Tag Archives: State Department

How the Clinton machine flooded the FBI with Trump-Russia dirt … until agents bit, by John Solomon

John Solomon has done some of the best work in the alternative media on Russiagate. From Solomon at thehill.com:

When at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. That’s what Hillary Clinton’s machine did in 2016, eventually getting the FBI to bite on an uncorroborated narrative that Donald Trump and Russia were trying to hijack the presidential election.

Between July and October 2016, Clinton-connected lawyers, emissaries and apologists made more than a half-dozen overtures to U.S. officials, each tapping a political connection to get suspect evidence into FBI counterintelligence agents’ hands, according to internal documents and testimonies I reviewed and interviews I conducted.

In each situation, the overture was uninvited. And as the election drew closer, the point of contact moved higher up the FBI chain.

It was, as one of my own FBI sources called it, a “classic case of information saturation” designed to inject political opposition research into a counterintelligence machinery that should have suspected a political dirty trick was underway.

Continue reading →

Federal Judge “Shocked” To Find Obama State Dept Lied To Protect Hillary From Email Server Lawsuits, by Tyler Durden

The only shocking thing about this story is that a federal judge was shocked by it. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:

The noose appears to be tightening further around the law-less behaviors of the Obama administration in their frantic efforts to protect former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from lawsuits seeking information about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server and her handling of the 2012 terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

As Fox News reports, the transparency group Judicial Watch initially sued the State Department in 2014, seeking information about the response to the Benghazi attack after the government didn’t respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Other parallel lawsuits by Judicial Watch are probing issues like Clinton’s server, whose existence was revealed during the course of the litigation.

The State Department had immediately moved to dismiss Judicial Watch’s first lawsuit, but U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth (who was appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan) denied the request to dismiss the lawsuit at the time, and on Friday, he said he was happy he did, charging that State Department officials had intentionally misled him because other key documents, including those on Clinton’s email server, had not in fact been produced.

Continue reading→

The Taming of The Shrewd – Change Agent Rex Tillerson Takes Rusted State Dept. Down To Frame – “Career Diplomats” Apoplectic… by sundance

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is overturning some apple carts at Foggy Bottom. From sundance at theconservativetreehouse.com:

Walking in a Winner Wonderland.  Oh yeah, the New York Times writes about the bloated bureaucracy and career diplomats being removed from the U.S. State Department as if it’s a bad thing.  The condescending DC elites cannot fathom why they are unable to stop Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from cutting the rust out of the enterprise and streamlining the mission.

No-one, repeat NO-ONE, could have pulled off what T-Rex is accomplishing except T-Rex himself; with the full support of President Trump, of course. The former leader of the worlds largest private business, Exxon-Mobil, is now systematically bringing efficiency and effectiveness to the worlds largest public institution, the State Dept.

One fundamental question: “what is your specific and quantifiable value to the core DoS mission; and how do we measure your effectiveness therein”? The lack of reasonable answers within the bureaucratic ranks is leading to massive downsizing.

Making America Great Again means Making Interventionism Irrelevant Again – The New York Times outlines why the diplomatic retention of irrelevant snobbery is vital to those within the State Department’s cocktail circuit influence network.  At the rate Tillerson is going he might even eliminate the entire staff for the Assistant Cultural Ambassador to the U.N. Center for Biodiversity and Southern Hemispheric Aquatic Species Rights. That’s the threshold where things are really going to get ugly:

New York Times […] For those who have not been dismissed, retirement has become a preferred alternative when, like Mr. Miller, they find no demand for their expertise. A retirement class that concludes this month has 26 senior employees, including two acting assistant secretaries in their early 50s who would normally wait years before leaving.

The number of those with the department’s top two ranks of career ambassador and career minister — equivalent to four- and three-star generals — will have been cut in half by Dec. 1, from 39 to 19.  And of the 431 minister-counselors, who have two-star-equivalent ranks, 369 remain and another 14 have indicated that they will leave soon — an 18 percent drop — according to an accounting provided by the American Foreign Service Association.

The political appointees who normally join the department after a change in administration have not made up for those departures. So far, just 10 of the top 44 political positions in the department have been filled, and for most of the vacancies, Mr. Tillerson has not nominated anyone.

To continue reading: The Taming of The Shrewd – Change Agent Rex Tillerson Takes Rusted State Dept. Down To Frame – “Career Diplomats” Apoplectic…

The State Department’s Collective Madness, by Robert Parry

This is a good account of the State Department’s descent into what Robert Parry calls “collective madness.” From Parry at consortiumnews.com:

Over the past several decades, the U.S. State Department has deteriorated from a reasonably professional home for diplomacy and realism into a den of armchair warriors possessed of imperial delusions, a dangerous phenomenon underscored by the recent mass “dissent” in favor of blowing up more people in Syria.

Some 51 State Department “diplomats” signed a memo distributed through the official “dissent channel,” seeking military strikes against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad whose forces have been leading the pushback against Islamist extremists who are seeking control of this important Mideast nation.

The fact that such a large contingent of State Department officials would openly advocate for an expanded aggressive war in line with the neoconservative agenda, which put Syria on a hit list some two decades ago, reveals how crazy the State Department has become.

The State Department now seems to be a combination of true-believing neocons along with their liberal-interventionist followers and some careerists who realize that the smart play is to behave toward the world as global proconsuls dictating solutions or seeking “regime change” rather than as diplomats engaging foreigners respectfully and seeking genuine compromise.

Even some State Department officials, whom I personally know and who are not neocons/liberal-hawks per se, act as if they have fully swallowed the Kool-Aid. They talk tough and behave arrogantly toward inhabitants of countries under their supervision. Foreigners are treated as mindless objects to be coerced or bribed.

