Deep Politics Forum

David Guyatt Wrote:"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people,"

Kissinger's shameful statement on Chileans irresponsibly electing Salvador Allende which led to the CIA sponsoring a coup d'etat to install the awful Augusto Pinochet who instigated a bloody campaign of torture and repression thereafter.

I have been thinking of this exact quote while pondering the attempt to over turn the US election result.

Magda Hassan Wrote:

David Guyatt Wrote:"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people,"

Kissinger's shameful statement on Chileans irresponsibly electing Salvador Allende which led to the CIA sponsoring a coup d'etat to install the awful Augusto Pinochet who instigated a bloody campaign of torture and repression thereafter.

I have been thinking of this exact quote while pondering the attempt to over turn the US election result.

Except that in any other country, the candidate who got 2.8 million more votes would be the winner. But thanks to our archaic electoral college system, that's not the case.

CATHERINE HERRIDGE Dec 15 2016: Fox News has independently confirmed that Russian-backed cyber militias were targeting US systems and influential US persons in the summer of 2015, and the operation evolved into an effort to interfere in the US election. These operations were sanctioned by the highest levels of the Russian government. After the FBI director's July statement about the Clinton email investigation, a government source says there was a reluctance to further insert government institutions and their assessments into an already deeply politicized election cycle. A leading cybersecurity expert says the intelligence community reviewed the techniques, tactics, and procedures leveraged in the attacks and made the link to Russia. In October, the agencies and Homeland Security, or DHS, went on the record, though Putin was not mentioned by name.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/us/pol...n-dnc.html

WASHINGTON When Special Agent Adrian Hawkins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation called the Democratic National Committee in September 2015 to pass along some troubling news about its computer network, he was transferred, naturally, to the help desk.
His message was brief, if alarming. At least one computer system belonging to the D.N.C. had been compromised by hackers federal investigators had named "the Dukes," a cyberespionage team linked to the Russian government.
The F.B.I. knew it well: The bureau had spent the last few years trying to kick the Dukes out of the unclassified email systems of the White House, the State Department and even the Joint Chiefs of Staff, one of the government's best-protected networks.
Yared Tamene, the tech-support contractor at the D.N.C. who fielded the call, was no expert in cyberattacks. His first moves were to check Google for "the Dukes" and conduct a cursory search of the D.N.C. computer system logs to look for hints of such a cyberintrusion. By his own account, he did not look too hard even after Special Agent Hawkins called back repeatedly over the next several weeks in part because he wasn't certain the caller was a real F.B.I. agent and not an impostor.

"I had no way of differentiating the call I just received from a prank call," Mr. Tamene wrote in an internal memo, obtained by The New York Times, that detailed his contact with the F.B.I.
It was the cryptic first sign of a cyberespionage and information-warfare campaign devised to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, the first such attempt by a foreign power in American history. What started as an information-gathering operation, intelligence officials believe, ultimately morphed into an effort to harm one candidate, Hillary Clinton, and tip the election to her opponent, Donald J. Trump.

The "Elite" Coup Of 2016

Moon of Alabama

15 December 2016

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2016/12/eli....html#more

Quote:

• There is an "elite" coup attempt underway against the U.S. President-elect Trump.
  
• The coup is orchestrated by the camp of Hillary Clinton in association with the CIA and neoconservative powers in Congress.
  
• The plan is to use the CIA's "Russia made Trump the winner" nonsense to swing the electoral college against him. The case would then be bumped up to Congress. Major neocon and warmonger parts of the Republicans could then move the presidency to Clinton or, if that fails, put Trump's vice president-elect Mike Pence onto the throne. The regular bipartisan war business, which a Trump presidency threatens to interrupt, could continue.
  
• Should the coup succeed violent insurrections in the United States are likely to ensue with unpredictable consequences.
  
• The above theses are thus far only a general outlay. No general plan has been published. The scheme though is pretty obvious by now. However, the following contains some speculation.
  

The priority aim is to deny Trump the presidency. He is too independent and a danger for several power centers within the ruling U.S. power circles. The selection of Tillerson as new Secretary of State only reinforces this (Prediction: Bolton will not get the Deputy position.) Tillerson is for profitable stability, not for regime change adventures. The institutional Trump enemies are:

• The CIA which has become the Central Assassination Agency under the Bush and Obama administrations. Huge parts of its budgets depend on a continuation of the war on Syria and the drone assassination campaigns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere. Trump's more isolationist policies would likely end these campaigns and the related budget troughs.
  
