Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 11, 2019

The FBI - Pushed By John Brennan - Lied To The Court Seven Times To Spy On The Trump Campaign

On January 6 2017 this author concluded:

When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.

The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA.

One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.

The Inspector General of the U.S. Justice Department Michael Horowitz has investigated the FBI operation against the election campaign of Donald Trump. Yesterday he published his report, Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane Investigation (pdf). It is 480 pages long and quite thorough but unfortunately very limited in its scope.

Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.

Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But others have pointed out some essential findings.

Matt Taibbi remarks:

The Guardian headline reads: “DOJ Internal watchdog report clears FBI of illegal surveillance of Trump adviser.”

If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz constitutes a “clearing” of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...

Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz’s conclusion that there was no evidence of “political bias or improper motivation” in the FBI’s probe of Donald Trump’s Russia contacts, an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had “authorized purpose” to conduct.
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose “serious” procedural problems and omissions of “significant information” in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a president).
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless headlines were wrong. Some key points:

The so-called “Steele dossier” was, actually, crucial to the FBI’s decision to seek secret surveillance of Page. ...
The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.” ...

John Solomon finds:

Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is true.

The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page starting in October 2016.

A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: “Supporting document shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate.”

For those who don’t speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official file.

The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with.

The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors.

That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published. Here is what we wrote about it at that time:

The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin.

They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant position or even the presidency.

There is a lot more of such nonsense in these new Hitler diaries. It is bonkers from a to z.

Those who thought otherwise should question their judgment.

It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find "political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be politically biased and were removed from their positions.

It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:

Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe, Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.

The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.

Peter Van Buren concludes:

The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn’t the Russians; it was us.

That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which initiated the case.

My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that something was found that was deemed suspicious:

That summer, GCHQ’s then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at “director level”, face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.

The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it to spy on the campaign. Downing Street was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then Prime Minister Theresa May fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.

One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the affair.

There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.

Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC | Permalink


Do we have any idea when the Durham report will be coming out?

Antoinetta III

Posted by: Antoinetta III | Dec 11 2019 16:27 utc | 1

Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all potential indictments going down the memory hole."

Posted by: casey | Dec 11 2019 16:30 utc | 2

Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections (and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be diminished.

Posted by: Kabobyak | Dec 11 2019 16:54 utc | 3

@Kabobyak #3
Very possibly, but the Afghanistan papers have made an impact on some people: American Conservative editor is outraged, including militating against his children serving in the military and taxpayers funding it

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 11 2019 17:08 utc | 4

Another candidate for Steele’s “primary source” is Stefan Halper. Svetlana Lhokova suggested that this past Sunday.

Posted by: jayc | Dec 11 2019 17:10 utc | 5

Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.

Repeating my comment from yesterday on the Open Thread:

IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).

Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual mentions McCarthyism!

Wait, wot?

Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!

So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!

This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can be sure that it will not be reported.

Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism.

Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2019 17:12 utc | 6

thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should question their judgment''.. good example!

i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point.. all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..

Posted by: james | Dec 11 2019 17:24 utc | 7

@c1ue #4

Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to focus on the positive!

Posted by: Kabobyak | Dec 11 2019 17:27 utc | 8

@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said here for anyone interested..

lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However, regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I’d like to repeat once again we are prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and there’ll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."

Posted by: james | Dec 11 2019 17:27 utc | 9

I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with steele
to discuss the dirty dossier. In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign. The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.

Posted by: evilempire | Dec 11 2019 17:44 utc | 10

james says:

..all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..

someone around here said recently that it should be smooth sailing for the USA for at least another 150 to 200 years, so indeed to make a prediction it's enough you have vocal cords.

interestingly though, Dmitry Orlov, who has invested much of his overall thesis in the process of collapse (of the US empire) recently predicted its happening in his lifetime…

At this point, I am tempted to go out on a limb and predict that if all goes well (for me) I will still be alive when this collapse actually transpires

Posted by: john | Dec 11 2019 18:01 utc | 11

james @9

What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information? And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising troubling questions about the 2016 election?

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

It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:

- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;

- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to elect a Speaker.

- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work behind the scenes.

And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10 months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican primary);

- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion; Halper, etc.);

- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would make;

- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange (painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).

All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated Russiagate.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2019 18:19 utc | 12

The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 11 2019 18:28 utc | 13

James #11

I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked post.

What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific" models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current* phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs; the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater swamps, aquifers, etc.

Posted by: Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14

More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At The Hill, Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:

"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."

The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases present in reporting about the Report. Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following revelation by Lavrov:

"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until Donald Trump’s inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let’s sit down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump’s inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016 until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the exchanges we had through this channel. I think that this would set many things straight. Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]

Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story. But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is the USA

The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 18:38 utc | 15

Great stuff as ever.
How useful is it that Skripal is Unavailable but not Dead?

For example does it affect redaction of material linked to him?

Posted by: Michael Droy | Dec 11 2019 18:42 utc | 16

Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?

Posted by: Jon Carter | Dec 11 2019 18:59 utc | 17

The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of A.

Posted by: GeorgeV | Dec 11 2019 19:11 utc | 18

@ Posted by: Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14

Dmitry has gone off the rails lately. Still a great commentator on the Soviet collapse and how its lessons might apply to the US though.

Posted by: AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19

By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked "Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There might be a motive hidden there.

Posted by: JR | Dec 11 2019 19:41 utc | 20

Jon Carter @17:

... is it reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?

And then there's Simon Bracey Lane in the Sanders campaign as described here: British Spies Infiltrated Bernie Sanders' Campaign?

Plus we have the strange goings-on of Halper and Mifsud as well as Gina Haspel in London also.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2019 19:44 utc | 21

karlof1 #15

Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and Brennan deserve each other.

