Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 30, 2020

DNI Letter Supports Allegation That Hillary Clinton Created 'Russiagate'

Were the allegations that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential elections made up by the Clinton campaign?

A letter sent by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe seems to suggest so:

On Tuesday, Ratcliffe, a loyalist whom Trump placed atop U.S. intelligence in the spring, sent Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a letter claiming that in late July 2016, U.S. intelligence acquired “insight” into a Russian intelligence analysis. That analysis, Ratcliffe summarized in his letter, claimed that Clinton had a plan to attack Trump by tying him to the 2016 hack of the Democratic National Committee.
...
Ratcliffe stated that the intelligence community “does not know the accuracy of this allegation or to the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.”

bigger

The letter says that then CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on the intelligence. He reported that the Russians believed that Clinton approved the campaign plan on July 26 2016.

So U.S. intelligence spying on Russian intelligence analysts found that the Russians believed that Clinton started a 'Trump is supported by the Russian hacking of the DNC' campaign. The Russian's surely had reason to think that.

Emails from the Democratic National Committee were published by Wikileaks on July 22 2016, shortly before the Democratic National Convention. They proved that during the primaries the DNC had actively worked against candidate Bernie Sanders.

On July 24 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook went on CNN and made, to my knowledge, the very first allegations (video) that Russia had 'hacked' the DNC in support of Donald Trump.

It is likely that the Russian analysts had seen that.

Mook's  TV appearance was probably a test balloon raised to see if such claims would stick.

Two days later Clinton allegedly approved campaign plans to emphasize such claims.

In the infamous Steele dossier, prepared for the Clinton campaign by a 'former' British spy, the first entry that is tying the Trump campaign to the 'Russian DNC hack' was allegedly written on July 28 2016.

The president of Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company which investigated the DNC leak, later said that his company never found any proof that Russia had hacked the DNC.

There are suspicions that Seth Rich, an IT administrator for the DNC and Bernie Sanders supporter, has leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Rich was murdered on July 10 2016 in Washington DC in an alleged 'robbery' during which nothing was stolen.

The claims made in the Ratcliffe letter fit the timeline of the scandal as it developed. They support the assertion that the Clinton campaign made up 'Russiagate' from whole cloth. It was supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of high level anti-Trump activists in the FBI and CIA.

Posted by b on September 30, 2020 at 16:04 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

jinn @95

It is interesting how some readers comprehension of the written word is so weak that they attribute a problem discussed in a written description to the author of that description. This isn't a case of shooting the messenger, but rather something much worse: confusing the message and messenger of being one and the same thing.

I am describing mistakes that the establishment made that caused the election to not turn out as they intended. You, however, are using the fact that the election did not turn out as the establishment intended as proof that was not what the establishment intended. That's ass-backwards logic you are using, and it is am example of that "The establishment is omnipotent!" narrative that I have been trying to counter.

You are being irrational and your argument is garbage. Please heal your mind and improve your argument.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 1 2020 15:15 utc | 101

In reply to jinn | Oct 1 2020 14:56 utc | 96

It was a metaphor. I think there are disputes here, and they are mostly productive.

I'm looking back to the PNAC doctrine thinking Iran was one of the stepping stones for the US empire to solidify its dominance. I've since decided Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have invested in a counter proposal to cement a relationship between former Soviet and US interests. Obviously it's just another garden variety con-theory. It happened before, so I think it's not all too far fetched. The 'deep state' opposes any sort of alliance of course. Yes, even more con-theory, but I have nothing to lose by speculating. I'm not invested in either theory, just looking for alternatives.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 1 2020 15:20 utc | 102

All this let's chase Hillary down the rabbit hole is moot DISTRACTION from the fact that Ziofascist Trump is attempting to steal an election and turn the U.S. into a police state where he controls the judiciary and can impose martial law whenever he feels like it.

And you just can't justify this or explain it away, since it's not good for your unstated ubiquitous Trump is better for ****** narrative, just like the damning facts that Trump is trying to permanently swindle Palestinians of their land and rights, trying to destroy Iran, meddling in Venezuela for regime change and trying to start a Cold War with China--all that you can't justify or explain so lets beat the dead Clinton horse instead, shall we, and portray Trump as a poo wee innocent babyTrump?

You know what I think? I think you might setting up the narrative that if Clinton tried to hobble Trump with whatever in 2016, then maybe she'll be responsible for Trump losing the election in 2020.

But guess what? Pigs don't fly and neither does this engineered distraction from who Trump really is and his fascist intent already in motion.

Posted by: Circe | Oct 1 2020 15:23 utc | 103

" This isn't a case of shooting the messenger, but rather something much worse: confusing the message and messenger of being one and the same thing. "

well said, I was seeing it but unable to put it into words

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 1 2020 15:24 utc | 104

I don't disagree that Clinton was involved, but the ultimate author was above her. H. Clinton has been working with US intelligence going back to her work in the Eugene McCarthy campaign.

Posted by: Bob In Portland | Oct 1 2020 15:49 utc | 105

Curmudgeon @Oct1 13:23 #87

Enlighten us.

