The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[Paul Rigby]

London bridges' falling down: Curious origins of FBI's Trump-Russia probe

BY JOHN SOLOMON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR 06/01/18 10:50 AM EDT

THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

http://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/3...probe?#_=_

The bridge to the Russia investigation wasn't erected in Moscow during the summer of the 2016 election.

It originated earlier, 1,700 miles away in London, where foreign figures contacted Trump campaign advisers and provided the FBI with hearsay allegations of Trump-Russia collusion, bureau documents and interviews of government insiders reveal. These contacts in spring 2016 some from trusted intelligence sources, others from Hillary Clinton supporters occurred well before FBI headquarters authorized an official counterintelligence investigation on July 31, 2016.

The new timeline makes one wonder: Did the FBI follow its rules governing informants?

Here's what a congressman and an intelligence expert think.



"The revelation of purposeful contact initiated by alleged confidential human sources prior to any FBI investigation is troublesome," Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), an ally of President Trump and chairman of a House subcommittee that's taking an increasingly aggressive oversight role in the scandal, told me. "This new information begs the questions: Who were the informants working for, who were they reporting to and why has the [Department of Justice] and FBI gone to such great lengths to hide these contacts?"

Kevin Brock agrees that Congress has legitimate questions. The retired FBI assistant director for intelligence supervised the rewriting of bureau rules governing sources, under then-director Robert Mueller a decade ago. Those rules forbid the FBI from directing a human source to target an American until a formally predicated investigative file is opened.

Brock sees oddities in how the Russia case began. "These types of investigations aren't normally run by assistant directors and deputy directors at headquarters," he told me. "All that happens normally in a field office, but that isn't the case here and so it becomes a red flag. Congress would have legitimate oversight interests in the conditions and timing of the targeting of a confidential human source against a U.S. person."

Other congressional and law enforcement sources express similar concerns, heightened by FBI communications suggesting political pressures around the time the probe officially opened.

"We're not going to withstand the pressure soon," FBI lawyer Lisa Page texted fellow agent Peter Strzok on Aug. 3, 2016, days after Strzok opened the official probe and returned from a trip to London. At the time, they were dealing with simultaneous challenges: the wrap-up of the Hillary Clinton email scandal and the start of the Russia-Trump probe.

Over several days, they exchanged texts that appear to express fears of political meddling or leaking by the Obama White House, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the CIA.

"This is MUCH more tasty for one of those DOJ aholes to leak," Strzok wrote as the two FBI colleagues then having an affair, the bureau later told Congress debated how long they could delay a CIA-FBI meeting so as to "not play into the agency's BS game."

They voiced alarm when an FBI colleague "Liz" suggested the Obama White House was about to hijack the investigation. "Went well, best we could have expected," Strzok texted Page after an Aug. 5, 2016, meeting. "Other than Liz quote the White House is running this.' " Page then texted to assure Strzok of a paper trail showing the FBI in charge: "We got emails that say otherwise."

The next day, they went into further detail about their White House concerns. "So maybe not the best national security president, but a genuinely good and decent human being," Page texted Strzok, referencing former President Obama. Strzok replied: "Yeah, I like him. Just not a fan of the weakness globally. Was thinking about what the administration will be willing to do re Russia."

In the end, the FBI secretly investigated the Trump campaign for months, engaging with other agencies on a more limited inquiry of Russian efforts to hack Clinton's campaign.

The summer 2016 text messages are bookends to a series of London contacts that pre-date the official opening of the investigation and produced the evidence the FBI used that fall to justify its court-ordered surveillance of presidential campaign figures.

According to documents and government interviews, one of the FBI's most senior counterintelligence agents visited London the first week of May 2016. Congress never got the FBI to explain that trip but, soon after it, one of the most consequential moments of the scandal occurred: On May 10, Australian diplomat Alexander Downer met in a London bar with Trump adviser George Papadopoulos, who boasted of knowing that Russia would release dirt on Clinton.

That contact was not immediately reported to U.S. intelligence.

By early June, a second overture to a Trump campaign adviser occurred in London. In a "Dear Carter" email, a Cambridge University graduate student invited Trump campaign adviser Carter Page to attend a popular July security conference in London.

Carter Page declined to tell me the student's identify but confirmed the student studied under Stefan Halper, a Cambridge University professor who helped organize the conference and has been identified in media reports as a confidential FBI source.

Carter Page said conference organizers paid his airfare and provided him dorm lodging, and Halper spent time with him during the conference, then continued conversations with him for months.

He says Halper asked to be introduced to a high-ranking Trump campaign official, Sam Clovis. On July 16, 2016, Carter Page relayed the overture to Clovis: "Professor Stef Halper spends part of the year in Virginia where he has a home in Falls Church; he's a big fan of yours having followed you on CNN and offered a range of possibilities regarding how he and the University might be able to help."

Halper, a month later, emailed Clovis, referencing his contacts with Carter Page. "May I suggest we set a time to meet when you are next in Washington?" Halper invited on Aug. 29, 2016.

In the ensuing months, Carter Page, Clovis and Papadopoulos all became FBI focuses. Papadopoulos pleaded guilty in 2017 to a misleading statement about his knowledge of facts in the Russia case. Page become the subject of four surveillance warrants, and Clovis was interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller; neither has been accused of wrongdoing.

The FBI received two more contacts about Trump-Russia allegations before formally opening its probe, both from people tied to Clinton.

