The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[Paul Rigby]

"Color Revolution" against Donald Trump

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 18, 2017

http://www.globalresearch.ca/color-revol...mp/5569300

Extract only:

What will happen on Inauguration Day?

Anti-Trump protest movements are envisaged alongside a campaign to disrupt.

While there are "genuine protests" e.g. those led by the Answer Coalition and Workers World, the main thrust is coming from an "engineered" campaign supported and financed by the Neocons, which is largely intent upon disrupting the inauguration and destabilizing the Trump presidency. Several progressive organizations have nonetheless joined the bandwagon of the #Disruptj20 campaign.

The protest movement in fact started on the evening of November 8 prior to the announcement of the election results. The organizers of this movement are acting on behalf of powerful elite interests. People are misled: the protests are not being led on behalf of the genuine concerns of Americans who oppose Trump's right wing racist agenda.

The engineered protest ops are coordinated with a relentless propaganda campaign led by the mainstream media, which includes accusations of high treason and sedition directed against Donald Trump, who is portrayed as an instrument of the Kremlin.

Even prior to the November 8 elections, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leo Panetta had already intimated that Trump is a threat to National Security. According to The Atlantic, Trump is a "Modern Manchurian Candidate" serving the interests of the Kremlin....

[David Guyatt]

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.

Again?

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.

It seems to me you're not actually reading the various reports posted here. You clearly don't much care for the collective views by all the journalists, whistleblowers and former intelligence operatives and experts like William Binney, Ray McGovern, Craig Murray et al - all of whom are well regarded as being independent and objective and some of whom are award winning.

When an important allegation is made it has to be established with evidence or be shot down in flames --- as this one has been shot down in flames countless times: there is no evidence... zilch, nada - that parrot is gone.

Bad milk apart, you ask for my analysis and this is it (and not for the first time either), if you're going to accuse a person, or a nation, of something heinous like this then it is incumbent upon the accusers to support it with clear and tangible evidence.

If you can't do that, then all it's just empty spite - a loser's trick to avoid taking responsibility for running the poorest political campaign in history (so far as I can see, anyway).

So let me ask you again (as I believe I have asked before several times and been ignored):

Provide to this forum now evidence that supports the reports that Russia hacked the DNC. Evidence Tracy, not allegations, not hyperbole and exaggerated partisan rhetoric, not the political spite and deceit we've hitherto seen?

Meanwhile, watch and note the silence deepen as no response to the VIPS call for evidence of Russian interference that Paul posted above yesterday.

[David Guyatt]

Of passing interest, I think, is the following answer Obama gave in regard to Wikileaks and the DNC email.

Obama used the word "hacked" when describing the Intelligence Community's case, but choose - probably unconsciously - the word "leaked" when discussing Wikileaks involvement.

Here's what he said:

"First of all, I haven't commented on WikiLeaks, generally. The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking were not conclusive as to whether Wikileaks was witting or not in being the conduit through which we heard about the DNC emails that were leaked."

Definition of Freudian slip at Merriam-Webster:

"Definition of Freudian slip

• : a slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind"
  
  Go to 8:01 on this Youtube CLIP.
  
  Perhaps Obama is such a developed fence-sitter that he knowingly used both terms...
  

[Tracy Riddle]

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.

Robert David Steele and Paul Craig Roberts are just two people that I used to have some respect for who have jumped into bed with Trump.
Magda, you talk about "Reds Under the Beds" as if Russia was still a Communist country. It isn't. Once again, it is an illiberal regime composed of oligarchs and mobsters, it supports white nationalist movements, murders reporters and political opponents, and has engaged in false flag attacks.

The stubborn insistence from you and David that there is just "no evidence" and David's challenge that I'm supposed to provide the technical evidence for the hacking is just maddening. When you look at the big picture - means, motive, opportunity, Trump and the people around him - there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence to support the idea that Russia interfered in the election. No other scenario fits the facts as we know them.

President-elect Donald Trump's national security adviser and Russia's ambassador to the U.S. have been in frequent contact in recent weeks, including on the day the Obama administration hit Moscow with sanctions in retaliation for election-related hacking, a senior official said Friday.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/stat...40?lang=en

Donald J. TrumpVerified account‏@realDonaldTrump

Do you think Putin will be going to The Miss Universe Pageant in November in Moscow - if so, will he become my new best friend?


If it was a disgruntled DNC leaker, why didn't they put out all these emails during the convention when it might have helped Bernie get the nomination? Why wait to dump most of them in the fall when the only person being helped was Trump?
If Seth Rich was the source (or one source) of the leak, why won't Julian Assange just say that? The man is dead, after all.