You can enlighten yourself by going to my website.

The short version:

USA was caught flat-footed by Russian's resurgence in 2013-14 (after a nearly 25-year hiatus) and scrambled to respond to what was the WORST CASE situation for them: the alliance of Russia and China. Kissinger's prescription was delivered in a WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014: USA must return to historical roots that had allowed it to win the Cold War (MAGA). 10 months later, Trump enter the Presidential race as the MAGA candidate. The ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican primary. He prompted romped thru the Primary race like a hot knife through butter. The Republican establishment was seemingly flummoxed. None of the many seasoned politicians altered their approach to something more populist (in a field of 19!). It was as though they were stick figures. Or robots. While Rubio was lambasted as Mario Ruboto, all the candidates acted in similar fashion.

As jinn has pointed out, the Deep State-controlled MSM supported Trump with loads of free publicity.

On the Democratic side, Sanders played sheepdog. Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate but Sanders would not attack her effectively. Bernie famously gave Hillary a pass on her emails as time ran out to find an alternative standard-bearer, saying: "Enough with your damn emails!"

In the General Election, despite enormous pressure to beat Trump (underscored by Bloomberg's announcing that he may enter the race because neither Sanders nor Trump were acceptable), Hillary made mistakes that no seasoned politician would make. She screwed progressives, she ignored the black vote (she was very cold to BLM), she insulted white "deplorables" (knowing that Trump was appealing to them), and in the closing weeks of the campaign she refused to campaign in the three states that SHE KNEW would decide the race.

What gets little recognition is that Sanders acknowledged that Hillary was "a friend of 25 years". And the Clinton and Trump families were also close for a long time (my estimate: about a decade). What also gets little recognition is the concentration of political power in USA. The Clinton's, McCain, Bushes, John Brennan, Kissinger, Robert Mueller (who mentored Comey) together wielded enormous power in 2015. That small group could elect a President - and they did as evidenced by Trump's nominating their close associates to top positions in his Administration DESPITE the apparent hatred of Trump that each member of this small group professes toward Trump.

Applying Occam's razor: the Election of Trump, Russiagate, and the settling of scores with Flynn, Assange, and Manafort was all arranged as part of the strategy to meet the challenge from Russia and China.

USA Deep State thought that Russia had to eventually join with the West. They tried to force Russia's hand in the 1990's (as Kissinger obliquely acknowledged in his interview with ft.com) but 'economic shock therapy' failed to trigger Russian capitulation. When Mother Russia grew balls and blocked USA in Syria and Russia USA Deep State self-styled patriots were shocked.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 1 2020 16:00 utc | 106

Jackrabbit | Oct 1 2020 16:00 utc | 106
I've sifted your blog and found solid material. BTW I can't comment there for some reason.

Anywho, I don't find what you've posted to present a relationship between the fumbles of the Clinton handlers and the creation of the hit piece. So while I may be intellectually lazy as you've suggested, it's possible I've simply exceeded my limits.

I think Russia caught the deep state flatfooted, not the US. The US would be better off to form alliance with Russia, and that also works for Russia. So Putin and Trump should be working together against the deep state interference. Curtailment of the 'cold war' (I attribute it to Reagan's patriotic quest to destroy the USSR economically) was a huge mistake. I've had friends who profited greatly from the cold war and lamented its temporary demise. Unfortunately corruption by all sides destroyed any possible economic benefits.

One key difference in the way we view 'deep state'. It has no nationality, no national interest any more than the US government is a corporation. That is the institution, but it is not the specific actors and agents who see their roles as interchangeable. In your presentation it appears there are separate US and other national deep state institutions. I'm willing to read more on that subject. So far I think the deep state actually competes with national interests in order to consolidate and maintain power, and this effort is one of the factors defining globalism.
Globalism is an usurpation of national interests contrasting with the UN which in theory would support national interests. Neither consists of elected officials. The end goal appears to be autocracy either covert or overt.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 1 2020 16:27 utc | 107

Curmudgeon @Oct1 16:27 #107

I don't find what you've posted to present a relationship between the fumbles of the Clinton handlers and the creation of the hit piece.

You are looking for a smoking gun. If I had such a thing I'd be famous ... or dead.

It's very easy to blame "handlers" or "advisors". But once you can see the dislocations/machinations/ramifications of renewed 'great power' competition, the logic of what transpired after 2013-14 (electing Trump, initiating Russiagate, etc.) is clear and explains a lot.

Those who agree with my POV generally have a good understanding of US and World history and politics.

=
One key difference in the way we view 'deep state'.

