The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[Michael Barwell]

Isn't this something of a transparent tactic that isn't uncommon?

MP Michelle Thomson reported to prosecutors over alleged mortgage fraud

Thomson, who is suspended from the SNP, is one of five people reported to Scottish prosecutors in relation to property deals
Michelle Thomson is the independent MP for Edinburgh West. She resigned the SNP whip when the allegations emerged. Photograph: Danny Lawson/PA
Libby Brooks and agencies Wednesday 14 December 2016 08.24 GMT
The MP Michelle Thomson has been reported to Scottish prosecutors after a police investigation into alleged mortgage fraud.
Police Scotland said on Tuesday that a report had been submitted to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (Copfs).
The solicitor Christopher Hales, who is being investigated by Police Scotland, was struck off by the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal in 2014 in connection with several transactions carried out by a property company in which Thomson was a partner from 2010 to 2011.
Last year, prosecutors instructed police to carry out an investigation into "alleged irregularities" relating to property deals in those years.
Thomson, who withdrew herself from the Scottish National party whip at Westminster, suspending her party membership, after details of the investigation emerged, has denied any wrongdoing.
A Copfs spokesman said: "The procurator fiscal has received a report concerning four men aged 48, 56, 59 and 59, and one woman aged 51, in relation to alleged incidents between 16 June 2010 and 26 July 2011.
"The report remains under the consideration of the procurator fiscal."
ENDE

MP Michelle Thomson says she was raped aged 14

Politician moves colleagues to tears as she describes her experience during Commons debate on violence against women


I'm not a victim. I'm a survivor,' MP Michelle Thomson tells Commons video
Rowena Mason Deputy political editor Thursday 8 December 2016 15.13 GMT
A Scottish MP has told a House of Commons debate on violence against women that she was raped at the age of 14, moving colleagues to tears and declaring: "I'm not a victim. I'm a survivor."
Michelle Thomson, who was elected as an SNP member but withdrew from the party whip last year, told parliament: "When I was 14, I was raped.
"As is common, it was by somebody who was known to me. He had offered to walk me home from a youth event and in those days everybody walked everywhere. It was quite common to do that.
"It was early evening. It wasn't dark. I was wearing I'm imagining, I'm guessing jeans and a sweatshirt. He told me he wanted to show me something in a wooded area and at that point, I must admit, I was alarmed. I did have a warning bell but I overrode that warning bell because I knew him and therefore there was a level of trust in place.
"To be honest, looking back, at that point I don't think I knew what rape was. It was not something that was talked about."
ENDE

[Paul Rigby]

Politicized Intelligence Kneecapping Trump

December 16, 2016

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/12/16/po...ing-trump/

The back story behind the CIA's leaked claim of Russia helping Donald Trump is an attempt to hobble Trump's less-hawkish foreign policy before he even gets into the White House, says ex-British diplomat Alastair Crooke.

By Alastair Crooke

It is not difficult to understand the dynamics of the recent U.S. presidential election. These same dynamics played a part in Brexit, and continue to unfold throughout Europe: there has been little or no real "growth" since 2005 for many Americans and Europeans. Good quality jobs for native-born Americans and Europeans are rare, and those employment increases that have occurred, are mostly in the minimum wage sector and have been filled by recent immigrants.

Many native-born Americans and Europeans are feeling the economic pips squeezed to the limit, at the same time that zero or negative interest rates has eviscerated savings income, and is threatening their pensions.

This is the economic malaise. And on top of this has been the political malaise and widespread reaction against the center-leftist "values-based," identity politics that stressed the rights and interests of a growing spectrum of "victims" in society: specifically defined in polar opposition to the mainstream American and European way-of-life.

The aggressiveness behind this polar oppositional positioning, intentionally demonizes and weakens the cultural mainstream: in effect, ordinary people who worked, had loving wives or husbands and children, and attended church, became the "deplorables," bigots or racists. It was against this supposed cultural "tyranny" that identity victims needed to be supported.

