Dealing with contradictions is a tricky business, and if foreign policy objectives are to succeed, there has to be a global view of the world and an underlying steadiness and coherence to foreign policy. Consistency in every aspect may be impossible, but a pattern of fundamental logic is not.
Rockefeller doelde op de ‘fundamentele logica’ van de destijds snel globaliserende neoliberale ideologie, die een nieuwe politieke- en economische/financiële competitie op gang bracht, nadat in 1971 president Nixon en zijn Nationale Veiligheidsadviseur Henry Kissinger in het geheim naar Beijing waren gevlogen, om er met het communistisch regime te onderhandelen over ‘het openen van China.’ Achteraf gezien heeft deze historische ontmoeting omvangrijke en onvoorziene consequenties met zich meegebracht. Voorjaar 1980 liet The Trilateral Commission in haar rapport Trialogue dan ook weten dat:
By contrast with the relatively ‘simple’ international system built under the aegis of the Pax Americana in the early post-war era, we now live in an infinitely more complex and diversified world, where the balance of power is no longer what some described as clear zero-sum game (waarbij de winner takes all. svh) of old between two super-powers, and where the United States is no longer such a dominant economic power. ‘Yet,’ in the words of an American speaker, ‘we still seem to be acting as if the prevailing power relations were the same as in 1950s.’ This… endangers the very fabric (structuur. svh) of the trilateral relationship.
Hoewel het rijkste deel van de ‘trilaterale’ elite streeft naar een wereldregering die de verwezenlijking van haar wereldwijde belangen versoepelt, blijft de ‘fundamentele logica’ van het huidige neo-darwinistische kapitalisme dat door de ‘survival of the fittest’ de sterkste altijd wint. Deze visie is afkomstig van de negentiende eeuwse Engelse filosoof, bioloog, antropoloog en socioloog Herbert Spencer die deze zienswijze voor het eerst gebruikte:
after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species, in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones: ‘This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection,’ or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.’
Maar in tegenstelling tot de neo-darwinisten die de nadruk leggen op de overwinning van de sterkste, sprak Darwin zelf over de overleving van de soort die zich juist het beste aanpast aan de veranderende omstandigheden. De grootste bedreiging van de mensheid is nu dat zowel liberalen als neoconservatieven de Darwiniaanse versie weigeren te accepteren. Zij zijn er heilig van overtuigd dat alleen grootscheeps geweld de hegemonie van het zwaarst bewapende land in de geschiedenis kan consolideren. Beide politieke partijen in de VS negeren zodoende de ware bedreigingen van de mensheid: de opwarming van de aarde, de ‘jobless growth,’ de catastrofale milieuverontreiniging, de voorbereidingen van een Derde Wereldoorlog om de markten en de snel slinkende grondstoffen-voorraden te veroveren, de niet te stuiten politieke corruptie, het opkomende postmoderne ‘fascisme,’ de wereldwijde bevolkingsexplosie, de uitputting van landbouwgronden, de aanzwellende vluchtelingenstroom naar de westerse vleespotten, de toenemende kloof tussen arm en rijk, het almaar dalende vertrouwen van de burgers in de politieke macht, en het groeiende verlies aan geloofwaardigheid van de ‘corporate media.’ En dit alles gebeurt ook nog gelijktijdig, zodat er nu sprake is van wat buitenlandse auteurs met recht ‘a system crisis’ noemen. De reactie hierop van de westerse media is ronduit verbijsterend. Neem Ian Buruma’s pleidooi voor fatsoen in de politiek, gepubliceerd in NRC Handelsblad van 1 oktober 2020. De inleiding luidt:
Hoffelijkheid in de politiek is niet louter een fatsoensnorm, schrijft Ian Buruma. Het onbeschofte gedrag van Trump in het debat met Biden was ook een ondermijning van het democratisch spel.