Lavrov's words condemn the three of them.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 11 2019 20:04 utc | 22

@ 11 john... i like orlov and what he has to say.. some things are hard to predict and the timing is the hardest aspect of it.. regardless, i think many look at the world changing and the usa having to use financial sanctions and every manner of corruption in order to maintain its exceptional status.. that is a bad sign and one that suggests to me it can't go on for forever.. maybe i am wrong...

@ 12 jackrabbit.. of course no major usa msm is going to pick up and comment on that.. it would be like outing themselves!

@ 14 really?? - that was john that posted the ovlov comments @ 11, but yes - no comment on climate change.. this is absent from a number of economic observations being made by others here and elsewhere too...

@ 15 karlof1.. i posted the link to the press briefing with lavrov with some commentary too.. i guess you missed it @ 9...

Posted by: james | Dec 11 2019 20:24 utc | 23

Twitter account @Techno_Fog lists MSM shills who assured the public the FISA warrant on Page was not based on Steele dossier (h/t Zero Hedge).

Posted by: S | Dec 11 2019 20:25 utc | 24

just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...

Posted by: james | Dec 11 2019 20:26 utc | 25

7 times?
Trump does that before noon-----
Repugs- Dims
Pepsi- Pepsi Lite

Posted by: Duncan Idaho | Dec 11 2019 20:26 utc | 26

uncle tungsten @22--

Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton. Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:

"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the completion of our projects?

"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."

I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing. That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 20:48 utc | 27

b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."

It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.

Posted by: ben | Dec 11 2019 21:03 utc | 28

This tweet sums up things nicely in ways BigLie Media won't:

"Let me get this straight:

"A Congress with a 9% approval rate

"Is trying to remove a president with a 52% approval rate that 63 million Americans voted for

"As a part of an impeachment process that 51% of voters don't want

"All while claiming to be fighting 'for the people'"

With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting that part of the Senate not up for reelection.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 21:07 utc | 29

Jrabbit @ 12 said; "All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated Russiagate."


Posted by: ben | Dec 11 2019 21:18 utc | 30

james and Really??

if you're going to comment on a Dmitry Orlov article that i link to…

try reading it first!

Posted by: john | Dec 11 2019 21:18 utc | 31

Karlof1 @ 29--
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least be Schiff...

Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc | 32

@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...

Posted by: james | Dec 11 2019 21:25 utc | 33

i see it now.. my comment still stands though... people seem especially pugnacious today..

Posted by: james | Dec 11 2019 21:27 utc | 34

"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO." --ben @28

Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies. Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.

Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 11 2019 21:27 utc | 35

29 Cont'd--

And Congress continues to alienate allies:

"So far on Dec 11:
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"

Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues will now become a major headache.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 21:30 utc | 36

karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.

The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the public can grasp.

What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are arrested.

Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.

These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she said, going on in D.C. lately.

Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called leaders
like things the way they are.

The rape of the workings classes will continue.

Posted by: ben | Dec 11 2019 21:40 utc | 37

Paul Damascene @32--

Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 21:41 utc | 38

WG @ 35: True that, WG.

Posted by: ben | Dec 11 2019 21:42 utc | 39

karlof1 @27:

... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ...

I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds.

Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And he was from the beginning of his candidacy.

Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia. Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement with Epstein.

Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.

And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.

It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out) to be outrageous and inconceivable.

... with bipartisan Congressional backing. That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned.

Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.

Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons (that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.

So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...

FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.

Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).

Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that below)

... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...

Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have no patrons.

Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA suddenly take note?

It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed.

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

I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2019 22:01 utc | 40

ben @37--

Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at Criag Murray's Twitter and at his website, the linked article being a scoop of sorts.

Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states. This site has current listing. I just looked over those for California where there are a few good ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed in CA.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 22:08 utc | 41

I know on a recemt MoA Open Thread comments forum that there was a link to this recent John Helmer / Dances With Bears article mentioning that Sergei and Julia Skripal were being held at an airbase in Gloucestershire being used by the United States Air Force (USAF) at the time that Julia Skripal was interviewed by a Reuters representative in May last year. I consider that link and the news worth mentioning again in this comments thread as some commenters have already mentioned Sergei Skripal in connection with Christopher Steele's dossier.

As early as August 2018, there had been speculation that the Skripals were being held at USAF Fairford airbase, based on audiovisual evidence in the background garden scene where the interview took place. Helmer's sources (they requested anonymity) spotted a chicken coop in the background which they say is a crow ladder trap. This is one indication that the garden scene was located near a runway. Background noises included the roar of jet engines.

If Helmer's information is correct, then we can now understand why the British government never gave Russian embassy staff access to the Skripals: London was in no position to do so, the Skripals were on US territory.

One implication of this new information is that the Skripals may no longer be in Britain and may now be living in North America somewhere with new identities. Should something happen to them (or have happened to them already), they will not be missed by their new neighbours. The Skripals will never be allowed to return to Russia and Sergei Skripal will never see or be allowed to communicate with his elderly mother again.

It really does look as if Sergei Skripal may have had something to do with that Orbis dossier after all, even if as a minor source or as a reference rather than the primary source of disinformation about Donald Trump's past activities in Moscow. What other work has Skripal done for his American masters?

Posted by: Jen | Dec 11 2019 22:27 utc | 42

Lavrov’s comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only highlight two obvious issues:

The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the “Trump = Moscow’s Man” campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.

Posted by: Cortes | Dec 11 2019 22:34 utc | 43

@ Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 21:07 utc | 29

With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting that part of the Senate not up for reelection.

You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.

Posted by: AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 22:38 utc | 44

Jon Schwartz reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:

"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."

And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit says.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 11 2019 22:39 utc | 45

Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.

Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits see Trump as anything but the loser.

Posted by: steven t johnson | Dec 11 2019 22:42 utc | 46

JR @ 20:

It looks as if Sergei Skripal may not be the primary source of the disinformation in Christopher Steele's dossier. Perhaps the person who is the primary source is not a Russian at all.

Posted by: Jen | Dec 11 2019 22:44 utc | 47

Jen, that's a really interesting post. Thanks.

Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't want ANYONE to know.

What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele dossier was meant to be bullshit? Well, that raises a whole host of questions, doesn't it?


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 11 2019 23:08 utc | 48

@42 jen.. i agree with your speculation on the skripals.. that has high odds as i see it.. thanks also for the interesting link @47..

Posted by: james | Dec 11 2019 23:47 utc | 49

JR | Dec 11 2019 19:41 utc | 20 brings up a revisiting of the Litvinenko polonium poisoning.

It is worth mentioning that a tiny but crucial and virtually never mentioned detail of the official inquiry (considered the last word on the matter) is that those conducting the official inquiry were never allowed access to the autopsy report -- which should have been (which would have been, in any honest effort at inquiry) the bedrock starting point. The report has right along been sequestered by Scotland Yard in the interests of... you guessed it: national security. Go figure...

Posted by: RJPJR | Dec 11 2019 23:56 utc | 50

Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.

Posted by: Kabobyak | Dec 12 2019 0:45 utc | 51

William Gruff @35
It's actually a, er, HOUSE of glassm ... Be glad that you, I, we ain't in it. Those shards can really hurt !

Posted by: polecat | Dec 12 2019 1:38 utc | 52

It strikes me that the best explanation of the attack on the Skripals is not that he was responsible for the Steele Dossier in any way, but that he could easily prove that it was a fantasy.And was planning to do so.
He knew better, though, than to say so in the UK which suggests that he was on his way home with his daughter when MI6 caught up with him and poisoned them both.
Steele, Pablo Miller and Skripal were old partners in crime.
I'm wondering whether the mistake Sergei made was not to leave the house-probably worth lotsa rubles- behind and just go. On the other hand he was almost certainly under constant surveillance.

@50 The Official Report to which you refer was also very careful to enter extensive caveats regarding its conclusions for which there was almost no real evidence.

Posted by: bevin | Dec 12 2019 1:46 utc | 53

@Jackrabbit #12, @karlof1 #15

It seems important to note that Mr. Lavrov refers to administrations in his comments, not presidents per se. As there are many staff in presidential administrations, it seems entirely possible that 1) the requests from the Russians never reached Obama or Trump personally, and 2) either or both presidents were therefore not even aware of the requests. In the case of Trump, that would be consistent with the fact that many members of his administration have been revealed to have operated contrary to his wishes.

@Jen #42

The Skripals residing on US territory would definitely indicate that the US has been the senior partner in the "Skripal operation". This seems to be part of a general pattern.

@Jackrabbit #48

For the Steele dossier to be intentional bullshit (meaning its creator(s) knew it was false when they created it) doesn't seem all that surprising. Intelligence agencies promote disinformation all the time. That in no way means that Trump is in on the game.

Posted by: Cynica | Dec 12 2019 1:48 utc | 54

by this point i don't know if either skripal is still alive. why keep them alive if they could debunk the oh so precious propaganda?

Posted by: pretzelattack | Dec 12 2019 2:04 utc | 55

c1ue @4

The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.

Posted by: daffyDuct | Dec 12 2019 2:26 utc | 56

Cynica @54

meaning its creator(s) knew it was false when they created it

There's a difference between making shit up for an unsophisticated client to get paid and CIA/MI6 asking for deliberately false info (verifiably false - so the future President is not in any real jeopardy).

Intelligence agencies promote disinformation all the time.

1) That's neither excuse nor explanation. What was this disinfo intended to do? To elect Hillary? Or, to help start Russiagate after Trump is elected?

Note: If Hillary had been elected, everyone would forget about Trump and his possible Russia connections as it would no longer be of any importance. But Trump's election allowed for Russiagate to be at the top of media reporting for months.

2) This was supposed to be done for a high-profile client (Hillary) against a high-profile target (Trump). Hillary and Trump would be likely to know or have support of intelligence/former intelligence people. So making things up could have had consequences - unless CIA/MI6 explicitly asked for bullsh*t.

That in no way means that Trump is in on the game.

No single piece of info is going to implicate Trump or anyone else. It's unlikely anyone will ever discover a smoking gun. One has to consider all the facts and find what explanation best fits those facts.

For example: why did Trump say he felt that he could shot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it? Did he say it because Trump's ego is such that he couldn't contain the news that he had been selected to be President?

Probably the best indicator is what the ultimate consequences are: who is prosecuted, who goes to jail and for how long. The Mueller investigation resulted in 4 people going to jail but only Papadopoulos really had anything to do with Russiagate, and he only served 14 days.

AG Barr has described the Horowitz Investigation as showing that the FBI acted in "bad faith". That doesn't inspire confidence that anyone will be held accountable.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 12 2019 2:34 utc | 57

Cynica @54--

Both Putin and Lavrov have stated that they talked directly with Obama and Trump about the issues involved with their relations, so there's no excuses or obfuscation possible is this case.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 12 2019 3:20 utc | 58

OT, but this seems to be going around..Eh?

Posted by: ben | Dec 12 2019 3:24 utc | 59

@ ben # 59 with the UK vote propaganda about Jeremy Corbyn like was done to Trump

I wonder if any in the UK are reading about the smear campaign done to Trump....if so, then how can they vote for Johnson?

I really decided to add a comment to this thread asking about Carter Page and why was it that she was a plant in the Trump camp by the CIA? She may not like having her sexual exploits trotted all over the media but maybe she should have thought about that when she agreed to go illegally under cover within our government. I have no love for Trump but the "Deep State" corruption shown here is beyond the pale.

When are all these folks, like the finance cult, going to start spouting that they are doing God's work?

America's government has lost whatever moral compass it thought it had.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 12 2019 4:05 utc | 60


I just confused Carter Page with Lisa bad.....sorry for that

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 12 2019 4:23 utc | 61

physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges.

IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.

Posted by: ben | Dec 12 2019 4:47 utc | 62

Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody ‘warned’ him son’s Ukraine job could raise conflict

In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:

Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your desk."