• The weapons industry which could lose its enormous sales to its major customers in the Persian Gulf should a President Trump reduce U.S. interference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
  
• The neoconservatives and Likudniks who want the U.S. as Israel's weapon to strong arm the Middle East to the Zionists' benefit.
  
• The general war hawks, military and "humanitarian interventionists" to whom any reduction of the U.S. role as primary power in the world is anathema to their believes.
  
• The current CIA director Brennan, a leading figure of the CIA torture program and Obama consigliere, is in the Clinton/anti-Trump camp. The former CIA heads Hayden and Panetta are public Clinton supporters as is torturer king and former CIA deputy director Michael Morell.
  

It is thereby no wonder that the CIA is leading the anti-Russian campaign. Its task now is to implant the idea in the U.S. public that Russian intervention skewed the U.S. election towards Trump. The purpose is the delegitimization of the Trump victory in the eyes of the media and public but even more so in the eyes of the electors within the electoral college.

The CIA is heavily supported by the same mainstream media that pushed for Clinton during the election. (These are, not by chance, also the same media that pushed the CIA's earlier "Saddam's Weapon of Mass Destruction" campaign.)

The Democratic partisan and Harvard law Professor Lawrence Lessig is pushing the electors and offers them free personal legal support. He says the electoral college vote is now close.

Could 37 Republican electors, put there by voters in their states to vote for Trump, be convinced to move from electing Trump to abstain or vote for someone else, Trump would miss the needed 270 votes. The whole election of the president would then by kicked up to the House of Representatives.

Should the electors vote for Trump there is still a possibility that members of the House and the Senate could officially question that vote and cause delays or Congressional probes and legal challenges.

Here are the detailed general proceedings and specifics for the electoral college as explained by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Though neoconservatives have no genuine support within the U.S. electorate they have a strong hold on significant parts of Congress and the relevant MSM commentariat. Many leading neoconservatives and war hawks like Robert Kagan, Max Boot and the Washington Post editorial board came out for Clinton during the campaign. Clinton even ran campaign advertisements with Republican Congress luminaries like Lindsay Graham, Sasse and Flake.

The House and the Senate majority may well be on the anti-Trump side if push comes to shove. But whatever the outcome there surely would be intense legal challenges and I expect the case to go up to the Supreme Court.

As an alternative to legal shenanigans Trump's inauguration could be delayed by Obama's order to the intelligence community to create a formal review of Russian intervention in the election by January 20. That is not by chance the official inauguration date! The selling point:

By ordering a "full review" of allegations of Russian into the 2016 election process, President Barack Obama is essentially asking the IC to make an analytical judgment about the validity of the election that will place Trump in the Oval Office.
A "compromise" in Congress could be to wait for the Intelligence Community's analysis and then discuss it before certifying Trump as president. That would end up with no result as National Intelligence Estimates are notoriously vague. Meanwhile the Vice President-elect would sit in as acting President:

If the President-elect fails to qualify before inauguration, Section 3 of the 20th Amendment states that the Vice President-elect will act as President until such a time as a President has qualified.
If the congressional or legal process around the Trump election gets delayed, that may be a state for a long time. The ruling Washington blob or borg could well live with an acting President Pence while Trump would have no official say in any government business. (Could Clinton then become acting VP or qualify as the new president?)

The media intervention on the anti-Trump side is heavy.

But first keep in mind that there is no public evidence, ZERO, that Russia indeed had anything to do with the DNC or Podesta or other leaks and the publication of emails by various outlets like Wikileaks.

Craig Murray assures us that he knows that these were not hacks but insider leaks and that he knows the leaker(s). Indeed he now tells us that the emails were handed over to him during a visits in Washington. Former intelligence officials including the technically very knowledgeable former NSA official William Binney concur that the hacking story is false.

All we have heard or seen so far are hearsay rumors and allegations of evidence. To me as experienced IT professional the case is technically laughable just as Murray explains here. If the claimed hacks occurred at all the alleged methods were so common that anybody could have done these. There is not even one claimed fact yet that is technically halfway acceptable as evidence that "Russia did it".

