Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 17, 2018

John Brennan Is No Match For Trump

U.S President Trump revoked the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Good. It is probably the best thing Trump has ever done. Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive. He should rot in hell instead of making money off his former status.

Besides that there is no sound reason why anyone who does not work for the government, directly or indirectly, should have a clearance and thereby access to state secrets. ACLU and others are wrong in this. Revoking or keeping a security clearance has nothing to do with free speech or first amendment rights.

Abu Jihad Brennan was the CIA's station chief in Saudi Arabia. Some assert he went native, i.e. converted to Wahhabism. Brennan was in Riyadh when the Khobar Towers were bombed. Al-Qaeda did it, but Brennan was helpful in blaming the attack on Hizbullah and Iran. He was deputy executive director of the CIA on 9/11. That 9/11 happened was an intelligence failure or, as some have it, an incident arranged by the deep state. Brennan was CIA chief of staff while the agency concocted false stories about Iraqi WMD. He was within the line of command that ran the CIA torture program. It was Brennan who conspired with the Gulf dictators to hire Jihadis to destroy Libya and to attempt the same in Syria. In short - the man was always ruthless, incompetent and dishonest.

When Obama became president he wanted to make Brennan Director of the CIA. The Democrats in Congress were opposed to that. Obama then made him his high priest of targeted killings. After Obama's reelection, Brennan finally became director. He ordered the CIA to spy on the Congress committee investigating CIA torture. He lied to Congress under oath when he denied that it had happened. When it was proven that the CIA did what it did, he had to apologize.

At that time a Washington Post editorial headlined Obama should fire John Brennan. Today the Post calls the revocation of a security clearance of a former official, who -it had opined- should have long been fired, a "political vendetta against a career intelligence officer". Hypocrites.

Most important was "Brennan’s ringleader role in the so-far unsuccessful attempts to derail Trump, both before and after the 2016 election. As far as we can tell it was Brennan who concocted and launched the conspiracy to insinuate that Trump is connected with alleged Russian influence. Brennan bet that Hillary Clinton would win the election. He lost his bet and is now out in the cold. He fears that his role, especially his conspiring with British security services and with the Steele dossier, will come to light.

Since Trump became president Brennan publicly opposed him. That was a huge mistake. He is no match for Trump. By revoking Brennan's clearance Trump is now elevating him to 'hero' of the so called 'resistance' against him which he connects to the deep state. This is the Trump playbook:

[R]unning against the deep state provides Trump a rhetorical crutch. It’s a built-in excuse for failing to deliver on his 2016 campaign promises. Sitting presidents usually have to run as incumbents. Trump can try to run for re-election as an outsider. And is there a better poster boy for the alleged deep state than Brennan?

The idiots who express solidarity with Brennan by offering up their security clearances confirm, simply by doing so, that there IS a deep state cabal that is opposed to Trump. Attacking Brennan and them will help Trump to get reelected.

Trump uses the same playbook when he attacks the "fake news media" for opposing him. He is right in that nearly all U.S. and international editors favored Hillary Clinton over Trump. This week 200 U.S. papers united to write editorials against Trump's attacks against the "freedom of the press". They fell for his trick:

Most journalists agree that there’s a great need for Trump rebuttals. I’ve written my share. But this [Boston] Globe-sponsored coordinated editorial response is sure to backfire: It will provide Trump with circumstantial evidence of the existence of a national press cabal that has been convened solely to oppose him. When the editorials roll off the press on Thursday, all singing from the same script, Trump will reap enough fresh material to whale on the media for at least a month. His forthcoming speeches almost write themselves: By colluding against me, the fake media proved once and for all, that they are in cahoots with the Democrats and have declared themselves to be my true political opposition ...

Trump is excellent in playing his domestic opponents. Brennan made a huge mistake in publicly opposing him. He is now standing in the limelight and people will only dig further into his role in the "Russian collusion" campaign. Yesterday Brennan authored a New York Times Op Ed headlined President Trump’s Claims of No Collusion Are Hogwash. It does not provide any evidence for the "hogwash" claim. Brennan can not show that there was a Trump campaign collusion with Russia or anyone else.

Richard Burr, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, gave a somewhat salty and fitting response:

“Director Brennan’s recent statements purport to know as fact that the Trump campaign colluded with a foreign power. If Director Brennan’s statement is based on intelligence he received while still leading the CIA, why didn’t he include it in the Intelligence Community Assessment released in 2017? If his statement is based on intelligence he has seen since leaving office, it constitutes an intelligence breach. If he has some other personal knowledge of or evidence of collusion, it should be disclosed to the Special Counsel, not The New York Times.

“If, however, Director Brennan’s statement is purely political and based on conjecture, the president has full authority to revoke his security clearance as head of the Executive Branch.”

In short: "Nut up or shut up."

It is doubtful that Trump will let go of the issue. Brennan is a too juicy target to stop shooting at it. Currently Brennan is still too valuable as an enemy for Trump to destroy him. But once that is over Brennan's day of judgment will come. Here are high hopes that Brennan will finally have to pay for at least one of his many crimes.

Posted by b on August 17, 2018 at 03:09 PM | Permalink

Comments
next page »

If the Democrats jump to defend Brennan, they will have fallen into another Trump Trap. They are assuredly tone-deaf and stupid enough to take the bait.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Aug 17, 2018 3:30:26 PM | 1

Indeed, Brennan is scum

That said, there is no deep state, there is just the state. There are factions in the ruling class, but arbitrarily deciding one is evil is just working for the other. You are a Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. But this is nonsense. The idea that people hate John Brennan so much they'll vote for Trumpery in the midterm and 2020 because Trump is kicking the ass of their enemy...did you actually read what you wrote here?

As far as the free speech rights of Brennan are concerned, the question is whether any contacts with other security officials, and any other research for article, books and speeches can be deemed as pursuing information he is not cleared for. That he could be criminally charged or sued. This would be quite extreme, and an evil precedent when such repressive tactics are used even within the upper ranks. What they do to each other, they'll do to us, faster, harder and more often.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2018 3:55:46 PM | 2

b wrote, above:

Good. It is one of the best things Trump has ever done. Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive. He should rot in hell.

but, but,

Nancy Pelosi said in a twit:

Revoking the security clearance of an honorable patriot is a stunning abuse of power & a pathetic attempt to silence critics.

Whom am I to believe? (um, trick question)

Thank you for the brief summary of this horrible person's career lowlites. Now I can just point people to this piece when they ask me how can I speak against such an 'honorable patriot'. Jeesh, these times we live.

Posted by: howard in nyc | Aug 17, 2018 3:57:50 PM | 3

Trump, whatever maybe said against him, is a legitimately, constitutionally elected president. The people like Brennan working against him were not elected.