George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 12 2019 5:03 utc | 63

I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice. So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.

Posted by: evilempire | Dec 12 2019 5:34 utc | 64

Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19

I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a look at Into Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.

Posted by: Perimetr | Dec 12 2019 6:03 utc | 65

Since someone mentioned Mr Corbyn in this thread, the current primary, I'm gonna slide off topic and say first of all that the englander general election (yep some will take offence n say "Na this is a UK election" to which I'll reply "Tosh! The Scots, Ulstermen and Welsh are allowed to vote, however when was the last time their views were in any way a determinant of policy for an elected government?" Never is when unless Scots, Welsh or Ulstermen have backed something the englanders also want.

Anyway, enough of that, AFAIK the englander election is purely pen and ink which doesn't rule out fixed results, but does mean a complete across the board fix is beyond the gang who have been running the joint for the last thousand years, they rely on the liars of Fleet St (must point out I doubt a single pommie fishwrap is still produced around Holborn the environs of Staple Inn having been a stomping ground when I was young and trying to get a handle on brits), the point is that in 18 or so hours it is highly likely I'll be kicking the cat (useless moggies don't belong in Aotearoa) but there is still some chance that lefties around the world will be all drink champagne & laugh irony.
Why? It's just england and blind Freddie can see the eu is neoliberal hell?

No argument there but even in england there are many, many issues more important than brexit, but that truism aint my focus, what is, if one human running on a socialist ticket (and yeah I'm aware Mr Corbyn has been forced to seem 'conciliatory' over the last 12 months), the fact is he is promoting a 21st century socialism free of some of the old stumbling blocks and if he succeeds, he will demonstrate that humans still prefer living in peace and sharing - if the opportunity presents. That and the push is able to jump over the richfellas' obstacles.

When the england PM farts, no one out in the world pays attention any longer, but if a 'western' or developed nation is seen to reject greed & endless war, that does attract attention.

Posted by: A User | Dec 12 2019 7:54 utc | 66

@ Posted by: Antoinetta III | Dec 11 2019 16:27 utc | 1

Just before the 2020 election of course, when else?

Posted by: Et Tu Brute | Dec 12 2019 9:44 utc | 67

I've had smarter insects go splat on my windshield than these climate denialists whose comments I don't even bother reading Dmitry Orlov

here's Really @ 14

What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific" models---evidence of global warming

here's james @ 23

@ 14 really?? - that was john that posted the ovlov comments @ 11, but yes - no comment on climate change

here's Perimetr @ 65

Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear power

i guess there's not much difference in not reading an article and reading it and understanding fuck all. for chrissakes, the whole thing is about global warming!

and regarding nuclear energy, Orlov's not advocating for it, just understanding that to maintain the present level of industrial capacity it's the only game in town.

here's(pt 1, pt 2) some more reading material if you can tear yourselves away from the comment section for a little while.

Posted by: john | Dec 12 2019 10:45 utc | 68

Re: Both Obama and Trump turning down Lavrov's request to publish the top-level communications concerning America's Russia hysteria.

Why the simplistic assumption that both administrations rejected Lavrov's offer for the same reason? The post by Cortes @43 illustrates how the administrations would choose the same behavior for opposing reasons.

The Steele dossier was shabby and weak because it was never intended to be closely and critically examined by investigators. It was made strictly to be leaked in dribs and drabs to the mass media in order to feed the Russia hysteria, and then be magnanimously dropped by the winner after the election the way that Obama spiked any thought of war crimes investigations of the Bush administration. The simplistic notion that the Steele dossier was made intentionally weak to avoid harming its target and the intended winner of the election is nonsense that skips past blissfully unaware (or deliberately ignores) the obvious fact that if the target of the innuendo in the dossier wins the election then the new President would be unable to dismiss the investigations into the dossier's claims. A Clinton administration is the only one that could have dismissed the investigation and prevented the dossier's shabbiness coming to light.

Trump's victory guaranteed that the Steele dossier would have to be taken seriously and closely examined. Trump would be unable to sweep that under the rug the way Clinton could.

And we know that the Steele dossier was created with the intention of being disposed of promptly after the election because a prolonged legal examination of it would (and will) lead to damage to critical establishment institutions like the FBI and the FISA court, as well perhaps as the CIA and its Five Eyes attack poodles.

Had Clinton been elected then the dossier would have already served its purpose of feeding baseless innuendo to the media (which these days is apparently incapable of functioning with anything else), hyping up the Russia hysteria, and could then be disposed of before anyone looked too closely at it.

This is a critical point: Only a Clinton victory could have allowed the Steele dossier to be buried without closer examination. Only a Clinton victory could have allowed the Steele dossier to be flushed down the memory hole while keeping the insinuations and intended implications it contained alive. Only a Clinton victory could have kept the true shabbiness of the Steele dossier from being exposed.

This is critical because exposure of the Steele dossier weakens the whole campaign to promote anti-Russia hysteria in America. These kinds of tools for manipulating public sentiment need to be used and then disposed of before anyone looks too closely at them, just like the Syria chemical weapons attack fabrications, the "Millions and millions of Uighurs in concentration camps!!" lies, and the "Socialism is starving poor Venezuelans!" garbage, and so on. Trump winning guaranteed that this disposal wouldn't be possible with the Steele dossier.

In short, the analysis published above by our host is accurate. Trump's accidental victory was a spanner in the establishment's works that has massively complicated the clean-up of a disposable psy-op (a number of them, actually). The efforts to spin the enormous PR debacle for the establishment that Trump's win represents as the intended outcome of these psy-ops is shallow thinking or deliberate obfuscation.

Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 12 2019 11:52 utc | 69

IMO there's one person who can steer the good ship USA away from the rocks looming ahead: William Barr. I'm watching to see if he's a modern Man for All Seasons or just the one gently guiding Trump to the trap door. There's a long list of people who need to be indicted for Treason, arrested and tried. The penalty for Treason is death by hanging.