Gender relations were twisted as new genders proliferated, the propaganda of gender diversity exploded, and parent-children relations eroded. Indeed, "white," "male" and "Christian" are the only identities you may freely and gratuitously abuse in the U.S. and Europe today. Many ordinary Americans and Europeans find this intolerable. They are pushing-back.

Nothing About Russia

None of these dynamics have anything at all to do with Russia or President Vladimir Putin except that many Russians express bewilderment that Europe has become so embroiled in this gender politics, and in a war against traditional cultural and moral values.

But today, certain Western intelligence services the CIA and MI6 want to suggest that Putin had his "thumb on the scales" of the U.S. election, and "may manipulate a series of key elections [to be held] in Europe next year" too. The narrative has evolved from one of Russian influence in U.S. elections, to that of a decisive influence.

As one former CIA officer and U.S. national intelligence co-ordinator, Graham Fuller puts it: "And now, in perhaps the most volatile delegitimization gambit ever, Trump is now whispered to be Putin's candidate,' a Russian pawn who has infiltrated the White House itself …

"This is all very ugly stuff. Worse, it looks like questioning the electoral process and the legitimacy of the election itself may become a permanent feature of our domestic politics, inciting further divisiveness and bitterness on both sides of the political divide, rendering the country (even more) ungovernable."

Indeed, it is ugly stuff. The politicization of intelligence has reached new heights. Russia is not responsible for the widespread opposition to globalization in the U.S. and Europe: simply, the original theory behind globalization (David Ricardo's comparative advantage theory) no longer retains validity or meaning in the changed reality of today's world (see here, for an explanation).

And economic growth is proving elusive for a number of reasons, which reflect deep-seated changes under way in the world today (aging demography, China's stall, and more generally, the failure of debt-led growth policies to work any more, inter alia). For sure, the leadership of the CIA understands these longer-term dynamics at work in recent U.S. and European elections.

A recent Pew survey, for example, shows: "The Republican Party made deep inroads into America's middle-class communities in 2016. Although many middle-class areas voted for Barack Obama in 2008, they overwhelmingly favored Donald Trump in 2016, a shift that was a key to his victory … In 2016, Trump successfully defended all 27 middle-class areas won by Republicans in 2008. In a dramatic shift, however, Hillary Clinton lost in 18 of the 30 middle-class areas won by Democrats in 2008 … Overall, Democrats experienced widespread erosion in support from 2008 to 2016. Their share of the vote fell in 196 of the 221 metropolitan areas examined. The loss in support was sufficiently large to move 37 areas from the Democratic column to the Republican column …".

A Charge Lacking Evidence

And, so far, the American officials have stated explicitly that there is no evidence to sustain their claim of Russian involvement and National Security Agency, which, alone, might have such evidence were it to exist has not come forward to confirm the CIA "assessment." Other American intelligence agencies have directly contested the leaked CIA "finding."

In short, we are told that the CIA claims are based on "inference": which is to say that the CIA officials are "confident," based on their psychological profile of President Putin, that the latter would prefer Mr. Trump as President; that since it was the Democrats who experienced leaks and not the Republicans it may be inferred that a hostile power was behind the leaks; and since Putin lies at the apex of Russian power, it may "confidently" be inferred that he personally would have authorized and directed such leaks.

Of course, this is not intelligence. This is simply a given conceptual framework (or group think), which may be right or may be wrong, being played out. It is blatantly political unless sustained by hard intelligence.

And it is pernicious. Regardless of what may be said officially, in due course, in respect to the CIA claims, a cloud of illegitimacy will hang over the Trump Administration, and, as Graham Fuller rightly observes, this supposed illegitimacy, derived from the decisive influence of Russia on the election, may not be ephemeral, but rather continue to haunt the President throughout his incumbency. (It is hard to lay to rest CIA inferences once made, beyond repeating that there is no definite evidence to support them.) Such a finding would hardly dissipate the smoldering antipathies.

The allegation of Russian malfeasance may also derail the confirmation of Rex Tillerson, official "friend of Russia," as Secretary of State. It may thus hobble Trump's ability to reach détente with Russia and may taint any détente that subsequently may be reached with Russia.