People have been led to believe that the "Deep State" is composed of bureaucrats or oligarchs. But most bureaucrats have little power and most oligarchs defer to more powerful oligarchs. It's really a powerful group of top political and intelligence people that set the agenda. These people have been around for decades and while they nominally work for oligarchs, they also control the oligarchs because Deep State relationships with CIA and other agencies mean that they have much greater capability (to reward or destroy) than any oligarch or group of oligarchs.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 1 2020 17:26 utc | 108


I didn't see it because I believed the selection process had decided on a Clinton presidency.
_____________________________________

Why would you believe that, other than that was the message coming from the MSM?
_______________________________
People who predicted the Trump victory were ecstatic for good reason.
____________________

I predicted it and was not ecstatic. It seemed obvious to me that Trump would be the winner during the primaries. It has been calculated that the media gave trump ten times more free air time than all the other candidates combined. At the same time major news outlets (like CNN) fired reporters if they tried to report on what Sanders was saying. At that point it was obvious the fix was in.

You seem to be saying that people predict who will win based on who they like and not objective observations.


Posted by: jinn | Oct 1 2020 17:26 utc | 109

BM wrote:

Obviously Comey and Strzok are going to pull out all the stops to find ways of blocking or neutering any such investigation. That it was announced to happen at all is rather surprising
__________________________________

You are not making any sense at all. The announcement torpedoed the Clinton campaign. And this was not the first time that the FBI announced to the world that Clinton was the subject of criminal investigation. Those announcements violated established FBI rules.

The FBI often states that they do not ever comment on ongoing investigations. There appears to be an exception to that rule when the FBI is trying to get trump elected.

Posted by: jinn | Oct 1 2020 17:35 utc | 110

You, however, are using the fact that the election did not turn out as the establishment intended as proof that was not what the establishment intended.
_______________________________
Stop with the lying. I never said anything even remotely close to that.

I said the exact opposite. The evidence that trump was the candidate selected by the donor class and the media they control was evident long long before the outcome of the election.

You completely ignored everything that I wrote and instead created a false version of what you claim I was saying so that you can argue against it.

Posted by: jinn | Oct 1 2020 17:43 utc | 111

CIA Director Haspel Personally Blocking Declassification Of Documents That Will Reveal Truth About Russiagate

"This isn't just a scandal about Democrat projection, this is a scandal about what was [whether there was?] a coup planned against the incoming administration at the highest levels and I can report here tonight that these declassifications that have come out," Davis told FOX News host Tucker Carlson on Wednesday. "Those weren't easy to get out and there are far more waiting to get out."


"Unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources I've talked to are being blocked by CIA director Gina Haspel who herself was the main link between Washington and London," Davis said. "As the London station chief from John Brennan's CIA during the 2016 election. Recall, it was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work. And I'm told that it was Gina Haspel personally who is blocking a continued declassification of these documents that will show the American people the truth of what actually happened."


"Coup attempt" burnishes Trump's "populist" credentials and either deepens the partisan divide or leads to dramatic shift to the right. However, IMO Russiagate was really a bi-partisan Deep State effort whose goal was countering Russia and China. Will the whole thing be hung around Haspel's neck?

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 1 2020 17:43 utc | 112

In reply to Jackrabbit | Oct 1 2020 17:26 utc | 108
"... or dead."
Well I'm not in any hurry either. :!

In reply to jinn | Oct 1 2020 17:26 utc | 109
"Why would you believe that, other than that was the message coming from the MSM?"
One does not cause the other. I have no reason to believe the messages from MSM.
I don't know you well enough to include you in those people who were ecstatic over their prediction of a Trump victory, so no offense was intended.
Yes, you are spot-on. These are sport-mentality people who bet on winners and losers. Again I'm not interested in fencing you into a group, these are simply general observations.
Politics is a popularity contest, and in particular democracy is popularity contest where mob rules, so either they're with us or they're against us. So being a moderate or independent by default is the enemy of either or both sides.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 1 2020 17:55 utc | 113

jinn @111: "You don't even know what kayfabe is. It means the battle is scripted and the outcome is predetermined. Whoever lost, the message they stood for, would be considered rejected by the people."

Precisely, and Trump stood in the election for ending the wars and opposition to political correctness/identity politics.

(Now comes the retarded response from the bunny and/or its cheer squad of one of "Bu...but Trump didn't end the wars!", as if that has anything to do with what we are discussing).

Once again because I know you are going to go retarded on me here:

Trump stood in the election for ending the wars.

We are not talking here about what Trump truly intended or didn't intend to do. We are talking about what the voters were led to believe that he would do. Try to keep this straight in your head because you keep getting confused.

When a candidate campaigns on opposition to war then that candidate's victory gets perceived as a mandate to end war. When the candidate who campaigns on opposition to war loses then that can be spun as a mandate for war. Clinton had to win and Trump had to lose in order for the mass media to create the false narrative that the American people wanted war.

"The donor class that hires the politicians wants the populace split right down the middle..."

How much more 19th century can you get? Such a split still leaves the population in difficulty-to-manage large pieces. Identity politics leaves a population of a million in a million separate pieces. Having largely rejected identity politics, the "deplorables" retained the capacity to organize along class lines rather than silly "identities" supplied by the mass media.

Identity politics is the state of the art in divide and rule.

"It has been calculated that the media gave trump ten times more free air time than all the other candidates combined."

