The attempted Clinton-CIA coup against Donald Trump

[Paul Rigby]

Can Donald Trump trust the Secret Service to keep him safe?

ADAM GARRIE

January 16, 2017, 6:21 am

http://theduran.com/can-donald-trump-tru...keep-safe/

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies is a Latin phrase meaning, who will guard the guards? Much has been said about Trump's need to watch his back' do to his high level enemies in the deep state. As with many other solutions Trump has found in order to help go directly to the people rather than rely on mainstream media, similar methods can be used and ought to be explored when it comes to providing Trump's personal security.

Because of Trump's take charge attitude towards traditional political and intelligence norms, I wouldn't put it past him to at some point, bring in his own private security detail and make the necessary steps to integrate them into the existing Presidential Secret Service.

The people I would go to are high ranking, morally upstanding members of the National Rifle Association. The NRA supported Trump early on in the Republican primary when other stalwart Republican organisations were reticent to get behind the dark horse with orange hair.

Such individuals who are firearms experts, many whom have studied security operations for many years, would make the ideal private detail for Trump. Because of their personal loyalty to Trump and the fact that many if not most are totally uncompromised by the at times shady working practices of the deep state, they could guard the guards' without fear or favour.

Traditionally, the idea that a US President would need to question the loyalty of his state appointed security would seem conspiratorial and absurd. But with mainstream media outlets fawning over each other when debating ways to legally remove Trump from office and other anti-Trump websites talking about much worse (think JFK), what once may have been rightly viewed as an absurdity, now ought to be seen as a pragmatic and cost effective proposal.

The Second Amendment itself, which the NRA is a pressure group in support of, has recently transformed from the idea that one has the right to bear arms, based on the 18th century need for ordinary Americans to be ready to take up arms against insurrections, including foreign plots, into something more direct.

Today, with US and foreign intelligence agencies conspiring to discredit Trump, this abstract and perhaps antiquated idea of the need for a peoples' militia, has suddenly become relevant. Hopefully this theory will never need to be put into practice, but the fact that many commentators from all ideological and editorial perspectives are discussing it, says a great deal about just how much American politics has changed so much, so recently.

Trump needs to rely on his true allies if his Presidency is to be a success. When it comes to armed security, I can think of no truer ally than the NRA.

[Paul Rigby]

The Revolt of the US Intelligence Community: Future Battles with President Donald Trump

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Global Research, January 24, 2017

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-revolt-...mp/5570462

Factionalism and fury are basic ingredients of the US Republic. Designed as a classic response to the lynch mob fantasy of direct democracy, and the weakness of unaccountable monarchy, those behind the US constitution contrived a select form of paternal snobbery: letting groups fight it out in the amphitheatre of politics. Such a battle would always adhere to certain demarcations of power along the separation of powers.

This was all well and good, bar one fundamental problem. The State blossomed and ballooned. Bureaucracy became both purpose and fetish, despite being opposed in a rhetorical way by various presidential administrations and politicians. WhileUS politicians at least a good number of them feared the growth of the unelected classes within the US government system, the empire's appetite proved voracious.

Supply met demand. Functionaries were hired; modern foot soldiers were sought for the task of building empire in freedom's glades. The National Security Agency, child of a new, post-World War empire, grew up alongside the Central Intelligence Agency. A vast intelligence community mushroomed in the dark rhetoric of Cold War doom and nuclear fears.

What, then, of that elusive quantity known as the people? Where would they fit in the administrative schemes of such behemoths? History shows them as subjects to be spied upon and suspected. The security rationale became the necessary shibboleth. Despite various imposed restrictions, warrantless surveillance took place in leaps and bounds, notably after September 11, 2001. The CIA became executor, under President George W. Bush's watch, of extraordinary rendition and torture.

Now, the intelligence community is again creating its form of mischief. A few days before the inauguration of Donald J. Trump we bore witness to unveiled threats and promises of an internal conflict, the anger of the Washington professionals against the out-of-town entertainers.

It continued the sentiment expressed by former CIA chief Michael J. Morell during the campaign, arguing that the USpeople were effectively going for a dangerous, destabilising defective.[1] The language is important here, for democracies which do not yield the favoured candidate need, as Henry Kissinger famously noted, direction. The wishes of the voter, in other words, require correction from time to time.