Mijn oude vriend komt vervolgens met de platitude dat:
[z]onder een redelijk vertrouwen in het spel van de democratie, in de goede trouw van de spelers, en de rechtmatigheid van het resultaat, kan democratie niet functioneren. Dit klinkt wellicht naïef. Gezien de uitzonderlijke invloed van het grote geld op de Amerikaanse politiek, de enorme verschillen tussen arm en rijk, en het cynisme van veel politici, is het niet meer dan redelijk om het systeem te wantrouwen en het democratische ideaal in de VS met een korreltje zout te nemen.
Dit is allemaal waar. Maar het betreft hier iets zeer wezenlijks, in de VS, en in alle democratisch geregeerde landen. De basisvoorwaarde van een functionerende democratie, in een parlementair systeem even goed als in een presidentieel systeem, is dat men zich neerlegt bij het resultaat van verkiezingen, ook als dat betekent dat mensen waar je niet op hebt gestemd aan de macht komen.
https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2020/10/01/fatsoen-als-breekijzer-van-de-democratie-a4014308
Ook hier is Buruma niet bij machte om zelfs maar een begin van logica in acht te nemen, want als wij allen ‘het democratische ideaal in de VS met een korreltje zout’ dienen te ‘nemen,’ dan is er geen logische reden dat ‘men zich neerlegt bij het resultaat van verkiezingen.’ Wanneer de verkiezingen leiden tot een Congres dat voor de helft uit miljonairs bestaat, meer dan het tienvoudige van het totale percentage miljonairs in de VS, wanneer al ruim een halve eeuw rond de 45 procent van de Amerikaanse kiesgerechtigden niet meer stemt, en meer dan de helft van de federale begroting, die het Congres kan toewijzen, naar het militair-industrieel complex verdwijnt, ten koste van onderwijs, volkshuisvesting, gezondheidszorg, sociale uitkeringen, kunst, etcetera, dan kan men niet verwachten dat iedereen ‘zich’ ogenblikkelijk ‘neerlegt bij het resultaat van’ deze charade.
De vooraanstaande Amerikaanse auteur, wijlen Gore Vidal, beklemtoonde niet voor niets keer op keer dat ‘[t]here is only one party in the United States, the Property Party, and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat,’ en dat zijn land ‘nooit een democratie is geweest.’ Alleen al de gedachte ‘means you know nothing about the Constitution. The people who made the Constitution hated democracy,’ en vreesden — wat de Founding Fathers — ‘the excess of democracy’ noemden, een opvatting die de elite van David Rockefeller’s Trilaterale Commissie twee eeuwen later, nog steeds deelden, getuige haar rapport ‘The Crisis of Democracy’ uit 1975. Het verslag van de commissieleden:
observed the political state of the United States, Europe and Japan and says that in the United States the problems of governance ‘stem from an excess of democracy’ and thus advocates ‘to restore the prestige and authority of central government institutions.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crisis_of_Democracy
Vidal maakte, net als oud president Carter, de Amerikanen erop attent dat de VS geen democratie was, maar ‘an oligarchy of the well-to-do,’ net zoals ‘[w]e were at the very beginning, when the Constitution was made, and we’re even more so now.’ Het punt is volgens hem dat ‘the people have no voice because they have no information.’ Het systeem draait om:
the monopolizing of great wealth, which tends to happen in basically unjust societies and undemocratic societies. We have plenty of would-be democrats and would-be liberals, would-be progressives,
die, zoals Buruma, bereid zijn als sycofanten van de neoliberale macht op te treden. Opnieuw Vidal die overigens zelf uit de Amerikaanse elite voorkwam:
whether it is CNN or CBS or NBC, it’s all fiction. The viewers suspect it. But where are they going to turn to? Where are they going to find out? […] There is no independent journalism… too few people own too many outlets — newspaper owners own TV station, TV stations own publishers, and so it goes… it is no secret that a very few people own most of the country, the famous one percent. Well, sometimes it’s like Monopoly: they go out and buy some newspapers, they buy some TV stations, they select people to serve in Congress. Mostly their lawyers they send there,’ zijn ‘lobbyists… It’s not meant for real people. And they have scared away most real people, who have to go through a terrible indoctrination course before they are led in to high office.They don’t want bad news.