But still the NYT runs a big package of pieces telling us that "Russia did it" based on the non-factual CIA rumors and unprofessional IT assertions by Crowdstrike, the self-promoting IT security company the DNC hired and paid. Before that the Washington Post published major claims of Russian interference by anonymous officials. NBC News now tops that with "intelligence officials" saying Putin himself ran the hacking campaign. Authors of the story are the long time insider hacks Bill Arkin and Ken Dilanian known for clearing his stories with the CIA before publishing. The next story will tells us that Vladimir Valdimirovich himself was punching the keyboard.

Many news outlets and editorials follow these "leads".

Part of the scheme the Clinton campaign has worked out was explained by a former opposition research consultant to the Democratic National Council, the Ukrainian-American Alexandra (aka Andrea) Chalupa, in this thread:

Andrea Chalupa ‏@AndreaChalupa Dec 11
1.) Electoral College meets Dec. 19. If Electors ignore #StateOfEmergency we're in, & Trump gets elected, we can stop him Jan. 6 in Congress

2.) If any objections to Electoral College vote are made, they must be submitted in writing, signed by at least 1 House member & 1 Senator

3.) If objections are presented, House & Senate withdraw to their chambers to consider their merits under procedures set out in federal law.
...

Editorials and op-eds in the major papers are pushing the scheme along. Just for example from a long list A.J. Dionne in the Washington Post:

The CIA's finding that Russia actively intervened in our election to make Trump president is an excellent reason for the electors to consider whether they should exercise their independent power. At the very least, they should be briefed on what the CIA knows, and in particular on whether there is any evidence that Trump or his lieutenants were engaged with Russia during the campaign.
The New York Times editorial laments about Trump ridiculing the CIA fairy tales it promotes.

Many people who have voted for Trump would be disgusted and outraged if or when Trump will be denied his office. Many of them are armed and would protest. Violence is ensured should the coup succeed.

Trump selected four former generals to joins his cabinet and staff. Should the troubles escalate we might be roughly in for a scenario as laid out in the 1992 military paper: The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 (http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mi...lap_jr.pdf) by Charles J. Dunlap.

How Come No One Involved in the Russian Hacking Conspiracy Talked?

Paul Craig Roberts

December 14, 2016

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/...cy-talked/

Quote:The claims that the Russian government hacked US voting machines are absurd. Voting machines are not connected to the Internet. To hack a voting machine you have to be physically in proximity to the machine and use a hand held device. The machines can be programmed to throw the vote count to one candidate or the other, and there are other ways to interfere with elections. Possibly if a foreign power had server presence in the US, some precinct reports of results could be intercepted and altered, although a voice check over the telephone is an easy way to verify the electronic transmission. What is clear is that Russia cannot hack the voting machines.

What about the claims that Russia hacked Hillary's emails and used a network of 200 Internet websites to convince the American people to vote for Trump? Wikileaks, which released the emails, said they were a leak, not a hack, and that they did not come from Russians. The FBI and the Director of National Intelligence do not support the CIA's claims. Or should we say claims attributed to the CIA as apparently the source of the claims, like the source of PropOrNot, is unknown.

And look at the size of the alleged conspiracythe Kremlin and 200 websites. Surely someone would have talked!

John McCain says he is sure Russia did something and we need a congressional investigation to find out what.

Why not start with an investigation of PropOrNot and what they are up to? We also need an investigation why Americans living in big cities on the NE and West coasts were immune to Russian fake news, whereas the geographical bulk of the country succumbed to the Russian fake news instead of to the presstitute fake news that conquered the NE and West coasts.

The FBI says that the claims attributed to the CIA would not stand up in court. So what are the claims all about? Who is behind them? Are there elements within the CIA committing treason by working against president-elect Trump? Are there elements in the US Congress committing treason by trying to sway electors with fake news resting on unattributed claims that the Russians, not the American people, elected Trump? Why these claims in the absence of proof?

What we are experiencing in the delegitimization of Donald Trump is an extraordinary rejection of democracy by elements in the government and by the presstitutes.

