Category Archives: Cronyism

How Did Russiagate Begin? by Stephen F. Cohen

What are the odds if Russiagate was cooked up by the intelligence agencies—and it probably was—that the truth will come to light? From Stephen F. Cohen at ronpaulinstitute.org:

It cannot be emphasized too often: Russiagate—allegations that the American president has been compromised by the Kremlin, which may even have helped to put him in the White House—is the worst and (considering the lack of actual evidence) most fraudulent political scandal in American history. We have yet to calculate the damage Russsiagate has inflicted on America’s democratic institutions, including the presidency and the electoral process, and on domestic and foreign perceptions of American democracy, or on US-Russian relations at a critical moment when both sides, having “modernized” their nuclear weapons, are embarking on a new, more dangerous, and largely unreported arms race.

Rational (if politically innocent) observers may have thought that when the Mueller report found no “collusion” or other conspiracy between Trump and Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin, only possible “obstruction” by Trump—nothing Mueller said in his May 29 press statement altered that conclusion—Russiagate would fade away. If so, they were badly mistaken. Evidently infuriated that Mueller did not liberate the White House from Trump, Russiagate promoters—liberal Democrats and progressives foremost among them—have only redoubled their unverified collusion allegations, even in once-respectable media outlets. Whether out of political ambition or impassioned faith, the damage wrought by these Russiagaters continues to mount, with no end in sight.

Continue reading

Advertisements

A War of Questions, by Raúl Ilargi Meijer

Many, many questions must be answered. From Raúl Ilargi Meijer at theautomaticearth.com:

What follows are items from sources not everyone may like, such as Fox and The Hill. But please bear with me, because if you want to understand what is about to happen in the US, you’re going to need this kind of info, and you’re not likely to get it from the mainstream media.

The overall term here is questions. There are too many to list. Some will merely be asked, some will be asked and answered, others will not be asked at all. It’s going to be a jousting match between lawyers and prosecutors, investigators and politicians. It’s safe to say it’s going be ugly.

First off, as Zero Hedge reports, Christopher Steele, after long refusing to, has agreed to talk to investigators from the US Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General.

 

Steele Agrees To Discuss Trump Dossier With DOJ Inspector General

Former MI6 agent Christopher Steele has finally agreed to meet with US officials to discuss his relationship with the FBI, and the now-infamous dossier of unfounded claims against Donald Trump which he assembled on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The 54-year-old Steele has agreed to meet with investigators from the US Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG), according to The Times of London, after a former US official told Politico that the OIG report would “try to deeply undermine” Steele.

The news marks a 180-shift in Steele’s past refusals to engage with US authorities. In April, Politico reported that Steele would not meet with the OIG to assist them with their investigation, while just last week, Reuters reported that he wouldn’t meet with US attorney John Durham, who was handpicked by AG William Barr to review the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.

Steele, a MI6 Russia specialist for more than two-decades, has worked with the FBI as a confidential source since 2010. According to the report, he will retain the services of a top American attorney if the interview goes ahead, and is only willing to discuss the narrow scope of his dealings with US intelligence. Steele also wanted US officials to seek the approval of the British government.

Steele’s lawyers will try to limit the topics on the table as much as they can. But that may not be enough. There are very serious doubts and allegations surrounding the Steele Dossier, as well as the clients he prepared the report for. There’s Hillary Clinton, there’s the DNC, there’s their law firm Perkins Coie, there’s Fusion GPS, there’s its CEO Glenn Simpson, there’s the FBI, there’s the 2016 DOJ, and then there’s John Brennan and James Clapper. All these parties have played roles in making sure the dossier was ‘prepared’.

Continue reading→

 

The Lingering Lies of the Liars are Languishing, by Doug “Uncola” Lynn

The article is long because it takes a long article to catalogue all the lies that Russiagate’s promoters, including Robert Mueller, have told. From Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:

In the wake of Robert Mueller’s very bizarre nine-minute press conference on May 29, 2019, there can be no doubt his special counsel investigation was a political sham orchestrated, from the start, to undermine the Trump Presidency and increasingly divide the country.  But the question remains whether or not we are witnessing legitimate legal warfare in the highest offices of American government or a Reality TV Live Action Role Play (LARP) designed to bleed the nation’s brakes before the big stop.

Indeed, for those seeking America’s demise, the Russian Collusion lie is the gift that won’t stop giving because it is, in fact, a wound that won’t ever heal. The damage is done and the psychology is so perfect it had to have happened either by destiny or design.

The seeds of destruction in the Russian collusion narrative remain rooted in the patriotism of both sides. No matter who wins in the end, it will be a pyrrhic victory because the other team will never surrender, accept any terms, or yield any ideological ground.  Any chance of compromise is long past, so it’s all or nothing going forward.  In fact, each side’s patriotism precludes any chance of concession.  The irony therein, of course, is that the entire slate of premises of one side are predicated upon, and perpetuated by, lies and deception.

