Czechoslovakia secret police file on Ivana says Trump felt he could win presidency in 1996
Except it is hardy a secret. Trump has been all over the media for decades being interviewed about the possibility of running for president. I remember seeing him on Oprah, iirc, years and years ago.
The real fallacy of the argument/story is that this happened 30 years ago, when the fawning, vodka-laced, US backed plunderer, Boris Yeltsin, was in placed in power by G H W Bush.
At that time the KGB and Russian military were selling every weapon and every secret file they could to the US and others --- and US intelligence had additionally also paid Yeltsin to allow American intelligence operatives go through the secret KGB archives and filet/remove those files that might've proved embarrassing to the US and NATO.
For me, this story is yet another in the growing muck pile that we've seen to date --- the Russians hacked the DNC email; the Russians hacked the US electric grid; the Russians supplied an MI6 operative with lurid and scandalous stories about Trump's alleged sexual proclivities. None of these fake news stories are backed by a shred of evidence.
It's all sheer journalistic flummery that is readily bought into by the wilful blind, the intellectually gullible and those who prefer scandal to facts because it suits their agenda.
I know that to be true about the US being the Kremlin archives. Heard it from an eye witness, impeccable credentials, who was there and saw it happening. Was astonished to say the least.
David, you forgot the story about the Russian submarine in Swedish waters and the leaking of the final episode of the BBC 'Sherlock'...
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Czechoslovakia secret police file on Ivana says Trump felt he could win presidency in 1996
Except it is hardy a secret. Trump has been all over the media for decades being interviewed about the possibility of running for president. I remember seeing him on Oprah, iirc, years and years ago.
The real fallacy of the argument/story is that this happened 30 years ago, when the fawning, vodka-laced, US backed plunderer, Boris Yeltsin, was in placed in power by G H W Bush.
At that time the KGB and Russian military were selling every weapon and every secret file they could to the US and others --- and US intelligence had additionally also paid Yeltsin to allow American intelligence operatives go through the secret KGB archives and filet/remove those files that might've proved embarrassing to the US and NATO.
For me, this story is yet another in the growing muck pile that we've seen to date --- the Russians hacked the DNC email; the Russians hacked the US electric grid; the Russians supplied an MI6 operative with lurid and scandalous stories about Trump's alleged sexual proclivities. None of these fake news stories are backed by a shred of evidence.
It's all sheer journalistic flummery that is readily bought into by the wilful blind, the intellectually gullible and those who prefer scandal to facts because it suits their agenda.
I know that to be true about the US being the Kremlin archives. Heard it from an eye witness, impeccable credentials, who was there and saw it happening. Was astonished to say the least.
David, you forgot the story about the Russian submarine in Swedish waters and the leaking of the final episode of the BBC 'Sherlock'...
Oh woe is me! ::facepalm::
Imagine the nassy ol' Golum-cum-Putin hacking the final episode of Sherlock! What a tragedy!
Or, as some more cruel might observe, that last series, and especially the last episode, was hardly understandable by any who watched it and howls of rage from loyal viewers are now doing the rounds.
This has led to the ratings of what was hitherto an outright BBC triumph plummet overnight.
What could be better for the BBC management and director and writer of the series than to leap at the opportunity to get in on the act and deflect news attention away from their collective cock-ups that just might've destroyed one of the few remaining Golden Goose's (now that competing channels have acquired both the other two principal BBC money-spinners, The Great British Bake Off and The Voice).
It looks to me like the new neoliberal mob that now runs the Beeb has been ideologically anxious the head-chop the Corporation. ::fury:: I wonder if they have promised sinecures at Murdoch's Sky TV for rendering such magnificent service to their competitors?
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
David Guyatt Wrote:It looks to me like the new neoliberal mob that now runs the Beeb has been ideologically anxious the head-chop the Corporation. ::fury:: I wonder if they have promised sinecures at Murdoch's Sky TV for rendering such magnificent service to their competitors?
