that be confused with a process of independent thought.
Unsurprisingly, I don't read one mention in the above post to any of the specifics of the content in Glenn Greenwald's remarks,
or to any of the observations made by Arkin in his email resignation.
You're too busy fitting everyone with Team Jerseys tailored to your preconceived ideas.
Mona 6 hours ago
"This article does not inform."
Oh, it does lots of informing, you just don't like what it informs us of, to wit, the first paragraph:
A VETERAN national security journalist with NBC News and MSNBC blasted the networks in a Monday email for becoming captive
and subservient to the national security state, reflexively pro-war in the name of stopping President Donald Trump, and now
the prime propaganda instrument of the War Machine's promotion of militarism and imperialism . As a result of NBC/MSNBC's all-consuming
militarism, he said, "the national security establishment not only hasn't missed a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength"
and "is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism."
Any substantive response, Milton?
MiltonWiltmellow 6 hours ago ( Edited )
Any substantive response, Milton?
As always, Mr. Greenwald's description is hyperbolic and bordering on unhinged. As DC_Reade suggested, I read Arkin's
email. You should too. It seemed more like a Montaigne Essaiy or a reflective note for posterity than a thundering repudiation
of MSNBC.
Mr. Greenwald turns it into a typical Greenwald crie du guerre™ against the evil Deep State (a term which he appears to have
mercifully discarded. Too Foxy I suppose.) Here's his problem. Crying "wolf" only works for awhile. Eventually it becomes part
of the information flood drowning everyone. Any bit of flotsam is as good as another.
Tom_Collins 5 hours ago
What's your point again? Do you even know?
DC_Reade 4 hours ago ( Edited )
Excerpts from Arkin's email:
"Seeking refuge in its political horse race roots, NBC (and others) meanwhile report the story of war as one of Rumsfeld vs.
the Generals, as Wolfowitz vs. Shinseki, as the CIA vs. Cheney, as the bad torturers vs. the more refined, about numbers of troops
and number of deaths, and even then Obama vs. the Congress, poor Obama who couldn't close Guantanamo or reduce nuclear weapons
or stand up to Putin because it was just so difficult. We have contributed to turning the world of national security into this
sort of political story. I find it disheartening that we do not report the failures of the generals and national security leaders.
I find it shocking that we essentially condone continued American bumbling in the Middle East and now Africa through our ho-hum
reporting..."
"...I argued endlessly with MSNBC about all things national security for years, doing the daily blah, blah, blah in Secaucus,
but also poking at the conventional wisdom of everyone from Matthews to Hockenberry. And yet I feel like I've failed to convey
this larger truth about the hopelessness of our way of doing things, especially disheartened to watch NBC and much of the rest
of the news media somehow become a defender of Washington and the system..."
"...For me I realized how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations
with Russia, to denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his
attacks on the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at
how quick NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really?
We shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for the
Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?..."
Yes, William Arkin does go on to be gracious and complimentary of some of his (former) colleagues at NBC. Arkin mantains his
professional composure. His critique of the focus and practices of NBC/MSNBC News is tempered and reasoned. But the critique is
scathing, nonetheless.
Tom_Collins 4 hours ago ( Edited )
You are missing Milton's point altogether. Like "Craig Summers", MW expects that his word alone is enough to dismiss the editorial/investigative/analytical
work put in by Greenwald, Arkin or anyone else on the topics considered most important by the U.S. State Department.
When MW or CS weigh in on these things to dismiss or diminish these stories/opinions/facts with the wave of a hand or incorrect
reading (and absolutely nothing of substance), we are supposed to defer to them respectfully and re-consider the respect we have
developed for the professionalism, dedication and personal/career risks taken on by the people who bring us these stories that
are inconvenient to the establishment government and media actors.
Mona 3 hours ago
"As DC_Reade suggested, I read Arkin's email. "
Cool, Milton, and what are your substantive comments on this part:
My expertise, though seeming to be all the more central to the challenges and dangers we face, also seems to be less valued
at the moment. And I find myself completely out of synch with the network, being neither a day-to-day reporter nor interested
in the Trump circus. To me there is also a larger problem: though they produce nothing that resembles actual safety and security,
the national security leaders and generals we have are allowed to do their thing unmolested. Despite being at "war," no great
wartime leaders or visionaries are emerging. There is not a soul in Washington who can say that they have won or stopped any
conflict. And though there might be the beloved perfumed princes in the form of the Petraeus' and Wes Clarks', or the so-called
warrior monks like Mattis and McMaster, we've had more than a generation of national security leaders who sadly and fraudulently
have done little of consequence. And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts".
We do so ignoring the empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today
than it was 18 years ago. Indeed the world becomes ever more polarized and dangerous. Windrem again convinced me to return
to NBC to join the new investigative unit in the early days of the 2016 presidential campaign. I thought that the mission was
to break through the machine of perpetual war acceptance and conventional wisdom to challenge Hillary Clinton's hawkishness.
It was also an interesting moment at NBC because everyone was looking over their shoulder at Vice and other upstarts creeping
up on the mainstream. But then Trump got elected and Investigations got sucked into the tweeting vortex, increasingly lost
in a directionless adrenaline rush, the national security and political version of leading the broadcast with every snow storm.
And I would assert that in many ways NBC just began emulating the national security state itself – busy and profitable. No
wars won but the ball is kept in play. I'd argue that under Trump, the national security establishment not only hasn't missed
a beat but indeed has gained dangerous strength. Now it is ever more autonomous and practically impervious to criticism. I'd
also argue, ever so gingerly, that NBC has become somewhat lost in its own verve, proxies of boring moderation and conventional
wisdom, defender of the government against Trump, cheerleader for open and subtle threat mongering, in love with procedure
and protocol over all else (including results). I accept that there's a lot to report here, but I'm more worried about how
much we are missing. Hence my desire to take a step back and think why so little changes with regard to America's wars. In
our day-to-day whirlwind and hostage status as prisoners of Donald Trump, I think – like everyone else does – that we miss
so much. People who don't understand the medium, or the pressures, loudly opine that it's corporate control or even worse,
that it's partisan. Sometimes I quip in response to friends on the outside (and to government sources) that if they mean by
the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they are right. For me I realized
how out of step I was when I looked at Trump's various bumbling intuitions: his desire to improve relations with Russia, to
denuclearize North Korea, to get out of the Middle East, to question why we are fighting in Africa, even in his attacks on
the intelligence community and the FBI. Of course he is an ignorant and incompetent impostor. And yet I'm alarmed at how quick
NBC is to mechanically argue the contrary, to be in favor of policies that just spell more conflict and more war. Really? We
shouldn't get out Syria? We shouldn't go for the bold move of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula? Even on Russia, though we
should be concerned about the brittleness of our democracy that it is so vulnerable to manipulation, do we really yearn for
the Cold War? And don't even get me started with the FBI: What? We now lionize this historically destructive institution?
