The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[Paul Rigby]

A Ticking Time Bomb: People Know They're Being Lied To and They've Had Enough

Washington's "democratic" institutions work around-the-clock to dismiss reasonable criticism and thoughtful dissent as "Russian disinformation" is it any wonder that they are losing the confidence of their people?

Matthew Allen

Tue, Feb 28, 2017

http://russia-insider.com/en/washingtons...ed/ri19056

For trusted media outlets such as the CIA-linked Washington Post, the real purpose of promoting a "fake news" blacklist is not to expose KGB connections to random internet blogs there is nothing to expose, after all but rather to enforce new parameters for what in polite society is called "acceptable public discourse".

So for instance, the weather and your health.

You are allowed to discuss how humid it is today, or your favorite photograph of Hillary Clinton; you are even allowed to complain about your painful toe corns.

Generally speaking, you are permitted to talk about various things that don't matter. The one thing that is strictly prohibited though is questioning the west's commitment to "kicking Russia in the ass", to quote the great orator Lindsey Graham.

Not wanting to "kick Russia in the ass" is fake news.

Are you beginning to understand?

Robert Parry has an excellent piece on how Washington has attempted to enforce strict obedience to its own narrative:

NATO has its own Stratcom command based in Latvia that also is assigned to swat down information that doesn't conform to Western propaganda narratives. The U.S. Agency for International Development and the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy also pour tens of millions of dollars into media operations with similar goals as do major Western foundations, such as currency speculator George Soros's Open Society. Last December, the U.S. Congress approved and President Obama signed legislation to create an additional $160 million bureaucracy to combat "Russian propaganda."

In other words, the West's stratcom and "psychological operations" are swimming in dough despite the Times' representation that these "anti-disinformation" projects are unfairly outgunned by sinister forces daring to challenge what everyone-in-the-know knows to be true.

If these "stratcom" operations were around in 2002-2003, they would have been accusing the few people questioning the Iraq-has-WMD certainty of putting out "fake news" to benefit Saddam Hussein. Now, journalists and citizens who don't buy the full-Monte demonization of Russia and its President Vladimir Putin are put into a similar category.

Remember: The reason Michael Flynn was thrown under the bus is because he talked with the Russians. Talking with the Russians in not acceptable. Dialogue concerning anything Russia-related, even your favorite brand of Russian nesting dolls, is verboten. Parry explains why this is so dangerous to our so-called "democratic" institutions: the marketplace of ideas is now a squalid sheep-pen of self-censorship, hysteria and fear.

Instead of trusting in the free exchange of ideas, the new attitude at the Times, the Post and other Western news outlets is to short-circuit the process by smearing anyone who questions the official narratives as a "Putin apologist" or a "Moscow stooge."

Beyond being anti-democratic, this anti-intellectual approach has prevented serious examination of the facts behind the West's war or words against Russia. To shut down that debate, all you need to do is to say that any fact cited at a Russian news outlet must be false or "fake news." Any Westerner who notes the same fact must be a "Putin puppet."

Western "stratcom" doesn't even want to allow Russian media to criticize politicians who are criticizing Russia. The Times article lamented that "Many false claims target politicians who present the biggest obstacles to Moscow's goal of undermining the European Union." The Times, however, doesn't offer any examples of such "false claims."

Instead, the Times writes that Russian news channels had "targeted the [French] presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron, who belongs to the party and is running on a pro-European Union platform."

But what does that mean? Is it now an act of aggression when newscasts in one country criticize a leader of another country? If so, are the European news channels that have "targeted" U.S. President Donald Trump somehow deserving of U.S. government retaliation? Doesn't the E.U. and by extension The New York Times accept the idea of political disagreement and debate?

This closed-mindedness is especially dangerous indeed existentially risky when applied to a confrontation between nuclear-armed powers. In such a case, the maximum amount of debate should be encouraged, instead of what amounts to blacklisting dissidents in the West who won't toe the official propaganda lines.

It won't work. This is essentially the same tactic used to "ensure" Hillary Clinton's presidential victory: Make public support for Donald Trump to the point where people won't even admit to pollsters who they intend to vote for unacceptable.

Most people have mortgages, student loans, medical bills and other financial burdens probably thrust upon them by predatory lenders. It's a world full of things that no one can afford to own.

All they really have are their thoughts and opinions. And despite NATO's best efforts, most people don't like being told what to think and do. Because that's literally all they have.