Posted by: Vic Sorlie | Dec 12 2019 12:09 utc | 70

"...the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges." --ben @62

The poster must be British.

Artificial hysteria manufactured by the mass media always looks more serious to its intended targets than it does to individuals from other demographics. Americans, for example, might be wondering how anyone could be stupid enough to fall for accusations that Corbyn is in tight with the Russians, while thinking "But... but Trump really is Putin's puppet!" (cue posts by that poor, tragically damaged Circe individual).

Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 12 2019 12:13 utc | 71

Ok, maybe it's just me here, but from the minute I heard "Russia did it" cross Obama's lips I knew it was bullshit. Having been a die-hard Sanders supporter, along with others, we witnessed the Clinton/DNC election fraud. We BEGGED Sanders to challenge but we were ignored. In short, Russiagate is a NEOCON war narrative. And Dems get away with this nonsense because their voters are CLUELESS as to Obama foreign policy that MSM covered up or white washed over his 8 years in office. It is stunning as well as frightening that anyone took this at face value. The US political elite are nothing but incompetent Zionist clowns in a juvenile shit show. How many Americans would support a war on Russia or China that the elite seem to want?

Posted by: Annie | Dec 12 2019 13:30 utc | 72

William Gruff | Dec 12 2019 11:52 utc | 69:

As I mentioned above (one of: @6 @12 @40), a Clinton win would've meant no Russiagate, no McCarthyism. In my analysis, I assume that initiating a new McCarthyism was intended. Some may see that as a flawed assumption but it's in line with the strategic imperatives necessary to meet the challenge from Russia and China.

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

Only a Clinton victory could have kept the true shabbiness of the Steele dossier from being exposed.

Has the shabbiness of the Steele dossier caused much heartburn among TPTB? I don't think so. The reliance on the Steele dossier for FISA court was effectively buried.

If Hillary REALLY WANTED TO WIN - for herself, for the establishment, for the Deep State and for the CIA-MI6-FBI operatives that (supposedly) tried to help her then she would've done everything she could to win. She would not have insulted Sanders and his supporters by bringing Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her campaign, she would not have taken the black vote for granted, she would not have insulted whites with her "deplorables" comment, and she would've campaigned in the states that SHE KNEW would decide the election.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 12 2019 14:41 utc | 73

More nonsense from the bunny for those with short memories.

The new McCarthyism had already started well before the election. The fake WADA charges, the ridiculous jingoism during the Sochi Olympics, the hysterical accusations of Russian invasions of Ukraine, the accusation of shooting down MH17, all of this was already happening with no need to hand the Presidency to a political newbie and dilettante over a seasoned agent of the deep state who has been in the thick of the plans for "Project for a New American Century" since before it was even called that.

Everything we have seen since the 2016 elections has been damage control, but the establishment/deep state and their narratives have been taking lots of damage anyway. The effort to assert that our host claimed "...the Steele dossier... was effectively buried." is inaccurate and misrepresents what our host wrote. The desperate hysteria among the establishment's mass media orifices is wishcasting, not fact. More importantly, the very fact that they attempted this desperate Hail Mary effort to distance themselves from the Steele dossier attests to how damaging it is and how far out of the establishment's hands things have fallen.

Finally, Clinton didn't try in the elections because she (and the establishment/deep state behind her) never seriously considered the possibility that she could lose. The only possible candidate even less likely to win in their estimation would have been that boot-on-head Vermin Supreme guy, but they wanted the election farce to be at least marginally believable so they had to settle for Trump. In retrospect, Vermin Supreme likely would have beaten Clinton too, and then establishment fanbois would be saying that the deep state really wanted that all along as well.

Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 12 2019 15:24 utc | 74

@daffyDuct #56
Indeed. The point being: if a senior editor of TAC is outraged - what do others feel?
2nd point being: sad indeed when the conservatives are anti-war and the liberals are pro.
3rd point: $1 trillion and 2400 dead Americans for what, exactly? There are about to be children of voting age that were born after the Afghanistan "victory any moment" conflict started.

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 12 2019 16:24 utc | 75

@William Gruff #74
If $1 billion plus of spending isn't evidence of trying to win an election, what is?

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 12 2019 16:26 utc | 76

c1ue @76

Very true. The bunny is claiming that Clinton should have tried even harder than that, though, and that despite the massive investment you point out that Clinton deliberately threw the election to make sure Trump won. That is reality turned on its head. In fact the Clinton victory was supposed to have been so overwhelming that the media could look back on the campaigns and pointed out how Clinton flogged Trump "with one hand behind her back". The talking heads could crow "She didn't even campaign in key states! This election represents a resounding defeat of hateful white working class men and an historic victory for people with personal identity fixations!" This event would have then been reinforced and amplified by all of the entertainment media (movies, TV shows, pop music, etc) that has been rolled out since the elections pushing the capitalism-friendly formulation of "progressive" identity politics (note how these mass media productions had been started long before the elections... they knew who was going to win even before Clinton declared her candidacy).

With this kind of fabricated cultural "wind at her back", Clinton could then have succeeded in committing truly horrific acts like what Barack "Kill List" Obama did and be immune from criticism for any of it.

That was the establishment plan, anyway. Voters apparently had different ideas.

Posted by: William Gruff | Dec 12 2019 17:03 utc | 77

Going back to the Horowitz report:
It isn't surprising to me that Horowitz declined to criticize his own organization despite lapses.
And to be fair, I still think most FBI personnel are professional. Even Strzok and Page - it isn't at all clear that their clearly anti-Trump views expressed in their professional actions.
While there are 7 (or was it 9?) documented instances of lies underpinning the FISA requests, again, I would not be shocked if this doesn't happen regularly in all cases.
The key - as b highlighted and Taibbi wrote about - is that the Steele report absolutely was critical to the FBI investigation. That and the leaks around it, plus the extra-FBI/Justice department portions - that's what we'll have to find out about from Durham.