Hoewel zelfs opiniemaker Buruma zich soms genoodzaakt voelt om te bekennen dat het ‘niet meer dan redelijk [is] om het systeem te wantrouwen en het democratische ideaal in de VS met een korreltje zout te nemen,’ is het voor hem en de rest van de mainstream-opiniemakers volstrekt taboe om publiekelijk hieraan serieuze consequenties te verbinden. Daarom refereerde Buruma in zijn warrige NRC-column wel aan het ‘onbeschofte gedrag van Trump in het debat met Biden’ dat in zijn ogen ‘een ondermijning van het democratisch spel’ was, maar niet aan de inhoudelijke vraag van president Trump waarom de zoon van Biden geld uit Moskou had gekregen, en ‘What did he do to deserve it?’ De enige reactie van pa Biden was een serie ontkenningen: ‘none of that is true,’ ‘my son did nothing wrong,’ en ‘that is simply not true.’ Trumps vraag was gebaseerd op een 87 pagina’s tellend rapport van de U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, en de U.S. Senate Committee on Finance Majority Staff Report, getiteld ‘Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption: The Impact on U.S. Government Policy and Related Concerns’
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf
Dit rapport roept ook vragen op over Hunter Biden’s contacten met Ukraine en China. In de rubriek ‘key findings’ wordt onthuld dat: ‘Hunter Biden received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow.’ Baturina is ‘een Russische miljardair/zakenvrouw, gebaseerd in Londen’ die de echtgenote was van de in 2019 overleden ‘Yury Luzhkov,’ de burgemeester van Moskou. Elders in het rapport meldt het Senaatsrapport:
Rosemont Seneca Thornton, an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden, received $3.5 million in a wire transfer from Elena Baturina, who allegedly received illegal construction contracts from her husband, the former mayor of Moscow.’
Een voetnoot in het rapport vermeldt dat de bron van deze informatie terug te vinden is in ‘Confidential Document 6,’ zonder hier verder op in te gaan. Gezien de jarenlange aanval van de Democraten op de vermeende illegale contacten van Trump met Poetin, is het voor de hand liggend dat nu ook liberal opiniemakers zich zouden bezighouden met de contacten tussen de zoon van de Democratische presidentskandidaat en de al dan niet corrupte contracten van de miljardair Elena Baturina. Maar nee dus, Buruma en zijn collega opiniemakers zwijgen hierover als het graf. Maar om toch nog zijn verplichte column te schrijven, koos hij het opzienbarende televisie-optreden van Trump en Biden, en verlegde hij de aandacht naar het ‘onbeschofte gedrag’ van de ‘populist’ Donald T. Nog geen twee weken later publiceerde het dagblad New York Post een nieuwe ontwikkeling in het schandaal rond Hunter Biden door op 14 oktober 2020 onder de kop ‘Senate committee investigating alleged Hunter Biden drive, smoking-gun email’ het volgende te berichten:
WASHINGTON — A Senate committee is investigating a bombshell cache of documents about Hunter Biden’s foreign dealings that was acquired by a Delaware computer repairman and exposed Wednesday by The Post.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed it is working with the repairman, whose identity was confirmed by The Post, to verify documents from the hard drive.
‘There are so many red flags about the Biden family trying to cash in on the Vice President’s position that it can be hard to keep them straight,’ Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) told The Post.
‘Today’s report raises more questions that must be resolved,’ Johnson said.
‘What we know for a fact is that Hunter Biden took millions of dollars from foreign nationals including, the wife of the former Mayor of Moscow, people tied to the Chinese Communist Party and other unsavory characters. Joe Biden needs to finally come clean and tell the truth to the American people about all of these issues, and he needs to do it now.’