It is likely too, to make President Putin more wary of reaching any accord with Tillerson suspecting that any new détente with the U.S. will unleash a further torrent of abuse of Russia from a polarized America. Even were Putin personally to welcome a Trump political initiative, further abuse of Russia in America and Europe might not be judged by President Putin to be worth the candle. No people, and not least the Russian people, like to see their country traduced publicly, and at length, in the world press. The onslaught is already having its impact: Russians will be asking themselves can Trump command such a divided and soured country.

Delegitimizing a President

Can one conclude that this outcome (a delegitimized Presidency) was somehow other than that which the CIA intended? Pat Buchanan (himself a thrice-time U.S. Presidential candidate) has no doubts: "The [New York] Times editorial spoke of a darkening cloud' already over the Trump presidency, and warned that a failure to investigate and discover the full truth of Russia's hacking could only feed suspicion among millions of Americans that … (t)he election was indeed rigged.'

"Behind the effort to smear Tillerson and delegitimize Trump lies a larger motive. Trump has antagonists in both parties who are alarmed at his triumph, because it imperils the foreign policy agenda that is their raison d'être, their reason for being.'

These people do not want to lift sanctions on Moscow. They do not want an end to the confrontation with Russia. As is seen by their bringing in tiny Montenegro, they want to enlarge NATO to encompass Sweden, Finland, Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova.

They have in mind the permanent U.S. encirclement of Russia … Their goal is to bring down Putin and bring about regime change' in Moscow."

In short, the Russia "hype" is about blocking Trump from making his foreshadowed shift away from the new Cold War, pursued by the present U.S. establishment, and towards initiating détente instead, and perhaps the playing up of the Russian "threat" extends even to hoping to frighten enough presidential electors to change their vote on Dec. 19 (though that prospect seems improbable).

If there are indeed foreign intelligence services with their "thumb" in the American election, arguably it is those European services that are feeding the "profound" propaganda threat from Russia meme and thereby helping in the delegitimization of the U.S. President-elect, and to keeping the new Cold War alive. (There are European states deeply opposed to any rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia).

But this politicization of intelligence is pernicious in another way to which Graham Fuller also alludes. The allegations that Trump is a knowing or unknowing pawn of Russia is explosive emotional material thrown into an already enflamed, splintered and embittered American national psyche. The "not my President" meme may make it impossible for Trump to operationalize his policies as polarized government departments turn upon each other (as is already occurring amongst the intelligence agencies). In short, it can paralyze the very operationality of government.

Buchanan states the obvious conclusion, when he writes: "early in his presidency, if not before, Trump is going to have to impose his foreign policy upon his own party and, indeed, upon his own government. Or his presidency will be broken, as was Lyndon Johnson's."

Profound Polarization

But let us be clear: de-legitimation can be a two-edged sword. Were, by some pretty unimaginable event, Hillary Clinton to be enacted as President vice Trump, she would find her ability to command the authority of the state as hobbled by the bitterness and anger as would a delegitimized Trump.

Politicization of intelligence services is not new, nor are "black" (i.e. false-flagged) information operations conducted by Western services, but the scale of the present assault on a U.S. President-elect marks, perhaps, a different order of potential consequences.

How can this have happened? The war in Syria has had, it seems, a hugely corrosive effect on services such as CIA and MI6. Firstly, there was the tension of contradiction: the deceit to be maintained of ostensibly fighting terrorism, while secretly supporting such bloody forces (in order to weaken President Bashar al-Assad and subsequently Russia).

Secondly, that of pretending to be pursuing a "principled" policy of off-shored "identity politics" (Sunnis as victims), while quietly accepting and becoming dependent on the "off-balance sheet" subventions flowing from the very patrons of such forces (shades of Clinton Foundation pay-to-play ethos).

And thirdly, by becoming the echo chamber of claims, however improbable, however false, thrown up by sundry armed movements and their paymasters with the intent to force the hand of Western military intervention. In short, these services cease to be observers; they became investors. They become lost in a maze of contorted realities, false propaganda, and of acquired hubris. Like Prometheus, they think to secretly steal from Zeus, the god of war: they aspire to dictate war and peace.