The idea that you can scare people into silence is a ticking time bomb. It has never worked. Ever. You can delay the explosion, but it'll come soon enough.

A final word from Parry:

Western news outlets and governments even take pride in blocking such dissenting views and contrary information from reaching the American and European publics. Like East Stratcom the E.U.'s Brussels-based 11-member team of diplomats, bureaucrats and former journalists establishment institutions see themselves bravely battling "Russian disinformation." They see it as their duty not to let their people hear this other side of the story.

If that is what the West's institutions have come to dismissing reasonable criticism and thoughtful dissent as "Russian disinformation" is it any wonder that they are losing the confidence of their people?
To quote the great Sir Kenneth Clark: It's lack of confidence, more than anything else, that destroys a civilization.

[Paul Rigby]

The Basic Formula For Every Shocking Russia/Trump Revelation

By Michael Tracey

Thursday, March 2, 2017

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/fea...evelation/

The basic formula for every breaking Trump/Russia story is essentially as follows:

1. The New York Times or Washington Post releases an article that at first blush appears extremely damning.

2. Anti-Trump pundits and Democrats react reflexively to the news, express shrieking outrage, and proclaim that this finally proves untoward collusion between Trump and Russia  a smoking gun, at last.

3. Aggrieved former Clinton apparatchiks *connect the dots* in a manner eerily reminiscent of right-wing Glenn Beck-esque prognostication circa 2009.

4. Self-proclaimed legal experts rashly opine as to whether the new revelation entails some kind of criminally actionable offense. (Recall the now-laughable certitude that felled National Security Advisor Mike Flynn violated the 200+ year old Logan Act.) This latest version is the certitude that Jeff Sessions committed perjury, when that at the very least is highly questionable. (Probably best to at least read the relevant statute first.)

5. The notion of Russian "collusion" being key to toppling Trump becomes further implanted in the minds of the most energized Democratic activists, as evidenced this time around by a troupe of protesters who showed up to the Department of Justice headquarters brandishing trademarked "Resist" placards, chanting "Lock Him Up," and (as usual) hyperventilating about Putin. As I've written before, Trump/Putin theories are increasingly the top concern that plugged-in "Resistance" types bring up at the highly-charged town hall meetings that have received so much attention of late.

6. Pointing out these glaring flaws in the latest anti-Russia frenzy is immediately construed by cynics as "defending Trump" or "defending Sessions" when it most assuredly is not. At least in my own case, it's a defense of not getting enraptured by irrational hysterics to further short-term political aims.

7. People who'd spent the past 12 hours frothing at the mouth gradually come to realize that their initial furor was probably overblown, and that a more sober look at the actual facts at hand reveal that the anti-Trump chorus probably got ahead of itself…again.

8. Democrats who sought to capitalize on the uproar end up looking extremely foolish.

9. It becomes "normalized" (that new favorite buzzword!) to cast any meetings or contacts with Russian officials as inherently sinister. Rather than just a basic function of a Senator's ordinary duties, meeting with "The Russians" is increasingly viewed as evidence of nefarious intent, and perhaps participation in a grand global conspiracy.

10. Political ineptitude and clumsiness (as was very probably the case with Flynn) gets interpreted as something more calculated than it really is. Sessions could've avoided this ridiculous controversy by saying something to the effect of: "I did not meet with any Russian officials in my informal capacity as Trump campaign surrogate, but I did speak with Russian officials over the course of my ordinary Senatorial duties." The problem is, such an admission would've probably blown up into a big political snafu; Democrats would've seized on it as evidence of Russian collusion. So Sessions tried to lawyer himself out of trouble with an ambiguous comment during sworn testimony. This allowed him to sneak through the confirmation process, but created an even bigger political storm later.

11. A Trump official's least egregious quality ends up being portrayed as his most egregious quality. There were any number of reasons to be highly worried about the presence of Mike Flynn in the Trump administration, from his bellicose posture toward Iran, to his outlandish views on the alleged threat posed by Islam. Conversing with the Russian ambassador about reducing tensions would very clearly not have been on the "reasons to be worried about Flynn" list. Likewise, Jeff Sessions is a troubling figure for a whole host of reasons, ranging from his hawkishly retrograde attitude about Drug Prohibition to his dicey history on racial matters. That he spoke to the Russian Ambassador in September 2016 would not be on the "reasons to be worried about Sessions" list.