An email from the cache indicates Joe Biden, the Democratic presidential candidate, met with Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, while it employed his son. At the time, Biden led the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy.
Biden said last year, ‘I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,’ including his reported $83,000 monthly pay on Burisma’s board.
House Democrats impeached President Trump in December for asking Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden’s employment.
The repairman contacted Johnson’s committee in late September — one day after it released a report on Joe Biden’s apparent conflicts of interest in his son’s international business dealings, including a claim he received $3.5 million from the wife of Moscow’s former mayor.
The repairman provided correspondence to The Post documenting his outreach to the committee.
He spoke on Oct. 5 with three members of the committee’s staff.
A spokesman for the committee confirmed to The Post that it’s investigating.
‘We regularly speak with individuals who email the committee’s whistleblower account to determine whether we can validate their claims,’ the spokesman said.
‘Although we consider those communications to be confidential, because the individual in this instance spoke with the media about his contact with the committee, we can confirm receipt of his email complaint. We have been in contact with the whistleblower and are in the process of attempting to validate the information he provided.’
https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/senate-committee-investigating-hunter-biden-hard-drive-email/
Twee dagen later werd bekend dat dit nieuws door de mainstream media gecensureerd werd, inclusief door Twitter en Facebook. De kritische Amerikaanse journalist Robert Bridge, auteur van het boek Midnight in the American Empire, How Corporations and Their Political Servants are Destroying the American Dream (2013), schreef:
This week, the New York Post dropped a veritable bombshell smack in the middle of the 2020 presidential battlefield with a story so explosive it should have reverberated from sea to shining sea for many weeks. Instead, the news was duly squashed under the jackboot of Twitter and Facebook. The effort to smother the news backfired, though, instead of kicking up a discussion of the social media giants having too much control over the spread of information that could be of interest to millions.
As most readers probably know by now, the Post reported this week that Hunter Biden had introduced his father, Joe Biden, the current Democratic presidential contender, to the head of Burisma, the Ukrainian energy firm where Hunter was a paid board member. What makes this revelation so significant is that not only was Joe serving as vice president at the time of the alleged introduction, but he has gone on record as saying he knew nothing about his prodigal son’s overseas business dealings.
https://www.rt.com/op-ed/503734-hack-censorship-twitter-hunter-biden/
Desondanks verzweeg Ian Buruma deze hele affaire, die van doorslaggevend belang is voor Amerikaanse kiezers, en sprak hij alleen van Trumps, ‘totale minachting voor Biden,’ die in zijn ogen ‘een aanval’ was op diens ‘legitimiteit als een politieke opponent. Erger nog, hij gaf aan dat hij alle oppositie tegen zijn regime ziet als illegitiem.’ Mijn ‘honorable friend’ Ian verzweeg eveneens dat de westerse liberals zelf al vanaf 2016 de democratisch gekozen Trump hebben afgebeeld als een ‘illegitieme’ populist, die nooit president had mogen worden, maar die dankzij een groep ‘Russische trollen’ Hillary Clinton en haar financiers had weten te verslaan. Indien deze 'trollen' daadwerkelijk verantwoordelijk zouden zijn geweest voor Hillary Clinton's verlies dan was dit een onvoorstelbaar knappe prestatie geweest, aangezien:
Clinton and her super-PACs raised a total of 1.2 billion dollar… Her sophisticated fundraising operation included a small army of wealthy donors who wrote seven-figure checks, hundreds of bundlers who raised $100,000 or more from their own networks… She spent heavily on television advertising… but in the end, her fundraising edge wasn't enough to overcome Trump's ability to dominate headlines and the airwaves.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/
Het opvallende aan het ‘kleine leger van rijke donoren,’ dat Clinton’s verkiezingsfonds vulde, was dat de ‘Top 10 Contributors to the Clinton Campaign’ allen joodse zionisten waren. Als er al sprake was van buitenlandse inmenging dan is duidelijk dat dit vanuit Israel werd gedirigeerd, en zeker niet vanuit Rusland.