The same thing is happening to our Aunty. Murdoch puppets on the board and in management every where with the same resulting deterioration in quality.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Czechoslovakia secret police file on Ivana says Trump felt he could win presidency in 1996
Except it is hardy a secret. Trump has been all over the media for decades being interviewed about the possibility of running for president. I remember seeing him on Oprah, iirc, years and years ago.
That's right, Magda, but maybe you haven't noticed Putin and his apologists complaining that they would have no reason to compile dirt on Trump:
QUOTE: [FONT=&]Putin said it was absurd to think Russian special services would be interested in Trump given that at the time he was not involved in politics. "When Trump came to Moscow he was not a political figure, he was just a businessman, one of the rich people of America. Do they think our special services follow every American billionaire?"[/FONT]
Tracy Riddle Wrote:Let's follow the logic here. Because the CIA has lied in the past (usually via the Operations wing, not the Analysis wing - remember they had to create Team B because the regular analysts weren't hawkish enough about the USSR's military spending), that must mean they lie about everything all the time.
But we also know that Trump lies almost daily (hourly sometimes), and Russian officials have assured us that they have never engaged in the collection of compromising material. No sir, not us!
"Without a doubt, we gather kompromat. . . . In the Kremlin, there's piles of it, as there are in all the security agencies," said Gennady Gudkov, also a former legislator who was forced out of parliament for his opposition to Putin. "As a rule, the special services collect information on everyone, like a vacuum, picking up anything and everything."
But, but, Western intelligence agencies do it too! And so therefore, we must shut off our minds and stubbornly sit in our ideological sandboxes and play with our hobby horses.
Yes, of course the West has been trying to encircle Russia with NATO forces for 20+ years. And if you were Vladimir Putin, how would you respond to that? How would you respond to Hillary's accusations that your party rigged Russian elections in 2011? It's not rocket surgery, people! You would try to do everything you could to defeat her and place a more pro-Russian candidate in power, plus have your trolls feeding fake news stories to idiot Americans' social media. I'd be amazed if Putin didn't respond that way. It's a much more cost-effective way to combat the US than using military power.
Given the known quality of the numerous and highly respected independent journalists who have reported on how the IC have tried to smear Trump with false Russian hacking stories and/or gone to war against him using the fabricated MI6 report --- many of them have their articles present in this thread: Chris Hedges, Robert Parry, Glen Greenwald, Patrick Cockburn, Peter Hitchins and Peter Oborne amongst them, and given that the nature of the reporting some are relying on - the now thoroughly discredited partisan group-think NYT's and WaPo for example - then it is exceedingly evident that some of us have shut of their minds and are stubbornly sitting in their ideological sandboxes.
Allow me also to add to the foregoing partial list almost every single intelligence whistleblower I can think of-- Annie Machon's article above being typical I should say.
Altogether it is an array of independent free-thinkers versus the established media and the existing order. So far as I can tell not one of them like or wanted Trump - but they recognise he won the election, and they all also recognise that the US neocon faction (both Democrats and Republicans) want rid of him at any cost, including all the usual intelligence community bag of dirty tricks.
I think for myself, David. I've read these articles, and so far I haven't been overly impressed with their arguments. The basic problem is, you've got a guy (Trump) who is so far up Putin's ass, you'd have to be blind not to see it. But apparently a lot of very smart people are not able or willing to see it.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe all those smart people are seeing it but you're not, Tracy.
Then, by all means, explain it to this simpleton, David. I haven't heard any real analysis from you - only references to other peoples' articles. I've repeatedly asked people on this forum for some independent thinking and discussion about this subject, but all I get is shallow analysis and "CIA lies! Media lies! USA lies! Julian Assange said it was a leak!" That's it. Very disappointing.
Tracy Riddle Wrote:I think for myself, David. I've read these articles, and so far I haven't been overly impressed with their arguments. The basic problem is, you've got a guy (Trump) who is so far up Putin's ass, you'd have to be blind not to see it. But apparently a lot of very smart people are not able or willing to see it.