12. The overall political climate gets further degraded and warped without any commensurate upside.

13. Repeat.

Reprinted with author's permission from Medium.com/TYT Network.

[Paul Rigby]

Trump Retreats on Detente with Russia

President Trump toned down his combative rhetoric in speaking to Congress but, more significantly, ditched his campaign promises about détente with Russia and a reduced military presence abroad, says Gilbert Doctorow.

By Gilbert Doctorow

March 1, 2017

https://consortiumnews.com/2017/03/01/tr...th-russia/

Donald Trump's speech on Tuesday to a joint session of Congress was a reasonably well-crafted and well-delivered exercise in communicating his case to the nation. The President opened with a description of the flurry of executive orders in his first 30 days in office, implementing promises made during the electoral campaign.

He then went on to describe the contours of legislation that his administration will send to Congress, starting with the budget and its scrapping of the cap on military spending, which is to enjoy a 10 percent rise in appropriations while domestic and other government spending is slashed. Then there was a review of his plans to repeal and replace Obamacare and a preview of his proposals for cutting taxes and regulations with the goal of creating more well-paying jobs.

In an emotional highpoint, Trump drew attention to the widow of a Special Forces soldier killed in a raid inside Yemen. He also presented a more compassionate less combative tone, calling on Democrats and Republicans to put aside their differences and work together. His 60-minute address was interrupted 93 times by applause, often standing ovations from Republicans but also some applause from the Democratic side, too.

Trump seemed to bask in the enthusiastic show of support, although such State of the Union speeches typically draw the same sort of surface adulation, with the members from the party in power cheering robustly and those from the other side offering sparser shows of support. Still, the televised images contrasted with the portrayal from the mainstream U.S. news media of an embattled leader caught in a Watergate-like scandal over supposedly illicit contacts with Russia, a narrative Trump mistakenly fed with the hasty firing of National Security Adviser Michael Flynn on Feb. 13 during a media frenzy about Flynn talking with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

Flynn became the target of elements inside the U.S. government and the press who opposed Trump's plans for détente with Russia. Those anti-détente forces are now flexing their muscles, with U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley sounding much like her hawkish predecessor Samantha Power, insisting that the United States will not recognize Russia's takeover of Crimea and then, this week, co-sponsoring a resolution in the U.N. Security Council condemning the Assad regime in Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons, a move that provoked angry protests and a veto from Russia's envoy.

Meanwhile, Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Defense Secretary James Mattis carried messages to Europe reaffirming the U.S. commitment to NATO allies and blaming Russia for the failure of the Minsk Accords to resolve the crisis in Ukraine (although a major obstacle was created by the Ukrainian government when it insisted that ethnic Russian rebels in the Donbass region effectively surrender before other steps would be taken). The U.S. statements could have been delivered by neoconservative and liberal-interventionist diplomats from the past several U.S. administrations.

Only the last five minutes of Trump's address to Congress dealt with foreign relations. And his own words were consonant with what his cabinet officers had been saying. Trump's campaign opinions about NATO's obsolescence had disappeared. Russia was not mentioned by name once in the speech, while America's allies in NATO and in the Pacific were reassured that "America is ready to lead." That statement was a rare instance when the entire congressional audience rose to its feet in applause.

Back on His Words

Those who had feared that Trump's populism and "America First" rhetoric spelled isolationism were reassured that "Our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world."

In fact, in the entire speech, there were only a few lines toward the end that might give heart to those who hoped that Trump might pursue a dramatically new foreign policy that drew back from America's vast network of military bases and the tendency to intervene in other countries' affairs.

Though sounding not unlike boiler-plate language that Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama might have used, those words did contain the possible seeds of a less warlike strategy. Trump said: "America is willing to find new friends and to forge new partnerships where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict. America is friends today with former enemies. We want peace, wherever peace can be found. America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies decades ago fought on the opposite side of these terrible, terrible wars."

Depending on the strength of one's powers of self-delusion, those last words might be construed as a hint: just wait, allow me to get my footing and establish my popularity in Congress and in the broad public and I will come back and deliver on my détente aspirations.

But it is an inescapable reality that the firing of Flynn and Trump's retreat from his foreign policy intentions were precipitated by the powerful collusion between the intelligence services, particularly the CIA, and the mainstream media with a clear intent to either neuter Trump by forcing a policy reversal on Russia détente or remove him through some form of impeachment. The phoniness of the McCarthyite charges of Russian connections used to smear Trump and his entourage has been well explained in recent articles by Professor Stephen Cohen in The Nation and by Gareth Porter at Consortiumnews.com.