Zie ook: https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-donors-prominent-in-presidential-campaign-contributions/
Maar ook op dit onderwerp rust een taboe, en dus verzweeg opiniemaker Ian Buruma deze informatie in zijn campagne tegen president Trump. Op 18 februari 2018 berichtte BusinessInsider dat:
A notorious Russian ‘troll factory’ had a $1.25 million budget in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election to interfere in the US political system, according to charges filed by the Department of Justice.
Toch doet de westerse pers het voorkomen dat ‘de Russen’ met een fractie van het bedrag dat onder andere de joodse lobby in de VS had uitgetrokken, Hillary Clinton hadden weten te verslaan. Bekend is dat:
The organization’s primary source of funding came from Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian oligarch and ally of President Vladimir Putin, who controlled Concord Management, Consulting LLC and Concord Catering. Prigozhin and his two Concord entities were among the individuals and organizations included in Mueller’s indictment.
Prosecutors said they operated a sophisticated scheme to use social media to spread disinformation, exploit American social divisions and try to subvert the 2016 election.
Unlike the others under indictment, Concord fought the charges in court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/us/politics/concord-case-russian-interference.html
Kortom, de zogeheten ‘bondgenoot van president Vladimir Putin’ vocht onmiddellijk ‘de aanklacht’ juridisch aan. Juli 2019 berichtte RT de ‘first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news’ onder de kop ‘Another nail in Russiagate coffin? Federal judge destroys key Mueller report claim’:
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s claim of ‘sweeping and systematic’ Russian meddling in the 2016 US election just took another body blow, as a federal judge ruled that his indictment of a ‘troll farm’ is not actual proof of it.
Mueller’s charges against Concord Management & Consulting, the Russian company accused of running a ‘troll farm’ and ‘sowing discord’ on US social media in 2016, do not establish a link between that private company and the Russian government, US District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich pointed out.
Yet the special counsel’s much-publicized final report claims to have ‘established’ and ‘confirmed’ Russian government activities based in part on the indictment against Concord, which is a breach of prosecutorial rules, Friedrich said.
For example, Mueller’s report says that Concord CEO Yevgeny Prigozhin ‘is widely reported to have ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin.’ That’s an assertion, not evidence.
Judge Friedrich’s ruling was issued on May 28, but only unsealed on July 1, and went largely unnoticed by the media until this week. That’s not surprising, given the commitment of the US political establishment to the ‘Russiagate’ narrative, journalist and author Daniel Lazare told RT.
‘It’s quite a dramatic ruling,’ Lazare said. ‘Essentially what it says is that half of Mueller’s case doesn’t make any sense, it has no evidence to back it up.’
The special counsel’s report argued that Moscow sought to meddle in the election by Concord’s ‘sowing discord’ on social media while Russian intelligence stole Democrat emails and released them through WikiLeaks, but neither of those assertions is backed by actual evidence, and now the insinuated link between Concord and the Kremlin has been rejected, Lazare pointed out.
‘Americans assume that Russians and Russia are the same thing. But they’re not, any more than an individual American and the Trump administration are the same thing,’ he told RT.
The ruling is ‘a major blow to the entire “Russian Active Measures’’ talking point,’ journalist Aaron Maté argued on Twitter. The Internet Research Agency put out ‘juvenile clickbait mostly unrelated to the election,’ and is a private entity whose connection with the Kremlin Mueller never established, he added.
‘If Mueller was disingenuous in falsely trying to link it to Russian government, what else was he disingenuous about?’
In an investigative article published last week, Maté pointed out that the Mueller report used ‘qualified and vague language to describe key events,’ indicating that the investigators have not established for certain if DNC emails were stolen by Russia or leaked by an insider, or how they made it into the hands of WikiLeaks.