OftenWrongSeldomInDoubt 9 hours ago
This is SO validating to read! Surely no other ruler in history with a cute butt and polite voice ordered killings in 56 countries
in one year. I want someone to discuss this without accusing me of being pro-Rump. I guess, the Rachel Maddows of the world cannot
criticize Hillary/Obama for expanding every awful thing for which the good people of the world hated Bush.
There are two giant problems in the world today-
1. the scale of people who lost their homes and countries because of the good guy's wars and
2. climate change which the good guy's 27,600 odd bombs of 2016 might or might not have exacerbated. After all, each bomb costs
upward of $10,000,000. Who is measuring the greenhouse gases released by them?
The media needs to be equally adversarial to 'liberal' governments as they are to 'conservative' ones, so that majority parties
cannot take credit for granting me bathroom and bedroom permissions that are surely my personal domain! The media must shed light
on whether it is bad to tell 'aliens' not to cross a border or it is bad to win a Nobel Peace prize before raining bombs on brown
people in other countries, never separating children from families, when blowing up ten civilians for every 'target' we extra-judicially
decided to label as militant.
So thank you for this article!!
bluecurl3 9 hours ago
Gotta hand it to the neocons, soon after the Vietnam debacle (I served 3 tours there), and Watergate, they quickly licked
their wounds and devised a new playbook that, over time, would become a 'Project for the New American Century'. First things first,
get rid of the draft. Go professional, and then only a very minuscule percentage of Americans have skin in the game, meaning their
own sons and daughters at risk, while the rest of America can focus on the more important things, like watching the Housewives
of New Jersey, New York, Beverly Hills, etc. etc., or sports, or the newest fashions, or the current fad diets, or the newest
Trump tweet, bla bla bla.
Next, and this is genius because it incorporates that great American pastime, greed, spread all of that endless supply
of taxpayer money around to each and every State, County, and municipality in the form of jobs tied to the military industrial
complex. Now, lots of Americans have skin in the game, as long as the lobbyists, politicians, government and the military
can provide a pipeline of endless wars and conflicts. Of course, in order to provide and maintain the patina of morality and righteousness,
a subservient and corporate controlled media is vital.
And finally, silence and denigrate any meaningful opposition. As Kierkegaard stated, "Once you label me you negate me."
Hence the long, ongoing labeling of opposition with terms like traitor, anti-American, unpatriotic, (insert name or country here)
sympathizer. The sad part of all of this, too many Americans are gullible enough to swallow this crap, hook, line and sinker,
as long as they get their daily ration of manna.
Xavi 8 hours ago
Orwellian times.
firstpersoninfinite 9 hours ago
No, it's not rocket science. Otherwise you couldn't have proven Greenwald's point with your own views about "supporting" the
security state so easily. You missed the entire point of the article, which is that the neocons and the neoliberals support the
same cast of nefarious personalities that got us into the Middle East, over and over again. Why is NBC/MSNBC normalizing right-wing
radicalism? Because they've joined hands with neocons and neoliberals to support the military/industrial complex. Your argument
is akin to someone claiming that their Communion wafer is more holy than anyone else's because it has the Pope's imprint on it.
firstpersoninfinite 8 hours ago
Neocons, like Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol's father, were leftists in the 1930's. It's not a difficult term to come to terms
with, historically. I don't wonder why anyone questions what Trump is doing. I never said such a thing.
What Trump has done during his first two years in office has not been questioned by the mainstream press at all. Only the imbecile
tweets and the gaffes are of any interest to the citizens of such a redoubtable empire as our own. A friend of mine who fights
anti-wolf and anti-bear laws in Montana, laws sent down by the Trump administration, says that these are the same laws they fought
during 8 years of Obama. The mainstream of both parties are the two sides of the same coin. So I agree with the "role reversal."
Dysnomia 2 hours ago
I think the problem is not that supporting the "deep state" is becoming a convenient excuse to oppose Trump, but that opposing
Trump is becoming a convenient excuse to support the deep state.
DC_Reade 10 hours ago
Bravo, William Arkin. I only wish that you could have found some way for you to resign on the air in the middle of a broadcast.
(I've been wishing such a scenario for decades. Preferably featuring one or more news anchors.)
Incredible that the USA has spent trillions of dollars in a game of whack-a-mole that's been extended over the entire globe
with no time limitations, occasionally interspersed with declarations of surprise that the nation faces more emergent terror threats
than ever. We spend more money on the military and warfare than we spent during the Cold War. And all that was required to trigger
this spiral into perpetual militarism was a single special operation carried out 17 years ago by a small team of not-particularly-elite
commandos who hijacked four airliners, thereby obtaining the one-time ability to repurpose three of them into cruise missiles.
By now, it should be no surprise that other large nations have taken notice of the American assumption of entitlement to police
the world and begun their own rearmament campaigns. Also worth noting that the focus on the Terror Threat has served as the rationale
for massive investment in a level of surveillance technology that's unknown in human history. As for the norms and values that
international law was supposedly intended to provide for governments everywhere, all of that went out the window in 2003, with
the unprovoked invasion of Iraq by the Benevolent Hegemon Hyperpower. American scolding of other nations for their armed territorial
incursions and imperial designs has rung awfully hollow, ever since.
The emphasis on massive military escalation to deal with terrorism outbreaks is reminiscent of the War on Drugs- which, it
should be noted, also remains largely in effect, notwithstanding occasional feints toward de-escalation. And we all know what
the War on Drugs did in terms of empowering the criminal elite that it was supposed to eliminate.
What's that all about? The leaders of this country- and for that matter, the supposed leaders of the rest of the world- aren't
leading. To me, almost all of them look like they're running from something: they're running from fossil fuels addiction and its
toxic blowback, looming climate catastrophe, natural resource depletion, maldistribution of wealth and neglect of the commons.
photosymbiosis 11 hours ago
What's the central reason MSNBC is so pro-war? Because the shareholders in its parent corporation, Comcas, have a deep
vested interest in militarism, arms sales, and the capture of natural resources around the word:
Comcast, a large cable operator, completed its purchase of a majority stake in NBCUniversal from General Electric in January
2011. The cable giant bought the rest of NBCUniversal in February 2013. NBCUniversal is the parent company of MSNBC, as well
as NBC, Bravo, USA and other channels.
State Street Corporation 13,394,660,471 Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 6,210,096,924
Capital World Investors 5,098,130,465
Blackrock Inc. 5,084,573,828
Bank of America Corporation 2,826,426,091
ExxonMobil major holders, $US:
Vanguard Group, Inc. (The) 26,661,034,588
Blackrock Inc. 21,669,998,686
State Street Corporation 16,964,902,104
Northern Trust Corporation 4,566,789,988
Bank Of New York Mellon Corporation 4,420,622,076
It pretty obvious once you look at the value of an outfit like Blackrock's investments in media, arms, and oil - they don't
want any stories told on MSNBC that would threaten the profit margins of Exxon, Lockheed or Comcast.