PropOrNot All-Star Organizers: Koch, Soros, CIA, MI6, Ukraine, All Together Now

by TDB

Dec 15, 2016 1:50 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-15...gether-now

Via The Daily Bell

Quote:PropOrNot: Evidence of a CIA Psychological Operation … On November 24, The Washington Post published a story citing the anonymous group PropOrNot. The story accused the Russians of building a large propaganda operation that worked to defeat Hillary Clinton and elect "insurgent candidate" Donald Trump. It claimed a large number of alternative news websites are acting as Russian agents, dupes, and useful idiots. BoilingFrogs/Rockwell

This article excerpted above explains the forces behind PropOrNot and identifies them from a leftist/Ukraine standpoint. But another article published not so long ago by Washington's blog, here, makes the connection between Ukraine and the Koch Brothers.

This article will explain briefly what would seem to be full (or almost full) panoply of influences behind PropOrNot. The Koch Brothers along with the Scaife Foundation and some hugely powerful intel agencies have been identified as supporting the PropOrNot initiative. We've already written about this issue here and here.

But we were puzzled by some other articles that seemed to attribute PropOrNot to different influences, including those of the Clintons and some groups oddly affiliated with Ukraine. The Kochs and Clintons didn't seem to fit together but as it turns out, there's apparently a link thanks to Washington's blog, which seems to have solved this particular puzzle for us.

Here are some excerpts from an article published in early November 2016.

Koch Brothers Secretly Allied w. George Soros for Hillary Clinton … The leading financiers of the Republican Party, the Koch brothers, were exposed ... by the great investigative journalist Lee Fang, as being solid supporters and heavy financiers of congressional candidates who have been leaders in expanding the U.S. military budget and moving America toward a police state (including militarization of the police).

The leading financier of the Democratic Party, George Soros, has long been known to provide major financial backing for the most-neoconservative Democratic candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, who favor every possible military invasion and coup (and see this, for more on that).

In fact, Soros was one of the top three financial backers (the other two were the U.S. government and the Netherlands government) for the television station in Ukraine that championed extermination of the people in Ukraine's Donbass region, where the coup-imposed government, which he helped to install, is loathed.

And also on the Ukrainian matter, the Kochs have championed the view that when considering whether Crimea should be part of Russia, or else part of Ukraine, or else entirely independent, the people who live there shouldn't have any opportunity to vote on the matter, and they should instead be forced to be Ukrainians', even if they loathe this post-coup Ukrainian government.
There we seem to have the connection in full, depending on the credibility of those reporting these linkages. In any event, we are fairly comfortable: Washington's blog has been around a long time and the article is well-footnoted.

And so we are likely learning the Kochs via Soros are now integrated with larger, leftist/Ukraine/US technocratic/fascist elements ... It makes sense that PropOrNot draws resources (or inspiration) from an array of monied influences. The website itself is incredibly bold, a real statement of mighty intent.

The CIA is involved, as is obvious. And the CIA has relationships with such groups as the Institute of Modern Russia. The Boiling Frogs article excerpted at the beginning of this analysis explains that PropOrNot "has all the hallmarks of an intelligence operation."

In fact, the strategy out of which PropOrNot was developed reportedly may stem from an article written in early 2008 by Cass Sunstein and colleague Adrian Vermeule titled simply "Conspiracy Theories."

Sunstein and Vermeule argue the existence of conspiracy theories "may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law."

Importantly, the paper proposed "attacking targeted groups in cyberspace." Also: "Whatever the tactical details, there would seem to be ample reason for government efforts to introduce some cognitive diversity into the groups that generate conspiracy theories."

These ideas since then seem to have been put into practice in one way or another by both the Pentagon and MI6 which reportedly collaborates with the 361st Civil Affairs Brigade of the US Army.

The Pentagon and MI6 have focused on energy on Ukraine and on undermining Russia's presence and claims to Crimea. The Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank dedicated to the study of Central and Eastern Europe also seems to be part of this group. (Its advisory council includes Zbigniew Brzezinski along with Madeleine Albright.)

More:

Although PropOrNot strives to remain anonymous, it does reveal connections to Modern Russia and its Interpreter Mag and thus, through Voice of America, its association with the CIA. Interpreter Mag is listed under "Related Projects" on its website.