A week before Carter Page left for London, the FBI was contacted by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, recently hired by the Fusion GPS research firm to find Trump-Russia dirt; Fusion was paid by the Clinton campaign and Democratic Party.

The FBI did not act on Steele's July 5, 2016, overture but, weeks later, Steele began working with agents. His now-infamous dossier became a key document justifying the surveillance warrants against Carter Page.

On July 23, 2016, shortly after WikiLeaks released the first hacked Clinton campaign emails, the Australian government contacted the State Department's deputy chief of mission in London about Downer's May 10 conversation with Papadopoulos. State forwarded the information to FBI headquarters.

A decade earlier, as Australia's foreign minister, Downer arranged a $25 million grant to the Clinton family foundation to help fight AIDS.

Downer's information moved FBI headquarters into action. Strzok was dispatched to London; a formal investigation was opened by month's end.

This timeline doesn't prove wrongdoing; these contacts could have occurred organically, or been directed legally through intelligence channels. Yet, congressional investigators and FBI insiders tell me, they raise questions about when the investigation officially started and how.

"There is no doubt the FBI kept getting snowflakes' in spring 2016 pointing toward Russia and Trump, and the bridges to the case ... clearly were built in London," a U.S. official with direct knowledge of the investigation said.

The question is whether those bridges, as the children's rhyme goes, come falling down when more facts surface.

John Solomon is an award-winning investigative journalist whose work over the years has exposed U.S. and FBI intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal scientists' misuse of foster children and veterans in drug experiments, and numerous cases of political corruption. He is The Hill's executive vice president for video.

[James Lateer]

I guess it's pretty obvious. The Question: who initiated the Russiagate spying and what is the deal with this Skripal poisoning?

The Answer: Both of these have been started by people in the UK. Keep in mind that out of the Five Eyes Countries, the Queen of England is the Head of State in four of them. I guess that also means commander of the military in all four, too. (In fairness, MI6 reports to the UK Foreign Office, not the military).

It's obvious that Prime Minister Theresa May is way, way too pathetic, harried and confused of a leader to orchestrate all of this stuff. You might think that Russiagate was invented by the clique of Comey, Mueller, Patrick Fitzgerald, Andrew McCabe, Strzok, Page, etc.

But that clique could not command the extreme cooperation of all these UK people like the Australian Ambassador, Stefan Halder and Christopher Steele. You don't need much eliminating of possibilities to put this at the foot of the UK Monarchy and their close allies, the ignoble nobility.

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

Isn't anyone bothered by the unbelievable stuff in the Inspector-General Report? The Russians had democratic elections in the 1990's but the KGB put KGB agent Putin as permanent Russian leader. Democracy was dead.

After the repeal of the Smith-Mundt Act in 2013, the CIA is now legally allowed to propagandize the US population. So you have CIA agents pretty much full-time as talking heads on CNN . And the CNN and MSNBC anchors obviously reading in lock-step from a common script prepared by someone--is this also the work of the CIA?

An now, the FBI is unabashedly proceeding with their Trump investigation despite the revelations of FBI big-wigs calling Trump supporters "retarded" and saying they can "smell" Trump supporters.

What people don't realize is that if we allow the FBI to stage a coup and replace Trump (and probably Pence) with someone acceptable to them, then we will be EXACTLY IN THE SAME POSITION AS THE FOLKS OVER IN RUSSIA. Our democracy will be, for the most part, gone! Doesn't that bother anybody?

James Lateer

[James Lateer]

Last night I heard an interview with right-wing film maker Dinesh D'Souza. He compared the situation with the (pretty much) compromised FBI to his experience growing up in India. He said that in India, half the criminals were on the streets and the other half were wearing badges.

I think, sadly, that historians will have to ask the unthinkable question about President Barack O'Bama. We now pretty much know that he approved an unprecedented spying operation against the Trump Campaign. But why did he do something extreme like this?

One theory would obviously be that he had a background in the Mayor Daley Chicago Machine which was all about ethical problems and numerous jailed Governors.

But the other is that he spent his adolescence in Indonesia. O'Bama is super-intelligent and we can only assume that he was a very smart teenager when living in Indonesia. Was he exposed to political corruption there? Did that influence O'Bama toward what can only be described as political activity which was outslde the norm for Western Democracy.

History can be brutal to some sad figures. Richard Nixon comes to mind. Though I was a staunch O'Bama supporter in 2008 and 2012, it seems like we have to be asking tough questions about the ethical perspective of O'Bama with these new revelations. Sad to think of the brilliant O'Bama as a re-incarnation of J. Edgar Hoover (or worse).

James Lateer

[Cliff Varnell]

Isn't anyone bothered by

[URL="https://www.propublica.org/article/children-separated-from-parents-border-patrol-cbp-trump-immigration-policy"]https://www.propublica.org/article/children-separated-from-parents-border-patrol-cbp-trump-immigration-policy

[/URL]

[James Lateer]

Why doesn't Trump pull the troops out of Somalia, Yemen, etc. and put them into Central America? Then he could round up the drug gangs and put them in cages instead of these children. These same children could then return safely to Central America.

The same people who are happy to see US troops in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia and everywhere else would scream if troops wound up in Central America. And yet, it is now Central America which is the most threatening to the integrity of the U.S. homeland. This is in terms of invasions by drug gangs, human traffickers and hordes of desperate and persecuted poor people.