Those with a more conspiratorial turn of mind have long spoken of the Deep State, which ensures continuity of policy whatever the results of U.S. elections with this subterranean power residing largely in the intelligence services, especially the CIA and FBI, in the Pentagon, and in the State Department.

State is said to have been purged in its policy-making "seventh floor" during the week of Secretary Tillerson's European travels. But the text that was placed before the inexperienced Ambassador Haley for delivery in the Security Council shows that not all the old actors have been sent packing. Any purge of the CIA and Pentagon has not even begun.

The ability of neocons and hardliners at the Pentagon to sabotage presidential policy was demonstrated last September when a promising collaboration between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov over a cease-fire in Syria was torn to shreds by an "accidental" attack by U.S. and Allied fighter jets on a Syrian government outpost at Deir ez-Zor that killed nearly 100 Syrian soldiers.

If these recalcitrant Cold Warriors in America's "power ministries" remain untouched, they will be in a position to create provocations at any time of their choosing to override Trump's planned détente policies. To do so would be child's play, given the close proximity of U.S. and Russian forces in Ukraine, in Syria, in the Baltic States, on the Baltic Sea and on the Black Sea.

Given the poor state of relations and the minimal trust between Russia and the U.S.-led West, any accident in these areas could quickly escalate. And then we might see the side of Donald Trump's personality that his Democratic opponents warned us about, his short temper and alpha-male nature which could bring us into an armed clash the outcome of which is unforeseeable but surely not good.

There is another troubling issue for those who hoped Trump would rein in military spending to finance his promised domestic infrastructure investments. Instead, Trump has focused on expanding military spending even more, financed by cuts in domestic spending. There has not been a word to suggest he is considering restructuring the $600 billion military appropriations, for example by cutting the military bases abroad, which are configured to support precisely the global hegemony and American imperialism that he has denounced.

What is at issue is not only the tens of billions of dollars in savings that would come from slashing this overseas base structure but also removing an American presence from countries where it only serves to foster anti-Americanism and to embroil us either in defending hated regimes or intervening in regional conflicts where we have no vital interests.

Without restructuring and reducing the gargantuan network of foreign military bases, the U.S. will be condemned to a never-ending succession of wars abroad and the entire plan of investment in America is doomed to failure. These are not issues that allow for tactical retreats but rather must be addressed head-on. But who will explain this to a headstrong President with the fawning applause of Congress ringing in his ears?

Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015.

[David Guyatt]

How many times since the end of WW2 have caucasian folks warred with other caucasian folks?

Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and the eastern Ukraine.

That's it.

Wars are mostly fought with non-caucasian proxies.

The caucasian race is not going to cede already-shaky global hegemony with a hot war between the two largest caucasian-dominant nations.

White nationalism is the cornerstone of President Steve Bannon's ideology.

Operation Able Archer reveals things in a far different light to your optimism about human nature. Shit happens when Jack jumps out of the box. If the US and the West continue pumping up the Collective Shadow with their endless projections anything is possible.

[Cliff Varnell]

How many times since the end of WW2 have caucasian folks warred with other caucasian folks?

Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and the eastern Ukraine.

That's it.

Wars are mostly fought with non-caucasian proxies.

The caucasian race is not going to cede already-shaky global hegemony with a hot war between the two largest caucasian-dominant nations.

White nationalism is the cornerstone of President Steve Bannon's ideology.

Operation Able Archer reveals things in a far different light to your optimism about human nature. Shit happens when Jack jumps out of the box. If the US and the West continue pumping up the Collective Shadow with their endless projections anything is possible.

Point taken, but note there was no policy of first-strike nuclear attack on either side.

Face it, Russia doesn't have anything the US is going to go to hot war with them over.

Syria? Ukraine? The USA goes to war over two commodities -- oil and heroin -- and last I looked neither Syria nor the Ukraine were major players.

I find the entire subject of Russia over-rated.

Once Obama and Putin negotiated the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Syria and Iran the chances of a wider war diminished significantly.

The hacks of Podesta/DNC would have amounted to a footnote IF the GOP hadn't disenfranchised millions of Democratic voters, or IF James Comey hadn't interfered in the 2016 election.

I grit my teeth every time some clown says -- "We can't let the Russians interfere in our elections ever again!"