The only real solution is government enforcement of anti-trust legisation which would require the likes of Comcast, TimeWarner(CNN)
and NewsCorp(FOX) to divest their media holdings, creating dozens of independently owned outfits not beholden to some corporate
master who won't let them discuss important topics like, say NAFTA....
Benito_Mussolini 10 hours ago
The only real solution is government enforcement of anti-trust legislation
Hopefully, MSNBC will be smart enough to provide a friendly platform for ex-government officials. It means a great deal to
government officials to know their influence, public visibility (and associated appearance fees) will continue into their retirement.
I don't watch MSNBC, so I don't know if they have implemented this strategy, but the pictures in the article seem encouraging.
johnnyred 11 hours ago
War is touted exclusively by those who've never experienced it. Get rid of the generals, put in some infantry casualties, those
who've lost a limb or two.
Then we can have some informed comment.
Somewherearoundtikrit 11 hours ago
Meanwhile, over at The Guardian, "In these critical times..." their "editorial independence" is in sincere need of your donation.
They're just 80K away from their million dollar goal! Pardon me while I retch. Julian Assange is still being robbed of his freedom.
In these critical times indeed. Thank you Glenn.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
The Guardian can get its funding from the organizations for whom they carry water. Not a damn cent from me. After they caved
in on the Snowden files, I was done with them for good.
Yeah one wonders if his cover would have been blown so decisively had he done it anonymously through Wikileaks, but I think
they were onto him anyway. Ultimately the information got out, and media orgs like The Guardian were exposed for their fealty
to the national security state(s).
Cryptome wouldn't have censored the releases, as WikiLeaks has. Still WikiLeaks continues to be one of the world's premier
journalistic outlets.
MyInnocuousUsernameWasBanned 9 hours ago
Was anyone else surprised by how long it took them to get to a million? I've seen Kickstarters for video games that got to
a million faster. The slow pace of the fundraising seemed like a rebuke. I was hoping they'd never hit a million.
And I say all of that as someone who has recurring donations set up for about a dozen podcasts and blogs. The nonprofit/fundraiser
model is the way to go, but I also think that publicly owned media outlets, or privately owned but public-interest-minded news
organizations, while editorially independent, can't be totally contemptuous of their reader/donors.
I would never donate to the Guardian for a million reasons, but to pick just one: they have played the lead role in smearing
Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters as dangerous radicals and anti-Semites.
And I would never donate to The Intercept, for instance, because of the crucial role it has played in promoting Russiagate
and amplifying voices like Mattathias Schwartz's. (I'll never stop reminding people that Schwartz non-jokingly advocated here
for what would essentially be a coup -- Obama "putting a hold on the transfer of power" -- after the most recent presidential
election. The Intercept published that. Amazing.) And the face of the Intercept, arguably, is no longer Greenwald but Mehdi Hasan,
who publishes rank propaganda smearing peace activists as "Bashar al-Assad Apologists" who revere human rights abusers as "heroes."
(Again: the Intercept published that. Amazing.)
My favorite line from that Arkin email is the one about the tension between worship of "officialdom" and respect for "public
yearnings." To political elites and reporters (including the experts at the Intercept who spent a week running PR for Nancy Pelosi's
speaker bid, and who constantly write off the 2016 election as a consequence either of sinister foreign interference or of the
squalid bigotry, stupidity and ugliness of non-coastal Americans), officialdom always wins, and "public yearnings" are just the
bleatings of deplorables.
If Glenn's excellent reporting was removed from this site, The Intercept would be as deserving of Arkin's critique as NBC and
the Guardian are.
tigertiger 8 hours ago
They didn't hit their million, which they wanted before the end of the year, but they're still begging. Not for lack of trying,
that 'give us money!' pop up has to be about the loudest, most intrusive of it's kind I've ever seen.
And yes, TI is only marginally less repulsive (thanks to Glenn, Lee Fang, and Jon Schwartz). It amazes me that an outlet owned
by a bajillionaire constantly begs for money. I guess they think it makes them more 'populist' or something- 'look, the peons
are sacrificing their pennies to help us!'.
TravisTea 11 hours ago
As an American author (and journalist) once wrote:
"Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and
keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them
from grabbing slices of his . And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for the
'universal brotherhood of man' -- with his mouth."
-- Mark Twain, Man's Place in the Animal World (1896)
P.S. As always, thank you very much, Mr. Greenwald (and thank you, Mr. Arkin).
Carlaly 11 hours ago
Just vindicates what you have been saying all along. Although I expect the denialists will dismiss Arkin as some anti-American,
anti-troop stooge of Putin.
Mona 11 hours ago
"The cable network's key anchor, Rachel Maddow, once wrote a book on the evils of endless wars without congressional authorization,
but now routinely depicts anyone who wants to end those illegal wars as reckless weaklings and traitors."
She's just coming home. Liberals have long been dominated by hawks (after all, Vietnam was a Democrats' war, albeit Nixon/Kissinger
took the war crimes up to 11.)
Maddow long ago described herself as a "national security liberal."
Which leads to yet another element of Ms. Maddow's portfolio: the daughter of an Air Force captain who served stateside during
the Vietnam War, she is an admitted defense-policy wonk. "I'm a national security liberal, which I tell people because it's
meant to sound absurd," she said. "I'm all about counterterrorism. I'm all about the G.I. Bill."
Madcow would like nothing more than to see open war with Russia.
brer_rabbit 11 hours ago ( Edited )
maddcow . . my laugh of the day.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
It's a common refrain in far-right reaches of the Internet. I almost felt bad for saying it, but that's what she's become on
the topic of Russia.
brer_rabbit 11 hours ago
Yes, whenever is see her, or Anderson Cooper, or any of these guys for that matter (which is rare . . usually for a few minutes
to catch a glimpse of the latest environmental disaster, mass shooting, or whatever) my first thought always goes to question
the kind of upbringing that could have produced such vapid people, who enthusiastically shame themselves on a daily basis for
money. What must they think of their audience?
open_hearted_jade 11 hours ago
Maddow is less respected by an awakening public -- therefore she must be a conservative right winger. Didn't you learn anything
after 1945?
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
You've made made totally missing the point into a trolling form of art. Bravo.
endlesswar 11 hours ago
Attacking an extreme right wing president from the right, while lauding unrepentant war criminals like Bush and McCain. Just
about sums up what it means to be a liberal in this day and age.
PatrickShaw 6 hours ago
MSNBC and their national security contributors do not speak for liberals. They never invite liberal voices on who are anti-war/pro
diplomacy.
xochtl 12 hours ago
Still, that a network insider has blown the whistle on how all this works, and how MSNBC and NBC have become ground zero
for these political pathologies of militarism and servitude to security state agencies, while not surprising, is nonetheless
momentous given how detailed and emphatic he is in his condemnations.
perfect summary
brer_rabbit 12 hours ago ( Edited )
. . if they mean by the word partisan that it is New Yorkers and Washingtonians against the rest of the country then they
are right.
bingo
clawhammerjake 13 hours ago
War is a business decision.
