The Trump-Russia Scam - How Obama Enabled The FBI To Spy On Trump
Despite the loss of major narratives, the war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated. The main of tool in this war are allegations of relations between Trump and anything Russia. The war runs along several parallel paths.
The narrative war in the media is most visible one. When any of the fake stories about Trump and Russia gets debunked and disposed, new ones are created or others intensified.
In parallel to these propaganda efforts the deep state created an investigation that Trump has no way to escape from. Enabled by one of the Obama administrations last acts the investigation is using signal intelligence to entrap and flip the people surrounding Trump (see section three below). The big price will be Trump himself. Here we take a look at what transpired during the last weeks.
One major anti-Trump narrative was that 'Russian influence' helped to put him into office. This was based on the alleged nefarious influence a Russian clickbait company, the Internet Research Agency (IRA) in St. Peterburg, had on the U.S. electorate. That explanation never made sense. Little of the IRA activities had to do with the election. It used sockpuppets on Facebook and Twitter to attract people to websites filled with puppy pictures or similar nonsense. The IRA would then sell advertisement and promotions on these sites.
This was obvious for anyone following the factual content of the news instead of the 'opinions' a whole bunch of anti-Trump 'experts' and the media formed around them.
That the Mueller investigation finally indicted several of the IRA's officers over minor financial transactions was seen as a confirmation of the political aspects of the IRA activities. But nearly all the reporting left out that Mueller confirmed the commercial intent behind the IRA and its activities. There is nothing political in the accusations. Indeed point 95 of the Mueller indictment of the IRA says:
Defendants and their co-conspirators also used the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the ORGANIZATION-controlled social media pages. Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charged certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including Being Patriotic, Defend the 2nd, and Blacktivist.
Part of the false narrative of a political influence campaign was the claim that the $100,000 the IRA spent for advertisement to promote its clickbait webpages through Facebook ads somehow moved people to vote for Trump. But 56% of the IRA ads ran after the election, 25% of all its ads were never seen by anyone. How a few $10,000 for ads only few saw moved an election that was fought with several billions spent by each candidate's campaign was left unexplained.
This week, only fifteen month after this site came to the conclusion that IRA was a commercial clickbait business, the Washington Post finally admitted that the alleged political targeting of voters by the IRA never happened:
[T]he common understanding is that Russia’s interference efforts included sophisticated targeting of specific voting groups on Facebook, which could have made the difference in states that Trump narrowly won on his way to an electoral-vote victory.That understanding about Russia’s sophisticated targeting, though, is not supported by the evidence — if it’s not flat-out wrong.
...
Most of the ads purchased by the Russians didn’t specify a geographic target smaller than the United States on the whole, according to a Post review of the ads released by the House Intelligence Committee. Those that did target specific states heavily targeted those that weren’t really considered targets of the 2016 election, such as Missouri and Maryland. And of those ads that did target specific states, most happened well before or well after the final weeks of the campaign.
All the claims that some Russian sockpuppets influenced the 2016 elections were and are nonsense.The IRA sockpuppets never had any political intent.
Likewise the allegations that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and Clinton crony Podesta's email are mere assertions for which no hard evidence was ever provided. The only known fact is that the emails and papers were real, and that there content revealed the shoddiness of Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and her campaign.
Now, as the 'Russian influence' narrative is dying down, the anti-Trump - anti-Russian campaign is moving to new grounds. Last week the New York Times claimed that Paul Manafort, who for some time ran the Trump election campaign, gave public and internal polling data to the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska: Manafort Accused of Sharing Trump Polling Data With Russian Associate. A day after that sensational claim made a large splash throughout U.S. media the New York Times recanted:
Kenneth P. Vogel @kenvogel - 18:39 utc - 9 Jan 2019CORRECTION: PAUL MANAFORT asked KONSTANTIN KILIMNIK to pass TRUMP polling to the Ukrainian oligarchs SERHIY LYOVOCHKIN & RINAT AKHMETOV, & not to OLEG DERIPASKA, as originally reported. We have corrected the story & I deleted a tweet repeating the error.
Duh. Manafort gave polling data to his Ukrainian fixer Konstantin Kilimnik with the request to pass it along to Ukrainian oligarchs for who he had worked before joining the Trump campaign. Kilimnik had long worked for the International Republican Institute office in Moscow. The IRI is a CIA offshot under Republican Party tutelage that is used to influence politics abroad. Its long time head was the deceased hawkish Senator John McCain. While he worked with Kilimnik in the Ukraine, Manafort concentrated on moving the Ukraine towards the European Union and away from Russia. His and Kilimnik efforts were always opposed to Russian interests. But the NYT and others falsely try to pass them off as the opposite with the sole purpose of feeding the anti-Trump/anti-Russia campaign.
Another anti-Trump/anti-Russian propaganda effort is a new sensational NYT piece on obvious misbehavior in the upper rows of the FBI:
In the days after President Trump fired James B. Comey as F.B.I. director, law enforcement officials became so concerned by the president’s behavior that they began investigating whether he had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests, according to former law enforcement officials and others familiar with the investigation.The inquiry carried explosive implications. Counterintelligence investigators had to consider whether the president’s own actions constituted a possible threat to national security. Agents also sought to determine whether Mr. Trump was knowingly working for Russia or had unwittingly fallen under Moscow’s influence.
The NYT lets it seem as if the decision to launch a counter-intelligence investigation related to Trump was as based on some reasonable suspicion the FBI had. It was not. This was an act of revenge by the upper anti-Trump echelons in the FBI with which they attempted to undermine Trump's presidency. Note what the claimed suspicion was based on:
Mr. Trump had caught the attention of F.B.I. counterintelligence agents when he called on Russia during a campaign news conference in July 2016 to hack into the emails of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump had refused to criticize Russia on the campaign trail, praising President Vladimir V. Putin. And investigators had watched with alarm as the Republican Party softened its convention platform on the Ukraine crisis in a way that seemed to benefit Russia.Other factors fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.
Trump made a joke during the election campaign asking Russia to release the 30,000 emails Hillary Clinton had deleted from her illegal private email server. There is no requirement, as far as I know, for any candidate to criticize this or that country. How can not following the non existing requirement to criticize Russia be suspicious? The Republican Party did not soften its convention platform on Ukraine. It rejected an amendment that would have further sharpened it. Overall the Republican platform was more hawkish than the Democratic one. The Steele dossier was of course from A to Z made up nonsense paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
It is non sensible to claim that these were reasonable suspicions sufficient to open a counter-intelligence investigation. The hasty FBI move to launch a counter-intelligence operation obviously had a different motive and aim.
After Trump fired FBI director Comey, the FBI was led by Andrew McCabe, later also fired for leaking to the media and lying about it. His legal council was Lisa Page who exchange tons of anti-Trump SMS messages with her lover, the FBI agent Peter Strozk. These are the people who initiated the counter-intelligence investigation:
Strzok and Page sent other text messages that raise the possibility they were discussing opening up a counterintelligence investigation against Trump before Comey’s firing.“And we need to open the case we’ve been waiting on now while Andy is acting,” Strzok wrote to Page on the day of Comey’s ouster.
Andy is Andrew McCabe, who served as deputy FBI director.
Page gave some indication in her congressional testimony in July 2018 that the text message was a reference to an investigation separate from the obstruction probe that has already been reported.
Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it did not do so at all:
In the case of the investigation into Trump, the FBI’s decision to open a file on the president so quickly after Comey’s firing in May 2017 was a source of concern for some officials at the Justice Department because the FBI acted without first consulting leadership at the department. But those worries were allayed when, days later, special counsel Robert S. Mueller III was appointed to oversee the Russia probe ...
After Comey was fired, the FBI made a very hasty move, without reasonable suspicion and without informing the Justice Department, to launch a counter-intelligence operation involving the sitting president and his administration. What was the real purpose of this move?
Initiating a counter-intelligence investigation, for which there was no basis, gave the FBI, and later the Mueller investigation, unfettered access to NSA 'signals intelligence' that could then possibly be used to incriminate Trump or his associates.
It was the Obama administration which had given the FBI access to this tool:
The Hoarse Whisperer @HoarseWisperer - 4:05 utc - 12 Jan 2019On his way out the door, we all were wallowing in our winter of discontent, Obama signed an executive order...
...
The order revised the rules around intelligence sharing among our intel community. Specifically, it made the firehose of raw intelligence collected by the NSA directly accessible to the FBI and CIA. Instead of having to ask for intel and getting what they filtered down the FBI and CIA could directly access the unfiltered “SigInt” or signals intelligence. Intercepted phone calls, emails, raw intel from human sources. Everything our vast intelligence vacuum hoovers up, available directly... but only for counterintel and foreign intel purposes.The NSA can sit on virtually every communication into and out of the U.S. that takes place over networks. Obama made it possible for the FBI to directly access everything they had on Trump, et al. Obama supercharged the FBI’s ability to investigate Trump.
The Obama administration enacted the changed executive order EO 12333 in early January 2017, shortly before Trump took over:
Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions.
...
[T]he 12333 sharing procedures allow analysts, including those at the F.B.I., to search the raw data using an American’s identifying information only for the purpose of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigations, not for ordinary criminal cases. And they may do so only if one of several other conditions are met, such as a finding that the American is an agent of a foreign power.However, under the rules, if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department.