I personally, do not wish to give up the safe, secure and uncrowded environment which we inherited from our forebears. That is our birth-right. We have gotten to the point that wanting the BEST LIFESTYLE for ourselves has been interpreted as selfish. By some twisted circumstance, some would wish the US. to become like China. Young children grow up there never knowing that the sky is blue. To China, the sky is grey. I personally don't want our skies to be permanently grey as in China. Is that selfish?

Like nukes and nerve gas, over-population can be a weapon which our enemies force on us and use to harm our country.

When the Statue of Liberty was given to the US, don't forget it was a gift form a foreign country, [France] which has become an invitation that the US accept people who are tired, poor and living in "huddled masses." Very convenient for the foreign countries to demand the US to take in their "huddled masses." I guess the endgame is that the US would become just one big "huddled mass" itself.

In the days of Chairman Mao, the population of China was 450 million. It was, by consensus, over-populated. Our population is now 330 million. During my lifetime, our population my reach the level of Mao's China. As Trump likes to say, "sad".

James Lateer

[Cliff Varnell]

Why doesn't Trump pull the troops out of Somalia, Yemen, etc. and put them into Central America? Then he could round up the drug gangs and put them in cages instead of these children. These same children could then return safely to Central America.

These Latin American drug cartels are Made In America by Puritan American prohibitions and the vast American appetite for getting loaded.

These migrant families fleeing the gangs are the collateral damage in the USA Drug War and deserve immediate asylum.

[James Lateer]

Excellent point--as they say in the Law, America is an "attractive nuisance." Kinda like an uncovered backyard swimming pool where kids fall in and drown. It's up to us to get our s***together, not on everybody else.

James Lateer

[Paul Rigby]

US Intelligence Community as a Collapse Driver

Dmitry Orlov

TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2018

https://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2018/07/u...lapse.html

In today's United States, the term "espionage" doesn't get too much use outside of some specific contexts. There is still sporadic talk of industrial espionage, but with regard to Americans' own efforts to understand the world beyond their borders, they prefer the term "intelligence." This may be an intelligent choice, or not, depending on how you look at things.

First of all, US "intelligence" is only vaguely related to the game of espionage as it has been traditionally played, and as it is still being played by countries such as Russia and China. Espionage involves collecting and validating strategically vital information and conveying it to just the pertinent decision-makers on your side while keeping the fact that you are collecting and validating it hidden from everyone else.

In eras past, a spy, if discovered, would try to bite down on a cyanide capsule; these days torture is considered ungentlemanly, and spies that get caught patiently wait to be exchanged in a spy swap. An unwritten, commonsense rule about spy swaps is that they are done quietly and that those released are never interfered with again because doing so would complicate negotiating future spy swaps. In recent years, the US intelligence agencies have decided that torturing prisoners is a good idea, but they have mostly been torturing innocent bystanders, not professional spies, sometimes forcing them to invent things, such as "Al Qaeda." There was no such thing before US intelligence popularized it as a brand among Islamic terrorists.

Most recently, British "special services," which are a sort of Mini-Me to the to the Dr. Evil that is the US intelligence apparatus, saw it fit to interfere with one of their own spies, Sergei Skripal, a double agent whom they sprung from a Russian jail in a spy swap. They poisoned him using an exotic chemical and then tried to pin the blame on Russia based on no evidence. There are unlikely to be any more British spy swaps with Russia, and British spies working in Russia should probably be issued good old-fashioned cyanide capsules (since that supposedly super-powerful Novichok stuff the British keep at their "secret" lab in Porton Down doesn't work right and is only fatal 20% of the time).

There is another unwritten, commonsense rule about spying in general: whatever happens, it needs to be kept out of the courts, because the discovery process of any trial would force the prosecution to divulge sources and methods, making them part of the public record. An alternative is to hold secret tribunals, but since these cannot be independently verified to be following due process and rules of evidence, they don't add much value.

A different standard applies to traitors; here, sending them through the courts is acceptable and serves a high moral purpose, since here the source is the person on trial and the methodtreasoncan be divulged without harm. But this logic does not apply to proper, professional spies who are simply doing their jobs, even if they turn out to be double agents. In fact, when counterintelligence discovers a spy, the professional thing to do is to try to recruit him as a double agent or, failing that, to try to use the spy as a channel for injecting disinformation.

Americans have been doing their best to break this rule. Recently, special counsel Robert Mueller indicted a dozen Russian operatives working in Russia for hacking into the DNC mail server and sending the emails to Wikileaks. Meanwhile, said server is nowhere to be found (it's been misplaced) while the time stamps on the files that were published on Wikileaks show that they were obtained by copying to a thumb drive rather than sending them over the internet. Thus, this was a leak, not a hack, and couldn't have been done by anyone working remotely from Russia.

Furthermore, it is an exercise in futility for a US official to indict Russian citizens in Russia. They will never stand trial in a US court because of the following clause in the Russian Constitution: "61.1 A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported out of Russia or extradited to another state." Mueller may summon a panel of constitutional scholars to interpret this sentence, or he can just read it and weep. Yes, the Americans are doing their best to break the unwritten rule against dragging spies through the courts, but their best is nowhere near good enough.