How about not letting the Republican Party interfere in our universal ballot access ever again?

[David Guyatt]

How many times since the end of WW2 have caucasian folks warred with other caucasian folks?

Northern Ireland, the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, and the eastern Ukraine.

That's it.

Wars are mostly fought with non-caucasian proxies.

The caucasian race is not going to cede already-shaky global hegemony with a hot war between the two largest caucasian-dominant nations.

White nationalism is the cornerstone of President Steve Bannon's ideology.

Operation Able Archer reveals things in a far different light to your optimism about human nature. Shit happens when Jack jumps out of the box. If the US and the West continue pumping up the Collective Shadow with their endless projections anything is possible.

Point taken, but note there was no policy of first-strike nuclear attack on either side.

Face it, Russia doesn't have anything the US is going to go to hot war with them over.

Syria? Ukraine? The USA goes to war over two commodities -- oil and heroin -- and last I looked neither Syria nor the Ukraine were major players.

I find the entire subject of Russia over-rated.

Once Obama and Putin negotiated the removal of weapons of mass destruction from Syria and Iran the chances of a wider war diminished significantly.

The hacks of Podesta/DNC would have amounted to a footnote IF the GOP hadn't disenfranchised millions of Democratic voters, or IF James Comey hadn't interfered in the 2016 election.

I grit my teeth every time some clown says -- "We can't let the Russians interfere in our elections ever again!"

How about not letting the Republican Party interfere in our universal ballot access ever again?

On the face of it I agree that there should be no abiding or sensible reason for war between Russian and the US. But we're dealing here with zealots and crazed ideologues in positions of power - who are in the grip of their own bloated psychological shadow. Common sense and logic flee in the face of such psychic contamination.

I think you'll find that the US have repeatedly craved for a nuclear first strike capability. The Obama administration worked towards that as revealed in an article in the Strategic Study Quarterly, dated 1st March 2013 by Keir A Leiber and Daryl G Press (HERE, HERE and HERE). Then we have the plan presented to JFK by General Lemnitzer at a National Security Council meeting in July 1961, for a surprise US first nuclear strike against the Soviet Union (HERE). JFK had the good sense to turn it down.

Besides this I know for a fact, for I was shown a document in the mid 1990's gained under the FOIA request, which revealed the US had a plan to initiate a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union using a flying saucer "flap" as cover. It sounds crazy, I know, but it's true.

I learned from a Russian a couple of years ago that the Soviet Union had a plan to target the super volcano at Yellowstone National Park and also the San Andreas fault with repeated strikes until catastrophe occurred (Googlish translation HERE).

So what were talking about are crazies who regard a nuclear first strike as a real military option and who regard the millions who perish in a nuclear weapons exchange a reasonable cost to pay for "victory".

From what I have read of the Putin overture to Obama about the chemical weapons in Syria, it was touch and go and a full scale war in Syria by the US and NATO against Russia was averted by a day, and that Obama hasn't been forgiven by the neocons for buckling on that.

In other words our recent history is littered with examples where major war was sought by powerful people in important positions, but fortunately not proceeded with due to common decency and humanity. There is no guarantee that human decency will always prevail and we have to continuously be on guard against the crazies taking over the asylum.

Personally I view the Republican Party with the same degree of disgust that I view the Democratic Party. Both are, imo, traitors to the people. I would give neither the time of day. What Americans should be working for it to get rid of both and escape from this left-right false political dichotomy that is cynically used by the elite to control and direct gullible people's thought processes.

Just my tuppence worth...

[Paul Rigby]

"Mark Levin to Congress: Investigate Obama's Silent Coup' vs. Trump"

By Joel B. Pollak

3 March 2017

Breitbart News

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ine-trump/

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama's administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump's presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama's effort "police state" tactics, and suggested that Obama's actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton's own missing emails, joking: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing." That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence "dossier" compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration "expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government's 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections." The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the existence of "a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government," though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn then a private citizen and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama's newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites "four current and former American officials" in reporting that the Trump campaign had "repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims and the Times admits that there is "no evidence" of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions's Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions's testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the "dossier" of ongoing contacts.

The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House "rushed to preserve" intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By "preserve" it really means "disseminate": officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies "to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators" and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.
Levin called the effort a "silent coup" by the Obama administration and demanded that it be investigated.