At that time Peter Lee, aka Chinahand, already had the suspicion that Obama was behind the FBI campaign against Trump.
With the changes in EO 12333 Obama gave the FBI the ability to launch a world wide snooping operation against the incoming Trump administration under the guise of a 'counter-intelligence' operation. The hasty FBI move after Comey was fired activated this instrument. The Mueller investigation has since used it extensively. 'Crimes' revealed through the snooping operation are turned over to the Justice Department.
The NYT claim that the counter-intelligence investigation was initiated because of reasonable suspicion of Russian influence over Trump is nonsense. It was initiated to get access to a set of tools that would allow unlimited access to communication of Trump and anyone related to him. It was Obama who on his way out of the door gave the FBI these capabilities.
There are signs that the unlimited access the FBI and Mueller investigation have to signal intelligence is used to create prosecutions via 'parallel construction':
The Hoarse Whisperer @HoarseWisperer - 18:50 utc - 12 Jan 2019An active counterintel investigation means the Trump Administration’s crimes were only as secure as the weakest link in their weakest moment. We got hints of this early. Our intelligence folks picked up “signals intelligence” or SigInt from Russians talking to Russians.
Those “signals” aren’t the kind of evidence that finds its way into a courtroom. In fact, it’s important that it doesn’t. It would burn sources and methods. It lays out the crimes and the players though... and then prosecutors find ways to make triable cases other ways.
The public sees cases for specific charges carrying significant prison time without ever knowing that the NSA and prosecutors knew so much more than they ever revealed. Now, apply those principles to the cases we’ve seen Mueller bring forward so far.Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was confronted with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There’d be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn goes down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He’s savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that’s left to do is make the case.
...
The 'crime' that di Flynn in was misremembering a phone call he had with the Russian ambassador. Similar happened with Rick Gates, Paul Manafort’s righthand man and a member of Trump’s transition team. Then it happened to Paul Manafort himself and to George Papadopoulos.
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat and email any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites people as witnesses and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller has the transcript ready. A crime has been created and an indictment for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to Flynn and the others the Mueller investigation entrapped and convicted.
Because of the counter-intelligence investigation the anti-Trump gang in the FBI hastened to initiate, the investigators got hands on signal intelligence - phone calls, chats and emails - that allowed them to indict minor people for petty crimes and to flip them to talk to the investigation.
The aim, in the end, was and is to build a prosecution case against President Trump for whatever minor and petty half-backed illegal doing there may be.
To make such a prosecution and an indictment publicly palpable the media is assigned with launching story after story about nefarious relations between Trump and anything Russia.
As we have seen above with the IRA story, the retracted NYT's Manafort bang, and the NYT's false claims about the motive of the FBI's counter-intelligence investigation, none of these stories hold up to diligent scrutiny. Today's Washington Post adds another example of no-beef stories that insinuate mystic 'Russian influence' over Trump:
The first graph claims:
President Trump has gone to extraordinary lengths to conceal details of his conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, including on at least one occasion taking possession of the notes of his own interpreter and instructing the linguist not to discuss what had transpired with other administration officials, current and former U.S. officials said.
The rest of the story largely refutes the claim made in its headline and very first sentence:
Trump did so after a meeting with Putin in 2017 in Hamburg that was also attended by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.
...
Trump generally has allowed aides to listen to his phone conversations with Putin ..
...
In an email, Tillerson said that he “was present for the entirety of the two presidents’ official bilateral meeting in Hamburg,”...
After Trump had a first White House meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov in Washington, lots of leaks about the talk appeared in the DC media. Trump was accused of giving information about an ISIS plot to the Russians that was allegedly secret. It was not. Since then Trump clamped down on the number of participants, briefings and readouts for such talks. That is simply a necessary and laudable behavior. Now the media try to construct that into 'Trump is concealing details' about talks with Russia even when the U.S. Secretary of State and others are present in these.
Ever since Trump won the Republican primaries, the Clinton campaign, the Obama administration and the U.S. and British intelligence services prepared to prevent a successful Trump presidency. The Steele dossier, created by 'former' British intelligence agents and paid for by the Clinton campaign, was the basis for an FBI investigation that was seen as an insurance against a Trump win. Any possible Russia relations Trump might have came under scrutiny. This prevented him from fulfilling his campaign promise of coming to better relations with Russia.
Shortly before Obama left the office he created the tool the FBI needed to put its investigation on steroids. When Trump fired Comey for his handling of the Clinton email affair, the FBI put that tool into action. With unfettered access to signal intelligence the Mueller investigation was able to entrap a number of Trump related people and to flip them to its side. It will use any information they give up to find some angle under which Trump can be prosecuted and eventually impeached. Even if nothing comes off this investigations, the media reports and slander all this created may well be enough to prevent an election of Trump for a second term.
I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people. Unfortunately I see no way that Trump could escape from the hold it has gained over him. Exposing it as much as possible might well be his best defense.
Posted by b on January 13, 2019 at 18:15 UTC | Permalink
Quibble time:
The Steele dossier, created by 'former' British intelligence agents and paid for by the Clinton campaign, was the basis for an FBI investigation that was seen as an insurance against a Trump win.
In my opinion the "insurance" theory is wrong. Hillary was going to win in 2016. She knew it. Trump knew it. Hell's bells, even I knew it. EVERYBODY knew it. What the murderous bit¢h was doing with her Stelle dossier was laying the groundwork for the coming campaign - or even war - agains Russia. Russia invading Crimea. Russia shooting down the MH17 airliner. Russia breaking INF treaty. Russian attempts to destroy the US electrical grid. After her coronation, she would begin to wave around "proof" supplied by the slimy Brits that the evil Russians had attempted to put the unspeakable Trump into the White House.
Of course there were also all the dead babies in Syria - murdered by Russia. Putin's use of the incredibly deadly nerve agent in Britain to try to kill the Skiprals. No doubt there would have been more - say a discovery that Russia was also behind the disappearance of the MH370 flight in the Pacific.
Hillary is not in good health - mental or otherwise. I've got a nagging suspicion the woman is a stealth End Timer. No matter the reason, she has demonstrated she doesn't mind slaughtering people wholesale. War with Russia was on her immediate agenda upon taking office.
So I just don't buy into the "insurance" theory.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jan 13 2019 19:24 utc | 2
I have to take issue with a few points, b.
[Trump] ... was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people.
There is a major flaw in reasoning here. Trump is no populist. A populist can't be elected by the money-based US political system. Trump's election was almost certainly arranged:
- The anti-Russia campaign began in earnest in 2014 (well before the 2016 election);- Trump's pre-election relationship to the Clinton's is highly suspect: they were likely to be much closer than we have been led to believe;
- An FBI informant worked for Trump for over 10 years - during the time that Mueller was FBI director;
- Trump was the ONLY populist on the Republican side (out of 19 contenders!);
- Sanders was a 'sheepdog' and Hillary ran a terrible campaign in which she made obvious mistakes that a seasoned campaigner like herself would never make;
- British involvement in the election (Fusion GPS, Cambridge Analytica, a Brit 'spy' in the Sanders campaign, etc.) suggests CIA-MI6 working together;
- Trump Administration policies are consistent those of Clinton-Bush-Obama:
> Obamacare was not repealed "on day one" - it has been strengthened by not defending coverage for prior conditions;The only major "difference" that I can think of are Trump's Wall and China tariffs. But these are consistent with the 'Deep State' goals.> Trump put TPP provisions into his new North American trade deal;
> Trump continues ME meddling;
> Trump continues militarism and tax cutting;
> Etc.
Surveys show that the "will of the people" is very different than the neoliberal, neoconservative policies that the establishment fosters upon us.
MAGA is a POLICY CHOICE as much as it is a campaign slogan. It is designed to meet the challenge posed by Russia and China and 'turn the page' on the deceit and duplicity of the Obama Administration just as Obama's "Change You Can Believe In" was designed to turn the page on the the militarism of the Bush Administration. These BI-PARTISAN page-turnings ensure that there is no accountability and provides each new Administration with a new sly story line that the public readily swallows. Each new Presidential charade entertains and misdirects as the interests of the Empire are advanced with a refreshed box of tricks and dishonest narratives.
...war of the deep state against U.S. President Trump continues unabated.
Then why did Trump nominate Gina Haspel as head of the CIA? She is the acolyte of Trump nemesis Brennan. Why does Trump choose people like Nikki Halley, Pompeo, Bolton?
The war of the Deep State is a psyop to crush dissent as the butt-hurt Deep State continues to pursue their dream of global hegemony. Anyone that believes that Trump is no part of that psyop is delusional.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 13 2019 19:32 utc | 3
Wow, man. Thanks to you and all the regulars here who contribute to gathering relevant info from all kinds of sources. I hate to repeat myself, but I feel that a little praise every 3 or 6 months is not too much spamming. This is what serious journalism looks like.
Posted by: radiator | Jan 13 2019 19:36 utc | 4
@ Zachary 2
"Hillary was going to win in 2016. She knew it. Trump knew it. Hell's bells, even I knew it. EVERYBODY knew it."