PropOrNot also collaborates with Polygraph Fact-Check, a purported fact-checking website produced by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Voice of America, in other words, the CIA.

Another so-called fact-checking operation is listed, Politifact. It is a project of the Tampa Bay Times and the Poynter Institute and shares a donor with the Clinton Foundation, the Omidyar Network, created by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. He is a major donor of Kiev-based Hromadske TV, "the symbol of the info wars between Moscow and the Western world," according to Forbes.
And there you have it. Via George Soros ... the Kochs and Scaife Foundation (and others) are linked to an entirely opposite (seemingly so) series of power centers including Ukraine "think tanks" and NGOs along with the most powerful Democratic groups including the Clintons. (And remember, we probably haven't reached the top of this sprawling network.)

Conclusion: This is truly a broad array of resources as might be expected for a group that wants to wipe out an entire media industry. The question must then be asked with a mixture of hope and anxiety: How does President Trump fit in?

Editor's Note: Some of this might seem like politics-as-usual, though of a very dirty variety, but the ramifications could certainly affect the alternative media that has already been accused of co-conspiring with Russia to affect the elections. The Daily Bell is a libertarian publication and its articles have often stated that people ought to look out for their own interests first as best they can because politics are unpredictable and usually don't change much or just make things worse. Additionally, as a libertarian publication, DB has published articles in the past explaining that RT and Putin himself are part of the larger questionable dialectic being presented by East and West. In no way can DB be considered a proponent of Russian propaganda.

Tucker Carlson Verbally Bitch Slaps A Self Described CIA Democrat Over Russian Hacking Propaganda

Published on Dec 15, 2016

[video=youtube_share;ecysWdlhyCI]http://youtu.be/ecysWdlhyCI[/video]

GEORGE SOROS, BIG BANKS AND GOOGLE FUND ANTI-TRUMP RESISTANCE GROUP

JUSTIN CARUSO

9:02 PM 12/15/2016

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/15/george...nce-group/

Quote:The liberal think tank Center for American Progress (CAP), now fashioning itself as a powerful anti-Trump force, is funded by George Soros, big banks and several large corporations.

CAP, founded in 2003 by former Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, has long been a prominent liberal think tank in Washington. Now, they look to be the leader of efforts on the left to fight against Donald Trump's incoming administration though their advocacy wing, the Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAPAF).

The action fund is funded by the main group, CAP, according to their "Our Supporters" page. Other funders of CAPAF are the big Hollywood group Motion Picture Association of America and the labor union Service Employees International Union.

The home page of CAPAF simply reads "Resist," and has a button to "Join the Resistance." On the actual page describing the resistance, posted Thursday, it says, "RESIST HATE. RESIST CORRUPTION. RESIST INJUSTICE. FORGE PROGRESS."

The page also reads,

"We believe Trump has no mandate and was propelled to victory through a combination of voter suppression and foreign interference by hostile nations like Russia. We will not stand by and watch as Trump tries to propagate his radical right-wing agenda on the American people after an election he won without the popular vote. We will fight back."
Neera Tanden, President of both CAPAF and CAP said, "Our goal is to be the central hub of the Trump resistance, to hold Trump accountable for the promises he made," Politico reports. And Harry Reid's current deputy Chief of Staff, Adam Jentleson, is joining CAPAF specifically to be a part of anti-Trump effort.

Jentleson said he intends to "weaponize" the organization and have a "relentlessly aggressive attitude and orientation toward holding Trump accountable every single day."

CAP itself, which shares staff with and heavily funds the action fund, is bankrolled by the George Soros-run group Open Society Foundation to the tune of over $1,000,000. It is also funded by Walmart, Bank of America and Google.

Citigroup has also been previously reported to have heavily contributed to CAP, and The Washington Post once described CAP's donor list as a "broad sampling of corporate interests, from tech firms and automakers to health-care companies, big banks, retailers and trade associations."

CAPAF's list of Trump's ideas they plan on resisting includes "his proposal to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and build a wall on the nation's southern border" and "his attacks on Muslims; women; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender, or LGBT, people; and people of color."

Should We Blindly Trust the CIA On Its Claims About the Democratic Emails?

Washington's Blog

Posted on December 15, 2016

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/12/b...mails.html

Quote:James Carden former Advisor to the US-Russia Presidential Commission at the US State Department writes in an article titled Why Are the Media Taking the CIA's Hacking Claims at Face Value?