Into this heady world of "strategic communication" warfare, has intruded Mr. Trump, spoiling their Syria gambit and promising détente with Russia. It must indeed seem intolerable.

Alastair Crooke is a former British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum.

[David Guyatt]

If there are indeed foreign intelligence services with their "thumb" in the American election, arguably it is those European services that are feeding the "profound" propaganda threat from Russia meme and thereby helping in the delegitimization of the U.S. President-elect, and to keeping the new Cold War alive. (There are European states deeply opposed to any rapprochement between the U.S. and Russia).

Crooke couldn't possibly be pointing a finger at Blighty's best foreign shit-stirrer could he, his old chums at MI6 when he references "European services"?

I also noted his earlier observations:

And on top of this has been the political malaise and widespread reaction against the center-leftist "values-based," identity politics that stressed the rights and interests of a growing spectrum of "victims" in society: specifically defined in polar opposition to the mainstream American and European way-of-life.


The aggressiveness behind this polar oppositional positioning, intentionally demonizes and weakens the cultural mainstream: in effect, ordinary people who worked, had loving wives or husbands and children, and attended church, became the "deplorables," bigots or racists. It was against this supposed cultural "tyranny" that identity victims needed to be supported.


Gender relations were twisted as new genders proliferated, the propaganda of gender diversity exploded, and parent-children relations eroded. Indeed, "white," "male" and "Christian" are the only identities you may freely and gratuitously abuse in the U.S. and Europe today. Many ordinary Americans and Europeans find this intolerable. They are pushing-back.

the aggressiveness behind these polar oppositional forces "intentionally demonizes and weakens the cultural mainstream".... and "'white male', 'male', and 'Christian' are the only identities you may freely and gratuitously abuse in the US and Europe today", which has caused a "push back".

"intentionally demonizes and weakens"...

How else can we interpret Crooke's observations other than that he is interpreting these events as designed cultural engineering that has one purpose and one purpose only; to cause a "push back"? And the purpose of that would be:

"...Worse, it looks like questioning the electoral process and the legitimacy of the election itself may become a permanent feature of our domestic politics, inciting further divisiveness and bitterness on both sides of the political divide, rendering the country (even more) ungovernable."

Who on earth would benefit from permanently destabilising the electoral process and domestic politics that is aimed at creating "divisiveness and bitterness of both sides of the political divide" that results in, presumably, "rendering the country [countries] ungovernable?

What is Crooke trying to tell us here, I wonder?

It sounds to me to be very much a case of the Hegelian dialectic being played out in the background.

[Magda Hassan]

I thought Israel was the only country allowed to influence US elections.

[David Guyatt]

I thought Israel was the only country allowed to influence US elections.

For my many sins, I rather suspect a larger - or should I say "wider" - circle of interests than simply Israel.

Hegel's dialectic is a de facto strategy of tension, because Hegel's whole point was about the creation of two opposing poles (thesis, antithesis) set in a tension that develops a third or alternate factor (synthesis) that is born as a consequence.

It seems to me that Crooke is suggesting this, not inly in regard to America but the western model of rule also when he observes:

'...the aggressiveness behind these polar oppositional forces "intentionally demonizes and weakens the cultural mainstream."'

And when he adds to that the following:

'Worse, it looks like questioning the electoral process and the legitimacy of the election itself may become a permanent feature of our domestic politics, inciting further divisiveness and bitterness on both sides of the political divide, rendering the country (even more) ungovernable."'

He is, I suspect, drawing from the prior two examples of the Jeremy Corbyn election result being contested by the neoliberal faction of the Labour Party, and also the contested result of Brexit. Trump was simply the third case where this has occurred.

Having drawn from those three examples he then extrapolates a future course of events, namely: nations will become ungovernable.

Where has we seen this before? The Balkanization of Syria, Libya and the middle east as a whole (not to mention the former Yugoslavia). Ergo, a strategy of tension that leads to a fairly decisive measure of political destabilization of targeted western nations making traditional government impossible.

It's the old divide and conquer strategy repackaged.

All we have to do is accurately identify who the "synthesis" is.