Trump's critics within the intelligence community see the problem as Trump. But in such criticism lies the most perverse tilt favouring the CIA's stance. This traditional bug bear of the Left, a body with various nasty character references, suddenly finds common ground with anti-Trump critics on both sides of the spectrum. Unholy and unruly sympathies seem to be springing up in the untrimmed jungle of US politics. The entire mood there is against Trump, against his legitimacy and, it follows, the nature of the US political system. Who, then, is the emperor without clothes?

Last week's antics gave us a few clues. The outgoing Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan, yielded a cranky example. Brennan, in the last few years, has seen himself as the reformer, the moderniser. Recently, he also fumed as school teacher and patriarch against the incoming president.

He was already facing enemies within his own organisation. Attempts to bring the operational side of the organisation closer to the analytical side were efforts that trampled on sacred ground. His stomping proposals sought to integrate four main directorates within the agency: those of operations, analysis, science and technology.[2] It was the analyst desperate to move push up the value of analysis to professional parity with the operations officer.

Trump's sallies against Brennan and the intelligence community set up the scene for the next round of institutional brawling. The intelligence community has been subjected to the trash talk of historical comparisons and notorious ones at that. "Intelligence agencies," tweeted Trump, "should never have allowed this fake news to leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?"[3]

In a series of other tweets, Trump also suggested in responding to Brennan's view of a perceived Russian threat that he could hardly do "much worse just look at Syria (red line), Crimea, Ukraine and the build-up of Russian nukes. Not good! Was this the leaker of Fake News?"[4]

Brennan then spoke about drawing lines and maintaining perspective. "It's when there are allegations about leaking or about dishonesty or a lack of integrity, that's where I think the line is crossed."[5]Former CIA deputy chief of staff Nick Shapiro also explained that Brennan was "deeply saddened and angered at Donald Trump's despicable display of self-aggrandizement in front of CIA's Memorial Wall of Agency heroes."[6]

Trump did make some effort to pour oil on the waters on Saturday, though there are suggestions this did little. "There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community and the CIA than Donald Trump," claimed the President in his usual third person address.[7]

The new president certainly wants that organisation on side, even if it is only to use it as a rapid attack dog for the USrepublic. Waterboarding, for instance, is said to make a return. Counter-terrorist efforts are to be beefed up. But the greatest question there is how that organisation reconciles itself with Trump's approach to the Kremlin.

The battle of the lobbies is looming in Trumpland. If there is one awful reality to play itself out here, lobbies, with their stifling tentacles, will be it. The idea of an intelligence lobby that has stepped out of the shadows to actively barrack for their own candidate should be a worrying sign of the times, the rank smell of a potential coup d'état in the wings.

Now in office, Trump is coming at this from behind, having to face a multiple number of factions who are keen to frustrate, if not demolish him. Street marchers call for him to repealed; political pundits predict impeachment within months. The choice of the US electoral system, not being the choice of a good number within the intelligence community, makes the initial period of the Forty Fifth Presidency precarious indeed.

Notes

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opini....html?_r=0

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...45f2e3358c

[3] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...wsrc%5Etfw

[4] https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...wsrc%5Etfw

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...00079daa81

[6] http://thehill.com/policy/national-secur...of-himself

[7] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...79b306d979

[Lauren Johnson]

I'm just starting D. Valentine's The CIA as Organized Crime. I think we should look at this conflict through the lens of his roadmap.

[Magda Hassan]

Can Donald Trump trust the Secret Service to keep him safe?

ADAM GARRIE

January 16, 2017, 6:21 am

http://theduran.com/can-donald-trump-tru...keep-safe/

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies is a Latin phrase meaning, who will guard the guards? Much has been said about Trump's need to watch his back' do to his high level enemies in the deep state. As with many other solutions Trump has found in order to help go directly to the people rather than rely on mainstream media, similar methods can be used and ought to be explored when it comes to providing Trump's personal security.