Steeeve 13 hours ago ( Edited )
I've been consistently surprised that anyone is still watching these things. Personally, I've already divested from special-interest
funded media outlets and the DNC for that matter. It's always interesting when I run across someone parrotting their viewpoints
though.
TheManj 13 hours ago ( Edited )
The greatest scam of the millennium, after cruptocurrency, was the use of Trump Derangement Syndrome to pervert "progressives"
into acolytes of the security establishment.
pedinska2 13 hours ago
Actually, TDS wasn't used in the original perversion so much as it was used as the cement to keep it firmly in place.
I lay blame for much of the greatest scam of the millenium on Obama with his drone policies, expansion of our involvement
in the ME, retention of the same Smartest Guys in the Room who tanked our economy and wholesale conversion of liberals into acceptance
of further erosion of our Constitutional rights with his warm embrace of the same criminals running the security state when torture
became de rigueur. He was just so darn pretty and eloquent they had no choice but to believe all the lies dripping from those
sexy lips. And have you seen Michelle's arms???!? /s
Benito_Mussolini 13 hours ago
To herd people, it's more effective to use both the carrot (Obama) and the stick (TDS). The fact that progressives needed to
be herded is a testament to their numbers and success.
Erelis 13 hours ago
This essay is critical for every American to read. No exaggeration. NBC/MSNBC has become the proverbial spear tip in the
march toward nuclear war with Russia. Every day, step by step, brick by brick, they are laying the foundation for the justification
of war--in fact, for needing and demanding war, almost any war, but more particularly with Russia. Let's remember that when Bush
ordered the invasion of Iraq, 72% of Americans supported it to according to Gallup. That didn't happen overnight with some big
propaganda event.
bluecurl3 4 hours ago
Perhaps, but I would suggest that Iran has become the most desired target for a war, and due in no small part to the aggressive
advocacy for such a war by Israel and Saudi Arabia, and their subservient boot-licking, ass kissing American politicians.
I'm all for pulling our troops out of Syria, but mark my word, Bibi and his zionist war-hawks will seize the opportunity to bomb
the hell out of Syria, and use it as a pretext to launch attacks against Iran.
Mike5000 13 hours ago
Maddow is not really pro-war or anti-war. She is just pro whatever Clinton and Pelosi happen to be pushing this week. It's
a shame. She's a good presenter but hopelessly biased.
PresumptuousInsect 13 hours ago
I think she is more enthralled to the people who are paying her.
Erelis 13 hours ago
Maddows rhetoric and reporting is pro-war regardless of her motivations. She uses the language of aggression and conspiracy
and accusation in describing the Russians and other Americans such as Jill Stein. She without exception imputes malevolent motives
on "the enemy" which is Russia leading to a truly a bizarre clip telling Americans in somber and concerned tones that Russia and
N. Korea share a border. The conspiracy has been exposed.
Bill_Owen 10 hours ago
What is it, exactly, about Hillary Clinton that enthralls Rachel Maddow so much that she now pretty much spends her days building
a case (in-the-sky) for war on Russia? Seems pathological somehow.
MyInnocuousUsernameWasBanned 9 hours ago
Look at how her ratings and salary have been affected by her transformation. She's gone from "cable news anchor" to "superstar."
The Russiagate scam has also given dozens of mediocrities like Seth Abramson a chance to be noticed and to feel important. Even
the writers on the Intercept's "intelligence" beat have been doing some sort of Tom Clancy cosplay for the last two years. It's
profitable and fun to be one of these people, as long as you don't have a nagging sense of shame.
William 13 hours ago
Indeed, none of this is new. I read Norman Solomon's and Martin Lee's UNRELIABLE SOURCES: A GUIDE TO DETECTING BIAS IN NEWS
MEDIA back when I was in college in the late 80s and they cite General Electric's ownership of NBC (before there was an "MSNBC")
uncritically:
General Electric's Influence on NBC GE is by no means a hands off owner of NBC. Lee and Solomon in their book Unreliable Sources
have detailed how GE insisted on the removal of references to itself in an NBC programme on substandard products. They also point
out that NBC journalists have not been particularly keen to expose GE's environmental record and that TV commercials by a group
called INFACT, urging a boycott of GE products, were banned by NBC as well as other television stations. NBC did however briefly
report GE's indictment for cheating the Department of Defense which was reported more extensively in other media outlets. (Lee
and Solomon 1990, pp. 77-81) Former NBC News Chief, Lawrence Grossman, claims that the head of GE, Jack Welch made it clear to
him that he worked for GE and told him not to use terms such as 'Black Monday' to describe the stock market crash in 1987 because
it depressed share prices such as GE's (Cited in Naureckas 1995). Todd Putnam, editor of National Boycott News, tells of how he
was approached by the NBC's Today Show to do an interview about consumer boycotts. Their biggest boycott at the time was against
General Electric and its nuclear defense contracts but the show wouldn't let him talk about that and was reluctant to have him
mention boycotts against any large corporation preferring him to talk about "a boycott that was 'small,' 'local' and 'sexy'."
(1991) Mark Gunther writing in American Journalism Review claims that references to General Electric's use of the bolts in an
NBC Today Show on defective bolts in planes, bridges and nuclear plants, were edited out and only mentioned in a follow-up segment
after criticism of the omission (1995, p. 40). In 1990 NBC Nightly News ran 14 minutes of coverage over three days of a breast
cancer detection machine produced by GE, without mentioning that it was made by NBC's owners. The other two major television networks
didn't bother to cover it at all. (FAIR 1991) Helen Caldicott who had been featured on the Today Show previously found that when
she wrote her book If You Love This Planet, which used GE as a case study of an environmentally damaging company, her scheduled
appearance was mysteriously cancelled (Anon. 1992). In 1987, one year after GE took over NBC, NBC broadcast a special documentary
promoting nuclear power using France as a model. The promotion for the programme proclaimed that "French townspeople welcome each
new reactor with open arms". The documentary won a Westinghouse sponsored prize for science journalism. (Westinghouse Electric
Company also builds nuclear power stations.) Shortly after the documentary was screened, when there were a couple of accidents
at French power stations and there was significant opposition to nuclear power amongst the French population (polls showed about
one third opposed it), NBC did not report the story although some US newspapers did. (Lee and Solomon 1990, p. 78) Karl Grossman
documents in Extra! (1993) how the programme What Happened? broadcast on NBC in 1993 gave a one sided account of the Three Mile
Island nuclear accident and its aftermath. It showed local resident Debbie Baker saying that she was not as afraid of the nuclear
plant as she used to be. However, according to Grossman, Baker, whose son was born with Down's syndrome 9 months after the accident
and who has received $1.1 million in a settlement arising from the accident, was shocked at how the programme had been edited
to imply her acceptance of the plant. She said she was still extremely uncomfortable with the plant and that what she had said
was she felt safer since her groups set up a network of radiation monitors around the plant. Neither Baker's settlement nor the
200 or so others "made to families who have suffered injury, birth defects and death because of the 1979 accident" were mentioned.