Hell, even Trump has now come around to sort of admitting that the Russians were involved:

"As far as hacking, I think it was Russia," he said at a Jan. 11 press conference from Trump Tower in New York, his first press conference in several months.
At the end of the nearly hour-long press conference, Trump ignored a question from a reporter about contacts between people associated with him and Russians. The reporter asked, "Can you stand here today, once and for all, and say that no one connected to you or your campaign had any contact with Russia leading up to or during the presidential campaign? And if you do indeed believe that Russia was behind the hacking, what is your message to Vladimir Putin right now?"

But Trump chose only to answer the second part of the journalist's query. "Russia will have much greater respect for our country when I'm leading it than when other people have led it," he said. "You will see that. Russia will respect our country. He shouldn't have done it, I don't believe he'll be doing it more now, we have to work something out. But it's not just Russia."

[David Guyatt]

Tracy, you're being careless here. I didn't mention the word "technical" evidence. I just asked for evidence.

Meanwhile, I have posted to this thread reports by former senior NSA manager, William Binney who is on the record saying that if Russia hacked the DNC thread there would be clear traces of it and that it would not harm the NSA methods and means to publish that evidence. And Binney should know. He designed and instituted many of the systems the NSA currently uses.

I also posted here a take-apart written by Masha Gessen of the NY Review of Books. Like all these others that been ignored.

Paul has posted the open letter of VIPS signed by all their intelligence whistleblowers insisting that proof be provided. Likewise ignored.

The list of those independent journalists who have written more or less identical pieces on reasons why these allegations are false is large, and include award winners like Robert Parry and Glen Greenwald, John Pilger and many others - all with hard-earned and long enduring and substantial reputations for honesty, integrity and independence.

All you have to date is politically partisan rhetoric and allegations pushed by those neocon linked and owned MSM outlets like the now discredited NYT and WaPo etc.

However I agree that there is, indeed a "big picture" - but it's one that you repeatedly fail or avoid grasping. This is that it is the US Intelligence Community and the Democratic Party - both fully owned bastard twins of the neocons - who are selling this garbage and who have gone to war to stop Trump taking office, because he openly threatened their b ring their payola and ideology to an end.

Speaking personally, I think you are happy to blindly buy into this anti-Russia meme, even though it is quite apparent that it is the war party's wish to inculcate this into the American psyche just so they can keep up their perpetual war in order that they can continue to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense.

Meanwhile, it still remains the requirement of those who make allegations - if they want to be taken seriously - to provide that evidence. You are making those allegations. You have no evidence.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that justice should be stood on its head and that the charged now need to prove their innocence?

Since clearly we are never going to agree on this, I really can't see no reason in responding to this same old empty canard of yours. Sorry.

[Michael Barwell]

The last couple of weeks, the media's been blabbing-on & on about business conflicts of interest Trump has; but apparently there isn't any specific requirement for POTUS to take effort to avoid this situation, meaning that the media pundits crying "fowl" are literally barking up a confected & plastic tree - https://www.channel4.com/news/trump-examined

[Tracy Riddle]

Tracy, you're being careless here. I didn't mention the word "technical" evidence. I just asked for evidence.

Meanwhile, I have posted to this thread reports by former senior NSA manager, William Binney who is on the record saying that if Russia hacked the DNC thread there would be clear traces of it and that it would not harm the NSA methods and means to publish that evidence. And Binney should know. He designed and instituted many of the systems the NSA currently uses.

I also posted here a take-apart written by Masha Gessen of the NY Review of Books. Like all these others that been ignored.

Paul has posted the open letter of VIPS signed by all their intelligence whistleblowers insisting that proof be provided. Likewise ignored.

The list of those independent journalists who have written more or less identical pieces on reasons why these allegations are false is large, and include award winners like Robert Parry and Glen Greenwald, John Pilger and many others - all with hard-earned and long enduring and substantial reputations for honesty, integrity and independence.

All you have to date is politically partisan rhetoric and allegations pushed by those neocon linked and owned MSM outlets like the now discredited NYT and WaPo etc.

However I agree that there is, indeed a "big picture" - but it's one that you repeatedly fail or avoid grasping. This is that it is the US Intelligence Community and the Democratic Party - both fully owned bastard twins of the neocons - who are selling this garbage and who have gone to war to stop Trump taking office, because he openly threatened their b ring their payola and ideology to an end.

Speaking personally, I think you are happy to blindly buy into this anti-Russia meme, even though it is quite apparent that it is the war party's wish to inculcate this into the American psyche just so they can keep up their perpetual war in order that they can continue to enrich themselves at the taxpayers expense.