Tracey what do you find unimpressive about their arguments? And so what if Trump has a hard on for Vlad? Alpha male to alpha male respect. How does that prove Russian hacking? There just i no evidence that has been presented that there has been any hacking by any one.
Magda, I've expressed my problems with their arguments in many of the previous posts in this thread. I'm not going to keep repeating them over and over.
I'm especially dismayed at how many of the alt-media/conspiracy crowd have decided to cast their lot with Trump because they think he's fighting the deep state. A better plot couldn't be found in a comic book. ::rofl::
Quote:When I read Trump's defenders, such as Daniel Lazare, having to balance their defense with denunciations of Trump, I think the CIA's propaganda is working. In his article, Lazare asks the rhetorical question, "Is a military coup in the works?" He then goes on to describe the CIA and presstitute coup against Trump unfolding before our eyes. https://consortiumnews.com/2017/01/14/th...own-trump/
Having described the unprecedented frame-up of the president-elect of the United States by the CIA and the Western media, Lazare has to square himself with those doing the frame-up:
"This is not to say that the so-called President-elect's legitimacy is not open to question. . . . Trump is a rightwing blowhard whose absurd babblings about Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen reveal a man who is dangerously ignorant about how the world works."
Note that Lazare goes beyond the CIA and the presstitutes by elevating Trump from someone not sufficiently suspicious of Vladimir Putin to "dangerously ignorant." I suppose Lazare means dangerously ignorant like Bill and Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. If this is what Lazare means, why is Trump any less qualified to be president than his three most recent predecessors and his opponent in the election?
Of course, Lazare has no idea what he means. He is simply afraid he will be called a "Trump deplorable," and he stuck in some denuciatory words to ward off his dismissal as just another Russian agent.
At other times I conclude that the CIA is discrediting itself with its fierce and transparently false attack on the president elect. The attack on Trump from the CIA and its media agents at the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, the network TV channels, the BBC, the Guardian, and every other Western print and TV source with the exception of Fox News, is based on no evidence whatsoever. None of the US 16 intelligence agencies can produce a tiny scrap of evidence. The evidence consists of nothing but constant repetitions of blatant lies fed into the presstitute media by the CIA .
We have witnessed this so many times before: "Tonkin Gulf," "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction," "Iranian nukes," "Assad's use of chemical weapons," "Russian invasion of Ukraine."
General Smedley Butler, the most decorated Marine in the history of the US military said that he and the US Marines spent their lives defending the interests of the United Fruit Company and some lousy investment of the banks in Latin America. That's all the attack on Trump is about. Trump is saying that "America first" doesn't mean a license for America to rape and plunder other countries.
Normalized relations with Russia removes the orchestrated "Russian threat" justification for the $1,000 billion taxpayer dollars taken annually from ordinary Americans and given to the military/security complex via the federal budget.
Trump's question about the relevance of NATO 25 years after the collapse of NATO's purposethe Soviet Unionthreatens the power and position not only of the US military/security complex but also of Washington's European vassals who live high in money and prestige as Washington's servants. All European governments consist of Washington's vassals. They are accustomed to supporting Washington's foreign policy, not having had a policy of their own since World War II.
Trump is taking on a policy world long under the influence of the CIA. Little wonder WikiLeaks' Julian Assange and a number of other clued-in people say that the CIA will assassinate Trump if he cannot be brought into line with a Western alliance organized for the power and profit of the few.
So what is Trump to do?
There are various alternatives. Trump could fire CIA director John Brennan, have the Attorney General indict him for treason, have the FBI locate all participants in the intelligence agencies and presstitute media who aided and abetted the attempted frame-up of the president-elect of the United States and put them all on trial. This would be the best and surest way for Trump to clean out the snakepit that is Washington, D.C. To call a snakepit a "swamp" is to use an euphemism.