Precisely. Had anyone other than Trump won the Republican primaries then it was highly unlikely that Clinton could win the general. The "Mighty Wurlitzer" needed to be used to make sure that Clinton faced off against the one candidate in the race that she could possibly beat. That Clinton ended up losing anyway doesn't mean that the establishment wasn't confident that she would win.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 1 2020 18:23 utc | 114

balkanization from wikipedia, source for sources:

Balkanization is a pejorative[citation needed] geopolitical term for the process of fragmentation or division of a larger region or state into smaller regions or states, which may be hostile or uncooperative with one another.[1][2]

The term has its roots in the Spring of Nations and Balkan Wars, during which many independent Balkan states emerged from the protracted dissolution of the Ottoman Empire throughout the 19th and early 20th century.

The US is fragmented or balkanized.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 1 2020 18:29 utc | 115

We are not talking here about what Trump truly intended or didn't intend to do. We are talking about what the voters were led to believe that he would do. Try to keep this straight in your head because you keep getting confused.
_______________________________________

You are lying again. You are lying about what Trump told voters and you are lying about what I said.

The voters that elected trump were led to believe that he would strengthen the military and then he would fight wars to win them.

Here is example of what his supporters were led to believe before the election.

https://youtu.be/ySdhGyqGCZk

Posted by: jinn | Oct 1 2020 19:04 utc | 116

jinn @116

I guess you couldn't help but go full retard after all. Perhaps that is you natural mental state?

"Unlike my opponent, my foreign policy will emphasize diplomacy, not destruction. Hillary Clinton’s legacy in Iraq, Libya, and Syria has produced only turmoil and suffering. Her destructive policies have displaced millions of people, then she has invited the refugees into the West with no plan to screen them." --Trump

"Sometimes it has seemed like there wasn’t a country in the Middle East that Hillary Clinton didn’t want to invade, intervene or topple. She is trigger-happy and unstable when it comes to war." --Trump

Transcript here.

Or perhaps you are about twelve years old now, which would make you about eight when Trump was saying this stuff. That might explain why you don't remember it.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 1 2020 19:45 utc | 117

okay - fools rush in where angels fear to thread, lol....

william gruff and jinn.. one can find just about anything wants to find on trump to say he said some boneheaded thing... the guy contradicts himself regularly!

if impressions count for anything, my impression was trump was selling himself as the no war candidate... i am sure he said a lot of outrageous things to contradict this as contradiction is his style... however, excluding the isolated places he did engage in literal war tactics, he has been pretty good on this topic as i see it..the biggest problem i have with trump is his subservience to israel which means the obama agreement with iran was ripped up and the agenda of full sanctions on iran, russia, venezuala and now maybe china are all preemptive moves towards war with these same countries - financial first and literal afterwards... maybe it is all smoke and mirrors and it won't go further...i wouldn't bet on that either way..

i do think the deep state are not infallible... i am not convinced they wanted trump.. it is good acting if they did... i can't really tell.. either way what seems apparent to me is that the usa is like a wounded animal and trump seems to be cementing this image for the world to see the longer he stays in power... maybe that is all theatre too... the presidential debate is another example of a gong show implying it is ongoing and doesn't stop here no matter who gets to be president... hopefully you two can get along... no need to be mean to one another, even if you hold different views..

Posted by: james | Oct 1 2020 20:14 utc | 118

james @118: "...if impressions count for anything, my impression was trump was selling himself as the no war candidate...

I think that is the impression most people got from Trump's campaign. It wasn't like a big secret or anything. He wanted to end the wars but went overboard with the swagger and braggadocio so that he couldn't be called weak.

Some people tend to interpret what they hear through the filter of what you want to hear, andthat seems to be the case for many Americans. Perhaps the poster jinn really thought Trump supported interventionist foreign policy due to such a filter. Most on the Dem side were criticizing Trump for being isolationist, though, so this notion that he was the pro-war candidate is really odd.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 1 2020 20:37 utc | 119

james @118: "...apparent to me is that the usa is like a wounded animal and trump seems to be cementing this image for the world to see the longer he stays in power... maybe that is all theatre too... "

Maybe it is, but I think your principal thinking on the issue is more accurate. If it is all an act then what purpose does the ridiculous debate serve? It just makes America look even more foolish and ineffectual, which isn't a good look when you are trying to prosecute regime change operations in half a dozen different countries or more. Does anyone imagine that Venezuelans look at this nonsense and say "I want our country to be just like that!"? Does this make it any easier for the neo-Nazis in Belarus to convince their neighbors to join in on their US-backed color revolution? Does this craziness give the fascists in Bolivia the warm and fuzzies that America has their back?

I cannot see and advantage for the elites if this is all part of their plan. They are in a much more insecure position now than they were in 2016.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 1 2020 20:52 utc | 120

jackrabbit @ 68

No. What kind of control is necessary? Trump's ego and the potential financial gains make him a willing participant. And Trump is media-savvy, adept at kayfabe, and unperturbed by any moral qualms.