Because of Trump's take charge attitude towards traditional political and intelligence norms, I wouldn't put it past him to at some point, bring in his own private security detail and make the necessary steps to integrate them into the existing Presidential Secret Service.

The people I would go to are high ranking, morally upstanding members of the National Rifle Association. The NRA supported Trump early on in the Republican primary when other stalwart Republican organisations were reticent to get behind the dark horse with orange hair.

Such individuals who are firearms experts, many whom have studied security operations for many years, would make the ideal private detail for Trump. Because of their personal loyalty to Trump and the fact that many if not most are totally uncompromised by the at times shady working practices of the deep state, they could guard the guards' without fear or favour.

Traditionally, the idea that a US President would need to question the loyalty of his state appointed security would seem conspiratorial and absurd. But with mainstream media outlets fawning over each other when debating ways to legally remove Trump from office and other anti-Trump websites talking about much worse (think JFK), what once may have been rightly viewed as an absurdity, now ought to be seen as a pragmatic and cost effective proposal.

The Second Amendment itself, which the NRA is a pressure group in support of, has recently transformed from the idea that one has the right to bear arms, based on the 18th century need for ordinary Americans to be ready to take up arms against insurrections, including foreign plots, into something more direct.

Today, with US and foreign intelligence agencies conspiring to discredit Trump, this abstract and perhaps antiquated idea of the need for a peoples' militia, has suddenly become relevant. Hopefully this theory will never need to be put into practice, but the fact that many commentators from all ideological and editorial perspectives are discussing it, says a great deal about just how much American politics has changed so much, so recently.

Trump needs to rely on his true allies if his Presidency is to be a success. When it comes to armed security, I can think of no truer ally than the NRA.

Wouldn't trust the loons at the NRA to keep anyone safe either.

[David Guyatt]

[Tracy Riddle]

The latest credentialed independent journalist, Seymour Hersh, blasts the media for uncritically promoting Russian hacking story.

But is he, like most other independent reporters just ::headbang::::headbang::::headbang:: in the face of a rampant psychological contagion?

Hersh also noted that Trump's counter-attack on the media was "right out of national socialism" and also warned about Trump's access to the unbridled power and snooping ability of the US Intelligence Community.

Seymour Hersh? The guy who accepts the official version of the JFK assassination and wrote that there may have been "some justice" done when he was killed?

[David Guyatt]

The latest credentialed independent journalist, Seymour Hersh, blasts the media for uncritically promoting Russian hacking story.

But is he, like most other independent reporters just ::headbang::::headbang::::headbang:: in the face of a rampant psychological contagion?

Hersh also noted that Trump's counter-attack on the media was "right out of national socialism" and also warned about Trump's access to the unbridled power and snooping ability of the US Intelligence Community.

Seymour Hersh? The guy who accepts the official version of the JFK assassination and wrote that there may have been "some justice" done when he was killed?

::laughingdog:eople's perceptions about JFK is your guiding philosophy for making judgements today is it? Something that happened over 50 years ago?

Meanwhile, back in the land of reality some facts: Seymour Hersh has won the Pulitzer prize, two National Magazine awards, five George Polk awards and one George Orwell report - he's the guy who broke the My Lai massacre story and too many others to mention here - and who has regularly embarrassed and held power to account.

Tell us what amazing things have you done journalistically, Tracy?

[Paul Rigby]

David Ignatius, the CIA's Apologist-in-Chief

by MELVIN GOODMAN

JANUARY 27, 2017

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/27/d...-in-chief/

There is universal agreement that President Donald Trump's "advertisement for himself" in front of CIA's memorial wall on Saturday was an unmitigated disaster for both the vainglorious president and the Central Intelligence Agency. But there are always favorable reviews to be found. In this case, there were two: one from the president who told ABC's David Muir that the presentation was "great;" the other from the Washington Post's long-time apologist-in-chief for the CIA, David Ignatius.

Over the past several decades, Ignatius has defended the CIA's political assassination program, and argued that no investigation was necessary because "nobody had been killed." He never condemned the CIA training of death squads in Central America, including Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, and El Salvador. He never deplored the CIA's Phoenix operation during the Vietnam War, when the agency ran a paramilitary campaign of interrogation, torture, and assassination that targeted many innocent victims. And he never favored accountability for agency operatives who manned the secret prisons, and conducted the program of torture and abuse.