I didn't vote for Trump. I voted for Jill Stein. But, if there is a civil war, I will have to fight for Trump's side. The oath that I swore as a naval officer was to the Constitution.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 4:35:05 PM | 4

"Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive.
He should rot in hell."

Neither of those are reasons to remove someone's security clearance. The reasons are documented. Try to stay on topic.

Posted by: Bardi | Aug 17, 2018 4:38:41 PM | 5

" Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive. He should rot in hell."

Great summary, he's a nasty neocon that is of course protected by liberal MSM.

Posted by: Zanon | Aug 17, 2018 4:41:06 PM | 6

I think this is the right move and it may indeed turn out to be a political win. But before giving Trump all the credit, it should be noted that Senator Rand Paul, a man who has consistently been critical of US foreign policy, publicly proposed the idea of canceling Brennan's security clearance last month.

https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article216755630.html

Posted by: gogaijin | Aug 17, 2018 4:41:57 PM | 7

After clearance pull, Democrats rush to back Brennan – who spied on them
https://www.rt.com/usa/436065-democrats-forget-brennan-spied/

Posted by: Zanon | Aug 17, 2018 4:46:21 PM | 8

Unfortunately, there is no limit on the numbers of despicable, warmongering, money-grubbing, craven, destructive, maniacal creatures in government. Brennan is one such specimen.

Brennan belongs in prison for subverting the Constitution.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Aug 17, 2018 4:46:39 PM | 9

Accusing Trump of treason for what he did in Helsinki is surely sufficient reason for losing a clearance.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 4:47:22 PM | 10

@2 steven

"That said, there is no deep state, there is just the state. There are factions in the ruling class, but arbitrarily deciding one is evil is just working for the other. You are a Trump supporter because you supposedly believe Trump is an insurgent fighting the deep state for a democratic world order, or some such, perhaps more discreetly phrased. "

What a strange opening gambit? There obviously is a deep state - who do you think Trump has been battling with if it is not 'hangers on' to political power and influence, the MIC, the Corporations, Wall St, the Fed and the Bankers (spelt with a 'W')?

Look, Brennan has now had enough time, with his 'hit-team' to clear much of his record and trail of criminality, and he believes that he has enough backing to go after Trump. The key is obviously the Uranium1 scam, which Mueller and Sessions appear to be stalling on big-time. And then there's the Imran Awan / Debbie Washerwoman Shultz bonanza about to break big-time - and you're trying to tell me that Brennan being charged or sued would be 'quite extreme, and an evil precedent'?

Jeez, what are they feeding the trolls with these days...

Posted by: fredjc | Aug 17, 2018 4:49:16 PM | 11

Brennan is disgusting scum. May he rot.

I would prefer for all who are Ex-BigSpy,Inc to have their security clearances revoked as soon as they become "ex." Sadly, that's apparently not how it's done. I fully disagree with a policy of letting these "ex" types keep their security clearance as "a matter of courtesy." Perhaps this whole kerfuffle will lead to a review of this practice and a change but not holding my breath.

Although I kinda personally "like" it that Trump revoked Brennan's clearance, I am also troubled by it. I don't think Trump followed proper channels, and the way it was done - and for the reasons stated - are questionable. IMO, it has at least a bit of a stink of Dictatorship about it.

Ergo, I'm not all "down" with what Trump did. Yeah, yeah, he fired a shot across the bow of BigSpy, Inc. In some ways, that's a good thing. But as usual, Trump does this in such a stupidly dumb and ham-handed way that it pretty much negates the potential "good" this might do.

Just my 2 cents worth. Trump's a stooge, and nearly 100% of what he does is solely and only to bully someone whom Trump perceives has having stood up to him (Trump). It's not so much about Trump taking on BigSpy, Inc, in any meaningful or substantive way. It's about Trump being a big-assed bully and throwing his considerable weight around... without accomplishing much other than smacking down Brennan - deservedly but with no real ongoing lasting useful effect.

Posted by: RUKidding | Aug 17, 2018 4:57:57 PM | 12

7

Democrats are not collectively smart enough or politically astute enough to run away from Brennan. What fools they are!

They abandoned their "working persons" base a long time ago. That, and Obama embraced (rescued) the Republican Party after it was nearly torn asunder by Dubya Bush. Recall that Republican affiliation was at an historic low. They needed a boot on their throats and instead they got a hand up. A seat at the table, and often, the head of the table.

Completely revived, they (the R Party) now have carte blanche to destroy public institutions at will.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Aug 17, 2018 4:58:38 PM | 13

Why did Trump nominated Gina Haspel as CIA Director?

Her nomination was supported by former CIA directors John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Michael Morell, former Director of the NSA and CIA Michael Hayden, and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

Draining the swamp?

If Trump had taken on Brennan sooner, Haspel's nomination and confirmation might've been moot.

Watch what they DO not what they SAY.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2018 4:59:17 PM | 14

Haspel was CIA chief of station in London in 2016, when the plot against Trump was hatched. She must have known what Steele et al. were up to.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 5:08:45 PM | 15

ff @ 8 said:"Unfortunately, there is no limit on the numbers of despicable, warmongering, money-grubbing, craven, destructive, maniacal creatures in government. Brennan is one such specimen."

Yep no doubt, and you may add DJT to the list. Brennan & Trump wipe their ass with rule of law, and the U$ constitution..

And many more...

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 5:08:51 PM | 16

How has Trump violated the Constitution?

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 5:10:50 PM | 17

11

That's a pretty good picture. Doesn't negate Jackrabbit at 13.

Trump flails about like an angry bull. Brennan as picador stuck him with a lance.

Trump really has no qualms about swamp creatures, per se, as long as they don't cross the line.

Ted Cruz (once a bitter rival) is about to cozy up to Trump in order to get another vile Republican seated from Texas.

Posted by: fastfreddy | Aug 17, 2018 5:12:05 PM | 18

Trumps connections with the Russian Mafia were certainly reason for concern. Too bad the DeepState Media downplayed this angle and some other angles , perhaps that would have prevented Trump from winning.

Post Brennan the Trump administration is not only expanding the use of drones, it is also obscuring the facts about how many drones are being used, how many people are being killed by them, and where. His CIA Director Gina Haspel is certainly just as evil as Brennan and even better versed in water boarding.

Anyways, big whoop that Brennan lost his security clearance . I doubt he needs Food Stamps now.

Posted by: Pft | Aug 17, 2018 5:12:59 PM | 19

Personally I hope this gets right out of control. Drone strikes and cruse missile style ! Freandly rebels, white helmets the whole deal. bring it on and pass the popcorn !!! Dirty scum.