In addition, Levin castigated Republicans in Congress for focusing their attention on Trump and Attorney General Sessions rather than Obama.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the "most influential" people in news media in 2016. His new book, "How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution," is available from Regnery ...

[Paul Rigby]

Trump wiretap is the REAL scandal of the US election, bogus Russia story is the real cover-up

The claim Russia interfered in the election was the cover story to conceal the Obama House/Deep State surveillance of the Trump campaign

By Alexander Mercouris

http://theduran.com/trump-wiretap-true-scandal/

Back on 10th October 2016, shortly after the US intelligence community published its first claim that Russia was trying to interfere in the US election, I wrote an article for The Duran in which I pointed out that the true story was that for the first time in its history the US intelligence community was interfering in a US election in order to swing the election behind its favoured candidate Hillary Clinton and that the practices the US intelligence community had honed to interfere in elections in other countries were now being imported to the US.

In an article for The Duran on 31st October 2016 just a week before the election I said that Hillary Clinton and her supporters had a planted a bomb under US democracy by orchestrating a campaign claiming that her opponent Donald Trump was the favoured candidate of Russia, and that the result would be that if Donald Trump were elected his legitimacy as President would be challenged.

In a further article for The Duran on 10th December 2016, in the fraught run up to the inauguration and whilst the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign were actively lobbying electors on the Electoral College to disregard the results of the election and to vote against Donald Trump, I said that the CIA and the US intelligence community by playing up the paranoia against Russia were engaging in what amounted to a coup against the country's constitutionally elected President. The word coup' is now also being used by people like Mark Levin to describe what has been happening.

What we now learn is that the Obama administration, of which Hillary Clinton was once a part, used the US's federal security and intelligence agencies during the election to spy on Hillary Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, and on his campaign. They did so despite the fact that no evidence existed or has ever come to light of any wrongdoing by Donald Trump or by anyone else working on his behalf or for his campaign such as would normally justify surveillance.

This is the true scandal of the US Presidential election of 2016. By contrast the various claims of Russian interference in the election are unproven and threadbare and almost certainly wrong, whilst the claims of illicit contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia are undoubtedly false and wrong.

Donald Trump is comparing this scandal to Watergate. On any objective assessment it is far worse than Watergate. The reason Richard Nixon had to set up his own amateur intelligence agency within the White House to carry out his dirty tricks' the so-called "White House plumbers" was because the federal security and intelligence agencies the CIA and FBI refused to do his bidding by acting against his political opponents. By contrast on this occasion these same federal security and intelligence agencies have actively colluded in taking action against Donald Trump the Obama administration's and Hillary Clinton's electoral opponent by carrying out surveillance upon him and his associates though there has never been any evidence that either he or they did anything wrong. That is something which ought to cause serious concern to people, though so far with the exception of a small number of people it does not appear to be doing so.

Nor did Nixon try to provide legal and political cover for his various activities by orchestrating a bogus campaign that his opponents were somehow allied to Russia or to some other foreign power (eg. China or North Vietnam). By contrast not only did the Obama White House, the Hillary Clinton campaign and certain officials within the US intelligence community do precisely that, but the smoke they have created around this bogus issue in order to conceal and justify their activities continues to confuse many people, and will no doubt go on doing so.

To be clear, just as the wiretapping of Donald Trump's phone and of the Trump campaign are the real scandal of the US election of 2016, so the bogus Russia story is the real cover-up.

To say all this does not unfortunately mean that this scandal is going to play out the way it should, or that people will see it for what it really is.

Many powerful people in the US political system, including in the US's Deep State, in the media and in Congress, are deeply implicated in this scandal, and they will fight tooth and nail any attempt to hold them to account, continuing to use the bogus Russia cover story to justify and protect themselves, as they have been doing successfully up to now.

Beyond that there are a great many people who have bought into the Russia story bogus though it is falling for the entirely wrong and repeatedly discredited psuedo-principle that there cannot be smoke without fire (there not only can be; there usually is).

Lastly, the paranoia about Russia in the US and in western Europe is now so great that it is easy to dupe many people by conjuring it.

Nonetheless, though it is far from sure that many people will be able to see the true scandal through all the smoke, the proof of the real scandal of the Presidential election of 2016 is now finally out there. It remains to be seen whether the highly corrupt and deeply compromised US political system retains sufficient vitality and integrity to investigate it.