Instead a nuclear power industry expert was featured who said the plant's back-up safety systems worked successfully. When EXTRA!
pointed out that no scientists critical of nuclear power appeared in the program, Jaffe [executive producer of the show] responded,
'That is correct. Maybe there is some misunderstanding. That show is not a journalistic show but an entertainment show to look
into and to find out the reason and cause of various accidents and incidents.' (Grossman 1993, p. 6) NBC has not been alone in
putting a positive spin on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. On the tenth anniversary of the accident, the New York Times
ran an anniversary article opposite the editorial page headlined "Three Mile Island: The Good News" which argued that the accident
had been good for the nuclear power industry prompting better management and emergency planning. The paper did not report the
fact that 2000 residents living near the plant had filed claims for cancer and other health problems they blamed on the accident,
nor the 280 personal-injury settlements paid out to such claimants, nor the unusual clusters of leukemia, birth defects and hypothyroidism
around the plant. (Lee and Solomon 1990, p. 210) This was not the first time Times reporting had fitted with General Electric's
views. In 1986 the Times reported on the use of humans as subjects in tritium absorption experiments. Tritium is routinely handled
by nuclear power plant workers. An early edition of the paper said: "The tritium study was financed by the Atomic Energy Commission
and conducted by the General Electric Company at Richland, which abuts the Hanford [nuclear weapons] reservation." In the late
edition the sentence ended after Commission and no longer named General Electric. (Tenenbaum 1990)
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
Sure, but the question then becomes: Why didn't the corporate networks and newspapers with whom NBC competed point these things
out?
Art 11 hours ago
That's what my father always said about media - that it was self-correcting. But he was wrong. They're all influenced by the
same thing, namely the ultra-rich and their money.
Tom_Collins 11 hours ago
But wouldn't another network stand to gain more clout from the ultra-rich, corporations, and their money from NBC's losing
viewers/ratings due to exposure for their corrupt unwillingness to report negatively on their parent corporation's actions?
Art 11 hours ago
They share a huge fraction of investors, that's the problem.
Midwest 14 hours ago
Nothing has changed except that there is an outsider independent president. NBC was just as bad 20 years ago.
TheManj 13 hours ago
Project Mockingbird was publicly revealed years ago, but pretty much totally ignored by the audiences who lap contentedly
from the MSM koolaid bowl.
Phil 14 hours ago
William Arkin is right on point with his email to MSNBC, especially when he says:
"And yet we (and others) embrace them, even the highly partisan formers who masquerade as "analysts". We do so ignoring
the empirical truth of what they have wrought: There is not one county in the Middle East that is safer today than it was 18
years ago. "
In that same vein I have problems with MSNBC et al also covering the farewell speeches of outgoing Senators and Representatives
which are full of warnings as to how the current system is "broken" [Paul Ryan, ClaireMcCaskill, Orrin Hatch, Jeff Flake, among
many] and not calling them out.
It's ironic that these politicians who have gorged themselves on literally millions of dollars in campaign funding from
Big Pharma, Defense Contractors, Energy, Big Banking, and even insider stock trading now feel compelled to warn us of graft and
corruption they all fostered. These politicians get elected as nobodies, sell their votes, retire as millionaires, then have the
nerve to tell us how corrupted our government has become as they check out to become Lobbyist's.
Orrin Hatch was a Senator for 42 years but last week he woke up one morning to find the Senate needs fixing? Paul Ryan was
Speaker of the House and fiercely defended Trump but now as he leaves he's suddenly discovers that things aren't right in Washington?
And what about all those who are still in office now – where are their warnings and concern? The answer is it's difficult to talk
while you're in office stuffing your mouths at the trough.
Sadly, MSNBC and the media carry these farewell speeches with no comment except that they are all great public servants and
their viewers soak it all up because to do otherwise would be unpatriotic. And the march of the lemmings to the voting booths
continues.
PresumptuousInsect 14 hours ago
I am so glad to see this man speak out. For the longest time, war and the military budget has been a third rail in politics,
and "support the troops!"--however hypocritical that slogan might be--has been a rallying cry as well as an accusation of treason/unAmericanism/communism,
etc., for those who have had doubts. But finally we are starting to see signs of dissatisfaction with the status quo among the
political class, and even antiwar bullet points listed on some platforms. There are even calls for diplomacy, a word that seemed
to have been deleted from all U.S. dictionaries. I hope that Arkin's outcry serves to move this agitation forward.
shenebraskan 14 hours ago
Dunno if you noticed (I did because I watch State Department briefings), but when Brett McGurk resigned as Syria envoy, in
a similar huff to McMaster, he bemoaned the loss of his colleagues at State and Pentagon. State Department has become another
branch of the MIC, not a diplomatic corps. And I am not saying this is all because of Trump. Probably started when we "won" the
Cold War.
Since this occurs within a similar timeframe to this most outstanding article and since
yesterday was the 54th anniversary of October 11, 1963, this might also prove helpful:
21 Days . . . . .
On p. 255 of Geoffrey Shaw's fascinating book, The Lost Mandate From Heaven , he
writes:
But did the president realize that the reporter's influence on policy had been given to
him, at least in part, by State Department officials ?
Of course, Shaw was speaking of President John F. Kennedy, soon to be assassinated, whose
policy was being attacked by David Halberstam, in complete lockstep with the State Department
official who was feeding him that information: Averell Harriman.
Or that Robert Lovett, who had been his advisor on those appointments, was a trustee of
the Rockefeller Foundation? (I'm sure JFK was aware that Lovett was an active partner with
Brown Brothers Harriman -- Averell Harriman's partly owned firm with the Brown family -- but
did JFK know that Lovett had married into the Brown family?)
On Oct. 11, 1963, President Kennedy signed NSAM 263, which set the stage for the
withdrawal of American military advisors from South Vietnam.
After President Kennedy signed NSAM 263, he issued a memo to the State Department and some
of their overseas offices, detailing the planned complete withdrawal of military advisors
from South Vietnam, to begin in late November of 1963, and completed before the upcoming
presidential election.
This memo was declassified by President Clinton in the late 1990s, but reclassified by
President George W. Bush sometime in 2000. (I would have downloaded a copy, but never once
considered that something which had been declassified would be reclassified -- something to
my knowledge which had never occurred before. And having been a past holder of Top Secret
Crypto and Satellite clearances, I have some familiarity with classification procedures.)
So twenty-one days after NSAM 263 and the State Department memo, President Diem is
overthrown, and twenty-one days later, President Kennedy is overthrown.
Cybersecurity "experts" in the United States have long alleged that "Russian bots" were used
to meddle in the 2016 elections.