I didn't know it. In fact all year I assumed the election was Trump's to lose.
I do agree that Hillary, the Dembots, the corporate media, and probably the Deep State "knew it". But most outsiders I knew of didn't "know" any such thing.
Zachary Smith @2: ... I just don't buy into the "insurance" theory.
And I don't buy the theory that Hillary is hell bent on war.
The Clinton's are very rational and calculating and no President has the freedom that your theory suggests.
IMO what the Deep State has done under their man Trump is very similar to what the Deep State would have done if they had selected Clinton instead.
The fact is, a populist nationalist is what was deemed necessary to meet the challenge from Russia and China. And that is what we got (surprise!).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Furthermore, focusing on personality and Party is just what they want
"Watch what they do, not what they say" has a corollary: pay attention to the polices, not the politicians.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 13 2019 19:43 utc | 6
MoA's final paragraph is just about how I feel.
"I very much dislike most of Trump's domestic and foreign policy. But he was duly elected under the existing rules. The campaign the media and the intelligence services have since run against him undermines the will of the people."
This pretty well sums it up for me. Being old enough to remember FDR and the brief rise of the middle class in the 40's, 50's and 60's (and having benefited from that attempt at leveling the playing field), I am more than saddened at the downward spiral of our nation. Politics have obviously never been clean and fair, but the assassination of JFK opened the floodgates of blatant depravity perpetrated by those whose greed and lust for power will ultimately destroy us.
Posted by: jacktheokie | Jan 13 2019 20:01 utc | 7
you say
" A crime has been created and an indiction for lying to the FBI will follow"
surely you mean INDICTMENT
Posted by: mauisurfer | Jan 13 2019 20:18 utc | 8
Of course b you have nothing here to offer except your opinion. Your views regarding the relentlessness of the US criminal justice system are on target, just ask the underclasses about that. Once in view, you are never let be and in the US everyone can be found guilty of something.
Rather nice to see the pampered son of inherited tax-free wealth on the receiving end for once, in my opinion.
Trump is a crook. Russian collusion is his smokescreen. His crimes have already been demonstrated through what little we already know and there is still much we don't know and probably never will know.
This essay reads something like a veiled mea culpa from you.
You were wrong about Trump from the get go. Why not just admit it and move along? Why remain steadfastly in thrall to any shred of rightwing, authoritarianism of the elite masquerading as populism?
Whatever Trump gets from the criminal justice system, Congress or the voters appears to be well-deserved. He has brought this on himself and really there is no one else to blame even as he never will accept responsibility. He is stupid at best, dishonest at best, a useful idiot at best.
Trump saved his ass financially after a series of disastrous business bankruptcies by accepting what appears by all indications to be laundered money from literally hundreds of anonymous shell companies investing in his condos since at least 2008.
He has run roughshod over the emoluments clause quite openly.
I do believe, knowing what we know now, he will probably avoid indictment and escape impeachment, maybe only through resignation/pardon but more likely the old fashioned way: defeat at the polls in 2020.
In many ways Trump has done some good by reinvigorating the US left (such as it is) and bringing at least enough cohesion in the ranks of a badly splintered populace mainly among white females and white college educated voters who now reject the GOP, or at least the GOP of Trump.
Whether this will lead to badly needed fixes for the heinous wealth inequality (started with Reagan) is doubtful but at least the conversation is now underway (started with Bernie) which is the first step.
Tax increases, social security stabilisation, re-funneling wasted MIC billions to domestic programs for the poor, etc.
It is a start. Will it become a solution or a revolution in time?
That is up to the people who are still under the yoke of neoliberalism and global capital flight.
Posted by: donkeytale | Jan 13 2019 20:19 utc | 9
re:
Mike Flynn: pleaded out to a minor charge, rolled over in full and then produced five rounds of documents. Likely: Flynn was confronted with the intel they had on him and knew he was cooked. They knew the crimes. They heard and saw everything. There’d be no escape.
By flipping and pleading out Flynn, all of that secret intel stays secret. Our intelligence efforts are protected. And Flynn goes down. And he cooks a bunch of other gooses. He’s savvy enough to know that once they have the intel, all that’s left to do is make the case.//
So the situation is worse than I thought. The clear inference is that (1) Flynn (and others) really did commit some major crimes, and then (2) got off easy by admitting to a memory lapse (3) while cooking a bunch of other gooses.
Flynn does the easy (2) and gets away with (1) and (3), both very serious. This is justice?
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 13 2019 20:29 utc | 10
@ Jackrabbit #6
Well sir, opinions certainly do vary on this issue.
As you may recall, the woman threatened conflict on cyberattacks.
“As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack,” the Democratic presidential nominee said. “We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.”
Regarding the Deep State and Trump, Syria is in the process of winning against the neocons. And Iran has not yet been attacked. Hillary has a record, and for the most part hasn't even tried to run away from it.
Hillary Clinton’s War Record – 100% For Genocide
If you know of any instances of the woman speaking against the War Solution to problems, kindly tell me about them.
Trump is an incomparable jerk, but perhaps not quite as bad as HRC.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jan 13 2019 20:42 utc | 11
thanks b... the topic is so very tiring.. i am sick of hearing about it.. if the usa fell off a cliff and never came back again - i would be fine with that.. thank you regardless, for taking it apart and trying ti dispel the bullshite.. it is so thick, it defies logic.. i agree with @1 jose garcia, and @4 radiator...
trump is a crook... so what? most of the business class in the west are at this point! politics and crookery go hand in hand... i would be surprised if it was any different at this point in time.. how about the intel agencies? you want to sleep with them? lol..
Posted by: james | Jan 13 2019 20:43 utc | 12
There's either something wrong with this assumption, or something we're not being told...
The Mueller investigation, thanks to the snooping Obama and the FBI enabled, knows the content of every phonecall, chat and email any member of the Trump administration made and make to someone abroad (and likely also within the U.S.). It invites people as witnesses and asks them about the content of a specific calls they made. If they misremember or lie - bang - Mueller has the transcript ready. A crime has been created and an indiction for lying to the FBI will follow. This is what happened to Flynn and the others the Mueller investigation entrapped and convicted.
Option 1. Something wrong?
If you're being cross-examined in a court or pseudo-legal forum about things you may or may not remember, you have the right to decline to answer a question, or to preface any and every answer with the phrase "If I remember correctly blah blah blah..."
Option 2. Something we're not being told?
If the interrogators were able to ambush Flynn, then it's probably because they didn't acquaint him with all of his rights, or he didn't have a lawyer with him.
Trump's not stupid. He won't blunder into a situation bereft of any semblance of legal Human Rights protections designed to ambush him. And if he can't have a lawyer with him when the questions start, then he can probably refuse to attend without breaking any law.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 13 2019 20:57 utc | 13
@donkeytale There has been close to three years of serious investigative intent to lay a glove on Trump (HRC's team, the FBI and Mueller) and there is only the merest scratch of a womaniser (which with three marriages doesn't come as a surprise). What is quite remarkable, despite all the investigative effort, is how clean Trump has managed to keep himself despite building a fortune in one of the toughest cities in the world, building himself up through the eras of the five families, junk bonds and ponzi schemes and soviet union mobsters, not to mention the corruption of the poltical classes and regulatory abuses and unionised labor.
For the world's he moves in, the only explanation that gives him enough protection is that for a long time Trump has been a protected FBI asset for one of the field offices, possibly now senior service figures. And it's this deep relationship with well connected parts of the FBI or other secret services that has given him the ability to steer past the various attempts by the deep state. Why, for instance, do we have such a lot of leakage of the inner workings of the anti-Trump FBI? Some part of the deep state has become disgusted at the spying (eg on congress), the blackmailing, the warmongering, and deep corruption of the anti-constitutionalists, and Trump is their vengence. You just have to decide which side you are on...
Posted by: Tess Ting | Jan 13 2019 20:57 utc | 14
"Tess Ting" #14
I read that as Testing - perhaps a trial/demonstration as a professional troll for somebody or other.
How else to interpret "only the merest scratch of a womaniser" or "how clean Trump has managed to keep himself". Maybe I'm surprised not to also see praise for the clever Government Shutdown.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jan 13 2019 21:06 utc | 15
Hoarsewhisperer 13
I think it unlikely that the likes of Flynn would not know their basic legal rights.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 13 2019 21:11 utc | 16
meanwhile..trump and his appointees attack legitimacy of Venezuela govt.
Trump is in bad odor at home while seeking to attack other govts.
' Washington has explicitly expressed its support for a potential coup against the elected Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, by offering its backing to the opposition and stating outright it was time for a “new government.”
"The Maduro regime is illegitimate and the United States will continue ... to work diligently to restore a real democracy” to Venezuela, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters on his trip to the Middle East on Saturday, adding that Washington would attempt to make the Latin American nations “come together to deliver that.”'
https://www.rt.com/news/448673-us-venezuela-time-new-government/
Posted by: brian | Jan 13 2019 21:17 utc | 17
One thing the US deep state and their muller proxy would have on Trump, and most if not all of Trump's team, is collusion with Israel (can this convert into charges of treason as threats). A weapon that is good for threats against and turning those around Trump, and possibly used in as a last resort to remove Trump.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 13 2019 21:25 utc | 18
Adding to my post @ 18
Pat Lang has a post up "What is wrong with Trump?" "But, how does one explain his lack of action on the border? Does someone or some thing in Russia, Israel, the UK, his former business associates, have something really juicy on Trump, something that he fears to unleash through decisive action? pl"
Collusion with Israel is something neither side - team Trump and the deep state - would wish to bring into the open, but this may be the only thing they have on Trump.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 13 2019 21:33 utc | 19
Great journalism b!