Thus, it is no surprise that Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post on Monday, welcomed President Trump's "ingratiating message" after months of attacks on the agency. According to Ignatius, the CIA was tired of having a "kick me" sign on its backside and found it "nice to be massaged." He made no attempt to assess the danger of trying to co-opt and politicize an intelligence agency that must remain apolitical in order to carry out its mission. And there was no attempt to judge the indignity of CIA officers responding enthusiastically to the president's harsh political statements, particularly his attacks on the press.

Ignatius even endorsed the self-serving remarks of agency operatives who dismissed the stewardship of former CIA director John Brennan and praised the appointment of CIA director Mike Pompeo. Brennan has never been popular in the directorate of operations because he was an intelligence analyst who received an unusual appointment to be a CIA station chief in Saudi Arabia and, as director, merged the intelligence analysts and clandestine operatives into one bureaucratic organization. He endorsed a paramilitary officer, who stated the visit was "well-received by the worker bees." He referred to the president's "rambling braggadocio" as part of his style, but said that "the country (including the CIA) will have to get used to it."

Although CIA's unlawful activities during the Iraq War and the Global War on Terror must never be repeated, Ignatius argued in the past that any period of discovery would weaken the CIA and cause serious morale problems. Now that we know that the Trump administration is considering a return to the CIA's "black site" prisons where suspects were detained and tortured and even re-examining the use of torture, we will need journalists with integrity to keep us informed of the internal political struggle that is already taking place.

The fact that CIA director Pompeo testified he would never carry out an order to conduct torture, but wrote to the committee after the hearing that he wouldn't rule out reinstating torture "if experts believed current law was an impediment to gathering vital intelligence" is worrisome. We need honest journalists to track such contradictions. Sadly, we cannot count on "journalists" such as Ignatius who apologizes for the CIA in order to gain and protect his access to agency operatives.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins University. A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of "Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA," "National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism," and the forthcoming "The Path to Dissent: A Whistleblower at CIA" (City Lights Publishers, 2015). Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

[Paul Rigby]

KPFA: Guns and Butter

Bonnie Faulkner interviews Michel Chossudovsky

Will the Trump Presidency Prevail?

Posted on January 25th, 2017

Michel Chossudovsky's latest articles, US Foreign Policy and the Campaign to Destabilize the Trump Presidency and Color Revolution Against Donald Trump are discussed; broad implications of normalizing relations with Russia in the Ukraine, Syria and with regard to terrorist assets of the western military alliance; #Disruptj20; international protests a recognition that US presidency is a form of global governance; attempts to de-legitimize the US presidency with talk of impeachment and Manchurian candidate; meaningful protests captured by engineered protests funded by foundations via NGOs; history of color revolutions; OTPOR and CANVAS; the color revolution business; funding dissent entrenched in the New World Order; National Endowment for Democracy; Freedom House; World Social Forum; fake news; Chinese consumer goods add to the GDP called Core Value Added; Import Led Development; danger in challenging China; will Trump challenge the War on Terror.

Originally Aired: January 25 2017
Visit Guns and Butter at: http://www.gunsandbutter.org
Subscribe to our newsletter at: eepurl.com/bmg4zf

https://soundcloud.com/guns-and-butter-1...dovsky-360

[Paul Rigby]

I thought it might be fun to view some examples of the bonkers drivel emanating from the CIA-Clinton coalition.

Here is specimen one, as passed to me in an electronic jiffy bag:

Is There a Russian Coup Underway in America?

The Resistance with Keith Olbermann

Published on Dec 12, 2016

Why we urgently need a special prosecutor to investigate Russia's meddling in the election

[video=youtube_share;IAFxPXGDH4E]http://youtu.be/IAFxPXGDH4E[/video]

Barking Ken Olbermann is still at it, attempting to de-legitimise Helmsman Trump as a nutter who must be overthrown the better to restore CIA rule:

[video=youtube_share;p04wRWFwHeM]http://youtu.be/p04wRWFwHeM[/video]