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 12 2019 17:05 utc | 78

Outlaw US Empire's Congress holds mirror up to itself yet again as it attempts to get Russia labeled a "state sponsor of terrorism" in what IMO is the most brazen attempt to destroy relations with Russia ever! Push back against that Imperious chamber is also being made strongly by Germany in response to its attempt to use illegal extraterritorial sanctions to halt the Nord Stream 2 project:

"German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas has slammed US plans to sanction Nord Stream-2," saying:

"Decisions on European Energy Policy are taken in Europe. We reject foreign interference and, as matter of principle, extraterritorial sanctions.

"Meanwhile, the German Economic Committee has condemned the sanctions against Nord Stream 2 as an 'insult to European sovereignty' and 'inadmissible meddling'.

"The introduction of these sanctions will create considerable pressure on the trans-Atlantic relations,' the committee stated."

Those "relations" in reality are in a state of crisis as the recent NATO Summit revealed, "NATO Becomes Schizophrenic as It Loses Credibility". It's becoming rather obvious that the Empire's Congress no longer looks beyond the mirror it stares into when looking out at the world beyond its hall. As the vote on NDAA revealed, it's the D-Party that's the biggest part of the problem as it continues to believe its own lies on Russiagate, China, Iran, Korea, and its arrogated "right" to rule the world.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 12 2019 17:21 utc | 79

And to be fair, I still think most FBI personnel are professional. [...] While there are 7 (or was it 9?) documented instances of lies underpinning the FISA requests, again, I would not be shocked if this doesn't happen regularly in all cases.

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 12 2019 17:05 utc | 78

it begs the question what does it mean "professional FBI personnel". Seems that it entail regularly lying to courts. And it is not like courts are offended. Supreme Court twisted the laws about legal responsibility of law enforcement officials so they enjoy almost total immunity. Like shooting dead a person sleeping in a car, or clobbering to death a person sleeping on a sidewalk. FBI is less involve in such bloody shenanigans, but lies that allow to incarcerate normal citizens for years are "lapses" or "minor lapses" for them.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 12 2019 17:37 utc | 80

If Clinton's opponent had been a passionless lump of butter like Jeb Bush; then she would be president today. But I guess the fakery found in the 2016 contest was purposely built for a psychologically damaged and demoralized electorate. The shock and disorientation of the nation was compounded by a degraded and decadent mass media that slavishly provided Trump with all the free publicity he needed to get to the White House.

We are lucky that Hillary is not president; and at the same time unlucky that Trump is. But the program or agenda of this administration is much like the two that preceded it: the foundation of the rule of law is systematically undermined, the surveillance state is carefully cemented into place, and war, including subversive overthrow of other governments, has become the preferred way of doing business.

The spectacle of enemies that are bigger than life, drawn in exaggerated and cartoonish proportions, becomes the "meat on which Caesar has fed" and the nourishment of any new McCarthyism or post modern Dark Age.

Posted by: Copeland | Dec 12 2019 17:39 utc | 81

In an editorial that will have most barflies nodding in agreement, Global Times mocks the Outlaw US Empire's "inefficiency of the American system". Unfortunately, the writer conflates capitalism with the political-economic system of the Outlaw US Empire, although s/he does work through it to make a very important point:

"What matters to a country most is perhaps its ability to reform. No country's governance system is perfect. With the changes of the times, continuous reform is the guarantee of a country's progress.

"In terms of reform capacity, the Western capitalist countries, such as the US, are far from role models to the world." [My Emphasis]

It was Putin in his critique of Liberalism who noted it's inability to reform itself by judging itself to be the one and only True Ideology as its internal contradictions have it headed for the dust bin for ideas. The massive corruption unveiled--again--by the numerous scandals going back to the Clinton administration and the inability of the system to arrest, try, convict, and imprison the many powerful people involved is the most obvious case-in-point.

The editorial's title, "Capitalism is losing appeal to Chinese," and its opening sentences:

"As China has stood on a higher level of development, it is having a different way of dealing with, and understanding Western countries. It's fair to say the Chinese people now have the most profound and objective understanding of capitalism.

"The US is representative of capitalism. Many Chinese used to adore the US. But with China and the US increasingly having interdependent interests, the Chinese people have begun to understand the US from a new perspective.

"We find that the US, though powerful, has many problems and made many mistakes."

can be distilled into the one word the writer chose not to use--Corruption--and its inherent presence within all capitalist systems. Not mentioned in relation to China's "opening up" is the rapid rise in corruption that accompanied it that the Chinese government has acknowledged and acted upon in ways the West cannot fathom--thus the fundamental problem of the West: The head is rotten to its core and demands replacing--Reform.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 12 2019 18:16 utc | 82

Durham won't find anything or release any bombshell. Just a brief look into the guys history shows he'll cover up & protect anyone or anything that involves intelligence agencies or their agents.

Posted by: M | Dec 12 2019 18:25 utc | 83

Is there such a thing as a MoA Barfly of the Year award? If yes, then I nominate William Gruff for (hopefully) putting the final nail in JR's non-sensical pet theory he keeps hammering (as if in an echo chamber, err, rabbit hole) in every goddamn thread..

Posted by: Lozion | Dec 12 2019 18:32 utc | 84

@Lozion #84
I would vote against any form of group based censorship.
People are entitled to their own opinions - even should any one person or multiple persons might disagree.
The merits of what is being presented is what matters, and it should be able to stand on its own without mob rule/groupthink intervening.

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 12 2019 18:47 utc | 85

@Jackrabbit #57

Your response is somewhat confusing. In your earlier post (#48), you seemed to be indicating that the revelation that the Steele dossier was "meant to be bullshit" would be earth-shattering news. However, it seems that many people already believe the Steele dossier to be intentional bullshit (meaning disinformation). Furthermore, the CIA and other intelligence agencies clearly have histories of asking for and disseminating such disinformation. None of that means that literally everything going on is kayfabe.