A few more points: from: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/
"On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike
Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-
Elect Donald Trump.
On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported
on a recommendation in “October” that [NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers] Mike Rogers be removed from his
NSA position:
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s
intelligence community have recommended to President
Obama that the director of the National Security
Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military
officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled
to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump
Tower.
The Intelligence Community -at the direction of
President Obama- made a request to a FISA court for
the NSA to spy on Donald Trump in June 2016. [It was
denied. Later granted]
Occam’s Razor. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
didn’t want to participate in the spying scheme
(Clapper, Brennan, Etc.), which was the baseline for
President Obama’s post presidency efforts to undermine
Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into
[who knows what crimes]"
After the visit by Rogers, Trump vacated Trump Towers.
There is considerable irony in the Mueller 'probe' and the continuing avalanche of MSM lies and evasions and spin etc pertaining to Trump.
There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt; the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails and sick assaults on children remain 'in the air'. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal enterprise.
Serious criminality at the highest levels of the FBI is now far more obvious to far more people
MSM as evil propaganda is more widely understood.
So many bits and pieces more widely understood: For example, the DNC material to Wikileaks was not 'hacked' (Binney)
From the theintercept.com :
"Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney [brilliant in his field] and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system."
In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more desperate and wounded, and Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting.
Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Jan 13 2019 21:37 utc | 20
Great journalism b!
A few more points: from: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/
"On Thursday November 17th, 2016, NSA Director Mike
Rogers traveled to New York and met with President-
Elect Donald Trump.
On Friday November 18th The Washington Post reported
on a recommendation in “October” that [NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers] Mike Rogers be removed from his
NSA position:
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation’s
intelligence community have recommended to President
Obama that the director of the National Security
Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
In a move apparently unprecedented for a military
officer, Rogers, without notifying superiors, traveled
to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump
Tower.
Occam’s Razor. NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
didn’t want to participate in the spying scheme [on
Trump]
(Clapper, Brennan, Etc.), which was the baseline for
President Obama’s post presidency efforts to undermine
Donald Trump and keep Trump from digging into
[who knows what crimes]"
After the visit by Rogers, Trump vacated Trump Towers.
There is considerable irony in the Mueller 'probe' and the continuing avalanche of MSM lies and evasions and spin etc pertaining to Trump.
There are trends: A growing US citizen realization that their political system prior to Trump was nearly completely corrupt; the Clintons are more broadly understood as the pathological criminals that they are; the Podesta emails with their sick connotations remain 'in the air' - See Ben Swann's work, for example. The Clinton Foundation is far more broadly understood as a massive criminal enterprise.
Serious criminality at the highest levels of the FBI is now far more obvious to far more people
MSM as evil propaganda is more widely understood.
It is understood widely that the DNC material to Wikileaks was not 'hacked' (Binney)
From the theintercept.com :
"Pompeo met on October 24 [at Trump's request] with William Binney, a former National Security Agency official-turned-whistleblower who co-authored an analysis published by a group of former intelligence officials that challenges the U.S. intelligence community’s official assessment that Russian intelligence was behind last year’s theft of data from DNC computers. Binney and the other former officials argue that the DNC data was “leaked,” not hacked, “by a person with physical access” to the DNC’s computer system."
In short the last two years have been about trying to defeat Trump but the attackers are looking more and more wounded, and Trump, well, he's hanging in there. General Kelly and others have described Trump's work ethic as exhausting.
Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Jan 13 2019 21:43 utc | 21
@ nr 2 : Zachary Smith
Not make much sense do you. Sense through brainwaves is gained, yes, no nonsense speak we will.
Posted by: Den Lille Abe | Jan 13 2019 21:46 utc | 22
The Internet Research Agency (IRA) paid $100,000 for Facebook ads and then charged its customers for the clickbait service (between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content).
So even if the IRA didn't manage to make a profit, the net cost for them must have been much lower than $100,000. Does anyone know how much revenue it made from that operation? Facebook must know but they've kept quiet about it. Same with Mueller.
Posted by: Brendan | Jan 13 2019 22:12 utc | 23
Thank you, b. I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around. A very rotten duopoly has taken over the US government, all based on the premise that money is speech and money runs government, the people be damned. Hence the shutdown being orchestrated by money, with Trump in the crosshairs.
I also very much adhere to your final paragraph's sentences. Let no one be in any doubt - what is underway is no less than traitorous activity, a clear violation of the US Constitution, motivated by corrupt individuals whose meanness is beyond dispute. How it can be redressed at this very late stage beggars the mind; I can only hope it be done as peacefully as possible.
Posted by: juliania | Jan 13 2019 22:17 utc | 24
If this is really true, then it's a clear sign of decline: Obama sacrificed a huge chunk of American freedom just for the sake of personal political revenge. The USA is transitioning from a laissez faire to a highly burocratized, byzantine economy.
Shortly after the USSR's experiment with communism collapsed, I read an article which suggested that if the noise from that fall was loud, even louder will be the noise when the second shoe (the American experiment with capitalism) falls.
And this is the crux of why I appreciate The Donald. His is the most honest face the US can present to the world at this point in time. So look at it closely, and marvel at where we have come to.
Posted by: Hal Duell | Jan 13 2019 23:27 utc | 26
@ juliania #23
I am so glad I did not vote for Obama a second time around.
LOL (first time I've ever written this!)
You made the same mistake I did in 2008. The deck was really stacked in that election, though I was too blind to see it at the time. Smiling & smooth-talking black face issuing zillions of promises, and this was right after the Codpiece Commander. It took me a whole year to realize I'd been suckered, and by 2012 understood the fix was STILL on. Obama had lost most all of his glitter by then, so the Power Elites arranged his opposition to be a financial predator/Mormon bishop paired up with the most awful Libertarian POS I've ever seen. Speaking the honest truth here, I'd prefer to have Sarah Palin as POTUS to Paul Ryan. What a combo! That's why I offered anybody I met 10:1 odds on Obama winning. Hillary thought she had had seen a winning pattern from all that, and arranged to have as her opponent a fellow named Donald Trump.
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jan 13 2019 23:47 utc | 27
Zachary Smith @26
You see all that and then assume that the Hillary-Trump contest was genuine?
Why not assume that the Deep State's candidate won in every election since Carter and work from there.
Do you think about my comment @3?
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 14 2019 1:09 utc | 28
@15 Zachary Smith "How else to interpret 'only the merest scratch of a womaniser' or 'how clean Trump has managed to keep himself'."
Zachary Smith, I have been posting here for a number of years, and on this I have to agree with the newcomer Tess Ting
Trump has been put under intense investigation by Deep State hacks who are determined to see him impeached.
And all they have come up with is that he is a compulsive pussy-grabber (no shit, hey?).
To my mind Trump is a very offensive human being, but that isn't an impeachable character trait.
I had assumed that he would have skeletons in his cupboard that would be grounds for impeachment.
Well, if he has then he has hidden them extraordinarily well, because Mueller with all his resources hasn't found any.
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
As I say, that is extraordinary.
But - apparently - also true.
Posted by: Yeah, Right | Jan 14 2019 1:35 utc | 29
Astonishing how out in the open the military coup plotting against Venezuela is right now, it was consisted an outrage to overthrow Allende and that was even before direct proof of US involvement, now the anti-war and left wing consciousness of the public and the intellectual class has been so corroded that nobody care and many even see an attempted coup as a god thing. The ideological counter revolution in full swing.
Posted by: Blooming Barricade | Jan 14 2019 2:21 utc | 30
@ Yeah, Right who wrote:
"
Indeed, Mueller's investigation is so well-resourced that the only conclusion I can reach is that Trump has no such skeletons.
"
I would just bring your attention to the possibility that bringing Trump down brings them down as well. Your assertion that Trump doesn't have any skeletons in the closet is laughable.
Also consider that most of what is known comes from compromised sources and much of the house of cards we live is built on sketchy assumptions.
Cui Bono for Trump?
I am beginning to understand how Trump fits the elite plan and instead of your "grab them by the pussy" thought change it to "they have him by the balls". They played his ego to get him to run the race and then, gee, he won.
I now see Trump as the last great hope of the elite to carve out as big a chunk as they can of the new world....and try and hold onto it. The ongoing proxy conflicts will keep the musical chair game playing for a bit more but then something is going to stop the music.
A shrink told me once that after fire came music. What comes after music?
Posted by: psychohistorian | Jan 14 2019 2:48 utc | 31
@3 jr
How did I know that you would be first up after b's exhaustive story on the IC's corruption and utterly obvious attempt to take Trump down to cry, "Fiction."
Here is a reply to all your points:
- yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence of THEIR stupidity.