So, it’s not entirely surprising that several dozen U.S. “diplomats” would attack President Barack Obama’s more temperate position on Syria while positioning themselves favorably in anticipation of a Hillary Clinton administration, which is expected to authorize an illegal invasion of Syria — under the guise of establishing “no-fly zones” and “safe zones” — which will mean the slaughter of young Syrian soldiers. The “diplomats” urge the use of “stand-off and air weapons.”

These hawks are so eager for more war that they don’t mind risking a direct conflict with Russia, breezily dismissing the possibility of a clash with the nuclear power by saying they are not “advocating for a slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia.” That’s reassuring to hear.

Risking a Jihadist Victory

There’s also the danger that a direct U.S. military intervention could collapse the Syrian army and clear the way for victory by Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front or the Islamic State. The memo did not make clear how the delicate calibration of doing just enough damage to Syria’s military while avoiding an outright jihadist victory and averting a clash with Russia would be accomplished.

Presumably, whatever messes are created, the U.S. military would be left to clean up, assuming that shooting down some Russian warplanes and killing Russian military personnel wouldn’t escalate into a full-scale thermonuclear conflagration.

In short, it appears that the State Department has become a collective insane asylum where the inmates are in control. But this madness isn’t some short-term aberration that can be easily reversed. It has been a long time coming and would require a root-to-branch ripping out of today’s “diplomatic” corps to restore the State Department to its traditional role of avoiding wars rather than demanding them.

To continue reading: The State Department’s Collective Madness

 

State Department ‘Diplomats’ Demand War on Assad (and Russia), by Daniel McAdams

Remember the good old days when the State Department was supposed to promote peace through diplomacy and statecraft, or at least advance venal US interests by means other than war? Now it’s become just another Washington outfit pimping for war. From Daniel McAdams at ronpaulinstitute.org:

In a move that the New York Times reports is nearly unprecedented, some 51 mid-level State Department employees have signed a letter calling for the Obama Administration to begin bombing the Assad government in Syria immediately.

Demonstrating the reality that the “soft power” of diplomacy is in fact just a front for the “hard power” of bombs, these “diplomats” demanded the administration immediately initiate:

[A] judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed US-led diplomatic process.

Yes, to these supposed trained “diplomats,” the “diplomatic process” consists of making final demands after the military has bombed your opponent to hell.

The memo was filed in what is known as the “dissent channel,” where State Department employees who disagree with current policy can register their dissent without fear of reprisals.

What are these supposed diplomats furious about? Why do they demand that the US begin actively bombing the secular Assad government? They accuse the Syrian government of ceasefire violations because when Syrian forces attack al-Qaeda’s Nusra front, the US-backed forces who fight alongside al-Qaeda are also caught up in the attack.

One might think these State Department employees would better spend their energy urging the US administration to demand that its “moderate” rebels in Syria stop intermingling with al-Qaeda.

The State Department employees are also furious that the Obama Administration has been too focused on fighting ISIS in Syria and not focused enough on fighting the Assad regime. According to the New York Times article:

[T]he State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.

Of course this is more of the kind of fantasy-based analysis that led to the brilliant idea of overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya because it would bolster democratic-minded forces there and result in a model moderate, representative government in the country. We all know how fantasy-based foreign policy works out. The examples are too numerous.

To normal people living in the actual reality-based community, the idea that the US should attack the main opponent of ISIS (Assad) to bolster the fight against ISIS seems idiotic. But then most people who live in reality are not the ill-informed, ideology-driven generalist Foreign Service Officers who likely make up the majority of those who signed the letter.

Additionally, the frayed thread that the Obama Administration hangs onto to justify its attack on sovereign Syria is that ISIS poses a clear and present danger to the US and therefore the US military must be involved in Syria (absurdly using the 9/11 military authorization as a fig leaf). Take away that transparently thin rationale and behind it you have pure, naked US aggression against a country that poses no threat to the United States and is fighting the kind of radical Islamist insurgency that one might expect the US would also oppose.

To continue reading: State Department ‘Diplomats’ Demand War on Assad (and Russia)

CBS: State Department did not ‘plant’ questions, by Hadas Gold

Bridges, cheap, are for sale for anyone who believes this CBS denial. From Hadas Gold  at politico.com:

CBS is pushing back against an allegation in one of the newly released Hillary Clinton emails that the State Department had successfully planted questions for an interview with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

In an email sent to then-Secretary of State Clinton on Jan. 28, 2011, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs at the State Department P.J. Crowley said he had confirmed that “60 Minutes” was planning to air an interview with Assange, but that he was assured that the interviewer would ask some questions “planted” by the State Department. The interview aired two days later, on Jan. 30, 2011.

“We had made a number of suggestions for outside experts and former diplomats to interview to ‘balance’ the piece. 60 Minutes assures me that they raised a number of questions and concerns we planted with them during the course of the interview. We will be prepared to respond to the narrative Assange presents during the program,” Crowley wrote.

National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden highlighted the email in a tweet on Thursday, writing “New government doc states@60Minutesplanted government questions to shape@Wikileaksinterview. If true, sad to see.”

In a statement, a “60 Minutes” spokesperson pushed back on the idea that there were any planted questions and suggested Crowley was just trying to suck up to Clinton.

“The idea of a ‘plant’ is as preposterous as this email writer’s attempt to get credit from his boss. We spoke to many sources for this story,” the spokesperson said.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-cbs-wikileaks-julian-assange-214342#ixzz3nSdVpiEX