Continue reading→

 

Is Robert Mueller on the Grassy Knoll? by Graham J. Noble

Robert Mueller may go from being an investigator to being among the investigated. From Graham J. Noble at libertynation.com:

Robert Mueller has now completed his special counsel assignment, but he may yet have a role to play in the unraveling Russia conspiracy. It is entirely possible that he will come to regret ever being appointed to investigate the phony collusion allegations against President Donald Trump. The fact that congressional Democrats – along with certain Republicans – are determined to haul him before House and Senate committees is only the beginning of what could become a very messy end to Mueller’s legacy of public service.

Mueller is on a collision course with Attorney General William Barr. The latter clearly believes that various government officials may have acted improperly, to say the least, during the 2016 presidential election campaign and in the months leading up to Mueller’s appointment. Abuses of power and unjustified and, perhaps, improperly authorized surveillance – or spying – may have occurred. Judges may have been misled and FISA warrants fraudulently obtained. An extensive political conspiracy against then-candidate, now-President Trump may have been working behind the scenes.

Justice Department’s Multi-Pronged Investigation

Barr is determined to get to the bottom of it all. Michael Horowitz, the inspector general for the Department of Justice, has already investigatedpossible political bias at the FBI and how it might have affected both the Clinton private email server investigation and the counterintelligence operation that targeted Trump campaign associates. Horowitz then took on a new task, described on the inspector general website as: “Examination of the Department’s and the FBI’s Compliance with Legal Requirements and Policies in Applications Filed with the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Relating to a certain U.S. Person.”

Continue reading

Clubs, Cartels and Bilderberg, by Binoy Kampmark

What really goes in at Bilderberg, the annual confab for the globalist high and mighty? From Binoy Kampmark at orientalreview.org:

“After decades of neoliberalism, we are at the mercy of a cluster of cartels who are lobbying politicians hard and using monopoly power to boost profits.”

Joseph Stiglitz, The Price of Inequality (2012)

The emergence of think tanks was as much a symptom of liberal progress as it was a nervous reaction in opposition to it.  In 1938, the American Enterprise Association was founded by businessmen concerned that free enterprise would suffer at the hands of those too caught up with notions of equality and egalitarianism.  In 1943, it dug into the political establishment in Washington, renamed as the American Enterprise Institute which has boasted moments of some influence in the corridors of the presidential administrations.

Gatherings of the elite, self-promoted as chat shops of the privileged and monstrously well-heeled, have often garnered attention.  That the rich and powerful chat together privately should not be a problem, provided the glitterati keep their harmful ideas down to small circulation.  But the Bilderberg gathering, a transatlantic annual meeting convened since 1954, fuels speculation for various reasons, not least of all because of its absence of detail and off-the-record agendas.  C. Gordon Tether, writing for the Financial Times in May 1975, would muse that, “If the Bilderberg Group is not a conspiracy of some sort, it is conducted in such a way as to give a remarkably good imitation of one.”

Continue reading

Prelude to a Fiasco, by James Howard Kunstler

Here’s an interesting parlay for you: political plus economic collapse. From James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

You’d think that Robert Mueller might know what any licensed attorney-at-law in the land tells a client in a tight spot with a lame alibi: better keep you mouth shut. Instead, Mr. Mueller crept Sphinx-like out of the Deep State woodwork on little cat’s paws and in a brief nine minutes blabbed out a set of whopperish riddles much more likely to get himself in trouble than the target of his hinky inquisition.

The key whopper was that he could not make “a determination” on an obstruction-of-justice charge against Mr. Trump because guidance policy from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel had said some years ago that a sitting president can’t be indicted. That is not what he told his boss, Mr. Barr, the Attorney General (and a roomful of the AG’s staffers who heard it), in person when he delivered his final report a few weeks ago.

Upon receipt of that report, Mr. Barr asked the Special Counsel three times whether his inability to conclude anything on an obstruction charge was due to the OLC guidance, and three times Mr. Mueller answered “no.” Mr. Barr relayed this on-the-record in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and, as averred above, he has plenty of witnesses. It should not be hard to reach a determination on who is telling truth here.

Continue reading

What a Hash Mueller Made of It, by Patrick J. Buchanan

There are many similarities between the way Robert Mueller is trying to play both sides of the fence in his Russiagate investigation and the way James Comey did so in his investigation of Hillary Clinton. Neither gentleman seems capable of straightforward speech. From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org:

What is it about special counsel Robert Mueller that he cannot say clearly and concisely what he means?

His nine-minute summary of the findings of his office, after two years of investigation, was a mess. It guarantees that the internecine warfare that has poisoned our politics continues into 2020.

If it was the intention of the Russian hackers and trolls of 2016 to sow discord within their great power rival, they have succeeded beyond their dreams.

Consider. Of the charge of conspiracy to collude with the Russians to hack the emails of the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Mueller said, “there was insufficient evidence to charge a larger conspiracy.”

This suggests that there was at least some evidence to conclude that Donald Trump’s campaign did conspire with Vladimir Putin’s Kremlin to fix the 2016 election, just not enough evidence to sustain a charge of treason.

Didn’t they use to call this McCarthyism?

On obstruction of justice, Trump attempting to impede his investigation, Mueller said: “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

“Mueller Declines to Absolve Trump” was The New York Times headline.

That tells us that Mueller would not give Trump absolution. But why would Trump need absolution, if he did not commit the crime?

Continue reading