I do not see him making a ton of money off his presidency. Most hit the lecture circuit and write books. He will be hounded for the rest of his life by the bureaucracy. How he avoids jail where others should have gone as well is beyond me. Control and Trump do not fit in the same sentence and some is necessary.

Trump is a willing participant but not at the level of the standard Republican party types. There is a reason they lined up against him and there is a reason his polemic resonates with his wing of the electorate.

No standard republican type would say what he said in the run up to the election. Taking on China head on, bashing immigrants, smashing into the center of NATO to squeeze more money out of them, meeting with Kim Jong IL, telling the Koreans they must pay more. He pounds away at social media like none before and and few after I bet.

Just who is backing Trump besides the Christian Zionists and a wing of the Israelis? It is a question not deeply explored and appears to be well hidden. He is something between a Ross Perot and a Jesse Ventura in an anti-populists sort of way.

Everyone is pushing against him from the inside, the intelligence agencies, the joint chiefs, and most of the old line bureaucrats who were appointed by his enemies.

Just who is one his side? The Tea Party bureaucrats?

Posted by: circumspect | Oct 1 2020 21:13 utc | 121

Curmudgeon #83

So I keep asking who are his handlers. He seems to be autonomous, but my strategic muse keeps nagging at me that the idea is nonsense. We all serve somebody.

Which bank owns Trump? and how is that bank linked to the other US banks? Look at the head of the fish as that is where the rot begins.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 1 2020 21:40 utc | 122

uncle tungsten
OK thanks, I want an ez button, but I know what you mean. Follow the money.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | Oct 1 2020 22:01 utc | 123

Gruff wrote

I guess you couldn't help but go full retard after all. Perhaps that is you natural mental state?
___________________________________
I guess you are going double down on your lie that Trump told voters he is opposed to war.

I gave you a link to what what Trump was telling his supporters.
You claimed voters believe Trump stands for ending wars. That is simply not true he told voters that instead of fooling around like Clinton and Obama he would bomb the shit out of them. There has never been a more bellicose candidate than Trump.

The point Trump is making to voters is that he is not going to fool around with stupid regime change wars. When Trump goes to war it will be to destroy the enemy and make a profit.

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


Posted by: jinn | Oct 1 2020 22:23 utc | 124

circumspect # 121

Just who is one his side? The Tea Party bureaucrats?

The audience is on his side. The workers and would be workers who have minimal education, zero political interest (normally) but are fired up to lash out at 'the establishment'. Then there are Republican and Democrat swing voters who detest the DNC and most of what it has to offer. Plus there are diehard Republicans for any red will do.

They see his bash China as good stuff because he 'will bring the jobs home'. They approve of his bash Iran stuff as they have this vague memory of the hostage crisis and all those evil black clothed mullahs.

Then there is the Republican Party who do like his economics, his court appointments etc etc. He has accelerated their hideous rightwing agenda beyond their wildest dreams.

And he has tipped trillions to the banks in the past twelve months.

THAT is a lot of US voters.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 1 2020 22:29 utc | 125

James wrote

william gruff and jinn.. one can find just about anything wants to find on trump to say he said some boneheaded thing... the guy contradicts himself regularly!
___________________________________________


Yes that is correct. Trump knows that many stupid voters will pick and choose whatever the want to hear. Gruff is a perfect example.

No one but blithering idiots believe that Trump is against war or ever has been. He has consistently criticized Obama for making the military weak and trump has boosted the pentagon budget to ridiculous levels. Only a drooling idiot would believe that the MIC is unhappy with the man they picked for president.


Posted by: jinn | Oct 1 2020 22:32 utc | 126

What people *still* don't get about Trump re war is that he's like *every* President in recent history, i.e., it's not that he "doesn't want war", it's that he doesn't want to be *blamed* for starting a war that will be a *fiasco* to the US electorate like Iraq and Afghanistan have been! At least, he doesn't want to be blamed if it will either 1) cost him something tangible, like money or power or the election (which is why I'm concerned by what he might do if elected to a safe second term), or 2) harm his own self-image.

*That* is the situation. *No* President cares about starting a war if he thinks he can gain an advantage by it *and* not be harmed by doing so. Obama won a frickin' Nobel Peace Prize for Christ's sakes and went on to start wars in Syria, Libya, Ukraine and support the Yemen war while surging in Afghanistan. He only pulled a few troops from Iraq to burnish his narcissistic "peace President" image - and did the same with the Iran JCPOA. He was within hours of starting a full-scale war with Syria in August, 2013, when Putin outmaneuvered him. That didn't bother him in the slightest.

Trump is no different. It's not and never has been about whether he "wants" war. Making some random comments about pointless wars was a talking point from his campaign advisers, nothing more. Trump doesn't "want" *anything* except money and power and to be worshipped by morons. He has *zero* reasoned political opinions. James is correct that you can pull any kind of "policy" you want out of Trump's random comments.

But Gruff is correct when he says Trump was *perceived* as an anti-war candidate. Jinn is also correct when they say Trump was *perceived* as a strong military supporter. It's Trump's moron supporters who managed to simultaneously hold two different contradictory opinions based on whichever Trump random comment fit their biases. Arguing over which one is "true" is ridiculous - neither are.