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 17, 2018 5:23:27 PM | 20

There are factions within any state, and there are career professionals we hire to run the state whose careers span more than one administration. They have to think in long-term interests beyond the political interests of the current President.
That means that in the end, they have to take sides in an open dispute like this one between Brennan and Trump. Remember that Trump has also taken on the Justice Department, the FBI and most of the press.
You can call it a cabal or you can call it people doing their job conscientiously.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Aug 17, 2018 5:39:01 PM | 21

Lysias@3

"Trump, whatever maybe said against him, is a legitimately, constitutionally elected president. The people like Brennan working against him were not elected......But if there is a Civil War I will have to fight on Trumps side. The oath I swore as a naval officer was to the Constitution."


Certainly being against Trump or investigating him as part of your duties before he was elected is not unconstitutional. Certainly speaking against a sitting President is not unconstitional. Its not even unconstitional to lie.

Are war crimes and torture constitutional?. Drone attacks even against US citizens? Suspension of habeus corpus? Killing civilians in foreign countries without a Declaration of War? Executive orders?

The US has been under a State of Emergency since 1933 just so that document you hold allegiance to would not need to be followed. We cant tell how far it has gone because almost everything is classified and even Congress is in the dark. Whistleblowers are bound by security laws and know MSM wont cover it properly so dont bother

So yeah, Trump was elected. But so weren't Nixon and Clinton and both were impeached. There was no civil war then, so why is Trump any different? Is Civil War a constitutionally permitted option for a President who gets impeached (not saying its happening)?

Trump is a controlled Deep State asset, a faux Populist whose mission is to polarize society even further than it already is, perhaps to the point to Civil War so they may impose Martial Law and officially deep six the constititution you swore an oath to.

Posted by: Pft | Aug 17, 2018 5:43:49 PM | 22

@20 ralphieboy

"There are factions within any state, and there are career professionals we hire to run the state whose careers span more than one administration."

I think the "we" may be the problem here!!! You continue...

"You can call it a cabal or you can call it people doing their job conscientiously."

ROFL - Hahahahahahaha - that's a good one!

Posted by: fredjc | Aug 17, 2018 5:49:53 PM | 23

@21 Pft

"Trump is a controlled Deep State asset, a faux Populist whose mission is to polarize society even further than it already is, perhaps to the point to Civil War so they may impose Martial Law and officially deep six the constititution you swore an oath to."

His 'mission is to polarize society even further than it already is' - how the hell do you work that out? Please cite your sources.

How does a 'faux Populist' manage to become the President - pray tell...

Posted by: fredjc | Aug 17, 2018 6:01:20 PM | 24

The unconstitutional acts you accuse Trump of, Brennan and the Democrats have been at least as guilty of. I don't think they're any reason to side against Trump in a civil war.

If Trump is impeached and convicted, that will mean he is removed constitutionally. Then, the Constitution is not on his side. But I don't think that will happen.

Nixon's removal I supported at the time, in 1974. But I now think that I was wrong, that Watergate was an early example of the deep state deep sixing a president. JFK, they gor rid of through assassination, Nixon, through impeachment, Carter, through the October Surprise, and Bush pere through Perot's candidacy. Since then, presidents have known what they had to do. Until Trump.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 6:03:09 PM | 25

Pft: Trump is a controlled Deep State asset, a faux Populist

Once one has come to this understanding (it's not easy!) then the 2016 Presidential election (and the 2008 one also!) become suspect. It's very likely that Trump was meant to win.

What are the obligations of an oath to the Constitution when the Constitutional system has been compromised?

What kind of democracy do we have when elected representatives denounce Jihadis/ISIS while CIA/MIC help to arm them? Oh sure it's "indirectly" but is there any doubt that they KNOW that it's happening? Publicly our govt is all white hats and White Helmets do goodies. But secretly, it's another story.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2018 6:06:48 PM | 26

fredjc@3 asks "What a strange opening gambit? There obviously is a deep state - who do you think Trump has been battling with if it is not 'hangers on' to political power and influence, the MIC, the Corporations, Wall St, the Fed and the Bankers (spelt with a 'W')?"

The massive increase in military spending is not battling with the MIC; the massive tax cuts are not battling the Corporations and Wall St.; launching trade are not battling with the Corporations and Wall St.: abolition of the Fed/gold buggery has been right wing populist cliche longer than I can remember and it's not what Trump is doing. Trump has been winning the policy and personnel disputes. He's not battling the deep state. If there is such a thing as the deep state, the MIC is indeed part of it. Trump seems to be one upping Nixon's unconstitutional impoundment strategy, to spend money without Congressional authorization.

Disputes over strategy re Russia, Iran, Korea, China are vociferous but the only acceptable criticisms are from the right. Getting to the right of Trump? Even if one side were to win, policy still shifts hard right.

Trump wants to "drain the swamp." That means old-style democratic politics. That's why he wants to politicize law enforcement. The pro-Trump FBI faction that fed all the nonsense about servers etc. is to take over and attack Trump's political enemies, not just the miserable people, but ones who used to count. That's why canceling the security clearances of the Brennans is a way of threatening serving personnel not to talk to anybody. If it all stays in house, he'll get away with everything.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 17, 2018 6:22:01 PM | 27

Trump was meant to win? Obviously not by the intelligence agencies, the mainstream media, and Big Data.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 6:31:46 PM | 28

steven t johnson 3:55:46 PM | 2
Where in B's article did you read something like 'I am a Trump supporter'? He certainly is not. Read his other articles. Even if he believes Tronald to be the lesser evil than many other u.s. politicians. You shouldn't argue in a Manichean way, out there, there isn't black and white, it's more of 50 shades of gray. Brennan being a very dark tone, Tronald not absolutely decided yet. He still could end some wars - or at the contrary start a final one. Speaking from outside the u.s. that is. His domestic policies are more than awful, reactionary, plain dull.

Posted by: Pnyx | Aug 17, 2018 6:44:02 PM | 29


16 How has Trump violated the Constitution?

He has failed to reestablish the 4th Ammendment which was gutted by the two previous presidents and the supremes.

Posted by: Bart Hansen | Aug 17, 2018 6:52:30 PM | 30

And we should not forget Brennan's role in the coup in Ukraine....does CIA still have an office on the 4th floor of SBU building in Kiev?

Posted by: hopehely | Aug 17, 2018 7:04:33 PM | 31

The debate's been ongoing for over 2 years now: Is Trump part of the Deep State, or is he an outlier backed by a Deep State faction?

Escobar answered the second clause's query in the positive as he admitted being fed info by a member of that faction. If one's an independent hitman and gets hired by the Mob, does that make you a member or do you remain just an affiliate? IMO, once employed, you become a member until you're no longer employed. Ergo, Trump's a member of the Deep State as he's employed by one or more of its factions.

What was/is the Deep State's stated goal? Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet and outer space. When was it explicitly stated? During WJ Clinton's second term when Clear Skies 2010 was published, which provided flesh to GHW Bush's announcement of the New World Order. Is that goal compatible with the 1787 US Constitution? No, in a host of ways, but most importantly it violates the UN Charter in wholesale fashion.