But, as it turns out, the authors of a Senate report on "Russian election meddling" actually
ran the false flag meddling operation themselves.
A week before Christmas, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report accusing Russia
of depressing Democrat voter turnout by targeting African-Americans on social media. Its
authors , New Knowledge , quickly became a household name. Described by the New
York Timesas a
group of "tech specialists who lean Democratic," New Knowledge has ties to both the U.S.
military and the intelligence agencies.
Morgan and Fox have both struck gold in the " Russiagate " scheme, which sprung into being
after Hillary Clinton blamed Moscow for Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2016. Morgan,
for example, is one of the developers of the Hamilton 68 Dashboard, the online tool that
purports to monitor and expose narratives being pushed by the Kremlin on Twitter. And also
worth mentioning, that dashboard is bankrolled by the German Marshall Fund's Alliance for
Securing Democracy – a collection of Democrats and neoconservatives funded in part by
NATO (North AtTreaty Tready Organization) and
USAID (United States Agency for International Development).
It is worth noting that the 600 " Russia-linked " Twitter accounts monitored by the
dashboard is not disclosed to the public either, making it impossible to verify these claims.
This inconvenience has not stopped Hamilton 68 from becoming a go-to source for hysteria-hungry
journalists, however. Yet on December 19, a New York Times
story revealed that Morgan and his crew had created the fake army of Russian bots, as well
as several fake Facebook groups, in order to discredit Republican candidate Roy Moore in
Alabama's 2017 special election for the U.S. Senate.
Working on behalf of the Democrats, Morgan and his crew created an estimated 1,000 fake
Twitter accounts with Russian names, and had them follow Moore. They also operated several
Facebook pages where they posed as Alabama conservatives who wanted like-minded voters to
support a write-in candidate instead . In an internal memo, New Knowledge boasted that it had
" orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore
campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet ." – RT
This scandal is being perpetrated by the
United States media and has so far deceived millions, if not more. The botnet claim made a
splash on social media and was further amplified by
Mother Jones , which based its story on "expert opinion" from Morgan's dubious creation,
Hamilton 68.
Things got even weirder when it turned out that Scott Shane, the author of the Tim es
piece, had known about the meddling for months because he spoke at an event where the
organizers boasted about it!
Shane was one of the speakers at a meeting in September, organized by American Engagement
Technologies, a group run by Mikey Dickerson, President Barack Obama's former tech czar.
Dickerson explained how AET spent $100,000 on New Knowledge's campaign to suppress Republican
votes, "enrage " Democrats to boost turnout, and execute a " false flag " to hurt Moore. He
dubbed it " Project Birmingham ." -RT
There really was meddling in American democracy by " Russian bots. " Except those bots
weren't run from Moscow or St. Petersburg but from the offices of Democrat operatives chiefly
responsible for creating and amplifying the " Russiagate " hysteria over the past two years in
a
textbook case of psychological projection ,
brainwashing, and
Nazi-style propaganda campaigns.
"... Craig Murray today publishes accounts from the "Integrity Initiative" showing that journalists in Scotland are receiving retainers of 2500 a month Sterling, plus expenses and payment for actual articles published. ..."
"... We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is the complete incompetence of those running the Empire. While malicious, indeed deadly, they simply cannot keep up with the critics of imperialism. Their power rests entirely on their ability to use force, both physical and financial. ..."
Craig Murray today publishes accounts from the "Integrity Initiative" showing that
journalists in Scotland are receiving retainers of 2500 a month Sterling, plus expenses and
payment for actual articles published.
And if this is going on in Scotland we can be quite sure that it is actually happening in
North America and Europe, generally, and, of course, in the less prosperous parts of the
world where standards of integrity are just as low as they are hereabouts.
We can be actually confident not just that the journalists in the MSM are on the
payroll but that the invoices and accounts for their bribes are carefully preserved.
Murray's blog is almost always worth following, just as 'b's is. Yesterday more news about
the Skripal case emerged: it seems that the British government was prepared well in advance
for the sudden attack on Skripal.
What we are witnessing is the complete incompetence of those running the Empire. While
malicious, indeed deadly, they simply cannot keep up with the critics of imperialism. Their
power rests entirely on their ability to use force, both physical and financial. Their
attempts to use social medias to their advantage are lame and ineffective. It seems clear to
me that they will soon be reduced to using their power not just to hobble but to cripple
critics- net neutrality is already finished.
Craig Murray is right that "As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier."
Collapse of neoliberal ideology and rise of tentions in neoliberal sociarties resulted in unprecedented increase of covert and false
flag operations by British intelligence services, especially against Russia, which had been chosen as a convenient scapegoat.
With Steele dossier and Skripal affair as two most well known.
New Lady Macbeth (Theresa May) Russophobia is so extreme that her cabinet derailed the election of a Russian to head
Interpol.
Looks like neoliberalism cannot be defeated by and faction of the existing elite. Only when shepp oil end mant people will
have a chance. The US , GB and EU are part of the wider hegemonic neoliberal system. In fact rejection of neoliberal
globalization probably will lead to "national neoliberals" regime which would be a flavor of neo-fascism, no more no less.
Notable quotes:
"... The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. ..."
"... I learnt how highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane just happened to be on holiday in the United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign. ..."
"... It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely unbalanced panel of British military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia. ..."
"... the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it. ..."
"... By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building . It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London. ..."
"... Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence. ..."
"... I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills. ..."
"... I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information. ..."
"... one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media, it would be the biggest story of the day ..."
"... As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier. ..."
"... You can bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy". ..."
The British state can maintain its spies' cover stories for centuries. Look up Eldred Pottinger, who for 180 years appears
in scores of British history books – right up to and including William Dalrymple's Return of the King – as a British officer who
chanced to be passing Herat on holiday when it came under siege from a partly Russian-officered Persian army, and helped to organise
the defences. In researching
Sikunder Burnes, I discovered and published from the British Library incontrovertible and detailed documentary evidence that
Pottinger's entire journey was under the direct instructions of, and reporting to, British spymaster Alexander Burnes. The first
historian to publish the untrue "holiday" cover story, Sir John Kaye, knew both Burnes and Pottinger and undoubtedly knew he was
publishing lying propaganda. Every other British historian of the First Afghan War (except me and latterly
Farrukh Husain) has just followed Kaye's official propaganda.
Some things don't change. I was irresistibly reminded of Eldred Pottinger just passing Herat on holiday, when I learnt how
highly improbable left wing firebrand Simon Bracey-Lane
just happened to be on holiday in the
United States with available cash to fund himself, when he stumbled into the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Recent university graduate Simon Bracey-Lane took it even further. Originally from Wimbledon in London, he was inspired to
rejoin the Labour party in September when Corbyn was elected leader. But by that point, he was already in the US on holiday. So
he joined the Sanders campaign, and never left.
"I had two weeks left and some money left, so I thought, Fuck it, I'll make some calls for Bernie Sanders," he explains. "I just
sort of knew Des Moines was the place, so I just turned up at their HQ, started making phone calls, and then became a fully fledged
field organiser."
It is, to say the least, very interesting indeed that just a year later the left wing, "Corbyn and Sanders supporting" Bracey-Lane
is hosting a very right wing event, "Cold War Then and Now", for the shadowy neo-con Institute for Statecraft, at which an entirely
unbalanced panel of British
military, NATO and Ukrainian nationalists extolled the virtues of re-arming against Russia.
Nor would it seem likely that Bracey-Lane would be involved with the Integrity Initiative. Even the mainstream media has been
forced to give a few paragraphs to the outrageous Integrity Initiative, under which the MOD-sponsored Institute for Statecraft
has been given millions of pounds of taxpayers' money by the FCO to spread covert disinformation and propaganda, particularly against
Russia and the anti-war movement. Activities include twitter and facebook trolling and secretly paying journalists in "clusters of
influence" around Europe. Anonymous helpfully leaked the Institute's internal documents. Some of the Integrity Initiative's thus
exposed alleged covert agents, like David Aaronovitch, have denied any involvement despite their appearance in the documents, and
others like Dan Kaszeta the US "novichok expert", have cheerfully admitted it.
The mainstream media have
tracked down
the HQ of the "Institute for Statecraft" to a derelict mill near Auchtermuchty. It is owned by one of the company directors, Daniel
Lafayeedney, formerly of D Squadron 23rd SAS Regiment and later of Military Intelligence (and incidentally born the rather more prosaic
Daniel Edney).
By sleuthing the company records of this "Scottish charity", and a couple of phone calls, I discovered that the actual location
of the Institute for Statecraft is the basement of 2 Temple Place, London. This is not just any basement – it is the basement of
the former London mansion of William Waldorf Astor, an astonishing building.
It is, in short, possibly the most expensive basement in London.
Which is interesting because the accounts of the Institute for Statecraft claim it has no permanent staff and show nothing
for rent, utilities or office expenses. In fact, I understand the rent is paid by the Ministry of Defence.
Having been told where the Institute for Statecraft skulk, I tipped off journalist Kit Klarenberg of Sputnik Radio to go and physically
check it out. Kit did so and was
aggressively
ejected by that well-known Corbyn and Sanders supporter, Simon Bracey-Lane. It does seem somewhat strange that our left wing
hero is deeply embedded in an organisation that
launches troll attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
I have a great deal more to tell you about Mr Edney and his organisation next week, and the extraordinary covert disinformation
war the British government wages online, attacking British citizens using British taxpayers' money. Please note in the interim I
am not even a smidgeon suicidal, and going to be very, very careful crossing the road and am not intending any walks in the hills.
I am not alleging Mr Bracey-Lane is an intelligence service operative who previously infiltrated the Labour Party and the
Sanders campaign. He may just be a young man of unusually heterodox and vacillating political opinions. He may be an undercover reporter
for the Canary infiltrating the Institute for Statecraft. All these things are possible, and I have no firm information.
But one of the activities the Integrity Initiative sponsors happens to be the use of online trolls to ridicule the idea that the
British security services ever carry out any kind of infiltration, false flag or agent provocateur operations, despite the fact that
we even have repeated court judgements against undercover infiltration officers getting female activists pregnant. The Integrity
Initiative offers us a glimpse into the very dirty world of surveillance and official disinformation. If we actually had a free media,
it would be the biggest story of the day.
As the Establishment feels its grip slipping, as people wake up to the appalling economic exploitation by the few that underlies
the very foundations of modern western society, expect the methods used by the security services to become even dirtier.
You can
bank on continued ramping up of Russophobia to supply "the enemy".
As both Scottish Independence and Jeremy Corbyn are viewed as
real threats by the British Establishment, you can anticipate every possible kind of dirty trick in the next couple of years, with
increasing frequency and audacity
"... MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam worked like this: ..."
"... They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA court a spying campaign on Trump ..."
"... the Obama regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the record to the right people ..."
"... They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama. ..."
"... The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2) laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much worse. ..."
"... And don't forget the Skripals' affair and the relationships (via M16) between Mr. Steele and Mr. Skripal: https://thedeepstate.com/steele-skripal/ ..."
"You don't say; British Collusion to influence the 2016 US Presidential elections."
MI6, along with elements of the CIA, was behind the Steele Dossier. Representatives of
John Brennan met in London to discus before the go ahead was given. They later put Michael
Steele onto the project; he was a guy with credible Russian contacts. Basically, the scam
worked like this:
They funneled an MI6 intelligence file to Michael Steele (governments routinely keep such
files on influential foreigners and what they are up to) so he could use his contacts to
launder the information and make it appear that it came from sources within Russia; they then
funneled the report back to elements of the FBI so they could use it to justify to the FISA
court a spying campaign on Trump (the FBI illegally withheld the source of the document);
they found nothing proving any Russian connection but they kept the spy program going; they
tried justifying the spy program with a fake story involving a reliable asset that once
passed information from Jimmy Carter's campaign to George H.W. Bush in an effort to help
Reagan win the 1980 election; they later paid the asset nearly a quarter million dollars for
his efforts using a fake "India-China" grant despite the grant running to 2018, the asset
attempted to get a job in the Trump administration so he could act as a mole ; the Obama
regime purposely mishandled information in regards to the spying program (ex: Michael Steele
leaked his document to various news sources before the election and later lied to congress
about it), ensuring it would leak to the press; the Obama regime illegally unmasked elements
of Trump's personal contacts so they could clandestinely leak suggested targets off the
record to the right people
They lost the election anyway, so they then planted dirt and negative press to make the
document look legit – lies about Manafort meeting Assange (Guardian is funded by the
British government to police the left), WaPo lies claiming a vast Russian conspiracy just as
Trump came into office (it was an effort to delegitimize him and create calls for Hillary to
take his place), leaking bank records, the special counsel .and leaking information on Trump
policies to the media using a secret security clearance credentials program enacted by Obama.
They also ran interference through CIA guys like Mark Warner in an effort to cover up the
mole they planted; they falsely asserted this was a national security issue when the man's
identity was well-known to the press and he was never an undercover spy like Jarret was, at
least not in recent history.
To put this all into perspective, imagine the following scenario:
The government takes CCTV footage of you at a grocery store; in the background there is an
attractive woman. The woman then goes missing. The government illegally reads your emails and
finds that you like sexual jokes. The government then interviews a friend of yours who claims
that you once made a risque rape joke back in college. They also plant a mole in your
workplace who befriends you and reports back all of your politically incorrect humor. Then
the cops find the woman's body and the government claims that you killed her because you were
in the area at the time and you make bad jokes, which has been confirmed by multiple credible
people. You look guilty, don't you? The government 1) took information out of context 2)
laundered circumstantial evidence through a credible witness when they originally obtained it
elsewhere using nefarious sources. That's what they did to Trump, but much much much
worse.