That said, there is no reason to believe that the Russian spies couldn't have hacked into the DNC mail server. It was probably running Microsoft Windows, and that operating system has more holes in it than a building in downtown Raqqa, Syria after the Americans got done bombing that city to rubble, lots of civilians included. When questioned about this alleged hacking by Fox News, Putin (who had worked as a spy in his previous career) had trouble keeping a straight face and clearly enjoyed the moment. He pointed out that the hacked/leaked emails showed a clear pattern of wrongdoing: DNC officials conspired to steal the electoral victory in the Democratic Primary from Bernie Sanders, and after this information had been leaked they were forced to resign. If the Russian hack did happen, then it was the Russians working to save American democracy from itself. So, where's the gratitude? Where's the love? Oh, and why are the DNC perps not in jail?

Since there exists an agreement between the US and Russia to cooperate on criminal investigations, Putin offered to question the spies indicted by Mueller. He even offered to have Mueller sit in on the proceedings. But in return he wanted to question US officials who may have aided and abetted a convicted felon by the name of William Browder, who is due to begin serving a nine-year sentence in Russia any time now and who, by the way, donated copious amounts of his ill-gotten money to the Hillary Clinton election campaign. In response, the US Senate passed a resolution to forbid Russians from questioning US officials. And instead of issuing a valid request to have the twelve Russian spies interviewed, at least one US official made the startlingly inane request to have them come to the US instead. Again, which part of 61.1 don't they understand?

The logic of US officials may be hard to follow, but only if we adhere to the traditional definitions of espionage and counterespionage"intelligence" in US parlancewhich is to provide validated information for the purpose of making informed decisions on best ways of defending the country. But it all makes perfect sense if we disabuse ourselves of such quaint notions and accept the reality of what we can actually observe: the purpose of US "intelligence" is not to come up with or to work with facts but to simply "make shit up."

The "intelligence" the US intelligence agencies provide can be anything but; in fact, the stupider it is the better, because its purpose is allow unintelligent people to make unintelligent decisions. In fact, they consider facts harmfulbe they about Syrian chemical weapons, or conspiring to steal the primary from Bernie Sanders, or Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, or the whereabouts of Osama Bin Ladenbecause facts require accuracy and rigor while they prefer to dwell in the realm of pure fantasy and whimsy. In this, their actual objective is easily discernible.

The objective of US intelligence is to suck all remaining wealth out of the US and its allies and pocket as much of it as possible while pretending to defend it from phantom aggressors by squandering nonexistent (borrowed) financial resources on ineffective and overpriced military operations and weapons systems. Where the aggressors are not phantom, they are specially organized for the purpose of having someone to fight: "moderate" terrorists and so on. One major advancement in their state of the art has been in moving from real false flag operations, à la 9/11, to fake false flag operations, à la fake East Gouta chemical attack in Syria (since fully discredited). The Russian election meddling story is perhaps the final step in this evolution: no New York skyscrapers or Syrian children were harmed in the process of concocting this fake narrative, and it can be kept alive seemingly forever purely through the furious effort of numerous flapping lips. It is now a pure confidence scam. If you are less then impressed with their invented narratives, then you are a conspiracy theorist or, in the latest revision, a traitor.

Trump was recently questioned as to whether he trusted US intelligence. He waffled. A light-hearted answer would have been:

"What sort of idiot are you to ask me such a stupid question? Of course they are lying! They were caught lying more than once, and therefore they can never be trusted again. In order to claim that they are not currently lying, you have to determine when it was that they stopped lying, and that they haven't lied since. And that, based on the information that is available, is an impossible task."

A more serious, matter-of-fact answer would have been:

"The US intelligence agencies made an outrageous claim: that I colluded with Russia to rig the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. The burden of proof is on them. They are yet to prove their case in a court of law, which is the only place where the matter can legitimately be settled, if it can be settled at all. Until that happens, we must treat their claim as conspiracy theory, not as fact."

And a hardcore, deadpan answer would have been:

"The US intelligence services swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution, according to which I am their Commander in Chief. They report to me, not I to them. They must be loyal to me, not I to them. If they are disloyal to me, then that is sufficient reason for their dismissal."

But no such reality-based, down-to-earth dialogue seems possible. All that we hear are fake answers to fake questions, and the outcome is a series of faulty decisions. Based on fake intelligence, the US has spent almost all of this century embroiled in very expensive and ultimately futile conflicts. Thanks to their efforts, Iran, Iraq and Syria have now formed a continuous crescent of religiously and geopolitically aligned states friendly toward Russia while in Afghanistan the Taliban is resurgent and battling ISISan organization that came together thanks to American efforts in Iraq and Syria.

The total cost of wars so far this century for the US is reported to be $4,575,610,429,593. Divided by the 138,313,155 Americans who file tax returns (whether they actually pay any tax is too subtle a question), it works out to just over $33,000 per taxpayer. If you pay taxes in the US, that's your bill so far for the various US intelligence "oopsies."

The 16 US intelligence agencies have a combined budget of $66.8 billion, and that seems like a lot until you realize how supremely efficient they are: their "mistakes" have cost the country close to 70 times their budget. At a staffing level of over 200,000 employees, each of them has cost the US taxpayer close to $23 million, on average. That number is totally out of the ballpark! The energy sector has the highest earnings per employee, at around $1.8 million per. Valero Energy stands out at $7.6 million per. At $23 million per, the US intelligence community has been doing three times better than Valero. Hats off! This makes the US intelligence community by far the best, most efficient collapse driver imaginable.

There are two possible hypotheses for why this is so.