Clearly the Steele dossier was intended to help form the basis for surveillance of the Trump campaign. In that it was successful. Beyond that, helping Clinton win the election and helping to start Russiagate after Trump gets elected are not fully mutually exclusive. First the one and then the other goal could have been intended.

The CIA and allied intelligence agencies explicitly asking for bullshit to put in the Steele dossier does not seem to be in dispute. It's confusing why you seem to think otherwise. What seems to be in dispute is whether Russiagate is pure kayfabe, as you argue, or whether it's a sincere effort to delegitimize Trump's presidency, as other commenters on this blog argue. There seems to be a clear motive only for the latter, namely to prevent any significant change to US foreign policy.

As far as Trump claiming that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it, you're simply imputing that he made that claim specifically because he had been selected to become president. The notion that he just has a huge ego in general is a much simpler explanation that's still consistent with the evidence.

Finally, it's not at all clear what you're trying to argue about the Mueller investigation. You almost seem to be complaining that the Mueller investigation didn't prosecute and convict enough people. But if Russiagate is based on a total sham, why should anyone be prosecuted (let alone convicted)?

@karlof1 #58

Not to cast doubt on your sincerity, but do you happen to have any sources for that information?

Posted by: Cynica | Dec 12 2019 19:06 utc | 86

>And to be fair, I still think most FBI personnel are professional.
>Even Strzok and Page -
>I would not be shocked if this doesn't happen regularly in all cases.
>Posted by: c1ue | Dec 12 2019 17:05 utc | 78

Yes, the FBI are staffed with professional gangsters in cheap suits paid by a better class of parasites. (What makes all their agents "Special"?) They were created to be the political police. Does anyone think the FBI quit collecting files on politicians after Director Hoover died?

Who said something about McCarthyism died quietly? Was that Lavrov? McCarthyism never died. It turned into the COINTELPRO campaign directed against anti-war campaigners and especially the Black Panthers. Folks may recall that Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were murdered by the FBI and the Chicago PD 50 years ago this month.

The exalted FBI is probably the only investigative agency on the planet that doesn't record interviews. Instead, agents make notes that say whatever is convenient for the FBI. Somehow, no one notices.

Yes, prosecutorial misconduct at all levels is routine and accepted. It is well understood that findings of crime labs are frequently suspect, unreliable, or outright fraud, with little actual scientific evidence to back up their methods. Paid "experts" for the prosecution frequently aren't. No one cares as long as it keeps "undesirables" in their place.

Few criminal suspects actually get a jury trial. Poor people who can't make bail languish in the most miserable part of the jail until they finally agree to plead out for time served, years of restrictive, rights-free probation, probation fees, court fees, and the chance to be bounced back into jail for little or no reason.

I am amazed that political operatives hired by Trump actually talked to the FBI. How could they not know that the only safe response to the FBI is, "No Comment. I want a lawyer." I guess people at the top all assume they are the smartest one in the room and and think they can fool the FBI. Oops. Maybe not.

Ever notice how the FBI puts themselves in charge of every crime that makes the national "front page"? They want to make sure everyone in the country knows who's in charge of crime.

Posted by: Trailer Trash | Dec 12 2019 19:36 utc | 87

@ 86 cynica... thanks for your posts and presence in these comments.. i like your energy... in answer to your last question on karlof1 - lavrov said as much in the usa state dept press briefing yesterday which can be found here... here is the quote from this link..

"I’d like to remind you that when the first statements on this topic began, that was on the eve of the presidential election in 2016. We used the channels that existed back then between Moscow and Washington, together with Barack Obama. We have asked many times our American partners about the opportunity to deal with these suspicions that were expressed in October 2016, all the way up to President Trump’s inauguration. There was no response. All our appeals – when we were saying if you suspect us of something, please put the facts down on the table; let’s discuss it. It had zero response. So all that continued after the inauguration of the new administration, after the inauguration of President Trump.

We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However, regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I’d like to repeat once again we are prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and there’ll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."

Posted by: james | Dec 12 2019 19:40 utc | 88

Cynica @86--

Thanks for your reply! Did you read either of the presser transcripts I linked to @15&27 or read any of the ones with Putin after his meetings with Trump? Or the many other Q&A transcripts generated by the two since Trump's election and the 8 years of Obama? I've read the vast majority of them. What stands out for me is the openness and completeness of what the Russian's provide compared to the Outlaw US Empire, which is 100% opposite of BigLie Media's Narrative.

Opportunities to meet and discuss the wide gamut of issues and problems are few, thus they tend to be very information dense in an attempt to cover as much ground as possible. Under normal circumstances, additional more technical discussions are held between aides, which is what we see in the relations between Russia and China, for example. The D-Party's artificial yet demonic Russophobia in collusion with Senatorial Republicans has set an unprecedented limitation on the ability of POTUS to conduct foreign affairs efficiently with one of the world's most important nations, which is debated here as an unconstitutional infringement.

For a wide variety of personal and professional reasons, I follow Putin very closely. Every year he conducts what's termed a nationwide press conference lasting 3-4 hours, and this year's event approaches quickly. Do give you a taste of what these cover, here's the transcript and video of last year's event. Putin also engages in several other similar events annually, and almost every month he's giving a speech related to domestic Russian happenings, which prove my assertion that he's Russia's #1 Cheerleader.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 12 2019 20:29 utc | 89

@6 jackrabbit

when the possibility to clear things up appeared, why would he have done so ? look at the democrats now. if destroying the democrats is part of a wider agenda, barr is on it, not pompeo. who's in charge is the remaining question.

Posted by: alain | Dec 12 2019 21:10 utc | 90

John Durham may have an unfortunate automobile or aircraft accident soon.

Posted by: Stephen Morrell | Dec 12 2019 22:12 utc | 91

@91 stephen... that is a thought that crosses us conspiracy theory types regularly!