Another alternative is for Trump to make the obvious point that despite the allegations of the CIA and the presstitutes, any hacking that occurred was not the fault of Trump and Russia, but the fault of the US intelligence agencies who were too incompetent to prevent it. Trump's trump question to the CIA, NSA, FBI is: So, you know the Russians hacked us and you did not prevent it? If you repeat your incompetence, I am going to fire everyone of you incompetents.
The same goes for terror attacks. Trump should ask the intelligence agencies: "How were you so totally incompetent that a handful of Saudi Arabians who could not fly airplanes brought down three WTC skyscrappers and desroyed part of the Pentagon, humiliating the world's sole super-power in the eyes of the world?"
Trump should make the point that the huge amount of money spent on security does not produce security. The massive security budget cannot prevent hacking of an American election and it cannot prevent humiliating attacks on the SuperPower by a handful of Saudi Arabians operating independently of any intelligence service.
Trump should raise the obvious question: Has the Saudi's oil trillions purchased the CIA and the presstitutes so that the CIA and the corrupt Western media now serve foreign interests against the United States? The story is being established that the Saudis are responsible or 9/11 and nothing is done about it. Instead the Saudis are supplied with more weapons with which to murder women and children in Yemen.
All of the CIA's propaganda can be turned against the agency. 9/11 was due to CIA failure, and to nothing else. Putin's theft of the US presidential election was due to CIA failure, and to nothing else. All the bombings in France, UK, and Germany are due to intelligence failings, and to nothing else, as is the Boston Marathon bombing and every other alleged "terror event."
I mean, really, the CIA is a sitting duck for Trump. He has every reason to abolish the agency that has traditionally operated in behalf of narrow interests. In his book, The Brothers, Stephen Kinzer documents the use of the CIA and State Department in behalf of the clients of the Dulles brothers' law firm's clients. The CIA serves no American purpose, only the private purposes of the ruling elites, who are the real deplorables who have used corrupt Western governments to solidify all income and wealth in a few greedy hands.
There is no reason for Trump to tolerate spurious charges against him by the CIA. At best the CIA is incompetent. At worst the agency is complicit in, or organizer of, terrorist events.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Tracy Riddle Wrote:I think for myself, David. I've read these articles, and so far I haven't been overly impressed with their arguments. The basic problem is, you've got a guy (Trump) who is so far up Putin's ass, you'd have to be blind not to see it. But apparently a lot of very smart people are not able or willing to see it.
Tracey what do you find unimpressive about their arguments? And so what if Trump has a hard on for Vlad? Alpha male to alpha male respect. How does that prove Russian hacking? There just i no evidence that has been presented that there has been any hacking by any one.
Magda, I've expressed my problems with their arguments in many of the previous posts in this thread. I'm not going to keep repeating them over and over.
I'm especially dismayed at how many of the alt-media/conspiracy crowd have decided to cast their lot with Trump because they think he's fighting the deep state. A better plot couldn't be found in a comic book. ::rofl::
Don't confuse lack of enthusiasm for neoliberal empire of chaos as support for Trump. I don't even think Vlad is a Trump supporter though I expect he will find him slightly more palatable change than Clinton and Kagan and co. And speaking of comic book plots why the Big Reds Under the Beds Scare for the incompetence of the DNC and poor basic security practices of Podesta and others? There is just not any evidence of Russian hacking any way you look at it. I don't know how any one can take the 'evidence ' offered by the CIA etc seriously. The real security industry certainly doesn't. The only alt-media/conspiracy crowd I am seeing is old media running their trusty old red scare conspiracy.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx
"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.
“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Quote:Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State.
Suddenly everybody is referring to the Deep State, typically without offering much of a definition.
The general definition is the unelected government that continues making and implementing policy regardless of who is in elected office.
I have been writing about this structure for 10 years and studying it from the outside for 40 years. Back in 2007, I called it the Elite Maintaining and Extending Global Dominance, which is a more concise description of the structure than Deep State. Going to War with the Political Elite You Have (May 14, 2007).