So, as one who pledged an oath to defend the US Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, should the orders of POTUS Donald Trump be obeyed since we've just deduced he's a member of a domestic enemy cabal? No! He must be resisted.

But who do we deem not a domestic enemy, which is to ask: Who can/do we trust, or should we trust nobody? Of course, these questions are primarily for US citizens to ponder, specifically those of us who still stand by our Oath despite being discharged from service, and of course those actively serving or in reserve capacities.

Or maybe some person will shoot my logic full of holes.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 17, 2018 7:13:14 PM | 32

@26 Steven

"...abolition of the Fed/gold buggery has been right wing populist cliche longer than I can remember..."

Yeah - whatever - a lesson on symantics would not go amiss...

Posted by: fredjc | Aug 17, 2018 7:14:51 PM | 33

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 17, 2018 7:13:14 PM | 31
I think that both Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum Dominance and Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum Dominance would be more compatible to 1787 US Constitution than Full Spectrum Dominance. Also, they will be more efficient, less costly and more resistant to outside interference.

Posted by: hopehely | Aug 17, 2018 7:32:26 PM | 34

Thanks hopehely @33--

I'll just exit Stage Left and won't bother to comment further.

Posted by: karlof1 | Aug 17, 2018 7:36:28 PM | 35

@33 hopehely

Was this meant to be a private conversation between you and your 'compatriot' or are you just confused? Is it just me or is MOA under attack?

Posted by: fredjc | Aug 17, 2018 7:37:17 PM | 36

Paul Manafort has received death threats just on the news ! It's just like ' the godfather ' dam I hope they don't do the horse head scene ! I like horses ! People fail to understand USA voted in murdering anachists to run your country. You have no law ! You have no democracy, through apathy you lost it. What you think is law is just oppression.

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 17, 2018 7:45:26 PM | 37

@16: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/what-emoluments-clause-what-does-it-mean-president-n77108

I suggest you google emoluments first, and then research DJT's meetings at Mara-lago.

Personal enrichment is DJTs stock in trade.

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 7:58:55 PM | 38

lysias @27: Trump was meant to win? Obviously not by the intelligence agencies...

If the intelligence agencies are so hostile to him, then why nominate Haspel?

How does Haspel who, is connected to torture, help MAGA? How is Trump "draining the swamp" when he nominates a swamp creature (the 'choice' of the Deep State) for CIA Director?

When "populist" Presidents (both Obama and Trump) serve the establishment instead of the people then we are, simply, being played. In fact, the American political system is organized to prevent a real populist from winning the Presidency. Just ask Jill Stein who was handcuffed to a chair when she insisted on participating in Presidential debates.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2018 7:59:19 PM | 39

As far as I am concerned, every CIA director, living or dead, is/was guilty of heinous crimes and deserves to rot in hell. Yet it is just plain nonsense to believe that Donald Trump can outsmart them. Trump is an idiot. Or perhaps he is an imbecile. I'm not sure which is dumber. It is more true to say of Brennan that he may have outsmarted himself. If this is the beginning of Brennan's downfall, Trump will deserve little personal credit for bringing it about.

Posted by: Rob | Aug 17, 2018 8:02:56 PM | 40

Jr @ 38: Nice post.

Don't forget that the MS corporate media gave DJT billions in free advertisements.

As the head of CBS said:" Trump may be bad for the country, but, he's good for our ratings".

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 8:05:18 PM | 41

Hillary wanted Trump to win the nomination, because she thought he would be the easiest to beat. The media probably thought the same thing. If covering him a lot made them money at the same time, so much the better.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 8:18:44 PM | 42

@25 jackrabbit

Trump is...

"a deep state asset." How do you know that? It could be just as well that Trump is fighting this group by outsmarting them with the long game, a la Putin. (i.e. mixed signals and not acting too brashly in undoing the cabal)

"a faux populist." Even if he was a faux populist, which he might exhibit shades of, how does this make him a bad president at this current juncture in US history? Would you accept that a good president could not be a populist? IMO, he appears to be scrambling the cohesive unity and appearance of America's FP and putting the pressure on the seams of NATO and the UN so that they may eventually tear. Whatever your opinion of the UN, one can not argue against its ineffectual weight in ongoing atrocity (Syria, Yemen), but one COULD argue that it has been an agent of or has at least been coopted by the NWO.

I believe you are proceeding from these two points in your thinking that need to be reevaluated.

In your prior post @13, you equate selecting Gina Haspel as director of the CIA as further proof of Trump's assured malfeasance. Have you considered that:

1) she may be ineffectual and so on Trump's leash at the CIA
2) in her prior years under the shadow of Brennan, her promotions might have been politically-motivated and so it is understandable that a globalist like Brennan would vote in lockstep their approval of Haspel because "GIRL POWER!".
3) it might not be as simple as that to say that just because one is brought up in Brennan's CIA and then ascends to its heights that she will do globalist/Brennan bidding as a sleeper-agent in her position.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 17, 2018 8:22:30 PM | 43

@ 42: or, 4) He could be a modern day "carnival barker", distracting the crowd while his sycophants pick everyone's pockets.

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 8:28:33 PM | 44

@43 ben

Heard that before.

I can agree that there are elements of this in any neoliberal admin, and Trump is probably no different. Didn't Putin just raise the retirement age in Russia?

What is pleasing about a Trump admin, as I said above, is the scrambling of a cohesive FP, which I believe has been the largest contributing factor in our nation's decline. He wins my vote again in 2020 if the walls of empire continue to recede.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 17, 2018 8:40:22 PM | 45

De Gaulle pretended to support French Algeria until he had sufficient power to reveal his true intentions.

Posted by: lysias | Aug 17, 2018 8:40:44 PM | 46

@ 44 said:"if the walls of empire continue to recede."

Now, if that happens, some minds could be changed, but DJT and his pack of thieves would have to stop their assault on the rules and regs that benefit the working classes and their unions to get my vote. (if it even matters)..

ie..https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/operating-dark-veterans-groups-are-fighting-back-against-trumps-shadow-rulers

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 8:55:46 PM | 47

lysias @41

There were only two populists in the race: Trump and Sanders. One on Hillary's left (sheep-dogging voters to Hillary) and one on Hillary's right (Trump).

Why did any of the other 18 republicans turn populist? Why didn't they wait so long to complain about the coverage being provided to Trump?

Why were Republicans so adamantly against Trump after he won the nomination? Many said that they prefered Hillary - whom they had claimed to hate so much only months before? Answer: Trump had to be an outsider. That's what makes the populist so compelling. He has to be seen as taking on the establishment.

After such a contentious race, why did Trump quickly say that there would be no prosecution of Hillary? He has proven to be petty and vain yet he was so quick to forgive the Clintons?