He also noted that the federal authorities have based their investigation into the DNC emails and President Donald Trump’s alleged connections with the Kremlin entirely on claims of two entities contracted by the Democrats — cybersecurity company CrowdStrike, which actually redacted the evidence it gave to the feds — and British spy Christopher Steele, author of the infamous ‘dossier’ used to spy on Trump campaign officials.
‘The idea that this was a meddling operation by a foreign government, I think is just absurd,’ former US diplomat Jim Jatras told RT, commenting on Mate’s revelations and Judge Friedrich’s ruling.
This should be the final nail in the coffin of ‘Russiagate,’ but it won’t be, Jatras added. Too many people in Washington have invested too much in Russiagate to admit they were ever wrong.
Hoewel dus de Amerikaanse Deep State, bij monde van Mueller, sprak van ‘sweeping and systematic’ Russische 'meddling in the 2016 US election’ oordeelde een federale rechter dat de er geen ‘op feiten gebaseerde bewijs' is gevonden van het bestaan van een Russische ‘troll farm,’ laat staan dat president Poetin hierbij direct betrokken was.
Uit het rapport van Robert Mueller, de speciale aanklager die het onderzoek leidde naar Russische beïnvloeding van de Amerikaanse verkiezingen in 2016 stelde na een twee jaar durend onderzoek vast dat er ‘onvoldoende bewijs was dat leden van het campagneteam van Trump met de Russen hadden samengespannen.’ De zogenaamde ‘Russiagate’ berustte dus op ‘Fake News’ van het anti-Trump establishment, met voorop de Democratische Partij, die gehoopt had dat Trump schuldig was bevonden, en via een impeachment-procedure kon worden afgezet. Maar omdat de toonaangevende 'corporate press' in de VS anti-Trump zijn bleef deze zaak dooretteren. Woensdag 7 oktober 2020 publiceerde het Amerikaanse Consortium News — opgericht door de gelauwerde Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Robert Parry die voor Associated Press en Newsweek had gewerkt — een artikel van Ray McGovern, 27 jaar lang een hooggeplaatste CIA-analist, die ‘served as Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and conducted the early morning briefings downtown of the most senior national security officials permitted to see The President’s Daily Brief.’ Deze goed geïnformeerde insider meldde dat president Trump kort tevoren had laten weten:
‘I have fully authorized the total Declassification of any & all documents pertaining to the single greatest political CRIME in American History, the Russia Hoax. Likewise, the Hillary Clinton Email Scandal. No redactions!’
A president, of course, has the authority to declassify virtually all classified intelligence-related information. Senior Republican congressmen have begged him again and again to use that authority.
During a TV interview Sunday, for example, Republican Devin Nunes, ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, visibly agitated and angry, said:
‘Every Republican senator and member of Congress should be saying… we want every damn bit of evidence that every intelligence agency has or it’s maybe time to shut those agencies down.’
Maar, zo waarschuwde McGovern, die de Deep State van binnenuit kent:
Standard practice in recent years has seen the heads of the FBI and CIA take their own sweet time to comply — the more so, when the data to be declassified puts themselves in a negative or even criminal light.
The heads of the National Security State bureaucracy have shown considerable adroitness (handigheid. svh) in finding ways to delay or simply not comply (as though invoking their Fifth Amendment rights regarding self-incrimination).
If they were to really ‘follow the book,’ Executive Order 13526, section 1.7 provides that information that is evidence of a crime, should not remain classified.
On Oct. 21, 2017, Trump tweeted that in accordance with a law passed by Congress,
‘I will be allowing, as President, the long blocked and classified JFK FILES to be opened.’
Six days later, came a headline in The Washington Post: ‘JFK files: The promise of revelations derailed by CIA, FBI.’
Trump’s decision to delay release of 30,000 of the potentially most sensitive files for another six months frustrated historians. The issue was supposed to be revisited in 180 days, but nothing further was heard of it.
Thus, 54 years after President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the CIA and FBI demanded more time to decide what secrets to keep hiding — and a chastened President Trump bowed to their power.