First, we might venture to guess that these 200,000 people are grossly incompetent and that the fiascos they precipitate are accidental. But it is hard to imagine a situation where grossly incompetent people nevertheless manage to funnel $23 million apiece, on average, toward an assortment of futile undertakings of their choosing. It is even harder to imagine that such incompetents would be allowed to blunder along decade after decade without being called out for their mistakes.

Another hypothesis, and a far more plausible one, is that the US intelligence community has been doing a wonderful job of bankrupting the country and driving it toward financial, economic and political collapse by forcing it to engage in an endless series of expensive and futile conflictsthe largest single continuous act of grand larceny the world has ever known. How that can possibly be an intelligent thing to do to your own country, for any conceivable definition of "intelligence," I will leave for you to work out for yourself. While you are at it, you might also want to come up with an improved definition of "treason": something better than "a skeptical attitude toward preposterous, unproven claims made by those known to be perpetual liars."

[Paul Rigby]

A Nationalist Faction on Wall St. Challenges the War Faction Which Owns the CIA and Media

By Jay Janson

July 28, 2018

https://www.opednews.com/populum/printer...&id=224164

The handwriting is on the wall that reads 'pale skin folks will not keep power over six times as many folks of color toned skin for all that much longer.' Realizing this, a block of important investors within the 1/10th of 1%, who rule USA have been in fraternal confrontation with the war establishment & its CIA-fed media pushing for investment in the neglected US instead of in the low wage 3rd World that China will soon lead.

The economic rise of China and indeed the whole of what is condescending referred to as developing economies, which are growing at a faster rate than the economies of the developed nations of the First World, has been written about for more than a decade, e.g. The Economist Magazine in 2007, [1] e.g. When China Rules the World -The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order by Martin Jacques, 2009; e.g. Nobel Prize in Economics, Joseph Stiglitz referring to our present century as "The Chinese Century;" e.g. China Rising - Capitalist Roads Socialist Destinations, by Jeff Brown, 2015.

If we peoples historians are aware of this, the investment analysts of the wealthiest investors would have to be even more so keenly aware of changing future economic conditions. It's for certain that at least some high tech research calculating investment advisors see this future yawning.

In July of 2016, OpEdNews, US, Countercurrents, India, and Minority Perspective, UK, published Economic Hegemony Loss to China Looming! Powerful Investors Have Trump Call for an About FaceThe title reflected something that the author thought was logical if not at times noticeable.

The author surmised that the 2016 media managed US election process seemed a playing out in public of indecision within the rich one tenth of one percent, who rule America and much of the world, indecision over whether to switch to less profitable investing in their home base America, or to continue wildly enriching themselves, heavily investing in the much higher profit rendering low wage economies of the rest of the world, thereby accelerating forward the arrival of the time when those Third World nations led by China will overtake the US and Europe in economic and political power and demand equity.

Boisterous billionaire Republican candidate Donald Trump seemed to have been designated by a forward thinking substantial group of investors to present a demand that government force America's wealth controlling deep-pockets to invest in a United States suffering from neglect, rather than continue to promote investing more profitably in the low wage economies of developing nations regardless of the consequences of speeding up development of future contenders for world power. The handwriting is on the wall that reads 'pale skin folks will not keep power over six times as many folks of color toned skin for all that much longer. The willingness of humanity to continue to accept the white world's profitable investments in genocide will end when enough economic power shifts from Europeans, and their descendant nations, to the six sevenths of humanity they have plundered. Realizing this, a block of important investors within the 1/10th of 1% who rule America have been in fraternal confrontation with the war establishment and its CIA-fed media pushing for investment in the neglected US instead of in the low wage 3rd World that China will soon lead

The more perspicacious among them must be thinking logically, 'Better begin investing in our home countries and see that the world power shift coming to overtake us comes later rather than sooner, while we make our economies better able to deal with the inevitable change in world leadership.'

However, it is obvious that a much more substantial and powerful faction of the important investors ruling the US and much of the world have their investments so heavily weighted in the super lucrative military industrial complex, that they must desperately count on the West's overkill military dominance to assure Western control of the world far into the foreseeable future. Investors locked into the financial-industrial-military complex must surely be more powerful than investors, whose portfolios are weighted in production, trade and acquisitions. A glance at our vastly over militarized world, continuing massively destructive wars and steady impoverishment of half of mankind would seem to be sufficient to assume the primacy of investments in the profitable but criminal use of the Armed Forces, CIA and CIA-controlled US mainstream media.

Since predatory investments go hand in hand with bombings and invasions, the Military Industrial Complex faction had to be virulently opposed to forcing investors to invest in the USA, as Trump had been trumpeting to an ever widening audience, ergo the wild efforts of its CIA controlled newscasters, commentators and talk shows to denigrate Trump in whatever desperate method possible for his rocking the wars industry's boat containing trillions of dollars invested in future military conflict.

After Trump was elected, CIA-fed US mainstream media put out an amazing amount of talk of assassination and about how Trump was keeping his own bodyguards. Since the Helsinki Summit, US media, with one exception, has again promoted in a calculated frenzy, a climate of pending violence threatening President Trump for having talked too peacefully with his Russian counterpart President Vladimir Putin.

That exception being FOX, which with its three TV channels and other media, is defending Trump and has been doing so even before his election. The CIA, which has controlled all US major media and most of all Western media since its Operation Mockingbird[2] in the early 1950s, must be allowing FOX to do so.

We have heard guests interviewed on FOX Channel, like retired US Army Colonel, author and consultant, Douglas Macgregor referring to themselves as adhering to the nationalist faction supporting President Trump 'because the president is confronting ultimately disastrous internationalist foreign policies.'

This deviation of FOX channels from the usual monolithic propagandistic reporting on foreign policy and foreign events by all the other giant news and entertainment conglomerates is striking. (Of course, FOX is still in unison the rest of criminal mainstream media when it comes to programming 'patriotic' pride in all past US military action no matter their never mentioned lawless and genocidal nature.)

In promoting military confrontation with Russia, deep state media as well as FOX, continue to put out some imbecilic phony baloney about American democracy being attacked and undermined by the Russians. Anyone with half and education knows that the USA is not a democracy, but a plutocracy, and a malevolent neocolonial imperialist racist genocidal one at that. Online dictionaries define 'plutocracy' as government by the wealthy, a country or society governed by the wealthy, a government or state in which the wealthy class rules, an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.

In 2018, the ruling US plutocracy does not appear to be a united one since it has two media outlets arguing and a president that seems to be beholden to two competing factions on Wall Street.

That all US presidents must be wary of behavior which endangers the mega enormous investments of the ruling class (maybe best keep in mind what happened to Presidents Kennedy, Lincoln and Garfield), could explain Trump's seemingly erratic behavior, for example, pleasing the internationalist war faction in bombing Yemen, keeping the attempt to overthrow the Syrian government going, firing missiles at Damascus over an obvious false flagged claim of a gas attack, threatening Iran and Latin America, yet on the other hand playing to the nationalist faction by displaying friendly intentions with the leaders of long designated enemy nations North Korea and Russia and upsetting the internationalist establishment's free trade treaties. Did Trump force through a imponderably enormous raise in the military budget with mammoth expenditure for new nuclear weapons to make himself feel safe from harm from the Military Industrial Complex? Did going public with questioning his advisors in obvious baby talk, "Why don't we just invade Venezuela,"[3] have the same purpose of ingratiating himself with the war establishment, as was his appointment of freaky John Bolton, whose advice he probably does not plan to take? (Bolton's simpleminded uncouth manner seems to have been actually helpful up to now in getting himself sidelined.)

The theater of Trump's bumptious behavior is taking place in front of a brutal set of powerful alien-like investors on Wall Street, rabid monsters who gave the world the Somali, Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian, Yemeni and South Sudan genocides and a bloody permanent racist occupation of Afghanistan, just as their elders and some of their parents gave the world the genocides surpassing the Holocaust in Korea, Congo, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Central America.

But nothing in this world is absolute, and some considerable number within this powerful investor elite, concerned for their own skin in an uncertain future, might even have realistically accepted that Chinese civilization will ultimately replace the present American-led crazed speculative-banking-driven genocidal white folks neocolonial power plundering of much of the rest of humanity. It doesn't seem credible that all wealthy and powerful Americans have become comfortably inured to the massive taking of lives and deadly impoverishment of hundreds of millions of other human beings during their criminal capital acquisitions. Wealthy criminals, even when insane are not stupid. With China's rise as a world power making itself more noticeable month by month, economic might has begun to loom more and more important than military might. After all, bigger money buys bigger guns and the biggest money will always buy the most of anything necessary. Equally important, one can suppose all investors are aware of a predicted future in which China and not the US will be most influential if not controlling critical world institutions including the United Nations and its courts.

But a greater number of investors in weapons must be in denial, unwilling to accept a probable future fall in value of those up to now lucrative investments in widespread death and destruction. The ubiquitous media of the genocidal gangsters on Wall Street vilifying Trump is nothing new. Let us remind ourselves of the vilification during the election campaign. Trump astoundingly voiced some devastating truths about US leaders in war and government war policies, though balanced off with Trump lies and rabid statements about Cuba and Latin America for the ears of the Florida electorate and even more rabid statements about Iran, most likely to cover his back from the dangerous Israelis.

Consider, how pugnacious and egotistically sure of himself Trump was blisteringly denouncing America's household-word famous war establishment celebrities. He must have had or at least sensed great support while having a field day hammering in cutting remarks in ridicule of his own party's folk heroes, their policies and their "80% lying media."

Let us remember what braggart candidate Trump was confidently proclaiming during his election campaign. Trump, with wars promoting media either ridiculing him or making a blatant over the top show of frightened opposition, had been maintaining among other things that the five trillion dollars spent on wars for regime change in the Middle East should have been spent in the US rebuilding its infrastructure; that NATO is obsolete; that the US should seek friendship with China and Russia; that he likes Xi Jinping and Putin, (America's perennial and sacrosanct mortal enemies!) and would get along fine with them. Trump called the last two term Republican President, George Bush, a liar for having lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction and voiced suspicion about the 9/11 attack that happened so easily on Bush's watch. Trump disputed hailing Senator John McCain, 2008 Republican presidential candidate, a hero for having been shot down in Vietnam, and condemned and ridiculed eighty percent of media's reporters and commentators as pathetic liars (which comes to the what is in reality that hundred percent, who are willing to preposterously describe America's running crimes against humanity as heroic deeds in defense of American freedom). Trump had asked, "why must the United States lead the world everywhere on the globe and play the role of the world's policeman, now for example in Ukraine? "Trump asked, "why does the United States always pursue regime changes - Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and now it wants a regime change in Syria, Damascus, when the result is disaster." This wholesale attack on the war establishment was astonishing.