Why did Trump wait so long to fire Comey? It's almost like it was timed for Comey to hand the baton to a special prosecutor.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

Here's a few more questions (of many many other questions)

Why didn't Sanders complain about DNC-Hillary collusion (he knew about it well before she captured the nomination - MSM didn't publicize it until after she had won).

Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of the well-documented time that Hillary changed her vote for a big donor? Hillary loudly proclaimed that she NEVER changed her vote for money before and DURING the crucial New York debate.

Why didn't Sanders release his 2014 tax returns? He called his tax returns "boring" yet, despite Hillary having released 10 years of tax returns, Sanders only released his 2016 returns. When his 2016 returns were delayed, reporters asked for the 2015 returns but Sanders refused to provide them.

Why didn't Sanders make a big deal of Hillary's winning 6 of 6 coin tosses during the Iowa primaries. Character was an issue from the start of the race. Trump would later lambast "crooked Hillary".

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2018 8:59:57 PM | 48

Correction:

Sanders only released his 2015 returns. When his 2015 returns were delayed, reporters asked for the 2014 returns but Sanders refused to provide them.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 17, 2018 9:03:26 PM | 49

Here's another example:

https://ucommblog.com/section/national-politics/trump-supports-national-right-work-bill

This really should be called the "right to freeload" bill.

In essence, what these "right to work" bills do is give employees the right not to pay for the services rendered by unions ( arbitration's and legal fees)there by bankrupting unions,
since lawyers don't work for free.

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 9:07:30 PM | 50

>> Why were Republicans so adamantly [vocal] against Trump after he won the nomination [but send him horrible legislation that he routinely signs into law]?

fify

The un-simplified question suggests this answer: Maybe because they want to pretend they're not in league with the loudmouth taking the blame for what the regime wants to do, so as not to tarnish their brand beyond his tenure.

Posted by: dumbass | Aug 17, 2018 9:30:28 PM | 51

@ 50 said:" Maybe because they want to pretend they're not in league with the loudmouth taking the blame for what the regime wants to do, so as not to tarnish their brand beyond his tenure."

BINGO!

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 9:34:59 PM | 52

>> Why did/didn't Sanders

Good questions. Asking them sequentially leads even a dumbass like me to conclude Sanders is a fraud.

Unfortunately, most Sanders supporters probably don't remember the issues long enough to reevaluate them collectively. Each issue appears to them during "the news cycle" as some one-off foible -- considered as misdemeanors and then forgotten before the next one occurs and thus never assembled mentally as evidence for a larger felony case.

Posted by: dumbass | Aug 17, 2018 9:41:12 PM | 53

@49 ben

I know I am in the minority on this issue but I will attempt to explain why I don't care about it and think that it possibly a good thing for unions.

For myself, I was just impacted regarding union dues through the Janus Supreme Court ruling that public employees don't have to pay union dues. I will elect to continue supporting my union, as will the vast majority of other public workers. My support of this ruling comes from the notion that unions are able to throw money via their coffers at political campaigns that I find repugnant. You can not argue that us dissenters on this point do not have grounds for this position.

Indeed, it is more complicated than left vs. right with the union dues debate. Our local union rep. said in a meeting that he would 100x rather support a strong republican than a wishy-washy democrat in our "Green" state of Oregon. The left in our state continually espouses a climatist agenda which in the end hurts work-projects and so contributes to the general schizophrenia of formerly simple identities of left, pro-labor and right, pro-business.

With right-to-work, the right MIGHT be working some anti-globalist reasoning here, although it IS a hard pill for a laborer like myself to swallow. Businesses might return home from offshoring, they say. Well I don't know, but they may have a point. This is where the drop in the bucket of a few businesses returning along with jobs might offer support to their reasoning. Of course, this is contingent on lowered wages if unions aren't strong enough in their organization to detour members from opting out of dues.

Which brings me to my point: if unions can't entice people to belong, than maybe they aren't worth their salt anyway. A little adversity, a little pinching might make us a little more uncomfortable in the states, as we seemed to roll over too easy for offshoring during the heyday of NAFTA. And it might do good for unions that the public knows that it isn't a compulsory item in the workplace. Is is hard-fought and justifies its existence.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Aug 17, 2018 9:54:33 PM | 54

Another pointless thread dedicated to counting the demons on the head of a pin.
There is no way ever, that amerika can escape this cycle.
The only solution would be to split the monolithic amerikan state into a multitude of much smaller sovereign entities otherwise the political elite remains too removed from the people whose needs they are meant to meet. That is an impossible task when a single cabal has control over 400 million humans.
But that is only part of it - amerika became so large and corrupt because the combination of ignorance, indoctrination and lassitude there persuades amerikans to have a pointless and doomed dependence on 'leaders' to make those decisions which citizens should be making for themselves.
So, in addition to breaking up amerika into manageable chunks, a system that is free of the patheticly asinine politicking which enables fools and charlatans success through via a facile, deeply flawed competition must also be innovated.

But then I still struggle to understand how it was that a group of humans - early white amerikans most of whom had experience of the corrupt and destructive actions of monarchs could possibly imagine that replacing a permanent monarch (King) with a temporary one (President) could possibly be an improvement.
Any study of history shows that the most oppressive and economically depleting periods in a monarchy are those times when power is likely to be shifted from one monarch to another. Amerika exists in a permanent state of impending power shift, as this Brennan V Trump example of the dangers of having a one person executive in a state of constant flux reveals.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Aug 17, 2018 9:59:29 PM | 55

>> But then I still struggle to understand
>> how ... group of humans ... could
>> possibly imagine that replacing a permanent
>> monarch (King) with a temporary one
>> (President) could possibly be an
>> improvement.

Related thought propositions I've contemplated only in the past couple of years is:

- Maybe we should re-think of them not as the "founding fathers" but as the "founding oligarchs". Were the elites of yesteryear really different than today's or do they just look that way because we see today's bastards up close?

- Maybe the idealist language we've long cherished in the declaration of independence, the constitution, and the many related "the making of" documents (ex: the federalist papers) were marketing collateral drafted to help sell the natives on the idea of *defending with their lives* the new elite from the old elite across the pond. ("A man does not have himself killed for a half-pence a day or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul." -nappy)

So maybe people like Jefferson -- who in his will didn't free his slaves or even mandate the slave families not be split apart -- and people like Washington -- who helped himself to 30,000(?) acres of natives' land after the British were out of the way ... maybe those people were no better than today's scoundrels.

Just a possibility, Debs. I don't know whether those propositions are true and lack the time to research them.

Posted by: dumbass | Aug 17, 2018 10:17:20 PM | 56

BTW, I lurk on here all the time. I learn a lot from all of you regulars. Thank you.

Posted by: dumbass | Aug 17, 2018 10:25:37 PM | 57

Dumbass@50

Exactly right. Koch Brothers and neocons knew they could not get their guys elected directly. So they bring in a guy who can be brought down by RICO anytime who as a professional actor can pretend to be anti-globalist, against the neocon wars , pro Russia, and an enemy of the Koch Brothers.

Fills his cabinet with neocons, Koch allies, and globalists (Goldman Sachs), continues the neocon (and Obama/Hillary) wars of aggression, stays hard on Russia, biggest tax hand out to the elite ever, rolls back EPA (KN dream), continues war on middle class (tarrifs hurt them most, HC and drug costs increasing), military just got a big budget increase plus a new space program, not to mention big time Bibi butt licking

Trump was/is the biggest scam ever, and MSM and Deep State doing a great job in their efforts to legitimize him with Russiagate (and giving him an excuse for not delivering on promises)so he can get reelected or at least so Republicans do well in November.

As Chomsky said Israel had way more influence over this election than Putins Russia

Meanwhile bipartisan efforts to censor the internet, prevent criticism of Israel, and eliminate net neutrality continue

Posted by: Pft | Aug 17, 2018 10:28:35 PM | 58

Did@54

"But then I still struggle to understand how it was that a group of humans - early white amerikans most of whom had experience of the corrupt and destructive actions of monarchs could possibly imagine that replacing a permanent monarch (King) with a temporary one (President) could possibly be an improvement.
Any study of history shows that the most oppressive and economically depleting periods in a monarchy are those times when power is likely to be shifted from one monarch to another. Amerika exists in a permanent state of impending power shift, as this Brennan V Trump example of the dangers of having a one person executive in a state of constant flux reveals."

That was the illuminati strategy at the time. Replace Monarchy with Democracy (Republic). Monarchs were targets when times are hard and harder to control. In a Democracy people can vent every 4 years and replace the party while the elites seize control over each party and operate in the shadows without being a target. Nothing is changed much since each partys figurehead has the same masters

Trump is no more in power than Queen Of England. He is a figurehead who pretends to be in power, as every President since JFK has been. Nixon tried to break free but was done in another way

Posted by: Pft | Aug 17, 2018 10:39:41 PM | 59

Posted by: Pft | Aug 17, 2018 10:28:35 PM | 57

Trump was/is the biggest scam ever,

Maybe so, but he was still the best candidate.
With such a pathetic choice of candidates, no wonder he won.

Posted by: hopehely | Aug 17, 2018 10:39:51 PM | 60

@ 53: Nice points all, what is undeniable, is that with the decline in unionism, wages and benefits have declined for the average workers.

The fact above can not change until the average worker realizes that on the job, he has no rights without representation. Working without contracts leads to abuse. The history of labor proves it.

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 10:42:44 PM | 61

I agree with everything expressed here about Brennan but while Trump is getting rid of one war criminal, he's bedding another; oligarch friend Erik Prince aka Blackwater ceo, aka exCIA operative who he wants to put in charge in Afghanistan. Trump could care less of your noble reasons for hating Brennan. Trump is no genius who gives a damn about human rights violations. Trump only cares about number one; HIMSELF.

So what's the difference between Brennan and Prince? Only the size of their bank account. When Trump does something right as in Brennan's case you can always thank his big fat ego; self-promotion or self-preservation; SELF being the operative word. To compensate for that accidental right move he'll make a collosal dumb move as in North Korea vs Iran as in Brennan vs Erik Prince. I rest my case.

Posted by: Circe | Aug 17, 2018 10:48:00 PM | 62

To add to my point @ 60:

https://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/media/_media/pdf/pathways/summer_2010/Rosenfeld.pdf

Or, maybe employees can just beg harder:)

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 10:53:50 PM | 63

P.S. Apologies to all for the OT, but, DJT does represent the anti-union, pro oligarch segment of the U$A society.

Posted by: ben | Aug 17, 2018 10:59:16 PM | 64

@11 Exactly.

@13 I totally agree. Can you believe it? Who would have thought we'd be on the same page one day? What a relief you saw the light!

Posted by: Circe | Aug 17, 2018 11:00:18 PM | 65

@23

How dumb is the American voting mass? THAT'S HOW!

Lest you forget Bush and Obama got two terms each.

Posted by: Circe | Aug 17, 2018 11:10:07 PM | 66

The enemy of my enemy is also an enemy in this case. It pains me to agree with Trump on any issue. Brennan is a thug. His physiognomy gives him away at a glance. To say he is no match for Trump is not correct. He is no match for the power of the presidency. Trump can't handle this power, either, which is why he is going down for laundering money for Russians and for colluding with them to win the election, which is not to say the Russians rigged the election. Nor is not to say the Russians are enemies, as Obama and the CIA have struggled to establish. This is to say that Trump is impulsive, ignorant, solipsistic, and corrupt to the bone.

Posted by: jadan | Aug 17, 2018 11:15:05 PM | 67

@42

Stop telling JR his lying eyes deceive him when he's finally starting to see!

Posted by: Circe | Aug 17, 2018 11:19:39 PM | 68

I have heard rumour that while he was CIA Station Chief in Saudi Arabia in the late 1990s, John Brennan converted to Wahhabi Islam. Is anyone able to say if this is true?

The only sources of information on this rumour are a former FBI counter-terrorism agent John Guandolo and a retired CIA senior official Brad Johnson (who has admitted that he has never heard Brennan say the shahada - the profession of faith, that the only God is Allah and Muhammad is his prophet - but knows people in the CIA who apparently have heard Brennan say the shahada in front of Saudi and US government officials).

https://www.acunewsdaily.com/2017/06/29/cia-confirms-john-brennan-converted-to-islam/

Posted by: Jen | Aug 18, 2018 12:16:37 AM | 69

Jimmy Hoffa posts to MOA from 1973

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f08Ucdb63bw

Posted by: chu yeh | Aug 18, 2018 12:36:51 AM | 70

Brennan is one of the most despicable former U.S. officials alive.

Indeed. It's possible that the misdeeds listed in the article have not begun to measure the man's wickedness.

I think it's a good time to mention The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade by Alfred McCoy. (I am not posting a link as the URL is too long.) As the title says, the book is about how deeply the CIA is involved in the global drug trade.

What are the chances that former CIA Director Brennan is/was one of the gangsters causing the current opioid and heroin epidemic in the U.S.?

Posted by: Cyril | Aug 18, 2018 1:08:08 AM | 71

I would like to add one more war crime to the list attributed to the scum Brennan, who traveled to Kiev in 2014 to help oversee the initial attack on the Donbass by the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The attack was branded as the "Anti-Terrorist Operation" (ATO), and I am sure that Brennan was instrumental in crafting and labeling the attack.

Posted by: Perimetr | Aug 18, 2018 1:10:46 AM | 72

Great article! And it's not just Brennan. Watch my docu A GOOD AMERICAN (on Netflix, iTunes, Amazon or www.agoodamerican.org) about Bill Binney and his program ThinThread. Then take a look at Michael V Hayden and his musings. As said in one of the other posts: the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend. We live in a pluralistic society (still) and in a multipolar world.

Posted by: Fritz | Aug 18, 2018 2:08:44 AM | 73

I blame (Brennan) for MH 17 crash in Ukraine. Two months before Brennan was in Keiv. The Obama Whitehouse denied (at first) that CIA Brennan was in Kiev however video proof existed and the Whitehouse had to admit that Brennan was their. It is my opinion that a soft go head to Ukraine intell(with extreme deniability) to bring down a passenger Airline and blame it on Russia. Despicable man (Obama incl)who could easy resolve who fired the missile as the satellite photos were/have/or never be made public as it would show a completely different story as to the one they are spinning. It's the old Sherlock Holmes 'the dog who did not bark' is the true reason why satellite footage supposedly blaming evil Russians launching missiles. That's why Obama went for a whitehouse ( a political document) report instead of full intelligence e report that would have satellite footage with expert analysis which would show Ukraine culpability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78r1qAHUVwY
Kerry statement to 50 million people that they have the satellite footage.
Ukarine Defence Minister( Ex Head Intell) getting his ducks in a row Rebels/ have a new Russian supplied a new....
https://nationalpost.com/news/ukraine-accuses-russia-of-violating-its-airspace-allowing-weapons-across-border-as-crisis-escalates
With the spliced tape ( why would you need one if the Rebels really did it/ release time/tape, hours after planes destruction. So pre planned with the usual suspects.....

Posted by: col from oz | Aug 18, 2018 2:25:52 AM | 74

Brennan is classic case of those who have glass houses shouldn't throw stones at others. Sure more skeletons are expected to come out. Ukraine one will be the icing.

Posted by: AG17 | Aug 18, 2018 3:25:17 AM | 75

I don't understand at all this business of servicemen keeping their security clearance ad inf. In my day many years ago in the UK army as a signals officer one only got to see stuff on a Need To Know basis. If it wasn't necessary to know stuff to do your job, then you didn't get to see it. Or hear about it. One would never think of asking a colleague what he was working on if it was highly classified. "Hey Jack, all that monitoring equipment you took over to that NATO excercise in a VW Combi when you and your crew were dressed as hippies....how long did it take you to work out the West German ORBAT? Half an hour?" In the US army, do highly-vetted NCOs...such sgts working in an encryption room...get to keep their "security clearance" for the rest of their life....after they have retired and are working for Burger King? Surely they can't still wander into an encryption room and ask what's going on? Bizarre if so. And very dangerous.

Posted by: Guy Thornton | Aug 18, 2018 5:18:38 AM | 76

@72 -- "Hayden"
What's in a single letter?
Haydon was the mole in "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" (1974)

Posted by: imo | Aug 18, 2018 5:29:13 AM | 77

Why would he have a security clearance if he was no longer a member of the government?
None of them should
I cannot understand the logic of it all,
Hillary Clinton for example - she has one I believe.
Rather bizarre isn't it?
Just asking.

Posted by: Emily | Aug 18, 2018 6:15:28 AM | 78

Which side are you on? Pete Seeger. YouTube
The brave people who won the rights that you had, and lost !
We stand on the shoulders of giants !!!

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 18, 2018 6:23:46 AM | 79

Which side are you on ? Rebel Diaz you tube.

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 18, 2018 6:44:34 AM | 80

Which side are you on ? Rebel Diaz. Remix ft Dead prez

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 18, 2018 6:56:54 AM | 81

Emily @78:

It's been said that former intel officers get to keep their clearance for future discussions just in case. So if an urgent matter pops up, no one can legally show you any intel until you get your clearance back which can take some time, and possibly fatal to those involved in the field.

Posted by: Ian | Aug 18, 2018 7:23:04 AM | 82

Trump purges

Catholics
Sean Spicer
John Brennan
Paul Manafort
James Comey
Stephen Bannon
Reince Priebus (greek Orthodox)
Michael Flynn


Presbyterian
Tom Price

Congregationslist
Rex Tillerson

Methodist
Jeff sessions (coming soon)

Posted by: Pft | Aug 18, 2018 7:40:01 AM | 83

Al-Qaeda did it

That statement is highly debatable, to say the least. And Wikipedia is everything but a reliable source as they will only allow whatever is acceptable to the mainstream discourse

Posted by: mh505 | Aug 18, 2018 7:42:04 AM | 84

Intel or Intelligence (as in information) is a peculiar word. The CIA and various individuals, spooks, creeps and etc. manufacture it (often out of whole cloth) to suit a preconceived agenda (such as the evisceration of human rights or the pursuit of full spectrum dominance).

Posted by: fast freddy | Aug 18, 2018 7:55:39 AM | 85

Just over at the American Conservative reading an article about Seymour Hersch and found this:

Shortly before Hersh started covering the Pentagon for the Associated Press in 1965, Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, berated a group of war correspondents in Saigon: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid.”

Nothing changes. Something for the #resistance to think about. BTW, how do we know that Arthur Sylvester was telling the truth? Or was he lying?

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Aug 18, 2018 8:23:37 AM | 86

Just over at the American Conservative reading an article about Seymour Hersch and found this:

Shortly before Hersh started covering the Pentagon for the Associated Press in 1965, Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, berated a group of war correspondents in Saigon: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid.”

Nothing changes. Something for the #resistance to think about. BTW, how do we know that Arthur Sylvester was telling the truth? Or was he lying?

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Aug 18, 2018 8:23:38 AM | 87

I like Trump's ambiguity.
Acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of "Israel" was a silly idea with no basis in law. But when they slipped into Full Spectrum Vampire mode and started slaughtering/ maiming Palestinians like there was no tomorrow, it became obvious that he knew exactly what he was doing, and why.
Now the whole world has been reminded, again, what a bunch of self-worshipping ratbags they are. Passing an Only Jews Are People law in "The M.E's only democracy" merely added to the farce.
It's 'interesting' that:
(a) they didn't thank him.
(b) he was too busy to attend the celebrations in "Israel".

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Aug 18, 2018 8:36:55 AM | 88

@ Posted by: Emily | Aug 18, 2018 6:15:28 AM | 78

"Why would he have a security clearance if he was no longer a member of the government?"

There are many jobs available require workers to have, or obtain a security clearance. If one already has a clearance, (not necessarily at the level of brennan, etc...) or had one due to previous employ, they will be given higher consideration for the position.

Think of all the defense work that is sub-contracted out. Even Snowden had a security clearance.

This is their value, and in the military it is often sought for specifically this reason.

b4real

Posted by: b4real | Aug 18, 2018 9:13:26 AM | 89

Hoarsewhisperer @ 88

Yes. I think Israel is rapidly losing support and that of Hezbollah is growing. I think history will soon be on the side of the Palestinians and Syrian Golan.