I read a lot of gun blogs and firearm/prepper Youtube channels. Most of these people are Trump supporters. Do they want a new war? Not really. Do they want to punish Iran and China and Russia? Yes, they do. Go figure how to square that circle logically. You can say the same about most of the rest of the electorate on the Dem side, just changing who is the target of their ire. This is how US politics works - brainwashing the electorate to hold two contradictory opinions at the same time - which is not hard to do at all since most people do this throughout their lives. It's called "cognitive dissonance" and it's the bed-rock of human behavior.

Read this piece I just found: America is Sick, Part I: Cognitive Dissonance

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 1 2020 23:41 utc | 127

@127 RSH

Thanks for the link, very interesting website.

Posted by: spudski | Oct 2 2020 0:03 utc | 128

William Gruff | Oct 1 2020 20:37 utc | 119 / 120.. thanks william... i can't see how the elites benefit overseeing all of this, especially the debates which in a sense encapsulates this supposed amazing power they have! it looks shaky to me at this point which is why i continue to believe it is an empire in rapid decline.. i don't believe it matters who gets elected at this point...

@ jinn | Oct 1 2020 22:32 utc | 126.. thanks jinn... it is true trump wants to portray himself as a friend of the military and etc and i also believe the MIC is happy with trump... it doesn't seem to matter which party leads the usa at this point - they both are servants to the same vested interests, although they speak right into the camera and address the public as 'you' and 'your money' and etc. etc... it is all false advertising as i see it.. not a word, or very little of what these present presidential candidates have any interest in serving the public as i read it... it is business as usual... in a way i find trumps 'we're taking the oil' and statements like that refreshing.. the kleptomaniac is speaking the truth! biden, not so much... don't get me wrong - they are 2 of the worst candidates the usa public has to choose from, so i guess that is why they are their...

@ Richard Steven Hack | Oct 1 2020 23:41 utc | 127.. your last paragraph sums it up pretty well.. thanks... i agree with the article headline you share..

Posted by: james | Oct 2 2020 1:15 utc | 129

Hope Hicks has the virus and symptoms after she was on Marine One, AF One, at the debate and rally the next day with Trump.

Oh, one more thing. Neither Hicks nor Trump were wearing masks. Uh-oh...🤒🤧

Trump might have to quarantine a month before election. I mean it's the ethical thing to do. If he refuses to quarantine; it's going to look very selfish and reckless.

Forgive me...🥳🍾 Oh-this is just too good to be true. Pinch me.

Posted by: Circe | Oct 2 2020 2:04 utc | 130

Can this be the October Surprise??? I'm gobsmacked. If it is, mamma Mia, this would be the most timely act of God i.e. karma I've had the pleasure to witness.

Oh! I just heard he's waiting on a Covid test and may have to quarantine with Melania (in separate rooms of course...)

Knock me over with a feather! This is a 10++++!

Posted by: Circe | Oct 2 2020 2:21 utc | 131

Oh, and Stephen Miller and Jared Kushner were in close proximity to Hicks all getting on Marine One!

This just gets better and better.

Posted by: Circe | Oct 2 2020 2:27 utc | 132

Posted by: Circe | Oct 2 2020 2:04 utc | 130 If he refuses to quarantine; it's going to look very selfish and reckless.

LOL And since when is that new? It's simply impossible to quarantine a President and that's what he'll say and do.

Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Oct 2 2020 5:06 utc | 133

Circe #132

This just gets better and better.

And then they realized that Mike Pence is the VP and well disposed to a little game of Armageddon now and then.

Who needs Trump to do wars when a little bait and switch works a treat.

Now what is the rate of false positive tests in the USA?

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 2 2020 7:18 utc | 134

Unsurprisingly, the NYT's article covering the release of the Ratcliffe letter states repeatedly that it consists of little more than old unverified or discredited rumors. That may or may not be the case, but how hilarious is it for the Times to chide anyone for publishing unverified rumors (actually leaks from intelligence sources), when that has been the paper's own modus operandi for decades?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/29/us/politics/john-ratcliffe-russian-disinformation.html?searchResultPosition=1

Posted by: Rob | Oct 2 2020 18:17 utc | 135

@94 Richard Steven Hack

"But other than a few infosec experts who doubted the attribution of the alleged "hack", no one was interested in what actually happened, i.e., the circumstances around the Wikileaks emails and whether there actually was a "hack" at all.
Unless Assange and Wikileaks violates their policy and tells us who the source is."