(Of course, though Trump might have seemed to have been reproaching ruling investors for the costly death and destruction of regime change wars, Trump was careful never to awaken sympathy for the innocent millions of victims of US firepower, as he religiously emoted praise for the Americans who had blasted away with that fire power and now were veterans summa cum luade.)

Before Trump, with backing from we know not where, inserted doubts about the rational for US deadly and devastating foreign policy, mass media had been dutifully preparing the public for war with Russia, China and Iran. Even anti-imperialist journalists had been predicting doom - inescapable world war.

Since investors in outrageously murderous criminal ventures have had their co-criminal wars-heralding media convince Mr. and Mrs. America to see US perpetrated genocide after genocide as perfectly acceptable, even praiseworthy, at first, media sought to ridicule Trump's anti-war pro peace posture, but then, perhaps noticing public appeal for it, changed tactics to putting a cap on the public being aware of Trump's less belligerent foreign policy, and opened up a barrage of coverage of Trump the racist and sexist, the latter being helped by extremely boorish and distasteful revelations.

Mainstream media continues to capture pubic attention by putting overwhelmingly intense focus on the president, as it has with every US president for as long as this writer can remember, portraying him as some sort of emperor whose every whim can translate into his ordering bombings, military invasions, covert violence or ordering its halt of his own free will, never minding that it could adversely affect the trillions of dollars of investments of the plutocrats who rule and misrule the nation and a good deal of the world. Trump playing an egomaniac role, feeds this false portrayal of a presidents personal power and has everyone guessing and awaiting in suspense for his next utterance, which will be super highlighted by a cartel of news and entertainment conglomerates.

Thus, a media of entertainment and insanity constantly drumming up attention on the president successfully concentrates public attention away from the reality of a genocidal US plutocracy, burying away its horrific crimes against humanity in poor countries and distracting attention from its present mass murderous destruction of seven countries in the cradle of human civilization to the detriment of the future of all humanity. The rest of the world more or less accepts the far reaching Western media portrayal of the president as the most powerful person in the world, a kind of elected king, and this covers well the behind the scenes devilish and maniacal machinations of the rulers of the USA plutocracy - not a kingdom, but an empire, seeding death and destruction without an emperor.

In 1933, America's last aristocratic wealthy real insider President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, lamented his lack of power in note to a confident as follows: "You and I know that a financial element in the centers of power has owned this government since the days of Andrew Jackson." (Jackson was president a hundred years earlier). FDR using the phrase "you and I know" indicates something obvious, but only obvious to insiders.

FDR said the government was owned by a "financial element." Why wouldn't that "financial element" of Wall Street oligarchs own the president and vice president? They own the vast majority of the members of the Congress that is the Legislative Branch, the vast majority of judges of the Judicial Branch. They not only own the two elected officers of the Executive Branch, but get to force the choice of appointed cabinet members and presidential advisors, like for instance, David Rockefeller's henchmen, the Dulles brothers, Kissinger and Brzezinski.

Eisenhower is a salient example. During the very last hour of his presidency, perhaps for having a guilty conscience, he warned against "undo influence of the Military Industrial Complex" which likable 'Ike' had dutifully obeyed for eight years, ordering the bombing of tiny Laos; the overthrow a first democratic president of latifundista impoverished and U.S. exploited Guatemala; the assassination of the popular Patrice Lumumba, first elected president of a Congo freed from the most horrific colonial enslavement by Belgium; blocking the all-Vietnam elections called for in the Geneva Peace Accord after the defeat of the French Colonial Army US ally, thus blocking W.W. II hero communist Ho Chi Minh; ordering and overseeing the preparations to have the CIA invade Cuba with clandestine U.S. air cover and not confronting the establishment military on first use of nuclear weapons.

Since that "financial element" that owns the government also has owned the media as Einstein deplored[5] even before Operation Mockingbird was completed, a US president can be either denigrated arbitrarily for something he has no power over or given credit for something accomplished during his administration that more powerful forces had seen to, as in the case of Nixon given credit for opening trade with China, concluded by David Rockefeller and his Chase Bank with his man Henry Kissinger negotiating the political arrangements. Eisenhower's ordered crimes against humanity and crimes against peace were, and still are, portrayed as permissible heroic deeds against the evil international force of communism.

We are supposed to credit, or criticize, Obama for his agreeing to the transfer of a near trillion dollars over to bankers on Wall Street, and be impressed, or mortified, that he, Obama, saw to the criminal destruction of beautiful and prosperous Libya.

Do the tycoons within that ruling "financial element," not think it quaint that the world thinks mentally challenged President Bush junior was in charge of invading whenever and wherever he wished? Likewise hapless Bill Clinton, about whom media had us all wondering where his penis had been or not been, never mind the truth about important things like starvation in Haiti caused by policies credited to Clinton.

The social scientists and historians of tomorrow will eventually be able to sort out what was happening within that "financial element in the centers of power" while the world was a captive audience watching the wide swings in policy of a president Trump, who to this writer seems to be theatrically walking a tight rope to avoid a unsafe landing in the midst of some frightened confusion about the future of the world and the fall of the American empire.

Post Script

Even if a renegade faction among the monstrous killing machine that is Wall Street be bringing about some change, the cohesion among long time mass murderers is greater than any dissension.