I've used this simplified chart to explain the basic structure of the Deep State, which is the complex network of state-funded and/or controlled institutions, agencies, foundations, university research projects, media ties, etc.
The key point here is you can't separate these network nodes: you cannot separate DARPA, the national labs (nukes, energy, etc.), the National Science Foundation, DoD (Department of Defense), the National Security State (alphabet soup of intelligence/black budget agencies: CIA, NSA, DIA, etc.), Silicon Valley and the research universities: they are all tied together by funding, information flows, personnel and a thousand other connections.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]8891[/ATTACH]
For the past few years, I have been suggesting there is a profound split in the Deep State that is not just about power or ideology, but about the nature and future of National Security: in other words, what policies and priorities are actually weakening or threatening the long-term security of the United States?
I have proposed that there are progressive elements within the sprawling Deep State that view the dominant neocon-neoliberal agenda of the past 24 years as a disaster for the long-term security of the U.S. and its global interests (a.k.a. the Imperial Project).
There are also elements within the Deep State that view Wall Street's dominance as a threat to America's security and global interests. (This is not to say that American-based banks and corporations aren't essential parts of the Imperial Project; it's more about the question of who is controlling whom.)
So let's dig in by noting that the warmongers in the Deep State are civilians, not military. It's popular among so-called Liberals (the vast majority of whom did not serve nor do they have offspring in uniform--that's fallen to the disenfranchised and the working class) to see the military as a permanent source of warmongering.
(It's remarkably easy to send other people's children off to war, while your own little darlings have cush jobs in Wall Street, foundations, think tanks, academia, government agencies, etc.)
These misguided souls are ignoring that it's civilians who order the military to go into harm's way, not the other way around. The neocons who have waged permanent war as policy are virtually all civilians, few of whom served in the U.S. armed forces and none of whom (to my knowledge) have actual combat experience.
These civilian neocons were busily sacking and/or discrediting critics of their warmongering within the U.S. military all through the Iraqi debacle. now that we got that straightened out--active-duty service personnel have borne the brunt of civilian planned, ordered and executed warmongering--let's move on to the split between the civilian Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the DoD (Department of Defense) intelligence and special ops agencies: DIA, Army Intelligence, Navy Intelligence, etc.
Though we have to be careful not to paint a very large agency with one brush, it's fair to say that the civilian leadership of the CIA (and of its proxies and crony agencies) has long loved to "play army". The CIA has its own drone (a.k.a. Murder, Inc.) division, as well as its own special ops ("play army" Special Forces), and a hawkish mentality that civilians reckon is "play army special forces" (mostly from films, in which the CIA's role is carefully managed by the CIA itself: How the CIA Hoodwinked Hollywood (The Atlantic)
Meanwhile, it's not exactly a secret that when it comes to actual combat operations and warfighting, the CIA's in-theater intelligence is either useless, misleading or false. This is the result of a number of institutional failings of the CIA, number one of which is the high degree of politicization within its ranks and organizational structure.
The CIA's reliance on "analysis" rather than human agents (there's a lot of acronyms for all these, if you find proliferating acronyms of interest), and while some from-30,000-feet analysis can be useful, it's just as often catastrophically wrong.
We can fruitfully revisit the Bay of Pigs disaster, the result of warmongering civilians in the CIA convincing incoming President Kennedy that the planned invasion would free Cuba of Castro's rule in short order. There are many other examples, including the failure to grasp Saddam's willingness to invade Kuwait, given the mixed signals he was receiving from U.S. State Department personnel.
Simply put, if you are actually prosecuting a war, then you turn to the services' own intelligence agencies to help with actual combat operations, not the CIA.This is of course a sort of gossip, and reading between the lines of public information; nobody is going to state this directly in writing.
As I have noted before:
If you want documented evidence of this split in the Deep State--sorry, it doesn't work that way. Nobody in the higher echelons of the Deep State is going to leak anything about the low-intensity war being waged because the one thing everyone agrees on is the Deep State's dirty laundry must be kept private.