Posted by: james | Dec 12 2019 23:07 utc | 92

Horowitz: FBI Created ‘Fraudulent Evidence’. If the FBI is so corrupt it will Lie, Perjure, Falsify reports, to attack an American PRESIDENT ....What are they doing to Simple Citizens like YOU?
Now ALL court cases in which the FBI testified must be reopened and retried in light of the documented corruption. WACO, Boston Bombing, 9/11, Oklahoma Bombing, Levoy Finicum shooting, Richard Jewell, and How many HUNDREDS of other AMERICANS???? ........

Posted by: adam | Dec 12 2019 23:10 utc | 93

The reason to publicly state an unconventional theory is to get feedback that tests it. I appreciate any feedback given in good faith.

My theory of the 2016 US Presidential Election provides answers to some nagging questions and also fits nicely with larger issues like the USA reaction to Russia's willingness to defy the US in 2013-14 which signaled that the Russian-Chinese Alliance had teeth.

Some objections to the theory are spurious or offered by people that seem to have a bias or agenda. For example, the counter-theory that Hillary's campaign expenditures - even if $1 billion or more - proves her sincerity is very weak.

That Hillary couldn't possibly bend to the will of the Deep State is also very weak. As I've explained, she was a deeply flawed candidate in many ways - including via Bill's friendship with Epstein. She was best used as foil for the candidacy of another. In addition, the notion that she was over-confident is belied by her seeking "insurance" via the Steele dossier.

In the end, people have to decide for themselves how valid the theory is. The alternative is simply to accept what we are told. IMO we should question everything and THINK FOR OURSELVES.


Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 12 2019 23:56 utc | 94

Jackrabbit @94 says 'She was best used as foil for the candidacy of another.'

She was. You are correct in your observations and assessments in my opinion. That said, you have the wrong 'foil' being Trump. The correct individual is Tim Kaine.

Tim, who I knew well as a politico, was Obama's guy. No question. Kaine personally flipped delegates and super delegates here in Virginia who were voting for Hillary in 2008 to Obama in 2008. He was and remains Obama and Soros' guy. Do a deep dive on Tim. You'll find that Hillary loathed Tim. I witnessed this first hand. He was never a Hillary backer until 2012 and that was only b/c Kaine, if the ticket won, would have continued to represent Obama and his interests on his behalf. Obama had no plans to relinquish his influence on matters important to him. Tim was placed on the ticket to ensure that.

Trump in no way is aligned with their interests. Never has been. Never will be. Kissinger's interests are not George Soros' interests. Read any of their work and you will learn how diametrically opposed they are on most foreign policy challenges.

Like I said, your observations, instincts, assessments are indeed correct. Your spotlight is on the wrong guy.

Lastly, my apologies to you a while back for not responding to you in an open thread. Time is not my friend these days.

Posted by: h | Dec 13 2019 1:19 utc | 95

@Piotr Berman #80
Perhaps you've never been involved in a civil or criminal prosecution.
The objective of prosecutors is to get a conviction; the objective for law enforcement in applying for warrants is to get approval.
Outright, knowing lies is certainly not professional - but note that this isn't what the report said. Statements which are believed to be true but aren't actually; statements which may or may not be true but are not supported by evidence - are examples of omissions but not lies.
Here are the actual 9 examples which are "factual assertion not supported by evidence":

1) Although Page did not provide any specific 27 details to refute, dispel, or clarify the media reporting, he made vague statements that minimized his activities.
2) [Steele] told the FBI that he/she only provided FN 18 this information to the business associate and the FBI.
3) [Steele] reported the information contained FN 8 X therein to the FBI over the course of several meetings with the FBI from in or about June 2016 through August 2016.
4) As of March 2017, the FBI has conducted FN 4 X several interviews with Papadopoulos. During these interviews, Papadopoulos confirmed that he met with officials from the above-referenced friendly foreign government, but he denied that he discussed anything related to the Russian Government during these meetings.

As you can see, there are exactly 4 unique assertions - 1) and 2) are repeated 3 times, once for each of the 3 FISA applications.
See it for yourself in Appendix I in the report
Doesn't look like egregious outright lying to me - the lies are primarily by Steele - the FBI failed to verify his statement.

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 13 2019 23:46 utc | 96

@Trailer Trash #87
Have you actually ever worked with the FBI? I'm curious as to where you get your information from.
From my view, while every organization has its politicians and self-promoters, the FBI does do an enormous amount of good fighting crime.
The parts which are national security are the ones which historically have been problematic from J. Edgar Hoover onwards.
I think it is a terrible disservice and also disrespectful to lump the activities of one sub-group with misbehavior by everyone in an organization - any more than conflating CIA dirty tricks behavior with the raw intel gathering people.

Posted by: c1ue | Dec 13 2019 23:50 utc | 97

There are many interesting and salient points made in this long discussion, most of which I certainly agree with. The most important of all, I believe, is this one from "Ashenlight."

With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.

This has been the HUGE problem with tossing the jerks out of office for many decades now. I have no idea how one might solve it, but until the people of this country figure out some way to turn what few critical thinking skills they might have upon their own, invariably equally wretched and corrupt incumbants, it will remain virtually impossible for any public insurgency to have any ameliorative effect. What a sorry cesspool our Republic has become!!

One other comment I think might be worth making here; If "Congresscritters" -- a fine description! -- only have 9% approval in general, then one Mr. Adam Schiff must surely have less than half of that. Am I really the only one who has noticed that the Patheticrats have managed through their present comedy to make this least likeable and trustworthy of their sorry ilk the new public face of their party? That in itself might well be enough to throw the election to Trump hook, line, and sinker, one Bernie Sanders or no!! And thus the Great Revanchism that first seized the globe in 1968 only to metastasize into the regnant neoliberal monopoly capitalist imperialism of our time looks set to plague the world for at least another 4 years ... if not much longer still.

Posted by: Billosky55 | Dec 15 2019 0:52 utc | 98

The comments to this entry are closed.