As Tooth says... I'll get my coat...

[Magda Hassan]

I thought Israel was the only country allowed to influence US elections.

For my many sins, I rather suspect a larger - or should I say "wider" - circle of interests than simply Israel.

Yes. And it was just the Likud Israel any way. In any case I think Israel is safe with Donald.

Hegel's dialectic is a de facto strategy of tension, because Hegel's whole point was about the creation of two opposing poles (thesis, antithesis) set in a tension that develops a third or alternate factor (synthesis) that is born as a consequence.

....

Having drawn from those three examples he then extrapolates a future course of events, namely: nations will become ungovernable.

....

All we have to do is accurately identify who the "synthesis" is.

Yes. Important.

[Paul Rigby]

As the Coup Against Trump Fails, the Threat Against His Life Rises

Paul Craig Roberts

December 20, 2016

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/12/...g-roberts/

The use of the presstitute media to deny Trump the Republican presidential nomination failed.

The use of the presstitute media to deny Trump victory in the presidential election failed.

The vote recount failed.

The effort to sway the Electoral College failed.

But the effort continues.

The CIA report on Russia's alleged interference in the US presidential election ordered by Obama is in process. Faked evidence is a hallmark of CIA operations.

In their determination to seal Trump's ears against environmental concerns, a group of environmentalists plan to disrupt the inauguration. This in itself is of little consequence, but chaos presents opportunity for assassination.

Trump himself seems to think he is in danger. According to MSNBC, Trump intends to supplement his Secret Service protection with private security. As there is evidence of CIA complicity in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (film shows Secret Service agents ordered away from JFK's limo immediately prior to his assassination), Trump, who is clearly seen as a threat by the military/security complex, is not being paranoid. MSNBC implies that Trump's private security is to suppress protesters, as if government security forces have shown any compunction about suppressing protesters. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/wi...7040707540

This provides an indication of the threat that the CIA sees in Trump: http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/do...im/ri18205

Global Research's Michel Chossudovsky has explained that Trump's peaceful approach to Russia aligns him with oligarchs, whose wealth benefits from business deals with Russia, and puts Trump at odds with the military/security oligarchs, who benefit from the one trillion dollar annual military/security budget. The latter group have been in control since President Eisenhower warned us about them and can muster deep state forces against a Trump presidency.

To take on a group like this requires a tough SOB. Anything less than Trump wouldn't have a chance. Indeed, if Douglas Valentine's just published book, The CIA As Organized Crime (Clarity Press, 2017) is even half true, Trump's life is certainly at risk.

Donald Trump is clearly no saint. Given what we are up againstdangerous tensions between nuclear powers and the military/security complex's stake in these tensionsa saint is not what the situation calls for.

The military/security complex has been entrenched since NATO's formation on April 4, 1949, a provocation that preceded by six years the formation of the Warsaw Pact on May 14, 1955. Any president willing to confront this entrenched deep state superpower deserves the support of all of us.

[Tracy Riddle]

In the Strange Bedfellows Meet Orwell category, we have Sean Hannity and others on Fox now celebrating their newfound hero, Julian Assange. Last year he was a guy threatening America's national security, now they want to give him a medal.

[Tracy Riddle]

Trump himself seems to think he is in danger. According to MSNBC, Trump intends to supplement his Secret Service protection with private security. As there is evidence of CIA complicity in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (film shows Secret Service agents ordered away from JFK's limo immediately prior to his assassination), Trump, who is clearly seen as a threat by the military/security complex, is not being paranoid. MSNBC implies that Trump's private security is to suppress protesters, as if government security forces have shown any compunction about suppressing protesters. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-news/watch/wi...7040707540

Roberts comparing Trump to JFK just makes me ill.

[Albert Doyle]

In the Strange Bedfellows Meet Orwell category, we have Sean Hannity and others on Fox now celebrating their newfound hero, Julian Assange. Last year he was a guy threatening America's national security, now they want to give him a medal.

The new pick and choose politic Trump specializes in. They forget the fact that Assange owes his existence to the exposure of Bush Republican offenses...