The working assumption here seems to be that the job of the president (and apparently of media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post) is to stand, salute, and never question Langley.

The high-profile anchors and analysts on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC who have cited the work of The Washington Post and The New York Times seem to have come down with a bad case of historical amnesia.

The CIA, in their telling, is a bulwark of American democracy, not a largely unaccountable, out-of-control behemoth that has often sought to subvert press freedom at home and undermine democratic norms abroad.

The columnists, anchors, and commentators who rushed to condemn Trump for not showing due deference to the CIA seem to be unaware that, throughout its history, the agency has been the target of far more astute and credible critics than the president-elect.

In his memoir Present at the Creation, Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote that about the CIA, "I had the gravest forebodings." Acheson wrote that he had "warned the President that as set up neither he, the National Security Council, nor anyone else would be in a position to know what it was doing or to control it."

Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President John F. Kennedy expressed his desire to "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

The late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan twice introduced bills, in 1991 and 1995, to abolish the agency and move its functions to the State Department which, as the journalist John Judis has observed, "is what Acheson and his predecessor, George Marshall, had advocated."

The CIA has been busted lying under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The CIA lied about Iraq's supposed "weapons of mass destruction":

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/809...80/photo/1

The working assumption here seems to be that the job of the president (and apparently of media outlets like CNN and The Washington Post) is to stand, salute, and never question Langley.

The high-profile anchors and analysts on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC who have cited the work of The Washington Post and The New York Times seem to have come down with a bad case of historical amnesia.

The CIA, in their telling, is a bulwark of American democracy, not a largely unaccountable, out-of-control behemoth that has often sought to subvert press freedom at home and undermine democratic norms abroad.

The columnists, anchors, and commentators who rushed to condemn Trump for not showing due deference to the CIA seem to be unaware that, throughout its history, the agency has been the target of far more astute and credible critics than the president-elect.

In his memoir Present at the Creation, Truman's Secretary of State Dean Acheson wrote that about the CIA, "I had the gravest forebodings." Acheson wrote that he had "warned the President that as set up neither he, the National Security Council, nor anyone else would be in a position to know what it was doing or to control it."

Following the Bay of Pigs fiasco, President John F. Kennedy expressed his desire to "to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

The late New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan twice introduced bills, in 1991 and 1995, to abolish the agency and move its functions to the State Department which, as the journalist John Judis has observed, "is what Acheson and his predecessor, George Marshall, had advocated."

The CIA has been busted lying under both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The CIA lied about Iraq's supposed "weapons of mass destruction":

What does a CIA 'High Confidence' intelligence report look like? https://www.scribd.com/doc/259216899/Ira...ed-version …

The current CIA director lied to Congress and the American people about spying on Congress members.

The CIA admitted that it lied about torture. For example, Wikipedia notes:

• The CIA's directors (George Tenet, Porter Goss and Michael Hayden) lied to members of the U.S. Congress, the White House and the Director of National Intelligence about the program's effectiveness and the number of prisoners that the CIA held.
  
• The CIA deliberately planted false stories with members of the media and claimed that the stories had been leaked.
  
• The CIA had used waterboarding at locations where previously it claimed it had not (e.g. at the Salt Pit).
  
• The CIA lied in official documents to government officials about the value of information extracted from prisoners subjected to torture (e.g. stating that information extracted from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during torture had allowed for the capture of Riduan Isamuddin).
  
• Despite contrary statements made by the CIA's Director, Michael V. Hayden, the CIA did employ individuals who "had engaged in inappropriate detainee interrogations, had workplace anger management issues, and had reportedly admitted to sexual assault."
  
• The CIA provided false information to the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel about the methods of interrogation it was using against prisoners.
  
• CIA Deputy Director Phillip Mudd deliberately lied to Congress about the program and stated that "We either get out and sell, or we get hammered, which has implications beyond the media. [C]ongress reads it, cuts our authorities, mess up our budget."
  
• The report found that the CIA held at least 119 detainees during the course of the interrogation program, more than the 98 previously reported to Congress.
  