- you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like them at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable to recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here.
- How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig up dirt?
- Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor).
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they consistently step over quarters to pick up pennies.
- Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies align and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good.
- British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized planning. Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot.
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jan 14 2019 3:18 utc | 32
Tess Ting @ 14, Zachary Smith (really?!) @ 15, Yeah, Right @ 28, Psychohistorian @ 30:
Donald Trump has declared six business bankruptcies and there is considerable information on these bankruptcies if you Google for information on them, such as the article linked to here:
https://www.thoughtco.com/donald-trump-business-bankruptcies-4152019
If Trump's corporate bankruptcies are so well-known, and picked over several times by different media sources (even Snopes has covered them), surely any other behaviour or incident that might call Trump's character or ethics into question must have been uncovered by Robert Mueller by now?
Posted by: Jen | Jan 14 2019 3:32 utc | 33
I can't imagine the scale of exploding heads among the media talking heads and the establishment of the two parties, IF, Trump gets re-elected. DC would be in serious melt down. After 4 years of continuous assault the voters may actually repudiate the corporate media and the DC elites in the 2020 elections.
In any case with the Democrat candidates starting to announce we are essentially into the next presidential campaign. I don't think it is smart to under-estimate Trump's electoral chances.
Posted by: ab initio | Jan 14 2019 4:03 utc | 34
Great work, B!
"Normally the FBI needs to clear such counter-intelligence investigations with the Justice Department. In this case it did not do so at all:"
This sounds like the same "kangaroo court" MO Scott Ritter detailed a few years ago:
"Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an “IC-coordinated” assessment—the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI—while analysts from all three agencies were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department."
Posted by: slit | Jan 14 2019 4:05 utc | 35
Zachary @2, JackRabbit:
Why does it have to be either-or?; it could have been for insurance AND warmongering narrative/dog whistling.
Escalation towards war with Russia was a matter of public record in late pre-election 2016, thanks to Clinton News Network ... now ask yourselves where is that general in the press conference nowadays?
DNC Russia Hotwar
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dIYHje-rv5w
Posted by: slit | Jan 14 2019 4:25 utc | 36
NemesisCalling @31: Here is a reply to all your points
Well, you haven't replied to all my points, nor have you addressed the the thrust of my remarks. But I'll answer the issues that you raised so my view is clear to everyone.
=
- yes, the Russia-bad narrative was picking up steam before Trump's election. The MSM and TPTB incorrectly surmised that there would be enough anti-Russia fervor among the masses that pinning the accusation on Trump would stick. It did not. It is evidence of THEIR stupidity.
Wrong. Firstly, I was referring to the anti-Russia imperative in official circles NOT to the propaganda effort. That imperative intensified greatly after Russia blocked USA-proxy takeover of Syria (2013), and Crimea and Donbas (2014). In fact, Kissinger wrote a WSJ Op-Ed in Aug 2014 that issued a cryptic call for MAGA.
"picking up steam before Trump's election" needs some unpacking. The anti-Russia fervor among the masses has been entirely concocted, and mostly AFTER 2014.
Nothing has stuck to Trump because there's no substance to the allegations.
=
- you must have never heard of keeping your enemies close. The Clintons are powerbrokers. Trump used them. Maybe he did like them at one point, but clearly shat on his relationship with them and since the election they have truly been trashed and unable to recover any good fortune or power. The Dems made a mistake will backing HRC. They weren't acting under Deep State orders once again, Occam's Razor dictates that stupidity is the culprit here.
What does Occam's Razor have to say about the remarkable continuity of US foreign and domestic policy for the last 30 years?
Trump and the Clintons were known to be close. Even their daughter's were/are close.
Are you unaware of the CIA connections of Clinton, Bush, and Obama? Should we assume that Trump is free of any such connection?
=
- How does FBI informant in campaign neccessarily implicate Trump in conspiracy and not confirm IC's weasely attempts to dig up dirt?
The FBI informant (Felix Sater) worked for Trump from about 2001 to 2013. This was essentially the same period in which Mueller was FBI Director. Mueller and Comey are close and are connected to the Clinton's.
The informant wasn't investigating Trump or digging up dirt on him, he was informing on the Russian mob, and probably using employment by Trump to get closer to the mob. FBI/counter intel might have also used info provided to turn some of the Russians into US intel assets.
=
- Look at prior Repub primaries? Notice anything? Populists don't float in the Yacht Club Party, do they? Trump was an anomoly indicitive of the times (again, Occam's Razor).
Have you heard of the Tea Party? Have you heard of Obama using the IRS against the Tea Party? Seems that a Republican populist would get a lot of votes against the hated Hillary who championed Obama's "legacy".
- Again, it is absolutely absurd and suspicious that you can not admit that the Dems are a party of retards and that they consistently step over quarters to pick up pennies.
You can't admit that the Dem's have failed the left so consistently that it is unlikely to be due to their mental capacity or an accident of circumstance.
=
- Your opinion that Trump's policies do not differ from the Dems needs qualifying. I don't agree that his domestic policies align and verdict is still out on his FP. We know he is not a True-Believer, which is good.
I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
=
- British involvement again suggests that the IC is compromised and globalized yielding national sovereignty to centralized planning. Trump deserves that ire and proves that there is a contest afoot
The US IC is undoubtedly primary and universally acknowledged to be the lead in the US-Brit Intel relationship.
The only 'contest' I can discern is how best to fool the people.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
You seem to believe that a populist outsider can be elected President. And, you also believe that a US President can be both all powerful (Obama) or constrained by Deep State whim (Trump).
You also seem to believe that Trump's rhetoric is gospel-truth and means what you think it does. Surprise! "Negotiation with Russia" doesn't mean peace. Troop 'pull out' doesn't mean it'll happen any time soon (and possibly never). Anti-TPP doesn't mean he won't implement TPP provisions in other trade agreements. Etc.
PS The establishment doesn't benefit DESPITE our populist President's, they benefit BECAUSE we are willing to believe that our populist President's work for US.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 14 2019 6:19 utc | 37
Jr, it was a fruitless endeavor, to be sure, but I gave it a shot.
For the record, I never counted Trump as savior, although he could very well be if he continues on getting caught with his dick in his hand as the empire around him crumbles. He's not a true believer, but he can at the very least be a useful idiot for the real anti-imperialists in the world.
Posted by: NemesisCalling | Jan 14 2019 7:14 utc | 38
It is of note that Oleg Deripaska is not a stranger to the world of politics and politicians. Before his fortunes changed dramatically, Oleg Deripaska was well-known for entertaining world politicians on his luxury yacht moored off Kassiopi in the northwest corner of the Greek Island of Corfu. The Rothschilds have an estate outside Kassiopi. Among the many high-powered friends and guests of Deripaska was UK Tory politician, George Osborne, who visited him on his yacht at Kassiopi while still British Chancellor of the Exchequer. Osborne and EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson, a powerful force in Tony Blair's government, were both guests at a function held aboard the yacht in 2008. Baron Mandelson’s position in the EU, at the time, led to accusations of a conflict of interest. Among other movers and shakers, John McCain was also a friend of Oleg Deripaska, but that friendship may have soured after the virtual collapse of the Russian billionaire companies. McCain was more a fairweather friend than a stalwart ally through thick and thin. The reason I mention these tidbits is because the corporate media fails to join all the pieces that show just how corrupt Western politicians have become.
Posted by: bryan hemming | Jan 14 2019 12:05 utc | 39
For a thorough update on the Integrity Initiative and its offshoots, check out the latest from legal investigator Barbara Boyd.
To defeat the "Deep State" in the U.S., it is essential to understand the role of British Intelligence. While it is essential to know the role of Hillary Clinton, Obama, Comey, DOJ/FBI operatives, et.al., it is even more important to understand the geopolitical assumptions behind Russiagate. And for that, one must turn to the British.
Posted by: Harley Schlanger | Jan 14 2019 12:06 utc | 40
It would help to get a handle on the precise nature and format of these FBI "under oath" fishing expeditions if the FBI released transcripts of a few of the recent hi-profile Q & A sessions. If suspects are being convicted for misdemeanors of dubious relevance to the stated aim of the Mueller Crusade then transcripts would allow inconsistencies to be counted and evaluated. It would also be interesting to discover whether the FBI uses a seductive approach to questioning, or a confrontational approach, given the petty nature of the 'crimes' exposed to date.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 14 2019 12:36 utc | 41
The aim of the counterintelligence operation and of the Russiagate hoax was not to build a prosecution case against President Trump. It was to put the United States in constitutional limbo by creating a parallel and competing center of constitutional legitimacy. The Obama Administration would live on in the structure of this "investigation", without ever having to relinquish power to Trump. The investigation would form the center of "The Resistance", with the ability to question the legitimacy of the Trump Administration.
Posted by: Petri Krohn | Jan 14 2019 13:58 utc | 42
The fact that Trump has had business dealings with Russia since the 1990's should have no bearing on these investigations, right? He is exempt from the Emoluments Clause and any possible conflicts of interest because he is President!!!
The fact that many members of his staff and campaign have been indicted and even pleaded guilty to crimes is also irrelevant, right? The President can do no wrong!!!
This is all the DEEP STATE!!!
Fer chrissakes, people...
Posted by: ralphieboy | Jan 14 2019 14:09 utc | 43
Jackrabbit @ 37
I didn't say that they don't differ from the Dems, I said that Trump policies are consistent with policies of previous Administrations and that Hillary likely would've ruled in much the same way.
This is very true but only in the same sort of overgeneralised sense with you populate your latest CT. That is, sweep any of the plainly ridiculous assumptions in your theory under the widest possible rug available to conspiratards.
At least you aint exactly drinking the Orange Kool-Aid like so many of the posters on this thread. That's a big positive in my book. As for them, it's more a reflection of the love for rightwing authoritarianism than for Trump himself. What they really wish for is a crafier, shrewder Amerikkkan version of Putin, but they accept Trump because his bumbling is the existential proof of US decline in relative power, as if such proof was necessary.
And if you overlook allTrump's achievements (such as they are):
1. Obamacare/Medicaid expansion repeal and subsequent degradation of the enrollment and funding processes by executive degree when appeal failed thanks only to McCain's "in yo office sucka" thumbs down vote.
2. Tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations (basically same thing)
3. SCOTUS and federal bench selections
The US system is meant to create a uniparty environment whereby opposing views are compromised into a "third way" legislative process.
I grok this system is broken and completely controlled by the wealthiest (show me a political system anywhere that you prefer that is not controlled by the wealthiest) but the funding mechanisms need changing before there will ever be significant change to governing processes.
Trump through his ignorance, corruption and loose lips has tilted the playing field left. Hilliary through her elitism, arrogance, corruption and lack of retail political skills gets a big assist in the same tilting.
Those who believe (if any truly do) that Trump represents anything more than the end of Reaganist conservatism are "wishin' and hopin'" as Dusty Springfield would say.
I do applaud those who are willing to show in the comments that they suffer from the real "Trump Derangement Syndrome," such as your good buddy James. They're all crooks, in his opinion.
So what is it Jim? Do you excuse Trump only or do you excuse them all? LMAO
Posted by: donkeytale | Jan 14 2019 14:43 utc | 44
Putin January 2017 - “You know, there is a category of people who leave without saying goodbye, out of respect for the situation that has evolved, so as not to upset anything. And then there are people who keep saying goodbye but don’t leave. I believe the outgoing administration belongs to the second category.
What are we seeing in the United States? We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the fact that the presidential election is over and it ended in Mr Trump’s convincing victory. Nevertheless, in my opinion, several goals are being set in this struggle. Maybe there are more, but some of them are perfectly obvious."
The first is to undermine the legitimacy of the US president-elect. By the way, in this regard, I would like to point out that whether deliberately or not, these people are causing enormous damage to US interests. Simply enormous. The impression is that, after a practice run in Kiev, they are now ready to organise a Maidan in Washington to prevent Trump from taking office."
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 14 2019 14:45 utc | 45
The link for my post @45
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/53744
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 14 2019 14:46 utc | 46
sure, no doubt trump has been involved in financial improprieties; this in no way means he colluded with russia to fix the election, or that russia on its own hacked the election, or any of the other false narratives the ic is trying to cram down our throats with the connivance of the msm and (mostly, but there are some republicans pushing it, too) the "centrist" dems.
and the clintons have their own skeletons, but they seem to be judgement proof with the aid of comey et al.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Jan 14 2019 15:05 utc | 47
pretzelattack @ 47
The only real difference between Trump and the Clintons at end of the day is they are smart lawyers who obviously better understand how to navigate the treacherous legal waters surrounding them.
They also know what the definition of "is, is" and how to carefully craft their words in public, while Trump is all loose cannon all the time ahd his legal representation appears to follow his lead, IE Giuliani and Cohen.
Posted by: donkeytale | Jan 14 2019 15:22 utc | 48
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 14, 2019 9:45:39 AM | 45:
We are seeing the continuation of an acute internal political struggle despite the fact that the presidential election is over and it ended in Mr Trump’s convincing victory.
Not really. What we are seeing is Deep State controlled media force-feeding the public a toxic concoction: the narrative of a political struggle that centers on anti-Russia hysteria.
Maybe you missed Romney's Op-Ed in which he praised Trump's pro-establishment policies while attacking his Russia-friendly 'pull out' from Syria. That's the best example of the two-faced establishment bullsh*t.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 14 2019 15:53 utc | 49
What is loosely called 'globalism', consisting of various trends and ideologies and practices: the EU and the aborted for now 'North American Union' and satellites, and cell phones able to instantly transmit images from the other side of the planet, and so on, has also importantly aimed at and advocated for and implemented various means by which national sovereignty was eroded.
And this erosion meant a reduction of the ability of a country's people to wield an effective national politics, let alone something vaguely democratic, or to implement policies which were at odds with the various globalist institutions and imperatives and programs. So we've seen on numerous occasions, for example, the IMF impose its globalist economic 'recipe' on a nation's economic policies.
And even the destruction of Libya in 2011 was primarily or importantly directed at preventing Libya from implementing a national financial strategy intended to give African countries an alternative to the depredations of global financial 'business as usual'.
But over the last two years the movement to restore or renovate national sovereignty has made something of a comeback.
So for example, Macron as recently as roughly two years ago was being lauded as a great new leader of the globalist project, and both he and Merkel have gone on record decrying the very concept of national sovereignty.
But now Macron and Merkel are largely reviled, especially Macron, by their people, and 'populist' enthusiasm strengthens. You can see the same trend in virtually every European country.
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist, and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic, and that is as I noted above a very general trend that is quickly manifesting.
Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Jan 14 2019 15:57 utc | 50
Posted by: pretzelattack | Jan 14 2019 16:17 utc | 51
Collapse… ctd.
Re. the USA, when the handmaidens of power, aka politicians, the servant class in an oligarchic corporatist ‘state,’ are alarmingly seen to fight to the death in public it is crystal clear that control (which may take the shape of relatively informal and obscure networks ) is lost, .. > the ‘fight’ will only serve to weaken all parties.
Trump is loathed because he upset the apple cart and revealed weakness and fissures in the system. (+ possibly because he is an upstart, from the wrong side of whatever, has bad hair, is dumb, a thief, more …)
He ran as an anti-establishment maverick:
“Drain the Swamp!”
“Lock her up!”
“Build the Wall!”
- and was elected only for that reason. It was disconcertingly easy to do, which is also terrifying to the PTB. Plus, election/voter fraud did not perform as expected - help !! The MSM promoted him with mega 24/24 coverage - help !!
As the no. 1 disruptive foe is merely an elderly scummy biz type, an intruder, some other entity like malignant agressive Russia had to be associated with him. (Yes, is was Obama-Clinton who started the highjinks + the following Mueller investig.; see b at top - also, bashing Russia gradually took wing as it recovered under Putin, the Ukraine plots did not work out, etc. *Crimea!* the last straw! ..)
If Obama had announced that 2K USA personnel were to be withdrawn from Syria because the good folks want their wonderful husbands and wives, great ppl, our folks, home soon, they have dutifully served, etc. the MSM and anyone who bothered to digest that news would have clapped and sent off pixel sparkles and sweet tweets.
Very difficult to judge: what is the result of infighting in the US vs. any agreed-on never mind coherent foreign policy? That the question is even asked - all over the world now - spells …stage one collapse.
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 14 2019 17:00 utc | 52
18;evidence for Trump for assist israel?ho ho ho.the msm wouldn't threw zionists under the bus.
Posted by: dahoit | Jan 14 2019 17:20 utc | 53
Robert Snefjella @50:
Now for those who are committed to the view that Trump doesn't really mean it, that he isn't really an American nationalist, and so on, well, fine, believe what you like. But in the end, Trump's base of support is nationalistic ..."
Did Obama really mean it when he touted "Change You Can Believe In"? No. His rhetoric was meant to turn the page from the Bush Administration excesses and convince the world that USA was not the threat that they perceived us to be. In fact, he was given a Nobel Prize for essentially not being Bush. But it was all psyop. Obama refused to hold CIA accountable for rendition and torture, refused to stop NSA pervasive spying, conducted covert wars and regime change ops, bragged of his drone targeting skills, made Bush tax cuts permanent, bailed out bankers, etc.
Does Trump really mean his nationalism? Only to the extent that a nationalist was needed to meet the challenge from Russia and China. People don't fight for globalist principals.
US is still a member of NATO, still involved in the Middle East, still has hundreds of bases around the world.
Trump's nationalist credentials are further belied by such things as: adding TPP provisions to the new North American trade agreement; attacking Syria based on false flags; arming Ukraine; pulling out of the INF treaty and engaging in an unnecessary and costly arms race; actively seeking to overthrow the governments of Iran and Venezuela; etc.
Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 14 2019 17:23 utc | 54
dahoit 53
Is there a requirement for an open trial on these sort of things. I'm not sure about the US, but normally gag orders are all that's required to keep something quiet. All the people around Trump could be taken down in this way with charges that would stick.