The FBI requested access to the DNC servers to investigate the claimed (Russian) hack. The DNC denied the FBI access to their servers. That was IMO a dead giveaway that the "Russians hacked the DNC email" story was a fabrication. Other IT security experts never accepted CrowdStrike's conclusions based on the data they presented.
Also in the leaked emails Podesta writes about a possible inside leaker.
Also in an interview that Assange did on Dutch TV he referred to the murder of Seth Ridge in the context of the DNC leaks. After being asked by the interviewer if he is claiming the DNC leaks and Seth Ridge's murder are connected he says he doesn't reveal sources and he has no certainty the murder of Ridge was connected with the leaks. Also IIRC Assange also said in the interview that he, or Wikileaks, paid the funeral of Seth Ridge. But I can't find that part of the interview as it has been cut up and that part may have been removed or it is a false memory.
Assange interview full (2 part): https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2124316-assange-belooft-nieuwe-onthullingen-over-clinton.html
Assange interview Seth Ridge segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

Also Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails. He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources.
The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'
Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks. Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Posted by: Govern the Mente | Oct 3 2020 22:05 utc | 136

Oh, I forgot.
"ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich."
source: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/763041804652539904

Could a be dis-info from Assange and Craig Murray to protect the real source. But to me all clues point to an inside leak.

Posted by: Govern the Mente | Oct 3 2020 22:10 utc | 137

@ 110 Jinn

"The FBI often states that they do not ever comment on ongoing investigations. There appears to be an exception to that rule when the FBI is trying to get trump elected."

The FBI didn't comment on the investigation itself, they just announced that it was initiated. Also A.G. Loretta Lynch didn't want to decide to prosecute H. Clinton or not so she passed that on to Comey. Normally the FBI does the investigation and the A.G. decides if there is a case. Loretta Lynch said she would follow the recommendation of Comey. Comey concluded that Hillary had broken multiple laws for which she could be charged but he advised not to prosecute because there was no malicious intent. Case closed before the election.
I think the DNC leaked emails were more damning for Hillary's election results, besides the deplorables statement and the lack of appealing policy for their voting base....

Also a possible scenario this election is that the DNC isn't even trying to win. Maybe that was also true in 2016. If that were to be the case the deep state must have thought that the concerted media attack on Trump and support for Hillary would actually backfire ans benefit Trump.

Posted by: Govern the Mente | Oct 3 2020 22:49 utc | 138

This is pure bullshit: "The claims made in the Ratcliffe letter fit the timeline of the scandal as it developed. They support the assertion that the Clinton campaign made up 'Russiagate' from whole cloth. It was supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of high level anti-Trump activists in the FBI and CIA."

No it does not fit the timeline of the 'Russiagate' psyop, but the fact that this misdirection "was supported by dozens of high level (operatives) in the FBI and CIA does fit right into the larger psyop.

When will people wise up to the fact that within every major CIA operation there will be any number of false trails laid to misdirect those who are skeptical of the official narrative? There will almost always be psyops within psyops, misdirection within misdirection, wheels within wheels. Deception is what these bastards DO.

We can see that this is one such example if we look at the evidence that shows us that what became known as 'Russiagate' was in fact a CIA/MI6 scheme devised to fabricate and plant 'evidence' intended to smear Russia that began in 2013, with the funding trail evident in 2011, well before the election began, and before Trump even decided to run!

Which tells us that the original intent had nothing at all to do with 'targeting' Trump, it was ALWAYS about smearing Russia, and that the elements that later became the main focus (Russia hacked the Clinton/Podesta e mails, created fake FB accounts, and bought FB adds to aid Trump in the election, and of course that Trump and Co 'colluded' with them for this reason) were in fact improvisations added on to an operation well underway before the election began.

"Everything we know now about the so-called “Kremlin trolls from the Internet Research Agency paid by Putin’s favorite chef,” came from one source, a group of CIA spies that used the mascot of Shaltay-Boltay, or Humpty-Dumpty, for their collective online persona.

...“We are trying to change reality. Reality has indeed begun to change as a result of the appearance of our information in public,” wrote the representative, whose email account is named Shaltai Boltai, which is the Russian for tragic nursery rhyme hero Humpty Dumpty.”

Buzzfeed also said back in 2014, that “The leak from the Internet Research Agency is the first time specific comments under news articles can be directly traced to a Russian campaign.

Just think about this working scheme: Shaltay-Boltay with a group of anti-government “activists” created the “Internet Research Agency,” they and some “activists” created 470 FaceBook accounts used to post comments that looked unmistakably “trollish.”

After that other, CIA affiliated entities, like the entire Western Media, claimed the “Russian interference in the US election.” Finally, the ODNI published a report lacking any evidence in it.

People from the Shaltay-Boltay group weren’t hackers in the proper terms because they worked with and for the CIA. Middle-of the-road and run-of-the-mill intelligence agencies would collect and analyze information for their governments. The CIA invents information, then goes on to manufacture and forge documents in support of their invented information; they then recruit people inside other countries and other governments to claim that they “obtained” this explosive evidence. Being the dirty cops that they are, the CIA doesn’t obtain and secure evidence, but instead they plant fake evidence on their victims.

...fake business entities known as “the Internet Research Agency,” and “the Internet Research” in the government electronic business registry were treated as real companies by the system. Because of their inactivity on all of their bank accounts and because no one ever filed required forms, they were automatically liquidated by the electronic system.