[Paul Rigby]

Fact: Establishment Dems Are So Awful They've Made The GOP The Default Anti-War Party

Caitlin Johnstone

5 March 2017

http://www.newslogue.com/debate/377

We are now a month and a half into an administration we were told over and over again with increasing urgency would kill us all immediately if we didn't elect Hillary Rodham Clinton. By now we were supposed to have invaded Iran and China and goose-stepped our way to a fascist state of internment camps for Muslims and political dissidents, if Trump didn't start a nuclear war in a fit of egoic impulsiveness first. Instead we're seeing an administration that is so fascist and totalitarian that all the top comments on every single one of the President's tweets are pure vitriolic mockery with no fear of reprisal, and we're being told over and over again that the Commander-in-Chief wants nothing but peace. This is the dystopian nightmare we've received for our insolent refusal to elect Hillary.

Remember Hillary? I like reminding Democrats about Hillary. Hillary was the lady who spent an unprecedented 1.2 billion dollars from corporate mega donors campaigning on a promise to shoot down Russian military planes over Syria and provide "military responses" to the (still completely unproven) Russian email hacks. She campaigned on these horrifying promises after an extensive career of pushing for disastrous military intervention after disastrous military intervention seemingly at every opportunity, from the evil and unforgivable Iraq invasion to the collapse of Libya (remember when she laughed maniacally about Gaddafi's horrific death?) to a coup in Honduras to install a regime that murders indigenous rights activists. This exemplar of human progress was the crème de la crème the Democratic establishment chose to force through their pretend primaries to head the most powerful military force on planet Earth.

This is not an endorsement of the GOP. This is a condemnation of the Democratic establishment. I see Democrats everywhere making melodramatic arm-waving outbursts over Trump's increase in military spending (a standard Republican policy that every Republican presidential candidate needs to commit to in order to get elected) as though they didn't just try to elect a woman who was campaigning on a promise to start World War 3. Wanna talk about Hillary some more? I do. The front-runner for her pick as Secretary of Defense just published an op-ed in the Washington Post (yes, that Washington Post) arguing that Trump is right to push for such an increase and explaining how to do so wisely. After eight years of Obama's bombings and regime change interventionism Democrats finally remember how to pretend they're anti-war again, and they're shrieking about something their own would-be defense secretary wanted.

I hate establishment liberals. I hate their hypocrisy and their virtue-signaling vanity politics. I hate the pathetic weakness that keeps them from hauling themselves out of the tar pit of cognitive dissonance and facing the reality of what the Democratic party is and what it's been doing to the American people and the world. I hate their phoniness. I probably hate them a lot more than most Trumpsters hate them, because I'm more familiar with what they're made of and what makes them tick. These were my buddies up until recently, you see. These are the people who don't talk to me anymore because I speak out against heroes of theirs like Hillary Clinton. I know they purport to want an end to America's nonstop military executions of innocent people around the world for corporatist interests. I also know they're lying. They will pretend to care about America's despicable, bloodthirsty foreign policy until the second they get one of their own back in the White House, and then anti-war Democrats will disappear from the face of the earth once more, after doing literally nothing to fix anything whatsoever.

Lately I've been writing about the way the Democratic establishment appears to be collaborating with the neocons and the deep state to push for a war with Russia. I personally have yet to be met with any substantial fact-based rebuttals to my position in my internet adventures, but I have been receiving a number of empty "that's stupid", "you're nuts", and "LOL YOU THINK THE REPUBLICANS ARE ANY BETTER LOLOLOL"-type comments on social media. Democratic party loyalists don't seem to realize that outside of the liberal echo chamber, they are now seen as the party of war. Except for the very few vestigial neocons lingering from the Bush administration, the low bar of their foreign policy is still vastly superior to that of the corporate Dems. If you think that Trump wanting a strong military or Steve Bannon's record of saying weird things changes this, you are wrong.

This is not to say that there isn't an entire universe's worth of room for improvement upon Republican foreign policy. Even if no Republican ever leads another invasion of another sovereign nation ever again, right at this very moment the US government is still wasting an unforgivable amount of its people's resources extending its military might around the globe to manipulate world affairs and ensure the survival of the fossil fuel industry we need to start moving away from yesterday anyway. A sane non-interventionist foreign policy would end terrorism and free up such an immense amount of resources it would give the American people the ability to create a new kind of economy that isn't propped up at the barrel of a gun, one where they make things and take care of each other and collaborate toward making something beautiful instead of being slowly choked to death for the profit of a few sociopathic plutocrats.