Meanwhile, it still remains the requirement of those who make allegations - if they want to be taken seriously - to provide that evidence. You are making those allegations. You have no evidence.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that justice should be stood on its head and that the charged now need to prove their innocence?

Since clearly we are never going to agree on this, I really can't see no reason in responding to this same old empty canard of yours. Sorry.

The problem is that the evidence that really proves it is technical, and I certainly can't provide it, and I don't know what sources or methods might be compromised by doing so. I've already said that it could have been the Israelis or someone else trying to leave Russian fingerprints behind. But that's a highly speculative theory.

You can't explain any of the objections I've made (why was it timed to help Trump instead of Sanders? Why can't Assange just name Seth Rich? etc).

David: "who have gone to war to stop Trump taking office, because he openly threatened their b ring their payola and ideology to an end."

Hysterical. Read that long interview I posted with Trump's three biographers. This man believes in nothing except HIMSELF. He will take advice primarily from Javanka (Jared and Ivanka), he will care only about looking like a "winner." He will block out all other realities. Trump is the most shallow man to ever occupy the White House. He is not going to bring anybody's payola or ideology to an end.

[Paul Rigby]

Who is 'designated survivor' at inauguration?

Published on Jan 18, 2017

While security is in place and there is no specific, credible threat, a quirk in America's rules for succession raises questions about who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice president and congressional leaders just as the transfer of power gets underway. CNN's Brian Todd reports:

[video=youtube_share;qxIG4dduqy0]http://youtu.be/qxIG4dduqy0[/video]

[Lauren Johnson]

Tracy, this is how I see it.

1) I can see that Russia would rather have Trump as POTUS than Hillary.

2) Putin's Russia is an oligarchy and Putin is the oligarch-in-chief.

3) The US is also an oligarchy.

4) The US oligarchy's telos is to dominate the world with no rivals.

5) This oligarchy can also be called the Anglo-American Empire (AAE) and has been built up and protected by the CIA.

6) The AAE's current iteration sees Russia as vulnerable and provides an excellent opportunity to tear it into pieces, which began with the fall of the Soviet Empire.

7) Putin was handed the reigns of power by the Yeltsin family (known for their strong ties to drug trafficking).

8) Putin moved Russia away from its subservience to the AAE and has continued to do so. His goal was to make Russia into a global power in partnership with the AAE along with closer ties with China.

9) The current view of the Washington elite has followed the advice of the Counsel on Foreign Relations: a hawkish stance toward Russia by surrounding it with military bases and political chaos in Eastern Europe. The Middle East will be another source of chaos producing terrorists which are intended to infiltrate its soft underbelly.

10) Eventually, Putin and Putinism will fail making room for the breakup of Russia which can be controlled by divide and conquer methods.

11) Getting back to the election, Trump's statements that we don't need war with Russia would be very threatening to the CIA'a raison d'etre and very welcome to Russia.

12) Trump has tapped into a yuge source of discontent over the permanent war policies following the death of JFK.

13) Given that Russia might well have plenty of motive to defeat the Clinton juggernaut, we have to look at the means for interfering in the election. The accusation is that Russia been infiltrating the American political system via Russia TV and other blogs is very weak. I think they are quite valuable sources of news. They don't have access to stealing elections by hacking voting machines, and carrying on various other illegal activities.

14) That leaves the leaks via Wikileaks and the so-called false news stories. Assuming that Russia had the sophistication to meddle in the elections with these means, which I doubt, we have to remember how much Hillary/CIA juggernaut was hated. The story line that insiders who saw the corruption did the leaking is far more persuasive to me. (Bernie would have beaten Trump, if allowed to run. But winning was not the point. Democrats are pwned by Wall Street, CIA and Zionist money.)

15) My last point, we don't know why Trump was allowed to win. In the world of managed dialectics (the strategy of tension), Trump might be POTUS for larger purposes beyond his vision or control. As Senator Schumer said, the CIA has a ways of coming after you six ways from Sunday.

[David Guyatt]

[quote=David Guyatt]

David: "who have gone to war to stop Trump taking office, because he openly threatened their b ring their payola and ideology to an end."

Hysterical. Read that long interview I posted with Trump's three biographers. This man believes in nothing except HIMSELF. He will take advice primarily from Javanka (Jared and Ivanka), he will care only about looking like a "winner." He will block out all other realities. Trump is the most shallow man to ever occupy the White House. He is not going to bring anybody's payola or ideology to an end.

::headbang::

I was speaking of the neocons, Tracy. I have repeatedly pointed this out in this thread. There is a foreign policy change of guard taking place which you fail to take into account. And it is this that explains why there has been such a ferocious fight going on inside the IC to oust Trump.

But hey, you go your way and I'll go mine. This conversation is over.