The United Business Registry database in Russia works according to the Federal laws, so after twelve months of inactivity a business is simply liquidated. The Internet Research Agency was liquidated in December 2016 by the government system after it been inactive for twelve month. It’s inactivity implied that the company had no employees, no office, and no bank transactions for at least twelve months! The Internet Research company was liquidated on September 2, 2015 by merging with TEKA company. According to the federal business Registry TEKA was a construction retailer. I wasn’t able to find any indication, like an office, phone number, names of the managers or employees, anything at all that would indicate that this company existed. Just like the Internet Research Agency and the Internet Research, TEKA existed only in the federal registry and nowhere else." https://thesaker.is/a-brief-history-of-the-kremlin-trolls

And here is the trail of evidence of the funding for that CIA/MI6 contract operation known as "Shaltay-Boltay":

Much of the media spotlight is now on Cambridge Analytica and their shadowy antics in elections worldwide, including that of Donald Trump.

However, Cambridge Analytica is a mere offshoot of Strategic Communication Laboratories (SCL Group) – an organisation with its roots deeply embedded within the British political, military and royal establishment.

Indeed, as the Observer article which broke the scandal said “For all intents and purposes, SCL/Cambridge Analytica are one and the same.”

Like Cambridge Analytica, SCL group is behavioral research and strategic communication company.

In 2005, SCL went public with a glitzy exhibit at the DSEI conference, the UK’s largest showcase for military technology.

It’s ‘hard sell’ was a demonstration of how the UK government could use a sophisticated media campaign of mass deception to fool the British people into the thinking an accident at a chemical plant had occurred and threatened central London. Genuinely.

Board members include an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors. This is scandal that cuts to the heart of the British establishment.

SCL Group says on its website that it provides “data, analytics and strategy to governments and military organizations worldwide.”

The organisation boasts that it has conducted “behavioral change programs” in over 60 countries and its clients have included the British Ministry of Defence, the US State Department and NATO.

A freedom of information request from August 2016, shows that the MOD has twice bought services from Strategic Communication Laboratories in recent years.

In 2010/11, the MOD paid £40,000 to SCL for the “provision of external training”. Meanwhile, in 2014/2015, it paid SCL £150,000 for the “procurement of target audience analysis”.

In addition, SCL also carries a secret clearance as a ‘list X’ contractor for the MOD. A List X site is a commercial site on British soil that is approved to hold UK government information marked as ‘confidential’ and above. Essentially, SCL got the green light to hold British government secrets on its premises.

Meanwhile, the US State Department has a contract for $500,000 with SLC. According to an official, this was to provide “research and analytical support in connection with our mission to counter terrorist propaganda and disinformation overseas.” This was not the only work that SCL has been contracted for with the US government, the source added.

In May 2015, SCL Defense, another subsidiary of the umbrella organisation, received $1 million (CAD) to support NATO operations in Eastern Europe targeting Russia." https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/.../scl-a-very-british-coup/

Posted by: Stuart Davies | Oct 8 2020 14:39 utc | 139

Which tells us that the original intent had nothing at all to do with 'targeting' Trump, it was ALWAYS about smearing Russia
_________________________________________

That assessment seems doubtful to me.
The Trump supporters have been led to think Russiagate is all fake news. And most of the Trump haters are not really convinced Russia did anything bad. They just will go along with anything that they think will discredit trump.

The purpose of the intelligence communities involvement in Russiagate and Ukraingate was to provide cover for their asset in the White House (Trump). By design, Russiagate did not do much to convince the American sheeple that Russia is bad, it convinced them that Trump is the outsider (the man of the people) that is acting in opposition to the IC deep state, which of course is not true.

Its hard for me to believe that people accept as fact that a CIA agent would blow the whistle because they heard the president bad mouth a political rival in a phone call to a foreign leader. But that is the silly story that we are fed. The result is that half the population now thinks this absurdly feeble jab at trump was a coup attempt and the other half believes that the CIA is standing up for truth, justice and the American way by tattling on Trump.

When trump pitched this Ukrainegate scheme they told him it was so ridiculous it could not possibly work. Nobody would buy it. But it did work flawlessly and the sheeple bought it all.


Posted by: jinn | Oct 8 2020 17:20 utc | 140

DCI Brennan covers his trails with crumbs, covers his ax with Obama, buys treason insurance. Obama remembers the days before Clinton started the birth hassle, and Donald picked it up, and says 'bear traps for every-one'. DCI sez to his own left eye 'sandbag 'em or Dealy deal?'
Tim Kaine was the client ;and Pence for his part but maybe not Harris... The Party People out gamed the system, and the insecurity state out gamed the Parties. No wonder Obama pretended to drop the mic on dat sh. It's all in the Game. Trump called all the bluffs. No more moanin low. Winning hand shows and calls the Game. House wins again.
Hoyles' Rules of Games in the late-1800's had sections on spotting card sharps/ learn to cheat. For anarchists I recommend 3-hand Pinocle. Cheers b. for only serving the good stuff in clean glasses in a well-lit joint. er , establishm...

Posted by: failureOfImagination | Oct 8 2020 18:14 utc | 141

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.