Apparently the only one they cannot take down in this way is the president (Another post up now at SST on the legalities of investigating the president). As far as I know, the president can only be taken down by impeachment so I guess they wouldn't try to use collusion with Israel for that unless they could keep what they were impeaching him for secret.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Jan 14 2019 17:41 utc | 55
i take it the trump fanbots are finally getting a bit worked up about the position trump finds himself in here 2019... pl has an artilce out that could have been written 2 years ago, but i suppose it is better late then never, lol.. meanwhile trump tweets away while his enemies plot his overthrow... not sure how this is going to work out..
Posted by: james | Jan 14 2019 18:06 utc | 56
Snefjella @ 50
And in the United States, the tens of millions of 'deplorables' backing Trump are doing so partly, perhaps mostly, because he champions the restoration of national sovereignty and has questioned dominant globalist institutions.
Yes, "Amerikkka First" represents nationalism for sure. Many, maybe most Amerikkkans have always been nationalistic and detest globalist structures because they view them as limiting Amerikkka's rightful global sovereignty. This is a fine distinction I believe gets lost in commentary such as yours. Trump isn't looking to retreat from Amerikkkan Exceptionalism at all, it his raison d etre for the tariffs and increases in military spending.
The movement which elected Trump represents the nostalgic view of a lost Amerikkkan dominance over the globe, which of course they blame on those hated Democratic and Republican establishment globalists, Bushes, Clintons and Obama.
Posted by: donkeytale | Jan 14 2019 18:18 utc | 57
And I meant "rightful" in quotation marks not that I believe it is rightful but is the opinion of the "Deplorables".
Posted by: donkeytale | Jan 14 2019 18:23 utc | 58
@ Jackrabbit #28
You see all that and then assume that the Hillary-Trump contest was genuine?Why not assume that the Deep State's candidate won in every election since Carter and work from there.
That first is a difficult one to answer, for I quite agree with you on the second part. Rigged elections from Carter on to the present day matches my own thoughts as well. In 2000 "they" had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to get their man in office, but GWB did indeed move into the White House.
My own theory about 2016 is that everybody miscalculated. Trump was (IMO) running as an ego-building publicity stunt. Hillary (and her Deep State sponsors) had actively helped Trump get the nomination with hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity which also enhanced the bottom lines of Big Media. His multiple flaws were airbrushed away. Hillary ran a horrible campaign because she is an arrogant and "entitled" woman. The incompetence of that campaign simply didn't uncover the extent to which she was hated by so many people. (myself included, but I didn't vote for the torture-loving Trump, either)
The biggest mistake of all was not having any plan in place to use the touch-screen voting systems (think "Diebold") to nail down her victory. Again an opinion, but I think that was judged to be a little too risky plus the fact it was obviously totally unnecessary. Hillary didn't have a "loss" speech prepared, and Trump didn't have a "victory" one.
This is why I call Trump an "accidental" President. I'll admit the Deep State has reacted pretty well since 2016, but they're still playing catchup. Israel - to name just one - remains in shell shock.
In summary, I think we barely disagree. :)
Posted by: Zachary Smith | Jan 14 2019 18:43 utc | 59
I think Trump's election was a miscalculation of the American elites, mainly for two reasons:
1) In Dark Money, Jane Meyer undoubtedly paints Donald Trump as an outsider of the GOP, a very rare case of a billionaire throwing himself in the race. Later, Jane Meyer degenerated to a stuttering Russophobe, so there's no reason to think she lied about this specific observation in her book (which was published in August 2016 -- three months before the election day, when many still believed Hillary Clinton had it in the bag);
2) Trump only won because of a bizarre technicality of the American electoral system. It was basically 77,000 votes in very specific counties that transformed a 3 million vote deficit into an 100 vote surplus in the Electoral College. It wasn't as if Donald Trump trampled Hillary Clinton and won with a 50 million+ popular vote difference. It was by far the biggest popular deficit of a winner. It was a serendipity, pure bad luck.
Further to American's general support for Trump's declared intention of reduction of troops in Syria and Afghanistan, the Daily Caller on the 9th of January 2019 cited 56 % in support, 20 % not sure, and 27 % opposing. This is after MSM and general national political outrage and 'deep concern' over Trump's decision.
Note that US involvement in Syria has been justified by the most lurid of lies and disinfo continually poured for years into American's psyches. For Tulsi Gabbard to have a direct conversation with Assad (the designated 'butcher of Damascus', the 'horrid monstrous dictator' accused over and over of attacking his own people, often with chemical weapons from barrel bombs, and especially targeting children and hospitals: the man can have no soul, no heart! We must help the Syrians in their struggle against this animal!) was an outrage!
So not only do most Americans want American troops out of Syria, it would seem that there is some growing immunity among the people of the United States to their diet of diseased propaganda.
Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Jan 14 2019 19:54 utc | 61
Just finished b's excellent recap and the entire affair reeks of Treason--not against Trump, but against the Nation.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 14 2019 20:16 utc | 62
61 - Robert wrote:
"So not only do most Americans want American troops out of Syria, it would seem that there is some growing immunity among the people of the United States to their diet of diseased propaganda."
No argument on the first point. But the commenters at the Post and Times will change your mind on the second. They are so bad you have to wonder whether they are written by the staff at the Integrity Initiative.
Posted by: Bart Hansen | Jan 14 2019 21:36 utc | 63
Posted by: vk | Jan 14, 2019 1:55:56 PM | 60
Donald Trump as an outsider of the GOP
The populist hero must be portrayed as an "outsider" that takes on the establishment. Obama was positioned in much the same way.
Trump is no "outsider". He is very establishment. Even before running for President, he had access that ordinary people never get.
Trump only won because of a bizarre technicality of the American electoral system.
You are directing our attention to what the establishment wants us to see. It ignores Hillary's spectacular failure: snubbing of Sanders progressives; Cold shoulder to black voters; insult to white voters ("deplorables"); choosing not to campaign in crucial states; the wierdness of Bill Clinton being discovered meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch (Bill Clinton is one of the most recognizable people in America - why why why would be meeting with the Attorney General on an airport tarmac?), etc.
If the race were easy, Trump woundn't be a populist hero, would he? And Hillary's winning the popular vote is a nice consolation prize to the Clinton's. Plus, it nicely sets up the fake Deep State vs. Trump conflict.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 14 2019 21:57 utc | 64
Bart Hansen @63--
Likely some of them were by II or kindred operations. We get them here.
Posted by: karlof1 | Jan 14 2019 22:05 utc | 65
While Trump is a member of the elite establishment that practically owns the country he has always been a pariah for one main reason. He does not honor the unspoken code of never exposing inside information about other elite members. He is a big mouth.
Given that, the establishment and their propaganda arm of the media have been out to get him even before he was elected. His presidency has largely been an inside struggle. However, Trump is clever and crafty. During his tenure he has been give access to tremendous amounts of information about his political enemies and he continues to bait, insult and fire them, pushing them deeper and deeper into insanity. He will fight fire with fire. If they attempt to impeach him he will tit for tat release information incriminating his enemies. I view this as a positive direction for the US in the long run. ALL of these people need to be banished to "Elba". Maybe they will fight to the death of both sides. One can dream.
Posted by: Linda Amick | Jan 15 2019 1:22 utc | 66
"Trump only won because of a bizarre technicality of the American electoral system"
Without that "bizarre technicality", which happens to be Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, the union would not have been formed in the first place and there would have been no United States of America.
Most who know little about America don't realize that the USA is a union of sovereign states. Many don't know that Senators were picked by state legislatures until the 17th amendment in 1913 and that each state irrespective of its size and population has 2 senators. Any constitutional amendment requires the assent of 75% of the states. The national popular vote is a meaningless construct in presidential elections. A presidential election is 50 separate state elections and a candidate to win the presidency must win a certain combination of states to give them a plurality as each state has electoral votes based on its representation in the Senate & House. The Constitution created this system to insure that more populated areas did not dominate less populated areas. One could argue that the electoral college is more representative of the nation as a whole as it requires the president to win many regions and not just a few populous regions.
Posted by: ab initio | Jan 15 2019 6:18 utc | 67
To all those waxing so eloquently about the Great Nation of China and looking forward to the Glorious Chinese Century, I suggest moving to China now and see how far your social credit scores. Before long you will be kowtowing to the Cult of Xi and claiming all Great Thought only emanates from Glorious Leader Xi.
Posted by: ab initio | Jan 15 2019 6:24 utc | 68
to all those waxing so eloquently on the wrong thread, i suggest moving to the right thread!!! before long you will be kowtowing to the cult of the open thread and claiming all great thought only emanates from the glorious leader b of the open thread, lol...
Posted by: james | Jan 15 2019 6:41 utc | 69
Like the Bill of Rights, enshrining the electoral college was necessary to get the states to ratify the constitution in the first place. (This is for anyone who still has faith in the 1787-88 counter-revolution.)
More importantly, one good purpose of it was to try to prevent the longstanding pattern of the parasite cities colonially tyrannizing over the countryside.
Of course by now the corporate sectors (agribusiness, logging, fracking, big box stores, the automakers, finance, etc.) directly tyrannize everywhere across the country, so the constitution is a moot point.
(Not really off topic, James. Federal "law enforcement" like this new FBI paradigm also is part of that extra-constitutional colonial tyranny.)
In response to the poor brainwash victim a few posts up, I have lived in China. I enjoyed more personal freedom there than I ever did in the USA.