"... One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan, Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here? ..."
I believe you are spot on in your analysis of the Trump methods. No doubt based on your
personal observations up close of similar sole proprietor business hustlers. I think one
problem that Trump methods face is that he needs people around him who can make things happen
despite the byzantine ways of the vast federal bureaucracy who have their own agenda.
One thing that has puzzled me about Trump methods is his constant tweeting of witch
hunt with respect to Mueller but his unwillingness to actually disclose what Brennan,
Clapper, Comey, et al actually did by declassifying all the documents and communications
among them. In your opinion what is he trying to accomplish with his method here?
Essentially Mueller witch hunt repeat the trick invented by Bolsheviks leadership during
Stalin Great Terror: the accusation of a person of being a foreign agent is a 'slam dank" move
that allows all kind to nasty things to be performed to convict the person no matter whether he
is guilty of not.
Consolidation of power using Foreign Counter Intelligence as a tool is a classic and a very
dirty trick.
Notable quotes:
"... It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway ..."
"... This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. ..."
"... It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does. ..."
"... IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant innuendo. ..."
"... In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money laundering that took place over a decade ago ..."
"... Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp rhetoric. ..."
"... Mueller may have created more crimes than existed before his inquiry. ..."
It would be of great value to know what the underlying predicate crime(s) are that are
sustaining Mueller's scorched earth approach to what looks to be 'all things Trump,' whether
the crimes relate to counter intelligence jurisdiction (treason, espionage), illicit overseas
business transactions relating to sanctions violations or something of that sort, or election
law violations, the smoke of which got the whole Mueller jihad underway .
It certainly does give every appearance, at least from the outside perspective, of an
investigation looking for a crime.
This would not be unusual in a Foreign Counter Intelligence case which are almost by
definition open ended; it would be very unusual, in fact prohibited, in a criminal case where
a factual predicate needs to be articulated that constitutes reasonable suspicion that a
crime has been committed.
It seems Mueller has been riding the FCI horse whither he pleases to round up
interviews, compare them, and then take the chicken shit route of charging 1001 violations to
leverage his way forward. If that seems to smell bad, it is because it does.
Precisely the same approach could have been taken vis a vis the Uranium mattter or any of
the Clinton Foundation speaker forays into foreign lands and almost certainly a boatload of
1001 violations would have come into port.
IMO, Trump is not helping himself or the American people get to the objective truth by
declassifying all the documents and communications. Unless all the documents are released
unredacted, all we have are theories and speculation. And Trump will be on the losing end of
that as the news media and their Deep State collaborators have all the means to drive the
narrative and attempt to convict in the court of public opinion through constant
innuendo.
In the mean time the Mueller investigation itself creates the crimes as pretty much
most Trump associates have been indicted for perjury. Even Manafort was prosecuted for money
laundering that took place over a decade ago .
There have been no claims from Mueller that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to
steal the 2016 election.
Trump has stated that he doesn't want to declassify as the American people shouldn't
know how corrupt their government is. This seems to contradict his Drain the Swamp
rhetoric. With the Democrats gonna run the House come January. I think Trump will come
under increased pressure from all sides. I don't believe the Mueller investigation will ever
wind down until Trump is defeated either via impeachment or loss of the next presidential
election.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Eric Zuesse December 23, 2019 | History The Lies That Are Used for Denying the Legitimacy of Crimea's Breakaway Crimea's breakaway from Ukraine and rejoining Russia is treated in the US-and-allied world as being justification for the explosive re-emergence in 2014 of America's Cold War NATO alliance as being a restored war against Russia; and, so, whether or not that 'justification' is truthful is the paramount geopolitical issue in our era; and it will therefore be discussed and (via the links here) documented in this article.
Print this article See also
September 17, 2019 Crimea and Kashmir Viewed Through a Western Prism of Hypocrisy
Also by this author Eric Zuesse American writer and investigative historian
Hidden Evidence Regarding Ukrainegate
To the top
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us" src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg"> Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us Younger evangelicals, those under 45, have been slowly but steadily moving away from Trump during the past two years or so, unhappy about his example. A key topic that has driven them away is immigration. Loving your neighbor as yourself has always been a bedrock Christian value. And Trump's stance on immigrants (especially those of color) has upset the younger generation of evangelicals, with two-thirds of them saying in surveys that immigrants strengthen our country, bringing their work ethic and talents with them from Mexico or Central America or Syria. Climate change is another issue that has caught the imagination of younger evangelicals. "I can't love my neighbor if I'm not protecting the earth that sustains them and defending their rights to clean water, clean air, and a stable climate," Kyle Meyaard-Schaap, a national organizer for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action, told Grist . Needless to say, Trump's contempt on this subject grates badly on these young Christians. Perhaps naively, Americans have always looked to the presidency for exemplary moral behavior, and when there are obvious personal or moral failures, as with Nixon and Clinton, there is disappointment, even anger. But if you're a Christian -- and I lay claim to this for myself -- you understand that it's human to fail at perfect behavior. There is always forgiveness. And, as T.S. Eliot wrote, "Humility is endless."
Russiagate, Ukrainegate and impeachment aren't conspicuously economic issues. But they are, to a large extent, class issues. They are inside-the-beltway dramas about foreign policy arcana that are important to people who see their lots tied in one way or another to the established order. This includes, by degree, those of us who would like to make room for outside-the-beltway concerns like ending militarism, solving environmental crises, providing meaningful employment for all who want it and creating functioning healthcare and educational systems.
15,514
Although this profile says Virginia, tweets are from the Sofia, Bulgaria time zone and he writes in Russian. Another curiosity considering the Fancy Bear source code is in Russian. This image shows Crowdstrike in their network. Crowdstrike is part of Ukrainian nationalist hacker network. In the image it shows a network diagram of Crowdstrike following the Surkov leaks. The network communication goes through a secondary source.
Although OSINT Academy sounds fairly innocuous, it's the official twitter account for Ukraine's Ministry of Information head Dimitri Zolotukin. It is also Ukrainian Intelligence. The Ministry of Information started the Peacekeeper or Myrotvorets website that geolocates journalists and other people for assassination. If you disagree with OUNb politics, you could be on the list.
Mr. Sketchy – ICIG Michael Atkinson
<img alt="Faith could bring us together. But too often it divides us"
src="//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/191121180252-20191121-fractured-states-religious-leaders-large-169.jpg">
This article incorporates
text from this source, which is in the 
20191031-ukrainegate.pdf
by Barbara Boyd, [email protected] - Be the first to be notified when we release
the next parts, text sc20 to (202)609-8371 - text stop to leave at anytime.
Part 2 is now available.
<img
src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/05242018-DUCF-ICIG-DNI.jpg" alt=""
width="850" height="407" data-portal-copyright="The Federalist" />
<img
src="https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/09242019-DCUG-ICIG-DNI.jpg" alt=""
width="850" height="407" data-portal-copyright="The Federalist" />
click to watch video