As a result, the split is visible only by carefully reading between the lines, by examining who is being placed in positions of control in the Trump Administration, and reading the tea leaves of who is "retiring" (i.e. being fired) or quitting, which agencies are suddenly being reorganized, and the appearance of dissenting views in journals that serve as public conduits for Deep State narratives.
Many so-called Liberals are alarmed by the number of military officers Trump has appointed. Once you realize it's the neocon civilians who have promoted and led one disastrous military intervention (either with U.S. Armed Forces or proxies managed by the CIA) after another, then you understand Trump's appointments appear to be a decisive break from the civilian warmongers who've run the nation into the ground.
If you doubt this analysis, please consider the unprecedentedly politicized (and pathetically childish) comments by outgoing CIA director Brennan against an incoming president. Even if you can't stand Trump, please document another instance in which the CIA director went off on an incoming president-- and this after the CIA spewed a blatant misinformation campaign claiming a hacked Democratic Party email account constituted a successful Russian effort to influence the U.S. election--a surreal absurdity.
Let me translate for you: our chosen Insider lost the election; how dare you!
A number of observers are wondering if the CIA and its Deep State allies and cronies will work out a way to evict Trump from office or perhaps arrange a "lone gunman" or other "accident" to befall him. The roots of such speculations stretch back to Dallas, November 1963, when a "long gunman" with ties to the CIA and various CIA proxies assassinated President Kennedy, an avowed foe of the CIA.
Setting aside the shelfloads of books on the topic, both those defending the "lone gunman" thesis and those contesting it, the unprecedented extremes of institutionally organized and executed anti-Trump campaigns is worthy of our attention.
Given my thesis of a profound disunity in the Deep State, and the emergence of a progressive element hostile to neocons and neoliberalism (including Wall Street), then it's not much of a stretch to speculate that this rogue Deep State opposed to neocon-neoliberalism has Trump's back, as a new administration is pretty much the only hope to rid the nation's top echelons of the neocon-neoliberal policies that have driven the U.S. into the ground.
Rather than being the bad guys, as per the usual Liberal world-view, the Armed Forces may well play a key role in reducing the utterly toxic influence of neocon-neoliberals within the Deep State.
If you have wondered why academics like Paul Krugman and the CIA are on the same page, it's because they are simply facets of the same structure. Krugman is a vocal neoliberal, the CIA is vocally neocon: two sides of the same coin. I invite you to study the chart above with an open mind, and ponder the possibility that the Deep State is not monolithic, but deeply divided along the fault lines of Wall-Street-Neocons-Neoliberals and the progressive elements that rightly view the dominant neocon-neoliberals as a threat to U.S. national security, U.S. global interests and world peace.
We can speculate that some of these progressive elements view Trump with disdain for all the same reasons those outside the Deep State disdain him, but their decision tree is simple: if you want to rid America's Deep State of toxic neocon-neoliberalism before it destroys the nation, you hold your nose and go with Trump because he's the only hope you have.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
Quote:The norms of US capitalist democracy include the election of presidential candidates through competitive elections, unimpeded by force and violence by the permanent institutions of the state. Voter manipulation has occurred during the recent elections, as in the case of the John F. Kennedy victory in 1960 and the George W. Bush victory over Al' Gore in 2000. But despite the dubious electoral outcomes in these cases, the defeated' candidate conceded and sought via legislation, judicial rulings, lobbying and peaceful protests to register their opposition.
These norms are no longer operative. During the election process, and in the run-up to the inauguration of US President-Elect Donald Trump, fundamental electoral institutions were challenged and coercive institutions were activated to disqualify the elected president and desperate overt public pronouncements threatened the entire electoral order.
We will proceed by outlining the process that is used to undermine the constitutional order, including the electoral process and the transition to the inauguration of the elected president.
Regime Change in America
In recent times, elected officials in the US and their state security organizations have often intervened against independent foreign governments, which challenged Washington 's quest for global domination. This was especially true during the eight years of President Barack Obama's administration where the violent ousting of presidents and prime ministers through US-engineered coups were routine under an unofficial doctrine of regime change'.