• An email cited in the report and prepared by a subordinate indicates that CIA Director Michael Hayden instructed that out-of-date information be used in briefing Congress so that fewer than 100 detainees would be reported.
  

(footnotes omitted).

The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.

9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes and did not tell us about them obstructed our investigation.

And:

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, "it's a big deal, it's a very big deal," because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.

Glenn Greenwald notes:

CIA officials are professional, systematic liars; they lie constantly, by design, and with great skill, and have for many decades, as have intelligence officials in other agencies.

https://prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org/w...ialied.png

CIA officials have, of course, deployed propaganda on U.S. soil and around the world for many years.

CIA agents and documents admit that the agency gave Iran plans for building nuclear weapons … so it could frame Iran for trying to build the bomb.

Pulitzer prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind reported that the White House ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document falsely linking Iraq with Muslim terrorists and 9/11 … and that the CIA complied with those instructions and in fact created the forgery, which was then used to justify war against Iraq. And see this and this.

And the CIA has also admitted to carrying out numerous acts of terrorism, and then falsely blaming others. For example:

(1) The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950′s to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister.

(2) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s through the 1980s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people's support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism.

As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" … so that "a state of emergency could be declared, so people would willingly trade part of their freedom for the security" (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special. They also allegedly carried out terror attacks in France, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and other countries.

The CIA also stressed to the head of the Italian program that Italy needed to use the program to control internal uprisings.

(3) A declassified 1973 CIA document reveals a program to train foreign police and troops on how to make booby traps, pretending that they were training them on how to investigate terrorist acts:

The Agency maintains liaison in varying degrees with foreign police/security organizations through its field stations ….

[CIA provides training sessions as follows:]

a. Providing trainees with basic knowledge in the uses of commercial and military demolitions and incendiaries as they may be applied in terrorism and industrial sabotage operations.

b. Introducing the trainees to commercially available materials and home laboratory techniques, likely to he used in the manufacture of explosives and incendiaries by terrorists or saboteurs.

c. Familiarizing the trainees with the concept of target analysis and operational planning that a saboteur or terrorist must employ.

d. Introducing the trainees to booby trapping devices and techniques giving practical experience with both manufactured and improvised devices through actual fabrication.

***

The program provides the trainees with ample opportunity to develop basic familiarity and use proficiently through handling, preparing and applying the various explosive charges, incendiary agents, terrorist devices and sabotage techniques.

(4) A CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra rebels noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause. The manual was authenticated by the U.S. government. The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other news coverage that during the 1984 presidential debate President Reagan was confronted with the following question on national television:

At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting in order to create martyrs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...dd4d893c5e

FBI backs CIA view that Russia intervened to help Trump win election
By Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima December 16 at 2:20 PM

FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. have backed a CIA assessment that Russia intervened in the 2016 election in part to help Donald Trump win the presidency, according to U.S. officials.
Comey's support for the CIA's conclusion suggests that the leaders of the three agencies are in agreement on Russian intentions, contrary to suggestions by some lawmakers that the FBI disagreed with the CIA.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with (Director) FBI James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," CIA Director John Brennan said in a message to the agency's workforce, according to U.S. officials who have seen the message.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," Brennan's message read.
Trump has consistently dismissed the intelligence community's findings about Russian hacking.
The CIA and FBI declined to comment.
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill about two weeks ago in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Specifically, CIA briefers told the senators it was now "quite clear" that electing Trump was one of Russia's goals, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
CIA and FBI officials do not think Russia had a "single purpose" by intervening during the presidential campaign. In addition to helping Trump, intelligence officials have told lawmakers that Moscow's other goal included undermining confidence in the U.S. electoral system.
A separate House intelligence briefing by a senior FBI counterintelligence official last week left some Republican and Democratic lawmakers with the impression that the bureau wasn't on the same page as the CIA, according to officials present.
"The truth is they were never all that different in the first place," an official said of the FBI and CIA positions.
In his message to the CIA's workforce, Brennan said the administration has provided detailed briefings to lawmakers and their aides since the summer.
"In recent days, I have had several conversations with members of Congress, providing an update on the status of the review as well as the considerations that need to be taken into account as we proceed," Brennan wrote. "Many but unfortunately not all members understand and appreciate the importance and the gravity of the issue, and they are very supportive of the process that is underway."