I also see Russia as getting fed up with the Palestinian debacle. If Israel overreaches and gets a Hezbollah response they may find themselves without friends.

Posted by: financial matters | Aug 18, 2018 9:20:25 AM | 90

lysias@28 "Trump was meant to win? Obviously not by the intelligence agencies, mainstream media and Big Data." Not sure who lysias is asking, but if the security agencies had committed to Clinton as the candidate to fend off the populist insurgency led by the newest barefoot boy from Wall Street Trump, then they wouldn't have had factions feeding opposition to Clinton. Benghazi, where Clinton lied for the agencies to cover up how that ambassador was running guns for jihadis and had a fatal falling out, in particular would have been squelched. The FBI would have squelched the drivel about emails instead of Comey announcing yet another fake break just in time for the election. The mainstream media gave Trump billions in free publicity. It wasn't for ratings, they could have gotten ratings covering Sanders. It was because the rich shifted hard right, to Trump. There was a huge surge of money in the last days. And Big Data? If that's a reference to Cambridge Analytica, that was for Trump. The insistence that Clinton was "the" candidate for Wall Street and the security agencies is a covert way of whitewashing Trump, supporting the populist swindle. By and large all so-called serious candidates are favored or tolerated by the rulers. And that's doubly true in the case of Trump, whose wealth makes him one of them. Being fellow plutocrats doesn't make them all chummy, it makes them enemies, because there's never enough money.

Pnyx@29 wonders where the esteemed host wrote he was a Trump supporter. Pretending there is a deep state that Trump is fighting, pretending Trump's hard core support is the majority of the people instead of the majority of the rich, pretending Trump is actually fighting for a world of equal nations? Oh, that's all Trumpery. And I have read other posts. B is even inclined to pretend that Trump won the election, instead of the Electoral College putting the loser in. Pretending Trump actually won is the purest form of Trumpery. B. doesn't want to endorse most of Trump's blatantly reactionary crap, but in the end, I think B.'s problem is he is trying to criticize Trump from the right, from some sort of eighteenth or nineteenth century vision of a liberal order. There's no getting to the right of Trump. And this is the twenty first century. Trying to go back is crazed reaction, no matter is it feels like humane motives.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Aug 18, 2018 9:22:08 AM | 91

At last – a paterfamiliar earful by none other than James Howard Kunstler, on the state of the “Three Headed Monster” that is the Democratic Party.

This is an important tipping point, because the country is waiting for nobles of the left to lead their children from the deep dark woods.
Every day, we ask, “Where are the adults? Who will call this madness for what it is?” I’ll provide the link to this masterful analysis of the “illness” – but first let me tempt readers with a brief synopsis of the “first head”.

“…one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the “intel community” …to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented.

The “doctors” of this Deep State diagnosed the condition as “Russian collusion.” An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.

The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself…. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.

With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous — and perhaps subject to malpractice charges — for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can’t stop running its mouth —“

This was published on his blog yesterday..... this is monumental, if only because the masks are coming off.

Read his description of the other 2 heads.... it's wonderful.

http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/the-three-headed-monster

Posted by: Jack Thomsen | Aug 18, 2018 10:07:22 AM | 92

Faux populism is the trick that gets the politician with the most money elected. Talking about doing something tangible to ease the suffering of the commons is faux populism. If any of them actually did something popular, they would be eradicated in some manner or another with great haste.

Posted by: Fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2018 10:08:08 AM | 93

Refer to the history of political populism. Julius Caesar was a populist. That is to say he was a champion of the common people. It got him murdered by the plutocrats.

Posted by: Fastfreddy | Aug 18, 2018 10:13:41 AM | 94

Jack Thomsen @ 92

Well said.

Bill Mitchell offers a route forward for the left.

""If the alternative to the status quo offered to electorates is one between reactionary nationalism and progressive globalism - then the left has already lost the battle.

It needn't be this way, however. A vision of national sovereignty which offers a radical alternative to that of both the right and the neoliberals - one based on popular sovereignty, democratic control over the economy, full employment, social justice, redistribution from the rich to the poor, inclusivity, and more generally the socio-ecological transformation of production and society - is not only necessary, it is possible. The fiscal capacity of the currency-issuing state remains intact and can be used to advance these objectives just as it has been used to 'fund' neoliberlaism. This alternative is also the necessary prerequisite for the construction of a new international(ist) world order, based on interdependent but independent sovereign states. It is such a vision that we present in the second part of this book.""

'Reclaiming the State'

Posted by: financial matters | Aug 18, 2018 11:35:09 AM | 95

Deep State? No, just deep loathing for a boss who violates the rules career civil servants must live by. Not even Trump's appointees (well most anyway) want to work for him. He has a long history of disloyal henchman ratting him out. He is a crappy leader (Look - nobody is following Trump but a few employed white-is-right rednecks with MADA hats who drive to Trump rallies hoping to keep their jobs).

The Brennan fiasco may backfire. Although Brennan is a nasty guy and not the most desirable poster child for highlighting Trump abuse, when powerful people enmasse go on record as pissed, it changes the political climate, and people are likely more willing to go on record in opposition creating a tweetstorm meltdown at 1600. They are also more likely to collaborate on gathering dirt to bring you down.

Is the Intel community corrupt - probably by outside standards it is. However, these folks swim in murky waters for a living, and have generally not worked against the republic for which it stands tall. Of course, by outsider standards, almost any large organization will evidence some corruptions.

Posted by: Tomonthebeach | Aug 18, 2018 11:47:37 AM | 96

Kunstler just another snake oil salesman. Self publicist on the make look at all his adds and books for sale! Ha ha ha thanks but no thanks. Just another blind ally, Offered to the confused desperate public. He ain't light at the end of the tunnel just another train about to knock you over ! Same as trump.
-----outlaw Josey Wales , snake oil salesman. YouTube .

Posted by: Mark2 | Aug 18, 2018 12:18:41 PM | 97

Revoking the security clearance of retired officials and others who are no longer working in government is fine. The current system, where people keep their security clearances so they can profit off them in the private sector, should be abolished, no question.

Revoking an individual's security clearance merely because that individual exercises their First Amendment rights is a violation of the First Amendment. I care about the First Amendment much more than I do about the awful Mr. Brennan or the awful President Trump. To see Moon of Alabama cheerlead for this obvious violation of the First Amendment is disheartening, to say the least.

Posted by: TimmyB | Aug 18, 2018 12:24:38 PM | 98

Sic Semper Tyrannis has a post explaining the US secrecy system and why certain former officials get to keep their security clearance.

Posted by: et Al | Aug 18, 2018 1:15:13 PM | 99

financial matters @95

Yes. We are told that the only choices are 1) state owns everything (complete socialism), or 2) individuals own everything (neoliberalism).

But there's a middle ground where there is a commons.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Aug 18, 2018 1:52:42 PM | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.