According to CNN, following Trump's surprise victory, Condoleezza Rice, Robert Gates and James Baker during conversations with Vice President Pence, played a crucial role in convincing Trump's team to select Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State. This speaks to the charade of presidential power that the decision as to who will be secretary of state can remain the same whichever gang occupies the White House. Likewise, was it Obama's choice to reappoint the entire Bush administration war cabinet of Robert Gates, Richard Holbrooke, John Negroponte, keeping Bzrezinski and Kissinger as advisors?

Less than two months into Trump's presidency, CNN reported: Washington (CNN), March, 2017, "President Donald Trump met Friday with an unlikely guest, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the former top administration official under President George W. Bush met Trump in the Oval Office after first sitting down with Vice President Mike Pence. Trump's head-to-head Friday with Rice, their first publicly known meeting, follows Trump's repeated criticism on the campaign trail of the Iraq War and the neoconservative thinking that mired the US in the trillion-dollar war. Rice, who at the time of the invasion was Bush's national security adviser, was a chief architect and proponent of the Iraq War, arguing publicly -- and ultimately erroneously -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Trump had repeatedly slammed Bush and his top officials for pushing the US into the Iraq War, arguing it was based on lies."

They met after Trump won the election, but we imagine genocidal insider Rice was holding all the cards in her hand.

Wonder if tough insider Rice found it necessary to make any offers that Trump couldn't refuse.

End Notes

1.

Emerging vs developed economies Power shift Aug 4th 2011, by The Economist online (charts, graphs) REAL GDP in most rich economies is still below its level at the end of 2007. In contrast, emerging economies' output has jumped by almost 20% over the same period. The rich world's woes have clearly hastened the shift in global economic power towards the emerging markets. But exactly how big are emerging economies compared with the old developed world? This chart looks at a wide range of indicators: " The combined output of the emerging world accounted for 38% of world GDP (at market exchange rates) in 2010, twice its share in 1990. If GDP is instead measured at purchasing-power parity, emerging economies overtook the developed world in 2008 and are likely to reach 54% of world GDP this year. They now account for over half of the global consumption of most commodities, world exports, and inflows of foreign direct investment. Emerging economies also account for 46% of world retail sales, 52% of all purchases of motor vehicles and 82% of mobile phone subscriptions. They still punch well below their weight in commerce and finance, but they are catching up fast. Almost a quarter of the Fortune Global 500 firms come from emerging markets; in 1995 it was only 4%. The chart below shows more detail of how the economic clout of emerging economies has risen over time: NOTE: Our definition of developed economies based on 1990 data: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychar...-economies

2.

Mockingbird was a secret operation by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts and also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns.

After 1953, Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services. These networks were run by people with well-known pro-American big business and anti-communist views.

The CIA currently maintains a network of individuals around the world who attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda, and provide direct access to a large amount of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets."

The CIA and the Media - Carl Bernstein

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

After leaving The Washington Post in 1977, Carl Bernstein spent six months looking at the relationship of the CIA and the press during the Cold War years.

http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

Newly Declassified Govt Docs Reveal Operation Mockingbird is Alive ...

thefreethoughtproject.com " Be The Change

Oct 2, 2015 - For those unfamiliar, Operation Mockingbird was a CIA operation began as the Cold War ramped up in the 1950's. In an attempt to gather ...

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/feds-ex...wikileaks/

Operation Mockingbird, CIA Media Control Program - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDCfTIapds0

3.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/us-...7125b894b0

Why can't the U.S. just invade Venezuela? U.S. official says Trump stunned security aides with question Associated Press

4.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson -- and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States -- only on a far bigger and broader basis.

Letter to Col. Edward Mandell House (21 November 1933); as quoted in F.D.R.: His Personal Letters, 1928-1945, edited by Elliott Roosevelt (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 1950), pg. 373

5.

"Under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." - Albert Einstein, Essays in Humanism

Submitters Website: http://prosecuteuscrimesagainsthumanitynow.blogspot.com

Submitters Bio:

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India and the US; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of articles on deadly cultural pollution endangering seven areas of life emanating from Western corporate owned commercial media published in Hong Kong's Window Magazine 1993; Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his; Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents, Kerala, India; Minority Perspective, UK; Dissident Voice, Uruknet; Voice of Detroit; Ethiopian Review; Palestine Chronicle; India Times; Mathaba; Ta Kung Bao; China Daily; South China Morning Post; Come Home America; OpEdNews; HistoryNews Network; Vermont Citizen News have published his articles; Weekly column, South China Morning Post, 1986-87; reviews for Ta Kung Bao; article China Daily, 1989. Is coordinator of the King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign: (King Condemned US Wars) and website historian of Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign. featuring a country by country history of US crimes and laws pertaining. Studied history at CCNY, Columbia U., U. Puerto Rico, Dolmetscher Institut Munchen, Germany. Musician grassroots activist dedicated firstly to ending colonial power "genocide in maintenance of unjust predatory investments," by Majority Mankind prosecution of Colonial Powers Crimes Against Humanity and Peace and mega immense compensation for wrongful death, maiming and destruction and magna theft of natural resources and forced labor and enslavement. Will be made possible when Martin Luther King Jr. demand that America, Americans, he included himself, [not government which he dismissed a greatest purveyor of violence in the world, not cause] because of being capable making atrocity wars and covert genocide unacceptable and inoperable through non-participation, non-support, not-acquiescence and conscientious objection, and that Americans would suffer at home as a result of killing the poor in countries already violated by colonial occupation. Dissident Voice supports the call to Prosecute US Crimes against Humanity Now Campaign with link bottom of each issue of its newsletter.