Here is a test for you, brainwash victim: Try badmouthing your employer under your real name on social media in the USA. Appeal to your coworkers to organize a union. Point out how your boss looks like a horse's anal sphincter. You'll discover capitalism's social credit scoring system pretty quickly.
Posted by: William Gruff | Jan 15 2019 11:48 utc | 72
@ Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 14, 2019 4:57:11 PM | 64
I don't disagree with you. I was just telling the story from Jane Meyer's point of view (i.e. the point of view of a member of the liberal upper class).
Donald Trump is considered an "outsider" from the point of view of the GOP because he was not part of the Koch alliance and because, as a billionaire, he shouldn't been running for office himself (this breaks the Koch's golden rule, which states a political office is the job for a subordinate of, not a member of the elite).
My opinion about the American electoral system is irrelevant: historical documentation is unequivocal that Trump's victory was a surprise even for the Americans themselves. Every respectable poll (save for the LA Times') indicated a Hillary Clinton victory until the eve of the election day. There is vast documentation on the Democratic camp being very optimistic about Hillary's victory until the last days. When conservative analyst Ann Coulter stated on live tv Trump was the favorite to win the GOP's nomination, she was laughted at by her own conservative coleagues. I could go on, but the fact remains: Trump's victory in 2016 was, by all possible accounts and interpretations of historical documentation, a surprise.
Gruff @ 72
So you believe it valid to equate your parttime residence in China as a elite caucasian (or were you working in a factory for 23 cents per hour)?
Laughably illogical and yet you accuse someone else of being brainwashed.
Or were you interned in a re-education camp? Last time I was fired from a job for telling off the bossman I received unemployment benefits while I searched for work.
The official documents provide further clues to what Quanguo had in mind. The reeducation centers, one document reads, should “teach like a school, be managed like the military, and be defended like a prison.” Another document says that in order to produce a change in the detainees, the centers must “break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections, and break their origins.”
Posted by: donkeytale | Jan 15 2019 13:54 utc | 74
Jack - Get it straight. James isn't thread police.
He's Carlton Your Doorman.
Posted by: donkeytale | Jan 15 2019 13:59 utc | 75
b meet Q
I know you're not a fan, but your very logical, objective report above dovetails exactly with what the qanon crowd have been saying for a year now.
The facts are well known, but there's this massive gap between the narrative and the results.
Trump is so squeaky clean it's unreal, and he is ahead of the deep state every single time.
These people are hanging themselves one at a time, while shouting to us how the rope is for Trump. I'm no expert on US politics, but it FEELS different, something is going on that defies explanation.
Korea, Syria, Russia? Did you catch that thumbs up Putin gave Trump at the recent shindig in Europe? And that smile he gave too! Likewise with that world cup ball, there was so much going on there between the 2 of them. And it's entirely positive, US and Russia leaders on friendly terms, first time since Reagan and Gorbachev?
Have a look again maybe you see something new.
Posted by: david | Jan 15 2019 14:15 utc | 76
vk @73
It's important to consider cause and effect, not just end result. Directing attention to certain OBVIOUS! aspects of an event is a propaganda trick. Example: to say that Muslim men attacked America on 9-11 fails to capture what really happened, by far.
I tried to show you that the "outsider" label is misleading. It has become a loaded term used to demonstrate that a candidate/office-holder is free from the influence of the political establishment. Obama and Trump were "outsiders" in name only. Essentially, these faux populists are controlled opposition that have advanced the interests of the establishment/Deep State.
Likewise, Trump's "surprise victory" doesn't prove anything. If any thing, it should prompt us to look more deeply. And when we do, we find a election that we KNOW was corrupt/set-up (due to Hillary-DNC collusion) and may have been a total fraud (due to Hillary's terrible campaign).
Insisting on throwing around terms like "outsider" and "surprise victory" does more than state historical fact. These "facts" are constructed and used as cover. Obama is a constitutional lawyer who won the Nobel Peace Prize. These are facts. Stating them repeatedly conveys a point of view. A point of view that does not reflect reality.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15 2019 14:41 utc | 78
david @76:
... he is ahead of the deep state every single time.
Have you heard of kayfabe?
Likewise with that world cup ball ... US and Russia leaders on friendly terms<
Maybe you didn't see the full press conference. Trump was not a happy camper. And there has been no thaw in US-Russian relations.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Sorry to be a buzz-kill, but Q is not an oracle and Trump is not the hero you think he is. If anything, the Q phenomena is another indication that the Trump-Deep State conflict is fake.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jan 15 2019 15:06 utc | 79
david @76
The first perceptive comment in this thread. It's clear that the state of Trump's Sun Tzu knowledge is deep. He wrote a best selling book about those principles. Much more to be revealed and quite soon. Political chatterers will be left for dead. This is far bigger than anyone can imagine.
Posted by: kafkananda | Jan 15 2019 16:22 utc | 81
donkey... you are doing something wrong with the html in your links.. as a result, they don't work! does that still make me carleton the doorman? LOLOL!! i can't tell if it makes you a jackass, or donkey! i am undecided still!
Posted by: james | Jan 15 2019 17:22 utc | 82
further to my post @56 where i linked to the pl post, they are having a pretty good discussion on that post between jack, ttg and pl that some might enjoy reading...here is the link again for anyone interested. voila! happy html!!!
Posted by: james | Jan 15 2019 17:25 utc | 83
Worse than Watergate, yet media silence and subterfuge, let alone any wheel of justice turning. The country is faced with the worst conglomerate-monopolist array and assault in its short history. This lopsided imbalance threatens not only meat and potatoes day to day life, but more prisons and perhaps unthinkable wars--both for profit.The perfect imperfect conflagration: no news, no views, then maybe no nothing.
Posted by: Carnabystreetpete | Jan 15 2019 17:32 utc | 84
Zachary Smith@59
You are correct about everyone knew that Hillery would win. The polls showed that she had a 97% chance of winning a week before the voting.
Posted by: Krollchem | Jan 15 2019 18:54 utc | 87
I think JR has it closest to how I see it. JR Is there a connection between the FBI spying on trump and the Russians and the uranium one deal? Also the similarities between the Clinton impeachment proceedings and what's happening to trump are eerily similar and not mentioned, in the sense they both distract from business as usual behind the scenes.
Petri krhon@42 i'm not sure why as trump hasn't really changed the us governments overall policy, foreign or domestic IMO. Could you elaborate?
Posted by: Tannenhouser | Jan 15 2019 20:17 utc | 88
re Q: a few observations:
Here, chosen at random through an internet search for Q info, is part of Q's missive July 29th, 2018
"They do not want you asking questions.
They do not want you thinking for yourself.
They do not want you UNITED.
They want you to live in FEAR/DIVIDED.
They want you asleep.
They want you blind.
The message must bypass the MSM.
It is the only way.
People UNITED hold the power
Think election 2016
Power shall be RETURNED to the PEOPLE
Then follows a quote from Trump in a speech on the same night "We have to bypass the media to get straight to the people. We've gone around them like no one in history has gone around them"
In another Q posting from August 31st of 2018, a caption of a list of dozens of newspapers that endorsed Hillary is shown, while none are shown endorsing Trump. It is noted that polls had the odds of Hillary winning as over 90% with some close to 100 %.
This massive show of media support for Hillary in conjunction with polls showing a near certain Clinton victory is then depicted by Q as a psyop by the media to create a sense of hopelessness in Trump supporters and to dissuade them from even casting a 'hopeless' vote.
There are many youtube channels and so on that regularly pass on and comment on Q postings, and the number of subscribers can be thousands, or tens of 1000s or hundreds of 1000s. Many people like me don't subscribe to any yet pay some attention, so the Q phenomenon must be reaching many millions of people.
The method of Q can be described as somewhat like the Socratic method, in that questions to explore and puzzle over are featured.
The Q message is on the one hand a patriotic one in terms of the US Constitution and the need to restore it and the rule of law in the United States. It is also a 'waking up the people' educational process. There is also a strong moral message, for example exposure of pedo-predation linked to power, and condemnation of the evil and criminality that infests so many institutions in the United States.
Millions of Americans understand that their country has gone really badly wrong on so many fronts, and deeply want the United States to become a good sensible country, and are determined to try to achieve that. The internet now has given any average salt of earth type person, and there are many millions such, an array of tools for learning and networking on behalf of sanity and ethics and rule of law. The wide interest that Q has invoked is an asset to and symptom of this American revolutionary undercurrent.
Posted by: Robert Snefjella | Jan 15 2019 20:20 utc | 89
Breaking news: Suicide blast kills U.S. soldiers on patrol in Manbij.
First, I thought U.S. soldiers were on their way out, not on patrol. Second, if IS really did this, then it was under the direction of actors who want the U.S. to remain in Syria.
Posted by: Circe | Jan 16 2019 15:31 utc | 90
The comments to this entry are closed.
It is information that is put out there that is never cross checked by the American people. They are too busy, too involved with other things or too stupid to find out the true facts. It is hard to predict what will occur next year. I
feel it all depends who wins the primary on the Democrat side.
Posted by: Jose Garcia | Jan 13 2019 18:51 utc | 1