The violation of constitutional order and electoral norms of other countries has become enshrined in US policy. All US political, administrative and security structures are involved in this process. The policymakers would insist that there was a clear distinction between operating within constitutional norms at home and pursuing violent, illegal regime change operations abroad.
Today the distinction between overseas and domestic norms has been obliterated by the state and quasi-official mass media. The US security apparatus is now active in manipulating the domestic democratic process of electing leaders and transitioning administrations.
The decisive shift to regime change' at home has been a continual process organized, orchestrated and implemented by elected and appointed officials within the Obama regime and by a multiplicity of political action organizations, which cross traditional ideological boundaries.
Regime change has several components leading to the final solution: First and foremost, the political parties seek to delegitimize the election process and undermine the President-elect. The mass media play a major role demonizing President-Elect Trump with personal gossip, decades-old sex scandals and fabricated interviews and incidents.
Alongside the media blitz, leftist and rightist politicians have come together to question the legitimacy of the November 2016 election results. Even after a recount confirmed Trump's victory, a massive propaganda campaign was launched to impeach the president-elect even before he takes office by claiming Trump was an enemy agent'.
The Democratic Party and the motley collection of right-left anti-Trump militants sought to blackmail members of the Electoral College to change their vote in violation of their own mandate as state electors. This was unsuccessful, but unprecedented.
Their overt attack on US electoral norms then turned into a bizarre and virulent anti-Russia campaign designed to paint the elected president (a billionaire New York real estate developer and US celebrity icon) as a tool of Moscow .' The mass media and powerful elements within the CIA, Congress and Obama Administration insisted that Trump's overtures toward peaceful, diplomatic relations with Russia were acts of treason.
The outgoing President Obama mobilized the entire leadership of the security state to fabricate dodgy dossiers' linking Donald Trump to the Russian President Vladimir Putin, insisting that Trump was a stooge or vulnerable to KGB blackmail'. The CIA's phony documents (arriving via a former British intelligence operative-now free lance security' contractor) were passed around among the major corporate media who declined to publish the leaked gossip. Months of attempts to get the US media to take the bite' on the smelly' dossier were unsuccessful. The semi-senile US Senator John McCain (war-hero' and hysterical Trump opponent) then volunteered to plop the reeking gossip back onto the lap of the CIA Director Brennan and demand the government act on these vital revelations'!
CIA Director John Brennan, architect of numerous regime changes' overseas had brought his skills home against the President-elect. For the first time in US history, a CIA director openly charged a President or President-elect with betraying the country and threatened the incoming Chief Executive. He coldly warned Trump to just make sure he understands that the implications and impacts (of Trump's policies) on the United States could be profound…"
Clearly CIA Director Brennan has not only turned the CIA into a sinister, unaccountable power dictating policy to an elected US president, by taking on the tone of a Mafia Capo, he threatens the physical security of the incoming leader.
From a Scratch to Gangrene
The worst catastrophe that could fall on the United States would be a conspiracy of leftist and rightist politicos, the corporate mass media and the progressive' websites and pundits providing ideological cover for a CIA-orchestrated regime change'.
Whatever the limitations of our electoral norms- and there are many they are now being degraded and discarded in a march toward an elite coup, involving elements of the militarist empire and in`telligence' hierarchy.
Mass propaganda, a red-brown alliance, salacious gossip and accusations of treason (Trump, the Stooge of Moscow') resemble the atmosphere leading to the rise of the Nazi state in Germany . A broad coalition' has joined hands with a most violent and murderous organization (the CIA) and imperial political leadership, which views overtures to peace to be high treason because it limits their drive for world power and a US dominated global political order.
"There are three sorts of conspiracy: by the people who complain, by the people who write, by the people who take action. There is nothing to fear from the first group, the two others are more dangerous; but the police have to be part of all three,"