Progressives can lead the charge to turn this vision into a reality. But we'll have to get these warmongering corporate Democrats out of the way first.

[Dawn Meredith]

Trump wiretap is the REAL scandal of the US election, bogus Russia story is the real cover-up

The claim Russia interfered in the election was the cover story to conceal the Obama House/Deep State surveillance of the Trump campaign

By Alexander Mercouris

http://theduran.com/trump-wiretap-true-scandal/

Back on 10th October 2016, shortly after the US intelligence community published its first claim that Russia was trying to interfere in the US election, I wrote an article for The Duran in which I pointed out that the true story was that for the first time in its history the US intelligence community was interfering in a US election in order to swing the election behind its favoured candidate Hillary Clinton and that the practices the US intelligence community had honed to interfere in elections in other countries were now being imported to the US.

In an article for The Duran on 31st October 2016 just a week before the election I said that Hillary Clinton and her supporters had a planted a bomb under US democracy by orchestrating a campaign claiming that her opponent Donald Trump was the favoured candidate of Russia, and that the result would be that if Donald Trump were elected his legitimacy as President would be challenged.

In a further article for The Duran on 10th December 2016, in the fraught run up to the inauguration and whilst the Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign were actively lobbying electors on the Electoral College to disregard the results of the election and to vote against Donald Trump, I said that the CIA and the US intelligence community by playing up the paranoia against Russia were engaging in what amounted to a coup against the country's constitutionally elected President. The word coup' is now also being used by people like Mark Levin to describe what has been happening.

What we now learn is that the Obama administration, of which Hillary Clinton was once a part, used the US's federal security and intelligence agencies during the election to spy on Hillary Clinton's opponent, Donald Trump, and on his campaign. They did so despite the fact that no evidence existed or has ever come to light of any wrongdoing by Donald Trump or by anyone else working on his behalf or for his campaign such as would normally justify surveillance.

This is the true scandal of the US Presidential election of 2016. By contrast the various claims of Russian interference in the election are unproven and threadbare and almost certainly wrong, whilst the claims of illicit contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia are undoubtedly false and wrong.

Donald Trump is comparing this scandal to Watergate. On any objective assessment it is far worse than Watergate. The reason Richard Nixon had to set up his own amateur intelligence agency within the White House to carry out his dirty tricks' the so-called "White House plumbers" was because the federal security and intelligence agencies the CIA and FBI refused to do his bidding by acting against his political opponents. By contrast on this occasion these same federal security and intelligence agencies have actively colluded in taking action against Donald Trump the Obama administration's and Hillary Clinton's electoral opponent by carrying out surveillance upon him and his associates though there has never been any evidence that either he or they did anything wrong. That is something which ought to cause serious concern to people, though so far with the exception of a small number of people it does not appear to be doing so.

Nor did Nixon try to provide legal and political cover for his various activities by orchestrating a bogus campaign that his opponents were somehow allied to Russia or to some other foreign power (eg. China or North Vietnam). By contrast not only did the Obama White House, the Hillary Clinton campaign and certain officials within the US intelligence community do precisely that, but the smoke they have created around this bogus issue in order to conceal and justify their activities continues to confuse many people, and will no doubt go on doing so.

To be clear, just as the wiretapping of Donald Trump's phone and of the Trump campaign are the real scandal of the US election of 2016, so the bogus Russia story is the real cover-up.

To say all this does not unfortunately mean that this scandal is going to play out the way it should, or that people will see it for what it really is.

Many powerful people in the US political system, including in the US's Deep State, in the media and in Congress, are deeply implicated in this scandal, and they will fight tooth and nail any attempt to hold them to account, continuing to use the bogus Russia cover story to justify and protect themselves, as they have been doing successfully up to now.

Beyond that there are a great many people who have bought into the Russia story bogus though it is falling for the entirely wrong and repeatedly discredited psuedo-principle that there cannot be smoke without fire (there not only can be; there usually is).

Lastly, the paranoia about Russia in the US and in western Europe is now so great that it is easy to dupe many people by conjuring it.

Nonetheless, though it is far from sure that many people will be able to see the true scandal through all the smoke, the proof of the real scandal of the Presidential election of 2016 is now finally out there. It remains to be seen whether the highly corrupt and deeply compromised US political system retains sufficient vitality and integrity to investigate it.

Very important article. But you will not hear this on MSM. They will just continue to say Trump has no evidence.