It will take more than a presidential Tweet to get recalcitrant players like FBI Director Christopher Wray and CIA Director Gina Haspel, and the powerful institutions they lead, to comply.
Wray has been a major stumbling block and will remain inclined to give priority to protecting his former colleagues. Haspel, who reportedly was directly involved in the off-shore Russiagate operations from her perch as CIA chief of station, London, has her own derriere (zitvlees. svh), as well as those of her fellow workers, to protect.
Trump could have already fired both for slow-walking release of evidence. He could also fire them now, of course, but it is doubtful that, even on steroids, he would have the temerity (moed. svh) to do so.
Big Hat, No Cattle
The current kerfuffle (opschudding. svh) began a week ago when Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe dropped a bombshell in response to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsay Graham’s standing request for information regarding the FBI’s handling of its Russiagate investigation.
Ratcliffe provided the following declassified information to the committee:
‘In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians’ hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC (United States Intelligence Community. svh) does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication.
‘According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the intelligence, including the ‘alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26, 2016 of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify (belasteren. svh) Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services.’
‘On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding “U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server.”’
Those who harbored hopes for fuller disclosure were disappointed on Tuesday when Ratcliffe released notes taken by CIA Director John Brennan on a briefing to President Barack Obama about an alleged Hillary Clinton plot to dirty up the Trump campaign by linking it to the DNC Hack/Russia.
It was heavily redacted and shed no new light on what Ratcliffe had released a week ago.
While that particular ‘declassification' took place before Trump started his shower of Tweets Tuesday night, past experience suggests it may be a harbinger (voorbode. svh) of things to come, even though Trump is now saying: ‘No redactions!’
Seeing is believing. The de-classifiers will have to do a far better job to satisfy the demands of Nunes (lid van House Intelligence Committee. svh) and others for release of additional ‘smoking gun’ documents said to contain details of Russian intelligence referring to the reported authorization given by Hillary Clinton to link President Trump to Kremlin ‘interference’ in the 2016 election.
Dit alles voert deze voormalige hoge CIA-functionaris tot de vraag: ‘Did Hillary Clinton Make It All Up?’ Opnieuw Ray McGovern:
If Americans had read more than what is in The New York Times, they would not be surprised at that possibility. Are they not aware that the NYT does not carry all the news that’s fit to print?
If they looked beyond the Times, they might have learned that exactly five months ago, on May 7, 2020, House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff was forced to release sworn testimony by former FBI official Shawn Henry, head of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike, that there is no technical evidence that the DNC (Het Democratisch Nationaal Comité, het hoogste bestuursorgaan van de Democratische Partij. svh) emails published by WikiLeaks were hacked — by Russia, or by anyone else.
Adding insult to injury, Schiff was able to hide Henry’s testimony from Dec. 5, 2017, until May 7, 2020. Quick! Someone tell the Times that another five-month delay on top of that is not on.
If you didn’t know that the evidence-impoverished charge that the Russians hacked the DNC emails had fallen apart, recall that then-FBI Director James Comey deferred to CrowdStrike to do the forensics on the so-called ‘Russian hack’ of the DNC.
There are no forensics. CrowdStrike did not even provide the FBI with a finished report.
Moreover, if you reconstruct the events at the end of July 2016 and notice how Clinton and the Democrats poured blame on Trump and the Russians with the support of the intelligence community, especially the FBI and CIA — not to mention the full throated support of the Establishment media — you wouldn’t need a report from Russian intelligence to figure out who might be behind Russiagate, and why.
Kort samengevat:
much of the information is already available — just not on ‘mainstream media,’
want die functioneren als spreekbuis van de Deep State: de inlichtingendiensten, het militair-industrieel complex, de financiële wereld op Wall Street, de super-rijke families, en de bureaucratische top, die allen de agenda bepalen van het Amerikaanse Congres, en de satellietstaten van de VS. Het is dit complex dat Ian Buruma ‘a force for good’ betitelt. In verband met de lengte, volgende keer meer.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten